🔥🔥"All chronic diseases today, especially in people under, let's say, 50, are because of vaccines. It's not because of what you eat...We have to stay focused on the shots because that's how they poison us and our children."🔥🔥 (1/5)
Retired pharma R&D executive Sasha Latypova (@sasha_latypova) describes for Michael Farris (@CoffeeandaMike) how it is LITERALLY NOT POSSIBLE TO VACCINATE people—against anything, for any reason. Latypova highlights the work of Nobel Prize winner—and eugenicist—Charles Richet, which showed conclusively that anytime a protein—of any type—is injected into a person's bloodstream, it primes their body for an anaphylactic reaction the next time they're injected with (or even, possibly, consume) that protein.
Richet "quickly realized that you don't have to inject a toxin to produce [anaphylaxis]," Latypova says. "You can inject safe things like milk, like, corn, soy derivatives, albumins, gelatin. So anything that you think is safe to eat, if you inject it, a protein directly into the bloodstream, you can produce this effect."
Latypova notes: "This is how people have lactose intolerance. All the peanut allergies are because of this. The Alpha-gal, this effect [meat allergies] it's another type of allergy that's because of the gelatin injections. And so there's a variety of different reactions. They all boil down to the same thing: You got injected with the protein directly into the bloodstream."
"So all chronic diseases today, especially in people under, let's say, 50, are because of the vaccines. It's not because of what you eat," the retired pharma executive adds. She goes on to say:
"To produce the same damage through food, you need decades, and you need really bad habits. And you sometimes you might not even get But with one shot of a newborn, you can produce this effect for life. So that's why I'm saying, all this debate about food, throw it out of the window doesn't matter. We have to stay focused on the shots because that's how they poison us and our children through this. The food effects are secondary."
Furthermore, Latypova says that "the work of Charles Richet and his Nobel Prize definitively says that it's not possible to vaccinate. Vaccination is not possible. There are no safe vaccines." She adds:
"You can't do it because we have this fundamental law of nature that works against it. You can't inject proteins directly into the bloodstream. And everybody denies it. The whole medical establishment denies that this exists, that this knowledge is available. They deny it. They call it different names. They give it different categories. They hide the data. They ban us everywhere. They say we're cranks and anti-vaxxers, and we're just crazy, and we're killing grandma. And so this whole establishment is working as one unit to suppress this information."
This is why food is the new focus among the (usurped) freedom health movement, Latypova notes.
"That's why they're telling you, 'Oh, it's food...you need to ban corn syrup ban dyes or you know? And that's why in California, they label everything with proposition 65 so that you think that everything around you causes cancer. And that's not true. Cancer is caused by injections through the same mechanism. So, anyway, so that's what I want people to understand. And I wrote several articles about it. I linked Richet's work...As I said, you can find his book and you can read about it and it will become extremely clear what's going on. And that's why, you know, it's so important to stay on the vaccines and not get into these diversions of, you know, let's ban different types of food."
Retired pharma R&D executive Sasha Latypova (@sasha_latypova) describes for Michael Farris (@CoffeeandaMike) how it is LITERALLY NOT POSSIBLE TO VACCINATE people—against anything, for any reason. Latypova highlights the work of Nobel Prize winner—and eugenicist—Charles Richet, which showed conclusively that anytime a protein—of any type—is injected into a person's bloodstream, it primes their body for an anaphylactic reaction the next time they're injected with (or even, possibly, consume) that protein.
Richet "quickly realized that you don't have to inject a toxin to produce [anaphylaxis]," Latypova says. "You can inject safe things like milk, like, corn, soy derivatives, albumins, gelatin. So anything that you think is safe to eat, if you inject it, a protein directly into the bloodstream, you can produce this effect."
Latypova notes: "This is how people have lactose intolerance. All the peanut allergies are because of this. The Alpha-gal, this effect [meat allergies] it's another type of allergy that's because of the gelatin injections. And so there's a variety of different reactions. They all boil down to the same thing: You got injected with the protein directly into the bloodstream."
"So all chronic diseases today, especially in people under, let's say, 50, are because of the vaccines. It's not because of what you eat," the retired pharma executive adds. She goes on to say:
"To produce the same damage through food, you need decades, and you need really bad habits. And you sometimes you might not even get But with one shot of a newborn, you can produce this effect for life. So that's why I'm saying, all this debate about food, throw it out of the window doesn't matter. We have to stay focused on the shots because that's how they poison us and our children through this. The food effects are secondary."
Furthermore, Latypova says that "the work of Charles Richet and his Nobel Prize definitively says that it's not possible to vaccinate. Vaccination is not possible. There are no safe vaccines." She adds:
"You can't do it because we have this fundamental law of nature that works against it. You can't inject proteins directly into the bloodstream. And everybody denies it. The whole medical establishment denies that this exists, that this knowledge is available. They deny it. They call it different names. They give it different categories. They hide the data. They ban us everywhere. They say we're cranks and anti-vaxxers, and we're just crazy, and we're killing grandma. And so this whole establishment is working as one unit to suppress this information."
This is why food is the new focus among the (usurped) freedom health movement, Latypova notes.
"That's why they're telling you, 'Oh, it's food...you need to ban corn syrup ban dyes or you know? And that's why in California, they label everything with proposition 65 so that you think that everything around you causes cancer. And that's not true. Cancer is caused by injections through the same mechanism. So, anyway, so that's what I want people to understand. And I wrote several articles about it. I linked Richet's work...As I said, you can find his book and you can read about it and it will become extremely clear what's going on. And that's why, you know, it's so important to stay on the vaccines and not get into these diversions of, you know, let's ban different types of food."
(2/5) Indeed, when we look at "vaccinated" vs. "unvaccinated" Americans, we find that the "unvaccinated" are FAR healthier—in every respect. This would not be the case if food were the problem re: chronic diseases.
https://x.com/SenseReceptor/status/1846359426124353866
(3/5) Re: the Charles Richet work highlighted by Latypova:
"Richet demonstrated an opposite effect in 1902. After an initial low dose of a substance, a new dose some weeks later could produce a severe reaction."
"In 1913, [Richet] was awarded the Nobel Prize for his researches on anaphylaxis. He invented this word to designate the sensitivity developed by an organism after it had been given a parenteral injection of a colloid or protein substance or a toxin (1902)."
(Parenteral drug administration is drug administration by intravenous, intramuscular, or subcutaneous injection.)
Source: nobelprize.org/prizes/medicin…
Source: nobelprize.org/prizes/medicin…
"Richet demonstrated an opposite effect in 1902. After an initial low dose of a substance, a new dose some weeks later could produce a severe reaction."
"In 1913, [Richet] was awarded the Nobel Prize for his researches on anaphylaxis. He invented this word to designate the sensitivity developed by an organism after it had been given a parenteral injection of a colloid or protein substance or a toxin (1902)."
(Parenteral drug administration is drug administration by intravenous, intramuscular, or subcutaneous injection.)
Source: nobelprize.org/prizes/medicin…
Source: nobelprize.org/prizes/medicin…
(4/5) Richet was indeed a eugenicist and a pretty terrible person.
"[Richet] believed in the inferiority of black people, was a proponent of eugenics, and presided over the French Eugenics Society towards the end of his life."
"Richet was a proponent of eugenics, advocating sterilization and marriage prohibition for those with mental disabilities. He expressed his eugenist ideas in his 1919 book La Sélection Humaine. From 1920 to 1926 he presided over the French Eugenics Society."
"[Richet] believed in the inferiority of black people, was a proponent of eugenics, and presided over the French Eugenics Society towards the end of his life."
"Richet was a proponent of eugenics, advocating sterilization and marriage prohibition for those with mental disabilities. He expressed his eugenist ideas in his 1919 book La Sélection Humaine. From 1920 to 1926 he presided over the French Eugenics Society."
(5/5) Full interview with Latypova: rumble.com/v5tmi6z-coffee…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
