On vaccination as intentional induction of chronic and acute anaphylaxis.
Sept. 6, 2024 discussion by Jane Ruby and Sasha Latypova, condensed transcript
Video links
Sept. 6, 2024 - Anaphylaxis by vaccines (Rumble)
Sept. 6, 2024 - Anaphylaxis by vaccines (BitChute)
Sept. 6, 2024 - Anaphylaxis by vaccines (Substack)
Full transcript
2024.09.06 Anaphylaxis by vaccine, Jane Ruby and Sasha Latypova (PDF)
Latypova reporting on anaphylaxis by vaccine
Sept. 3, 2024 - The second shot, or what do vaccinators and sewer rats have in common? Reviewing Charles Richet's work on anaphylaxis, awarded the Nobel Prize in 1913. (Sasha Latypova)
Jane Ruby, Introduction
What if all the so-called epidemics like plague, cholera, and smallpox are the body's natural reaction and resistance to foreign proteins that are only ever in play because they're introduced by injection vaccines and their additives? That would mean that the entire spectrum of human illness: autoimmunity, obesity, diabetes, and other chronic illnesses, could all be traced and tied to a specific reaction in the body, intentionally induced by the real mechanism of action of vaccines...
It may be important to take a new look at the term anaphylaxis, a term normally reserved for a serious allergic reaction that has a rapid onset and is life-threatening and requires immediate medical attention...
In reviewing the work of 1913 Nobel Prize winner Charles Richet, biotech expert and analyst Sasha Latypova, and legal expert Katherine Watt have a broader take on this condition because they believe it may be at the center of what is injuring people and killing them in this mass genocide operation...
Sasha, let me start out by first asking you how you and Katherine Watt became interested in even digging into this topic and why you think it's important right now.
Sasha Latypova
Right. So as you know, maybe, Katherine has been working on a very large project, going back through vaccine-related laws in the United States all the way back to the 1700s. So she and another collaborator are writing, she calls it "the beast," a report on how all these laws and all this framework has been put in place and specifically looking at definitions. [Part 1; Part 2; Part 3)]
As you know, definitions are very important of — what is vaccine, what is what, what is virus…because definitions in law are basically everything. And so that work is ongoing.
And as part of this work, she came across Charles Richet's Nobel Prize. And she sent me originally his 1913 Nobel Prize acceptance speech, a lecture, which I read, and I was shocked by it.
And then I decided to research it further and I actually went into archives and I found his book...[Anaphylaxis]...I read his book and I kind of understand what he did and the conclusions that he made. He also cites other authors working in the same area at the same time.
Jane Ruby
Tell us a little bit about who this guy is...
Sasha Latypova
At the turn of the 20th century...there were a lot of these gentlemen scientists...people who had independent financial means and they were interested in different topics of science...The original story says that the Prince of Monaco invited him on his yacht, which is a huge ship that was traveling in the Mediterranean, and they went to research the jellyfish, the Man-o'-War, the very dangerous jellyfish. And so from then on, when they returned, he started working with different poisons that he made from similar things.
Getting Man-o'-War was kind of difficult. So he created what he himself called virus of Actinaria. It turns out the virus of Actinaria is basically tentacles of sea anemone that are dissolved in glycerin.
At that time, viruses were — the definition of viruses was poison. So he made poison and he described how he made it. And he called it virus, which was the scientific nomenclature at the time.
This whole mythology about virus being this particle that infects and flies around and you get it from casual contact. That wasn't there. It was already well understood that that doesn't happen. And viruses are something you inject to poison.
That's what he was doing in his laboratory experiments. He mostly worked on dogs. He poisoned a lot of dogs. And other people that he collaborated with or knew about worked with rodents. Well, actually rabbits and guinea pigs and sometimes other animals. Turns out white mice and some breeds of rats do not experience anaphylaxis. So isn't it surprising how they're the staple of pharmaceutical research?...
In addition to his interest in anaphylaxis and vaccination or early attempts at vaccination, he was a eugenicist...He thought that black people were inferior. And he was actually a president of eugenics society in Europe and I think in France... It's a little bit of a digression, but it's important to understand. So this stems from Darwinism, by the way, and there was a lot of scientific debate at the time. The main concern of these rich people who were also doing science, because there wasn't a centrally-funded science at the time, was..."How do we prevent these poor classes that are dirty and inferior from overbreeding?" And actually Darwin was against that, but not because he was for some humanitarian goals. His position was, "If we prevent them from overbreeding then we don't have the competitive evolutionary selection."
These ideas come from...the richer classes, more well-to-do classes who themselves called themselves "well-bred," from trying to limit and prevent overbreeding of poor classes, which they associated with infectious diseases, epidemics, general dirty stuff, crime...That was their attempt to limit it. And that's why they devised all these methods.
Richet was working on it, although he didn't, in the book at least, he doesn't say explicitly his goals. He just kind of lays out the scientific stuff. I think they were working on figuring out how can we both prevent epidemics and limit the reproduction of the dirty classes. Obviously, now this is all expended on all of us.
Now it seems that the globalists kind of view us in the same way that at the time they were viewing poor working classes. So they view all the world as overpopulated. "We're getting, you know, resources are constrained," which is not true. "And we need to limit the population." And this is the mechanism by which they have been limiting population systematically.
Jane Ruby
...I think a lot of people understand now that this whole vaccine program for the last couple of centuries has been to injure, create medical conditions and to take down over time, keep culling off the population.
But what I think you're zeroing in on with Katherine is this may be the main mechanism of action by introducing foreign proteins...
Sasha Latypova
So let's talk about what anaphylaxis is. I also was under impression that anaphylaxis is only shock, the life-threatening condition where somebody immediately drops on the ground and you need antihistamines or EpiPen.
Now, it turns out Richet, who received Nobel Prize for it, himself said it's not just that.
And actually, at the time, there were some other scientists calling it allergy. And he said, "This is wrong. You shouldn't call it allergy because it's the same phenomenon…"
He has demonstrated that anaphylaxis is anything from mild rash to shock. And it has the same underlying mechanism.
Later on the science has demonstrated, well, there are different antibodies and different things that happen with mild versus not-mild, but the outcome is the same. The body gets sensitized by injection to whatever was injected and the injection specifically of proteins.
Proteins are, people don't quite understand what they are, but proteins are large molecules, large biological chemical structures, as opposed to small chemicals like salt or some small drug that you typically get as a pill. Proteins are large structures. They can be food proteins. They can be toxins from plants or animals... Injections of proteins, even milk and food proteins, produce the same result as injecting poison of Actinaria, as [Richet] was practicing with...
It does not have to be toxic at all or considered toxic. As long as you inject protein directly into the bloodstream, bypassing the digestive tract, that sets up the state of anaphylaxis.
By ingesting proteins [through the digestive tract], we can ingest almost anything. You can actually even ingest snake poison. That's used in bush medicine. I don't recommend it. But if you don't have abrasions or sores in the mouth, you can suck out poison, and it's safe...
Our digestive tract deals with proteins extremely well. It disassembles them and then we reassemble our own.
Now, when you inject foreign protein, our entire system is designed in such a way that we reject non-self proteins.
And so anything, even what you think is benign, like milk, will become poisonous and can kill somebody.
Jane Ruby
It's the injecting into the compartment...Once you put something directly into the main, the vascular system...you're going to go everywhere. And like you said, there's a huge surveillance system operating naturally. And when the body sees a protein, that's not its own printing, it reacts.
And so you're saying anaphylaxis is any of the reaction to that, but they know this, the mechanism of action I think you've discovered that's relevant is they, knew this in the 17 and 1800s maybe, or they were coming to know it and they are using it actively. This is a slow kill, I think as Katherine has said. Right?
Sasha Latypova
Yeah, so what [Richet] found...working on these early attempts at vaccinations [is] that it's unpredictable which — so not 100% of the population injected will react that way.
This makes it even more sinister. It's unpredictable which people or animals when injected will go into the state of anaphylaxis.
So state of anaphylaxis requires to inject one injection and then the second one sets it off.
So, and in my article, I said, you know, "the second shot," why the second shot is so important. So the first shot will, after some period of time, he showed that it's around 20 days.
That's vaccine doses at 21 days.
So he showed that it's around 20 days. It can vary depending on the poison and the species. So you inject them once, they may not react. It may be just totally fine for them, you don't see any results, maybe somebody develops like mild rash or something.
And then 21 days later you inject even minute dose...what is considered completely not dangerous, tiny, tiny dose of the same substance and some of the animals — but it's unpredictable which ones — will go into violent illness, bad allergic reactions, or even shock and death.
And he's done it so many times, and he's shown you cannot predict this. There is nothing. And since then, the science still cannot predict this. We don't have any ability to say how a person will react to what everyone thinks is a safe ingredient, like peanut oil, or casein or yeast or, like these albumins that are made from wheat and cereal and soy and corn.
Are we surprised that everybody's having those allergies now? No, because these were vaccine ingredients. These were people who were anaphylactized over time with this.
Another sinister point of this whole vaccinology, is that they over time have developed, let's say, they call it "safer," but they're just less detectable anaphylactizing agents than what Richet was using...things that won't produce as many overt shocks, but will be underlying, sensitizing the population to commonly-occurring proteins like wheat, like peanut oil, like other nuts, you know, foodstuffs, now meat...
Pretty much everything you encounter or eat then becomes a mild poison to you. And because you're doing it continuously, it creates chronic inflammation, allergies, autoimmune diseases, destruction of microbiome, because the anaphylaxis is actually intestinal reaction. And so leaky gut...cancer pathways over time, obesity, especially in children, it's all related to that because their gut is now completely either destroyed or completely, I would say, out of whack. They can't properly digest food. So they grow obese, even from not such a bad diet.
And then…they gaslight you into, "Oh, you have this...genetic mutation, you have a hereditary autoimmune condition or you have, you know, your diet and lifestyle. Oh it's toxic food."
Now notice all over the place we have, on Tucker Carlson and everywhere: "Toxic food, we have to deal with toxic food."
It's not toxic food.
It's this.
Everyone is anaphylactized to normally occurring proteins...
Jane Ruby
...You need an initial exposure to a foreign protein to then have a more severe reaction, whether or not you have it the next time around. Because it takes time for the body, it probably puts a lot of energy into developing, setting up surveillance..."I know that thing over there is foreign protein, so I'm going to imprint that memory, whatever that is..." But then the next time you're exposed to it and your body goes into hyperdrive...
What you're suggesting by this work and this analysis is that this is a programmed intentional priming and programming...
Let's just talk about the adjuvants for a minute. All of these injections since 1950s when they were injecting, they've always had adjuvants, additives... These things that don't seem to make sense. For the most part, society has brushed it off. Aluminum, polysorbates. Now these antibiotics... Why are all these things added? The top-level response is, "Well, because we need to jump-start your immune system..."
Is that primarily one, maybe a major way that introduces foreign proteins...and "anaphylactize" the body?
Sasha Latypova
The adjuvants are also very, very sinister. ...I also found some older documentations and even articles in like New York Times discussing this issue. This is before pharma was advertising directly with them. So they were actually doing journalism on this topic.
For example, peanut allergy. It was introduced in Merck vaccine and the peanut oil was an adjuvant [NYT, Sept. 19, 1964]...and it started producing allergic reactions. It was recognized at the time that this is anaphylaxis to the peanut oil. They continued by renaming it into Adjuvant 65, so that nobody can say what it is. And since then, FDA is giving [adjuvants that are food proteins] designations. It's called GRAS, generally [recognized] accepted [as] safe...or things that are considered, you know, common and safe.
For example, mRNA vaccines contain cholesterol. So what is going to happen if you are sensitized to cholesterol in your own bloodstream?...
...Some agents like the peanut oil are so anaphylactizing that after the first exposure, people become then sensitive to even breathing the oil that comes out of the peanut. And so they become so sensitive to this...
Once something like this is detected...[pharmas and FDA] go find some other anaphylactizing agent that's less detectable, for example, albumins, which produce gluten allergy over time, or rice or corn or soy, depending on what they're derived from.
And then you get gas-lit...It's very difficult to diagnose autoimmune condition or gluten intolerance. ...People go nuts through like these elimination diets, trying to figure out what's going on. What's an anaphylactizing agent?
And nobody tells them that this is from the vaccine...
Jane Ruby
Here's how I know you're on to something. Peanuts have been around for thousands of years. Why only in the last 50 years or so has this peanut allergy escalated to where you can't even breathe the molecules in an airplane or anywhere?
So it's intentional. It's part of the plan.
Sasha Latypova
Part of the plan. I know. Where I grew up, we had no allergies whatsoever. And I keep telling people, again, about toxic food and toxic chemicals in the environment. I'm not proposing to have toxic chemicals. I'd love to clean up any pollution and keep everything clean. And organic food, I also love it.
But I'm telling you, I grew up for 20, 30 years in a place where we could light the creeks on fire because we had all this industrial pollution dumping into the water where we were taking the water for drinking. And we had leaded gasoline. We had, the agriculture was full of chemicals, just, they were dumping straight chemicals. It's Soviet agriculture.
The food, everybody ate sugar, fat. The only oil for cooking was seed oil and margarine because butter was too expensive. And we had not a single overweight kid. We had no allergies. I didn't know about food allergies at all, that they exist. We had no asthma, despite the air being a total, total awfulness. And no autism. I didn't know it existed. Actually, when I first saw Rain Man, I was like, "What is it? What does this guy have?"
Jane Ruby
Because you didn't have vaccines?
Sasha Latypova
Well, there were maybe three or four vaccines...When I come here and everybody is — and I go to the grocery store, here you can buy actually pretty decent food. Okay, avoid those middle aisles where all this, like, petroleum products are. But if you buy groceries, like normal groceries, it's all fine.
It's not toxic food. And it's not toxic environment. The environment most of the time is actually quite good.
So what is this whole propaganda? It's again, it's part of gaslighting. It's gaslighting into why "it's all this food that we need to worry about and spend money on," as opposed to removing the cause of anaphylaxis to the food...
Jane Ruby
We've been under attack for a long time. When I first had Katherine on a year or so ago [June 17, 2022], I thought she misspoke when she said it's been going on for centuries. And I thought she must've meant decades. And she said, "No, no, I mean centuries."
Obviously, the answer is to avoid these. And certainly for people with new babies and young children, they're trying to get people. You understand now why they're trying to get pregnant women or even you see the CDC language. "If you're thinking about being pregnant, if you could get pregnant."
Sasha Latypova
They're definitely trying to attack the pregnant women and children. I just republished my older article where I showed that it was definitely concerted attack. The pregnant women were specifically identified in contracts with DOD...for these mRNA vaccines, they're mentioning "We have 4 million pregnant women in the United States." And actually it's much less now after they've injected everyone. I think the latest number was 3 million, something..They really reduced the rate of pregnancy with this. But at the time they were writing contracts they said "four million pregnant women,"...as a target...
Why are you writing a contract for ...completely new technology, nothing has been done with it...before clinical trials and you're already targeting it to pregnant women? I was shocked at the time. Then I knew it was part of the plan.
Jane Ruby
Right. Part of the plan…I knew it was a crime because nobody in their right mind, you don't even have to be in the pharma industry. It's been talked about for generations that pregnant women have to be careful...
I'm a little focused right now on the drive to get the polio vaccine. There hasn't been a reported case of an indigenous wild, in-the-wild acquired polio, obviously, since I think, online I read 1979. So again, we have a non-issue, but there's this World Health and CDC push right now. And it bifurcates into the oral polio and the injection since 2000 in the United States.
Is it in these adjuvants, that they're adding these protein sensitizers?...
Sasha Latypova
Depending on how they authorize this...if they declared, in a particular location, they declared public health emergency of polio...We have PREP Act declarations....I don't think they included polio specifically, but they included poisoning by pesticides and nerve agents, which I think what polio is today, because there is no virus. If there was a virus, it was eliminated. God knows when, 70s. But I don't believe there is a virus of polio. I think it's primarily poisoning by pesticides like DDT. Originally it was DDT and then later different other pesticides. And so we even have a PREP Act declaration for it. So depending how they put this vaccine on, it can contain pretty much anything...
They can put just about anything into these vaccines because of almost bulletproof liability protection, especially in the US...There's no oversight of vaccines. That's what my colleague Katherine demonstrated. And that's what she's writing about. There's no effective regulation of vaccines. They are not regulated as pharmaceutical products.
They were not regulated at all until 1973. So they were just cooked up by CDC and distributed from disgusting things. Let's not go there yet. But in 73, FDA finally got mandate to regulate them, sort of. But we have traced all those regulations and they are completely ineffective. And nobody ever does any enforcement, especially now. There's no enforcement of any of those regulations. They're basically operating a system of, Katherine calls it, empty mailboxes, where pharma companies write up their own reports, send them to the FDA. FDA sends them back, "Okay, you can go ahead, inject this vaccine..."
And in fact, FDA is even actively helping them. There are labs inside of FDA that develop these additives and develop different assays for pharma companies and share them with pharma companies. One of their labs actually works on SV40...how much of SV40 you can put in with what...
When you start reading and looking at it, you can't avoid the conclusion that they are working specifically to poison people.
Jane Ruby
The Covid shots were the door that opened to the rest of the vaccine reality, that it's part of the mass inoculation, eugenics, injuring people...
Sasha, how do we get the country and the world to see that vaccines are actually the vehicle?...Let's just start with our country in the United States to stop taking vaccines because they are the bioweapon. They've always been a bioweapon, not just Covid.
Sasha Latypova
I think the education about anaphylaxis, that it's not just a shock, that it's actually all these food allergies can be traced back to the vaccine ingredients.
I think that that will give a lot of ground for people to understand, because just about any family I know... you can point to the vaccine injury or several, with respect to...having food allergies, having gluten intolerance, autoimmune conditions, obesity, and all sorts of things.
So my goal is to try to popularize this and to try to explain to people: this is what's going on. This is why you have all these things, because you have been injected directly into the bloodstream with the foreign protein.
And Richet said in his Nobel Prize acceptance speech and also in his book that the human body is constituted in such a way that it cannot accept foreign proteins directly. We are unique. Each human is unique, in a unique chemical balance with itself and the environment. And it's a product of time...we're so unique that we need to have our own self-proteins made from digestion. There's no other way. If you start introducing these foreign proteins...
The industry gaslights you into: "We synthetically make DNA. We synthetically make RNA. It's just like yours."
No, no, no. It's not like yours. The only DNA and RNA that you can accept is what you yourself make. Nothing else will substitute it.
And so what happens is that once that it's introduced, your body revolts and attacks those agents and attacks itself.
You're inducing, as if you were making a transplant, you start rejecting it.
Number two...anaphylaxis also explains those epidemics of what is considered infectious diseases.
Instead of just saying "viruses haven't been isolated," which, I agree, they haven't. But that's not sufficient.
It doesn't provide comfort to people [who ask] "But what makes us sick?...What about the disease?"
That becomes a stumbling block for a lot of people. They can't accept the narrative and they're saying, "Well, I need the explanation of what goes on."
Here's the explanation. Anaphylaxis explains the same thing. Anaphylaxis explains the plague and cholera very well because those diseases also happened at the time when people were crowding in the cities without sanitation, without plumbing, refrigeration, or air conditioning. So the animals were living in the same buildings, some small buildings with humans in cities. The sewage was flowing through the streets. There were rats and other pests like fleas and lice and all sorts of stuff.
And when — you can get anaphylaxis naturally, and people know it, for example, stung by a bee a couple of times, stung by Man o' War [jellyfish]. So those can still happen. It's very rare probability.
But at the time it was high probability because you have your sewer rats running around or lice or fleas biting people continuously...If enough people get in the same community, get anaphylactized by that rat, [then] bit them twice with the same protein that came from the local sewer. Guess what? The plague starts. Because normally people carry the plague bacteria and cholera bacteria in their intestines and it's no problem. But this is when you get anaphylactized by an animal or an insect bite. And enough people in the area have gotten that exposure. That's when you have the epidemic.
So removing those vectors, making sanitation, pure water, air conditioning, refrigeration, removes all those problems.
Jane Ruby
Right. But it also brings back the problem of too many people on the planet, which is a myth, a myth about resources...It defeats the eugenicist attempt. They don't want clean water and clean air and they don't want you to live healthy and longer.
Sasha Latypova
Yeah. So notice that all of those concerns started percolating when all of these previous problems went away. Right around that time, the Club of Rome and the Trilateral Commission and all that, they started writing their documents when they realized, "Oh, wait, now we have people living healthy, living long. We can't have that."
So they started writing all these plans and putting all this vaccination programs in place. And this is when this all started.
So instead of the sewer rats, now we have CDC doing the same exact thing.
Jane Ruby
And the pharma companies...Take a moment or two to speak from your perspective about the relationship between the pharmaceutical industry, especially the bigger players that are obvious in this Covid thing, that are now also feeding at the trough of all...like Novavax, coming out with their new variant-related shot, and testing it in six-month-old babies, two shots and a booster.
I've often said that the pharma industry is really part of the DOD, not just our government, but the Department of Defense. Some of your thoughts on that and how they could get an institutional review board to stamp, if they did, a study with babies.
Or I guess they don't have to because it's a vaccine, they don't need human subjects review on giving babies three shots?...
Sasha Latypova
There are several factors here. So pharmaceutical industry ran out of returns on investment a long time ago, sometime around 2014. And this was because of patents expiring in traditional drugs.
They all started moving into the biologics, which is all these proteins...because of the IP [intellectual property] issues.
But now the biologics are also expiring of patents, although it's not as dramatic as the drugs because it takes longer time to develop a biosimilar...
They're all freaking out about that. The only major source of funding that they've had since 2020 or even before, like 2017, the only major source of funding is federal government through the military such as DARPA and BARDA giving them contracts to mostly make these poisoning systems: vaccines.
Vaccines is like a huge thing and then there are some minor other stuff. By 2020 it became, about 50 percent of the R&D [research and development] funding or even more in pharma coming from BARDA, through these contracts where you don't have to comply with pharmaceutical law.
Well, can you imagine? If a private business has a choice: "I can get free money from the government and don't have to comply, or I have to raise money from private investors, have all kinds of compliance, including SEC, but I also have to comply with every letter of the pharmaceutical law." The answer is very simple.
So they are all dropping normal programs and they are running into these military programs because the government is dangling these dollars in front of them. And they will do anything, you know, jump how high. They will do anything and they don't care.
And a lot of the time these components are coming directly from the DOD for these mRNA vaccines, for example. They don't even know what they're mixing, but they're doing it anyway.
More recently, I'm going to publish on this, but the federal government started even giving money to places like pharmacy chains, like Walgreens, to specifically hunt pregnant women and children....for participating in these clinical trials like Novavax, right? So you're saying, well, who is going to give their baby up for this experimentation? Well, guess what? Walgreens in poor neighborhoods offering $3,000 for your baby to be injected.
Jane Ruby
Yeah, it's a bribe. It's a bribe.
Sasha Latypova
It's a bribe.
Jane Ruby
It's more than an over-inducement. No human subject review board would let you write an informed consent with a $3,000 stipend because nobody could—. You're right. If you can't make your mortgage payment, you're like, "I'll just take the baby and it must be safe. You know, let them give this to the baby."
Sasha Latypova
"It's a vaccine. It's safe. You know, the, Paul Offit says it's safe. CDC says it's safe. These anti-vaxxers, they're just stupid people, uneducated, right?"
And there we go and they bring their babies into the Walgreens for clinical trials...
[For discussion of transfer and shedding from Covid-vaccinated to Covid-unvaccinated, see full transcript.]
Jane Ruby
And probably one of the most dangerous things that we always believed was dangerous, not that that's a new revelation, is a blood transfusion from an injected person, especially someone who's taken two, three, four or five shots and whatever's going on in their body, but it's in their main compartment. This dance going on and rejecting and anaphylactizing. And then you take, as an uninjected person, directly into your vascular system, right in the system.
Sasha Latypova
Exactly. This was shown by Richet and it's in his book...
He has stated that previous research, his own research in 1910 and his colleagues has demonstrated that if you inject the blood from the animal that has been, they call it passive anaphylaxis. So if you inject the blood from the animal who has been anaphylactized into a healthy animal, you will create anaphylaxis.
But the medical establishment today and Red Cross, everyone denies this. This work received Nobel Prize. This was known 100 years ago.
Jane Ruby
But now you know why the Red Cross has never screened, has said "Not to worry." They're a federal agency. They're part of the operation.
Sasha Latypova
They're making huge amounts of money on this, first of all. And then, yeah, it's another vector by which they are going to get all those anti-vaxxers. Now, I personally would not accept blood transfusion...Only from, like, known, identified donor. But other than that, no.
Jane Ruby
I think the Jehovah's Witnesses, if that's the religious group that, I think they were on to something...And the Amish don't, I believe, as well...You don't know what you're getting when you directly take someone else's blood into your blood compartment. Very, very dangerous.
[For discussion of how to find work by Sasha Latypova and Katherine Watt at Substack; censorship by Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, YouTube, see full transcript.]
Jane Ruby
...This has opened up a whole new can of worms that I want to continue to talk about and help you get the word out, Sasha, because I think it speaks to the broader issue of warning people. None of these are good. None of these are necessary. In fact, they're an attack on you. Any last words from you on this? What do you want people to know?
Sasha Latypova
I want everyone to please share this information with your friends and relatives who are still thinking about "injecting is fine and the vaccines are safe..."
Explain to them that this anaphylaxis phenomenon explains the infectious disease and explains the epidemic of chronic illness that we're experiencing. They have the same cause. And so that's very critical for people to understand...
Jane Ruby
This is good news then for parents who maybe stumbled into it. They have a three, four, five-year old. They had, they got nailed the first year or two, but then they crossed over with everything that's happening. And now they've stopped. I mean, it's better than those who continue.
Sasha Latypova
It's better than those who continue. I have a friend who had a baby. She's two-and-a-half now. And they were forced into one shot in the hospital, but then refused everything else. The baby — while the parents are both fairly short, like five, seven, five, eight — the baby is 97th percentile, very tall, very beautiful, very talkative, hit all the milestones early.
It's a joy. The child is a joy. How wonderful healthy children are. I mean, I demand photos every day from them. I can't stop admiring how healthy and beautiful this child is. And everyone can have children like that. Imagine our society. Imagine what we can do. Imagine how smart people can be and creative. And we can have a joyful, harmonious world if we stop this evil.
Pray the Rosary.
Stop taking vaccines.
Stop vaccinating babies and children.
Related:
Covid-19 Vaccines and Induced Anaphylaxis (John Lukach, 2021; Amazon edition, Sept. 30, 2021: Curious: Start the Conversation)
June 9, 2021 - Proteins, Spikes and Bio-weapons. (Northern Tracey)
Jan. 16, 2022 - Russian Roulette (Northern Tracey)
Feb. 26, 2022 - Anaphylaxis – The Real Bio-Weapon (Northern Tracey)
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 (Katherine Watt)
March 13, 2024 - Statutory and regulatory definitions for drugs, biological products, and biosimilars. (Katherine Watt)
Aug. 21, 2024 - Similarities between "spike protein" and synthetic anthrax toxin. Real bioweapons are not viruses but chemical weapons. (Sasha Latypova)
Aug. 26, 2024 - Intentional elusivity of definitions for virus and vaccine (Katherine Watt)
Sept. 3, 2024 - The second shot, or what do vaccinators and sewer rats have in common? Reviewing Charles Richet's work on anaphylaxis, awarded the Nobel Prize in 1913. (Sasha Latypova) Cross-posted at Bailiwick.
