All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 28, 2025 - Jim Fetzer
29:09
Sasha Latypova on CHD's “This Week with Mary and Polly” Jan 26
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hello, Children's Health Defense and everyone everywhere, wherever you are.
It's my great pleasure today to bring with us Dr. Sasha Latipova to talk about the whole phenomenon of responses to vaccines and the issue of anaphylaxis and vaccines.
So, Sasha, welcome.
Hi, Mary.
Just a small correction, I'm not a doctor.
I apologize.
I realized when I said that maybe you weren't a doctor.
You're a doctor in the best sense of the word to ask.
So tell us a little bit about your background, Sasha.
I know you have an extensive background in science and the pharmaceutical profession.
So talk to us about that.
Right.
So most of my career, almost entirely my career, was spent in pharmaceutical research and development in various roles.
And ultimately, I managed my own companies, clinical research organizations, working for...
Pharma companies as contractors.
Pharma companies are designers of...
Research and development programs for their drugs and we were implementing them and running those clinical trials and also I was interacting quite a bit with FDA as part of submitting data on behalf of my clients and also as part of outside of the R&D space we were also working on better methodologies, better scientific methods and technical methods of assessing safety of pharmaceutical products.
So that's my experience.
I also worked in medical devices and as part of all of this I'm also familiar with commercializing academic IP from research universities and making real products out of it.
So I also understand the side of invention, which many people get swayed by and think that, you know, if something is written in a patent, it's real.
And I always caution people, well, it's just sci-fi novel and you have to make it real.
So you have an incredible background, right?
When you were head of this clinical research organization, Sasha, did you work on just drugs and devices?
Did you ever work on vaccines?
No, actually, I've never worked on vaccines or, more generally speaking, in biologics.
So biologics is, you know, FDA is divided.
Somewhat artificially based on the chemical molecular weight of the product that's being developed.
The so-called small molecules or less than 900 daltons in molecular weight are designated as drugs and are managed by CDER, a drug division of the FDA. And then vaccines and biologics, because they're large molecules, they're managed under CBER, which we're more familiar now with in context of COVID shots and vaccines.
In my time, it was a relatively small area, a mason area of research.
Most of the products were small molecule drugs.
And now it's overwhelming how large it is.
And we have severe concerns with how it's mismanaged, how regulations have been sort of dismantled over time to allow for this area to grow.
And so that's the whole entire area, which I did not work in.
At the time, but since 2020 I started looking into mRNA injections and all the related law and misregulation.
And so now I'm much more familiar with it.
Well, you've done critical work during COVID, and I'm grateful for it, Sasha.
You and Katherine Watt, in particular, have done groundbreaking work helping us understand a really important perspective.
Just continuing for a moment on your background, were you shocked by what happened with HHS, FDA, CDC, NIH during COVID, or was that something that you might have anticipated given your work experience with them?
Well, no, I was completely shocked, especially with FDA. FDA, as I said, I did work directly with FDA on specific new methods for safety assessment.
And in all my experience working with that group of people, which was in CEDAR, now I realize not in CBER, and there are all kinds of politics involved.
But at least in my experience, that group of people was always focused on making sure that the safety rules are very well adhered to.
Actually, new methods, more precise, more accurate methods would be developed and enforced on the industry.
So that was my experience.
So when I saw what's being done under COVID, it gave me a huge shock.
And first, I couldn't believe it.
And I tried to figure out, you know, what's the mundane explanation for their behavior.
But over time, it became more and more clear that they meant to.
To break all these rules, and they meant to suspend all the regulations and put all the millions of people in danger.
And this helps to explain it.
So I wanted to talk to you today about a substack that you published on your wonderful substack back in September about Charles Richet, who won the Nobel Prize, I guess as a chemist or physiologist, back in 1913. Would you tell us a little bit about his research, a little bit about this post that you made about him and the issue of anaphylactics and the comparison to sewer rats, which we'll get to?
Yeah, so actually that also became a new discovery for me because it's a very well hidden area and I'm now in disbelief that they suppressed it so well that they don't even teach it in medical school anymore.
So I, as many other healthcare professionals, were familiar with the concept of anaphylaxis when somebody passes out.
Because of some reaction to typically an injection.
I've observed it a couple of times.
One in the context of a COVID injection.
I walked into a grocery store pharmacy and here we had a young man lying on the ground having an anaphylactic reaction to an injection.
And so that was my only knowledge of anaphylaxis.
I saw that's limited to this sort of severe reaction.
And then somebody, well, my friend Catherine Watt pointed me to this blog post about Richet, and I started looking into it in more detail in his Nobel Prize.
And as part of it, I went into archives, Anna Archive, there's internet archives, where I found his original book, Anaphylaxis.
Which summarizes all this research and was written in 1913. He received Nobel Prize in 1913 for this research and he has demonstrated definitively actually that you cannot inject proteins into bloodstream.
So while he himself did not say, you know, We should just abandon and stop this practice.
I think at the time he was working on ways and everybody believed that they could overcome it.
But when you read his research and subsequent research and you see what subsequently happened with vaccinations, the conclusion is inescapable that because of this effect that he found in 1913, all vaccinations should have stopped back then or in a few years afterwards.
And instead, what happened, his work is very well hidden.
You have to know about it.
You have to do what I did, go into archives, get his book.
And no single medical profession, if you go to a pediatrician today, you go to ask any doctor or nurse, they'll just tell you that anaphylaxis is this shock and nothing else.
But what he has demonstrated is that any allergy, even mild allergy, It's actually an effect of anaphylaxis.
He was even against people calling it allergy because he said it's all the same mechanism.
It just differs in severity.
And also what he said that any injection of what he called albumins at the time, but it was a more generic name, he also said colloids.
So it's a chemical entity.
A colloid is something like milk.
It's a complex.
Protein and fat mixture and has other elements in it usually naturally derived versus crystalloids which is kind of like table salt or small molecule drug so basically he said you should not inject anything that's protein protein in nature like a food especially food he elicited a lot of anaphylactic shocks with food And he said,
you know, if you inject this kind of substance, you reliably can produce an anaphylaxis or allergy or autoimmune attack versus if you just inject, you know, things like table salt or sugar.
So that was his finding.
And since then, this research has, as I said, they suppressed it.
They don't teach it anymore.
And they continue injecting food derivatives as part of vaccines.
And then CDC claims it's safe because it's food.
Crazy.
So, the part of Richer's work that you include in your substack, Sasha, makes the point, he makes the point that there's a relationship between immunity and anaphylaxis.
Can you expound on that a little bit?
Because, as you say, he clearly doesn't reject the notion that this is worth studying.
Whereas, I mean, he recognized, it sounds like...
He recognizes the risk and you can't know ahead of time who is going to be susceptible and who's not.
Yes, exactly.
So a lot of his work was done in dogs, but they used other animals like guinea pigs, rabbits.
And actually, interestingly...
His son, who is also called Charles Richet, became a doctor and wrote another book on anaphylaxis, which we can cover in a bit.
It's called elementary anaphylaxis or food-related anaphylaxis.
So anyway, but Charles Richet Sr. worked with animals and he called it anaphylaxis because phylaxis means protection.
So this is anti-protection.
And some people came up with different terminology for it.
For example, some of the researchers call it paradoxical reactions.
So if we're trying to immunize somebody or give immunity by injecting small amounts of poison to get them sensitized and used to it, occasionally we get this paradoxical reaction where the body, instead of tolerating the toxin, Actually now overreacts to even smaller and smaller doses of toxin.
So that's what Richey found.
And this is again, it's unpredictable.
It's not 100% of the injected population, but some fairly large percentage.
It depends on the species a little bit.
But, you know, we can say something on the order of 10-15% of, let's say, human population, if injected, would produce this unpredictable Either, you know, anything from mild allergy to a dramatic anaphylactic shock.
And so that's what he called kind of anti-protection.
Anti-protection.
Yeah, that's fascinating.
Yeah, I'm looking at, it was in his sort of the list that you included, number three, there may be some similarity between anaphylaxis and immunity.
So it works for maybe a lot of people, but for some people, it will cause severe reactions or death.
And I guess he was well aware of that.
Oh, sorry.
Go ahead.
Yeah, so by works, they meant inducing a humoral response.
So they meant inducing antibodies.
Again, Richer never did any long-term experiments other than, you know, maybe observing how long it takes to induce the state of anaphylaxis in a dog.
But even, you know, dogs, he never observed, I don't know, for more than a year.
Nobody ever did any long-term experiments or even what today is called viral challenges.
All his work is based on just how much enophilosis we can induce by what and so forth.
So it's all like theorizing that we give them protection by this, by inducing some sort of antibodies, but occasionally these antibodies attack the body in the ways that we did not intend.
This whole thing is about.
I want to ask a few more questions about anaphylaxis, but I think of anaphylaxis, Sasha, as when people can't breathe.
Their body basically shuts down, and they can't breathe, and they're at risk of dying.
And I guess that was the waiting period with COVID shots, and they give them a dose of epinephrine, I believe, like an EpiPen in schools.
EpiPen.
And yet in the paper you write that anaphylaxis starts in the intestines.
Would you explain that to us?
Yeah, that was Richer's point.
He said that anaphylaxis starts as an intestinal reaction.
So the reason the blood pressure drops so dramatically and the person typically passes out is because the intestine...
It immediately dilates because the body is trying to get rid of whatever is going through.
And that causes an immediate drop in blood pressure.
And that's what he described.
Also, I think the gut becomes permeable at that time.
And then we have all these issues with leaky gut subsequently or dysbiosis or destruction of gut biome.
But he described that.
He said it's an intestinal reaction.
Am I right, though, that often people stop breathing with anaphylaxis?
There's a respiratory component?
There is a respiratory component.
It may be because also the lung tissues get attacked and inflamed and start constricting the bronchial passages.
So yeah, at this point, and that's what typically now...
You know, they give children EpiPens and adults EpiPens who have these anaphylactic shocks.
But EpiPen doesn't cure.
It just saves somebody from this reaction.
Right.
So this is also about sensitization.
And you make the point that it's not the first time, typically, that somebody gets this exposure that's the problem.
It's the second time.
Explain that to us, would you?
Right, so he also described this.
And some people are familiar with this in the context of bee stings, right?
So most of us can tolerate bee stings, but some people become sensitized by the first bee sting.
And then the second bee sting becomes almost, you know, life-threatening.
And that's what he found.
He found a way to induce it.
And first he was working with toxins of jellyfish, and jellyfish also produced this effect.
And subsequently he discovered that he couldn't get jellyfish.
He started working with some other plant toxins and eventually he discovered he didn't need toxins at all, that he could do the same effect with milk.
Or with the albumin, which is wheat-derived protein substance.
And yes, it's the first injection.
Then there is an incubation period that he described, again, different for different toxins and species.
But typical is two, three weeks, so 21 days, to induce that state after the first injection.
So he was doing, you know, injections daily and seeing at what day.
He gets that reaction.
And so he figured out this period of time where a dog may tolerate it.
And then after 21 days, when the set of anaphylaxis sets in, particular dogs, and it's unpredictable which ones, will then you inject them with a much, much smaller dose, a minute dose, maybe 600 times less than the first one, and they die.
Or they have a massive, massive reaction.
So that's what he called.
So we have the first injection, incubation period, and then the anaphylaxis can be triggered.
So tell us a little bit about GRAS, generally regarded as safe, as a designation for food-based proteins in modern vaccines.
All right, so that became a way for vaccine industry to, I think, initially they were trying to get away from this.
And these effects of anaphylaxis, they knew about it.
And they tried to experiment with different other substances.
So FDA now designates generally regarded as safe substances, which are mostly food-based substances.
And because it's food, they say it's grass, it's safe, but it's just...
Not true because as we know because of this effect of anaphylaxis.
So it's a bit of a it's a now it's kind of a malicious hiding and denying strategy and we know it through many testimonies through many people and it's a constant game of food industry will come up with some some new formulation of this food based or some sort of a protein based compound.
Call it something like adjuvant 65, which is this adjuvant that contains peanut oil, but nobody knows about it.
And then FDA gives them this GRAS designation and you don't need to put it on the ingredient list in the vaccines because of that.
And so that's how we arrive at all these foods being, or food-based proteins, or just in general proteins that are going to cross-react with who knows what.
Are being designated as completely safe and not need to study and included as ingredients in the vaccines.
Yeah.
So that leads us to the question, in your view, Sasha, as a scientist and somebody who's devoted a lot of effort to this in the last few years, do you think that, unlike the slogan, vaccines are safe and effective, do you think there's any vaccine that you would characterize as safe?
And then tell us how you define safe.
Yeah, so the categorical answer I can give you now, no.
And that wasn't the case.
I believed in vaccines.
I vaccinated my children with childhood vaccines.
I regret it now.
My daughter is injured because of it.
I didn't know.
And until 2020, and well, thank God I... I looked into it and nobody in my family got COVID shots.
But now I can tell you, I do not believe there are any safe vaccines because of this.
Because what Charles Richer found, he found that this so-called paradoxical reaction will affect an unpredictable but large percentage of the population.
And as a scientist or doctor in medicine, you can't...
Especially if it's in the context of mandates.
It's one thing if it's voluntary.
But in the context of mandates, you cannot force people to participate in death lottery.
You cannot force people to inject themselves with something for which a side effect, a paradoxical reaction, where it's either death or lifelong disability or allergy to food, which is a lifelong disability.
That's my point.
So that's why I do not believe there are any safe vaccines and this practice should be abandoned completely.
At least the mandates for it as a condition of attending school should be removed.
And you know that Congress, in effect, acknowledged this when they passed the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act.
They did acknowledge that they are unavoidably unsafe, and that is why they give them liability protection, and then they put up this sham compensation program, which, of course, doesn't work.
But they do know that vaccines, despite...
Calling them safe and effective, the law recognizes that they're unavoidably unsafe.
Like other dangerous products, they may be valuable, but they carry...
Unavoidable risks, allegedly.
But I want to read, actually, from what you quoted of Richer here, because I think it's so great.
I tell people, how can you possibly have a mandate of a product when everybody's different?
And he says this so beautifully.
He says, each individual is profoundly different from his neighbor.
And then he says, each is himself and not another.
Each has his idiosyncrasies, or to put it better, his humoral individuality as well as his psychological individuality to differentiate him.
In the same way, humoral impressions, if such an expression is permissible, induce in each individual a humoral personality just as characteristic of him as his intellectual personality.
Like, just basically saying we're as different on the inside as we are on the outside.
Each of us is completely different.
I mean, of course, there's similarities, but...
We're different on the outside and we're different on the inside.
How could we imagine that one product would be safe and effective for everybody?
It's kind of a stupid idea, frankly.
It is an insane idea.
And it should be, you know, we are 100 years, over 100 years after he has written that.
And you know what?
The truth transcends time because what he said is 100% true.
Like, we read it now and we say, yeah, he's right.
And all this science that transpired over 100 years after he's written that changed nothing in what he said.
Right.
Absolutely.
No, truth is what it's about, and science should be the pursuit of real truth.
And he seems to have reached real truth.
We know that allergies are explosive, right?
It's less than 1 in 10 in this country of children has some kind of significant allergy.
And some of them, as you point out, are really debilitating, like a deathly allergy to peanuts or to fish.
To things that people can't really avoid coming in contact with.
All right, but I want to turn to your analogy to sewer rats, Sasha.
That's provocative.
So what is the analogy here to sewer rats?
Yeah, well, actually, so I independently came up with this theory, but then I found that he actually wrote about it subsequently in the 1930s in the context of insect bites and, you know, flies and mosquitoes.
So when I read...
his first book in 1913 I started thinking wow this can explain actually the um the those black death epidemic cholera epidemics or anything bacterial in nature or even viral you know people what's claimed viral like smallpox uh and so the effect of natural anaphylaxis can explain it especially in the context of pollution and crowding and unsanitary water condition So,
as you know, black death wasn't a global pandemic.
It only existed in the crowded medieval cities, which lacked sanitation, where animals lived in small quarters in the same buildings as humans, and there was, you know, sewage flowing in the streets.
And so, of course, everything is infested with rats, and rats bite.
And also carry fleas that also bite.
And especially children are susceptible because they were mostly, you know, in poor families.
There were a lot of children and they were neglected.
Everybody slept in one bed.
You know, so all these conditions are such that the rats and the fleas will bite and they can bite once and they can carry common sewer proteins in those bites.
And then the second time they bite, they will set off anaphylaxis in some population, some large population of the city.
So that's how we can start, you know, these so-called epidemics can start.
And I think that explains it really well because today we have about, you know, 100 to 200 cases of the plague in the United States and no epidemics start.
And it's treated by antibiotics.
Why?
Because we don't have these unsanitary conditions.
Those bites are just like somebody got...
Bid by a squirrel or a rat.
And so that's my point.
So this is how it also explains what people perceive as infectious disease and we need to vaccinate for it.
No, we don't.
We just need the sanitary conditions.
Right, right.
Sort of the concept of pandemic.
But just to clarify, is it your thought that all the people who died had been sensitized by flea bites or rat bites and then they received a second exposure or later exposure?
Or did it start and then there was some kind of viral transmission or bacterial transmission?
I'm just trying to understand.
The viral or bacterial transmission actually has never been demonstrated.
So while the science today claims that there is direct...
Nobody has been able to demonstrate it in even a laboratory setting, even in caged animals.
When they do these so-called viral challenges, they either drown the animal in a solution to produce pneumonia or they inject them and sometimes directly into the brain to produce so-called viral challenges.
I mean, those are the tricks that they do.
But there are numerous and numerous research studies including long term, like 20 years long in the UK trying to produce the contagion directly human to human of even flu.
And they were not able to.
It's not possible to demonstrate.
Yeah, I'm right about that.
So your view based on this, Richer's theory and what's been demonstrated is that this is all sort of a sensitization and anaphylactic exposure issue.
It's not an infectious issue.
So the whole paradigm, not only vaccines suck, but the whole notion of pandemic as an infectious disease you think is misplaced.
It's completely misplaced.
And especially in the modern world, if you put the sanitary conditions in and you don't have cows living with you or pigs living with you in the same house, you shouldn't be worried about this.
I love it!
Is there anything else you want to blow our minds with right now?
Right.
So just to plant the seed, I mentioned Charles Richey Jr., his son, who became a doctor and wrote a book on food anaphylaxis.
So in his book and his summary, it's more like a collection of case studies.
As a physician, he was explaining, you know, there are people who are highly sensitized to eggs, for example.
And in his experience, it was mostly just ginormous egg allergies.
Which I suspect was because of the predominant vehicle that was used for vaccinations at the time was egg medium.
But he also summarized in his finding that they were trying to say that anaphylaxis can be precipitated by a food intolerance.
But they were, again, not able to demonstrate it in animal studies.
They've always demonstrated that you can inject animals and produce anaphylaxis, trigger it with food.
Have a food intolerance and then subsequently make it much worse with an injection.
So those two things, they demonstrated very well.
But the food causing food, they were never able to demonstrate.
The food, I'm not sure, what do you mean by the food causing food?
Well, so the theory is that, well, bad food may cause the same thing.
So you can just be, because of the processed food or, by the way, in the 30s, and these are French researchers, they were using only wholesome food, in fact, insisting on it.
So they're saying, well, if you have bad food, you can also create intolerance to weed.
It's because weed is sprayed, that's why we have gluten allergy.
Well, it turns out it's not true, at least.
These researchers have concerted effort and they were not able to demonstrate that.
Interesting, interesting.
Although I guess people might have sensitization to the glyphosate, the pest.
Yeah, glyphosate for sure.
But, you know, I kind of point out like my husband has gluten intolerance and he can't eat the organic pasta from Italy either.
Right, right, right.
It'll depend.
Well, thank you so much, Sasha, for joining us.
And you have an open invitation on the things that you think are important for us to learn about.
We're very grateful for your work.
Thank you.
▲
Export Selection