(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 Richet, 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, a 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 - 4:28) 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, and they're used both in food and in the vaccines. (4:28 - 4:50) 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. So, sucking out snake poison is a bush medicine. (4:50 - 5:00) 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. So, you can ingest snake poison. (5:00 - 5:17) 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. This happens with all proteins that we consume. (5:18 - 5:43) 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. The food allergies, especially, are hard to detect. (5:43 - 6:08) It takes decades to realize what you're allergic to. Over time, they destroy your digestive tract, 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. (6:09 - 6:34) 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. 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. (6:34 - 6:51) So, it's like a Russian roulette. Okay, 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. (6:52 - 7:11) So, that's why it's so important to learn about Charles Richet, about his work, 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 - 7:33) 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. So, Charles Richet discovered that interval. (7:34 - 7:51) 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. So, from first injection to the second injection of the same toxin or protein. (7:52 - 8:14) So, he did these experiments extensively, and he was injecting different types of toxins and observing. So, observing when that really severe anaphylaxis reacts. 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. (8:15 - 8:39) So, they may have nothing. 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. (8:39 - 8:56) So, in the first reaction, it was a larger dose. 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. (8:57 - 9:10) He also even writes about other attempts at vaccinations for anthrax in animals. He reported the same issue. So, about 10 to 15% of them died because of the anaphylactic reactions. (9:11 - 9:31) He even reported that, at the same time, different researchers were attempting this on themselves, and some of them killed themselves with this method. And that actually continued. So, it's not just in 1913, and they stopped doing it. (9:31 - 9:58) 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. 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 - 10:55) 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, because they want to document this. And mRNA platform was new in humans, it wasn't used in humans before. (10:56 - 11:20) And so, all they wanted to do, they knew they were going to set off death and injury, massive death and injury. They knew, absolutely knew, there was no question about it. All they wanted to do is document how much anaphylaxis they're causing in the immediate release, so that then they would, you know, try to dial it back, dilute, do whatever. (11:20 - 11:38) So, later on, we find that not as many anaphylactic reactions are recorded for the initial wave. So, they just needed to document how many people are having this reaction. That's all, they were not, like, they knew that this is going to happen. (11:39 - 12:07) You know, it's just the effect of the novelty of the platform. And possibly these synthetic lipids, so we're still thinking, you know, what is the anaphylactizing agent? Unfortunately, these shots are completely unregulated, legally, manufacturers can put anything they want in them. 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, you know, 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. These synthetic lipids can cause this huge autoimmunity too, maybe because they're cross-reacting with your own lipids. (12:47 - 13:16) The PEG, polyethylene glycol, it's known anaphylactizing agent, and it's part of the shots. Also, I published on this, in direct vial testing, there was a lot of protein found. 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. (13:16 - 13:26) You can see the chunk of white matter. So, it's a massive amount of protein. And as I said, injecting any protein directly into bloodstream will cause anaphylaxis. (13:27 - 13:37) 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. (13:38 - 13:53) There are proteins that support the whole thing, that are part of the colloidal suspension. 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. (13:54 - 14:00) But as you said, it doesn't necessarily kill you. It can also cause severe problems. It disrupts the gut biome. (14:00 - 14:56) It's going to cause all sorts of issues as a result of that. 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? 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 future possibilities. (14:56 - 15:16) And, yeah, as I said, they always want to avoid discovery. 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. (15:16 - 15:52) 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, 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, and regulators are not enforcing it. (15:53 - 16:10) So they have enforcement power, but they're not doing anything. So this tells me it's coming from the regulators. And maybe the US government is tracking it, because the US government has a bunch of databases that are secret, only available to them. (16:11 - 16:33) We only have access to VAERS. Regulators have about a dozen different databases that I know of, and then there are private data sets. 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. (16:34 - 17:06) 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. Why they use mice and rats? So it turns out mice and rats are not prone to anaphylaxis. 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. (17:09 - 17:24) But yes, in the question of anaphylaxis, they are a very interesting choice, because they are not prone to it. 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. (17:25 - 17:41) 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, so that's not going to show up in the tests. But then there was the study that was done with ferrets. I can't remember how many ferrets were there, 17 or something like that. (17:41 - 17:59) 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, I happen to know this, is that their immune systems are very, very similar to ours. They can catch human colds, for example, they can spread and pass them back to us. (18:00 - 18:14) 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. Yeah, it's a protein. (18:14 - 18:30) It's 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?