"Alimentary Anaphylaxis", or the origins of the Anything-But-Vaccines deflection strategy.

Reviewing the book by the Charles Richet, Jr. (son of the Nobel Prize laureate Charles Richet) that asserts existence of food-induced anaphylaxis, but fails to demonstrate it.

I have previously written about the phenomenon of anaphylaxis produced by injections of various proteins, even the ones considered benign and safe as food (milk, egg, albumin, yeast, etc). For this discovery, Charles Richet was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1913. The phenomenon of the injection-induced anaphylaxis originates in the gut and underlies the development of chronic autoimmune conditions, metabolic dysfunction, neurodegenerative and mental illness (neurotransmitters are made in the gut), cancers and other chronic illness:

The second shot, or what do vaccinators and sewer rats have in common?

In this post I am going to discuss what was termed “alimentary” or ingestion- as opposed to injection-induced anaphylaxis. This research was conducted by Dr. Charles Richet, Jr (the son of Professor Richet) and several colleagues, and was summarized in a short book titled “Alimentary Anaphylaxis”, published in 1930.

By 1930, vaccinations were already very common, and quite lucrative. The authors noted that food allergies, previously not known or very rare, were on the rise:

The frequency of food allergy is becoming more and more evident and it is my conviction that it plays a frequent role in the production of many marked as well as mild symptoms. As Richet says, ‘‘Allergy is active every day in modifying our perpetually unstable state of equilibrium and in establishing for us a humoral personality.’’ This makes it imperative for physicians, including the various specialists, to become acquainted with such manifestations in order to recognize this etiological factor in their patients.

The authors aimed to provide a "physiological and scientific explanation" for what older doctors called "idiosyncrasy" (code for “we have no idea”). They proposed the following definition of alimentary anaphylaxis:

Under the term “alimentary anaphylaxis” are included all of the reactions arising from a second ingestion of wholesome and normally well tolerated foods which, when first ingested, give mild or no reactions whatsoever.

This definition explicitly separates it from food poisoning due to decomposed or toxic foods and from initial intolerances to normal food that don't worsen with subsequent exposure.

The authors called attention to the variety of symptoms, such as headache, abdominal pain, vomiting, diarrhea, and chronic colitis, urticaria, eczema, angioneurotic edema, migraine, convulsions, perennial hay fever, chronic bronchitis, bronchial asthma, various gastrointestinal symptoms that may result from food allergy. The authors also described a state of chronic anaphylaxis which has been described under the term ‘‘allergic toxaemia”’ characterized by fatigue, aching, mental confusion, irritability, and restlessness. Chronic milk allergy was recognized by the writers as producing emaciation and progressive loss of weight, indigestion, and often vomiting or diarrhea and is at times was associated with eczema, prostration, weakness, and very low body temperature or alternatively, high fever.

Several foods commonly associated with severe alimentary anaphylaxis were discussed in the book:

• Eggs;

• Milk;

• Shellfish;

• Medicinal Substances including antipyrine, quinine, aspirin, veronal, iodides, and bromides.

The book provides a lot of observational data, case studies and discusses various forms and symptoms of alimentary anaphylaxis, categorized by intensity and duration:

• Severe Alimentary Anaphylaxis: Characterized by "severe and dramatic attacks." Symptoms can appear "fifteen to thirty seconds" after ingestion.

• Cutaneous: Intense urticaria, edema of the face, erythema, hives, red and pimply eruptions.

• Gastrointestinal: "Violent vomiting," "severe diarrhea," which can be "uncontrollable and even bloody," "gastric cramps comparable to nephritic or hepatic colic," "abdominal pains." The term "'Hierbauchweh'" (bellyache) was coined by one patient to describe the intense abdominal pain.

• Respiratory: Dyspnea, real asthma, suffocation, mucoid expectoration.

• General/Systemic: "Faint and rapid pulse," "sensation of general discomfort," prostration, torpor, lowered blood pressure, eyes become hollow, nose pinched, face livid. Temperature may fall or rise.

• Neurological: Vertigo, dizziness, disturbed vision, buzzing in the ears, spasms or convulsions.

• Mild Alimentary Anaphylaxis: "Slight reactions whose nature can be recognized only by the most careful inquiry." These are "very frequent and usually mild."

• Gastrointestinal: Fetid breath, chronic dyspepsia, constipation, frequent loose stools.

• Cutaneous: Urticaria (which may become chronic), prurigo, eczema.

• Other: Migraine, respiratory spasm.

• Chronic Anaphylaxis: Characterized by gradual onset of reactions after initial tolerance, which then disappear when the food is removed and reappear slowly upon re-ingestion. Symptoms are chiefly digestive and cutaneous.

• Hereditary Anaphylaxis: Symptoms are identical to acquired forms but are transmitted through generations, as evidenced by the family chart provided.

While the exact mechanisms of anaphylaxis are not definitively known even today, the authors explored several theories based on their observations:

• Increased Membrane Permeability: Recognized as a "most likely cause" for foreign proteins entering the bloodstream. "Enteritis in infants and intestinal disturbances in adults" are considered "predisposing factors." The "intestinal mucosa of newborn infants is especially liable to increased permeability."

• Hepatic Role (Liver as a Barrier): The liver is discussed as a barrier against heterogeneous albumin. If the liver is "normal," it prevents substances from passing into the urine after ingestion. However, if this "barrier may be broken down," anaphylaxis can appear. Studies by Barbier and Cléret suggest "severe hepatic lesions" in infants sensitized to cow's milk.

• Humoral Personality: Richet suggests that the process is "active every day in modifying our perpetually unstable state of equilibrium, and in establishing for us a humoral personality as memories and previous sensations create a psychological personality for us."

• Arthus Phenomenon: Gastric symptoms, such as those from a single drop of vinegar, are suggested to be "comparable to those occurring in the Arthus phenomenon," implying a localized inflammatory reaction.

• Hemoclastic Crisis: Widal, Abrami, Brissaud, and Joltrain proposed a theory based on "physical modification of blood equilibrium," leading to a "hemoclastic crisis" characterized by "hypotension, leucopenia, and retarded coaguability of the blood." This crisis can occur "in the absence of other clinical symptoms."

  Note: This latter mechanism is likely related to the so-called “zeta potential” of the blood flow. Cationic surfactants getting into the blood flow, strip negative charge from the blood components and collapse zeta potential, leading to sludging of the blood and fluids throughout the body. I will write more about this in the future. The LNPs in mRNA shots are cationic lipids and this explains rouleau formations, blood clotting and thrombosis in the covid shot victims.

In the foreword, written by Charles Richet, Sr, he provided the most important statement about anaphylaxis and the injection vs ingestion routes of acquiring it (emphasis mine):

We know now that […] this curious idiosyncrasy in digestion which excited the astonishment of our fathers, is explained by anaphylaxis. In fact, it is relatively rare in human beings that heterogeneous substances penetrate into the tissues in any way other than through the digestive tract. Subcutaneous injections of albuminoid products are, on the whole, exceptional occurrences. But, aside from the stings of poisonous insects and the therapeutic injections of serum [vaccinations], the proteins never penetrate into the circulation without having been submitted to the action of the digestive juices.

This is the key part! Proteins (large complex molecules) should never enter the blood stream directly. Prior to vaccinations, the only way this could happen was by a lot of repeated insect stings, animal bites or another injury where the cut was exposed to some foreign proteinaceous substance. In modern times, these things can happen of course, too, but are very much a rare occurrence. Anaphylaxis that develops in some people after bee stings or jelly fish stings is quite rare. With water sanitation even the mosquitoes do not pose much danger, as they don’t carry human waste proteins anymore.

Richet, Sr. goes on to offer several hypotheses on what may cause the “alimentary” (i.e. food or ingestion-induced) anaphylaxis:

As nature protects its children admirably, the proteins introduced into the digestive tube undergo profound chemical changes which make them harmless. So alimentary anaphylaxis, that is to say, the penetration of unchanged proteins, is the exception. We ingest a quantity of albumens, but these albumens do not anaphylactize. Why do we become anaphylactic?

After stating these very crucial and true things, he suddenly falls into the la-la land of fantasy. This is not unusual among the science class. They are typically the first victims of their own hyperactive imagination:

Four hypotheses are available (among which it is very difficult to choose) for the explanation of the special cases of alimentary anaphylaxis that have been reported.

1. The absorption of food occurs so quickly that the proteins pass into the circulation without having had time to be changed. The epithelial barrier which is opposed to absorption is powerless, whether it be because there is an erosion of the mucous membrane, or because the mass of absorbable protein introduced is so large that some particles pass through the membranes before their transformation.

This hypothesis to me seems like explaining the injury by a previously existing injury to the gut - i.e. improper digestion, inability to break down proteins fast enough, and existence of erosions that can pass the large unbroken molecules through. What might have caused the first injury though?

2. The digestive juices are changed, and consequently powerless to transform the proteins. There may be an impaired digestion (gastric or intestinal) and because of the continued presence of undigested food in the digestive tract abnormal absorption results.

This is similar to the hypothesis 1 - why is there insufficient digestion in the first place?

3. In certain persons, as a consequence of a special and unusual action of the digestive juices, there are produced certain substances which are not produced in normal people, and which consequently can successively initiate and precipitate the anaphylactic condition.

This one is even more vague and is just a restatement of the problem - people are different, some people become anaphylactized, others don’t.

4. Finally, there may be in the blood of certain individuals special substances not existing in normal individuals, and these special substances represent a toxogenin of at least one of those substances which, in combination with the antigen, precipitates the anaphylactic condition, just as has been so definitely shown in experimental anaphylaxis.

This is the same as hypothesis 3, except the blood contains something different, vs the digestive juices.

He then proposes the 5th version combining the previous 4 hypotheses and states that it’s “absence of immunity” to the non-transformed or undigested proteins that get into the blood stream:

It is evident that under normal conditions we are protected against the penetration of certain proteins by a sort of immunity, so much so that we can consider the addition of another abnormality, probably more frequent than the others, to these four fundamental causes; namely, the condition of non-immunity in the blood. According to all evidence, there pass into the blood appreciable quantities of non-transformed proteins; but we are usually well immunized against these proteins, to such a degree that the cases of anaphylaxis that are observed are due rather to an absence of immunity than to a true anaphylaxis.

This is likely where all the mythological narratives of the “bad immune system” originate. I call it immuno-mythology, because note how he just made it up without any real scientific basis, data, controlled experiments or any factual basis at all! But it sounds plausible. And smart. Like - if you get anaphylaxis, it’s your malfunctioning immune system, and definitely not the “therapeutic serums” fault. And since this non-scientific nonsense came from a Nobel Prize winner, oh well, then subsequently every vaccinator-quack cooking up “therapeutic serums” referenced it as gospel. This is how we arrive 100 years later with a murderous CDC schedule, and then on top of that, MAHA-heroes on ACIP, with Bob Malone as a co-chair voting for RSV monoclonal antibody shots for all newborns! That’s to fix their “incorrect immune systems” that are desperately lacking the “correct antibodies” [computer models cooked with PCR magic spells] of course.

Richet Jr did summarize some experimental results in his book, which are quite revealing and they in fact disprove the Sr’s made up “immune system” hypothesis, but again, nobody bothered to think about this contradiction for over 100 years.

Experimental Studies

Chapter IV, "Experimental Studies," details various experimental investigations into alimentary anaphylaxis, aiming to reproduce clinically observed reactions and understand their mechanisms. Richet Jr proposed several mechanisms of how alimentary anaphylaxis may be established, and to test his theory, he attempted to produce them experimentally:

Type A.A. (Alimentary, alimentary): Sensitization by ingestion and shock by ingestion. Richet noted that this was most commonly observed clinically. Suffice to say, these hypotheses NEVER, I mean NEVER - this is strictly verbotten in vaccinology, immunology and virology - ask the question about whether the subject suffering from “allergy” was vaccinated with “therapeutic serums” or not. Therefore, what is clinically called “food allergy” may not be caused by the ingested food, but rather by the food or similar proteins injected as part of the “therapeutic serums”, currently known as “life saving vaccines”. This [purposeful IMO] omission is quite evident from the experiments that do not support the AA type proposed by Richet Jr at all. Despite the title and premise of the entire book, no AA type of anaphylaxis was produced experimentally by anyone!

Type A.I. (Alimentary, injection): Sensitization by ingestion and shock by injection. This type is primarily produced experimentally but can occur in humans (e.g., horse meat ingestion followed by horse serum injection).

Type I.A. (Injection, alimentary): Sensitization by injection and shock by ingestion.

The other 2 types (AI and IA) were shown experimentally in animals.

Experimental Results of Establishment of Alimentary Anaphylaxis:

• By injection: While earlier experiments by Arthus, Besredka, Rosenau, Anderson and Richet Sr. produced anaphylaxis to foods via subcutaneous injections, they did not achieve alimentary anaphylaxis (sensitization through the digestive tract). Imagine that! All sorts of disease and injury can be produced by injection, but by ingestion - not so much and not reliably at all. As I keep repeating and repeating and repeating, and yet every time I point to this fact I get a barrage of - “how dare you! We live in the toxic sludge” type of comments.

• By feeding unnatural food to a highly sensitive animal (guinea pig) and subsequent injection of that substance: Rosenau and Anderson showed that feeding dried horse serum or horse meat to guinea pigs could sensitize them, leading to violent reactions or death upon a subsequent injection of horse serum. They noted that a very small quantity of serum (0.000001) was sufficient to sensitize, suggesting that even minor mucosal erosions could allow antigen passage into the blood. The authors (Laroche, Richet Jr, Saint-Girons) successfully produced anaphylactic sensitization in guinea pigs by feeding them a diet of bread and milk, with 25% to 80% showing sensitization. They also provided definite proof of alimentary anaphylaxis to eggs in guinea pigs.

Ok - anyone shocked? Anaphylaxis easily established by injection and only with some great contortions, by ingestion of something you would not normally consume, and then it STILL REQUIRES AN INJECTION to set it off!

As noted above, despite many attempts, none of the experiments mentioned in the book were able to demonstrate anaphylaxis by food alone, i.e. what was postulated as “food allergy” produced by food does not actually exist. Thus, the entire theory of the book was vaporware.

This didn’t slow down the authors. In some experiments that they described the guinea pigs (again, an extremely digestively sensitive animal) were fed large quantities of egg (not something they naturally eat), and some sickness was produced due to the egg. This was declared as alimentary anaphylaxis. It was further demonstrated, that if the guinea pigs continued getting egg diets, that egg sickness went away. They probably somehow rewired their gut flora and adjusted to the unnatural diet. This was declared as “immunity” (!) And… it was thus declared that the “alimentary anaphylaxis” is the “beginning stages of immunity” - the stuff that Richet Sr simply pulled out of his rear end as a rescue device for the anaphylaxis induced very reliably by “therapeutic serums” that he was handsomely profiting off.

It’s quite clear where this was going - toward “fixing the immune system” by pushing more junk into the blood stream and justifying the resulting allergies and chronic illness by … drum roll… toxic food sensitivities!

Did we figure out the 100 year old origin of MAHA=ABV policy, or what?

Additional articles covering anaphylaxis:

Please subscribe and follow Vinu, he covers this topic very well. Note re lab model of peanut allergy in sheep - vaccinate with peanut oil:

Anaphylaxis, Alpha-gal, Pasteur, Richet, Voltaire... and the Queen of England.

Australian Parliament Inquiry into allergies and anaphylaxis, Submission 86

Art for today: Roses from my garden 1, oil on panel, 9x12 in.