Intentional elusivity of definitions for virus and vaccine.
Orientation for new readers; American Domestic Bioterrorism Program; Tools for dismantling kill box anti-law
Some recent correspondence between Sasha Latypova and me.
Some source documents are not linked in this post, just to save time. Readers interested can use the citations to track down the documents.
I’m still working on Part 3 of a series about 1798 to 1972 biological products law.1
Thread started with Sasha’s post:
Aug. 21, 2024 - Similarities between "spike protein" and synthetic anthrax toxin. Real bioweapons are not viruses but chemical weapons. -
“…Let’s look at the synthetic anthrax. First thing you need to remember, it is not a live organism and has little-to-nothing related to it, other than the historical research experiments and confusing names derived from it. As I repeat frequently, nobody can make any natural living thing in a lab, because the current “science” claiming to do so relies on the Newtonian/standard model - utterly incapable of explaining anything alive. So, let me assure you, that what is made in a lab is not the bacillus anthracis. It is a synthetic chemical allegedly resembling a small part of the b.anthracis believed to be responsible for the nasty business - a toxin. Importantly, it is a chemical substance that can be manufactured in quantity.
An analogy for synthetic toxins would be making artificial quills of a porcupine or teeth of a shark. You don’t need to have the whole porcupine or a shark attached to them, and you can make them sharper, longer, wider, double-edged, etc. to fashion them into a weapon. You can also devise ways of making the manufacturing process efficient, scalable and cost-effective.
That’s your “gain-of-function” in a nutshell. However, since the porcupine/shark is no longer part of the picture, the weapon doesn’t walk out of the lab, and does not go into a bar to find a mate and make babies. I.e., it doesn’t spread…”
Aug. 21, 2024 - KW email to SL
Followed one of the links provided by a commenter at your latest, picked up name of Charles Richet, awarded Nobel in 1913 for his work on anaphylaxis.
Skimmed his lecture, attached, just fyi.
Eugenics addressed in last page or two. Anaphylaxis and death from it, Richet says, is sad for the individual, but an important method for purifying the human race over time.
He mentions Milton Rosenau, who was the director of the Hygienic Lab between 1899 and 1909, key period for biologics manufacturing/mass poisoning system set-up, and also did a lot of research in dogs, guinea pigs, humans, others, on poisoning, toxins, vaccines, serums, anaphylaxis. He's a key figure in the early history.
Richet and Rosenau and their work also mentioned in 1967 book by Graham Wilson, Hazards of Immunization.
Aug. 21, 2024 - SL email to KW, excerpt:
…Richet: "We are so constituted that we can never receive other proteins into the blood than those that have been modified by digestive juices. Every time alien protein penetrates by effraction [forcible entry; injection], the organism suffers and becomes resistant.
This resistance lies in increased sensitivity, a sort of revolt against the second parenteral injection [outside the intestines; intravenous, intramuscular, or subcutaneous] which would be fatal.
At the first injection, the organism was taken by surprise and did not resist. At the second injection, the organism mans its defences and answers by the anaphylactic shock. Seen in these terms, anaphylaxis is an universal defence mechanism against the penetration of heterogenous substances in the blood, whence they can not be eliminated."
SL:
I did not know that anaphylaxis is all allergy to foreign proteins. I thought it was only very an extremely severe reaction. Richet basically explains how any protein, if injected is detrimental to the body (and I believe to the microbiome).
I would agree with this - no "biologics" should ever be used based on his research and based on what he said in this speech.
Aug. 22, 2024 - KW email to SL, excerpts
The protein info was interesting to me too, as a piece of evidence about how long the vaccinators have known that what they were doing was always harming the recipients, to a greater or lesser degree based on unpredictable aspects of the mix of stuff in the vial and the unique biology of the specific living organism.
I connected it with some early 1990s FDA guidance (that I had to buy from Mary Ann Liebert Inc. because I couldn’t find it at FDA archives) called “Points to Consider in Human Somatic Cell Therapy and Gene Therapy,” with references to “autologous, allogeneic or xenogeneic living cells” and Mike Yeadon and others’ points about the powerful biological drive to distinguish self from non-self and reject non-self, and how the mRNA/DNA proteins, encased in the LNPs, get past so many of the defense mechanisms.
And I was interested in Richet’s account of the etymology of the word anaphylaxis, as the opposite (ana) of protection (phylaxis) = deliberately rendering an organism hypersensitive.
Weaponized proteins.
Aug. 22, 2024, SL email to KW, excerpt:
In general, I think this self-non-self differentiation is a fundamental law of nature. Every living thing is unique and irreplaceable and is a whole unit from beginning to end. There are no interchangeable parts. Sheldrake introduce the idea of "holons" to describe this.
Aug. 25, 2024, SL email to KW:
By the way, in Richet’s 1913 book, Anaphylaxis, he calls the poison that he prepared by dissolving tentacles of Actinaria (I think it's the sea anemone) in glycerin "virus of Actinaria."
Bingo.
It's always been a poison. It's on p.23 of the pdf file.
Aug. 26, 2024, KW email to SL:
Yes, that’s why the original biologics regulation law in 1902 was called the Virus-Toxin Law.
Early on, virus, toxin, antitoxin, serum and vaccine were used interchangeably…
I've been struggling to grasp and express the definitional overlaps and duplications/substitutions/elisions under 42 USC 262, Regulation of biological products, etc for many months.
March 13, 2024 - Regulatory simulations at home and abroad: statutory and regulatory definitions for drugs, biological products, and biosimilars.
By 1973, under the statutory authority of 42 USC 262, FDA had published some biological product definitions in a list that didn't include vaccine. [Congress didn’t add the term vaccine to the statute list of biological products until 1970, and HHS-FDA has never defined vaccine in drug product manufacturing regulations.]
FDA defined several terms at 21 CFR 600.3, but did not define the term vaccine.
"21 CFR 600.3 (h) - Biological product means any virus, therapeutic serum, toxin, anti-toxin, or analogous product applicable to the prevention, treatment or cure of diseases or injuries of man."
21 CFR 600.3(h)(1) - A virus is interpreted to be a product containing a minute living cause of an infectious disease and includes but is not limited to filterable viruses, bacteria, rickettsia, fungi, and protozos.
21 CFR 600.3(h)(2) - A therapeutic serum is a product obtained from blood by removing the clot or clot components and the blood cells.
21 CFR 600.3(h)(3) - A toxin is a product containing a soluble substance poisonous to laboratory animals or to man in doses of 1 milliliter or less...and having the property, following the injection of non-fatal doses into an animal, of causing to be produced therein another soluble substance which specifically neutralizes the poisonous substances and which is demonstrable in the serum of the animal thus immunized.
21 CFR 600.3(h)(4) - An antitoxin is a product containing the soluble substance in serum or other body fluid of an immunized animal which specifically neutralizes the toxin against which the animal is immune.
I later thought that maybe vaccine fell under that "analogous product" category.
21 CFR 600.3(h)(5) A product is analogous:
(i) To a virus if prepared from or with a virus or agent actually or potentially infectious, without regard to the degree of virulence or toxicogenicity of the specific strain used.
(ii) To a therapeutic serum, if composed of whole blood or plasma or containing some organic constituent or product other than a hormone or an amino acid, derived from whole blood, plasma, or serum.
(iii) To a toxin or antitoxin, if intended, irrespective of its source of origin, to be applicable to the prevention, treatment, or cure of disease or injuries of man through a specific immune process…
But vaccine also falls under the protein category added in Feb. 2020 (85 FR 10057), just as the fake clinical trials for Covid-19 vaxxes were starting.
21 CFR 600.3(h)(6) - A protein is any alpha amino acid polymer with a specific, defined sequence that is greater than 40 amino acids in size. When two or more amino acid chains in an amino acid polymer are associated with each other in a manner that occurs in nature, the size of the amino acid polymer for purposes of this paragraph (h)(6) will be based on the total number of amino acids in those chains, and will not be limited to the number of amino acids in a contiguous sequence.
Which is what you're getting at with the spike protein, shark-tooth analogy.
The earliest published regulatory definitions I've found so far are the 1947 definitions in 42 CFR 73, which was the biological products section at that time, and is now the "select agents and toxins" section.
The biological products section was moved to FDA and renumbered 21 CFR 600 et seq in 1973, with the definitions basically the same as the 1947 version, and they remained basically the same (maybe some minor changes) up until Feb. 2020 when the protein definition was added.
The "select agents and toxins" section was added under the statutory authority of 42 USC 262a, by HHS at 42 CFR 73, through the same 2002 law (Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act, PL 107-188) that the "qualifying stage," "precommunicable" language was added to the quarantine sections at 42 USC 264, 42 CFR 70 and 42 CFR 71.
Just bought two 1910 JAMA articles by Milton Rosenau, second director of the Hygienics Laboratory. (Jan. 22, 1910 - Vaccine Virus, and Jan. 22, 1910 - The Federal Control of Vaccines, Serums, etc.)
Haven't read them yet - I found the abstracts a month or so ago and filed them away because of his definition of vaccine virus, using the term "specific principle" to refer to the non-specific contents of a disease pustule erupting from calves that have been injected with disease-causing material.
Rosenau, 1910:
“Vaccine virus is the specific principle in the material obtained from the skin eruption of calves [1] having a disease known as vaccinia.…
This material scraped from the skin eruption is called vaccine "pulp." The fluid which exudes after the pulp is taken is called vaccine "lymph."
Both the pulp and the lymph are mixtures containing epithelial cells, serum, blood, leucocytes, products of inflammation, debris, bacteria, etc., in varying proportions…
The specific principle of vaccinia is unknown. The organism, whatever it is, exists chiefly in the epidermal lesions, and the pulp, therefore, contains more potent and concentrated virus than the lymph…”
Related
Jan. 9, 2024 - Biologic Markers in Immunotoxicology. 1992 report by Subcommittee on Immunotoxicology, Committee on Biologic Markers, Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology, National Research Council - “…US military-public health officials have not only long understood the harmful effects of immunotoxicants, enabling the selection of effective xenobiotics for inclusion in vials of vaccines and other biological products, which are intentionally toxic poisons, and therefore legally classifiable as weapons. They have also long possessed knowledge of how to assess the efficacy (morbidity and mortality) of such vaccine-weapons, through biomarker assays…Summary at p. 2: ‘…This document presents a brief history and review of immunology, immunotoxicology, and biologic markers (Chapters 1 and 2). The effects of toxicants on the immune system can be expressed in two ways. Excessive stimulation can result in hypersensitivity or autoimmunity; suppression can result in the increased susceptibility of the host to infectious and neoplastic agents…’ ”
May 21, 2024 - There is no legal limit to the amount of so-called contamination that can legally be included in vaccines or any other biological products - “…All vaccines are heterogenous mixtures of immunotoxic nucleic acids, metals, lipids and other junk, and they’re all inherently unstable and inherently destructive to the recipient organism…”
1798 to 1972 series so far: