Anaphylaxis, allergens, immunogenicity, vaccines.

1980 GAO report to Sen. Abraham Ribicoff, Sen. Edward Kennedy and others, about allergenic products and vaccines.

Katherine Watt

Oct 16

READ IN APP

Orientation for new readers; American Domestic Bioterrorism Program; Tools for dismantling kill box anti-law

I found a 1980 General Accounting Office report while working on Part 5 of the 1798-1972 series, from a footnote (FN 298) in Terry S. Coleman’s 2016 paper, Early Developments in the Regulation of Biologics.

1980.06.06 GAO Answers to Questions on Selected FDA Bureau of Biologics Regulation Activities HRD 80-55 Ribicoff Kennedy

As with all the other records I’ve collected, the 1980 GAO report is a forked-tongue blend of truth, lies, and mischaracterizations, and supports two of the main conclusions Sasha Latypova and I have drawn from our work:

All vaccines, and most if not all other heterogeneous, unstable products classified as biological products, have always been intentionally toxic to recipients — primarily through induction of anaphylaxis, also known as allergenic reactions and immunogenic effects.
The inherent toxicity of biological products, including all vaccines, has always been intentionally covered up through laws and regulations written to enable deniable mass poisoning to be carried out worldwide through vaccination programs.

That mirroring between the purported mechanism of action for vaccination or immunization (introducing a foreign substance into the bloodstream to elicit a systemic defensive response from the organism while characterizing the defensive response as beneficial to the organism) and the known mechanism of action for anaphylaxis (introducing a foreign substance into the bloodstream and observing the elicited, systemic defensive response as the organism suffers from the inflicted harm) is why Charles Richet’s anaphylaxis work was so compelling to me when I read his Nobel lecture.

I had already identified the legal inversion of truth: publicly presenting the issuance of licenses to injure and kill without facing criminal or civil liability, as lawmaking and law enforcement.

Anaphylaxis as the basis for vaccination is a structurally-identical scientific inversion of truth: injury promoted as a form of protection.

Vaccination proponents cannot refute the anaphylactic, scientific theory of harm, because it’s identical to the immunogenic theory of benefit, except the harms are observable in reality, while the claimed benefits are projected illusions.

In the same way, vaccination proponents cannot refute or even discuss the existence of federal, state and international legal instruments rendering the harms of mass poisoning by vaccination legally unstoppable through biological product law, public health emergency law and pandemic preparedness law, because the programs are built on the legalized manufacture, distribution and use of poisons masked as medicines. Without those laws in place, the acts themselves are evidently acts of criminal fraud, mutilation and homicide.

Without providing a detailed summary or analysis of the 1980 GAO report — available for interested readers to consider more fully — here’s a brief email exchange between me and Sasha Latypova prompted by the report.

Sasha Latypova:

Just started reading this - great find. They basically say, “Oh yeah, we have 1,800 poisoning agents in biologics and everything else, and sheesh, we'll just keep using them because reasons.”

Katherine Watt:

Exactly.

Looked at it more. Allergenic product entered the law in 1970, at the same time Congress added vaccine to the biological product law for the first time.

Allergenic product was defined by NIH in 1970 regulations as "products that are administered to man for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of allergies."

Then it shows up in the 1972 NIH regulations in each separate vaccine section, with language such as this section for adenovirus vaccine -

"(d) Extraneous protein. Extraneous protein capable of producing allergenic effects on human subjects shall not be added to the final virus production medium..."

Another example -

"Additional Standards for Bacterial Products...Pertussis Vaccine...(a) Propagation of bacteria. Human blood shall not be used in culture medium for propagating bacteria either for seed or for vaccine. The culture medium for propagating bacteria for vaccine shall not contain ingredients known to be capable of producing allergenic effects in human subjects, except blood or blood products from lower animals other than the horse. When blood or a blood product is used, it shall be removed by washing the harvested bacteria. The bacterial concentrate shall be free of extraneous bacteria, fungi, and yeasts, as demonstrated by microscopic examination and cultural methods"

And in a miscellaneous section at the end, with language such as

“(a) Extraneous allergenic substances. All manufacturing steps shall be performed so as to insure that the product will contain only the allergenic and other substances intended to be included in the final product. (b) Cultures derived from microorganisms. Culture media into which organisms are inoculated for the manufacture of Allergenic Products shall contain no allergenic substances other than those necessary as a growth requirement…”

I'm trying to think through more why Congress, when it pretends to be concerned at all, focuses on efficacy rather than safety concerns, when doing investigations about NIH lack of data, and so forth.

I think it relates to the 1967 Iron Mountain Report on substitutes for war and Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars (1979) principles.

From Iron Mountain report:

…In the case of military "waste," there is indeed a larger social utility. It derives from the fact that the "wastefulness" of war production is exercised entirely outside the framework of the economy of supply and demand. As such, it provides the only critically large segment of the total economy that is subject to complete and arbitrary central control.
If modern industrial societies can be defined as those which have developed the capacity to produce more than is required for their economic survival (regardless of the equities of distribution of goods within them), military spending can be said to furnish the only balance wheel with sufficient inertia to stabilize the advance of their economies.
The fact that war is "wasteful" is what enables it to serve this function. And the faster the economy advances, the heavier this balance wheel must be. This function is often viewed, oversimply, as a device for the control of surpluses…

Slowly making several generations of a country's people sick and dying early, is a very good way to quietly and deniably destroy the productive capacity of the country, by diverting the wealth to drugs and disability payments for people who can't be working to produce goods and services and generate true wealth. Goes along with de-industrialization, off-shoring of manufacturing, lots of other methods.

So what Congress was really interested in is, how efficacious are these poisons at destroying the productive capacity of the people who are injected with them and driving up health care expenditures to eat up a larger portion of overall national spending of human time and money?

And Congress members could, when they bothered at all, disguise that interest as questions about how efficacious these poisons are at obtaining the undefined "specific results" listed in the statutes going back to 1902 and the regulations going back to 1903 related to dating requirements for labels — "the date beyond which the contents can not be expected beyond reasonable doubt to yield their specific results."

Specific results eventually developed into potency definitions by 1947, i.e. "is interpreted to mean...specific ability...to effect a given result," with result still undefined, which is the definition for potency to this day (see 21 CFR 600.3(s).

1798-1972 US federal quarantine and biological product law series:

Anaphylaxis, allergies, immunogenicity reporting and analysis: