All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 8, 2025 - Jim Fetzer
55:28
ALL VACCINES PRIME ILLNESS BY INJECTING FOREIGN PROTEINS - Sahsa Latypova
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
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.
They know what they're doing.
Welcome to the Dr. Jane Ruby Show on this Friday, September 6th, 2024.
Well, if there isn't enough evidence and information surrounding the dangers and the illegalities of not just the COVID injections, 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 an 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 Ruscha, biotech expert and analyst Sasha Latapova and legal expert Catherine 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 Latapova.
Sasha, thanks again for being here.
Great to see you again.
Hi, Jean.
Thank you for inviting me.
Great to see you.
Yeah, there's no moss growing under your feet.
Sasha, let me start out by first asking you how you and Catherine Watt became interested in even digging into this topic and why you think it's important right now.
Right.
So as you know, maybe Catherine 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.
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 the Richer's Nobel Prize.
And she sent me originally his Nobel Prize acceptance speech 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.
So he published in 1913, he published his book and I provide several screenshots from it in my substack when I wrote about this.
And so I read his book and I kind of understand what he did and the conclusions that he made.
He also...
Well, tell us a little bit about who this guy is.
Was he a scientist?
Was he a money guy?
Charles Roche.
We've got some pictures here.
I would classify him as a sort of, there were a lot of these gentlemen scientists, so people who had independent financial means and they were interested in different topics of science.
And so he seemed to have been very well connected.
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 men 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 men of war was kind of difficult.
So he created what he himself called virus of actinaria.
It turns out virus of actinaria is basically tentacles of sea anemone that dissolved in glycerin.
So at that time, viruses...
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.
And this whole mythology about virus being this particle that infects and flies around and you get it from casual content, that wasn't there.
It was already well understood that that doesn't happen, and viruses are something you inject to poison.
And 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?
Yeah.
And has anybody, well, first of all, you also mentioned he was in that turn of the century, the group of eugenicists.
So, he wasn't doing this to help mankind.
And secondly, did you guys find out, and did he find out, I guess?
Did anybody look at what...
I always look at the successful story.
So, I mean, in terms of health.
So those mice, those animals that do not experience that abrupt, serious allergic reaction, why?
Like, do they have something that we don't have?
They did not know.
And so I think they just figured out that these breeds don't...
Don't experience anaphylaxis and said, well, then we're not going to work with them because we're interested in anaphylaxis.
Yes, he was, in addition to his interest in anaphylaxis and vaccination or early attempts at vaccination, he was a eugenicist.
He was a committed eugenicist.
He thought that black people were inferior and he was actually a president of eugenics society in Europe and I think in France.
And at that time, eugenicists...
It was a fashionable conservative position in high society.
So almost every, if you read literature, which I do from 19th and early 20th century, you will see that high society, well-to-do socioeconomic classes are all eugenicists, and this is acceptable and considered a proper conservative point of view.
I agree with you.
I've been inspired by the work of Scott Shera, who's, you know, doing a whole bunch of work originally to avenge his daughter Grace's hospital murder, but he ends up stumbling and digging into finding that this is all part of the greater eugenicist movement.
And in that history that he digs into, I've seen how it was a very proper thing to do.
You wanted, you know, a healthier race.
And, you know, people just missed that whole, they fell into it, you know, the masses.
Thinking that it was going to be something good for them.
But anyway, I thought that.
Right, so 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.
So the main concern of these...
Rich people who were also doing science because there wasn't a centrally funded science at the time.
So the concern of these rich people was, how do we prevent these poor classes that are dirty and inferior from overbreeding?
That was their main concern.
And actually, Darwin was against that, but not because he was...
For, you know, some humanitarian goals, his position was if we prevent them from overbreeding, then we don't have the competitive evolutionary selection.
Wow.
Yeah, so if you read the literature at that time, it's really fascinating.
But it shows where these ideas come from.
Yes, they came 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.
And, you know, so that was their attempt to limit it.
And that's why they devised all these methods.
And Rache 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 glasses.
Obviously, now this is all expended on all of us.
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.
Yes.
And then I'm assuming you're going to tie us into it because where my mind is spinning to is...
They figured out how to create a condition that, in other words, 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 Catherine is...
This may be the main mechanism of action by introducing foreign proteins.
Interesting how the polio oral was stopped in 2000 in the United States.
Now we have these new injections.
Everything's by injection because you've got to get these proteins in.
So I don't know if I'm going in the right direction, but I'll let you tie it all together.
That's kind of my job.
Yes.
So let's talk about what anaphylaxis is.
I also was under the impression that anaphylaxis is only shock.
That's the only life-threatening condition where somebody immediately drops on the ground and you need antihistamines or EpiPen.
Now, it turns out Richer, 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.
And anaphylaxis is...
So he has demonstrated that anaphylaxis is anything from mild rash to shock.
And it has the same underlying mechanism.
Now, you know, later on, the science has demonstrated, well, there are different antibodies and different things that happen with mild versus not mild.
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.
But both Richey and his collaborators have demonstrated that you don't need to inject a toxin for injection of protein to be toxic.
So injections of proteins, even milk...
And food proteins produce the same result as injecting poison of actinaria as he was practicing with.
Wow.
And so it doesn't 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.
Wow.
By ingesting proteins, 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.
So 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-cell proteins.
And so anything, even what you think is benign, like milk, will become poisonous and can kill somebody.
It's the injecting into the compartment.
You know, we call it the compartment, which is in the main system.
Once you put something directly into the main, the vascular system, you're in.
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 the mechanism of action I think you've discovered that's relevant is they knew this in the 1700s and 1800s maybe, or they were coming to know it, and they are using it actively.
This is a slow kill.
I think, as Catherine has said, right?
Yeah, so what he found, so he was working on these early attempts at vaccinations, and he found that it's unpredictable which, so not 100% of the population injected will react that way.
So 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...
One injection and then the second one sets it off.
So 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.
Vaccine doses are 21 days apart.
So he showed 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.
So 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, you know, 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 unaphylactized over time with this.
And another sinister point of this whole vaccinology is that they, over time, have developed, let's say, safer.
They call it safer.
But they're just less detectable anaphylactizing agents than what, you know, Richer was using.
So things that, like, 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.
I have a hypothesis on that too.
And, you know, 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, destruction of microbiome, autoimmune diseases, cancer pathways over time, obesity, especially in children.
It's all related to that.
Because their gut is now completely, you know, either destroyed or completely, I would say, out of whack.
And they can't properly digest food.
And so they grow obese, even from, you know...
Not such a bad diet.
But the industry, what they do, they gaslight you into, oh, you have a genetic mutation, you have a hereditary autoimmune condition, or you have 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.
Guess what?
Any food will be toxic.
And if you stop vaccinating, you can eat anything you want, and you're not going to have any of those things.
This is incredible, and I hope people understand.
You touched on it, and you did a good job of explaining it, but 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.
So, hey, I know that thing over there is foreign protein, so I'm going to imprint that memory, whatever that is.
That's very simplistic.
But then the next time you're exposed to it, and your body goes into hyperdrive.
Whoa, that was that enemy before.
I've got to prevent that.
And that's maybe where you see the big, what we...
We used to think of as anaphylaxis and allergies.
So what you're suggesting by this work and this analysis is that this is a programmed, intentional...
Priming and programming, which is not surprising to those of us that we've talked about this many times before, and your work has borne this out, of slowly getting...
Let's just talk about the adjuvants for a minute.
All of these injections, since the 1950s when they were injecting, they've always had adjuvants, additives for the public's understanding.
These things that don't seem to make sense.
And for the most part, society has brushed it off.
Aluminum, polysorbates.
Now these antibiotics I'm seeing that have been added, why are all these things added?
The top-level response is, well, because we need to jumpstart your immune system.
Well, that doesn't quite...
So I wanted to ask you to speak to that a little bit.
The whole adjuvant, is that primarily one, maybe a major way that introduces foreign proteins?
And like you say, anaphylactase.
I love that, the body.
Yeah, so the adjuvants are...
You know, it's also very, very sinister.
So, for example, 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, you know, actually doing journalism on this topic.
And, you know, and they're saying, yeah, so, for example, peanut allergy, it was introduced in Merck vaccine, and the peanut oil was an adjuvant.
And the Merck vaccine, I think it's TDAP, I forget the exact designation of it, but it was a Merck vaccine and they put peanut oil in it 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 them designations.
It's called GRAS, generally accepted as safe.
They give designations to these adjuvants, which are food proteins.
And so, for example, or things that are considered, you know, common and safe.
For example, mRNA vaccines contain cholesterol.
Okay.
So what is going to happen if you are sensitized to cholesterol in your own bloodstream, which you have?
Right, right.
And so by injecting it, they're setting us up for a natural, if it comes in through the elementary canal and then you're going to react to it, whereas if it originally only came through your oral, you ate it, you probably wouldn't have it in a lifetime.
I wanted you to speak to that because I was on an airplane recently and they made an announcement before we took off.
Nobody was allowed to open a peanut bag.
Now, I know that there are peanut allergies, and we went through that, and they don't offer them on the plate.
But in this case, they said, we have a person who's declared that they're a peanut allergy, so nobody can open a packet, not even open it, and so that the molecules go into the air.
And I thought, what?
Yeah, the problem with that is that some agents, like the peanut oil, are so anaphylactizing that after the first exposure, people become then sensitive to even breathing.
The oil that kind of comes out of the peanut.
And so they become so sensitive to this.
So that's the problem.
Now, as I said, once something like this is detected, what they do, they 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, and that's difficult and takes a long time to detect.
So it builds up very slowly.
There's some very, you know, it's very difficult to diagnose autoimmune condition or gluten intolerance.
So people go through this, 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.
Everybody says, oh, you know, you have gene mutation, you have a rare syndrome.
And there's this whole gaslighting industry.
Money.
Because it makes money.
Right.
Go back and back and back.
And the doctor says, I don't know.
Yeah.
Oh, I don't know.
But maybe you can try this drug.
You can go to this special.
You run around.
And I've gone through this with my children.
My husband has also autoimmune condition.
It's all from vaccines.
Not mRNA, but the traditional ones.
Because of this.
And I've gone through this whole circle.
And I know for sure what happened.
And why certain diets are helpful for them because those diets eliminate those sensitizing agents.
Well, and here's how I know you're on to something.
Peanuts, call me crazy, have been around for thousands of years.
Yeah.
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?
Right?
So it's intentional.
It's part of the plan.
Part of the plan.
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.
The agriculture was full of chemicals.
They were dumping straight chemicals as Soviet agriculture.
The food, everybody ate sugar, fat.
The only oil for cooking was seed oil and margarine.
And 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, you know, no autism.
I didn't know it existed.
Actually, when I first saw Rain Man, I was like, what is it?
Because you didn't have vaccines?
Well, there were maybe three or four vaccines.
And, you know, that's it.
So when I come here and everybody is, you know, and I go to the grocery store, you can buy actually pretty decent food.
Okay, avoid those middle aisles where all these 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.
What is this whole propaganda?
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.
Wow.
We've been under attack for a long time.
When I first had Catherine on a year or so ago, I thought she misspoke when she said it's been going on for centuries, and I thought she meant, she must have meant decades, and she said, no, no, I mean centuries.
And now you see all of this.
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, it's like, wow, you want to capture every, you know, every embryo that you can get, right?
Yeah.
They're definitely trying to attack.
The pregnant women and children, I just republished my older article where I showed that.
It was definitely a concerted attack.
The pregnant women were specifically identified in contracts with DOD. So the DOD, when they issued contracts for these mRNA vaccines, they're mentioning there that we have 4 million pregnant women in the United States.
And actually, it's much less now.
Injected everyone.
I think the latest number was 3 million something.
So they really reduced the rate of pregnancy with this.
But at the time they were writing contracts, they said 4 million pregnant women sort of as a target, you know, like, oh, we need to protect them.
And I was like, why?
You're writing a contract for something that is completely new technology.
Nothing has been done with it.
It's not before clinical trials.
And you're already targeting pregnant women?
I was shocked at the time.
Right.
I knew it was part of the plan.
Right.
Part of the plan.
That's what I was going to say.
I knew it was a crime.
Because nobody in their right mind, you don't even have to be in the pharma industry.
I mean, it's been talked about for, you know, generations that, you know, pregnant women have to be careful.
And all of a sudden, these things, like you say, that are experimental and not well tested.
I mean, I'm a little focused right now on the drive to get the polio, you know, vaccine.
There hasn't been a reported case of an indigenous wild, you know, 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?
Yeah, so as you know, Depending on how they authorize this, under what...
So if they declared, in a particular location, they declared public health emergency of polio.
Yeah.
And I believe in the U.S. we have that.
We have PrEP Act declarations.
I also wrote about it.
Yes.
And they included...
I don't think they included polio specifically, but they included poisoning by pesticides and nerve agents.
Oh, wow.
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.
Right.
There's no oversight into the adjuvants, much less the core.
And let me just add, Sasha, while you were explaining that, it was on May 5, 2014, that the World Health Organization declared the international I'm quoting, as a public health emergency of international concern.
Well, there we go.
It's been riding along.
Yeah, so as I said, they can put just about anything into these vaccines.
Because of almost bulletproof liability protection, especially in the U.S., again, there's no oversight of vaccines.
That's what my colleague, Catherine, 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 1973, FDA finally got mandate to regulate them, sort of.
But we have traced all those regulations and they're 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, Catherine 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.
There's no...
There isn't anything.
And in fact, FDA is even actively helping them.
So 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 the labs actually works on SV40. Wow.
And yeah, how much of a C40 you can put in with what.
And so anyway, so this whole, like, it just, when you start reading and looking at it, you can't avoid the conclusion that they're working specifically to poison people.
Yeah, the COVID shots were the door that opened to the rest of the vaccine, you know, reality, that it's part of the mass.
You know, inoculation, eugenics, injuring people.
And to get back to that about disclosing ingredients, you were, I believe, the first, you know, your team to discover through the documents or released or leaked or whatever a couple of years ago that Pfizer in particular had, and this is just an example, had negotiated for themselves a 50%.
Nondisclosure leeway with the EMA, and then, of course, that would trickle to the FDA, meaning they don't have to tell you, but they don't even care anymore about whether it's 50% or they don't have to disclose to anybody anything, and like I've tried to say, they can change this up at any time.
Sasha, how do we get the country and the world to see that vaccines are actually the vehicle?
That's what you're bringing forward, and I agree 100%.
Everything points to that.
How do you get...
Millions of people, 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. Yeah.
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 ingredients.
I think that that will give a lot of ground for people to understand because just about any family I know has You can point to the vaccine injury or several with respect to having food allergies, 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.
Richer 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, and also the industry gaslights you into like, oh, 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 your cells 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're making a transplant.
You start rejecting it.
And so that's number one.
Number two, I think what people don't really realize with respect to anaphylaxis, anaphylaxis also explains those epidemics of what is considered infectious diseases in the past, like cholera, plague, smallpox.
You can now, 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 to then, but what makes us sick?
Why are these huge people like that?
They keep seeing disease.
Right.
What's about the disease?
So 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.
Well, 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, same 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.
When you can get anaphylaxis naturally, and people know it, for example, stunned by a bee a couple of times, or stunned by men of war, right?
So those can still happen.
It's a 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.
And so if enough people in the same community get anaphylactized by that rat, Beat 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.
Right.
But it also brings back the problem of too many people on the planet, which is a myth, a myth about resources.
But like you say, it feeds the eugenicist, 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.
No, yeah.
So notice that all of those concerns started percolating when all of these previous programs went away.
Right around that time, the Club of Rome and the Trilateral Commission and all those, 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 these 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.
Right.
Exactly.
And the pharma companies, which I wanted you to just take a moment or two to speak to the public 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 trow of all vaccine and getting their 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...
This is another question.
I'm sorry.
But how to 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.
This becomes so incredibly corrupt because 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.
So they all started moving into the biologics, which is all these proteins, right?
Biologics because of the IP issues.
But now the biologics also expiring of patents, although it's not as dramatic as the drugs because it takes longer time to develop a biosimilar.
But those revenues are going away.
A little slower than the drug revenues.
But 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.
But by 2020, it became about 50% of the R&D funding or even more in pharma coming from BARDA. Coming from BARDA through these contracts where you don't have to comply with pharmaceutical law.
Well, can you imagine, you know, 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 running, they're 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.
And they don't even know what they're mixing, but they're doing it anyway.
Right.
And 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.
Oh, my God.
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 offers $3,000 for your baby to be injected.
Yeah, it's a bribe.
It's a bribe.
It's a bribe.
It's more than an overinducement.
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.
The vaccine, it's safe.
You know, the poll office says it's safe.
CDC says it's safe.
These anti-vaxxers, they're just stupid people and educated, right?
And there we go.
And they bring their babies into the Walgreens for clinical trials.
Oh my gosh, it's terrible.
It's terrible.
And Sasha, do you have any concerns about getting back just to sort of the things they call the COVID shots and boosters?
The issue, we're pivoting just a touch, but it's all around the priming, the transference.
I made a statement the other day and said, you know, it was one thing when we thought, well, I'm not going to take that shot.
You can take it, but I'm not going to take it.
You know, not a good idea.
And then now there's a lot of information from, I'm not going to go into it, but you read, you see what's coming out about the potential, and even Pfizer admitted the transference potential, that eventually if we saturate enough people, will the rest of us who opted out really be overcome?
I mean, eventually with some of this, I mean, we can't not live with each other in life, right?
Yeah, I mean, that's something that needs to be studied, like properly studied in laboratory experiments.
I mean, what I can say without having access to any sort of solid data, yes, there is definitely evidence of shedding of these kinds of products, but I also urge people not to freak out too much about it.
So some things are dangerous, like having sex and having blood contact.
Yes, in a higher danger category.
If it's just sort of casual contact or even living in the same space, it's probably not as dangerous.
It probably can invade, I mean, especially if it's like plasmids or something, but usually it doesn't last very long.
Yeah.
So I would be just careful, you know, observing your own symptoms.
Some people are much more sensitive.
Some people, my readers are telling me, I can smell these people.
But that person is traveling on the subway in the crowded and says, I can smell these people.
They smell like insecticides, actually.
Wow.
Wow.
That's scary.
Some people have like auditory or, you know, sort of like an electric kind of feeling.
Yep.
Yeah.
So, yeah.
But be sensitive to your own symptoms.
I don't think it's as dangerous.
Now, if you are traveling on a crowded subway every day and most of them are injected, I think it's pretty dangerous.
Wow, that's an important statement.
Yeah, if you're in a smaller city or a smaller town and you don't have a lot of contact with these people, I wouldn't worry too much.
Yeah, but eventually if they get enough of this in people, you're going to start to become in danger.
Even in more diluted situations.
I think what happens if they start getting in more people and it's in more crowded space, I would be concerned about the insects.
Because the mosquitoes, for example, you know, they will be transferring blood directly.
And probably one of the most dangerous things that we always believed was dangerous, not that it's a new revelation, is a blood transfusion from an injected person, especially someone who's taken two, three, four, 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, again, into your compartment, your vascular system, right in the system.
Right?
Exactly.
This was shown by Richer and it's in his book.
Yeah, so 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 years ago.
But now you know why the Red Cross has never screened, said not to worry.
They're a federal agency.
They're part of the operation.
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.
I wouldn't either.
Only from, like, known identified donor.
But other than that, no.
Yeah, yeah.
I mean, I think the Jehovah's Witnesses, if that's the religious group, I think they were on to something.
They were?
Yeah, 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.
Sasha, what else?
Really appreciate your time tonight.
The people that watch my show absolutely hang on to your research.
They, you know, hopefully follow your sub stack, which I'd like to just chat about a little bit.
It's a great educational source, and I know you work very closely with Catherine, so let's talk about how people can find you and your work there, because that's really what, if you can support Sasha just a little bit, it keeps her work going.
So let's talk about that for a minute.
Yes, so the main source of everything I write or make videos of now is Substack.
And if people don't know, it's an application or website for like a platform for writers.
Writers or creators of any sort where you can...
Either subscribe for free or help the person with paid subscriptions.
And all my new articles, I make them available for free.
After a couple of weeks, they go into Archive.
Archive is available for paid subscribers, although I've unarchived also a lot of material.
And I've already published close to, I don't know, 380 essays.
And so it's a very rich resource.
I try to organize it, make it...
You know, easy to find stuff.
And so you can learn a lot by subscribing to my sub-stack.
It's called Due Diligence and Art.
I also include art with every article.
And Catherine's sub-stack is bailiwick news.
And I also link to her almost in every article.
So you can find all this information.
And it doesn't seem to be censored.
At the moment, at least.
So it's the only resource.
People can't post any of my videos or any material on Facebook or YouTube.
I sometimes post my articles on LinkedIn.
They started censoring them too.
So the only place that's right now is not really censoring is this.
And so I highly advise you people to subscribe.
And there's a lot of other great authors there as well.
I'm sure you found it interesting when Mark Zuckerberg recently, you know, threw himself down in a mea culpa.
But yet the censorship on Facebook and, you know, and these other, I mean, it stayed the same.
So it's so disingenuous.
Fake.
Yeah.
Like, so, okay, yeah.
He says, oh, yeah, yeah, we've censored.
And?
And they continue to censor.
And they continue to censor.
Right, exactly.
Same with Mike Adams and Brighteon TV. It's always been a great platform to get this information out.
And he's on Twitter, but he keeps saying to Elon, I love you, buddy, but you're all about free speech, but where's Brighteon?
We're still blocked.
And they also block Substack, by the way, Twitter does.
So while I'm on Twitter, I have...
I have, I don't know, like 16,000 followers on Twitter and I get, you know, 10 views if I push Substack link.
It's so obvious what they're doing.
You know, so that's the main place.
Due diligence in art.
I love, I think it was in your Substack bio, if it's not still there, but you said something about, hey, I really wanted to be an artist, but I said I couldn't, so I ended up going into pharma, you know, entrepreneurship.
I always laughed at that.
Like, wait a minute, you know.
Yeah, well, I wanted to be a choreographer when I was five years old, and I went to fine arts school and theater and dance, and my family said, you'll never make a living at it, so I went into...
Medicine and nursing.
Crazy, crazy.
It's all a path.
But look at what we're here now.
Look at what we're doing.
So I hope it makes a difference.
But 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.
Yeah.
Exactly.
Any last words from you on this?
What do you want people to know?
Well, 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.
And I hope this information, you know, if you find my article, maybe you can link it to the video, find my article and share it with them and 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.
And if you stop it, and if you don't vaccinate your children, you will have very healthy children.
And guess what?
They will be able to eat anything they want.
And not be obese and not have chronic illness.
Yeah, yeah.
I mean, this is good news then for parents who maybe stumbled into it.
They have a 3-, 4-, 5-year-old.
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...
You know, those who continue.
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 is, while the parents are both fairly short, you know, like 5'7", 5'8", the baby is 97th percentile, very tall, very beautiful, very talkative, hit all the milestones early.
It's a joy.
This child is a joy.
How wonderful healthy children are.
I demand photos every day from them.
I can't stop admiring how healthy and beautiful this child is.
Everyone can have children like that.
Imagine our society.
Imagine what we can do.
Imagine how smart people can be and creative and, you know, we can have a joyful, harmonious world if we stop this evil.
Yeah, absolutely.
There's still hope.
▲
Export Selection