DailyBriefs.info   MP3  PDF  PODCAST
Charles Richet Nobel Lecture on Anaphylaxis Shock
https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/medicine/1913/richet/lecture/ 

Sources:

• Excerpts from "Charles Richet – Nobel Lecture - NobelPrize.org" (December 11, 1913)

• Excerpts from "Detailed Briefing Document: Review of 'Vaccines Promote Lifelong Autoimmune Disease' by Jeremy James.pdf" (October 26, 2023)

Executive Summary:

This briefing document reviews the main themes and important ideas presented in Charles Richet's Nobel Lecture on anaphylaxis and how his findings are interpreted and applied in a critical review of vaccination by Jeremy James. Richet's lecture details his discovery of anaphylaxis – a state of heightened sensitivity following a prior exposure to a substance – through meticulous experiments primarily on dogs. He emphasizes that this phenomenon is the opposite of protection (phylaxis) and involves a fundamental alteration of the organism's reactivity.

The second source, a review of James's article, heavily leverages Richet's work to argue that vaccines, involving the parenteral injection of foreign proteins, can induce anaphylaxis-like hypersensitivity and lead to permanent changes in the body's biochemistry, ultimately causing autoimmune diseases. James, as presented in the review, suggests that this information is suppressed by the medical and pharmaceutical industries and raises concerns about the safety and potential malicious use of vaccines. This briefing will outline the key concepts from Richet's lecture and then detail how James's critique interprets and applies these concepts to the topic of vaccination.

Main Themes and Important Ideas/Facts:

Part 1: Charles Richet's Nobel Lecture on Anaphylaxis

• Definition of Anaphylaxis: Richet coined the term "anaphylaxis" (from Greek ana- meaning "without" and phylaxis meaning "protection") to describe a state where an organism becomes hypersensitive to a substance after a prior exposure, rather than developing immunity.

• Quote: "'Anaphylaxis will thus stand for the opposite. Anaphylaxis, from its Greek etymological source, therefore means that state of an organism in which it is rendered hypersensitive, instead of being protected.'"

• Discovery through Observation: Richet recounts how his discovery was not a result of profound thought but rather a series of observations during experiments with toxins from marine animals like the Physalia and Actinia. He noted that dogs surviving an initial, non-lethal dose of these toxins exhibited severe, and often fatal, reactions upon a second injection weeks later.

• Quote: "An unexpected phenomenon arose, which we thought extraordinary. A dog when injected previously even with the smallest dose, say of 0.005 liquid per kilo, immediately showed serious symptoms : vomiting, blood diarrhoea, syncope, unconsciousness, asphyxia and death."

• Key Characteristics of Anaphylaxis: Richet identified several core features of anaphylaxis:

• Increased Sensitivity: A previously injected subject is far more sensitive to a subsequent injection.

• Quote: "(1) a subject that had a previous injection is far more sensitive than a new subject"

• Different Symptoms: The symptoms of the anaphylactic reaction (second injection) are distinct from those of the initial exposure.

• Quote: "(2) that the symptoms characteristic of the second injection, namely swift and total depression of the nervous system, do not in any way resemble the symptoms characterizing the first injection"

• Incubation Period: A period of 3-4 weeks (or varying durations depending on the substance and animal) must elapse for the anaphylactic state to develop.

• Quote: "(3) a three or four week period must elapse before the anaphylactic state results. This is the period of incubation."

• Generality of Anaphylaxis: Richet and other researchers (like Arthus, Rosenau, and Anderson) demonstrated that anaphylaxis was not limited to specific toxins but could be induced by various proteins, including sera, milk, and organic extracts. Even minute quantities could induce sensitization.

• Quote (commentary on Richet's work): "Further research showed that virtually any protein, not just toxins, could cause anaphylaxis..." (from the review document summarizing Richet's broader findings).

• Specificity of Anaphylaxis (with Nuances): Initially, Richet observed a high degree of specificity, where the second "unleashing" injection produced a stronger reaction if it was the same substance as the initial "preparatory" injection. However, his later experiments suggested that this specificity was not absolute, indicating the possibility of "general anaphylaxis" where sensitization to one substance could increase sensitivity to others.

• Passive Anaphylaxis: Richet showed that the serum from an anaphylactized animal could transfer the hypersensitive state to a normal animal, indicating the presence of a sensitizing substance in the blood.

• Quote: "An anaphylactic state is produced by taking the blood of an anaphylactized animal and injecting it into a normal animal subject. The anaphylactogen poison is therefore a chemical substance contained in the blood."

• In Vitro Anaphylaxis and Apotoxin Hypothesis: Richet's experiments suggested that mixing the antigen with the serum of an anaphylactized animal could generate a new, potent poison ("apotoxin"). He hypothesized the existence of a harmless substance in anaphylactized blood ("toxogenin") that reacts with the antigen to form this apotoxin.

• Quote: "Let us assume the existence of a substance in the anaphylactized blood, which we will call toxogenin. ... But if toxogenin is mixed with antigen, then a new poison is produced, which has immediate and serious consequences. This poison, derived as it is from the antigen, I propose to call apotoxin."

• Alimentary Anaphylaxis: Richet also explored anaphylaxis resulting from the ingestion of substances, noting that soluble proteins introduced via the digestive tract could potentially trigger anaphylactic reactions.

• Humoral Personality and Species Stability: Richet proposed the concept of a "humoral personality," suggesting that the unique chemical makeup of an individual's blood contributes to their distinctiveness. He further theorized that anaphylaxis serves as a defense mechanism for the species, preventing the permanent incorporation of foreign proteins into the bloodstream, even if it is detrimental to the individual.

• Quote: "the life of the individual is less important than the stability of the species."

• Permanent Modification: Richet's work strongly suggested that the initial anaphylactizing injection caused a lasting modification to the organism's chemical constitution.

• Quote (quoting Richet in the review document): "'once a subject has been anaphylactized and consequently modified in his chemical constitution, then the subject can never go back to his former state. Return to normal is not possible.'"

Part 2: Jeremy James's Interpretation of Anaphylaxis in the Context of Vaccination

The review of Jeremy James's article uses Richet's findings on anaphylaxis as a central argument against the safety and efficacy of vaccines. Key points of this interpretation include:

• Vaccines as Parenteral Injection of Foreign Proteins: James, as presented in the review, emphasizes that vaccines involve the injection of foreign proteins (antigens, adjuvants, etc.) directly into the bloodstream, bypassing the digestive system that Richet considered the natural and safe route for protein introduction.

• Anaphylaxis and Heightened Sensitivity: The review highlights Richet's discovery of anaphylaxis to argue that vaccines can induce a state of heightened sensitivity to the vaccine components or even other subsequent exposures.

• Quote (quoting Richet): "'Anaphylaxis... means that state of an organism in which it is rendered hypersensitive, instead of being protected.'"

• Permanent Biochemical Modification: James, drawing on Richet's conclusions, asserts that vaccination can cause a profound and permanent modification of the body's chemical constitution, potentially leading to long-term adverse effects.

• Quote (commentary on Richet's work): "'He showed that in fact parenteral injection [such as vaccine inoculation] of protein substance modifies profoundly and permanently the chemical constitution of the body fluids.'"

• Link to Autoimmune Diseases: The review states that James believes repeated exposure to foreign proteins via vaccination leads to this heightened sensitivity and can trigger autoimmune diseases. The argument is that lesser immune reactions to injected proteins can cause inflammatory responses in organs, resulting in the body attacking its own tissues.

• Quote: "The author contends that repeated exposure to foreign proteins via vaccination leads to a state of 'heightened sensitivity' and can trigger autoimmune diseases."

• Increased Prevalence of Autoimmune Diseases: James, according to the review, correlates the introduction and expansion of childhood vaccine programs with a perceived increase in the frequency and intensity of various autoimmune diseases.

• Quote: "The author believes that the frequency and intensity of common autoimmune diseases have increased since the introduction of childhood vaccine programs."

• Vaccines as Potential Stealth Bioweapons: The review outlines James's proposition that vaccines could be used maliciously as "stealth bioweapons" through mechanisms involving initial sensitization followed by later triggering events leading to severe reactions like anaphylactic shock.

• Quote: "The author proposes that vaccines could be used as 'stealth bioweapons' by introducing harmless substances that later trigger severe reactions upon subsequent exposure."

• Suppression of Information: The review highlights James's claim that the medical and pharmaceutical industries suppress information about Richet's discovery and its implications for vaccine safety, preventing a full understanding of the potential harms.

• Quote: "Finally, the author claims that despite all this evidence, the medical profession and the pharmaceutical industry continue to suppress information about Richet's discovery."

• General Anaphylaxis as a Concern: The concept of general anaphylaxis, where sensitization to one injected substance increases susceptibility to others, is mentioned in the review as a further potential danger associated with vaccination.

Conclusion:

Charles Richet's Nobel Lecture meticulously documented the discovery of anaphylaxis, revealing a paradoxical immune response where a prior exposure leads to heightened sensitivity. His work highlighted the body's complex reactions to foreign substances and the lasting impact of parenteral injections. The review of Jeremy James's article takes these foundational findings and interprets them as a significant warning against the practice of vaccination. James argues that the injection of foreign proteins in vaccines mirrors the conditions that Richet found to induce anaphylaxis and its associated risks, including permanent biochemical alterations and the potential development of autoimmune diseases. The review emphasizes James's belief that this connection is deliberately ignored or suppressed by the medical establishment. It is crucial to note that this briefing document reflects the arguments presented in the reviewed source and does not represent an endorsement of these views, which are highly critical of mainstream medical consensus on vaccination.

Charles Richet's Nobel Lecture details his discovery and extensive research on anaphylaxis. He begins by defining anaphylaxis as a state of heightened sensitivity rather than protection after a primary exposure to a substance. Richet recounts his initial observations using marine organisms and later experiments with various animals and substances, illustrating the specific and sometimes general nature of anaphylactic reactions. The lecture explores the mechanisms of anaphylaxis, including the concept of a sensitizing substance and the production of a toxin upon secondary exposure. Furthermore, Richet discusses anaphylaxis in relation to forensic medicine, passive anaphylaxis, in vitro reactions, leucocytosis, and alimentary anaphylaxis, suggesting its potential links to conditions like dyspepsia and its broader significance for species survival by preventing the integration of foreign proteins into the organism. 

Source 1: Excerpts from "Charles Richet – Nobel Lecture - NobelPrize.org"

1.

Anaphylaxis is a state of hypersensitivity that occurs upon a second or subsequent exposure to a substance, where the reaction is more severe and different from the initial exposure, instead of providing protection1 ....

2.

Parenteral injection (introduction of a substance into the body by a route other than digestion) of proteins can profoundly and permanently modify the organism's chemical constitution, leading to anaphylaxis3 ....

3.

The development of anaphylaxis requires a sensitization phase (first exposure) and an elicitation phase (second exposure) after an incubation period of several weeks7 .

4.

Proteins, without exception, are the substances that induce anaphylaxis8 .

5.

The symptoms of anaphylaxis vary significantly depending on the animal species9 .... In dogs, it can range from itching to severe nervous system depression and death10 .... In guinea pigs, it can lead to rapid death14 .

6.

Once an organism is anaphylactized, this hypersensitive state can persist for a long time, possibly for years, and a return to the former non-sensitive state may not be possible15 .

7.

Anaphylaxis can also occur through ingestion of a substance via the digestive system (alimentary anaphylaxis), although the conditions for this are more complex16 .

8.

Passive anaphylaxis can be induced by transferring serum from an anaphylactized animal to a normal animal, indicating that a chemical substance in the blood is responsible for the anaphylactic state17 .

9.

Mixing the antigen (the substance causing anaphylaxis) with the serum of an anaphylactized animal can create a new, potent poison, termed "apotoxin" by Richet, suggesting a chemical reaction underlies anaphylaxis18 ....

10.

There can be a degree of specificity in anaphylaxis, meaning the second injection often elicits a stronger reaction if it is the same substance as the first22 . However, this specificity is not absolute, and general anaphylaxis (increased sensitivity to other substances) can also occur23 ....

11.

Anaphylaxis can occur in humans, and its symptoms are akin to those observed in animals, including urticaria, itching, and more severe reactions in some cases25 ....

12.

Anaphylaxis causes a marked increase in the number of white blood cells (leucocytosis) in the blood29 .

13.

Richet hypothesized the existence of a substance in anaphylactized blood, which he called "toxogenin" (later called sensibilisin or anaphylatoxin by others), that reacts with the antigen to produce the poisonous "apotoxin"21 ....

14.

Anaphylaxis can be seen as a fundamental defense mechanism of the species against the penetration of foreign, non-digestively modified proteins into the blood, even if it is detrimental to the individual31 ....

15.

The concept of "humoral personality" proposes that the unique chemical makeup of an individual's bodily fluids, influenced by exposures to various substances, makes each organism chemically distinct34 ....

16.

While there are similarities between anaphylaxis and tuberculin reactions in tuberculous animals, there are also significant differences, suggesting distinct underlying mechanisms36 ....

17.

Attempts to develop a diagnostic method for cancer based on anaphylaxis were unsuccessful38 .

18.

Injecting blood from one animal into another of the same species (homogenic transfusion) does not cause anaphylaxis39 .

19.

The severity of anaphylaxis in dogs can be classified into four degrees, with the most severe leading to death10 ....

20.

Richet's initial discovery of anaphylaxis was serendipitous, arising from studies on the poisonous effects of sea anemone extracts2 ....

Source 2: Excerpts from "Detailed Briefing Document Review of Vaccines Promote Lifelong Autoimmune Disease by Jeremy James.pdf"

1.

Jeremy James argues that vaccines are potentially harmful interventions, acting as a "perfect vector for mass infection" and possibly intended for malicious purposes6 ....

2.

The review heavily emphasizes Dr. Charles Richet's discovery of anaphylaxis – a severe hypersensitivity reaction upon subsequent exposure to a substance – as a fundamental danger associated with vaccine injections (parenteral introduction of foreign proteins)6 ....

3.

James, interpreting Richet's findings, contends that the parenteral injection of foreign proteins in vaccines profoundly and permanently modifies the body's biochemistry, leading to heightened sensitivity and potentially triggering autoimmune diseases3 ....

4.

The review highlights Richet's observation that the body is designed to receive proteins only after modification by digestive juices, suggesting that injecting alien proteins directly into the blood (as in vaccination) is inherently harmful4 ....

5.

James posits that repeated exposure to foreign proteins via vaccination leads to a state of "heightened sensitivity" and is a primary cause of the increased prevalence of autoimmune diseases such as multiple sclerosis, diabetes, and rheumatoid arthritis47 ....

6.

Once an individual is anaphylactized by a vaccine component, this hypersensitive state and the permanent modification of their biochemistry may be irreversible6 ....

7.

The author of the reviewed article proposes that vaccines could be used as "stealth bioweapons" through a "binary or two-phase weapon" scenario, where initial vaccinations sensitize individuals and later exposures trigger severe reactions44 ....

8.

The review asserts that the medical profession and the pharmaceutical industry are actively suppressing information about Richet's discovery and its implications for the dangers of vaccine injections48 ....

9.

General anaphylaxis, where sensitization to one injected substance increases susceptibility to others, is presented as a potential risk associated with vaccines48 ....

10.

The author suggests that lesser immune reactions to injected foreign proteins in vaccines can cause chronic inflammatory responses in various organs, which manifest as autoimmune diseases49 ....

11.

James believes that autoimmune diseases, allegedly caused or exacerbated by vaccines, cannot be cured, only their symptoms alleviated52 ....

12.

The review mentions common vaccine ingredients (antigens, preservatives, adjuvants, etc.) as foreign substances that could potentially trigger harmful immune responses, including anaphylaxis and autoimmunity48 ....

13.

The author raises concerns about mandatory vaccination efforts, questioning the motives of governments and the pharmaceutical industry and suggesting a potential agenda to inflict harm43 ....

14.

The increasing rates of developmental disabilities in children (as per a 2019 CDC estimate) are noted, and the author suggests vaccines as a plausible cause, potentially linking to autism spectrum disorders44 ....

15.

The review includes a glossary defining terms like anaphylaxis, autoimmune disease, and parenteral injection in a way that supports the author's critical perspective on vaccination57 ....

16.

The concept of "foreign protein" and the body's potential adverse reactions to it when injected directly into the bloodstream are emphasized as central to the argument against vaccine safety5 ....

17.

The review mentions the "Illuminati Plan" based on Alice Bailey's writings, suggesting a broader conspiratorial context for the alleged harms of vaccines and mandatory vaccination44 ....

18.

The permanent alteration of the body's biochemical status due to foreign protein injection via vaccines is described as an irreversible and significant adverse effect6 ....

19.

The author draws on Richet's finding that virtually any protein can cause anaphylaxis to argue that even seemingly harmless components of vaccines pose a risk3 ....

20.

The review uses the term "vector for mass infection" to controversially describe vaccines, implying they could efficiently deliver harmful substances to a large population43 ....

Study Guide: Anaphylaxis and Vaccine Concerns

Quiz

• Define anaphylaxis in your own words based on Richet's lecture. Explain how it differs from immunization.

• According to Richet, what are the three possible outcomes when a subject receives a second injection of a substance after a period of time? Briefly describe each.

• What key finding did Richet make regarding the types of substances that could induce anaphylaxis beyond just toxins? Provide an example mentioned in his lecture.

• Describe Richet's experiment with dogs and Actinia (sea anemone) extract that led to his initial observations of anaphylaxis. What were the key characteristics of this phenomenon that he noted?

• Explain the concept of "passive anaphylaxis" as described by Richet. How did his experiments with serum from anaphylactized dogs demonstrate this?

• Summarize Richet's hypothesis involving "toxogenin" and "apotoxin." How does this explain the severe reaction in anaphylaxis?

• According to Richet, how does the body normally handle proteins, and why does he suggest that parenteral injection of foreign proteins can be problematic?

• Based on the briefing document, how does Jeremy James interpret Richet's findings in relation to vaccine safety and autoimmune diseases?

• Briefly describe the "binary or two-phase weapon" concept as it relates to vaccines according to Jeremy James.

• What claim does Jeremy James make regarding the medical profession and pharmaceutical industry's handling of information about anaphylaxis and vaccine risks?

Answer Key

• Anaphylaxis, as defined by Richet, is a state of heightened sensitivity in an organism, the opposite of protection or immunization. Instead of becoming resistant to a substance after an initial exposure, the organism reacts more severely upon subsequent exposure.

• The three possibilities are: no change in sensitivity where the second injection produces the same effects as the first; diminished sensitivity or habituation where a stronger dose is needed for the same effect; and heightened sensitivity or anaphylaxis where even the same dose leads to a much more severe reaction.

• Richet discovered that virtually any protein, not just toxins, could induce anaphylaxis. He noted that this was observed with various organic liquids such as milk, serum, egg, and muscle extract.

• Richet injected dogs with glycerol extracts of Actinia tentacles. Dogs that survived the initial injection showed a dramatically more severe and rapid reaction, including vomiting, bloody diarrhea, syncope, and death, when given a second, even smaller, dose weeks later. He noted the increased sensitivity, the different symptoms compared to the first injection, and the incubation period required.

• Passive anaphylaxis is the transfer of the anaphylactic state to a normal animal by injecting it with serum from an anaphylactized animal. Richet showed that serum from dogs made anaphylactic to actino-congestin could cause death in non-anaphylactized dogs when they were given even almost harmless doses of the same substance.

• Richet hypothesized the existence of "toxogenin" in anaphylactized blood, a harmless substance that reacts with the antigen upon a second exposure to produce a potent poison he called "apotoxin" (toxogenin + antigen = apotoxin). This explains why the second exposure leads to a severe reaction.

• Richet stated that the body is constituted to receive proteins safely into the blood only after they have been modified by digestive juices. Parenteral injection bypasses this natural process, allowing alien proteins to enter the bloodstream directly, which the organism can perceive as an effraction, leading to suffering and increased sensitivity as a defense mechanism.

• James interprets Richet's findings as strong evidence of the inherent dangers of injecting foreign proteins, such as those found in vaccines. He argues that vaccines can cause anaphylaxis or a state of heightened sensitivity, leading to permanent changes in the body's biochemistry and potentially triggering autoimmune diseases due to the inflammatory response to these foreign proteins.

• The "binary or two-phase weapon" concept suggests that initial vaccines could contain harmless substances that sensitize individuals. Later, a subsequent exposure to the same substance, possibly through another vaccine, could then trigger a severe anaphylactic reaction or other harmful effects.

• James claims that the medical profession and the pharmaceutical industry have deliberately suppressed information about Richet's discovery of anaphylaxis and its implications for vaccine safety, urging people to consider this "suppressed" knowledge when evaluating vaccination.

Essay Format Questions

• Analyze the significance of Charles Richet's discovery of anaphylaxis as presented in his Nobel lecture. Discuss the key experimental findings and the implications he drew from them regarding the body's reaction to foreign substances.

• Compare and contrast Richet's understanding of anaphylaxis with Jeremy James's interpretation of it in the context of vaccine safety. Identify the key points of alignment and divergence in their perspectives as presented in the provided sources.

• Evaluate Jeremy James's argument that vaccines promote lifelong autoimmune disease based on his interpretation of Richet's work. What specific connections does he draw, and how well are these connections supported by the information presented in the sources?

• Discuss the potential implications of the "binary or two-phase weapon" theory in the context of vaccination as described by Jeremy James. How does he use the concept of anaphylaxis to support this alarming possibility, and what are the broader societal concerns raised by such a theory?

• Consider Richet's view of anaphylaxis as a "universal defense mechanism" for the species. How does this perspective contrast with the concerns raised by Jeremy James about the potential harm of injecting foreign proteins through vaccination at the individual level?

Glossary of Key Terms

• Anaphylaxis: A state of heightened sensitivity in an organism following an initial exposure to a substance, leading to a more severe reaction upon subsequent exposure.

• Immunization: The process by which an organism becomes protected against a disease after exposure to an antigen.

• Parenteral Injection: The administration of a substance into the body via a route other than the digestive tract, such as subcutaneous, intravenous, or intramuscular injection.

• Toxogenin: A hypothetical harmless substance in anaphylactized blood that Richet proposed would react with an antigen to produce a poison.

• Apotoxin: The poisonous substance that Richet hypothesized is formed by the reaction of toxogenin with an antigen in an anaphylactic reaction.

• Hypersensitivity: An exaggerated or excessive immune response to an antigen, as seen in anaphylaxis and allergies.

• Foreign Protein: A protein originating from outside the body.

• Autoimmune Disease: A condition in which the body's immune system mistakenly attacks its own tissues.

• Vector (for Mass Infection): A means by which harmful agents can be transmitted to a large population.

• Stealth Bioweapon: A biological weapon designed to be difficult to detect or trace, often causing delayed or seemingly unrelated adverse health effects.

• Binary Weapon: A weapon system consisting of two or more components that are individually harmless but produce a toxic effect when combined.

• Humoral Personality: Richet's concept that each individual has a unique chemical makeup of their bodily fluids, contributing to their individuality.

• Alimentary Anaphylaxis: Anaphylaxis that occurs after ingestion of a substance via the digestive system.

• Leucocytosis: An increase in the number of white blood cells in the blood, often indicating an inflammatory response.

• Specificity (in Anaphylaxis): The principle that the preparatory and unleashing injections in anaphylaxis typically involve the same or very closely related substances for the strongest reaction.

• Passive Anaphylaxis: The transfer of anaphylactic sensitivity from a sensitized animal to a non-sensitized animal via the transfer of serum.

• Anaphylactic Shock: The severe and sometimes fatal systemic reaction in a highly sensitive individual following exposure to the sensitizing antigen.

Discuss Anaphylactic reaction.

Based on the provided sources, the anaphylactic reaction is a state of hypersensitivity that occurs in an organism following a second exposure to a substance, rather than the expected protection or immunity1 .... This phenomenon was discovered by Dr. Charles Richet in 1902, for which he received the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 19133 ....

Here's a breakdown of the anaphylactic reaction based on Richet's Nobel Lecture:

•

Definition and Discovery: Richet coined the term "anaphylaxis" (meaning "opposite of protection" from Greek roots) to describe a heightened sensitivity observed after a second injection of a substance1 .... His initial experiments involved injecting dogs with extracts from sea creatures like Physalia and Actinia7 .... He observed that a subsequent injection, even of a small dose given weeks later, led to serious and often fatal symptoms, unlike the reaction to the first injection2 ....

•

Three Possible Reactions to a Second Injection: Richet outlined three possibilities following a moderate initial dose of a poison:

◦

No change in sensitivity11 .

◦

Diminished sensitivity, leading to tolerance (like with morphine)12 .

◦

Heightened sensitivity (anaphylaxis), where the first injection makes the organism more fragile and susceptible3 ....

•

Key Characteristics of Anaphylaxis: Richet identified several key factors3 ...:

◦

Increased Sensitivity: A subject with a prior injection is far more sensitive than a naive subject.

◦

Different Symptoms: The symptoms of the second injection (often a rapid and total depression of the nervous system) are distinct from those of the first.

◦

Incubation Period: A period of about three to four weeks must pass for the anaphylactic state to develop.

•

Universality Across Proteins: Initially observed with toxins, Richet and later researchers like Arthus, Rosenau, and Anderson demonstrated that virtually any protein, whether toxic initially or not (such as sera, milk, egg, and organic extracts), could induce anaphylaxis14 .... Even minute amounts could be sufficient to anaphylactize an animal15 .

•

Symptoms Vary by Species: Richet detailed the symptoms of anaphylaxis in different animals, noting variations according to the species rather than the poison used18 :

◦

Dogs: Ranging from itching and sneezing in mild cases to violent symptoms like vomiting, bloody diarrhea, syncope, unconsciousness, asphyxia, and potentially death in severe "anaphylactic shock"19 .... He also described degrees of anaphylaxis based on intensity.

◦

Rabbits: Polypneic respiration, falling on the side, head thrown back, leg movements, and sudden cessation of breathing leading to rapid death. Arthus also noted local effects like ulcers and gangrene at the injection site ("Arthus phenomenon")22 .

◦

Guinea-pigs: Extreme sensitivity, with symptoms ranging from itching and excitation to violent convulsions or paralysis, leading to rapid heart failure and death23 .

◦

Humans: Symptoms similar to animals, including urticaria, erythema, pain, itching, and in severe cases, demi-syncope, nausea, vomiting, hyperthermia, and edema24 .... Richet cited an example of a fatal reaction to a second injection of anti-plague serum in a doctor24 . Pirquet and Schick's work on serum sickness in children was also identified as a form of anaphylaxis25 .

•

Specificity and General Anaphylaxis: While there is specificity in that the unleashing injection works best with the same substance as the preparatory injection, Richet also observed "general anaphylaxis," where sensitization to one substance could increase sensitivity to others that are chemically unrelated (e.g., dogs anaphylactized by crepitin showing increased sensitivity to apomorphine)27 ....

•

Passive Anaphylaxis: Richet demonstrated that the serum from an anaphylactized animal could transfer the hypersensitive state to a normal animal, indicating the presence of a chemical substance in the blood responsible for anaphylaxis32 .... This is known as "passive anaphylaxis" and was also independently shown by Gay and Southard, and Otto34 .

•

Anaphylaxis In Vitro: Richet also conducted experiments suggesting that mixing the antigen with serum from an anaphylactized animal could produce a potent poison, implying a chemical interaction between a substance in the anaphylactic serum (which he termed "toxogenin," and others later called "sensibilisin" or "anaphylatoxin") and the antigen to form a toxic "apotoxin"34 ....

•

Permanent Modification: Richet believed that once an organism is anaphylactized, it never fully returns to its previous state38 .... This permanent alteration of the "chemical constitution" was a significant conclusion16 ....

•

Defense Mechanism: Richet hypothesized that anaphylaxis serves as a universal defense mechanism for the species against the penetration of foreign proteins into the blood, which cannot be eliminated17 .... He argued that the stability of the species is more important than the life of the individual in this context41 . He noted that the body is designed to receive proteins primarily after modification by digestive juices17 ....

The review of Jeremy James's article heavily emphasizes Richet's discovery of anaphylaxis to argue against the safety of vaccines2 .... James, as presented in the review, interprets Richet's findings to suggest that:

•

Vaccines, as parenteral injections of foreign proteins, can cause anaphylaxis and permanent modifications to the body's biochemistry16 ....

•

This heightened sensitivity can lead to harmful immune responses, including autoimmune diseases, which the author believes have increased due to vaccination programs31 ....

•

Richet's warning about injecting foreign proteins bypassing the digestive system highlights a fundamental danger of vaccination31 ....

•

The phenomenon of "general anaphylaxis" implies that vaccines could increase susceptibility to other harmful substances30 ....

•

The potential for vaccines to act as "stealth bioweapons" by inducing sensitization that is triggered later is also raised, drawing on the principles of anaphylaxis46 ....

•

Information about Richet's discovery and its implications for vaccine safety is allegedly being suppressed by the medical and pharmaceutical industries17 ....

It's important to note that while the review of Jeremy James's article draws heavily on Richet's discovery of anaphylaxis, it presents a critical and potentially controversial interpretation of these findings in the context of vaccination17 .... Richet's Nobel Lecture primarily focuses on the scientific discovery and characterization of anaphylaxis, while the reviewed article uses this information to support a specific viewpoint on vaccine safety.

keep_pinSave to note

copy_all

thumb_up

thumb_down

Discuss Heightened sensitivity.

Based on the provided sources, heightened sensitivity is a central concept, primarily discussed in the context of anaphylaxis1 .... Dr. Charles Richet, who discovered anaphylaxis in 1902, defined it as a state of an organism in which it is rendered hypersensitive, instead of being protected1 .... This is the opposite of immunization, where the body develops a tolerance or diminished sensitivity to a substance2 ....

Here's a breakdown of heightened sensitivity as described in the sources:

•

Development of Heightened Sensitivity (Anaphylaxis): Anaphylaxis typically occurs after an initial exposure to a substance, which Richet referred to as the preparatory injection5 . If a subsequent injection of the same substance is given weeks later, the organism can exhibit a severe, heightened reaction, far greater than the reaction to the first injection2 .... Richet's experiments on dogs with Actinia poison clearly demonstrated this5 . Even a minute initial dose could lead to a powerful and potentially fatal reaction upon a second injection after an incubation period of about three to four weeks2 ....

•

Permanency of Heightened Sensitivity: According to Richet, once a subject has been anaphylactized and consequently modified in his chemical constitution, then the subject can never go back to his former state. Return to normal is not possible6 .... This heightened sensitivity can persist for years after the initial sensitizing event6 ....

•

Specificity and General Anaphylaxis: While Richet initially noted a degree of specificity in anaphylactic reactions (e.g., sensitization to goat's milk leads to a stronger reaction with goat's milk upon second injection)10 , he also observed instances of general anaphylaxis11 .... This refers to a phenomenon where sensitization to one injected substance can increase the susceptibility to other injected substances that are not necessarily related to the initial sensitizer11 ....

•

Heightened Sensitivity and Foreign Protein Injection: The review of Jeremy James's article heavily emphasizes Richet's findings on heightened sensitivity in relation to the injection of foreign proteins, particularly in vaccines13 .... James argues that parenteral injection of protein substances profoundly and permanently modifies the body's chemical constitution, leading to this state of heightened sensitivity8 .... He highlights Richet's warning that the body is designed to receive proteins only after they have been modified by digestive juices, and that injecting alien proteins directly into the blood can trigger harmful immune responses, including increased sensitivity7 ....

•

Link to Autoimmune Diseases: James further posits that the repeated exposure to foreign proteins via vaccination leads to a state of 'heightened sensitivity' and can trigger autoimmune diseases13 .... He suggests that lesser immune reactions to injected foreign proteins can cause inflammatory responses in organs, resulting in autoimmune conditions22 .... The alleged increase in the frequency of autoimmune diseases since the introduction of childhood vaccine programs is cited as supporting evidence for this link13 ....

In essence, both sources highlight anaphylaxis as a state of pathological heightened sensitivity induced by a prior exposure to a substance, often a protein, introduced parenterally. The review of Jeremy James's work specifically applies Richet's findings to argue that vaccines, by injecting foreign proteins, can cause this lasting heightened sensitivity, potentially leading to adverse health outcomes like autoimmune diseases13 ....

keep_pinSave to note

copy_all

thumb_up

thumb_down

Discuss Humoral personality.

Based on the Nobel Lecture of Charles Richet1 ...:

Richet introduces the concept of "humoral personality" in relation to the chemical make-up of our humours, contrasting it with the well-understood "personality of the psyche"1 ....

Here's a breakdown of Richet's discussion on humoral personality:

•

Richet states that just as our memories and stored impressions create a unique psychological personality that distinguishes each individual1 , he proposes that there is another personality existing in juxtaposition to the moral personality, which he calls the humoral personality2 .

•

This humoral personality makes each of us different from other individuals due to the chemical make-up of our humours, primarily our blood and likely also the protoplasm of each cell1 ....

•

He argues that up until this point, there was an assumption, perhaps due to a lack of deeper thought, that individuals of the same age, race, and sex would have chemically identical humours2 . However, Richet contends that this is not the case2 .

•

According to Richet, every living being, despite strong resemblances to others of its species, possesses unique characteristics in their chemical constitution, making them distinct2 .

•

He suggests that to be different from other members of the same species, an animal only needs to receive a small quantity of alien protein into its blood, causing a specific anaphylactic reaction, or for a microbe to evolve in its blood, leading to a specific immunity1 .

•

Over an individual's lifespan, the accumulation of diverse immunities and anaphylactic sensitivities, grouped differently in various subjects, leads to each person differing from all others in their humoral make-up1 .

•

Therefore, Richet concludes that the study of the physiology of the species is no longer sufficient2 . A new, more challenging area of physiology needs to be explored: the physiology of the individual, which considers these unique humoral differences2 .

•

In essence, anaphylaxis and immunity contribute to this humoral personality by creating humoral differentiations between individuals3 . A guinea-pig anaphylactized by horse serum, for example, will be chemically distinct from untreated guinea-pigs or those anaphylactized by other sera3 . The sheer number of anaphylactizing and immunizing substances suggests an almost unlimited chemical or humoral diversity among individuals3 .

In summary, Richet's concept of humoral personality emphasizes the unique chemical individuality of each organism, primarily reflected in their blood and cellular protoplasm, shaped by their specific history of exposures leading to anaphylactic sensitivities and immunities. This individuality goes beyond observable characteristics and constitutes a fundamental aspect of what makes each living being distinct at a chemical level1 ....

keep_pinSave to note

copy_all

thumb_up

thumb_down

Discuss Species preservation.

Based on the provided sources, the concept of species preservation is primarily discussed by Charles Richet in his Nobel Lecture on anaphylaxis1 . He posits that anaphylaxis, despite its potential harm to an individual organism, plays a crucial role in maintaining the stability and integrity of the species2 ....

Here's a breakdown of Richet's argument for species preservation through anaphylaxis:

•

Maintaining Chemical Entity: Richet argues that it is vital for animal species to maintain a determined chemical entity1 . If alien proteins, introduced through ingestion or injection, were to become permanent components of cellular fluids and humors, the chemical make-up of individuals would be altered, leading to a perversion of the species' inherent characteristics1 .

•

Defense Against Adulteration: Crystalloids can be eliminated from the body through dialysis, but colloids, including proteins, cannot once they enter the bloodstream1 . They tend to fix onto cells and become integral to them1 . This presents a grave danger to the species if heterogeneous substances were to permanently integrate into their cellular and humoral composition2 .

•

Preserving Evolutionary Progress: The chemical constitution of each animal species is the result of slow evolution, selection, and heredity2 . If foreign substances could freely intermingle and become fixed, all the progress achieved through this evolutionary process would be lost2 .

•

Individual Sacrifice for Species Stability: Richet explicitly states that "the life of the individual is less important than the stability of the species"3 . Anaphylaxis, while potentially detrimental and even fatal for the individual, serves as a necessary mechanism to prevent the adulteration of the species' chemical make-up3 . The death of an individual due to anaphylaxis, in this context, is less significant than the unimpaired preservation of the species' organic integrity3 .

•

Anaphylaxis as a Defense Mechanism: Richet views anaphylaxis as a universal defense mechanism against the penetration of heterogeneous substances into the blood, where they cannot be easily eliminated4 . The increased sensitivity observed in anaphylaxis is seen as the organism's "revolt" against a second parenteral injection that could be fatal and compromise its chemical integrity3 . The body is designed to primarily receive proteins after they have been modified by digestive juices, and any bypass of this process triggers a defensive response3 .

In contrast, the review of Jeremy James's article focuses on the harm potential of vaccines for individuals, drawing upon Richet's discovery of anaphylaxis5 . While it doesn't directly address species preservation in Richet's terms, the concerns raised about vaccines causing permanent body modifications and potential harm to populations could be seen as a different perspective on the long-term well-being of the species, albeit from the standpoint of potential negative impacts rather than a specific defense mechanism like anaphylaxis as described by Richet. James argues that vaccines, by introducing foreign proteins, could lead to detrimental changes in individuals and potentially affect the overall health of the human population5 ....

In summary, Richet's perspective in his Nobel Lecture emphasizes that anaphylaxis is a critical mechanism for species preservation, even at the cost of individual lives. It acts as a defense against the permanent integration of foreign proteins that could compromise the species' fundamental chemical identity and the gains of evolution2 .... James's perspective, as presented in the review, uses Richet's findings to express concerns about the potential harm of foreign protein injection (vaccines) to individuals and, by extension, potentially to the human population, without explicitly framing it in terms of Richet's "species preservation" argument5 .

keep_pinSave to note

copy_all

thumb_up

thumb_down

Discuss Digestive anaphylaxis.

Based on the provided sources, digestive anaphylaxis, also referred to as alimentary anaphylaxis, is a form of anaphylaxis that occurs after the ingestion of a substance via the digestive system1 . This is in contrast to anaphylaxis caused by parenteral injections (introduction of a substance into the blood by means other than digestion, such as subcutaneous or intravenous injections)1 .

Here's a detailed discussion of digestive anaphylaxis according to the sources:

•

Initial Demonstration: Alimentary anaphylaxis was first demonstrated by Rosenau and Anderson in 1906, who showed that guinea-pigs could become sensitive to horse serum after initially ingesting it through the digestive tract1 .

•

Definition: The term "alimentary anaphylaxis" refers to anaphylaxis resulting from the introduction of the anaphylactizing substance through the digestive channels, regardless of whether the substance is alimentary (food-based) or not2 . Importantly, introduction via the rectal duct is not considered alimentary anaphylaxis because it lacks the essential modification of the antigen by the digestive juices2 .

•

Inconsistent and Non-Uniform Results: Research on alimentary anaphylaxis after the initial demonstration by Rosenau and Anderson has yielded results that are not consistently uniform3 .

•

Richet's Approach: To better understand alimentary anaphylaxis, Richet approached the problem by investigating the conditions under which substances ingested into the stomach can pass into the blood. He used leucocytosis (an increase in white blood cells) as a sensitive reagent3 .

◦

He observed that feeding dogs cooked meat did not result in leucocytosis. However, feeding them raw meat, even in smaller quantities, did lead to leucocytosis after three to four hours3 .

◦

Richet's explanation for this was that the proteins in cooked meat become non-soluble and can only be made soluble by digestive juices (pepsin, trypsin, and erepsin). The breakdown products of these proteins are non-toxic and do not induce leucocytosis. Thus, cooked meat can be ingested without affecting leucocytes because no soluble protein is introduced into the stomach that can pass into the blood without being fully digested3 .

◦

In contrast, when muscle serum or raw meat is ingested, soluble proteins are introduced into the stomach. While digestive juices act on these, it is probable that some protein escapes digestion and certain particles pass into the circulation, acting as a true antigen injection that can trigger the leucocyte reaction4 .

◦

From this, Richet concluded that each time soluble protein is introduced through the digestive channels, an anaphylactic reaction may occur, as it is equivalent to an antigen injection4 . This could explain the varying results observed by physiologists regarding alimentary anaphylaxis, as the outcome depends on the solubility of the protein, its absorption, and its resistance to digestive enzymes4 .

•

Richet's Experiments with Crepitin: Richet was able to cause a clear instance of alimentary anaphylaxis using crepitin. He identified three possible combinations of alimentary ingestion (A) and parenteral injection (P):

1.

A preparatory, A releasing: In this strictly alimentary anaphylaxis, a dog that ingested crepitin for the first time did not vomit. However, when it ingested crepitin a second time about three weeks later, it always vomited. Richet termed this the "anaphylactic protective vomit"5 .

2.

A preparatory, P releasing: When the initial sensitization was through alimentary ingestion of crepitin, and the subsequent challenge was a parenteral injection, the results were even clearer. A violent anaphylactic shock occurred, indicating that a small amount of crepitin must have escaped digestion during the first ingestion and entered the blood, as evidenced by lasting leucocytosis5 .

3.

P preparatory, A releasing: The source does not explicitly detail the results of this combination in this section.

•

Long-Term Sensitization via Ingestion: Richet observed a remarkable case where a dog that ingested a strong dose of crepitin in June 1911 and survived, died within an hour and a half in June 1912 (a year later) after a harmless crepitin injection, suggesting long-lasting sensitization from the initial ingestion6 .

•

Wells and Osborne's Work with Vegetable Proteins: The work of Gideon Wells and Thomas Osborne in 1911 on vegetable proteins supported the idea that only tiny amounts of colloids (like proteins) typically pass through the digestive mucous membranes, but sometimes they do. These minute amounts can be sufficient to cause either the preparatory or the unleashing phase of anaphylaxis. They also noted that repeated and increased ingestion often leads to immunity (antianaphylaxis) rather than true anaphylaxis7 .

•

Clinical Relevance: Richet suggested that these findings in alimentary anaphylaxis might be relevant to clinical medicine. He proposed that many cases of dyspepsia (indigestion) could be mild attacks of anaphylaxis. The preference for regular, uniform diets might be explained by the organism accustoming itself and developing immunity to frequently ingested proteins8 . He also connected common food sensitivities (to cheese, strawberries, fish, shellfish, eggs, or milk) with anaphylactic phenomena, noting the similarity of symptoms like stomach pains, vomiting, diarrhea, itching, and sometimes cardiac issues8 . This has become a recognized pathological phenomenon8 .

•

Richet's Warning on Protein Entry: In a more general sense, Richet stated that we are so constituted that we can never receive other proteins into the blood than those that have been modified by digestive juices. Every time alien protein penetrates by effraction (injection), the organism suffers and becomes resistant, with this resistance manifesting as increased sensitivity9 .

In summary, digestive or alimentary anaphylaxis is a recognized phenomenon where sensitization to a substance occurs through ingestion, leading to a heightened and potentially severe reaction upon subsequent exposure, either through ingestion or injection. Richet's work highlighted the importance of protein digestion in preventing such reactions and suggested that the direct entry of undigested proteins into the bloodstream, even in small amounts via ingestion, can trigger the anaphylactic process. The clinical implications extend to understanding food sensitivities and potentially some forms of digestive discomfort.

Discuss Vaccine harm potential.

Based on the provided source, Jeremy James argues strongly that vaccines have significant harm potential1 .... He contends that vaccines are of dubious value and potentially harmful3 ..., even suggesting they are a "perfect vector for mass infection"1 .... James raises several concerns regarding the potential for harm from vaccines:

•

He suggests that any poisoning effects of vaccines would be slow and gradual, making the connection to adverse effects difficult to observe2 ....

•

Drawing on Dr. Charles Richet's Nobel Prize-winning discovery of anaphylaxis in 19021 ..., James emphasizes that vaccines, as a form of parenteral injection, can cause anaphylaxis, a state of heightened sensitivity rather than protection2 .... Richet defined anaphylaxis as "that state of an organism in which it is rendered hypersensitive, instead of being protected"8 ....

•

Richet's research showed that parenteral injection (like vaccine inoculation) of protein substance profoundly and permanently modifies the body's chemical constitution2 .... The source notes that "once a subject has been anaphylactized and consequently modified in his chemical constitution, then the subject can never go back to his former state"2 .... Sensitivity to the triggering reaction could persist for years2 ....

•

Furthermore, there is also "general anaphylaxis," where sensitization to one injected substance increases susceptibility to others2 ....

•

James highlights Richet's warning that the body is designed to receive proteins only after modification by digestive juices, and injecting alien proteins can lead to harmful immune responses, including increased sensitivity2 .... Richet stated, "We are so constituted that we can never receive other proteins into the blood than those that have been modified by digestive juices. Every time alien protein penetrates by effraction [i.e. injection], the organism suffers and becomes resistant"16 .... This resistance, according to Richet, lies in increased sensitivity16 ....

•

James concludes that it has been well known since 1913 that injecting substances into the blood is potentially harmful and can lead to permanent changes and a range of unpredictable immune reactions2 ..., possibly causing autoimmune diseases2 ... which have allegedly increased since the introduction of childhood vaccine programs2 .... Examples of these autoimmune diseases listed include multiple sclerosis, diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, irritable bowel syndrome, asthma, lupus, thyroiditis, psoriasis, myasthenia gravis, Guillain-Barré, and vasculitis2 .... He believes these diseases cannot be cured, only alleviated27 ....

•

James proposes that vaccines could be used as "stealth bioweapons"1 ... by introducing harmless substances that later trigger severe reactions upon subsequent exposure2 .... He describes a "binary or two-phase weapon" scenario where initial vaccines sensitize individuals, and later vaccines containing the same substance could cause anaphylactic shock2 ....

•

Richet's findings indicated that virtually any protein, not just toxins, could cause anaphylaxis2 ..., including even minute amounts of organic liquids like milk, serum, egg, and muscle extract2 ....

•

James claims that the biochemical status of the body is permanently and irreversibly changed after contamination with foreign protein via injection4 ....

•

Lesser immune reactions to injected foreign proteins can produce an inflammatory response in one or more organs of the body, causing what is called today an autoimmune disease11 ..., which cannot be cured, only alleviated27 ....

•

James also suggests that vaccines could be used to inject "debilitating or sterilizing drugs" into the entire population6 ....

•

He notes the increasing rates of developmental disabilities in children and suggests that vaccines are a plausible cause6 ....

•

Finally, James claims that the medical profession and the pharmaceutical industry continue to suppress information about Richet's discovery and the potential harms of vaccines1 ....

It is important to note that the source presents a critical perspective on vaccines based on the author's interpretation of Dr. Richet's findings and alleged increases in certain health conditions32 ....

keep_pinSave to note

copy_all

thumb_up

thumb_down

Discuss Anaphylaxis discovery.

Based on the provided source, the discovery of anaphylaxis in 1902 by Dr. Charles Richet is presented as a pivotal and concerning finding with significant implications for understanding the effects of injecting substances into the body, particularly in the context of vaccination1 .... This groundbreaking work earned him the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 19131 ....

Dr. Charles Richet's Discovery: In 1902, Dr. Charles Richet demonstrated a phenomenon in dogs that was the opposite of immunization2 . Instead of becoming protected after an initial low dose of a substance, the dogs exhibited a severe reaction upon receiving a new dose some weeks later2 .... Richet named this phenomenon anaphylaxis, which he defined as a state where an organism is rendered hypersensitive instead of being protected2 .... He coined this new word twelve years prior to his Nobel lecture, believing a new idea required a new term for scientific precision4 . The term comes from Greek etymology, where phylaxis means protection, and anaphylaxis thus signifies the opposite4 .

Richet's Experiments and Findings: Richet described three possible responses to a second injection of a poison given after a 3-4 week interval2 ...:

•

No change in effect2 ....

•

Reduced effect (similar to drug tolerance or what medical science calls immunization)2 ....

•

Greatly increased effect, which was Richet's discovery of anaphylaxis2 .... He noted that in this case, the first injection, instead of protecting the organism, made it more fragile and more susceptible2 ....

Key findings from Richet's further research, as described in the source, include2 ...:

•

A subject that has had a previous injection is far more sensitive than a new subject2 ....

•

The symptoms of the second injection in an anaphylactic reaction (swift and total depression of the nervous system) are different from the symptoms of the first injection2 ....

•

A three to four week period of incubation must elapse before the anaphylactic state results2 ....

Initially, Richet's observations stemmed from experiments with extracts from marine animals like Physalia and Actinia8 .... He found that dogs that survived an initial non-lethal dose of Actinia extract showed severe and rapid symptoms upon a second, even smaller, injection weeks later8 .

Further research broadened the understanding of anaphylaxis. In 1903, Arthus showed anaphylaxis with serum injections in rabbits12 . Two years later, Rosenau and Anderson demonstrated that anaphylaxis occurs after every serum injection, even with minute amounts, and cited examples from various organic liquids like milk, serum, egg, and muscle extract2 .... They also noted the guinea-pig appeared most sensitive13 .

The Permanent Nature of Anaphylactic Sensitization: Richet's research led him to the conclusion that once a subject has been anaphylactized and their chemical constitution modified, they can never return to their former state14 .... Sensitivity to the triggering reaction could persist for years14 ....

Richet's Warning about Injected Proteins: In his Nobel Prize speech, Richet issued a significant warning, stating that the human body is constituted to only safely receive proteins into the blood that have been modified by digestive juices14 .... He argued that every time alien protein enters the blood via injection, the organism suffers and develops resistance in the form of increased sensitivity, potentially leading to a fatal anaphylactic shock upon a second injection14 .... He viewed anaphylaxis as a universal defense mechanism against the penetration of foreign substances into the blood, even if it harms the individual, as it protects the integrity of the species19 .

Implications and Suppression: The source emphasizes that Richet's discovery, made in 1902 and recognized with a Nobel Prize in 1913, established that injecting substances into the blood is potentially harmful and permanently alters the body's biochemistry14 .... The author of the reviewed article, Jeremy James, heavily relies on Richet's discovery to argue that vaccines, which involve the parenteral injection of foreign proteins, have significant harm potential due to this phenomenon of heightened sensitivity1 .... James suggests that repeated exposure to foreign proteins via vaccination can lead to a state of "heightened sensitivity" and potentially trigger autoimmune diseases14 .... Furthermore, the author contends that this crucial information about anaphylaxis and the dangers of injecting foreign proteins has been suppressed by the medical establishment and pharmaceutical industry despite its profound implications for practices like vaccination14 ....

keep_pinSave to note

copy_all

thumb_up

thumb_down

Discuss Foreign protein injection.

Based on the provided source and our previous discussion, the injection of foreign proteins into the body is presented as a potentially harmful process with significant implications for the immune system1 . The source heavily emphasizes the 1902 discovery of anaphylaxis by Dr. Charles Richet, which earned him the Nobel Prize in 1913, as central to understanding these risks1 . Anaphylaxis demonstrates that after an initial injection of even a low dose of a substance (a foreign protein), a subsequent dose weeks later can produce a severe, even fatal reaction, characterized by hypersensitivity rather than protection1 ....

According to the source, Richet's research showed that the parenteral injection (such as vaccine inoculation) of protein substances profoundly and permanently modifies the chemical constitution of the body fluids2 .... He found that:

•

A subject that has received a previous injection becomes far more sensitive to subsequent injections than a subject receiving the substance for the first time1 ....

•

The symptoms resulting from the second injection are distinctly different from those of the first injection, often involving a swift and total depression of the nervous system1 ....

This heightened sensitivity, or anaphylaxis, can be triggered by virtually any protein, not just substances that are inherently toxic3 .... Richet's work demonstrated this with various organic liquids like milk, serum, egg, and muscle extract6 ....

Once an individual is anaphylactically sensitized, this condition appears to be permanent, with sensitivity potentially lasting for years9 .... Return to a former state is not possible9 ....

The author of the source highlights Richet's conclusion that the human body is designed to receive proteins only after they have been modified by digestive juices9 .... He argues that when alien proteins are introduced directly into the bloodstream via injection, the organism suffers and develops resistance in the form of increased sensitivity, leading to the risk of anaphylactic shock upon subsequent exposure9 .... This is described as a universal defense mechanism against the entry of foreign substances into the blood9 ....

Furthermore, the source suggests that even less severe immune reactions to injected foreign proteins can lead to an inflammatory response in various organs, which is equated with autoimmune disease9 .... These diseases, such as multiple sclerosis, diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, and others listed, are stated to be incurable by medical treatment, only alleviated, and their frequency and intensity are believed by the author to have increased since the introduction of childhood vaccine programs9 ....

The source also raises the alarming possibility that vaccines could be used as stealth bioweapons by employing a two-phase mechanism where an initial harmless protein injection creates an anaphylactic trigger that can be activated years later by a second injection of the same protein9 ....

In conclusion, the injection of foreign proteins, as discussed in this source, is portrayed as a fundamentally risky practice due to the body's potential for developing anaphylaxis and other adverse immune responses, including what are classified as autoimmune diseases9 .... The author emphasizes the lasting and potentially sensitizing effects of such injections, drawing heavily on the early 20th-century findings of Dr. Charles Richet5 .... The source also claims that the significance of these findings has been deliberately suppressed by the medical and pharmaceutical industries9 ....

keep_pinSave to note

copy_all

thumb_up

thumb_down

Discuss Autoimmune disease link.

Based on the provided source and our conversation history, Jeremy James strongly argues for a link between vaccines and autoimmune diseases1 . The source posits that since Dr. Charles Richet's discovery of anaphylaxis in 1902, it has been known that injecting foreign proteins can profoundly and permanently modify the body's biochemistry2 .... Richet's work demonstrated that the body can become hypersensitive to subsequent injections, with the second reaction often being more severe and different in nature than the first4 ....

According to the source, lesser immune reactions resulting from the parenteral introduction of foreign proteins (as occurs with vaccines) will produce an inflammatory response in one or more organs of the body, leading to what is called today an autoimmune disease8 .... The author claims that these autoimmune diseases cannot be cured by medical treatment, only alleviated9 ....

The source provides a list of common autoimmune diseases that the author believes have increased in frequency and intensity since the introduction of the childhood vaccine program8 .... This list includes:

•

Multiple sclerosis8 ...

•

Diabetes8 ...

•

Rheumatoid arthritis8 ...

•

Irritable bowel syndrome8 ...

•

Asthma8 ...

•

Lupus8 ...

•

Thyroiditis8 ...

•

Psoriasis8 ...

•

Myasthenia gravis8 ...

•

Guillain-Barré8 ...

•

Vasculitis8 ...

Furthermore, the source mentions that there are known to be more than 100 different autoimmune diseases11 . The central argument is that the injection of foreign proteins in vaccines bypasses the digestive system, which is the body's natural mechanism for neutralizing potential immune responses11 .... This, according to the source, leads to a state of heightened sensitivity and can trigger the body's immune system to attack its own tissues, resulting in autoimmune conditions1 ....

In conclusion, the source asserts that the understanding of anaphylaxis since 1902, particularly the permanent alteration of body chemistry and the potential for any foreign protein to trigger severe immune reactions, provides a scientific basis for the claim that vaccines can promote lifelong autoimmune diseases1 .... The author believes this crucial information has been suppressed by the medical and pharmaceutical industries11 ....

It is important to remember that this perspective, as presented by Jeremy James in the source, is critical of vaccination and based on a particular interpretation of Dr. Richet's findings14 ....

keep_pinSave to note

copy_all

thumb_up

thumb_down

Discuss Permanent body modification.

Based on the provided source and our conversation history, the concept of permanent body modification is significantly discussed in the context of Dr. Charles Richet's discovery of anaphylaxis and the author's subsequent arguments about the effects of vaccine injections1 ....

The source emphasizes Richet's finding that parenteral injection (like vaccine inoculation) of protein substances profoundly and permanently modifies the chemical constitution of the body fluids1 .... This is a central tenet in the author, Jeremy James's, critique of vaccination1 ....

Key aspects of this permanent modification, as presented in the source, include:

•

Irreversible Change: Richet concluded that once a subject has been anaphylactized and consequently modified in his chemical constitution, then the subject can never go back to his former state. Return to normal is not possible2 .... The source directly quotes Richet stating, "once a subject has been anaphylactized... then the subject can never go back to his former state. Return to normal is not possible"4 .... This strongly suggests a lasting alteration to the body's fundamental biochemistry due to the injection of foreign proteins6 .

•

Lasting Sensitivity: The heightened sensitivity resulting from anaphylaxis is also described as potentially lasting for years4 .... This implies that the body's altered state is not transient but can persist long-term6 .

•

Mechanism of Modification: The author explains this permanent modification by referencing Richet's warning that the body is designed to receive proteins only after modification by digestive juices4 .... Injecting alien proteins directly into the bloodstream, bypassing this digestive process, is seen as a harmful intrusion that the body reacts to by becoming hypersensitive, thus causing the permanent alteration6 ....

The author further argues that this permanent modification resulting from the injection of foreign proteins in vaccines can lead to a range of unpredictable immune reactions, possibly causing autoimmune diseases6 .... He suggests that the increased prevalence of autoimmune diseases since the introduction of childhood vaccine programs is a consequence of this permanent alteration of the body's chemical constitution6 ....

In summary, the source, through its interpretation of Dr. Richet's work on anaphylaxis, posits that vaccines cause a profound and permanent modification of the body's chemical constitution due to the injection of foreign proteins1 .... This modification is described as irreversible, leading to lasting hypersensitivity and potentially triggering the development of autoimmune diseases6 . The author views this permanent alteration as a significant and harmful consequence of vaccination, a perspective that has been central to our previous discussions6 .

Frequently Asked Questions Based on the Provided Source

• What is the main argument presented in the reviewed article by Jeremy James regarding vaccines? The reviewed article by Jeremy James argues that vaccines are not only of dubious value but are potentially harmful, acting as a "perfect vector for mass infection" and possibly a tool for injecting debilitating substances. The author contends that mandatory vaccination efforts suggest a malevolent intent by governments and the pharmaceutical industry to inflict harm on humanity using "vaccine-delivered toxins." Furthermore, the article highlights the discovery of anaphylaxis by Dr. Charles Richet, suggesting that vaccines can cause the body to become hypersensitized and permanently alter its biochemical status, potentially leading to autoimmune diseases.

• What is anaphylaxis, and why is Dr. Charles Richet's discovery of it in 1902 considered significant in this context? Anaphylaxis, discovered by Dr. Charles Richet in 1902, is a phenomenon where an organism, after an initial exposure to a substance (even a low dose), exhibits a severe, potentially life-threatening hypersensitive reaction upon a subsequent exposure to the same or a related substance. This is the opposite of immunization, where the body is expected to develop protection. Richet's discovery is considered significant because it demonstrated that parenteral injection (like vaccine inoculation) of protein substances could profoundly and permanently modify the body's chemical constitution, leading to increased sensitivity rather than protection.

• According to the source, what did Dr. Richet's research reveal about the effects of injecting foreign proteins into the body? Dr. Richet's research, as presented in the source, revealed several key points about injecting foreign proteins: a subject with a previous injection is far more sensitive to subsequent injections; the symptoms of the second injection can be different and more severe, involving a rapid depression of the nervous system; a 3-4 week incubation period is needed for this hypersensitivity to develop; and virtually any protein, not just toxins, can cause anaphylaxis. Richet also concluded that once a subject is anaphylactized, they may never return to their former state of sensitivity, and this heightened sensitivity can persist for years. He warned that the body is designed to receive proteins only after modification by digestive juices, and injecting alien proteins can lead to harmful immune responses.

• How does the reviewed article connect vaccines to the potential development of autoimmune diseases? The article argues that the injection of foreign proteins via vaccination bypasses the digestive system, leading to a state of heightened sensitivity (anaphylaxis or lesser immune reactions). These lesser reactions, according to the author, can produce an inflammatory response in various organs, which is equated with the development of autoimmune diseases. The author claims that the increased frequency and intensity of common autoimmune diseases (such as multiple sclerosis, diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, etc.) since the introduction of childhood vaccine programs supports this link. The central idea is that repeated exposure to foreign proteins through vaccines can trigger the body's immune system to mistakenly attack its own tissues.

• What are some of the common vaccine ingredients mentioned in the source, and how are they relevant to the author's concerns? The source lists common vaccine ingredients as antigens, preservatives, adjuvants, additives, stabilizers, antibiotics, and inactivating chemicals. While the author does not explicitly detail how each ingredient contributes to harm, the overall concern is that these are foreign substances being injected into the body, potentially triggering the hypersensitivity reactions described by Richet or causing other adverse immune responses that could lead to autoimmune diseases. The inclusion of adjuvants, which are meant to enhance the immune response, might be seen as particularly relevant to the author's argument about heightened sensitivity.

• What is the concept of "general anaphylaxis" as described in the source, and what are its potential implications regarding vaccines? General anaphylaxis, according to Richet as described in the source, is a phenomenon where an animal that has been made anaphylactically sensitive to one injected substance becomes significantly more susceptible to other injected substances compared to an animal without the initial sensitization. The potential implication for vaccines, according to the author's perspective, is that sensitization to one component in a vaccine or to one vaccine itself could increase an individual's susceptibility to adverse reactions from subsequent exposures to other vaccines or even other injected substances.

• How does the reviewed article suggest that vaccines could potentially be used as "stealth bioweapons" or part of a "binary weapon" system? The article proposes that vaccines could be used as stealth bioweapons by introducing harmless substances that later trigger severe reactions upon subsequent exposure. The "binary or two-phase weapon" scenario involves initial vaccines sensitizing individuals to a particular substance, and later vaccines containing the same substance could then cause anaphylactic shock or other severe reactions. The idea is that the initial sensitization might go unnoticed, and the later triggering event could appear unrelated, making it a "stealth" weapon.

• What does the author claim regarding the medical profession and pharmaceutical industry's awareness and handling of Dr. Richet's findings on anaphylaxis? The author claims that despite the evidence from Dr. Richet's discovery of anaphylaxis, the medical profession and the pharmaceutical industry continue to suppress information about its implications, particularly concerning the dangers of injecting foreign proteins through vaccines. The author urges readers to consider this information and draw their own conclusions, suggesting a deliberate concealment of the potential harms associated with vaccination.

Timeline of Main Events

• 1902: Dr. Charles Richet discovers the phenomenon of anaphylaxis while conducting experiments on dogs with extracts of sea anemone tentacles (Actinia). He observes that an initial injection, instead of providing protection, can lead to a severely heightened sensitivity to subsequent injections of the same substance weeks later.

• Around 1902 (Ongoing Research): Richet and his colleagues conduct numerous experiments demonstrating the characteristics of anaphylaxis, including the requirement of an incubation period (several weeks), the increased severity of the second reaction, and the difference in symptoms between the first and second injections. They find that anaphylaxis is not limited to toxins but can be induced by various proteins, including those found in serum, milk, and egg.

• Around 1903: Arthus demonstrates anaphylaxis in rabbits using serum injections, showing that the phenomenon applies beyond specific toxins. He also observes local anaphylactic reactions (the Arthus phenomenon).

• Around 1905: Rosenau and Anderson show that anaphylaxis can occur even with minute doses of serum and other organic liquids, and that the guinea pig is particularly sensitive. They also demonstrate alimentary anaphylaxis.

• Around 1907: Richet demonstrates passive anaphylaxis, showing that the serum from an anaphylactized animal can transfer the hypersensitive state to a normal animal. Gay and Southard, and Otto, independently confirm passive anaphylaxis. Richet also experiments with anaphylaxis in vitro, suggesting the formation of a toxic substance (apotoxin) when the antigen mixes with serum from an anaphylactized animal.

• 1911: Gideon Wells and Thomas Osborne study the anaphylactizing and immunizing action of vegetable proteins through digestive mucous membranes.

• 1913: Dr. Charles Richet is awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for his work on anaphylaxis. In his Nobel Lecture, he details the discovery, characteristics, and implications of anaphylaxis, emphasizing the body's heightened sensitivity to subsequent injections of foreign proteins and proposing its role as a defense mechanism for the species.

• Post-1913 (as interpreted by Jeremy James): Jeremy James, in the reviewed article, interprets Richet's findings as evidence of the inherent dangers of injecting foreign proteins, such as those found in vaccines. He argues that vaccines can cause permanent changes to the body's biochemistry, leading to heightened sensitivity and autoimmune diseases.

• 20th and 21st Centuries (as argued by Jeremy James): James contends that the introduction of childhood vaccine programs has led to an increase in autoimmune diseases like multiple sclerosis, diabetes, and rheumatoid arthritis due to the repeated injection of foreign proteins.

• Unspecified Time (Jeremy James's Claim): James asserts that the medical and pharmaceutical industries have suppressed information about Richet's discovery and its implications for vaccine safety. He also suggests vaccines could be used as "stealth bioweapons."

• 2019 (as cited by Jeremy James): The CDC estimates that a significant number of children have developmental disabilities, which James implies could be linked to vaccines.

• Unspecified Time (Jeremy James's Mention): James mentions a purported "Illuminati Plan" with 2025 being a significant year, suggesting a potential link to his concerns about vaccines.

Cast of Characters

• Dr. Charles Richet (1850-1935): A French physiologist who received the 1913 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for his discovery of anaphylaxis. His meticulous experiments in the early 1900s laid the foundation for understanding hypersensitivity reactions to foreign substances. He observed that an initial exposure to a substance could render an organism more, rather than less, sensitive to subsequent exposures, a phenomenon he named anaphylaxis. His work highlighted the profound and lasting effects of parenteral injections on the body's reactivity to foreign proteins.

• Prince Albert of Monaco: A patron of scientific research who provided his yacht for Richet, Richard, and Portier to study the poison of the Physalia (Portuguese man-of-war) in tropical waters. This initial research on marine toxins played a role in Richet's later discovery of anaphylaxis.

• Georges Richard: A colleague of Richet and Portier who participated in the initial studies on Physalia poison during their cruise on Prince Albert of Monaco's yacht.

• Paul Portier: A collaborator of Charles Richet who worked with him on the early experiments with Physalia and Actinia poisons, which led to the initial observations of anaphylaxis in dogs.

• Maurice Arthus (1862-1945): A French physiologist who, in 1903, extended the understanding of anaphylaxis by demonstrating that repeated intravenous injections of serum in rabbits could also induce hypersensitivity reactions. He is also known for describing the local anaphylactic reaction known as the Arthus phenomenon.

• Milton J. Rosenau (1869-1946) and John F. Anderson (dates unknown): American physiologists who, around 1905-1906, further elucidated anaphylaxis by showing that it could be triggered by minute amounts of various organic liquids, including milk, serum, egg, and muscle extracts. They also demonstrated the occurrence of anaphylaxis after oral ingestion (alimentary anaphylaxis).

• Eugène Louis Doyen (1859-1916): A French surgeon and gynecologist mentioned in the context of colleagues who tested Richet's potential anaphylacto-diagnosis method for cancer, with negative results.

• P. Lassablière: A colleague of Richet who assisted with calculations in his experiments, particularly those relating to leucocytosis and anaphylaxis in dogs.

• Ernst von Pirquet (1874-1929) and Béla Schick (1877-1967): Two doctors from Vienna who studied serum sickness ("Serum-Krankheit") in children treated with diphtheria serum. Richet recognized their work as describing anaphylactic phenomena in humans.

• Claude Bernard (1813-1878): A renowned French physiologist whose earlier experiment with amygdalin and emulsin in bitter almonds, leading to the formation of hydrocyanic acid, served as an analogy for Richet's hypothesis about the interaction of toxogenin and antigen to produce apotoxin in anaphylaxis.

• Wolf-Eissner (dates unknown): A researcher mentioned by Richet as someone who had not yet accepted the hypothesis of toxogenin.

• Alexandre Besredka (1870-1940): A Russian and French immunologist who conducted successful experiments on antianaphylaxis and proposed the term "sensibilisin" for the sensitizing substance Richet called toxogenin.

• Eugen Friedberger (1871-1938): A German immunologist who, along with his pupils, performed detailed work on deviation of the complement in anaphylaxis and proposed the term "anaphylatoxin" for the sensitizing substance.

• Robert Koch (1843-1910): A German physician and microbiologist whose work on tuberculin reactions in tuberculous animals was compared by Richet to anaphylaxis, noting the heightened sensitivity in both cases.

• Gideon Wells (1865-1943) and Thomas Osborne (1859-1929): Researchers who, in 1911, studied the anaphylactizing and immunizing actions of vegetable proteins administered via the digestive system.

• Jeremy James: The author of the reviewed article "Vaccines Promote Lifelong Autoimmune Disease." He is a central figure in the provided secondary source, interpreting Richet's findings to support his critical views on vaccination and its alleged link to autoimmune diseases and other health problems. He believes in the permanent harmful modifications caused by vaccine injections and the suppression of this information by medical authorities.

• Alice Bailey (1880-1949): An author whose writings are mentioned by Jeremy James in the context of an "Illuminati Plan" with implications for 2025, suggesting a broader conspiratorial view related to his concerns about vaccines.