Why The Repeat Shot Is More Harmful Than The First
Say hello to my little friend Anaphylaxis
You’ve probably read the media spin and downplay (no, I don’t think a heart attack is a “side effect”) remarking that the second shot will cause more issues. This is technically true, but only in the sense that the bought-out pharmaceutical advertising firms are permitted to discuss.
The Daily Beagle goes beyond that. Not only do we expose the ugly underbelly of corruption with pharmaceutical companies, we will also explain why the follow up shots are more harmful than the first. Remember: pharmaceutical companies already knew this.
Anaphylaxis
If you’ve read any propaganda rag, you’ll probably find anaphylaxis (Greek: ana - against, phylaxis - protection) has been dumbed down to mean ‘severe allergic reaction’, discussing things like symptomology. Maybe they’ll even name drop that it can be treated with epinephrine injection (then conveniently ignore the fact Pfizer owns the EpiPen brand; ker-ching).
What you might notice is the propaganda rags dodge the question of why anaphylaxis occurs, even though it has been thoroughly well studied. They’ll talk about ‘allergies’ and things that trigger them, but this doesn’t explain the underlying mechanistic effects. And you know why? Because if you knew what causes it, you’d already know what the problem with the COVID-19 shots were…
Proteins
In December 11, 1913, Charles Richet gave a Nobel lecture after winning the Nobel Peace Prize in Physiology for discovering anaphylaxis. In his lecture he remarked his choice of naming and why (emphasis added):
Phylaxis, a word seldom used, stands in the Greek for protection. 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.
He had come to the discovery that animals could be rendered hypersensitive to poisons via injections. I’m sure no doubt your brows have furrowed and you know where this is going given the subtitle. What type of poisons? His lecture refers to earlier work by Arthus in 1903 (emphasis added):
In 1903 Arthus, in Lausanne, showed that a first intravenous injection of serum on a rabbit causes anaphylaxis, i.e. three weeks after the first injection the rabbit is hypersensitive to the second injection. The phenomenon of anaphylaxis was becoming of general application. Instead of applying only to toxins and toxalbumins, it held good for all proteins, whether toxic at the first injection or not.
That’s right. All proteins, if injected, trigger Anaphylaxis. And what do the Pfizer and Moderna shots inject? Spike proteins. And notice, the rabbit is hypersensitive after the first shot, the second shot produces the anaphylaxis reaction.
And where did the inflammation occur?
In The Heart
A study, following on from Arthus’ work in 1903, was published, in 1932. Roughly 90 years before anyone had conceived of the spike protein shot. It is literally impossible for Pfizer or any other pharmaceutical company to be oblivious to the risks, given, you know, Pfizer manufactured the very epinephrine shot that is used to treat it. You know how to treat it but you don’t know what causes it? What?
The study, titled:
THE ARTHUS PHENOMENON : LOCAL ANAPHYLACTIC INFLAMMATION IN THE RABBIT PERICARDIUM, HEART, AND AORTA.
After repeated parenteral injections of a foreign protein into rabbits Arthus (1) observed that a subsequent subcutaneous injection of the same protein resulted in a local, severe, sterile, inflammatory reaction.
Subcataneous means something administered ‘below’ (sub) the skin. The Pfizer shot is literally administered the same way, as are all injections, really.
The study goes on to note anaphylaxis can occur anywhere in the body and is not restricted to immediately at the injection site:
Several investigators have shown' that this local anaphylactic inflammation is not peculiar to the subcutaneous tissues, but can occur in other tissues of the body, as for example, the viscera and the endothelial cavities
The study then goes to note the heart issues in the rabbits they experimented on, mentioning the words ‘epicardium’ and ‘epicarditis’ (emphasis added)
On resection of the anterior chest wall, the heart appeared dilated and its surface was colored a deep purplish red. The parietal pericardium was slightly thickened and in a few instances was lightly adherent to the epicardium. In about one-fourth of the seventeen experimental animals the pericardial fluid was serosanguineous in character, increased in amount, and contained free bits of fibrin. The epicardium in such instances was deeply congested and on its violaceous surface a finely granular deposit was present. This fibrinous epicarditis was frequently present even when there were no free masses of fibrin in the pericardial fluid. In addition to the deep congestion of the outer aspect of the heart there were also many tiny fresh subepicardial hemorrhages scattered between the dull, stippled, grey areas.
As cardiologist Dr. S. Venkatesan MD notes on his Wordpress site:
Ideally most forms of pericarditis can be termed as epicarditis. The mechanism of ST elvation in pericarditis is actually a sign of epicardial injury.
He also notes that:
Heart has three layers
Epicardium
Myocardium
Endocardium
And talks about elevated troponin levels:
In practical terms Pericarditis + Troponin positivity can be termed as myopericardits.
So essentially, we can treat the damage to epicardium (epicarditis - itis meaning ‘inflammation of'‘, and ‘epicard’ the epicardium) as basically the same as damage to the Pericardium, and likewise, damage to the Myocardium as damage to the Pericardium.
As it so happens, mRNA shots (such as Pfizer’s and Moderna’s) include such symptomology, as the study…
Myocarditis and/or Pericarditis Risk After mRNA COVID-19 Vaccination: A Canadian Head to Head Comparison of BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 Vaccines
…notes that…
The risk of myocarditis and/or pericarditis is higher after mRNA-1723 [Moderna] vaccination than BNT162b2 [Pfizer] vaccination in those aged 18-39 years, especially in males aged 18-29 years, where the risk is several times higher.
So basically the COVID-19 shots are behaving exactly like anaphylaxis triggering injections complete with protein, 3-week spaced injection time, and medical history matching the same symptomology as the rabbits in questions.
The more you know.
If you like my work, be sure to support it by sharing the article link with other people, subscribing or even becoming a supporter. Thank you!
Very few people know about the history of anaphylaxis and the associations to heart issues and the poison shots, so share with people not yet familiar.
Got your own insights on the matter (maybe you’re a seasoned cardiologist)?
Or just content reading more articles like these?