The Last Twenty-One Minutes

An Essay on Vaxxed 2, Unvaccinated Children, and the Comment Section That Became the Study

In October 2022, I wrote a short piece called “The Unvaccinated.” The idea was simple: embed the last 21 minutes of the documentary Vaxxed 2, where parents of unvaccinated children describe what their kids are actually like, and let readers watch for themselves. Twenty-one minutes. That’s all. Parents talking about their children’s health, one family at a time.

The Unvaccinated

The documentary itself covers a lot of ground, but those final 21 minutes function as a kind of control group made visible. These are children who never received the 72 doses on the US schedule, or the 42 doses on the Australian one. They never had the 38 chemical ingredients injected into their bodies. And their parents — with nothing to gain and quite a lot to lose socially — sat in front of a camera and described what these children are like.

I thought I was sharing a video. What I got back, over three years and counting, was something I didn’t expect. The comment section became the study.

They’re Calm

The first comment worth noting came from a reader named Sez77, posted in September 2023:

“You know what I notice in the Vaxxed 2 documentary, with all those un-vaxxed kids? They’re CALM. They’re not interrupting. They’re not whining. They’re not touching things. They’re not fidgeting, or jumping up and down.”

She then posed the question that matters: “They’ve all been either exceptionally well-parented, and well-raised. Or the neurological dysfunction that characterises an overly-vaccinated child is completely absent.”

That comment drew 97 likes. It also drew something more important — confirmation from other parents. Kate Freeman noted the children “spoke clearly and in full sentences.” Others who had spent time around both vaccinated and unvaccinated children recognised the pattern immediately.

This observation — the calm — is not something you’ll find in a peer-reviewed journal. No one has funded a study measuring fidgeting rates in unvaccinated versus vaccinated five-year-olds. But hundreds of independent observers, across years, report the same thing. That convergence is its own kind of data.

---

Support Independent Investigative Journalism and Research

This work remains free because paid subscribers make it possible. If you find value here, consider joining them.

What paid subscribers get: Access to the Deep Dive Audio Library — 180+ in-depth discussions (30-50 min each) exploring the books behind these essays. New discussions added weekly. That’s 100+ hours of content for less than the price of a single audiobook.

Plus 1-2 free books each month.

[Upgrade to Paid – $5/month or $50/year]

Get in touch Essay ideas, stories, or expertise to share: unbekoming@outlook.com

---

The Parental Reports

Over three years, the comment section accumulated testimony from parents across multiple countries, family sizes, and circumstances. The pattern was so consistent it bordered on monotonous. The same observations, from people who had never met, often using the same words.

AstroMommy, mother of five unvaccinated children: “All are very healthy. When they do get sick, they recover beautifully.” She described using vitamin C protocols when her children contracted whooping cough — a strain not covered by vaccination — and noted they now carry natural immunity estimated at around 30 years. Only two of her five children ever had an ear infection. Her medicine cabinet: “Food, herbs, essential oils, sleep, vitamin C, sunlight and water.”¹

Michelle Rivera, mother of two unvaccinated children: “Zero vaccines. No rx or otc medications. No allergies, get sick for 2 days max. Like night and day compared to my childhood — fully vaxxed and ear infections and antibiotics constantly.”

Kelly: “My kids are also completely unvaccinated. They are now 18 and 12 and never been sick. Best decision I’ve ever made.”

Joe Jacovino: “My two unvaxxed kids were always healthier than their classmates.”

Misterkel, father of two unvaccinated teenagers: “Healthy as fuk. Sicknesses very brief and mild. Much better than v’d friends.”

GENDUN LAMA: “My son and his wife were about to have their first and I told them not to vax. Now they have three brilliant, healthy totally unvaxxed and organically fed kids, and we’re all beyond glad for that decision.”

The recurring themes across these reports are worth cataloguing. Parents consistently describe:

Illness brevity. When unvaccinated children get sick — and they do get sick — the illness resolves quickly. Two days is a common reported duration. Parents of vaccinated children, by contrast, describe protracted illnesses, recurring infections, and antibiotic cycles.

Absence of chronic conditions. Allergies, asthma, eczema, and ear infections are conspicuously absent from the unvaccinated reports. These conditions are so common among vaccinated children that many parents consider them normal features of childhood. They are not.

Cognitive and behavioural sharpness. Multiple parents describe their unvaccinated children as unusually focused, articulate, and emotionally regulated. This observation crops up independently across the thread, from parents who have no contact with each other.

Marissa, mother of five unvaccinated children, noticed something specific about ear infections: “Literally never have any had an ear infection. We all go swimming in pools and Galveston (dirty Gulf water lol). It’s not for lack of trying! Ear infections seem like a major bugbear for some kids, especially my fully vaccinated niblings.”

The ear infection observation is worth pausing on. Dr. Paul Thomas’s practice data from Portland, Oregon — 2,763 vaccinated children compared with 561 unvaccinated children over ten years — found that office visits for ear infections were significantly more common in the vaccinated group.² Hooker and Miller’s 2021 study found an odds ratio of 27.8 for chronic ear infections in fully vaccinated versus unvaccinated children, with a p-value below 0.001.³ Marissa didn’t know about these studies. She just knew her five kids never got ear infections despite swimming in the Gulf of Mexico.

ADHD showed the same convergence. In Dr. Thomas’s practice, zero unvaccinated patients exhibited ADHD, compared to 5.3% of the vaccinated group.⁴ The Control Group survey of unvaccinated Americans, covering 1,482 participants across 48 states, found the vaccinated population had roughly 20 times the incidence of ADHD.⁵ Again, the parents in the comment section didn’t cite these numbers. They just described what they saw: calm kids who could focus, sit still, and regulate their emotions.

This is what triangulation looks like in practice. The formal studies, the practice data, and the parental reports all point in the same direction. No single thread is conclusive. Together, they become difficult to dismiss.

The Ingredient Question

In the original post, I quoted J.B. Handley’s observation from How to End the Autism Epidemic. Of the 38 ingredients present in two or more vaccines on the American schedule, exactly one — thimerosal — has been studied for its relationship to autism. The other 37 have not been studied at all.⁶

Handley lists them: 2-Phenoxyethanol, albumin, aluminum hydroxide, aluminum potassium sulfate, amino acids, ammonium sulfate, antibiotics, bovine components, bovine serum, chick embryo cell culture, culture, detergent, dextrose, enzymes, formaldehyde, gelatin, glutaraldehyde, human components, human embryonic cells, lactalbumin hydrolysate, medium 199, mineral salts, monosodium L-glutamate, phenol, phosphate, polymixin B sulfate, polysorbate-80, potassium aluminum sulfate, potassium chloride, potassium phosphate monobasic, sodium borate, sodium chloride, sodium phosphate dibasic, sorbitol, soy peptone, sucrose, thimerosal, vero (monkey kidney) cells, and yeast protein.

One out of 38 studied, and the case is declared closed.

Three years later, nothing has changed. No additional ingredients have been studied for their relationship to autism or any other neurodevelopmental condition. The same authorities who insist vaccines have been thoroughly studied continue to rely on the examination of a single ingredient as evidence that the entire cocktail is safe.

David Kirby, former New York Times investigative journalist, put it precisely: “It is illogical to exonerate all vaccines, all vaccine ingredients, and the total US vaccine program as a whole, based solely on a handful of epidemiological studies of just one vaccine and one vaccine ingredient.”⁷

The Veterinary Parallel

One of the more unexpected threads in the comments came from outside human medicine entirely.

Cara K described reading What Your Vet Won’t Tell You About Vaccines and its discussion of calmer, less hyperactive puppies when they skipped their shots. She had two husky-cross pups — breeds known for high energy — who were “surprisingly calm.” She made an observation that deserves wider attention: “A practicing vet sees more generations of dogs than human docs, so sometimes the differences in health and longevity can be seen more clearly.”

Theo Farmer, who runs a herd of 75 cattle, went further: “We haven’t vaccinated any of our cows since we started farming in 2010. No pharmaceuticals ever. The herd health is stunning, particularly our calving experiences, which are hands off.”

The cross-species pattern matters because it eliminates several common objections. You can’t attribute a cow’s health to parenting style, diet ideology, or confirmation bias. Animals don’t read Substack. They don’t have beliefs about vaccines. They either get sick or they don’t. When unvaccinated herds consistently outperform vaccinated ones in calving outcomes and general health, the variable being tested is the injection itself.

The Ones Who Regret

Not everyone in the comments was celebrating. A significant thread came from parents who vaccinated their children and wish they hadn’t.

Carol Rivers: “I unfortunately raised three children before I found out, woke up in regards to vaccinations. I have to live with this the rest of my life and I am very regretful.”

J. Harris: “I too am a mother of three who unfortunately, listened to the ‘experts’ and vaxxed my kids at ‘well-visits.’ My eldest even had a reaction (a seizure 2-3 days after vax) to his first MMR or the combination of all the vaxxes he received. And, I still continued to vaxx my kids because what did I know compared to the paediatricians?”

Robin Landry: “My vaccinated son (1989) had pneumonia 3 times starting at 5 months old. He was on antibiotics for one whole winter as a toddler.”

Green Fields: “I can’t turn back time and dearly wish I had known this information before he was born.”

These voices carry a particular weight because they come with nothing to gain. No parent enjoys publicly admitting they harmed their child through trust in medical authority. The regret is not performative. It’s the kind of statement people make when the evidence has become impossible to deny in their own household.

J. Harris’s detail is especially significant — her son seized within days of vaccination, and she continued the schedule anyway. Not because she was reckless, but because the asymmetry of authority was total. She was a mother. They were paediatricians. The idea that they could be systematically wrong was, at that point, unthinkable.

The Sharpest Grief

The most painful thread came from parents who did everything right for decades — and then watched their adult children surrender to coercion.

Christine Grace raised two children completely unvaccinated to the ages of 28 and 30. Then came 2020. Both took the COVID injections “out of pure fear and domination.” Both cut her out of their lives for years during the period of mandates. She wrote: “I am welcome back now and no discussion bout past... i have surrendered completely.”

The phrase “out of pure fear and domination” deserves attention. These were not children making an informed medical decision. They were adults who had been healthy their entire lives, raised by a mother who had done the research and made the harder choice for 28 years — and they broke under social and economic pressure that was deliberately designed to be unbearable. Employment mandates. Travel restrictions. Social exclusion. The architecture of coercion worked exactly as intended.

A reader using the name “Unapologetically Me” told a parallel story from Canada. She raised her son unvaccinated from birth in 1997. He was healthy his entire childhood. In 2021, aged 24, he took two Pfizer doses under Trudeau’s mandates. By February 2024, he was diagnosed with a severe autoimmune disease. He is now 28, on three immunosuppressive drugs and an antidepressant, likely for life.

“For new parents, old parents and grandparents,” she wrote. “Teach your children well. Flee any country which would force you to poison your babies.”

When I reached out to publish her story, she responded months later with a weariness that has become familiar among vaccine-injury families: “Is there really any importance in relating my Canadian jab injured son’s story here? There are MILLIONS of Covid vaccine injured victims. No acknowledgement from medical ‘specialists.’ No inquiries.”

These stories represent a category of harm that no clinical trial will capture. A mother protects her child from a pharmaceutical programme for a quarter century, and a government mandate undoes it in an afternoon. The formal study that would document this — health outcomes in previously unvaccinated adults who took COVID injections under coercion — will never be funded. But the testimony exists, timestamped and public. The pattern is there: protect for decades, lose to mandate pressure, suffer the consequences, receive no acknowledgement.

Cindy: A Case Study in Institutional Thinking

Among hundreds of comments, one voice stood out for its persistence and its precision as an exhibit of how institutional capture operates at the individual level. A commenter named Cindy returned to the thread repeatedly over more than a year, offering increasingly elaborate defences of the vaccination orthodoxy. She is articulate. She is educated. She has family members in medicine and science. And her arguments, taken together, constitute a near-perfect catalogue of the cognitive architecture that prevents otherwise intelligent people from engaging with inconvenient evidence.

Her arguments followed a recognisable sequence. Each one deserves examination — not to ridicule Cindy, but because every curious sceptic has either made these arguments or heard them from someone they trust.

The demand for peer review. Cindy insisted repeatedly that she “only pays attention to hard, peer-reviewed science.” This is a reasonable-sounding position until you examine what it actually excludes and why. The peer-reviewed journals she trusts are predominantly funded through pharmaceutical advertising revenue and industry fees. The FDA receives 65% of its drug review budget from user fees paid by the companies whose products it evaluates. The studies Cindy demands — large-scale vaccinated-versus-unvaccinated comparisons — have been actively blocked by the very agencies that would need to conduct them. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Aaron Siri documented this in detail: when they pressed the NIH for such a study, officials first claimed the Vaccine Safety Datalink couldn’t support it, then claimed there weren’t enough unvaccinated children in the database.⁸ Both claims were false. The CDC’s own 2013 data showed approximately 3,200 completely unvaccinated children in the VSD within a four-year window alone, with 25 years of data available.⁹

The demand for peer review becomes circular when the institutions controlling the journals are the same institutions avoiding the research. It’s like demanding a confession from the suspect while allowing the suspect to decide which questions get asked.

The dismissal of observation while relying on it. Cindy dismissed others’ personal experiences as mere “anecdotes” — then offered her own at length. Her son received all scheduled vaccinations and has been sick “exactly FIVE TIMES in HIS ENTIRE LIFE.” Her family of 26 members never had problems from any vaccination. She presented this as evidence that vaccines are safe — having just finished explaining that personal experience is inadmissible evidence.

She did not see the contradiction. This is not because she is stupid. It is because the framework she operates within has a one-way valve: observations that confirm the orthodoxy are “experience.” Observations that challenge it are “anecdotes.”

The appeal to credentials. Her closing argument was a declaration of caste: “What I see underlying all the fear and concern about vaccinations is that none of you folks are scientists or paediatricians.” Her brother teaches paediatric infectious diseases. Her husband is a scientist. Their friends have PhDs. “These are not stupid people. Anyone who thinks they’re smarter than them is a fool.”

This forecloses inquiry by social hierarchy rather than evidence. And it ignores what happens to credentialed people who dissent. Dr. Paul Thomas was a paediatrician — a highly successful one with over 15,000 patients — and when he published data showing his unvaccinated patients were healthier, the Oregon Medical Board suspended his licence within a week.¹⁰ Not for harming patients. For publishing data. The order accused him of “unprofessional or dishonorable conduct” and stated his “continued practice constitutes an immediate danger to the public” — a remarkable claim about a doctor whose unvaccinated patients had zero cases of ADHD.

The system does not reward credentialed dissenters. It destroys them. Cindy’s brother publishes safely because he publishes within the lines. The credentials argument only works if you ignore what happens to the credentialed who break ranks.

The seatbelt analogy. “My kids never wear seatbelts in the car and they’re still doing fine,” she wrote sarcastically. “Do you really want to take that risk?” The analogy fails at every joint. Seatbelts have been tested in crash scenarios with inert control groups. The mechanism of protection is transparent and mechanical. The failure mode is visible and immediate. Vaccines have not been tested against true saline placebos.¹¹ The mechanism by which 38 injected ingredients interact with a developing infant immune system has never been studied as a system. And the failure mode — neurological damage that unfolds over months or years — is designed to be invisible within the timeframe of any clinical observation window. A seatbelt either holds you in a crash or it doesn’t. The question with vaccines is whether the crash was caused by the seatbelt.

Cindy is not the enemy. She is the product. She represents what a well-educated, well-meaning person looks like after a lifetime of trusting institutions that have earned that trust in some domains and systematically abused it in others. Every defence she offers is one the curious sceptic has used themselves, or heard from someone they respect. Her arguments deserve serious engagement — not because they’re correct, but because they’re the exact barriers that prevent otherwise intelligent people from examining the evidence with their own eyes.

The Study That Exists

While the comment section was accumulating testimony, the formal research was quietly advancing.

Joy Lucette Garner, founder of The Control Group study, appeared in the comments with specific numbers. Her survey of entirely unvaccinated Americans across 48 states found that the total risk of at least one chronic condition after age 18 was 2.64% for lifetime unvaccinated individuals, compared to over 60% for the vaccinated population.¹²

The Control Group data showed vaccinated children had roughly 20 times the incidence of ADHD (9.4% versus 0.47%) and over 10 times the incidence of autism (2.5% versus 0.21%) compared to unvaccinated children.¹³ These findings aligned with Hooker and Miller’s 2021 study, which found odds ratios for ADD/ADHD and autism of 20.8 and 5.0 respectively between vaccinated and unvaccinated children.¹⁴

The Mawson pilot study of homeschooled children found an odds ratio of 4.2 for both autism and ADHD between vaccinated and unvaccinated groups.¹⁵ The Dutch NVKP survey showed substantially higher levels of single and multiple chronic disorders among vaccinated versus unvaccinated children across asthma, allergies, and eczema.¹⁶

These studies exist. They are published. They consistently show the same thing. And they are consistently ignored, attacked, or retracted under pressure.

Dr. Thomas’s story is instructive. He opened his Portland practice in 2008, offering parents the option to delay, modify, or decline vaccines based on informed consent. The practice grew to over 15,000 patients. In 2019, the Oregon Medical Board demanded he prove his approach was as safe as the CDC schedule. So he did. He hired an independent researcher, gathered over ten years of data on every child born into his practice, and published the results with James Lyons-Weiler. The findings were unambiguous: vaccinated children had four to eight times more office visits for chronic conditions including asthma, allergic rhinitis, behavioural issues, and eczema. ADHD was nonexistent among the unvaccinated.⁴

Thomas himself later reflected on what this meant: “Having your brain on fire is not comfortable. No matter how hard it is to parent a kid with ADHD, it’s that much harder to be a kid with ADHD.”

The Oregon Medical Board’s response to receiving the evidence it had demanded was to suspend Thomas’s licence within a week of publication. The order stated that his “continued practice constitutes an immediate danger to the public.”¹⁰ They accused him of “fraudulently asserting” that his schedule would prevent autism — an accusation that amounts to punishing a doctor for publishing data that showed his patients were healthier.

The journal retracted the paper under circumstances the authors described as procedurally improper — with a vague statement about “concerns regarding the validity of the conclusions” and no specific methodological critique.¹⁷ The paper was subsequently republished in the International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research.¹⁸ Thomas, unable to practise under the Board’s restrictive conditions, relinquished his licence in December 2022.

The pattern is not subtle: publish data showing unvaccinated children are healthier, and face professional destruction. Dr. Thomas lost his licence. Dr. Andrew Wakefield lost his career decades earlier. The studies get retracted. The journals close ranks. And the absence of further research is then cited as proof that the question has been settled.

This is the environment in which Cindy demands peer-reviewed evidence. The machine that produces peer-reviewed evidence destroys anyone who uses it to ask the wrong question.

The Segregation

There is one more mechanism worth naming, because it operates beneath all the others.

Across most Western countries, unvaccinated children are barred from childcare and preschool. The stated reason is disease prevention — protecting other children from unvaccinated carriers. The actual function is simpler: it prevents vaccinated families from seeing unvaccinated children.

If unvaccinated three-year-olds sat in the same rooms as vaccinated three-year-olds, the differences described throughout this essay — the calm, the absence of ear infections, the lack of chronic illness, the cognitive sharpness — would be observable by every parent at pickup time. Mothers would notice. They would talk. They would ask questions. The comparison that no institution will fund as a formal study would happen informally, thousands of times a day, in waiting rooms and playgrounds and birthday parties.

The exclusion of unvaccinated children from communal spaces is not just punitive. It is epistemic. It is constructed ignorance — a system designed to ensure that the control group remains invisible to the people who would benefit most from seeing it.

This is why the comment section matters as much as it does. It is one of the few places where the segregation breaks down. Parents of unvaccinated children and parents of vaccinated children occupy the same space, read each other’s accounts, and see the pattern. The 21-minute clip from Vaxxed 2 did the same thing — it put the control group on camera and made it available to anyone willing to press play.

The system cannot afford that comparison. Everything — the exclusion policies, the refusal to fund vax-versus-unvax studies, the retraction of papers, the destruction of dissenting doctors — serves a single function: keeping the two populations apart so the difference between them remains theoretical rather than visible.

What the Comment Section Proves

A comments section on a Substack post is not a controlled trial. It is not peer-reviewed. It does not meet the standards that Cindy and her brother would accept as evidence.

But it is something. And the something it is matters.

It is several hundred independent observations, made over three years, by people with no financial incentive to lie, describing the same phenomenon from different angles: unvaccinated children who are calm, healthy, rarely sick, quick to recover, free of chronic conditions, and cognitively sharp. Alongside them, parents of vaccinated children reporting the opposite — ear infections, behavioural issues, autoimmune problems, developmental delays — and wishing they had known.

These observations converge with formal study data from Thomas’s practice, Hooker and Miller’s research, The Control Group survey, the Mawson studies, and the Dutch NVKP survey. The parental reports and the published data describe the same reality from different vantage points. The convergence is the evidence.

When insurance actuarial data, paediatric practice records, parent surveys, cross-species veterinary observation, and an open comment thread all point in the same direction — at some point, the demand for “more research” stops being scientific caution and starts being a refusal to look.

The comment section also revealed something the formal studies cannot: the human texture of what this knowledge costs. The mother who vaccinated three children before she learned. The father who watched his grandson change overnight. The woman who protected her son for 27 years, only to see a government mandate undo her work in an afternoon. These are not data points. They are lives. And they carry a kind of evidence that no p-value can capture — the evidence of consequence, lived and irreversible.

The question that no institution will ask — What does a human being look like who has never been injected with the current vaccine schedule? — has been answered anyway. Not by the CDC. Not by the FDA. Not by the TGA. By parents, in a comment section, one family at a time.

The 21-minute clip from Vaxxed 2 that I embedded in 2022 showed us these children on camera. The comment section showed us that they’re everywhere — quiet, healthy, and invisible to a medical system that has no interest in studying them.

Three years of testimony. Hundreds of families. Multiple countries. One consistent finding.

Zero institutional curiosity.

The document is public. The comments are timestamped. The pattern is there for anyone willing to look.

---

References

¹ AstroMommy, comment on “The Unvaccinated,” Lies are Unbekoming (Substack), April 9, 2025. Referencing Dr. Suzanne Humphries’ vitamin C protocol for whooping cough.

² James Lyons-Weiler and Paul Thomas, “Relative Incidence of Office Visits and Cumulative Rates of Billed Diagnoses along the Axis of Vaccination,” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17, no. 22 (2020): 8674.

³ Brian Hooker and Neil Z. Miller, “Health Effects in Vaccinated versus Unvaccinated Children,” Journal of Translational Science 7 (2021): 1–11.

⁴ Lyons-Weiler and Thomas, “Relative Incidence of Office Visits” (2020). Zero unvaccinated patients exhibited ADHD compared to 5.3% of the vaccinated group.

⁵ Joy Garner, “Statistical Evaluation of Health Outcomes in the Unvaccinated: Full Report,” The Control Group: Pilot Survey of Unvaccinated Americans, November 19, 2020.

⁶ J.B. Handley, How to End the Autism Epidemic (Chelsea Green Publishing, 2018). Referencing CDC data on 38 ingredients present in two or more vaccines on the American schedule.

⁷ David Kirby, as quoted in Handley, How to End the Autism Epidemic.

⁸ Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Brian Hooker, Vax-Unvax: Let the Science Speak (Skyhorse Publishing, 2023). See Appendix A detailing correspondence with NIH officials following the May 2017 meeting.

⁹ Kennedy and Hooker, Vax-Unvax. Referencing a 2013 CDC study of VSD data showing approximately 3,200 completely unvaccinated children born between 2004 and 2008, with 25 years of total data available.

¹⁰ Oregon Medical Board, “In the Matter of: Paul Norman Thomas, MD. License Number MD15689: Order of Emergency Suspension,” 2020. The suspension was issued within a week of publication of the Lyons-Weiler and Thomas paper.

¹¹ This point is documented extensively in Turtles All the Way Down: Vaccine Science and Myth (Anonymous, 2022) and in Kennedy and Hooker, Vax-Unvax, Chapter 1.

¹² Joy Lucette Garner, comment on “The Unvaccinated,” Lies are Unbekoming (Substack), September 29, 2024. Referencing The Control Group study data.

¹³ Garner, “Statistical Evaluation of Health Outcomes in the Unvaccinated” (2020). Vaccinated incidence of ADHD: 9.4% versus 0.47% unvaccinated; autism: 2.5% versus 0.21% unvaccinated.

¹⁴ Hooker and Miller, “Health Effects in Vaccinated versus Unvaccinated Children” (2021).

¹⁵ Anthony R. Mawson et al., “Pilot Comparative Study on the Health of Vaccinated and Unvaccinated 6- to 12-year-old U.S. Children,” Journal of Translational Science 3, no. 3 (2017): 1–12.

¹⁶ NVKP, “Diseases and Vaccines: NVKP Survey Results,” Nederlandse Vereniging Kritisch Prikken, 2006.

¹⁷ International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health Editorial Office, “Retraction: Lyons-Weiler, J.; Thomas, P. Relative Incidence of Office Visits and Cumulative Rates of Billed Diagnoses Along the Axis of Vaccination,” IJERPH 18, no. 15 (2021): 7754.

¹⁸ James Lyons-Weiler and Russell Blaylock, “Revisiting Excess Diagnoses of Illnesses and Conditions in Children Whose Parents Provided Informed Permission to Vaccinate Them,” International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research 2, no. 2: 603–618.

---

New Biology Clinic

For those of you looking for practitioners who actually understand terrain medicine and the principles we explore here, I want to share something valuable. Dr. Tom Cowan—whose books and podcasts have shaped much of my own thinking about health—has created the New Biology Clinic, a virtual practice staffed by wellness specialists who operate from the same foundational understanding. This isn’t about symptom suppression or the conventional model. It’s about personalized guidance rooted in how living systems actually work. The clinic offers individual and family memberships that include not just private consults, but group sessions covering movement, nutrition, breathwork, biofield tuning, and more. Everything is virtual, making it accessible wherever you are. If you’ve been searching for practitioners who won’t look at you blankly when you mention structured water or the importance of the extracellular matrix, this is worth exploring. Use discount code “Unbekoming” to get $100 off the member activation fee. You can learn more and sign up at newbiologyclinic.com