Forwarded this email? Subscribe here for more

Thank you for reading and sharing Bailiwick News by email and social media.

To support Bailiwick with a paid subscription:

Deliberate induction of anaphylaxis by vaccination

Sept. 10, 2024 discussion by James Delingpole and Sasha Latypova, condensed transcript

Katherine Watt

Oct 12

READ IN APP

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

Note re update to 1911-1943: Continued non-existence of legal provisions directing federal agencies to establish and enforce biological product definitions and standards (note will be removed from this post shortly after posting — just using it as a way to update readers)

Following leads from a 2016 paper by Terry S. Coleman: Early Developments in the Regulation of Biologics, I located six regulatory publications published prior to the 1935 Federal Register Act in 1903; 1909; 1919; 1923; 1934; and 1935. Links to these records have been added to the 1911-1943 report and to a Wordpress archive page, US federal quarantine and biological product law, 1798 to present.

Induction of anaphylaxis by vaccination

Sept. 10, 2024 discussion by James Delingpole and Sasha Latypova

Video links

Sept. 10, 2024 - Anaphylaxis by vaccination (Substack)
Sept. 10, 2024 - Anaphylaxis by vaccination (Rumble)
Sept. 10, 2024 - Anaphylaxis by vacccination (BitChute)

Full transcript

Sept. 10, 2024 - Anaphylaxis by vaccination, James Delingpole and Sasha Latypova (PDF)

Related reporting and analysis.¹

James Delingpole

Sasha Latypova, welcome back to The Delingpod…just remind everybody who you are and what you do.

Sasha Latypova

My name is Sasha Latypova. I'm now an independent writer on Substack, and I write a publication called Due Diligence and Art, and it has to do mostly with health, public health fraud, and countermeasures and COVID vaccines, which are countermeasures and all sorts of associated issues. But also as part of my work, I look at all kinds of related topics and trying to understand the history, trying to understand what happened. In my previous life, I was a pharmaceutical executive and I worked for about 25 years in pharma R&D, running clinical trials for all kinds of companies, including Pfizer, was a client for many years. And, I got to learn—

How many innocent people have you killed, do you think?

None. Actually, zero. My work, especially last, I would say — well, I had several companies. Initially, we were doing imaging data analysis in imaging trials. Looking at standard imaging techniques, but making them more accurate for purposes of drug development, which was, if you image cancer in oncology, or you image arthritis in the knee, we were working on better techniques of measuring those images.

Then the last decade or so, I worked with a company that did cardiovascular safety screening. So we were actually preventing the drugs from killing people by excluding them from pipelines of pharmaceutical companies.

Because we could tell early from animal data or from early human data that this drug is going to be potentially dangerous for arrhythmia. So we would screen them out so that they won't go on the market and kill people.

And in our clinical trials, it was so, so tightly controlled and monitored. It was absolutely, no, we never had even severe adverse event or anything like that.

And so that's why I was shocked when I started looking into this area, into vaccines and realizing it's completely unregulated. It's not regulated at all as I was expecting it to be regulated.

And so that was the main finding, and that's why I and my colleague Katherine [Watt] are now writing about this, about how these products are not regulated and how they're actually systematically poisoning people by pretending that these are pharmaceuticals and they're not regulated like pharmaceuticals.

If only the public knew. I mean, I used to be a journalist, Sasha, and I have to say, I had maybe this romantic notion of what journalists are supposed to do. But that story would have been very high on my list of perfect stories.

If I had to imagine one, it would be like, a whole industry is, in the guise of public health, literally and deliberately poisoning people on a massive scale, and nobody knows about this or nobody's stopping them.

No. And when I talk to anybody, I mean, I usually don't provide my opinions unsolicited, just kind of like, in a social setting, I just talk about weather and normal topics and I pretend everything is good.

But, even occasionally when people ask me and I give them like one sentence, I see this wall coming and they're like, "You, lady, you're crazy and you're just one of those conspiracists."

And I'm like, "okay, fine, I'll spare your feelings," and we continue talking about the weather.

But you probably run into the same situation over and over again, right? But I'm like, "Hey, first of all, I'm not crazy. Second of all, I am professional. You are not. I have spent decades working in the industry. I know what it is supposed to be."

Just like in journalism, you're supposed to be covering newsworthy things, be honest, ethical. You're not supposed to stage your events. You're not supposed to turn away, not help somebody who is being killed in front of you, for the purposes of taking that shot.

But it's being done all the time and the same thing happens in pharmaceutical industry.

But it's worse because it's systematic. People are being forced into it. The experts and professionals are being brainwashed into this. While we have uncovered and, you know, my colleague Katherine is writing actually a huge report. She calls it a "beast." She's working with another researcher [Lydia Hazel] on this. They're going back through entire U.S. pharmaceutical law to the 1700s and tracing this and showing how vaccines have never been regulated, there was never intent to regulate them.

In fact, they always have created the space where they're pretend-regulated, they're fake-regulated, so that the public thinks that they're safe.

Yeah. It's extraordinary how far back it goes. I mean, I was looking at another Substack today on Louis Pasteur. Complete fraud. Faked all his —

Total, yeah, yeah.

And he was probably a pedophile. And was probably a high-level Freemason as well. But that doesn't get mentioned in the hagiographies about Louis Pasteur. We named pasteurized milk after him. He saved so many lives.

Yeah. So we now can bulldoze the farms of the farmers who dare to sell like a pint of raw milk to somebody, right? And send FBI agents to just, in the US —

You mentioned that. Do you realize that the first, I think, possibly the only piece of legislation that when Lord Rothschild was in the Houses of Parliament, guess what he got involved with?

Raw milk?

Yeah, raw milk. He wanted raw milk to be pasteurized or sterilized or something. It's just weird.

It's, yeah, just so bizarre. When you start looking at these historical examples, and the reason I contacted you is because one of the historical examples Katherine and I ran into, and this became a huge epiphany for me, is Charles Richet, who was a French researcher in that time.

So he worked in early 1900s. In 1913, he was given Nobel Prize for this work. And he is credited with the work on anaphylaxis, although he wasn't the only one, but he received the Nobel Prize. That, to me, opened so much, kind-of like, "Aha, of course, you know, why didn't I see this before?"

But basically, when you look at this work and then when you look what preceded and what went after, you kind of understand a few things.

First of all, everybody who is, let's say, closely familiar with this history and work, cannot think that it's possible to vaccinate. It's impossible to vaccinate for anything. And Richet has demonstrated it conclusively and was given Nobel Prize for it.

That's probably a bad sign, by the way, isn't it? I'm very suspicious of anyone who gets the Nobel Prize because that prize is dodgy-as, isn't it?

The prize is dodgy. And it's interesting that he was given the Nobel Prize while he never himself said it's impossible to vaccinate. But when you read his work, you know it's impossible to vaccinate. But I think they gave him the prize because he figured out how to poison everyone by sensitizing them to the most commonly occurring things in their environment. It's the most ingenious way of poisoning.

He was a bad guy.

Yes, he was. He was a committed eugenicist, which at that time, you know, everyone should realize eugenicism was a fashionable society attitude. So all the well-to-do classes were subscribing to it. The good breeding was always, you know, promoted. And at the time, the sentiment was, "Well, how can we help the poor classes being less dirty and less numerous?"

Make them less numerous, a.k.a. kill them.

Because the sight of them is so offensive to us when we ride our horses through the park. So what can we do? What can we do about it?

And what can we do about it became into "Let's figure out how to control their overbreeding because they tend to reproduce too much and they tend to live in crowded conditions and they tend to have poor hygiene and no sanitation."

So instead of working on those issues, they will decide, "Oh, let's vaccinate them." And actually the same thing continues with Bill Gates in Africa and India for the same reason.

But all of these thoughts extended now to us, to normal people.

Now all of the globalists and this, "elites," I don't call them elites, but they all think of us that way. That's what people need to understand. Eugenics never went away. They all still think that way.

They all still think that they should poison us and limit our reproduction because we're polluting the earth now. We're causing the climate change, whatever those ideas are, but they're brainwashing themselves and their followers into thinking that this is actually acceptable. It's acceptable to poison people. It's acceptable to sterilize people. It's acceptable to lie to people. Because it's for the greater good. So what started with Richet continues today.

That's really interesting. I don't think I've ever heard this theory before. I mean, but it's immediately very persuasive.

So Richet worked out that there is this thing called an anaphylactic shock or anaphylactic reaction which occurs about 21 days after an initial traumatic experience like an injection or a bite or something or a sting. Is that right?

Yes. So he originally started working on it. He was funded by the Prince of Monaco. So the Prince of Monaco took him on his yacht to study a jellyfish in Portugal, I think the Man-o'-war, because the stings of it are very dangerous and produce anaphylaxis.

They went to study that jellyfish and when they came back, Richet started working on a substitute for jellyfish, which is like a sea anemone. He collected the tentacles of the sea anemone and dissolved them in glycerin. Then in his book, [Anaphylaxis], he calls this the virus of Actinaria.

It was very clear from the very beginning, the viral theory wasn't anything about these particles that randomly fly around and jump strangers and cause infectious diseases. It was all about poisoning. Poisons were called viruses. So he made poison. He describes how he made, took the tentacles, put in glycerin, dissolved: "Oh, this is my virus that I'm going to study now in animals."

He studied it in dogs mostly and poisoned a lot of dogs, documented everything very pedantically. If you read it, you can see that he figured out that yes, if you inject some poison which may be even not noticed at the beginning, they may have no reaction or they may have some mild reaction like a rash or something.

And then a certain number of days goes by, and typically it's 20 days, Then after that, on the 21st day, 22nd day, you inject them. Even the minute dose, which is not considered dangerous at all, may create in some percentage of them a very violent illness or even death. And he called it anaphylactic shock.

Now, what he also discovered, is that it doesn't have to be poison. In subsequent experiments, him and other people have shown that it doesn't have to be a poison at all or something considered poisonous. It could be something considered benign, like milk, for example, can produce the same effect as this tentacles of Actinaria.

How do you do it with milk?

Just the same thing, you inject milk.

Sorry, sorry, it's got to be injected, yes.

Yeah, inject it, inject it. So the whole point is any protein, especially of mammalian origin, but not only because all kinds of proteins can be produced from things like food, like milk, like wheat, like corn, soy, peanuts, other nuts, gelatin, cholesterol now, so like all kinds of proteins, which are considered safe things because we eat them, if injected into the bloodstream, produce this effect.

That was known in 1913. That's what he was given Nobel Prize for.

The same year that the Federal Reserve was created.

Oh, yes. And I think they gave him a prize because Nobel Prize tends to have, especially medicine and physiology, but in other things, tends to reward weapons. It was weapons or things that can be used as weapons. So he created a perfect poisoning weapon, or he created the theory of the most perfect poisoning weapon is, you weaponize the person's body against itself when it interacts with normal environment.

So, sorry to sidetrack you, but we were discussing earlier, weren't we, that milkshake I was drinking, and I told you it's got peanut butter in it to give me a bit of protein. And you said you're not allergic to peanuts. And I know that the generation younger than me, massive, massive amounts of peanut allergies.

People have to carry EpiPens around in case their child gets exposed to peanuts on an airplane or whatever and they die. And it's awful. You hear terrible stories. Is that caused by — do they put peanut oil in the vaccines or something?

In the vaccines, yes. Yes, exactly. So this allergy is 100% vaccine-induced. I am also, I'm 53. I was growing up in the Soviet Union. Vaccine schedule was very short, maybe three, four vaccines. I did not know that you can have food allergies. I had no idea.

I came to the US and I was 26 years old. Up until 26 years old, I have no idea that food allergies are a thing. I never heard of a peanut allergy, even though we had peanuts. I did not know that children could have cancer, wasn't a thing. I did not know about autism. The first time I saw the Rain Man movie, I was shocked. I was like, "What does this guy have? What is it?"

Because I've never experienced it. And I went to large schools and I only saw one kid with Down syndrome and it was very, very mild because he was studying normally with other kids. And even learning English, foreign language.

Is Down syndrome another vaccine injury?

Yes, it's vaccination of mothers, primarily. So that was my only experience with any sort of developmental abnormality in children, was this kid. Nobody was overweight. Obesity, forget it. A little bit plump kid would be called overweight and bullied.

Good old-fashioned.

But we ate sugar all the time and fat all the time. We only had seed oils. There's nothing else. It was only seed oils and margarine and butter was too expensive. And we drank water from the river that was polluted by 200 industrial plants. There was leaded gasoline exhaust everywhere. And we ate fruit from the trees. We didn't care. So when people today talk about toxic food in the West, toxic food and toxic environment and everybody is poisoning us with these processed foods, it's gaslighting and misdirection from vaccines.

That's really interesting. Wow, that is amazing what you're saying. It's one of the reasons I so like you, because you cut through, I mean, you're not afraid of bulldozing your way through these pieties, these sacred cows, if you can bulldoze a sacred cow, even of awake people.

There are things that awake people believe as a sort of religious faith. One of them is seed oils are the worst, most toxic thing in the world. And another is, sugar is, gives you cancer and everything else besides. The little baby cancers eat it all up and they love it. What else? I mean —

Well, once you have cancer, eating sugar will feed cancer and you need to do like starvation diets and stuff like that to eliminate cancer. But if you're normal, if you're unvaccinated, your child isn't vaccinated, you can eat whatever you like that's...A reasonably varied diet will never give you cancer, and you shouldn't be afraid of seed oils. I grew up only with seed oils. There was no other oil. It was only sunflower oil in Ukraine, that produces lots of sunflowers and sunflower oil is the only thing that everybody uses for cooking, eating, anything, it doesn't give you cancer.

It does if you've been jabbed.

If you've been jabbed, yes, you will be anaphylactized to something.

And that's something, and what they also developed, when Richet was doing his experiments, they were pretty crude. At the time it was kind of like, "Let's test all these substances and see, you know, how much of anaphylaxis they produce and so forth."

Early vaccines were notoriously, so what he discovered, number one, people need to remember, is that it is impossible to predict anaphylactic reaction or anaphylactic state. It's impossible to predict which, if you inject a group of 100 people, which 20% of them will be anaphylactized. We don't know. And we still don't know. There is no way to predict it upfront.

Second most important thing is that, at the time that he discovered it, a bunch of other researchers called milder reactions "allergy." And he was against it. He said, "It's the same phenomenon. You shouldn't call it a different name."

But of course, they went ahead and started calling it allergy because they want you to get away from the idea that this is an anaphylactic reaction. So today, all the experts, if you ask them, or people from the street, if you ask them, "What is anaphylaxis?" they say, "Oh, it's a shock. It's when somebody just, you know, drops down because their blood pressure dropped, very quickly." And that's that.

But it's not just that. It's anything, anything from mild rash to dropping dead…And the problem is that over time, the vaccine industry figured out how to hide anaphylaxis in mild allergic reactions. But they're not—

Even stuff like hay fever?

Yes. It's anaphylaxis.

Because I get hay fever. I always used to wonder, Sasha, I used to wonder when I was reading, say, Thomas Hardy novels set in the countryside or, sort of, imagine sort of shepherds frolicking in pastoral poetry. And I used to think, "Well, how did they cope with hay fever? What did they do?" Because there must have been an awful lot of pollen around in those days. And of course, you've kind of answered the question. They didn't have that problem because—

They didn't have the problem. It started developing the hay fever. I'm reading now, some colleagues send me references, so I'll have another article on this. But it appears that hay fever also originates kind of at the beginning of early attempts at vaccinations, and it didn't seem to happen before. So yes, it's also a form of anaphylaxis, a milder one.

Now, because it's to pollen, it's not actually as bad as mammalian source proteins or food source proteins like wheat and corn and soy. And those reactions, while they can be mild and very difficult to trace, and especially the deniability factor goes up if your reactions are kind of developing over time way after you got vaccinated. So you can never tie it back to this.

So when your child develops a food allergy, like gluten allergy, first of all, you don't even realize what it's allergy to. They might start having migraines. They might start having some stomach ache or some diarrhea or some lethargy or some like, these very strange symptoms that you don't know. Maybe it was like he was tired today, so forth. So then you start running around through, it becomes worse over time. You start running around through specialists. They tell you all kinds of BS [bullshit].

Then you start doing all these crazy elimination diets to try to figure out what is it, right? And then 10 years later, your child has an autoimmune condition like RA [rheumatoid arthritis] or lupus, which happened to my husband, for example, and it was a vaccine 10 years ago.

But now, of course, the vaccine industry says, "Oh, no, no, no. It's your rare gene, genetic mutation. It's hereditary." So victim blaming starts. It's your bad genes or it's your bad food habits because you're eating seed oils and sugar or maybe because you live near the power line. It's those bad power lines. We should have less of those and we should cram everyone into the cities and remove the infrastructure, right?

Those are the common ways of how they gaslight you to look away from those injections.

I can believe this. So do they put, I mean, so the gluten allergy, for example, how does that, how do you, what do they put in the injections that give you gluten allergy?

So the gluten allergy is so pervasive now because a lot of vaccines contain albumins. And albumins actually are used widely in different other injectables. Typically, and you can look at it, you can see it online. Actually, it will give you this answer.

Richet said colloids cause, typically called colloids, chemical name for colloids, cause anaphylaxis and crystalloids do not cause anaphylaxis.

Colloids is something like milk or wheat albumin. Albumins are derived from wheat and used in a bunch of injections as vehicle. They cause anaphylaxis.

Crystalloids like table salt, like some small, small, drug that can be crystallized as a salt and dissolvable in water, those typically do not cause anaphylaxis.

Wheat is used to make albumins and also rice and corn and other cereals. And these albumins are often included into vaccines as vehicle, as adjuvants, as they're also included, albumin is used in infusions if there is a trauma and big blood loss. It actually helps to sustain the person, but they can produce anaphylaxis, and it even says as a warning that they can produce anaphylaxis.

Because these wheat and corn and soy proteins have been routinely in the vaccines and peanut oil, peanut oil, even New York Times wrote about it when they used to do journalism like long time ago [NYT, Sept. 19, 1964]... They wrote about it, that it was in Merck vaccine. It was found that it causes peanut allergies, severe peanut allergies.

So what do they do? Well, they rename it into Adjuvant 65 so that you don't know what it is. And they continue using it. And they do the same thing with these other proteins. They name them with different other names that you can't identify. And they say, "Oh, these are generally considered safe." And FDA also gives them a pass. That's how they don't regulate any of this. These are food. So they're generally considered safe. [GRAS - generally recognized as safe]

And so, of course, go ahead and inject them.

Do you know what's really sad? If I showed this video, this podcast to most of my normie friends and relatives.

They disown you even more?

Well, they just go, "Who is this mad Ukrainian woman with her nonsense about, that she's made up because she's weird and she's from behind the Iron Curtain." They'd make any number of excuses why they wouldn't believe what you're saying because they wouldn't —

But I mean, I can give you a whole bunch of English sources from not behind the Iron Curtain.

No, but it wouldn't be about the sources. They would find some way of persuading themselves that you were an unreliable witness because the programming is so strong.

It is so strong.

Everyone knows that vaccines are a medical miracle. We've been fed this for generations.

I also thought about it quite a bit. I myself became shocked at how many people have this extreme brain programming, I would say, on this topic. For example, I was hugely disappointed, people who I highly admire as the sharpest, the most critical thinkers out there, most recently, for example Rupert Sheldrake. If you've heard of him.

I wanted to get him on the podcast.

Can you get in touch with him? I really would like to ask him this question. Because I love the guy. I, absolutely, I think he's one of the smartest people in the world living today. And the most critical thinker too, because, I read a couple of his books. I listened to his TEDx lecture that got censored by TEDx. And he figured out some amazing things. Like, for example, that the speed of light is not constant. Did you know that?

I didn't know that.

Well, it turns out it's not. And other physical constants are also not constant. So the speed of light apparently is changing. And up until 1973, I think, it was recorded by many labs. They would measure it every now and then, and they would record that it actually went down by 20 miles and then it went up again.

You know, in 1973, the British Metrology Office or Institute did a brilliant thing and decided to hard code it. They said, "Oh, well, the meter is now a product of the speed of light. And therefore, we can never measure the speed of light accurately anymore. And we have to deem it constant."

Rupert Sheldrake actually went and talked to them and figured it all out. And there's, like, numerous things like that. He calls bullshit on DNA science, which I completely agree with.

I wanted to ask you about that next, when you finished your story about Rupert Sheldrake.

So anyway, I was like "Yes" when I was reading his book about DNA. I was like, "You're beautiful, you figured all of this out." Then in his book, you get to the medicine and vaccines and he thinks vaccines are the best. And I was like "Oh my God. I can't, my world has been shattered now."…

My question was why people fall for this, like even the smartest people like Sheldrake, why do they fall for this? And my theory today is that it's a coping, it goes very fundamentally to the coping mechanism with our own mortality.

There are productive ways and empowering ways of thinking about your own mortality, but there are also very unhealthy ways, obviously. And they typically devolve into a couple of things like a death cult with sacrifices, with human sacrifices, with animal sacrifices. Or a technocracy cult that says, and that's the cult that wants to replace God with technology and the expert priest class.

They're telling you, "Forget this whole thing about, what they tell you about the source of, God is the source of life and humans being unique and having a soul."

So they want to remove the idea of the soul completely out and say, "Well, your human body is nothing different than a bunch of rocks. It just has a different chemistry and we'll figure this all out and find all these particles and figure out how they work and then we'll fix it and then we will bestow immortality."

So I think because these concepts, they cover both religious and atheist ideas, and they promised us, "Oh, we'll fix everything." So many people fall for it.

I've just had a disturbing thought. Isn't there a Coldplay song called Fix You? I think there might be. The programming is deep.

Yes. And what people need to realize, there is nothing to fix. You are made perfect.

I know. I'm so pissed off about this. I'm thinking about the perfect self that got destroyed when my mother got persuaded to give me all these injections which gave me hay fever, irritable bowel syndrome, probably completely messed up my teeth, gave me all the kind of, all the stuff that goes wrong with me all the time. It's annoying, isn't it?

It's annoying. Even worse thought, I can give you, is me as a mother destroying the health of my daughter. Knowing this, I have to live with this for the rest of my life.

It's horrible.

Because I was lied to just like your mother was lied to. And I believed them.

And, you know, do you know what, when I, in the very, very early days of the plandemic, when I was still thinking, I still believed in, there was a killer virus going around and I thought, "I know, I'll get prepared." And so I actually went and got my children to have, I think I'd read something about cytokine storms and I'd read something about how what really got you was the pneumonia or something. So I made them get pneumonia vaccines and I got one myself and I was thinking, "I'm really clever. I'm going to survive this apocalypse and so are my children because I've got them vaccinated." It's awful how they do these tricks with us.

It is awful and also, the second part of anaphylaxis, what's interesting about it, thinking about anaphylaxis, it also, this theory helps you explain the infectious disease in general, or what's considered infectious disease.

As you know, there's this raging debate about viruses haven't been isolated, viruses don't exist. I agree, they haven't been isolated. And I agree that they don't exist as sort of flying around random particles that infect people.

So the anaphylaxis may explain both what was Covid epidemic or whatever, in those places where there was some unique symptoms of Covid, what was it likely? Which was probably they anaphylactized people through flu injections that were given in that fall.

And then it can explain also ancient or medieval plagues and so forth, like cholera and the plague and smallpox and other typical diseases at the time. They're also forms of anaphylaxis, except those are natural forms of anaphylaxis.

So you can have natural anaphylaxis by, and we are familiar, you can be stung by a bee. And if it's within, if you have like a couple of stings within a certain period of time, you may get anaphylactic reaction...Or this, you know, Man o' War jellyfish. And there are some other things that people become anaphylactized to naturally through insect bites or animal bites.

And what happened with the plagues? Well, they're natural forms of anaphylaxis by mostly rats or fleas and lice that bite people and people living in close proximity to each other with the open sewer where the rats are getting these proteins, these toxic proteins, and then bite people.

And if this happens often enough within specific area, you may start an epidemic of cholera where before, you can study what's in people's guts, and you can see that cholera is there. It just doesn't cause anything. But it does cause it, cause the epidemic, when you anaphylactize them through these mechanisms.

Well, it wouldn’t be hard being bitten by fleas more than once in the space of...

Two times with a pre-specified window and enough people bitten around you, and you all start having the symptomatic illness.

Same thing with smallpox, likely, there are other vectors, like for example, horse flies. Horses were huge in the cities, again, crowded conditions, sewer, open sewer, horse manure, the other sewage, flies are like crazy.

The reason why, for example, New York has all these high walk-up steps and buildings was just so that the manure wouldn't like pour into the windows. And it was a huge problem in New York City, horse manure, until they invented the car.

The car actually helped us with the epidemics. The refrigeration and the air conditioning so you couldn't close the windows. And of course plumbing and water sanitation. So those things removed all of those vectors from the cities, especially where people lived in crowded conditions. And so they stopped all of those epidemics.

And notice that at around like 1950s, when all of this basically got under control, people started being healthier, living longer. We have baby boom.

Now, oops, all of these globalists all of a sudden become intensely interested in vaccination programs. And they start writing all these plans about population control and all that because they're realizing, "Oh, my God, now we're going to have a population growth." And then they started putting in all these control programs.

I noticed this when I was researching my book on global warming. In the second half— I read some of the literature. There was a book by Harrison Brown, who was a very popular environmentalist in the 1950s. And what really shone through these books, which were lapped up by the kind of people who founded the Club of Rome, who were all these kind of "elites," well, we don't call them elites, but very, very rich people.

And what shines through, and through the statements of Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh, the wife of the Queen, they are repelled by the mass of humanity. They really do think that we ordinary folk are like vermin that need to be...needs to be made extinct. And that's what they believe, and have believed since forever.

Yeah. And this attitude, you can see it everywhere. You can see it from the aristocracy in the older times, or these elites today, or our public health officials.

The same attitude comes across from Francis Collins, who was the head of NIH. These people, I think,... He is the one who said, this is a quote, I was talking to Senator Johnson on this matter a couple of years ago. And at the time, Senator Johnson was asking Francis Collins somewhere in the hallway of Congress, like, we have 3000 deaths recorded in VAERS from these COVID vaccines, right? This is terrible. Yeah, it is. At that time, 3,000. Now we have 40,000 recorded or something. And that's just the recorded. They're underreported by about 100x.

But at the time, it was maybe a few months into the rollout of the vaccine program. He looked at VAERS. He saw 3,000 deaths recorded. He stopped Francis Collins somewhere on the way and said, "Do you know about this? What's going on? This is terrible." And Francis Collins' reply was, "People die." And he went off.

[For discussion of Francis Collins and satanic bloodlines, see full transcript.]

[For discussion of Orthodox Christianity, repentance and forgiveness, see full transcript]

…It is a good church, but I mean, yeah, I want people to also be able to understand, you can have a really good church community, you can have a really good priest who understands the religion deeply and is a good person, but you also have to remember always, you are in a man-made institution.

And you're interacting with the man-made institution your relationship, well, within Christianity and Orthodox Christianity your relationship with God is your personal relationship. The priest may provide advice, but you're not obligated to, a lot of, unfortunately, a lot of religious institutions devolve into cults also.

So they all suffer from the same problem is that people delegate authority and delegate their critical thinking and decisions for themselves to somebody, whether it's the church, the priest, the doctrine, the scientific doctrine, technocracy, aristocracy, anyone, anyone but yourself.

I think also another very good book, although the guy is sort of Marxist, but he wrote a really good book, Erich Fromm, if you have read it. The most important one is Escape from Freedom and actually not all of it, but maybe just the beginning parts...He identified this idea and he was writing about the Nazi Germany and how did it happen that all these people supported fascism?

The same question we have now with Covid, how is it possible that all these smart people support this totalitarian nonsense?

Same way the Nazi Germany supported totalitarian nonsense back then, is because majority of people would prefer to delegate thinking and decisions on what to do, to others. It can be to church or it can be the church of science but it's the same, the result is the same. You have delegated to somebody and you became controlled by somebody.

I agree with what you're saying but the route that you and I take, the alternative route, means you're constantly having to read and question everything and it's quite exhausting.

Well, it does take a lot more resources. So from the resource allocation or use perspective, yeah, you want to be a little bit lazy and outsource some things, right, and have others do it for you who you trust. You think, if you trust somebody, you can delegate that thinking to them. Well, it turns out you can't.

The only advice I give people and I give my children, I give anybody who asks, is how to, there's sort of a very simple rule for yourself that you can practice, is "Don't repeat the words of others, ever."

Even if you agree, especially if you agree, don't repeat their words. Use your own words.

If they said something and you liked it, don't repeat it. Find out a way to say it yourself. That's it. That's all you have to do. And that applies to religion. It applies to science. It applies to your normal life. Especially if some important area of your life. If you hear something and you like it and you agree with it, don't repeat it. Find your own words. If you disagree with it, figure out why. And also find your own words to disagree with it. And that way you stay free. That's the critical thinking part, actually. There's nothing else to it.

Fine. You know, I see that. I see that by changing somebody's words, you've got to go through a mental process, which is a process of interpretation in your own eyes.

[For discussion of poetry, see full transcript]

Anyway, I wanted to ask you about, somebody else told me this, that DNA is just complete bollocks. It's just made-up rubbish. Is that true?

It is true. So, for example, you can read Rupert Sheldrake's chapters on it and in his Science Delusion book, which I love. That's probably the best summary of how ridiculous it is you can find. But there are other sources I can also send you. And basically, so the DNA, do you know that the DNA helix—

All I know, you can fill in the blanks. All I know about DNA is that some people called Watson and Crick got a Nobel Prize for it. That they built this sort of double helix model which... And that this DNA sort of carries our identity, our genes or something. That's all I know.

The Watson and Crick Nobel Prize was given for a one-page paper, which I have. It's published online. It's a one-page paper where they have a lot of assertions, assumptions, and a very fuzzy image of a salt of DNA, which is not the same as DNA. It's a salt of DNA. They basically kind of made it up. At the time, there were other models for DNA, and they just said, "Oh, those are bad. Ours is good."

There's still other, people come up with different other models that will explain DNA. And you should understand that model is a model. It's not necessarily a presentation.

I hate models.

Right. It could be useful for hypothesis building or testing different theories, but it doesn't represent reality. For example, Ptolemaic model of the universe with the Earth in the middle still works. It predicts the movements of celestial bodies.

Well, because it's true. That's why.

It works just as well as the heliocentric model because they're both models.

The DNA with this double helix, now everyone prays to it as if it's the truth. It's not the truth. It has never been observed in reality. It's not possible to observe. We don't have metrology or instruments to observe DNA in real life. So all the experimentation subsequent to this proposed model was built to kind of comport with the model. And if it wasn't, if somebody was proposing something different, then it was just not funded.

By this kind of survival bias, you have the whole industry aligned to study and come up with methods of showing that this model is actually true when it's not true.

So they started studying it and building tools to kind of say "We can extract nuclear DNA."

I have a whole list of articles on how this nuclear DNA extraction originated. It's ridiculous, and it goes back to the 1800s, showing that it's just as idiotic like extraction and isolation of viruses. It's the same thing.

It's cooking hundreds of chemicals with uncontrolled processes and then claiming that you've extracted something from the nucleus.

Anyway, so the point is that the DNA is a model. This whole idea of genes controlling and programming things, it's a metaphor. It comes from technology, from mechanics, from software....[DNA models] don't control and program anything.

The human genome project, as Sheldrake described very well in his book, the Human Genome Project wasted billions of dollars and decades of time and produced nothing, absolutely nothing. They can't explain the difference between a chimpanzee and a human.

Right. I remember reading all this stuff about how soon they were going to be able to edit out of our genome or our genes these, sort of, faulty things that gave us these genetic conditions like, I don't know, sickle cell anemia or something. Was it all rubbish or just made up?

Of course it's rubbish. And they repeat it. And they repeat this rubbish every 10 years or so because people forget that they already said that.

But I've been in the industry. I've heard this, "We're going to have customized genetic targeting and editing." I heard it 20 years ago. It never happened. And it still didn't happen. And they still don't know how to do it. They can't edit anything.

As I said, the system, the human or biological, human, animal system, anything alive, is perfect in its state.

The genes, as they are measured by the existing diagnostics that are optimized to measure the genes, whatever you call measured genes, they might as well be a product of your interaction with the environment, a product of your life as the cause of it.

Because, as I tell people, all of the biology and medicine science today fundamentally relies on Newtonian and standard model of physics, which is inappropriate for biology. Newtonian and standard model of physics is only appropriate and designed for mechanical things, for making mechanical things. You can make an airplane very well with it, you can make a gun, you can make a train, you can make a car, and they all work perfectly.

You can't explain life with them because life is causal. Life has a beginning and end.

And mechanical things go, they assume that time is a delusion, as Einstein said, and it's not a delusion. They assume time is a delusion. It goes both ways, backward and forward. It doesn't matter which way. And that's why they can't separate physical, like, biological causes from effects.

And that's why they're saying they just declare the genes are causes, but there's no evidence of it. They may be effects.

You did a substack on this recently on 23andMe.

Which is going out of business. Because it's useless.

Isn't that the website that you go to discover that you're descended from, you're partly, I don't know, a 10th Jewish and you're a 15th Navajo, is it that one?...And you're Scandinavian and you're Genghis Khan is your, I don't know, Atilla the Hun is your great, great, great, great. Isn't that how it works?

Yeah, but not really. There are more, I'd say there are more precise ways of finding whether you descended from Genghis Khan, but they're also not. They're like from the forensic, more of a from a forensic DNA.

So the type of the DNA analysis that 23andMe does, it's not forensic. It's just association, basically large-scale associations from historical databases.

It literally is not useful for anything other than icebreaker conversations. You go to somebody on the first date, you can discuss your ancestry.

But didn't they, I mean, wasn't it a massive data harvesting operation? If I'd signed up to find out if I was descended from Attila the Hun, would that mean they've got my data and they can now use it to develop a weapon to kill me?

No, they can't do that. I can allay those concerns. It's not possible to do. All they were doing is a Ponzi scheme, which now ran out. Because you can't really use this data. The data they've collected is not useful for anything. People were saying, "They can build new viruses to target your ethnic profile."

Remember early on, there was this whole thing about Covid was optimized. SARS-CoV-2 virus was optimized to kill black people and save the Ashkenazi Jews. Right? It's total nonsense. It's total nonsense. I read that paper. The paper has very tiny statistical effects and as usual in genetics, other things have much, much greater predictive effects.

For example, gender and age typically trump any genetic differences. If you read that paper, they found some tiny statistic and they were assuming Covid virus was flying around in the first place. It wasn't. It doesn't exist. Like the whole thing doesn't exist. The toxin part, the spike protein exists, but the whole virus doesn't.

I gave you that analogy before. The virus is like a shark and the spike protein is like a tooth. The teeth we can find, the shark is not there and never was.

But they were saying this whole shark will eat black people and will avoid Ashkenazi Jews. That's not true because if you look at the gender differences, then a black woman was much greater protected from that shark than an Ashkenazi man. Because the gender has much, much bigger difference than any of those little statistical looks that they found with doing these databases.

Yes also loads of people got, died in Israel, maybe from vaccine injury.

For example, there might have been some familial differences. Heredity does exist and there may be some familial differences that maybe somebody expresses fewer ACE2 receptors, whatever...that may still happen. But as far as like racial, no, they can't target it. They can't target anything racially.

I think you mentioned this last time, that the bioweapons labs, with which your native, the land of your birth is riddled....All run by the CIA, aren't they?

But you're suggesting that the stuff they're researching is just completely worthless. Are they a psyop? Are they there just to make us scared of these diseases floating around?

Yes, so the bioweapons narrative in general is very, very important to the US Department of Defense, especially, and its allies and this whole pandemic preparedness racket, as I call it. So pandemic preparedness enterprise is a huge international enterprise that started way back. They invested trillions of dollars and through the Covid exercise, they got their returns and they plan to continue to do next over and over and over again.

The whole, making people believe, first of all, in infectious disease.

And if we dispel that myth, they still want you to believe that, "Okay, fine, these viruses maybe don't exist in nature, but bad guys, random scientists in the labs can easily make these genomes for about $100."

This is what Ralph Baric advertises. And a lot of our biodefense, even on the health freedom side, a lot of people are saying, "Oh, no, you must believe in these bioweapons and these bad people and these bad biolabs in Ukraine are making these awful bioweapons," forgetting that every major and minor U.S. research institution is just as bioweapons lab as those Ukrainians. Actually, they have more equipment, more money, more samples. And Fort Detrick, the DOD bioweapons lab, is continuously operating since 1943, making bioweapons.

So, okay, Ukraine is bad, yeah, but what about Harvard? What about MIT? What about Johns Hopkins? What about like all those at the Philadelphia [inaudible]? All of those institutions are bioweapons labs by the same definition of the Ukrainian ones. And the Ukrainian labs came under CDC control and DOD control around 2005, I think, when they signed a treaty, some sort of assistance treaty. US and Ukraine signed an agreement that all these former Soviet biological research facilities are now under oversight of CDC and DOD. So these Ukrainian labs have been DOD labs also for a very long time.

So does that mean...Because you're absolutely right. I'm very suspicious of people, well, suspicious of the intelligence at best, of the people on our side of the argument, the people who are supposedly skeptical about what's going on in the world, and yet they buy into, “deadly virus, escape from the lab in Wuhan, and we've got to take it seriously, and look, even the US government is talking about it now.”

And you're thinking, isn't that a kind of a clue that maybe if they're talking about it, it ain't real?

It ain't real because also, I mean, people constantly talk about, "Oh my God, it escaped from Wuhan lab."

Forgetting that there are, according to, so CDC is supposed to record these events, or rather if you're working in some sort of a BSL [biosafety level] facility, which is, as I said, it's in every academic institution in the US. There's one in your backyard probably. If you're working with some sort of a select agent or some kind of a dual-use research, you're supposed to report an accident where something happened that potential escape.

These reports, CDC collects around 200 of them a year. So it's every other day. We have an escape.

But we only have a pandemic when we declare one. And when we point finger at Wuhan and say, "Oh, it's that Wuhan bad people."

But Ralph Baric himself, and I published on it, Ralph Baric submitted like a dozen reports to CDC saying that, "Oh, my mouse with this potentially deadly virus escaped." And there's many mice escapes. And I'm like, "Well, where is the mouse pandemic?" Even though, around North Carolina, Chapel Hill, we don't have it.

The thing is, Sasha, this is going to spoil a favorite story of awake people, which is that Lyme disease, for example, was caused by weaponized ticks created on the deadly island opposite Lyme in Connecticut.

I can't remember the name of the island, but the ticks escaped and then they...You're skeptical of that story?

I'm skeptical of that story. I think the people, Lyme disease is real. I'm not discounting it. I'm not discounting it. You know, it's autoimmune condition, just like other autoimmune condition.

I'm pointing the finger at vaccines. You got anaphylaxis, like that community there got anaphylactized by something in vaccines.

Since the insect bites can...they may be like a secondhand now going between the people who have been already anaphylactized. And as Richet pointed out, you can have passive anaphylaxis. You can inject the blood of the anaphylactized animal into another healthy animal and produce anaphylaxis.

What I'm saying is, again, cause and effect.

They're telling you the tick is a cause, but it may be the tick is just traveling between people who have been anaphylactized and re-anaphylactizing them. Because otherwise...if it was the tick, the tick would either die out or spread around like we would have them in other areas. But we don't. It's only concentrated over there. You know, so there's something going on there. I'm sure Lyme is a real illness.

You get it in Scotland and stuff. I don't know. I'm certainly going to go along with you. I think your instincts are probably...

When you see some sort of autoimmunity like this and it lasts like decades, it's not the tick.

Also, they're saying weaponized ticks, but nobody can explain what did they weaponize them with. Can you produce a tick? If it's a tick, it's an animal, you can catch him. Can somebody since, I don't know when, this is going on for decades, please somebody show me that tick and what it was weaponized with.

Another thing, because one of your other fans apart from me is Mike Yeadon and poor old Mike, we did a live podcast event. Actually, you'd be great at a live podcast if ever you came to England...You realize it's like going back into Moscow in about 1917, actually more like 1923, I imagine, after the revolution's been established. We've got this dictator, communist dictator, so you might not like it. Or it might give you sort of a nostalgic feeling of your childhood. I don't know.

Anyway, Mike got into trouble with lots of awake people because he expressed skepticism about ivermectin. He said "Yeah, I know it's supposed to do this and I know everyone's championing it in the awake community but I think it could be another depop tool."

I wouldn't go that far that it's a depop tool or on purpose being promoted. But I also think that Mike's concerns are very valid. I also ran into arguments with a bunch of people about it. I think because the topic is so politicized, it's ridiculous to me. But Mike, as a diligent drug developer, I mean, those would be normal conversations if we were developing this drug, new drug.

And if we were working on some program and Mike comes and says, "Oh, wait, we have these two animal species have shown this in the study."

We would pay a lot of attention to this data and we would say, "They showed the reproductive toxicity in two species using ivermectin." We would actually have a lot of discussion and interest in it, to study it further, because it's called a signal and it's a very concerning signal for reproductive purposes.

So my immediate recommendation would be, "Well, if you are planning to have children, trying to conceive, you are a young person, maybe not use this drug for a while."

And you don't need to. For what reason are you using it? If you're healthy, you have no risk from this Covid, whatever. It doesn't pose any risk to young people, or flu. So just don't use it if you are planning to have children, especially like in the near term.

For people who don't plan to have any children, we have no reports of anything close like what they've observed in animals, in humans. So if you are not planning to have children, I think it's okay. But just make sure that you're aware. If you have some signs, something going on, you can discontinue the drug. And that's the normal, it's a normal conversation about any drug.

And the thing about drugs, you can discontinue them.

Vaccines, you can't.

Yeah, I think that's a sensible, measured response. It was very odd. People were kind of staking their reputation on it. It was like somebody had insulted their personal favorite freedom drug and I thought "What's going on here? That's not how we think."

Because another thing is, again coming back to the repetition of words, when you hear somebody repeating word or you hear repeated message over and over and over and over again, it's not coming from critical thinking. It's coming from brand building. It's a marketing exercise.

And the brand building and marketing exercise is a hallmark of informational operation campaigns.

Or people who are more interested in building brand versus telling the truth. And those people become extremely wedded to their limited messaging. Like, “Ivermectin works, Ivermectin works.” That's where they're coming from.

If they're critical thinking people and they're focused on solving the problem versus building the brand, then they will be behaving like Mike. They will be like, "Oh, wait, you know, I didn't know this. Now I know this. Let's think about this data. Let's think what we should do based on this data."

Now, the other area where you've gone and put your great big Soviet boots and stamped all over is, the story about the nano, the nano-technology and the death jabs, the evil.

Oh, yeah. I love nano. Actually, just this morning, a couple of hours ago, I pushed out an article exactly answering that question. I frequently get assaulted by this other group of people that want you to believe there is nanotechnology, self-assembling, that they're going to control you with nanobots by injecting you, into vaccines, or they're going to sprinkle them from chemtrails.

So, what are they. Nano means really, really, really, really small, does it?...

This has been going on for a long time [so] I know for sure it's part of the informational psyops campaign because, again, limited messaging, continuous repeated messaging of the same thing and a lot of anonymous bots running around and anonymous large accounts online promoting the same BS.

It is BS because, and I've seen, and I know some of the people and interact with them who are looking at these things in the microscope.

The problem is when they claim nano from looking at micro, which is thousand times larger. They're observing micro and macro structures and calling them nano. That's not accurate. That's not nano.

Second thing is they're saying these are self-assembling nanotechnologies.

Technology is not a pile of junk. Technology is something coherent. You can say "Here's the inputs, here are the outputs, and I can reproduce them most of the time."

If you just have a pile of junk, it's not a technology, it's a pile of junk. But that's what they're doing. They're observing a pile of microscopic junk, maybe some agglomeration and drying and growing out of it.

It's normal with these kinds of chemistries, hydrogels, polymers, they do it all the time. And then they're calling it a nanotechnology, not only nanotechnology, but it's something that, "Look, antennas and microcircuits, and this is electronics, and they're going to control you with these electronics."

This is nonsense. It's not possible, first of all. Nobody can control you by electronics.

But they can control you, guess by what? By words. So you repeating this nonsense and believing this nonsense, they already control you. They don't need the microelectronics.

[For further discussion on nanobots, vaccine history, Voltaire, British royals, see full transcript]

…It's a delusion. It's a death cult. It's a death ritual. I don't know if her children got any other conditions after that or they were fine. Doesn't matter. But from then on, no matter how many people you killed or maimed, you can't tell the monarch that she's wrong. You can only tell her that she's a genius. And this delusion continues. So that's why a lot of those people in high places, they actually sincerely believe it. Some of them are devious masterminds. But yeah, it's both. It's a delusion and a plan.

Have you met any of these people? The evil controllers of the world?

Some. From what I can tell so far, most of them are delusional. They don't know. They don't understand this. They think the vaccinations are wonderful. They buy into this. So that's what I'm saying. I totally agree that there are evil masterminds. I probably haven't seen them, but there are probably few. Because the majority of the people in high places I run into, they're the true believers.

[For further discussion on futurists, Ray Kurzweil, techno-immortality, Singularity is Near, Daniel Kahneman, see full transcript.]

…There are other theories of physics that are not Newtonian and not standard model. And I'm reading, one of them is Russian Causal Mechanics by [Nikolai] Kozyrev, [1958]. It's fascinating. But the guy was thrown into gulag so that he couldn't...Well, he developed it even there, because they can't stop people from thinking. But...he was completely suppressed. This work, it's theoretical work. Nobody took it further. Nobody did any additional practical experiments. Because if you do, well, first of all, causal mechanics means there is a cause of everything. It wasn't a random big bang.

Oh, okay. So he's essentially sort of worked, it's worked God into the equation.

Yes. So while he doesn't really say that because he was writing in the Soviet Union in the early days of Soviet Union, you can't say God at that time. But he was saying there is a source, there is a cause, and it's not a random assemblage of, Big Bang happened, just happened, explosion.

There is a direction to life. There's a symmetry to life. The causes are always in the past and the effects are always in the future. Standard model doesn't treat it that way. Standard model says causes and effects can be whichever way. He says, no, you have to assume that causes are always in the past.

Normal experience, right? Causes are always in the past. Effects are always in the future. And if you do it, then you figure out that time actually is not a delusion. It's a physical property of the world.

[For further discussion of Kozyrev, Newtonian physics, see full transcript]

…So all this mythology develops for people and shorthand for people to just think, "Okay, this guy figured out everything. I don't need to worry about this part." And most of the time it works. You don't need to worry about that part.

It's only when they start pushing these concepts on you, like, "Oh, you have to poison yourself now."

Which also stems from the Newtonian approach that everything is a randomly collected kind of matter. If we know this particle and this particle and the chemical interaction between these particles then we can predict it and inject you with the correct one. It all ties back to that.

It was that whole period, the so-called Enlightenment was actually an endarkenment. It took us away from God and created this new, you mentioned it, this new priest class of expert scientists…

[For further discussion of this topic; online spats about ‘likes’ on posts; Manchester bombing; Las Vegas shooting; Lahaina, see full transcript]

…JD

Yeah, we are just like rats to them. Do you think, before we go, do you think that people who never experienced life behind the Iron Curtain like you did, do you think we're kind of softer and more delusional, that people who've experienced what you did growing up are much more savvy about how governments really are?

Yes, especially in the later stages of the Soviet Union, my generation and people of about my generation, we grew up already not believing the government at all. And it was normal. It wasn't like a traumatic experience or anything. It was just, that's what you do.

And that's how you just have this disbelief and skepticism toward the government because they're always lying and all this bullshit Marxism stuff. Nobody believed it. There were some older people bought into it. There are a lot of Stalin supporters from the older generation.

But in my experience, my generation, either people just ignored it or totally knew that this was crap.

So to me, it's normal to be skeptical of the government. And when I originally came to the US, I thought it was different, it was free, it was wonderful. I bought into this whole American story.

And now in retrospect, I know that it was both for the Soviet Union and for America the same. The best way to imprison people is to make them believe they're free.

America made a great job at marketing freedom, especially to its own citizens, while they were doing war all over the place and killing people all over the place and running drugs and running gangs and guns and trafficking and everything while selling freedom.

I used to believe that.

I used to believe that too. But boy, my eyes were opened, again. And I'm grateful for that. And I've learned a lot of things. And I learned all this horrid stuff. But I'm better off knowing than not knowing…

Aug. 21, 2024 - Similarities between "spike protein" and synthetic anthrax toxin. Real bioweapons are not viruses but chemical weapons. (Sasha Latypova)
Aug. 26, 2024 - Intentional elusivity of definitions for virus and vaccine. (Katherine Watt)
Sept. 3, 2024 - The second shot, or what do vaccinators and sewer rats have in common? Reviewing Charles Richet's work on anaphylaxis, awarded the Nobel Prize in 1913. (Sasha Latypova)
Sept. 9, 2024 - Anaphylaxis by vaccines - discussion with Dr. Jane Ruby (Sasha Latypova)
Sept. 12, 2024 - On vaccination as intentional induction of chronic and acute anaphylaxis. (Katherine Watt, condensed transcript of Latypova-Ruby discussion).
Sept. 21, 2024 - What If Seed Oils Aren't The Problem? Or: Vaccines - Even More Evil Than You Feared (James Delingpole)
Sept. 23, 2024 - Vaccine-induced food allergies: turning [even organic and healthy] food into poison (Sasha Latypova)
Sept. 28, 2024 - "Make America Healthy Again" policy misdirects from the main driver of chronic illness - the CDC vaccine schedule. (Sasha Latypova)
Oct. 3, 2024 - Back on Delingpod. We talked about a wide range of topics, including Pandemic Preparedness racket, how vaccines cause food allergies and drive the chronic disease epidemic, the nature of time, and much more. (Sasha Latypova)
Oct. 9, 2024 - Anaphylaxis, Alpha-gal, Pasteur, Richet, Voltaire... and the Queen of England. (Sasha Latypova)
Oct. 11, 2024 - Food For Thought (Miriam Finch)

Apparition of the Virgin of the Pillar to Saint James and his disciples. Francisco Goya.

All content is free to all readers.

All support — reading, sharing and financial — is deeply appreciated.

Templeton Times

Fluoride Information

Tuesday, October 22, 2024