What is the “Immune System”?
An Essay
The human body maintains itself through cleansing, adaptation, and repair. It responds to toxic burden by mobilising elimination pathways. It reacts to tissue damage by initiating healing processes. It adapts to environmental conditions through sophisticated feedback systems that preserve internal equilibrium.
None of this requires a war.
Yet modern medicine has constructed an elaborate mythology in which the body exists in perpetual combat against microscopic enemies. In this story, specialised warrior cells patrol the bloodstream hunting invaders. Y-shaped protein weapons called antibodies neutralise threats with lock-and-key precision. Memory cells retain information about past battles, ready to mobilise defences upon re-encounter.
The vocabulary is revealing: defence, attack, invasion, surveillance, memory, recognition, tolerance, rejection. This is the language of military strategy, not biological cooperation. The framing presupposes that the body exists in an adversarial relationship with its environment—that nature is fundamentally hostile, and survival depends on successful warfare.
This framing is false. And the consequences of believing it have been catastrophic.
Support Independent 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.
[Upgrade to Paid – $5/month or $50/year]
Get in touch Essay ideas, stories, or expertise to share: unbekoming@outlook.com
What the Body Actually Does
The terrain model, developed by Antoine Béchamp, Claude Bernard, and subsequent practitioners, offers a fundamentally different understanding of biological function. The core premise: the body’s vital mechanisms work to preserve the internal environment. The body exists in dynamic equilibrium, responding to every stimulus with an appropriate counter-stimulus. Walter B. Cannon formalised this understanding as homeostasis.
Daniel Roytas, in Can You Catch a Cold?, summarises the terrain position: “According to terrain theory, the body is always in an active pursuit of returning to, or maintaining, a state of equilibrium. From this view, disease and symptoms are not the problem, but an adaptive answer to the problem.”
Dr. Thomas Sydenham understood this centuries ago. He viewed disease as “nothing more than an effort of nature, who strives with might and main to restore the health of the patient by elimination of the morbific matter.” Dr. William Braithwaite supported this notion: “One great error which has blinded the minds of medical men in observing the true principles or science of medicine is in confounding symptoms with the disease itself.”
Symptoms are not evidence of failure. They are evidence of function.
Fever accelerates metabolic processes and facilitates detoxification. Mucus production traps and expels unwanted material. Diarrhoea and vomiting eliminate toxins rapidly. Inflammation brings blood flow and repair resources to damaged tissue. Fatigue redirects energy toward internal restoration. These responses represent the body’s intelligent management of its terrain—not system malfunction, not attack, not the chaos of battle.
William Trebing articulates the reframe directly in Good-Bye Germ Theory: “What the medical cartel calls disease is nothing more than a natural process of toxic elimination. The more toxic you become over the years, the more profound your eliminative process. Standardised medicine categorises the symptoms of this eliminative process in neat little packages, and this is what they call their myriad of diseases.”
The body cleanses. The body adapts. The body repairs.
This understanding shifts everything. If symptoms represent healing processes rather than system breakdown, then suppressing symptoms with pharmaceuticals doesn’t restore health—it interrupts restoration. If the terrain determines whether microorganisms flourish or remain dormant, then attacking microorganisms while ignoring the terrain treats the wrong target. If the body possesses inherent wisdom about maintaining its own equilibrium, then medical intervention should support that wisdom rather than override it.
Dr. Marizelle Arce, a naturopathic doctor specialising in terrain medicine, frames this clearly: “The Terrain model suggests that the condition of the internal environment—the terrain—determines expression of illness. Microbes are not invaders but responders, adapting to the internal milieu of the host. In this view, health is a state of balance, not defence.”
Dr. Marizelle | Undiagnosed: “Under the terrain model, symptoms are not signs of battle, but evidence of healing responses. Fever is detoxification. Mucus is excretion. Fatigue is prioritisation of internal restoration. The so-called pathogens often appear at the site of breakdown as scavengers or helpers—not enemies.”
The Linguistic Trap
The phrase “immune system” contains an argument. To use the words is to accept the argument before any evidence has been examined.
Break down the terminology. Immune means protected from, exempt from, resistant to. The word presupposes that something exists from which protection is needed. System implies an organised, identifiable structure with a defined function—in this case, the function of providing that protection.
Amandha Dawn Vollmer, a naturopathic doctor and terrain medicine practitioner, states the problem directly: “You could never open up a body and point and say, there it is! The immune system!” What medicine calls the immune system is not an anatomical structure. It is an interpretive framework imposed on various tissues and processes—white blood cells, lymphatic vessels, the spleen, bone marrow, antibodies, signalling proteins—unified only by the theoretical assumption that their purpose is defensive warfare against pathogens.
That assumption is germ theory. Accept the vocabulary, and you have accepted germ theory without realising a choice was made.
Arce identifies this mechanism: “The ‘immune system’ is perhaps one of the most referenced but least understood ideas in modern medicine. It’s portrayed as a battalion of cells, tissues, and molecular weapons vigilantly defending us against a hostile microbial world. But what if the very concept of the immune system is less a biological reality and more a psychological construct—one designed not to explain life, but to protect the inconsistencies of germ theory?”
The inconsistencies required protection because germ theory faced an immediate problem: inconsistency. Why do some people exposed to the same microorganisms develop illness while others remain healthy? Why do certain conditions affect some populations severely while sparing others entirely? Even Louis Pasteur, germ theory’s central figure, eventually acknowledged: “The presence in the body of a pathogenic germ is not necessarily synonymous with disease.”
If the presence of a microorganism does not guarantee illness, then the microorganism cannot be the sole cause of illness. Something else determines the outcome. That something is the terrain—the internal condition of the host.
But by the time this became undeniable, pharmaceutical and vaccine industries had invested heavily in germ theory’s implications. The narrative required saving.
Arce explains the rescue operation: “To preserve the illusion of microbial determinism, medicine needed a fallback explanation: the immune system. If someone gets sick, it must mean their immune system was weak or malfunctioning. If someone stays healthy, it must mean their immune system was strong or primed—often by genetics or pharmaceutical intervention. The beauty of the immune system construct is that it could never be directly disproven; it is invisible, reactive, and defined mostly by inference.”
Dawn Lester and David Parker, in What Really Makes You Ill?, identify how this reasoning becomes circular: “Reliance on the immune system to prevent an invading pathogen from causing disease is problematic. It is claimed that the function of the immune system is to attack and destroy pathogens. This means that a strong and fully functioning immune system would be able to destroy all invaders and that anyone with a strong immune system should therefore have no ‘infectious agents’ within their bodies; microorganisms claimed to be ‘pathogenic’ have, however, been found in the bodies of healthy people.”
The medical establishment explains this by claiming some pathogens can exist in “dormant” states—present but inactive. But a genuinely functional defence system would not permit the presence of any pathogen, dormant or otherwise, that could subsequently activate. Each anomaly generates another patch. The theory grows more elaborate to explain away its failures, never simpler because its predictions are confirmed.
Words as Weapons
This is not merely scientific error. It is epistemic warfare conducted through vocabulary.
I have written previously about epistemic capture—the process by which an industry controls not just regulatory decisions but the very conditions of knowledge production: what gets studied, how research is conducted, what counts as evidence. When you capture epistemology, you control reality itself.
The “immune system” represents epistemic capture at the level of language. Capture the words people use to think about their bodies, and you capture the thoughts they can form. Certain questions become unaskable because the vocabulary to ask them has been replaced with vocabulary that points elsewhere.
Vollmer names the military metaphor explicitly: “The false ideology backing germ theory thinking requires a military-like explanation of a fighting and killing immune system. Then here come the tropes: soldiers, fighting, war, killing, surveillance, targeting. These explanations are all stemming from world philosophy and belief, and not from pure science that studies nature’s repeating and stable principles.”
This militarised language serves specific functions. It separates the human from nature, rendering the internal environment as a battleground rather than an ecosystem. It creates fear—the constant threat of invasion, the need for vigilance, the possibility of defence failure. It makes pharmaceutical intervention seem inevitable, even heroic. Vaccines and drugs become weapons in a necessary war rather than foreign substances introduced into a self-regulating system.
Arce identifies how this disempowers: “The language of immunity is inherently fear-based. It encourages people to think of health as a product of vigilance and defence rather than balance and cultivation. This mindset leads to over-testing and labelling, hyper-vigilance about exposure, dependence on pharmaceutical products to ‘support’ or ‘boost’ immunity, and distrust of the body, seeing every sniffle as a sign of failure.”
Vollmer’s formulation is worth stating directly: “Germ theory + Immune System + Vaccine theory = lies that need each other in order to prosper. They can all go into the bin where they belong.”
The lies are interdependent. Germ theory requires the immune system concept to explain its anomalies. The immune system concept requires antibodies as its primary mechanism. The antibody concept requires vaccines to demonstrate its utility. Each lie props up the others. Collapse one, and the structure becomes unstable. Collapse the foundation—the “immune system” framing itself—and the entire edifice falls.
The Antibody Deception
Within the “immune system” mythology, antibodies occupy a central position. These Y-shaped protein warriors supposedly recognise specific pathogens with exquisite precision, bind to them, and neutralise them or mark them for destruction. Vaccination works, according to this theory, by generating antibodies that provide protection against future encounters with the same pathogen. Antibody tests diagnose infection. Antibody levels measure immune status. The concept is so embedded in medical thinking that questioning it feels like questioning whether blood circulates.
The problem: no researcher has ever purified and isolated a natural antibody from human serum to study and characterise.
Medicine claims the human body produces billions of antibodies. These entities supposedly form the cornerstone of adaptive immunity. Diagnostic tests detect them. Vaccines generate them. Therapeutic monoclonal antibodies are manufactured and injected into patients. Yet no one has ever successfully separated a naturally occurring intact antibody molecule from blood for direct examination.
The history is documented. Paul Ehrlich’s drawings of antibodies in the late 1800s depicted purely hypothetical entities. French biologist Felix Le Dantec termed these the “imaginary invalid”—existing only in conceptual illustration, never in observed reality. Harry Gideon Wells acknowledged in 1929 that scientists had “absolutely no knowledge of what these antibodies may be, or even that they exist as material objects,” recognising them only through altered laboratory reactions rather than direct observation.
For nearly a century, researchers attempted to isolate these theoretical particles. They failed. The solution was not to question whether the particles existed. The solution was to manufacture artificial substitutes.
In 1975, Georges Köhler and Cesar Milstein developed hybridoma technology—fusing cancerous myeloma cells with mouse spleen cells using inactivated Sendai virus, then growing these unnatural cellular hybrids in synthetic chemical medium. This process creates laboratory monstrosities that combine cancer cells with supposed immune cells, producing proteins under completely artificial conditions that exist nowhere in nature.
Milstein admitted they were “sufficiently ignorant” and “naïve” about the impossibility of their original goal. When standard methods failed, they were “forced to construct” hybrid approaches to get desired results. The technology that won them a Nobel Prize represented not scientific breakthrough but admission of defeat—the abandonment of finding natural antibodies in favour of manufacturing synthetic replacements.
Harvard Medical School professor Clifford Saper, described as one of the English-speaking world’s leading authorities on monoclonal antibodies, stated definitively: “There is no such thing as a monoclonal antibody that, because it is monoclonal, recognises only one protein or only one virus.” These laboratory-created proteins “will bind to any protein having the same (or a very similar) sequence.”
This admission destroys the theoretical foundation for antibody specificity—the very quality that supposedly makes antibodies useful as diagnostic markers and therapeutic agents. If antibodies bind indiscriminately to similar sequences rather than recognising specific targets, the entire framework collapses. Diagnostic tests measuring “antibodies” are measuring cross-reactive binding, not specific pathogen recognition. Therapeutic monoclonal antibodies are foreign proteins that trigger detoxification responses, not precision-guided weapons.
Lester and Parker identify another fundamental problem: “Tests do not detect the actual microorganism; instead, they only detect ‘antibodies’, which are proteins, not living organisms.” The diagnostic chain extends from observed laboratory reaction to inferred antibody presence to inferred prior pathogen exposure—inference upon inference, never direct observation of the thing itself.
Trebing raises the critical challenge: “There are children born with agammaglobulinaemia, which simply means they cannot produce gamma globulins, the chief proteins constituting antibodies. Therefore, they cannot make any antibodies. The children with this disorder who do not live in bubbles, however, and there have been many, are still able to recover from measles and other diseases as spontaneously as normal children.”
If antibodies were essential for recovery from illness, children who cannot produce them should not recover. They do. The theory fails its own test.
Trebing cites British Medical Research Council Report #272 from May 1950: “This study tested the correlation between antibody counts in people who were treating diphtheria patients, and the patients themselves. The study found that there was no correlation whatsoever between antibody count in the individual, and their ability to develop diphtheria.”
No correlation. The study was terminated and called a failure—not because the methodology was flawed, but because the results contradicted the theory. In captured science, when results contradict theory, results are abandoned.
For those wanting comprehensive documentation of the antibody deception, I have published an extensive examination in “The Antibody Deception: Invisible Enemies, Visible Lies.”
The Autoimmunity Cover Story
With the “immune system” and “antibody” concepts established, a third deception became possible: autoimmunity.
The medical establishment claims that in autoimmune diseases, the body’s defence system attacks its own tissues “by mistake.” An estimated 50 million Americans carry autoimmune diagnoses. The category includes rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, multiple sclerosis, Hashimoto’s thyroiditis, type 1 diabetes, and dozens of other conditions. In each case, the explanation is identical: the immune system has malfunctioned, failing to distinguish self from invader.
The cause? Unknown.
This is the official position. The NIAID states: “Although the causes of many autoimmune diseases remain unknown, a person’s genes in combination with infections and other environmental exposures are likely to play a significant role in disease development.”
Note the framing: genes, infections, vague environmental exposures. Never specific exposures. Never injected substances. Never the adjuvants in vaccines designed to provoke inflammatory responses. The streetlight effect operates here—searching where the light is good rather than where the keys were dropped.
Lester and Parker identify the conceptual problem: “The medical establishment theories relating to autoimmune diseases are fraught with problems, the main one of which is that these theories are dependent upon erroneous ideas about the immune system, the existence of which is predicated upon the ‘germ theory’; a theory that has been shown to be fatally flawed.”
Dr. Peter Duesberg noted in Inventing the AIDS Virus: “The autoimmunity hypothesis, however, suffers several fatal flaws. For one thing, autoimmune reactions have been poorly documented in any disease. In fact, they may never occur in an otherwise healthy person.”
That observation requires emphasis: autoimmune reactions may never occur in an otherwise healthy person. The terrain must already be compromised. Something must happen first. The “autoimmune” response follows injury—it does not cause it.
Here is what the medical establishment knows but does not publicise: specific toxic substances reliably induce autoimmune conditions in laboratory animals. Researchers use mercury and TMPD (tetramethylpentadecane, also called pristane) precisely because these substances create predictable “autoimmune” pathology in susceptible animals. A December 2002 article, “Environmental chemicals and autoimmune disease: cause and effect,” documents that over 70 medications induce lupus-like autoimmune conditions—and these are temporary conditions that resolve when the medication is removed.
When the toxic exposure stops, the “autoimmune” condition resolves. This is not a body attacking itself by mistake. This is a body responding to poison and stopping the response when the poison is removed.
Vaccines contain adjuvants specifically designed to provoke inflammatory responses—without adjuvants, many vaccines produce insufficient antibody measurements. Aluminium hydroxide and aluminium phosphate are common adjuvants. Aluminium is a documented neurotoxin. Virus Mania documents that squalene, used in some vaccines, can become “an inflammation-promoting and immune-activating antigen/allergen, which provokes the formation of corresponding antibodies and can also result in the development of autoimmune diseases.” Animal experiments showed squalene causing “the clinically apparent picture of arthritis.”
Inject an adjuvant. Create arthritis. Call the arthritis an “autoimmune disease” with “unknown cause.”
The body doesn’t attack itself. The body responds to what is done to it. The inflammatory response that medicine labels “autoimmune” is the body’s attempt to address damage. The sequence runs: toxic exposure → tissue damage → immune response to damage. Medicine reverses the arrow and erases the initial exposure: immune response → damage (cause unknown).
I have examined this in depth in “Autoimmunity: The Diagnostic Fiction.”
Three Pillars, One Lie
The architecture of deception now becomes visible.
The “immune system” concept exists to rescue germ theory from its own contradictions. It provides an unfalsifiable explanation for why identical microbial exposure produces different outcomes—the infinitely adjustable “immune status” of the host. The concept captures language and therefore thought, imposing a military metaphor that separates humans from nature and creates perpetual fear of invasion.
The “antibody” concept provides the mechanism by which the “immune system” supposedly operates. Y-shaped protein warriors recognise specific pathogens and neutralise them. Vaccines work by generating these warriors in advance. Diagnostic tests detect them. The entire framework depends on particles that have never been isolated from natural sources—only manufactured in laboratories through cancerous cell fusions and declared equivalent to the theoretical natural entities.
The “autoimmune” concept explains away the damage caused by toxic exposures, including the pharmaceutical interventions that the first two concepts justify. When inflammation and tissue damage appear after vaccination or medication, they cannot be attributed to the products—that would implicate the industry. Instead, the body is blamed for attacking itself “by mistake.” The cause is declared unknown while researchers use specific toxins to reliably create these conditions in laboratory animals.
Each deception requires the others. The “immune system” enables the “antibody” myth by providing a framework in which such entities would serve a function. The “antibody” myth enables vaccines by providing a measurable proxy for claimed protection. Vaccines and their adjuvants create inflammatory conditions. Those conditions are labelled “autoimmune” to deflect causation from the products back onto the body itself.
Remove any pillar and the structure becomes unstable. Remove the foundation—the “immune system” framing itself—and everything built on it collapses.
What Medicine Admits It Doesn’t Know
Within the captured framework, admissions of ignorance occasionally surface. Even on its own terms, the theory lacks foundation.
The Stanford University article quoted by Lester and Parker includes statements from Dr. Mark Davis, director of the Institute for Immunology, Transplantation and Infection: “We can’t even be sure how to tell when the immune system’s not working right, let alone why not, because we don’t have good metrics of what a healthy human immune system looks like.”
The medical establishment has built an entire category of disease—autoimmune conditions affecting 50 million Americans—on the premise that the immune system malfunctions. Yet the director of a major immunology institute acknowledges medicine lacks metrics for what a healthy immune system looks like.
Without baseline metrics for health, claims of malfunction are meaningless. The structure is circular: the “immune system” is defined by its failures, while its successes remain unmeasured and undefined.
Herbert Shelton captured the absurdity decades ago: “It is not enough to say that those ‘exposed’ individuals who failed to develop allegedly infectious disease are immune. This merely says that they do not develop the disease because they do not develop it. It explains nothing.”
The Alternative Framework
Medicine without the “immune system” mythology looks fundamentally different.
Vollmer describes the actual structures: “It’s a cleansing and communication network called the lymphatic and fascial networks.” The lymphatic system moves fluid through tissues, collecting cellular waste and debris for processing and elimination. The fascial network provides structural communication throughout the body. These are observable anatomical systems with documented functions—not theoretical constructs inferred from laboratory reactions.
Trebing reframes what medicine calls immune function: “Immunity is a defence system the body uses to eliminate toxic matter that has built up over a period of time. The immune system kicks into place when more simple lines of body defence have not been able to eliminate toxic matter effectively, and now the toxicity has reached the circulatory system and organs.”
In this understanding, what appears during illness is not warfare but waste management. White blood cells perform phagocytosis—engulfing and breaking down particles. Medicine interprets this as attacking invaders. Trebing offers an alternative: “The white blood cells are simply removing dead organic matter, or garbage, from the body that is no longer useful.”
The body cleanses itself. Symptoms represent that cleansing process. Suppressing symptoms suppresses cleansing. The chronic diseases proliferating in modern populations represent accumulated toxic burden never properly eliminated because pharmaceutical intervention interrupted the body’s restorative processes.
Dr. John Tilden, cited by Lester and Parker, offered the positive definition: “Health—full health—is the only reliable opposition to disease; everything which improves health builds immunity to all disease-building influences.”
True immunity—genuine resistance to illness—comes from terrain quality. Clean internal environment, adequate nutrition, functional elimination pathways, minimal toxic burden. This immunity requires no pharmaceutical intervention. It requires living in accordance with biological requirements.
The Path Through
If there is no immune system to boost, what do you do when sick? If antibodies don’t provide protection, what value do diagnostic tests have? If autoimmune diseases are misnamed, what is actually happening?
The terrain framework provides answers, but they require abandoning the war metaphor entirely.
When symptoms appear, the body is working. Fever, mucus, fatigue—these represent the body’s intelligent response to conditions requiring attention. Rather than suppressing symptoms to feel better quickly, terrain approaches support the body’s process: rest, hydration, fasting if appropriate, warmth, time. The discomfort is the healing.
Diagnostic tests measuring antibodies provide information, but that information requires reinterpretation. Elevated readings indicate the body’s cleansing activity is engaged—not that specific pathogens have been identified. Lester and Parker note: “Seroconversion simply indicates active cellular cleansing processes rather than evidence of pathogen exposure or protective immunity.”
Conditions labelled autoimmune require investigation of actual causes: toxic exposures, pharmaceutical injury, nutritional deficiencies, accumulated damage from prior interventions. When the toxic burden is identified and removed, the inflammatory response often resolves—as documented research shows with medication-induced lupus. The body isn’t attacking itself; it’s responding to injury. Remove the injury, and the response diminishes.
Vollmer articulates the practical shift: “We cleanse, we unblock, we encourage circulation and elimination, we release. We listen to symptoms as bodily wisdom. We avoid attack, cutting, and unnecessary suppression. Understanding this lessens fear and replaces it with something very important: the functional path to real healing and recovery.”
Constructed Ignorance
The “immune system” mythology persists not because evidence supports it but because institutions depend on it.
Medical education reproduces the framework. Pharmaceutical products require it. Diagnostic testing assumes it. Autoimmune disease categories protect it. Research funding flows toward questions that won’t threaten it. The entire infrastructure of modern medicine is built on conceptual foundations that crumble under examination.
This is not ignorance. It is constructed ignorance—the deliberate maintenance of a framework that protects commercial interests while obscuring understanding of how bodies actually function.
Arce concludes: “It’s time we replaced this outdated metaphor with one rooted in life, not war. Health is not about defence. It is about cultivation. It is about listening to the body, nourishing the terrain, and trusting in the ancient intelligence that formed us and still lives within us today.”
The body doesn’t wage war. It maintains itself through processes refined over evolutionary time scales. Those processes are intelligent, purposeful, and directed toward preservation of equilibrium. Symptoms are not malfunctions—they are functions. The terrain determines outcomes. The body knows what it’s doing.
Medicine forgot this. Or rather, medicine was captured by interests that found forgetting profitable.
The evidence presented here—the failure to isolate antibodies, the admission that autoimmune triggers are known but unacknowledged, the linguistic trap that forecloses certain thoughts—this evidence is not hidden. It exists in the medical literature, in historical records, in the admissions of researchers. What has been hidden is the pattern: three deceptions interlocking to protect a paradigm that benefits industry at the expense of understanding.
The body is not a battlefield. It is a self-regulating system of extraordinary sophistication, working continuously to maintain the conditions necessary for life. The first step toward genuine health is recognising this truth—and refusing the vocabulary that obscures it.
References
Arce, Marizelle. “The Immune System: A Construct to Rescue Germ Theory.” Dr. Marizelle | Undiagnosed, June 2025.
Duesberg, Peter. Inventing the AIDS Virus. Regnery Publishing, 1996.
Engelbrecht, Torsten, Claus Köhnlein, and Samantha Bailey. Virus Mania: Corona/COVID-19, Measles, Swine Flu, Cervical Cancer, Avian Flu, SARS, BSE, Hepatitis C, AIDS, Polio, Spanish Flu. 3rd ed. 2021.
Lester, Dawn, and David Parker. What Really Makes You Ill? Why Everything You Thought You Knew About Disease Is Wrong. 2019.
Pollard, K.M., P. Hultman, and D.H. Kono. “Toxicology of Autoimmune Diseases.” Chemical Research in Toxicology, March 2010.
“Environmental chemicals and autoimmune disease: cause and effect.” December 2002.
Roytas, Daniel. Can You Catch a Cold? Untold History and Human Experiments. 2024.
Shelton, Herbert. Natural Hygiene: Man’s Pristine Way of Life.
Trebing, William P. Good-Bye Germ Theory. Xlibris, 2006.
Unbekoming. “The Antibody Deception: Invisible Enemies, Visible Lies.” Lies are Unbekoming, June 2025.
Unbekoming. “Autoimmunity: The Diagnostic Fiction.” Lies are Unbekoming, January 2026.
Unbekoming. “Epistemic Capture.” Lies are Unbekoming, September 2025.
Vollmer, Amandha Dawn. “There are No Bad Bacteria. There is no Immune System.” ADV’s Healthy Dose of Truth, January 2026.
Wells, Harry Gideon. The Chemical Aspects of Immunity. 1929.
Book: Medicalized Motherhood: From First Pill to Permanent Patient
Available as a free download. 123 interventions documented across six phases—from pre-conception capture through postpartum surveillance. Includes practical tools: birth plan template, provider interview questions, quick reference card, and a new chapter on interrupting the cascade. Download it, share it with someone facing their first prenatal appointment, their induction date, their cesarean recommendation. The cascade works because women don’t see it coming. This book makes it visible.
Support Independent 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.
[Upgrade to Paid – $5/month or $50/year]
Get in touch Essay ideas, stories, or expertise to share: unbekoming@outlook.com
Bitcoin: 3Q6BK8x8zjoPaXykQggzvoJxg5FiEbkb3U
Ethereum: 0x4CB0d39d8466a34609318FC1B003B745893788b3
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
Thank you, I deeply resonate with this article. You know when I first realised the cartel medicine is designed this way and it is no coincidence? I got DTaP vax when I was 22 y.o., healthy living being always mindful about what I'm eating, non smoking, not drinking alcohol except occasional glass of wine or brew, not taking drugs or medicine, actively doing sport like swimming, etc, then just 2 weeks after the vax I ended up in life resque unit in hospital attached to IV and put to sleep artificially. They did all thinkable tests and never found a reason why I nearly died for multisystem organ inflamation. That was the Jesus moment when I realised they just don't want to see, even what is obvious. You don't just die out of a blue, there is a cause and the single one thing which has changed in that particular time of my life was the jab I got injected with. You don't need to be Einstein to realize 1+1=2. Since then I don't trust them anything at all.
By controlling words you control and limit thought. Food for thought, the English language does this by design: The English Language Control Proticol by Paradigm Shift:
Slave Code - The Hidden Mind Program Inside the Language Part 1 - How Our Language Dis empowers Us
Work week = work weak. Weekend = weakened. So you arrive "weakened" to your "weekend" from your work week, because the work made you weak. They're called week days because they put you into a weak daze. A break is called a break, during your slave filled day, because most slaves would "break" without the break. Our slave masters know this and provide the break because it helps produce more milk from the human cattle.
The original break of course given to a slave came when they passed out from complete exhaustion or actually died. The slave owner would say he's broke, broken or taking a permanent break. How do you pronounce "wor"? That's right, it's pronounced "WAR" and "WOR" with a "K" on the end of it is "WORK." Did you know K is the Egyptian letter for death? So work actually means war plus death. The use of a hypno based language, designed by our humans farmers, helps increase control over the slave class......by planting the fertile subconscious with seeds of perpetual servitude.
Control is CON-TROLL, the con job designed for the trolls.
You get up to the morning, but mourning is a form of sorrow or grieving. You say "hello" as you arrive but why is our greeting "hell-low"? Why is "hell" a part of our greeting? Why do other words referring to hot places surround us like "hotmail" (hot-male) or firefox. Who is the historical hot male? (aka.....the devil......which is the word "lived" spelled backwards).
You get up in the morning (mourning) to earn a living but earn is also "urn", a vessel to keep the cremated ashes of your body. Mourning (morning) is another word synonymous with death. You wake (funeral wake) from your slum-ber (from your slum) with coffee, the same prefix used in the word coffin, Egyptian in origin, originally spelled KAffee or KAffin, KA meaning the spirit after death.
You go to your job but Job in the bible is a man who's heavily tormented by God. (pronounced Joob) Job in the bible has his wealth, health and children stolen from him by Satan but Satan was given permission by God to do so. Why is our work (our job) literally named after a man (Job) who has is health, children and wealth taken away? Why is God and Satan working together on Job, to make his life more miserable?
For our slavery we're given $20 bills, $50 bills, $100 bills etc......but aren't bills something you pay, something you owe? At a restaurant if you're given "a bill" for $50, don't you owe $50? And there lies the secret in plain sight, our payments are called bills by our human farmers because we owe it all back to them, first in taxes and then in useless meaningless purchases, as we waste our money trying to rabidly decorate our jail cell down on the human farm.
We spend our bills on soulless purchases from large corporations that our social engineers own. They laugh at how inept we are.This is why most people have no money, because we're not being paid to be slaves, we're being given bills that we need to pay. We're paying to be slaves.
Slave Code - The Hidden Mind Program Inside the Language Part 2 - Our Clothes
You obey the watch to arrive on time because the watch is designed to be the watcher or slave driver. What drives the slaves to work? The watch watches you and signifies the wrist chain worn by someone who isn't in control of their time.
The neck tie was originally designed to signify the dog collar or neck chain, meaning being owned and controlled by someone else. You need to have a "collar shirt" on to where the neck tie around your throat. The neck tie means you're tied and controlled by another, a slave to the script. The slave can only pick the color and quality of their tie but can never choose to be free of the tie around their neck.
Most people at work have a title. Title is really TIE-TELL, the symbolism of how your title tells others who you are tied to.
Your TIE-TELL signifies who controls the tie (dog collar) around your neck, around the "collar" shirt. People often wear a uniform. Uniform is derived from the word UNI, meaning one and form, meaning "a way to be". Uniform means you're programming and conditioned to act like everyone else wearing the same uni-form, equaling no independence and no free will. Your morality and ethics are spoken for.
Inject that other slave with a toxic vaccine. Serve that other slave some poisonous coffee. Go kill slaves in other countries, inside fake wars where slave master controls both sides. Welcome to the slave life.
The suit and tie is our most common uniform, signifying our willingness to outsource our morality and ethics to another. Your behavior dictated by forces outside of yourself, the removal of free will. You arrive on time. The word time is ti-me or tie-me........tie me to the chains so the work can begin.
Put the tie around my neck, so I can obey and comply to slave master.
The cuff links represent the hand cuffs or links of another slavery based chain around the wrist yet if they're made from gold, we think we're free. We lie to ourselves because lying is a word that means "we lie down", submitting to our slavery, instead of standing up to slave master. We've exchanged our chains of cast iron for chains of gold.
Slave Code - The Hidden Mind Program Inside the Language Part 3 - Our Tax Cattle Slavery System
The person in "charge" means the person who conducts the electricity, as charge is an electrical or energy term. This describes the energy thrown into us from slave master, making us perform and dance with their electricity, as we've had our own personal electrical charge of free will surgically removed by master's indoctrination systems and sleights of mind.
During conventional slavery, the slave owner had to incur all costs including housing, health care, food, cleaning of the slave quarters, clothing, birthing of the child slaves, raising the child slaves, transportation of the slaves back and forth from work, celebrations, clean up after a natural disaster, slave entertainment, schooling of the new slave children to be good slaves etc etc.
A slave owner's profit was always revenue minus expenses, no different than any business. The big trick was to tell the slaves that they were free, let them pay all those expenses, allow them to come back to the plantations and then to tax them in order to actually make more profit compared to the original slavery concept, with little to no chance of rebellion or resistance.
All taxation is meant to increase a slave's dependence on their slavery, as the people taking the tax away from the slaves print the money themselves and therefore don't have any use for it. Taxation is about keeping the slave down. That's it. Taxation has one purpose and one purpose only.
To make the slave dependent on coming back to the modern plantations of slavery, day in and day out. If the slave starts to save their money, give them a TV full of negative role modelling and watch the slave magically go into debt. If the slave still has money, organize a stock market crash or increases the taxes (theft).
The people who print the money, have no use for extra fake paper money, which they can print at anytime and in any quantity they desire. The entire drive of the tax system is to make sure the slave has no extra money, as to provide them with enough freedom to figure any of this out. Slavery wasn't abolished, the plantation was simply expanded and they mock us inside the language. Everyone was tricked into becoming a slave, while believing they're free.
The language is loaded with many dis-empowering subconscious cues because our human farmers have been at this game much longer than they'll allow us to know.
Do you know what's going on? Are you sure?
Jordan Maxwell Explains the Knights Templar Maritime Admiralty Law We Are Living Under - Fascinating: https://old.bitchute.com/video/rdM84Dbx0LtR [6mins]