(0:00 - 1:23) We've seen the news, heard the reports, people who get COVID injections dropping dead within minutes. But what you didn't hear, in most cases, is that it was their second or third injection. These extreme adverse events almost never happen following the first injection. Why? And why do vaccine manufacturers recommend a waiting period of 21 days or more before taking a second shot? The answer may lie in startling new findings from researcher Sasha Latypova, who has been exposing the dangers of the COVID vaccine since the beginning, and with the research of the Nobel Prize-winning scientist Charles Rache, who over 100 years ago discovered anaphylaxis, or extreme allergic reactions. Why do vaccine manufacturers test their products on mice and rats? Why do they not do any long-term follow-up studies? Why do some people die from the injections while others develop lifelong health issues? Why do almost all SIDS babies die within days of a vaccine injection? The answers are all linked and revealed by Sasha's groundbreaking research. Sasha, welcome back to the show. (1:23 - 1:50) Thank you for inviting me. And I invited you because you wrote an excellent article that revealed something about the mRNA vaccines that, even though I was a paramedic when I was younger, it honestly had not occurred to me one of the major mechanisms of injury and the reason why it happened at the second shot, which is something that many doctors and scientists I've interviewed have said to me, and yet this is the first time I've seen really good evidence for why that's happening. Please explain it. (1:51 - 2:05) Uh, yeah, so I didn't know this either. And I think this information is suppressed on purpose for over 100 years now. They don't teach it in medical schools, they don't teach it to paramedics. (2:06 - 2:58) Anyone, if you ask a medical professional or just a regular person, are you familiar with the fact of anaphylaxis? Most people or most medical professionals will say, well, yeah, it's very rare sometimes, you know, somebody can react to, let's say, a bee sting or a jellyfish sting, and they can have this really quick drop of blood pressure and they may pass out. So, that's why we have EpiPens for people who have severe allergies and this may happen, right? So, that's about the story that you will be given. And I guarantee you, majority of medical professionals are completely unaware that in 1913, a Nobel Prize was given to a French researcher whose name was Charles Richet, and he did extensive research on anaphylaxis. (2:58 - 3:07) So, the Nobel Prize is for figuring out anaphylaxis. He wrote a book about it. It's available online. (3:08 - 3:33) I got it for free, downloaded it for free, I read it. And it's extremely eye-opening, because it turns out that anaphylaxis... He studied it first also in jellyfish and then in various toxins, including plant toxins. He was injecting dogs and figuring out, you know, what kinds of toxins was what. (3:34 - 4:03) And so, ultimately, he figured out that injecting any protein... He realized, I don't have to do toxins, because they're kind of hard to obtain, sometimes dangerous. And so, he ultimately realized that it's not necessary to have toxins injected. You can inject things that are considered safe to eat, such as food, regular food proteins, milk, soy, corn, gelatin, casein, which is a milk product. (4:04 - 4:24) And those are currently widely used in vaccines. The FDA designates them as GRAS, generally regarded as safe. And what's also interesting is, over time, food industry also developed a whole bunch of new molecules that are now GRASes. (4:25 - 4:48) And they're used both in food and in the vaccines. Now, again, everybody must understand, and this is also not taught in medical schools, usually avoided to be taught in medical schools, that injection of something and ingestion of the same thing are vastly different in terms of safety. So, you can safely consume snake poison, for example. (4:48 - 4:58) So, sucking out snake poison is a bush medicine. I don't recommend it, but it's been done safely. If you don't have abrasions in the mouth, it's possible to do. (4:58 - 5:13) So, you can ingest snake poison. You can ingest trace amounts of metals, and it's not a big problem. Your body will reassemble these proteins or just pass through the toxins, through your liver and kidneys, and you will get rid of them. (5:14 - 5:38) This happens with all proteins that we consume. Now, if you inject raw organic milk into somebody's bloodstream, you can kill them with anaphylaxis immediately, or you can set off a lifelong allergy, which is lactose intolerance. It's not benign, the allergy. (5:39 - 5:50) The food allergies, especially, are hard to detect. It takes decades to realize what you're allergic to. Over time, they destroy your digestive tract. (5:50 - 6:20) They cause dysbiosis, meaning replacement of beneficial bacteria with some other species, or just complete die-off. And that sets off downstream all kinds of other issues, such as metabolic problems, obesity, diabetes, cancers. Because your gut creates neurotransmitters, all sorts of Alzheimer's, dementia, Parkinson's, all those neurodegenerative diseases, they're also related to the gut and destruction of your gut. (6:20 - 6:35) On top of it, vaccinations continue, so people keep getting more and more vaccines. So, if maybe the first few didn't do it, eventually, something will do it. So, it's like a Russian roulette. (6:36 - 6:57) And so, now we have this chronic epidemic of obesity, diabetes, heart conditions, neurodegenerative cancers, even in younger people. And when it's so explosive in younger people, it's all vaccination-related. So, that's why it's so important to learn about Charles Richer, about his work. (6:57 - 7:11) And that's why I wrote this article, so that people can understand what's going on and stop vaccinating. And as you found, though, the timing of the injections is extremely important. I looked up the vaccine manufacturers' recommendations. (7:13 - 7:31) Pfizer-BioNTech says wait 21 days, Moderna 28 days, Novavax 3-8 weeks. But you discovered a very important point that was discovered, I believe, by Charles Richet, as to why that timing, specifically. Why 21 days and more? Yes, exactly. (7:31 - 7:44) So, Charles Richet discovered that interval. It's not always 21 days, but 21 days happens to be the most likely period of time. But usually, it's several weeks, usually. (7:45 - 8:04) From first injection to the second injection of the same toxin or protein. So, he did these experiments extensively, and he was injecting different types of toxins and observing. So, observing when that really severe anaphylaxis reacts. (8:04 - 8:16) So, he said first, he would inject some kind of a protein. And then the animal in the first injection may have a mild reaction or not even react at all. So, they may have nothing. (8:17 - 8:41) And then, after 21 days, typically, if he injected in some of the animals, but not all, in some, it's usually a percentage, something like 10 to 15%. So, some of them would develop extreme severe reactions, even to a very, very minute dose of the same protein. So, in the first reaction, it was a larger dose. (8:42 - 9:04) The second reaction, even a tiny, tiny minute dose would set off this huge, huge anaphylactic shock or illness, and some of them would die. And this was found with all vaccinations at that time. He also even writes about other attempts at vaccinations for anthrax in animals. (9:04 - 9:23) He reported the same issue. So, about 10 to 15% of them died because of the anaphylactic reactions. He even reported that at the same time, different researchers were attempting this on themselves, and some of them killed themselves with this method. (9:25 - 9:46) And that actually continued. So, it's not just in 1913, and they stopped doing it. A lot of these vaccine-crazy obsessed scientists, in fact, there are documented examples where they killed their children, grandchildren, and still did not recant and continue to do the same. (9:47 - 9:58) Peter Hotez currently, well, he poisoned his daughter. She has autism from vaccines, and he's super pro-vax. Okay, so that's a very typical attitude amongst these people. (9:58 - 10:08) They're insane. Unfortunately, they have a lot of power and money, and so they act on their insanity. But we need to understand exactly what's going on here. (10:09 - 10:23) So, why are the COVID vaccines so much more dangerous? You've got some statistics here. I believe they're from VAERS. Of the 12,000 anaphylactic reactions that were reported, 11,000 of those came from the mRNA shots. (10:24 - 10:53) Yeah, so this is, I think it's, I would say, yes, they are much more dangerous than traditional vaccines because they also contain all kinds of novel technologies. And as I said before, the reason the manufacturers wanted 21 days between two injections is because they want to document this. And mRNA platform was new in humans. (10:53 - 11:04) It wasn't used in humans before. And so, all they wanted to do, they knew they were going to set off deaths and injury, massive deaths and injury. They knew, absolutely knew. (11:04 - 11:26) There was no question about it. All they wanted to do is document how much anaphylaxis they're causing in immediate release so that then they would try to dial it back, dilute, do whatever. So, later on, we find that not as many anaphylactic reactions are recorded for the initial wave. (11:27 - 11:38) So, they just needed to document how many people are having this reaction. That's all. They knew that this is going to happen. (11:39 - 12:00) It's just the effect of the novelty of the platform. And possibly these synthetic lipids, so we're still thinking, what is the anaphylactizing agent? Unfortunately, these shots are completely unregulated. Legally, manufacturers can put anything they want in them. (12:00 - 12:07) They can be legally adulterated. And misbranded. And everybody can also legally lie about it. (12:07 - 12:27) This is how U.S. law is written, the EUA countermeasures law, which applies to these shots. And under PrEP Act immunity, everybody's also protected from what I said, adulterating, misbranding, putting straight poison into it. So, it's very hard to figure out what exactly is causing this. (12:28 - 12:44) It could be different types of reactions. There are bacterial contaminants and the toxins in them. There are these synthetic lipids can cause this huge autoimmunity too, maybe because they're cross-reacting with your own lipids. (12:46 - 13:05) The PEG, polyethylene glycol, it's known anaphylactizing agent. And it's part of the shots. So, there are many... Also, I published on this, in direct vial testing, there was a lot of protein found. (13:06 - 13:18) I don't know what kind of protein, probably different types of proteins. But there's so much of it that when protein is separated from the content of the vial, it's visible. You can see the chunk of white matter. (13:19 - 13:41) So, it's a massive amount of protein. And as I said, injecting any protein directly into bloodstream will cause anaphylaxis. Right. And when talking about proteins, of course, mRNA is a protein. We know from the work of Dr. Kevin McKernan and others have since verified it that there's a huge amount of DNA in there, also protein. There are proteins that support the whole thing, that are part of the colloidal suspension. (13:42 - 13:57) And we can talk about that in a minute. So, this, myself, having been a paramedic, I can tell people from my own experience that this is an explanation for the people who take a second shot and drop dead within minutes. But as you said, it doesn't necessarily kill you. (13:57 - 14:03) It can also cause severe problems. It disrupts the gut biome. It's going to cause all sorts of issues as a result of that. (14:03 - 15:02) So, what I'm curious about is, since it appears that this is very intentional, this 21 days or more, are you aware of the vaccine manufacturers doing any long-term follow-up studies to track the other possible reactions that could be caused by anaphylaxis? Um, I doubt it's vaccine manufacturers doing that because they would be very concerned with having a record internally that they were doing it. And, you know, so what pharma companies have very extensive internal systems and processes to avoid discovery down the line, even though they are right now, as of now, fully protected by the PrEP Act liability shield, they're always nervous about the, you know, future possibilities. And they, yeah, as I said, they always want to avoid discovery. (15:02 - 15:34) So they don't do studies if they're not obligated to do studies. And in this case, even interestingly, they were, in theory, obligated to do additional post-marketing studies. So both on FDA side and European Medicines Agency, where the shots went on the market, regulators wrote up a bunch of studies, post-marketing commitments that Pfizer and Moderna and others had to do. (15:35 - 15:50) And these commitments were never fulfilled. They were simply abandoned. And so that tells me that even in this case, pharmas don't feel, are not planning to do anything, even when the regulators write it up and say, you should do it, they abandon it. (15:50 - 15:56) And regulators are not enforcing it. Yes. But they have enforcement power, but they're not doing anything. (15:56 - 16:12) So this tells me it's coming from the regulators. And maybe the U.S. government is tracking it because the U.S. government has a bunch of databases that are secret, only available to them. We only have access to theirs. (16:14 - 16:40) Regulators have about a dozen different databases that I know of, and then there are private data sets. So I'm sure they are tracking the long-term effects, but for their purposes, this is not being made public and the public is still being lied to. Now you talked about avoiding discovery, and that brings me to the question about why they use mice and rats to do much of the testing. (16:41 - 17:15) Why they use mice and rats? Well, so it turns out mice and rats are not prone to anaphylaxis. And well, mice and rats are used for all sorts of preclinical research, not just on the vaccines, on pretty much anything for reasons of, well, they're cheap and plentiful and nobody really cares about them deeply. But yes, in the question of anaphylaxis, they're a very interesting choice because they are not prone to it. (17:16 - 17:33) And so you can study something and say, oh, I have no problem here, and proceed knowing that you will induce anaphylaxis in humans. Right. Now you might not know the answer to this question, but it occurs to me talking about the mice and the rats and why they frequently use those, as you said, they're not prone to anaphylaxis. (17:33 - 17:41) So that's not going to show up in the tests. But then there was the study that was done with ferrets. Now I can't remember how many ferrets were there, 17 or something like that. (17:41 - 17:55) They gave them the vaccines and then they exposed them to COVID afterwards. And all of the ferrets died. Now, the reason that sometimes researchers use ferrets happen to know this is that their immune systems are very, very similar to ours. (17:56 - 18:12) They can catch human colds, for example, they can spread and pass them back to us. But here's the thing that's just suddenly occurred to me now is of why they all died. The COVID virus itself is a protein. (18:13 - 18:52) Yeah, it's a protein. Now, it's not being injected, but it still gets into the bloodstream. So do you think it's possible that one of the mechanisms of injury that killed all those ferrets was that, in fact, when they got infected with the virus, that gave them an anaphylactic reaction? Exactly. It's quite possible. Also, I haven't read that study in a long time or closely, so it's interesting if... And it's been scrubbed from the internet, so it's very hard to find now. So it would be interesting to read the methodology section and see how exactly they did the viral challenge. (18:52 - 19:26) So when they do a viral challenge, it's a known thing that transmission animal to animal is almost impossible to obtain even in the caged animals that are close to each other. So typically, in these studies, what they do to do the viral challenge, they will spray them in the nose and throat with solution, which basically drowns them and creates pneumonia, or they will actually inject them. But in either case, yes, you're right, it's just the fact that they died, so they're calling it vaccine-enhanced disease. (19:26 - 19:38) Vaccine-enhanced disease, I mean, it's maybe another euphemism for anaphylactic shock. So this is very difficult to untangle. And yeah, and ferrets, exactly. (19:38 - 19:49) Like ferrets, it's a different animal model, and they do have these reactions. And guess what? They are not used, only mice and rats. Right. (19:49 - 20:15) So I want to get away, just not specifically the mRNA vaccines in this case, but you were talking earlier about some of the results of these anaphylactic reactions that can cause lifelong problems, allergies, things like that. And we've got babies today that are receiving some 70-plus vaccines. And what we've seen, and everybody knows this, is that there's been a huge increase in things like allergies, especially things like peanut allergies. (20:16 - 20:27) So it's certainly appearing that this could be the cause. Absolutely, absolutely. The cause of all food allergies today, these massive food allergies, is vaccination. (20:27 - 20:42) There's no other reason for it. It's because kids have been, several generations now, have been injected repeatedly with different food proteins. So the peanut oil causes peanut allergy. (20:42 - 20:54) When it was identified in the 80s, in Merck's vaccines, it wasn't removed. It was renamed into Adjuvant 64, something like that. So they just rename it and continue injecting peanut oil. (20:55 - 21:10) Or they'll switch to another oil. They also cross-react with other nut oils, which is similar in structure. So people have walnut allergies as well, or just general tree nut allergies. (21:11 - 21:24) The gluten allergy is because all of these things contain albumins. And albumins are derived from, usually from wheat, but sometimes from other cereals. So that's why we have, and they can cross-react. (21:24 - 21:38) That's why we have gluten, corn, soy, rice allergy. And none of them existed 100 years ago, or even 50 years ago. When I was growing up, I didn't know about a single person who had a peanut allergy. (21:38 - 21:53) And this is the same experience with anybody our age. I read historical books, literature describing food, different parties, how to set up the parties. Everything is full of bread. (21:53 - 22:02) Everything is bread-based. And we know everybody was skinny, and nobody had gluten allergy. This is not a consideration at all. (22:03 - 22:11) Yeah, right. When we were kids, it was rare for somebody to be overweight. If there was a fat kid in class, they usually got made fun of because it was so unusual. (22:12 - 22:21) Yeah. To see anybody overweight when we were kids. And guess what? This is the French girl mystery, why French women eat croissants and are always skinny. (22:21 - 22:29) Well, they're catching up with us now. Because before, they were very much behind on over-vaccinating everyone. And that's the reason. (22:29 - 22:44) And that's the secret of a French woman and why she's skinny while eating croissants. So it's a double whammy then. We've got people who are being given these horrible conditions from the vaccines that they're receiving as kids. (22:44 - 22:56) And then we're combining that with the manufactured food diet, which is full of all of these toxins that's setting off the anaphylactic reaction, which is causing, once again, more problems. Exactly. Exactly. (22:56 - 23:24) So yes, the vaccination and food go hand in hand because once you've set off anaphylaxis to whatever protein or a family of proteins, and the person doesn't know it because it's mild or very difficult to sort of bizarre symptoms and hard to detect. Or especially in kids, if your baby is a small baby and you've created that state of anaphylaxis or allergy, well, they can't tell you. They're crying. (23:24 - 23:40) You don't know why they have diarrhea, they have rash, but you can't figure out why. In the meantime, all this food now, even the organic varieties of it, is permanent poison to them. Well, it's going to be. (23:40 - 23:47) It has to be. If they've been injected in such a way that it's given them this anaphylactic reaction. So now they've got an allergy to these proteins. (23:48 - 24:01) The explanation right there of why so many people today can't drink milk, can't handle refined grains. Well, because there's proteins in there. And you've just mentioned they use these same proteins in the injections. (24:02 - 24:10) So there's your explanation. That's the explanation. So the food becomes, even the good food becomes poison to these people. (24:10 - 24:15) And it doesn't matter if it's organic because it still has those proteins in it. Yeah. Yeah, whether organic or not. (24:15 - 24:27) Now, I'm not saying so. So there's also like big outcry, well, processed foods need to be, it's all need to be regulated, all need to be banned, blah, blah, blah. Because of the, because that's how we're going to fix the chronic disease epidemic. (24:27 - 24:46) That's not, you're not going to fix it. You know, it's better not to eat processed foods. But I also very highly caution people, if the last four years were any lesson to you, that was when other people thought that they can dictate to you your choices in health. (24:46 - 24:55) Okay. And now you're doing it to, you're saying I can dictate to others their choices in food. Please resist that. (24:55 - 25:07) Because this road with good intentions, it's paved and it goes to hell. Yes. The hell of complete government, totalitarian control over your health and over your food. (25:08 - 25:28) So that's what we need to collectively resist. And we need to stop the source of chronic illness, which is vaccination. And then we, yes, I like, you know, you should educate about good food choices, but in no way should you force others, you know, to choose whatever food you think is better for you. (25:28 - 25:41) Because that's just, it's just bad. And I have to agree completely, even though I'm a person, and if my viewers know this, I harp constantly on the manufactured foods diet, but there's no way the government should be telling people don't eat that. No, no, no. (25:41 - 25:52) We should educate them and they can make their own decisions about what they're putting in their body. Because as you say, that's a very slippery slope. As soon as you let some regulatory agency start dictating, well, that's a disaster in the making. (25:53 - 26:16) Now, there was something that was very interesting that I found in what you wrote, and it had to do with Charles Richet and his findings. And I've stated many times, I absolutely do believe in viruses, but there are some viewers who do not. And it was very interesting that terms like virus, toxin, poison, they were used interchangeably in Richet's work. (26:16 - 26:31) We saw them all as the same thing. Because they are the same thing. So yeah, so virus, especially when you read Richet's book, he originally, when he started working on his research, he needed to make a toxin from which to start. (26:32 - 26:53) So originally he went on an expedition on Prince of Monaco's yacht to study men of war, which is a very dangerous jellyfish. When he returned, that was hard to obtain. And so he found sea anemone tentacles, dissolved them in glycerin, and called it virus or vaccinaria. (26:54 - 27:05) Because virus meant toxin at the time. And so that was proper scientific. And then later on, he'd figured out that proteins are toxins too. (27:05 - 27:37) So as far as belief in viruses. Now, to believe or not believe in viruses, the sequencing of some biological matter and finding that it contains a certain set of amino acids in a certain sequence, it does not prove the existence of viruses. It's just a way... Actually, it's a result of a very unscientific diagnostic that we're now learning more about, this PCR testing. (27:39 - 27:50) But toxins definitely exist. We know that. So plant toxins exist, chemically have been studied, investigated, and studied in experiments. (27:51 - 28:03) And historically, so that's what it is. It's a toxin when it gets into your bloodstream. And that's what they've been called, started calling viruses. (28:05 - 28:14) But that's okay. You can believe in viruses, not believe in viruses. I can deal with whichever person and it doesn't trigger me. (28:15 - 28:46) What I am strongly objecting to is claiming that these viruses are causative agents of infectious disease, especially in the form of pandemics. So I strongly object to that because pandemics never existed in the history of mankind. Pandemic is an outbreak of the same disease in an entire globe or several large geographic areas like North America, South America, and Africa simultaneously. (28:46 - 29:05) That has never happened. So they don't exist. Now people are claiming that these viruses can either naturally evolve or be engineered in labs and then go immediately all over the world and cause illness everywhere. (29:05 - 29:10) That's BS. That doesn't happen. So something else is going on. (29:11 - 29:28) Well, and let's talk about the something else because that's an excellent segue into, once again, Charles Richet's work and let's talk about the Black Death, which most people would define as a pandemic, but Richet had a theory that it wasn't necessarily a virus that was causing it. That wasn't Richet's theory, actually. That's mine. (29:28 - 29:41) So after reading Charles Richet, that became clear to me that that's what it was. Now, again, the Black Death or the plague wasn't a pandemic either. It was never a pandemic. (29:41 - 29:53) It was an outbreak of illness, specifically in crowded European cities. And it would happen every so often over a few years. Again, in crowded European cities. (29:53 - 30:16) It did not exist where people had access to pure water and it wasn't polluted and where they didn't have raw sewage right next to the living quarters. Okay, so if those two things are removed, Black Death disappears. And by the way, the plague, as far as the bacteria, it's also bacterial. (30:17 - 30:23) It's not viral. And bacteria do exist and they produce toxins. It's like it's their excrement. (30:24 - 30:44) So this particular bacteria, Yersinia pestis, which is, by the way, present in the gut flora of numerous people, safely. Okay, so there are people, and actually I know some personally, who have it in their gut. And there's no problem. (30:44 - 31:02) There's no Black Death. We also have cases of infection of Yersinia pestis in the U.S., about 200 a year, usually in western states due to rodent bites. And again, we don't have Black Death pandemic in the United States. (31:02 - 31:21) It's just CDC tracks these instances where somebody was bit by a squirrel and got this infection. And it's treatable by antibiotics. So that's why I'm saying it's not any mysterious virus that causes pandemics. (31:22 - 32:03) It was due to lack of sanitation in the Middle Ages, in these crowded cities like London, like Amsterdam, Paris, and where raw sewage was flowing in the streets, especially Amsterdam with the canals, and where the domestic animals were living in the same buildings with humans in small crowded conditions, and there was no plumbing. There were outhouses next to kitchens. So all of the conditions set up such that the rats that are infesting all this, and fleas that they carry, carry common proteins to this community derived from sewage. (32:04 - 32:26) So people's guts contain bacteria, and now these rats carry those proteins, and now they bite people. And so you have anaphylaxis to your own bacteria that you have in your gut. And that's how these what appears to be infectious pandemics develop. (32:26 - 32:33) And they're not pandemics, outbreaks, epidemics. The same with cholera. Also, it's a bacterial disease, also related to water. (32:35 - 32:52) And that's the explanation for these. There are other carriers of this thing. So for example, horse flies, because horse manure was a big problem in cities, even in the late 1800s. (32:52 - 33:07) New York City, for example, the rapidly growing cities where the only form of transportation is horses. So manure is everywhere. They had a huge problem removing it and putting it somewhere and dumping it into the bay, where then it grows algae. (33:08 - 33:22) Like it's a huge problem. And that was solved by inventing cars. Now, while that was happening, of course, we had different other typhus, dysentery, because manure gets into the water. (33:23 - 33:31) Horse flies get into the buildings. There was no air conditioning, so windows are open. Flies fly in, bite children especially. (33:31 - 33:41) Mosquitoes, the same. They also carry these common proteins and that's source of malaria and other. The smallpox, that's how it spread. (33:41 - 33:55) So you have to think about these vectors. Feeding off of some sort of a sewer and then biting people and introducing these toxins and proteins into their bloodstream. That's the way it spreads. (33:55 - 34:09) It's not your random flying viral particle that you inhaled and now you have a global pandemic. That's what the propagandists want you to think. That's what the biodefense cartel wants you to think because they're profiteering off of this. (34:10 - 34:18) Well, of course, if it's a virus, then they can give you a vaccine against it. If it's just something that's environmental, they can't do anything about that. So there's no money in it. (34:19 - 34:41) Yeah, because if you have modern plumbing and sanitation, you don't have these things. And so how are they going to profit now? And how are they going to fearmonger you and drive you into self-destruction and drive you into like bagging them to take the power and control away from you? I mean, all of this is just about that. Yes, and that's everything you've just said. (34:41 - 35:03) Anybody can go look up charts online that will show the decline in things like polio and tuberculosis, and it tracks exactly with the increase in sanitation. And yes, in no way correlates to vaccines. No, vaccines were introduced after all of these diseases went down by over 90 percent, like 95, 98 percent. (35:03 - 35:15) They went down because, yes, plumbing, sanitation was introduced everywhere. And then they roll out these vaccines. And guess what? The only source of polio is polio vaccine. (35:16 - 35:25) There is no other polio. Yes, and in fact, that happened recently. I believe in the U.S., there was a case of a child who contracted polio, and then they later confirmed, no, it was from the vaccine. (35:27 - 35:46) Yeah, the same in India and where Bill Gates uses for experiments. It's known everywhere there. You read the press in India, and they describe these cases where Bill Gates gives some grants to vaccinate yet another village, and now we have outbreak of polio. (35:46 - 35:56) Yeah, and recently they vaccinated tens of thousands of children in Gaza. Oh, yeah. Once again, a child came down with polio, but they confirmed later, no, it was caused by the vaccine. (35:56 - 36:05) It's vaccine. Yes. Now, how does all of the, I mean, we've known this for a long time, that there's a whole bunch of heavy metals in these vaccines as well. (36:06 - 36:33) How does that exacerbate the problem? Yeah, so the heavy metals, that's also always been there. So they've been using aluminum as an adjuvant and mercury, and they're still doing it, even though there's been several scandals and they pretended like they removed these things. But as I said, they just renamed them into something else and reintroduced them later on, and it just continues. (36:34 - 36:53) So the aluminum mercury for sure was known. Then there are in the COVID, that's in all kinds of vaccines. In the COVID shots, somebody did a pretty good research study, I think it was in Argentina, testing numerous vials, and they found 55 plus different heavy metals, including radioactive metals, the rare metals. (36:55 - 37:39) And so all of this is hugely problematic because especially when it's in a nanoparticular form, so very fine particles of these metals, they can travel and they can be trafficked, especially trafficked by the lipid nanoparticles, all over the body in different organs and into the brain. And that's one of the mechanisms known now, pretty well studied, of causing autism with the traditional vaccines. I talked to this Italian researcher, Antonietta Gatti, and she is one of the nanomaterial experts who have looked into this. (37:40 - 37:56) It's very difficult to do research in it. It gets suppressed and funding gets removed all the time. But she was able to, in Europe, obtain autopsy slides or autopsy samples from babies who died of SIDS. (37:56 - 38:03) And in practically all cases, she found aluminum in their brain. And these are new. Yeah. (38:03 - 38:10) So how did aluminum get there? Right. And it came from the vaccine. But then now we have another possible explanation for SIDS with these anaphylactic reactions. (38:11 - 38:24) And I'm sure you know these statistics as well. We've now got several sources to show that with SIDS, 50% of the deaths occur within 48 hours of a vaccine and 70% within one week. Yes. (38:25 - 38:33) And that would make perfect sense. I mean, I had never thought of it before. As possibly a result of an anaphylactic reaction. (38:34 - 38:44) But that would certainly explain putting a child who seems perfectly healthy into their crib at night and you come back a few hours later and they're dead. Exactly. Exactly. (38:44 - 38:56) SIDS in modern times is vaccine-induced deaths. And they all happen after a well-child visit. Show me SIDS before a child went to the pediatrician. (38:57 - 39:04) Yes. Same with autism. I'd like to see a child who developed autism and did not go to the pediatrician beforehand. (39:05 - 39:11) Well, that's another one that was unheard of when we were young. I mean... Oh, yeah. Autism? What's that? You didn't even know what it was. (39:11 - 39:33) I didn't know. I didn't know what it was or it existed until I got to the US and I saw a Rain Man movie. And I was like, what is this? What does he have? You know? When I was a child, the only kid in school or kid I ever met who had a mental challenge was a kid with Down syndrome, which of course is genetic. (39:33 - 39:40) So that's, you know, something completely different. Apples and oranges. But autism? I didn't hear about autism until I was raising children. (39:41 - 39:48) Yeah. I mean, I'm also thinking that Down syndrome is probably because of vaccination of mothers. Okay. (39:48 - 39:57) Maybe, you know, it was associated with older mothers. So there should be some more resurgence to that. But again, they never look into vaccines as cause of anything. (39:58 - 40:04) So yeah. But yeah. So I also only knew of one kid with a very mild Down syndrome. (40:04 - 40:08) That's it. Nobody with food allergies. Nobody obese. (40:09 - 40:16) Autism wasn't a thing at all. You know, no children with cancer. That's another one. (40:16 - 40:24) It's 100% vaccination. Children having cancer is 100% vaccination. Now children having strokes and heart attacks well, of course, it's COVID vaccines. (40:25 - 40:31) Yes. And then they run ad campaigns to say that it's normal for kids to have strokes. You must be kidding me. (40:31 - 40:41) You know, that certainly never happened when we were kids. And I was a paramedic 40 years ago. And if you would ever suggested to a paramedic 40 years ago that it was normal for a child to have a stroke, they would have laughed at you. (40:41 - 41:08) Yeah. But they are normalizing this, as we speak, rapidly through all sorts of media, not just social media and, let's say, news stories. But if you look at just entertainment shows on Netflix, even, you know, the ones that are sort of like not very woke, you think, but they contain, all of them contain normalization of the fact that death is at any age. (41:08 - 41:22) So I've watched one show recently, actually several, where this was the same. Yeah, actually three shows recently, I remember. In a group of people, 10 people of various ages, there are four cases of cancer. (41:23 - 41:41) How likely is that? There's the mythology kind of scene of the afterlife and, you know, kind of people who died now, like gathering together. They're a normal crowd. Same representation as you walk out on the street. (41:41 - 41:47) You have the same representation there. It's not just old people. It's all like young people, children. (41:48 - 42:01) Yes, and when we were kids, the only times I ever heard of a child dying, it was an accident. Yes, it was an accident. Yeah, and now they're normalizing. (42:01 - 42:06) It's like crazy. So everybody has cancer. Any age doesn't matter. (42:06 - 42:16) Everybody's dead. Any age doesn't matter. Then they're normalizing killing younger people and children for the greater good, for the ideas of the greater good. (42:17 - 42:28) You know, that's agenda going on right now. Now, there's a conclusion to be drawn here. And I know it's going to seem very obvious to the viewers, but I think we have to flesh it out. (42:29 - 42:55) Knowing this now, adding this to all the other information we've had about these vaccines, the conclusion that you drew is there's no such thing as a safe vaccine because of all these things that are in them and the mechanisms of action. And it doesn't, even if you took out all the heavy metals and the aluminum and the mercury, you still don't have a safe vaccine because of the potential for anaphylaxis. Exactly, exactly. (42:55 - 43:01) That's my point. That's my criticism to people on our side and respectful criticism. I'm not saying they're bad people. (43:01 - 43:31) I'm just saying you are overlooking something for the reason that this something was suppressed. And that's the fact that it's not possible. So, if we had an honest scientific and medical community, then they would have stopped attempts at vaccination after Charles Richet was awarded the Nobel Prize because that definitively tells you it's not possible to vaccinate at all because you're always going to hurt a very large percentage of the population. (43:31 - 43:42) And it's unacceptable. And as we know, vaccines prevented no diseases. They were rolled out after all these diseases were eliminated by plumbing and sanitation. (43:43 - 43:58) So, that's my point. There's nothing to prevent in the modern sanitary conditions. And you cannot vaccinate with injection because injection will hurt a huge amount of people. (44:00 - 44:18) Now, there are medications for anaphylaxis, for allergic reactions. Now, the ones that people are really familiar with, the EpiPens, that doesn't actually deal with the anaphylaxis itself. It treats the symptom of the bronchial passages closing up, and it opens them up again so that person doesn't suffocate to death. (44:18 - 44:40) But I think there are some medications that are supposed to alleviate symptoms of allergies. I mean, Sudafed, for example. Do you think that it might be any benefit to people who are suffering these long-term impacts from the vaccines of trying something like that, or that's just not really the same thing? It's not the same thing. (44:41 - 45:03) So, the major problem with this is, while we know overall the mechanism, the anaphylaxis autoimmune attack reaction against your own body now, or against the proteins that you're consuming or being exposed to, that's a general statement. In each individual case, you don't know exactly what they're reacting to. So, because people are so different. (45:04 - 45:27) And sometimes it, you know... So, that's why, overall, to vaccine-injured, my message is treat it as an autoimmune attack, as if you, you know, it's kind of like... Actually, Dr. Mike Eden has a good analogy. It's like an organ rejection with transplant. And it's the same type of reaction. (45:27 - 45:42) So, you have to treat it as an autoimmune disease and try different methods that have been used for autoimmune disease. None of them are curative. You may be able to manage your symptoms. (45:44 - 45:53) You may... Also, another avenue to try is improving your gut biome. And it's a difficult thing to do. It takes a long time. (45:53 - 46:04) But improving, sort of, gut health and gut bacteria. There are a few researchers in this area. One is Dr. Sabine Hazen. (46:05 - 46:15) She's published and she actually... Like, her paper is now... I'm sorry, I'm smiling because I'm interviewing Dr. Hazen in about an hour. Oh, yeah, say hi. I am big fan with her. (46:15 - 46:34) And I have interviewed her and I've written up on several of her hypothesis papers. Now, so, her papers, her funding gets whacked, withdrawn by NIH and Bill Gates' organizations are after her. And now, like, the papers that have been published are also being retracted. (46:35 - 46:49) And it's just... It's nonsense. But she has demonstrated, I think, a very interesting thing that in COVID-injected, the Bifida bacteria is killed off. And so, if you can restore it... But this is different. (46:49 - 46:59) She'll tell you it's difficult to do. But if you can work on it and somehow help restore it, you will be better. You will be better off. (47:00 - 47:24) Again, I don't want to sell false hope. From what I've read so far, the state of, you know, anaphylaxis or allergy, if induced by injection, is permanent. I think what happens over time, some people may... If you stop other injections and you work on your health, you may, over time, get to a place where it's, you know, no big deal for you and you almost recover. (47:24 - 47:35) I think that's achievable. Now, as far as completely eliminating it or telling you exactly what you can do, you can't, because each individual case is very different. Yes. (47:35 - 47:44) And I think that you might be right about that. For example, I've long had a theory that we are all lactose intolerant. It's just that most of us have such a small reaction to it that we don't really notice it. (47:45 - 48:07) So hopefully we can get many of these injected people to that point where, okay, it's there, but it's not really affecting them. I want to take a bit of a left turn to talk about something else that you recently published on, and that is... And I myself have even given some credence to this from the images I've seen. We've all seen these supposedly self-replicating nanostructures in the vaccines, but you have a different explanation for that. (48:09 - 48:24) Right. So I've seen the images, my main criticism of it, number one, people who are showing you the images and saying it's nanobots. First of all, they're saying nano by showing you microscopy images. (48:24 - 48:35) It's thousands times larger. They're not showing you nano, they're showing you micro. If we're talking about the scale of nano, then we're talking about something that's massive. (48:36 - 48:43) Yeah. So the scale is completely different, orders of magnitude different. You can't claim nano by showing microscopy. (48:44 - 48:57) Second of all, as I said, nanoparticles and nanomaterials exist. Nanostructures can precipitate or what they say is self-assembly. It's chemistry. (48:57 - 49:11) Chemistry is self-assembly. Organic chemistry, that's what it does. So yeah, there is some process that under a microscope will look like it's assembling some kind of a precipitate, some kind of a structure. (49:11 - 49:35) It can be, you know, there are different types of these structures. And I've written on it and I said, just this is a contaminant and just based on having some blob in a vial is a reason to withdraw this whole product from the market, or at least withdraw this lot of the vaccine where this is found from the market. And that has never been done. (49:35 - 49:42) I always talked about that. Now, people are saying it's nanobots. They are microcircuits. (49:42 - 49:59) They are antennas and they connect you to the internet. Okay, that's total nonsense. Because first of all, it's a narrative designed by Ray Kurzweil, who wrote Singularity is Near and recently he said Singularity is Near and we're going to be connected to the internet. (49:59 - 50:04) We're going to have these nanobots. We're going to live forever. We're going to be uploaded to the cloud. (50:05 - 50:29) I mean, it's all kinds of sci-fi bullshit that was funded by Google, millions of dollars. And I think his timeline passed and then this year he published another book and said Singularity is Nearer and pushed it out to like 2035. So, okay, it's a narrative similar to Scientology, actually. (50:30 - 50:50) And it's designed for the same reason, to get people confused, to get people to follow it because it's interesting. And the propagandists are most of the time worried about keeping your attention. Not necessarily the topic of, but just making sure that you are occupied by them. (50:51 - 51:09) And when necessary, then they can direct you where they need to. But I advise people to be very, very mindful of what you're consuming on the internet. Because this kind of nonsense, while it's fascinating and interesting and entertaining, you may be following propagandists. (51:10 - 51:19) But I tell you, from a technologist's standpoint, no nanobots or antennas or circuits or anything is in these vials. It's a nano junk. It's dangerous. (51:19 - 51:30) All of it is dangerous. Don't inject it. And to add to what you've just said, Sasha, it can't be a receiver, a Wi-Fi receiver, because Wi-Fi signals don't pass through water. (51:31 - 51:39) And the body is mostly water. So there's no way to get the signal to it, even if it was a receiver. Yeah, there's so many problems with it. (51:39 - 51:58) So, you know, they say, oh, it's a microcircuit. And people who are familiar with semiconductors are saying, no, this is like way, it's not even possible. Then, of course, you need to have a power source for it to be always on and connected to the internet and like receiving and sending the signal. (51:58 - 52:17) And then you have to have software, you have to have, you know, all kinds of other accessories, memory, like none of it's possible in human body. So I believe your theory then is that these structures that we're seeing are actually just lipids possibly assembling into crystals. It's possibly lipids. (52:17 - 52:58) So I published, this is not mine, a German researcher, Anne Ulrich, and she was published in the peer-reviewed journal and a very extensive paper explaining the chemistry, which I thought, well, it's very well written, clear to understand for even for lay audience. And so I was like, well, here, people, here's one of the explanations that makes sense to me, that this could be this lipid assembling into this larger structures. And yeah, so whatever it is, as I said, because again, because of the multitude of things that are there, they can be reacting, cross-reacting into different structures. (53:00 - 53:10) But overall, it's not a nanobot. Right. Now, returning to the anaphylaxis, I've asked you quite a number of questions and you've given really excellent answers. (53:10 - 53:27) You've clearly done your homework. Is there anything you feel that we've missed that the viewers should know about this? So I advise everyone to read Charles Richet's work in the original. It's not a very large book, even though it's 300 pages, but very small format. (53:27 - 53:38) So it's a small book. And see for yourself. I also published several excellent articles from other people. (53:38 - 53:48) Weston Price Foundation is another place which I advise people to follow. Yeah, Weston Price ancillary report. I've referred to both of them. (53:49 - 54:12) And so Solari.com, Weston Price Foundation, both of these organizations publish a lot of information on how to improve your health, how to deal with this kind of injury, especially Weston Price on nutrition. And avoid all injections of proteins directly into the bloodstream. So that's my number one. (54:12 - 54:29) And even the case shot that they give to the children in the hospitals and to newborns should not be done. They don't need it. And again, it's a vector of introducing these proteins and creating all sorts of problems down the line. (54:30 - 54:39) Okay. Sasha, thank you so much for your time today and for the excellent research you continue to do. Folks, as always, there will be a link beneath this interview to Sasha's writings. (54:40 - 54:41) Thank you so much. Thank you for inviting me.