Everyone needs to read this. If only the beginning. For millions of years no body has been born defective, not a human and not any animal. Defective is the system telling us, that we are defective. Our bodies are perfect (wether you think it is made in the image of God or just natural) and need no syringes at all. Every doctor who thinks a syringe is the only solution should be banned from practicing. And yes, that includes a few very admired doctors, like Midwestern doc and Dr. Cowan. Our bodies are NOT made for injecting.
Those exceptions are what used to be known as Bad Seeds. Let us not dispense with folk knowledge. People are indeed sometimes born with defects, though I am not saying they should be injected with this or that. No they should not. Indeed, they might be better off left in their inferior condition; with a bunch of injections as described here in this article, they would undoubtedly get even worse.
As a kid I knew a couple of Down syndrome people, and a few handicapped from birth. But that were very few. I think most 'birth defects' are nowadays caused by all the chemicals in and out of the body. One of the girls with Down syndrome was raised very carefully and is now an adult woman, with a job. She did not get a driver's license, but rides the bus like everyone else in town
I’m not of a medical background or claim to know anything about medicine but I have always believed babies are born as they are and whatever their little bodies are lacking is just ‘the way it is’ this may result in babies dying which is absolutely heartbreaking but that’s just nature. It happens in all species. (I believe) Once punctured with man made chemicals it does indeed start the cycle throughout life.
Indeed. In a cat litter there can be deaths - in natural settings I am sure lots of babies die, either from 'defects' or being killed prematurely. That is nature. Unfortunately for many human and house animal babies, the jabbing starts at birth and never stops. And we have to, otherwise no doc will see us. I had this happen with my dog (who had way too many jabs as a pup - but I did not even have an idea it were vaccines. the replacement doc did not tell me, I only found out when the true vet came back and told me, these should not have been given to a baby that young. Informed consent, you know! )
40 years later, I just realized the reason that the perfect human being I effortlessly delivered had to be placed under the lights to correct jaundice at one day old. Jaundice is a side effect to the “Vitamin” K injection.
I wish I had known this before our 1st daughter was born. She was jaundiced and went through all kinds of unnecessary tests and procedures to find out why.
Yep that happened to my son too 38 years ago. Shoot it’s that Vitamin K shot huh? That far back? I wasn’t aware he got the shot but maybe he did after all. In fact they did a lousy delivery so I wouldn’t be surprised they did without my consent. I learned a couple of years ago before my friend passed away suddenly that she requested not to give the shot. They did so anyways. The girl is now about 12-13 years old.
As young mothers, we simply didn't know. In my case, I didn't have the internet or a caring mother to warn me about all the abuses in hospitals when delivering my baby.
One child turned out okay. The other has had ulcerative colitis since he was in college - probably due to childhood "vaccines" and the standard american diet.
Such important truths being shared in this article! For corroborating information, I thought I would share 2 related articles of mine, always with the prayer and hope of saving a child and his/her family from a lifetime of iatrogenic harm.
The “Legal” train departed the “Right” station long ago. All I can reckon is non-compliance and ridicule.
A doctor hid behind HIPAA and refused to discuss my child’s case. I said, “Oh yes. HIPAA. That’s what makes it legal for you to discuss this case with everyone even trivially connected EXCEPT the family. Now there’s a moral law we all can get behind, huh?”
Standard of care is a muzzle that suppresses the free speech rights of ALL licensed health care providers, regardless of which license enabled them to practice. There is only one thing that is illegal by law and that is to override the dx of the medical doctor. However, a good alternative provider doesn't really need the label unless their healing paradigm is rooted in Western terminology. It offers guidelines and more importantly warnings about what not to do. My guess is that a good intuitive would have found an organic problem. Still it is nice to know that a client has a heart problem before treating.
I don't know how you manage to research all this and keep a cool head whilst writing. I get so angry seeing what mad-icine has done to humanity, I can hardly bear to read about it sometimes. But I thank you deeply for your cool head, and your willingness to believe explanation and reason is the only way to win.
I too often bristle at what I read here. However, the author serves us by their dedication to the facts and refraining from hyperbolic editorial. Present the empirical facts to the intellectually curious and let reason make them free.
I feel the love, the compassion that went into this.
And the title, "Born Defective" when the entire essay proves the opposite to be the truth of it, excellent. One day, we will all SEE that almost all of the problems were CAUSED by medical interventions.
By Day 8 of a newborn's life, their clotting mechanism "corrects" itself in a God-ordained biblical fashion. "The human body has 2 blood clotting elements. One of them is called Vitamin K. Vitamin K is not formed in the body up until the 5th to the 7th day.
The 2nd clotting factor which is essential is called Prothrombin. It surprisingly enough develops to 30% of normal by the 3rd day of life and after that with seeming in-consequence, peaks at 110% on the 8th day, just before leveling off at 100% of normal."
Circumcision should not be done to any unconsenting child, ever. That there's medical "proof" that it is safer on the 8th day is, morally speaking, irrelevant.
***And every male among you who is eight days old shall be circumcised throughout your generations, a servant who is born in the house or who is bought with money from any foreigner, who is not of your descendants.***
Well, la di dah. They were even doing it to their slaves. And yet it is only Christian white people who brought an end to slavery in most parts of the world where they were able to.
Unbecoming is among the most valuable contributions to my education I have found. Perhaps it found me. Regardless, it was soon after I turned fifty I began to contemplate my mortality and how the medical establishment had no cures for anything. In fact - incidence of cancers and chronic diseases were appearing in numbers which boggled the mind. This is happening in ‘supposedly the best healthcare system, in the greatest country on earth.’ Well, we’re not great in any respect are we? If the medical system is allowed to poison people for its mercantile interests, then we have a fascist based structure whereby the human body is but a commodity for exploitation. My sincere gratitude to Unbekoming, for illuminating my understanding of the hideous canard known as modern medicine.
A powerful link in the chain of evil called "modern healthcare [LOL]" is the character of persons who enter the field of standard-issue M.D.-style medicine in the first place. Those folks are brainy in the sense of being able to memorize thousands if not millions of factoids + learn to perform various delicate surgical techniques. Technicians/mechanics is what they are, and nothing more.
But from what someone told me, they are not really bright in the broad sense, i.e., they are great at gobbling up whatever they are fed (their training) - and then just do whatever they are told by the college of physicians & surgeons/government. The overwhelming majority question nothing. They just want to "make a living" (i.e., get rich, not truly help people) and will do whatever they are ordered. These are NOT deep thinkers, searchers or questioners by a long shot. If it all. The question I have is: why are so very few of those going for a medical degree not able to think deeply?
I attended our 35th reunion in 2015. Among the gee-whiz computerised histology lab, etc., presentations we had a session with the admissions committee people. They were thrilled to detail the interview structures and social volunteer requirements. Our output is very woke, academically well above average, social justice warriors. My immediate estimate was that I would not even have made it through the paper round.
Understand that the 5-10 years of training cements an institutional mindset that is not creative but hierarchical. It is also fundamental and demonstrated that however much you know there is always someone who knows more, a consequence of the subspecialisation in modern medicine.
Many thanks, Daniel. A man who does business with medical offices (and many other kinds of commercial enterprise) mentioned to me that doctors are among the most obtuse "entrepreneurs" he deals with. In so many areas, they just don't "get it". It is as if they live under a rock and then come out for 8 hours to cut, burn & prescribe, and then go back into their hidey hole. No contact with reality or the simple basics of real humans' daily lives that you and I (average housewife) take for granted.
As a teenager, so that is more than 40 years ago, I began to read books on health, starting with some old Adelle Davis books, which I kind of stumbled upon, but I didn't stick with her dietary recommendations for long, as I was young and wanted to have fun with alcohol, fast food, etc.
Then when I was about 21 years of age I had my always-infected tonsils removed. I did not realize that those infections were my own doing (horrible diet). The pain from the operation was so great, and the doctor so nasty, that I swore I would never go to a doctor again unless it was an emergency. I have kept that promise to myself. I guess childbirth is a sort of emergency, though I have acquaintances who had unattended births and everything went OK.
So, you could say that the impetus was raw hatred.
I became skeptical around my late thirties. From childhood the public received messaging from the medical establishment that “a cure for cancer was imminent but more research was needed.” There were always “exciting new treatments on the horizon” yet the rate of cancer kept climbing beyond the reach and efficacy of treatments. Then, as the nineties progressed we had the explosion of chronic diseases, never before experienced in this country; which directly correlated to the enormous increase in vaccine immunizations. By then I had to acknowledge to myself, we had been conned. From watching the documentary “The Truth About Cancer” I learned an anonymous poll of Canadian oncologists revealed nearly ninety percent ‘would refuse to undergo the protocols they prescribed to their patients’, if they received a cancer diagnosis. Unless I need emergency treatment, which paradoxically is very good in this country; I’m out. God bless, be well.
This article articulates something I’ve been trying to describe to people for years: modern medicine operates on an unspoken foundational premise that the body is defective by default. Once that premise is accepted, the entire system becomes coherent — medicine is positioned as the necessary savior correcting what nature failed to get right. We’re then expected to feel grateful for living in such an “advanced” time.
What makes this structure so durable is how it forms. An initial high-stakes framing decision is made (often under specific historical and incentive pressures), then treated as settled fact rather than a provisional assumption. From that point forward, nearly every subsequent decision — diagnostic thresholds, intervention protocols, language around “deficiency” and “mutation,” risk models, and standards of care — branches off the original premise. Because the root decision is rarely or never revisited, these downstream conclusions gradually acquire the status of objective reality, frequently defended through appeals to institutional authority, guidelines, and expert consensus rather than through ongoing examination of the original premise. Over time, the accumulated structure sits so far from the initial question that challenging any part of it can feel like rejecting science itself.
The only reliable way out of this compounding error is to deliberately return to first principles and refuse to let unexamined assumptions remain buried. When you surface the root premise (“the body requires continuous external correction to be considered functional”) and test it against observable biology and developmental norms, the branches built on top of it suddenly look very different. Many recommendations that feel inevitable within the current frame become optional, excessive, or even counterproductive once the foundation is no longer treated as given.
The article’s diagnostic question — what did this body have to be declared defective in, in order for this product to exist? — is one of the cleanest tools I’ve seen for doing exactly that work. It cuts through the branches and forces the original decision back into view.
Your piece did the real work of laying out the pattern across the lifespan with the specific mechanisms and history.
I’m glad that my attempt at meta-analysis and methodological clarification based on your diagnosis and evidence building somewhat hit the mark.
My comment was an attempt to define the general mechanisms. The initial framing decision that is never revisited, after which all subsequent decisions are built on top of it and gradually treated as objective reality. A branching decision tree that compounds errors over time.
Then create an exit strategy built on a repeatable method. Surfacing the original assumption, tracing origins historical and incentive, testing against observable biology, and re-evaluating downstream claims built upon it.
Finally understanding how the structure is defended and maintained through appeals to institutional authority, “standard of care,” expert consensus, and the accumulated weight of the structure itself.
This step is a know your enemy but also it involves knowing yourself. An acknowledgment of humility-that all human beings share the same flaws and failings that make us susceptible to be deceived by others or ourselves.
Thank you for the work you do bringing visibility and clarity to what is often unseen or unquestioned.
One question, one conversation, one comment, one post, one article at a time and we see the Overton Window shifting.
The following rant is somewhat off topic, but on-topic as well because it addresses childhood shots and electromagnetic radiation in a “real life” context.
_____
We attended a school board meeting of a rural K-12 school (~250 kids) that’s trying to be a big city school — from its immunization plans, to its tech setup, to its multi-sport athletics, fancy playing fields in a climate that’s buried in snow for months at a time, and more.
Here’s just some of what happened (we had to leave after 3-hours due to an early-morning wake-up time)…
First and scariest for us: the charmingly sweet school nurse highlighted her typical day, which begins with administering ADHD medication and monitoring and medicating kids with asthma, tuberous sclerosis syndrome, blood disorders, seizures, allergies requiring EpiPens, and Type 2 diabetes. (The school also has many Special Education kids who require extra attention and funding.)
After the medication recital, the nurse discussed the Immunization & Safety program to notify parents that kids’ vaccines needed updating, records sent to the state, and so forth (our state allows medical exemptions). It was a clear case of nudging parents to give their kids shots or come up with a plan to do so. We nearly burst into tears.
After the nurse presentation, a huge, fancy new classroom smart screen was rolled out (~$2500, with several being planned for purchase). The new “smart screen” does everything their old automated white boards do and much, much more. We watched presenters demonstrate (with some difficulty) activities that we as kids and our teachers did on a blackboard with cleanable erasers, a globe, and paper posters and maps.
When the electronic whiteboard finally was turned off, the room’s background noise diminished palpably, telling us we were being bombarded with electronic signals.
The board and a presenter from a big city (who refers to taxpayers as “patrons”) discussed buying new Apple Neo laptops to replace all students’ tax funded 4-year-old Chromebooks, which have limited lifetimes and need replacement every few years. Next up, a plan to re-cable the entire school to upgrade an aging tech infrastructure along with an all-seeing, all-hearing surveillance system that reaches into every nook and cranny inside and outside the school.
To be fair, academics also was discussed, with numerous positives noted. Many kids won scholarships, attended STEM presentations, and enjoyed field trips and donated cultural events. Some even visited a lineman trade school.
The local school now has an automotive class and is working on medical assisting and EMS options, all of which we applaud greatly because kids are offered both a college track and a trade school track.
Later, talk turned to athletics with a lengthy discussion about how to handle choosing coaches so no one’s feelings got hurt, handling contentious parent feedback anonymously, and dealing with dual-sport athletes, parents, and coaches who must juggle complex schedules and commitments. (Why isn’t one sport enough, or two — one summer, one winter — that wouldn’t conflict?). Recently, they installed (much with volunteer funding and participation) a fancy baseball field and (to us) massively intrusive football lights that disrupt nearby wildlife and neighborhoods.
So, rural kids are acquiring big-city ills and skills: being injected with toxins, bathed in electromagnetic radiation, committed or overcommitted academically and athletically, and urged to eat federally funded school breakfasts and lunches while teachers soon will enjoy grant-funded daycare. (Surprisingly, we learned school lunch programs operate in the red due to rising food prices and falling enrollment. Whatever happened to peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, fresh fruit, veggies, and whole milk, which don’t need complex food planning, purchasing, preparation, federal programs, etc.?)
Much of this “progress” was appalling to us 70+ oldsters who purposely sought a rural area with a slower way of life and healthier population. Of course, we’re most concerned about the immunizations and electronic exposures that no one is questioning.
What a story! A Modern Tragedy. How much do you want to bet that the tuberous sclerosis condition is not "genetic" but instead caused 100% by the shots.
Now, about "...a blackboard with cleanable erasers"
Anyone else here remember when pairs of students were sent outdoors to clean the blackboard's red, white & blue striped chalk board erasers. This was achieved by clapping them together, making puffy clouds, and having a bit of fun in the process.
If prenatal care was enhanced to eliminate negative lifestyle issues and the elimination of toxic drugs and boosting the nutrient base of the mother to be where it should be, we would eliminate the stupidity of the medical profession in harming the newborn.
The health of the father is equally critical, as he provides half the genetic material that goes into the offspring. The mother can be healthy, and eat a suitable diet, but if the father (for example) has a history of drug taking, that baby could turn out pretty awful. I give this example because I know of such a case.
Excellent, excellent article. Coincidentally, the following with Suzanne Humphries hit the airwaves:
Watch: Parents Aren’t Getting Full Story on Newborn Vitamin K Shots, Researcher Says
During an appearance on “Good Morning CHD,” Dr. Suzanne Humphries argued that media coverage of newborn vitamin K shots relies heavily on fear while minimizing unresolved safety questions and informed consent issues. Humphries suggested low vitamin K level at birth “is by design” and “not actually a mistake that humans need to put their hand in, and alter every single newborn,” Humphries said.
Although the implied defectiveness of the human body contained in the medical model is a valid perspective, I doubt many practitioners would endorse the notion that they personally believe the body is defective. Rather, they would argue that they are improving health in a manner that has come to be referred to as "bio-hacking". This idea, which should raise eyebrows, is also espoused by the trans-humanists, who believe that human cleverness and ingenuity can improve on the model we are born with, whether one believes it is by divine or natural grace.
One can argue on philosophical, religious, or spiritual grounds for or against the idea, but the fact remains that if it were demonstrated to be of value by quality science, the argument would be far stronger. In fact, to my knowledge, no reliable, well validated studies have shown that vitamin K injections on a routine basis reduces the incidence of intracranial bleeds AND benefits the health of the child overall. It could reduce incidence of bleeds but have adverse health effects that outweigh these benefits. Because this study has not been done, the claim of benefit is not science based.
The same applies to childhood vaccinations, MTHF genetic plasticity, and cholesterol "excess". None of the science corroborates the theory that these bio-hacking interventions improves health or longevity. Whatever one thinks of the bio-hacking project, if one accepts that this is the rationale for these interventions, that science has not corroborated its imputed value should be enough to relegate it to the trash bin, at least for the four scenarios described.
Humans have always regarded current practice as civilized, and past circumstances as benighted. This tendency generally confounds our attempts to accurately assess conditions in the present moment. To briefly consider this in the historical context, it may be useful to recall a few examples of practices that were regarded as standard at one time.
Bloodletting was common in past centuries, imagined to be necessary, yet was eventually understood to be harmful after it had been practiced for some time.
In mid-19th century Europe, entrenched viewpoints within the medical establishment caused doctors to laugh at their outlier colleague, Semmelweis, when he recommended the habit of hand washing to reduce rates of patient mortality. Many of his fellows were offended. Semmelweis was consequently mostly either mocked or ignored; he was dismissed from at least one position; he moved to another country to seek a less oppressive professional climate; and only after his death was his insight acknowledged widely.
(Are not the outliers always the ones that drive science forward? How often, really, does the “established scientific consensus”—if and when such a thing exists—innovate significantly, discover new paradigms, and improve upon flawed ways of thinking?)
In mid-20th century America, tobacco companies convinced the public that their products were safe by arranging for doctors (or actors portraying them) to endorse cigarettes in advertisements (even as these companies privately had scientific evidence of the dangers of smoking).
Around the same time, DDT was sprayed liberally in the vicinity of humans, and was infused into wallpaper in rooms where children slept, until Rachel Carson published a book to expose its harms, which eventually caused change (but not before she was smeared via a negative public relations campaign organized by the manufacturer--Monsanto!).
Today, we shake our heads in disbelief at such artifacts, all the while automatically accepting as correct some highly suspect modern practices of at least a similar magnitude, such as vaccines. I wonder when we'll hit that tipping point.
Born in the 1950s, I recently called my birth hospital and asked for a copy of my medical records. They mailed them to me within two weeks.
Reading the doctor's notes and seeing that on day of my birth, I was immediately given DTP (diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis) and BCG (tuberculosis) "vaccines", I found myself getting mad.
My parents were both healthy. I was born healthy but the hospital was able to make money off me by acting as if I was born incomplete, not whole. Only poison chemical injections into this newborn baby's body could fix that huge "problem."
Oh, and the shots they gave me damaged the muscles in my right eye permanently. I had surgery at age 2 1/2 at that same hospital but it was unsuccessful. I have worn eyeglasses all my life.
Everyone needs to read this. If only the beginning. For millions of years no body has been born defective, not a human and not any animal. Defective is the system telling us, that we are defective. Our bodies are perfect (wether you think it is made in the image of God or just natural) and need no syringes at all. Every doctor who thinks a syringe is the only solution should be banned from practicing. And yes, that includes a few very admired doctors, like Midwestern doc and Dr. Cowan. Our bodies are NOT made for injecting.
We are born in pristine condition, with few exceptions, and the introduction of toxic vaccines begins the process of destroying the body.
Those exceptions are what used to be known as Bad Seeds. Let us not dispense with folk knowledge. People are indeed sometimes born with defects, though I am not saying they should be injected with this or that. No they should not. Indeed, they might be better off left in their inferior condition; with a bunch of injections as described here in this article, they would undoubtedly get even worse.
As a kid I knew a couple of Down syndrome people, and a few handicapped from birth. But that were very few. I think most 'birth defects' are nowadays caused by all the chemicals in and out of the body. One of the girls with Down syndrome was raised very carefully and is now an adult woman, with a job. She did not get a driver's license, but rides the bus like everyone else in town
Even with Down's, there's a spectrum there. Your example shows that they aren't all a bunch of dummies, as we used to be told when I was a kid.
I’m not of a medical background or claim to know anything about medicine but I have always believed babies are born as they are and whatever their little bodies are lacking is just ‘the way it is’ this may result in babies dying which is absolutely heartbreaking but that’s just nature. It happens in all species. (I believe) Once punctured with man made chemicals it does indeed start the cycle throughout life.
Indeed. In a cat litter there can be deaths - in natural settings I am sure lots of babies die, either from 'defects' or being killed prematurely. That is nature. Unfortunately for many human and house animal babies, the jabbing starts at birth and never stops. And we have to, otherwise no doc will see us. I had this happen with my dog (who had way too many jabs as a pup - but I did not even have an idea it were vaccines. the replacement doc did not tell me, I only found out when the true vet came back and told me, these should not have been given to a baby that young. Informed consent, you know! )
40 years later, I just realized the reason that the perfect human being I effortlessly delivered had to be placed under the lights to correct jaundice at one day old. Jaundice is a side effect to the “Vitamin” K injection.
I wish I had known this before our 1st daughter was born. She was jaundiced and went through all kinds of unnecessary tests and procedures to find out why.
Yep that happened to my son too 38 years ago. Shoot it’s that Vitamin K shot huh? That far back? I wasn’t aware he got the shot but maybe he did after all. In fact they did a lousy delivery so I wouldn’t be surprised they did without my consent. I learned a couple of years ago before my friend passed away suddenly that she requested not to give the shot. They did so anyways. The girl is now about 12-13 years old.
As young mothers, we simply didn't know. In my case, I didn't have the internet or a caring mother to warn me about all the abuses in hospitals when delivering my baby.
One child turned out okay. The other has had ulcerative colitis since he was in college - probably due to childhood "vaccines" and the standard american diet.
Such important truths being shared in this article! For corroborating information, I thought I would share 2 related articles of mine, always with the prayer and hope of saving a child and his/her family from a lifetime of iatrogenic harm.
Beware of “Standard of Care”
https://ageofautism.com/beware-of-standard-of-care/
Why Is This Legal?
https://ageofautism.com/why-is-this-legal-presentation-on-vaccines-by-laura-hayes/
Thank you Laura. I read your excellent articles.
The “Legal” train departed the “Right” station long ago. All I can reckon is non-compliance and ridicule.
A doctor hid behind HIPAA and refused to discuss my child’s case. I said, “Oh yes. HIPAA. That’s what makes it legal for you to discuss this case with everyone even trivially connected EXCEPT the family. Now there’s a moral law we all can get behind, huh?”
Best to all of us
Standard of care is a muzzle that suppresses the free speech rights of ALL licensed health care providers, regardless of which license enabled them to practice. There is only one thing that is illegal by law and that is to override the dx of the medical doctor. However, a good alternative provider doesn't really need the label unless their healing paradigm is rooted in Western terminology. It offers guidelines and more importantly warnings about what not to do. My guess is that a good intuitive would have found an organic problem. Still it is nice to know that a client has a heart problem before treating.
I don't know how you manage to research all this and keep a cool head whilst writing. I get so angry seeing what mad-icine has done to humanity, I can hardly bear to read about it sometimes. But I thank you deeply for your cool head, and your willingness to believe explanation and reason is the only way to win.
I too often bristle at what I read here. However, the author serves us by their dedication to the facts and refraining from hyperbolic editorial. Present the empirical facts to the intellectually curious and let reason make them free.
BEAUTIFUL work!
I feel the love, the compassion that went into this.
And the title, "Born Defective" when the entire essay proves the opposite to be the truth of it, excellent. One day, we will all SEE that almost all of the problems were CAUSED by medical interventions.
PERFECT essay here.
By Day 8 of a newborn's life, their clotting mechanism "corrects" itself in a God-ordained biblical fashion. "The human body has 2 blood clotting elements. One of them is called Vitamin K. Vitamin K is not formed in the body up until the 5th to the 7th day.
The 2nd clotting factor which is essential is called Prothrombin. It surprisingly enough develops to 30% of normal by the 3rd day of life and after that with seeming in-consequence, peaks at 110% on the 8th day, just before leveling off at 100% of normal."
https://evidence-for-the-bible.com/evidence-for-the-bible/scientific-evidence-for-the-bible/scientific-evidence-for-circumcision-on-the-eighth-day/
Circumcision should not be done to any unconsenting child, ever. That there's medical "proof" that it is safer on the 8th day is, morally speaking, irrelevant.
***And every male among you who is eight days old shall be circumcised throughout your generations, a servant who is born in the house or who is bought with money from any foreigner, who is not of your descendants.***
Well, la di dah. They were even doing it to their slaves. And yet it is only Christian white people who brought an end to slavery in most parts of the world where they were able to.
I agree 100% it should never be done!!
Thanks for that, Peace.
It is male genital mutilation.
Unbecoming is among the most valuable contributions to my education I have found. Perhaps it found me. Regardless, it was soon after I turned fifty I began to contemplate my mortality and how the medical establishment had no cures for anything. In fact - incidence of cancers and chronic diseases were appearing in numbers which boggled the mind. This is happening in ‘supposedly the best healthcare system, in the greatest country on earth.’ Well, we’re not great in any respect are we? If the medical system is allowed to poison people for its mercantile interests, then we have a fascist based structure whereby the human body is but a commodity for exploitation. My sincere gratitude to Unbekoming, for illuminating my understanding of the hideous canard known as modern medicine.
A powerful link in the chain of evil called "modern healthcare [LOL]" is the character of persons who enter the field of standard-issue M.D.-style medicine in the first place. Those folks are brainy in the sense of being able to memorize thousands if not millions of factoids + learn to perform various delicate surgical techniques. Technicians/mechanics is what they are, and nothing more.
But from what someone told me, they are not really bright in the broad sense, i.e., they are great at gobbling up whatever they are fed (their training) - and then just do whatever they are told by the college of physicians & surgeons/government. The overwhelming majority question nothing. They just want to "make a living" (i.e., get rich, not truly help people) and will do whatever they are ordered. These are NOT deep thinkers, searchers or questioners by a long shot. If it all. The question I have is: why are so very few of those going for a medical degree not able to think deeply?
I attended our 35th reunion in 2015. Among the gee-whiz computerised histology lab, etc., presentations we had a session with the admissions committee people. They were thrilled to detail the interview structures and social volunteer requirements. Our output is very woke, academically well above average, social justice warriors. My immediate estimate was that I would not even have made it through the paper round.
Understand that the 5-10 years of training cements an institutional mindset that is not creative but hierarchical. It is also fundamental and demonstrated that however much you know there is always someone who knows more, a consequence of the subspecialisation in modern medicine.
I couldn’t agree more, very well stated.
Many thanks, Daniel. A man who does business with medical offices (and many other kinds of commercial enterprise) mentioned to me that doctors are among the most obtuse "entrepreneurs" he deals with. In so many areas, they just don't "get it". It is as if they live under a rock and then come out for 8 hours to cut, burn & prescribe, and then go back into their hidey hole. No contact with reality or the simple basics of real humans' daily lives that you and I (average housewife) take for granted.
Amen.
When did you begin to question the medical system?
As a teenager, so that is more than 40 years ago, I began to read books on health, starting with some old Adelle Davis books, which I kind of stumbled upon, but I didn't stick with her dietary recommendations for long, as I was young and wanted to have fun with alcohol, fast food, etc.
Then when I was about 21 years of age I had my always-infected tonsils removed. I did not realize that those infections were my own doing (horrible diet). The pain from the operation was so great, and the doctor so nasty, that I swore I would never go to a doctor again unless it was an emergency. I have kept that promise to myself. I guess childbirth is a sort of emergency, though I have acquaintances who had unattended births and everything went OK.
So, you could say that the impetus was raw hatred.
How about you, what got you going?
I became skeptical around my late thirties. From childhood the public received messaging from the medical establishment that “a cure for cancer was imminent but more research was needed.” There were always “exciting new treatments on the horizon” yet the rate of cancer kept climbing beyond the reach and efficacy of treatments. Then, as the nineties progressed we had the explosion of chronic diseases, never before experienced in this country; which directly correlated to the enormous increase in vaccine immunizations. By then I had to acknowledge to myself, we had been conned. From watching the documentary “The Truth About Cancer” I learned an anonymous poll of Canadian oncologists revealed nearly ninety percent ‘would refuse to undergo the protocols they prescribed to their patients’, if they received a cancer diagnosis. Unless I need emergency treatment, which paradoxically is very good in this country; I’m out. God bless, be well.
This article articulates something I’ve been trying to describe to people for years: modern medicine operates on an unspoken foundational premise that the body is defective by default. Once that premise is accepted, the entire system becomes coherent — medicine is positioned as the necessary savior correcting what nature failed to get right. We’re then expected to feel grateful for living in such an “advanced” time.
What makes this structure so durable is how it forms. An initial high-stakes framing decision is made (often under specific historical and incentive pressures), then treated as settled fact rather than a provisional assumption. From that point forward, nearly every subsequent decision — diagnostic thresholds, intervention protocols, language around “deficiency” and “mutation,” risk models, and standards of care — branches off the original premise. Because the root decision is rarely or never revisited, these downstream conclusions gradually acquire the status of objective reality, frequently defended through appeals to institutional authority, guidelines, and expert consensus rather than through ongoing examination of the original premise. Over time, the accumulated structure sits so far from the initial question that challenging any part of it can feel like rejecting science itself.
The only reliable way out of this compounding error is to deliberately return to first principles and refuse to let unexamined assumptions remain buried. When you surface the root premise (“the body requires continuous external correction to be considered functional”) and test it against observable biology and developmental norms, the branches built on top of it suddenly look very different. Many recommendations that feel inevitable within the current frame become optional, excessive, or even counterproductive once the foundation is no longer treated as given.
The article’s diagnostic question — what did this body have to be declared defective in, in order for this product to exist? — is one of the cleanest tools I’ve seen for doing exactly that work. It cuts through the branches and forces the original decision back into view.
Very well said, thank you!
Your piece did the real work of laying out the pattern across the lifespan with the specific mechanisms and history.
I’m glad that my attempt at meta-analysis and methodological clarification based on your diagnosis and evidence building somewhat hit the mark.
My comment was an attempt to define the general mechanisms. The initial framing decision that is never revisited, after which all subsequent decisions are built on top of it and gradually treated as objective reality. A branching decision tree that compounds errors over time.
Then create an exit strategy built on a repeatable method. Surfacing the original assumption, tracing origins historical and incentive, testing against observable biology, and re-evaluating downstream claims built upon it.
Finally understanding how the structure is defended and maintained through appeals to institutional authority, “standard of care,” expert consensus, and the accumulated weight of the structure itself.
This step is a know your enemy but also it involves knowing yourself. An acknowledgment of humility-that all human beings share the same flaws and failings that make us susceptible to be deceived by others or ourselves.
Thank you for the work you do bringing visibility and clarity to what is often unseen or unquestioned.
One question, one conversation, one comment, one post, one article at a time and we see the Overton Window shifting.
The following rant is somewhat off topic, but on-topic as well because it addresses childhood shots and electromagnetic radiation in a “real life” context.
_____
We attended a school board meeting of a rural K-12 school (~250 kids) that’s trying to be a big city school — from its immunization plans, to its tech setup, to its multi-sport athletics, fancy playing fields in a climate that’s buried in snow for months at a time, and more.
Here’s just some of what happened (we had to leave after 3-hours due to an early-morning wake-up time)…
First and scariest for us: the charmingly sweet school nurse highlighted her typical day, which begins with administering ADHD medication and monitoring and medicating kids with asthma, tuberous sclerosis syndrome, blood disorders, seizures, allergies requiring EpiPens, and Type 2 diabetes. (The school also has many Special Education kids who require extra attention and funding.)
After the medication recital, the nurse discussed the Immunization & Safety program to notify parents that kids’ vaccines needed updating, records sent to the state, and so forth (our state allows medical exemptions). It was a clear case of nudging parents to give their kids shots or come up with a plan to do so. We nearly burst into tears.
After the nurse presentation, a huge, fancy new classroom smart screen was rolled out (~$2500, with several being planned for purchase). The new “smart screen” does everything their old automated white boards do and much, much more. We watched presenters demonstrate (with some difficulty) activities that we as kids and our teachers did on a blackboard with cleanable erasers, a globe, and paper posters and maps.
When the electronic whiteboard finally was turned off, the room’s background noise diminished palpably, telling us we were being bombarded with electronic signals.
The board and a presenter from a big city (who refers to taxpayers as “patrons”) discussed buying new Apple Neo laptops to replace all students’ tax funded 4-year-old Chromebooks, which have limited lifetimes and need replacement every few years. Next up, a plan to re-cable the entire school to upgrade an aging tech infrastructure along with an all-seeing, all-hearing surveillance system that reaches into every nook and cranny inside and outside the school.
To be fair, academics also was discussed, with numerous positives noted. Many kids won scholarships, attended STEM presentations, and enjoyed field trips and donated cultural events. Some even visited a lineman trade school.
The local school now has an automotive class and is working on medical assisting and EMS options, all of which we applaud greatly because kids are offered both a college track and a trade school track.
Later, talk turned to athletics with a lengthy discussion about how to handle choosing coaches so no one’s feelings got hurt, handling contentious parent feedback anonymously, and dealing with dual-sport athletes, parents, and coaches who must juggle complex schedules and commitments. (Why isn’t one sport enough, or two — one summer, one winter — that wouldn’t conflict?). Recently, they installed (much with volunteer funding and participation) a fancy baseball field and (to us) massively intrusive football lights that disrupt nearby wildlife and neighborhoods.
So, rural kids are acquiring big-city ills and skills: being injected with toxins, bathed in electromagnetic radiation, committed or overcommitted academically and athletically, and urged to eat federally funded school breakfasts and lunches while teachers soon will enjoy grant-funded daycare. (Surprisingly, we learned school lunch programs operate in the red due to rising food prices and falling enrollment. Whatever happened to peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, fresh fruit, veggies, and whole milk, which don’t need complex food planning, purchasing, preparation, federal programs, etc.?)
Much of this “progress” was appalling to us 70+ oldsters who purposely sought a rural area with a slower way of life and healthier population. Of course, we’re most concerned about the immunizations and electronic exposures that no one is questioning.
What a story! A Modern Tragedy. How much do you want to bet that the tuberous sclerosis condition is not "genetic" but instead caused 100% by the shots.
Now, about "...a blackboard with cleanable erasers"
Anyone else here remember when pairs of students were sent outdoors to clean the blackboard's red, white & blue striped chalk board erasers. This was achieved by clapping them together, making puffy clouds, and having a bit of fun in the process.
Are you sure that there isn't a medical study detailing the extensive harms of chalk dust?
I do have a story, but it involved the teacher's "disability", not the students.
I am sure I did the brushes a few times, but even as a child I was not predisposed to seek out extra chores.
LOL. Wish I could upvote you and a bunch of others here, but my antique computer won't co-operate.
If prenatal care was enhanced to eliminate negative lifestyle issues and the elimination of toxic drugs and boosting the nutrient base of the mother to be where it should be, we would eliminate the stupidity of the medical profession in harming the newborn.
The health of the father is equally critical, as he provides half the genetic material that goes into the offspring. The mother can be healthy, and eat a suitable diet, but if the father (for example) has a history of drug taking, that baby could turn out pretty awful. I give this example because I know of such a case.
Tragic 😪 The . Scientific community has been trusted way too long .
"Scientific" is more like science fiction.
Excellent, excellent article. Coincidentally, the following with Suzanne Humphries hit the airwaves:
Watch: Parents Aren’t Getting Full Story on Newborn Vitamin K Shots, Researcher Says
During an appearance on “Good Morning CHD,” Dr. Suzanne Humphries argued that media coverage of newborn vitamin K shots relies heavily on fear while minimizing unresolved safety questions and informed consent issues. Humphries suggested low vitamin K level at birth “is by design” and “not actually a mistake that humans need to put their hand in, and alter every single newborn,” Humphries said.
by Jill Erzen
May 21, 2026
Article: https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/suzanne-humpries-vitamin-k-shots-newborns-full-story-parents-media/
Video: https://live.childrenshealthdefense.org/chd-tv/shows/good-morning-chd/should-you-give-the-vitamin-k-shot-to-your-newborn-mothers-2b/
We listened to the video and found it almost as enlightening as "You are Born Defective (tm)"
Although the implied defectiveness of the human body contained in the medical model is a valid perspective, I doubt many practitioners would endorse the notion that they personally believe the body is defective. Rather, they would argue that they are improving health in a manner that has come to be referred to as "bio-hacking". This idea, which should raise eyebrows, is also espoused by the trans-humanists, who believe that human cleverness and ingenuity can improve on the model we are born with, whether one believes it is by divine or natural grace.
One can argue on philosophical, religious, or spiritual grounds for or against the idea, but the fact remains that if it were demonstrated to be of value by quality science, the argument would be far stronger. In fact, to my knowledge, no reliable, well validated studies have shown that vitamin K injections on a routine basis reduces the incidence of intracranial bleeds AND benefits the health of the child overall. It could reduce incidence of bleeds but have adverse health effects that outweigh these benefits. Because this study has not been done, the claim of benefit is not science based.
The same applies to childhood vaccinations, MTHF genetic plasticity, and cholesterol "excess". None of the science corroborates the theory that these bio-hacking interventions improves health or longevity. Whatever one thinks of the bio-hacking project, if one accepts that this is the rationale for these interventions, that science has not corroborated its imputed value should be enough to relegate it to the trash bin, at least for the four scenarios described.
Humans have always regarded current practice as civilized, and past circumstances as benighted. This tendency generally confounds our attempts to accurately assess conditions in the present moment. To briefly consider this in the historical context, it may be useful to recall a few examples of practices that were regarded as standard at one time.
Bloodletting was common in past centuries, imagined to be necessary, yet was eventually understood to be harmful after it had been practiced for some time.
In mid-19th century Europe, entrenched viewpoints within the medical establishment caused doctors to laugh at their outlier colleague, Semmelweis, when he recommended the habit of hand washing to reduce rates of patient mortality. Many of his fellows were offended. Semmelweis was consequently mostly either mocked or ignored; he was dismissed from at least one position; he moved to another country to seek a less oppressive professional climate; and only after his death was his insight acknowledged widely.
(Are not the outliers always the ones that drive science forward? How often, really, does the “established scientific consensus”—if and when such a thing exists—innovate significantly, discover new paradigms, and improve upon flawed ways of thinking?)
In mid-20th century America, tobacco companies convinced the public that their products were safe by arranging for doctors (or actors portraying them) to endorse cigarettes in advertisements (even as these companies privately had scientific evidence of the dangers of smoking).
Around the same time, DDT was sprayed liberally in the vicinity of humans, and was infused into wallpaper in rooms where children slept, until Rachel Carson published a book to expose its harms, which eventually caused change (but not before she was smeared via a negative public relations campaign organized by the manufacturer--Monsanto!).
Today, we shake our heads in disbelief at such artifacts, all the while automatically accepting as correct some highly suspect modern practices of at least a similar magnitude, such as vaccines. I wonder when we'll hit that tipping point.
Born in the 1950s, I recently called my birth hospital and asked for a copy of my medical records. They mailed them to me within two weeks.
Reading the doctor's notes and seeing that on day of my birth, I was immediately given DTP (diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis) and BCG (tuberculosis) "vaccines", I found myself getting mad.
My parents were both healthy. I was born healthy but the hospital was able to make money off me by acting as if I was born incomplete, not whole. Only poison chemical injections into this newborn baby's body could fix that huge "problem."
Oh, and the shots they gave me damaged the muscles in my right eye permanently. I had surgery at age 2 1/2 at that same hospital but it was unsuccessful. I have worn eyeglasses all my life.
Dr. Andrew Moulden discusses vaccine injuries:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMzqesivUz8
Vitamin "K" and other "vitamins" again are things they have invented.