Injecting Your Children with Foreign Proteins Is a Bad Idea

Revelations about anaphylaxis, allergies and more

Charles Richet’s work on anaphylaxis is sufficient reason to avoid injections dubbed “vaccines.”

I want to bring attention to a recent article by

Sasha Latypova

highlighting the work of Charles Richet who, in 1913,

won the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine "in recognition of his work on anaphylaxis"

The second shot, or what do vaccinators and sewer rats have in common?

I’d like to mention off the bat that I’ve been an admirer of Sasha’s work for quite a while now, and I highly recommend checking out her Substack,

Due Diligence and Art

. As an aside, she and a few colleagues have put together a great body of work on military involvement in the COVID propaganda and “countermeasures” operation in the US, UK, Canada, Germany, Netherlands and Italy. A recent summary report on this aspect of their work is worth reviewing:

The COVID Dossier

I decided to respond to Sasha’s article on anaphylaxis for two reasons. First of all, I think the information she provides on how anaphylaxis may be at the root of many of the varied ill effects of vaccines is extremely important. Secondly, I think her further extrapolation that anaphylaxis may help explain historical outbreaks of disease—and especially her hypothesis that biting rats may have been responsible for epidemics like cholera and plague—does not stand up under scrutiny.

Accordingly, my response will be divided into two parts, in that order. I will try do keep this first part as brief as possible. You can refer to Sasha’s article for more details.

Anaphylaxis and Vaccines

I was previously aware of the danger of anaphylactic shock—among a host of other short and long term ill effects—that accompanies vaccines among a certain percentage of recipients. I have

Joy Lucette Garner

to thank for the awareness of just how far reaching and detrimental those effects have been for the entire vaccinated population (which in the U.S. is 99% of the population).

The vast array of illnesses—from paralysis to diabetes to heart disease—where vaccines are indicated is overwhelming, and has been partially a mystery to me.

I knew that vaccines contain foreign matter from human fetal tissue, monkey kidney tissue, etc., and I was well aware that introducing foreign matter—even otherwise benign matter—directly into the blood, could often in itself cause many problems. There was also the fact that most vaccines contain “adjuvants” such as thimerosil mercury, aluminum, or other potent, lingering poisons. But I was shocked to learn from an CHD interview with Sasha on the subject of her article (the interview begins at about the 30 min. mark) that they also contain proteins that have become infamous as common allergens—proteins derived from EGGS, MILK, PEANUTS, WHEAT, CORN and SOY—and that these are often used as the “carrier” for the vaccine, and are undisclosed, disguised under names no one would recognize. Sasha reveals that food allergies may in fact be attributable to an initial sensitization to these proteins via vaccination. Let’s take a look at the mechanism behind this, as revealed by Richet’s work on anaphylaxis.

Anaphylaxis and anaphylactic shock

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.

Richet concluded that the primary danger of anaphylactic shock from an animal or insect bite, or even vaccine, begins after a period of 20 days, or 2 to 3 weeks, from the first exposure, continuing thereafter for an unknown period of time. It is the SECOND bite, sting or injection, of a similar toxin or protein that can result in anaphylactic shock, endangering the lives of a random percentage of subjects that varies depending on the species undergoing the assault and the protein introduced. The first subcutaneous exposure sets the body up for a future reaction that in some cases can be severe, in others prolonged.

Allergies

Sasha discusses how anaphylactic shock is just one type of reaction that can be produced through the mechanism of anaphylaxis.

Importantly, Richet has demonstrated that anaphylaxis, anaphylactic shock and the variety of allergic reactions are all the same phenomenon, stemming from the same thing - a sensitizing exposure by proteins reaching the blood stream and bypassing normal digestion.

Allergies are a kind of anaphylaxis, and thus children who have been injected with vaccines containing food proteins may potentially develop food allergies, and other kinds of chronic disorders, since while the body would not normally react to food introduced via the normal route of ingestion, it may have become sensitized when these proteins were injected at an earlier time.

In fact, in Richet’s time, an allergic reaction appears to have been known simply as anaphylaxis, and when other researchers substituted the name allergy Richet thought this unnecessary. Sasha suggests the difference in terminology could have been intentional, to obscure what was really going on. Though the motivations of the researchers is impossible to know, I will just note that it was during that time period that Rockefeller interests—with strong ties to the drug and vaccine industry—were gaining a stranglehold on medical education and research.¹

Covid shots in pairs

Sasha also points out how the Covid® shots were administered in pairs 21 days apart. She goes into the VAERS data on anaphylactic shock for said injections, which was unusually high—to put things mildly—not to mention all the other severe reactions reported by the myriads of vaccine injured persons after vaccine rollout.

We know that mRNA vaccines, while possibly containing little to no mRNA due to manufacturing limitations and absent quality control, did contain nanoparticles or nanogel, allegedly as a carrier for the mRNA but known beforehand to have extremely harmful effects.

“Virus”

Finally, Sasha brings out Richet’s use of the word virus for “the virus of Actinaria”, referring to a poison he made from the tentacles of the sea anemone, which was what he used initially in his experiments. Up to Richet’s time, ‘virus’ was used to denote pus taken from a sore, ground up spinal columns of diseased animals, or even hordes of insects ground up in their entirety. If you are very familiar with modern day “virological studies,” you may notice things haven’t changed much.

The oldest meaning of ‘virus’, of course, is simply ‘poison.’ But Richet soon discovered that poison was not needed to produce similar results; otherwise innocuous proteins, injected in colloidal form, also produced an anaphylactic reaction with the second injection in up to 10 or 15 percent of subjects.

Stay tuned for my critique of Sasha’s “sewer rat” hypothesis…

1. See The Drug Story: A Factological History of AMERICA'S $10,000,000,000 DRUG CARTEL — ITS METHODS, OPERATIONS, HIDDEN OWNERSHIP, PROFITS AND TERRIFIC IMPACT ON THE HEALTH OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE by Morris A. Bealle (1976)