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. By Sasha Latypova (09/03/24)
anaphylaxis
noun
1. an acute allergic reaction to an antigen (e.g. a bee sting) to which the body has become hypersensitive. It is a dangerous, life threatening allergic reaction.
Latypova explores the anaphylaxis research history of French physiologist and Nobel Prize winner Charles Richet (25 August 1850 – 4 December 1935).
She posits based on her own research, Richet’s, and others that viruses are poisons — either natural toxins excreted by plants, bacteria and animals — or poisons made by people. She states viruses do not transmit by air or casual contact.
(NOTE: Latypova uses strong language, but the article is worth reading for its different approach to viruses and how vaccines can injure and kill through anaphylaxis.)
The real worry, Latypova says, “is an injection of biologics (proteins) for the 2nd time within the anaphylaxis window that starts typically after 20 days and lasts anywhere from months to years to the lifetime. This can happen in nature from the second bite of an animal/insect carrying the same biological toxin (a very low probability event nowadays), or from the needle of a healthcare provider.”
[ED NOTE: Evidence through the COVIDEra shows that the more exposures to SARS-CoV-2 proteins one receives, the more one is prone to acute injury, death, repeat COVID and other infections, chronic diseases, and cancer. Perhaps this explains why those who already had COVID should not receive COVID shots and why multiple COVID shots can be so damaging.]
Key points:
The first interaction with an injected toxin may go unnoticed, be well tolerated, or simply be mildly irritating.
After 2-3 weeks, the second exposure may become very dangerous or fatal.
The second exposure can be by injection, or with high enough sensitization by the first injection, also could result from environmental exposure or ingestion, depending on the degree of sensitization to the “allergen” or “toxigen” (Richet’s term).
Anaphylaxis, anaphylactic shock and the variety of allergic reactions are all the same phenomenon, stemming from a sensitizing exposure by proteins reaching the blood stream and bypassing normal digestion.
White mice and some breeds of rats — which are staples of pharmaceutical research — do not experience anaphylaxis. Thus, testing on these animals may be irrelevant for human health and hide side effects of drugs, shots, and other biologic interventions in humans.
It was known early on that vaccination induces anaphylaxis in people. This vaccine-induced reaction was renamed “allergy.” [ED NOTE: Recently, the term “vaccine” also has been revised.]
Colloids (unlike crystalloids) induce anaphylaxis. (Latypova defines both colloids vs crystalloids.)
Vaccines are colloids, as they contain a mixture of proteins and lipids in suspension.
Vaccines contain many sources of injury:
Proteins used to formulate them, including the toxins (“viruses”).
A vehicle that frequently contains other common proteins like albumins (gluten allergy), egg proteins, soy, corn, casein (milk intolerance), etc.
“Contaminants” and “adjuvants” such as toxic metals, and with introduction of recombinant vaccines — DNA plasmids that transfect cells.
mRNA shots are even worse because they contain numerous toxic vectors.
Anaphylaxis may help explain both the natural outbreaks of “contagious illness” in human history and the skyrocketing chronic illness in the modern western populations.
Anaphylaxis, an intestinal reaction, is also tied to destruction of the microbiome.
Practically all chronic conditions, especially in children, can be tied back to vaccine-induced anaphylaxis.
Latypova ends with a quote from 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.
09/05/24 update:
We asked Dr. Kevin Stillwagon for his thoughts about this article. He kindly responded with a comment that those with immunology background may find valuable:
