If there isn't enough evidence and information surrounding the dangers and illegalities of not just the code injection but all injections that are falsely called 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, or so we've been told. But hold on. 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. Let's take a closer look and welcome once again to the show Sasha Latypova.
2:25. How did you and Katherine Watt get interested to even dig into this topic, and why do you think it's important right now?
2:30. Katherine has been working on a very large project going back through vaccine-related laws of the United States all the way back to the 1700s, so she and another collaborator are writing what she calls "a beast of a" report on how all these laws and this entire framework have been put in place and specifically looking at definitions. As you know, definitions are very important, like what is a vaccine? What is a virus? etc, because definitions in law are basically everything. So that work is ongoing, and as part of this work, she came across Richet's Nobel Prize and she sent me originally his 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 the archives and I found his book that he published in 1913, he published his book, and I provided several screenshots from it on my sub stack when I wrote about this so I read his book and I kind of understand what he did and the conclusions that he made he also sites other authors working on the same area at the same time.
4:00. Who was this guy was he a scientist was he a money guy Charles Richet?
4:07. Yeah at the turn of the 20th century I would classify him as a sort of there were a lot of these gentleman scientists so people who had independent financial means and they were interested in different topics of science so he seemed to have been very well connected of the original story says that the Prince of Monaco invited him on his yacht which was a huge ship that was traveling in the Mediterranean and he went to research the jellyfish, the Man of 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 so getting them out of War was kind of difficult so he created what he himself called virus of Actinaria. Turns out, the virus of Actinaria is basically the tentacles of a sea anemone dissolved in glycerine. At that time, the definition of "virus" was poison. So he made poison, and he described how he made it, and he called it a virus, which was the scientific nomenclature at the time and this whole methodology 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 who worked with rodents, rabbits, guinea pigs, and sometimes other animals. Turns out white mice and some breeds of rats do not experience anaphylaxis. Isn't it surprising that they are the staple of pharmaceutical research?
6:10. You also mentioned that he was at that turn of the century the group of eugenicists, he wasn't doing this to help mankind, or did he find out I guess, did anybody have success stories in terms of health so that those mice, the animals that do not experience that abrupt serious allergic reaction, why? Do they have something that we don't have?
6:40. They did not know. I think they just figured out that these breeds don't experience anaphylaxis, and said, well, we're not going to work with them because we are interested in the anaphylaxis. In addition to his interest in anaphylaxis and vaccination or early attempts at vaccination, he was a committed eugenicist. He thought that black people were inferior, and he was actually a president of a Eugenics Society in Europe, I think in France. At that time, eugenics was a fashionable conservative position in high society, so almost everybody, if you read the literature which I do from the early 20th century, you will see that high society, well-to-do social economic classes are all eugenicists and this is acceptable; it's considered a proper conservative point of view.
7:38. I agree with you I've been inspired by the work of Scott Shara who's done a whole bunch of work originally to avenge his daughter's Grace's hospital murder. But he ends up stumbling and digging into finding that this was all part of the greater eugenicist movement. It was a very proper thing to do. You wanted a healthier race. People just missed that whole, they fell into it, the masses, thinking that it was going to be something good for them.
8:10. Right it's a little bit of a digression but it's important to understand this stems from Darwinism by the way and there was a lot of scientific debate at the time it wasn't a centrally so the concern of these rich people was how do we prevent these poor classes that were dirty and inferior from overbreeding. That was their main concern and actually, Darwin was against that not because he was some humanitarian his position was that if we prevent them from over-breeding then we don't have the competitive evolutionary selection if you read the literature at that time it's really fascinating but it shows where these ideas come from yes it came from the richer classes the more well-to-do classes, who called themselves "well-bred" from trying to limit and prevent over breeding of poor classes, which they associated with infectious diseases, epidemics, general dirty stuff, crime, that was their attempt to limit it. So they devised all these methods and Richet was working in it although in the book at least he doesn't say explicitly his goals, he just lays out the scientific stuff. I think they were working on how they can figure out how, we can prevent epidemics and limit the reproduction of the dirty classes.
