In 1901, French immunologist Charles Richet was aboard the yacht of Prince Albert I of Monaco, attempting to create a vaccine against jellyfish toxin. He injected dogs with protein extracts from Portuguese man-of-war tentacles, waited several weeks, then injected them again with smaller doses. He expected the first exposure would create immunity. Instead, it created hypersensitivity. The second injection—at doses that would be harmless in an unsensitized animal—triggered violent reactions that quickly killed the animals.
Richet had discovered something important enough to earn the 1913 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine. He named it anaphylaxis—from the Greek ana (against) and phylaxis (protection)—essentially the opposite outcome from what vaccination was supposed to achieve.
In his Nobel lecture, Richet described anaphylaxis as one of three possible outcomes of vaccination: unchanged sensitivity, diminished sensitivity (the desired immune response), or heightened sensitivity. The medical community has understood since at least 1913 that injection can sensitize rather than protect.
One hundred and eleven years later, the medical establishment maintains a category of disease called “autoimmune conditions,” affecting an estimated 50 million Americans. The defining feature, according to mainstream medicine, is that the immune system attacks the body’s own tissues “by mistake.” The cause? Unknown.
The Nobel Prize sits in the historical record. The mechanism is documented. And yet medicine claims not to know why bodies become inflamed and damaged in predictable patterns after repeated toxic exposures.
This is not a mystery. It is constructed ignorance.
What Sensitization Means
Before going further, the concept of sensitization needs plain-language definition.
When a foreign substance enters the body through injection—bypassing the digestive system that would normally break it down—the body registers this substance and prepares to respond more vigorously if it encounters it again. This preparation is sensitization. The body has been primed.
Upon re-exposure, the response is amplified. What might have caused mild inflammation the first time can cause severe inflammation the second time. What caused localized reaction can cause systemic crisis. The body hasn’t malfunctioned—it has been trained by the initial injection to react more strongly.
This is not the body attacking itself. This is the body responding, with increasing intensity, to substances that entered through a route nature never intended.
The Forbidden Route
Foreign proteins enter the human body through one natural pathway: the digestive tract. There, digestive enzymes disassemble them into component parts—amino acids and small peptides—which are then absorbed and used by cells to construct the body’s own proteins. This is how nutrition works. This is how the body safely processes foreign biological material.
Injection bypasses this entire system.
Sasha Latypova, a former pharmaceutical research and development executive who spent 25 years in the industry and co-founded companies working directly with the FDA on cardiac safety, states this directly in our interview: “Injections of proteins directly into the blood stream is ‘forbidden’ by nature. Foreign proteins can only enter the body via the digestive tract, where they are disassembled by digestion and only small parts/products taken into the blood stream.”
A common objection: vaccines are injected into muscle, not directly into blood vessels. Marc Girardot, whose Bolus Theory I have explored in a previous interview, addresses this directly. Accidental intravascular injection “is inevitable and likely systematic—to a degree or another—simply by the immense pressure differential between the exit of the needle and blood vessels.” Studies show that even with aspiration technique, at least 1 in 50 shots go intravascular. The injection doesn’t need to target a vein. The pressure differential ensures the material reaches the bloodstream regardless.
When it does, Girardot notes, the concentration is approximately 270,000 times higher than what the body would encounter through natural exposure. This creates what he calls a “magnifying glass effect”—the immune system responds to the concentrated bolus by, in his words, “carpet bombing the blood vessel walls.”
This isn’t speculation. It’s the mechanism Richet demonstrated and for which he won the Nobel Prize—now explained at the physical level.
Richet’s subsequent laboratory work confirmed the finding across species. As Heather Fraser documents in The Peanut Allergy Epidemic, “Using a hypodermic needle, he was able to create the condition in a variety of animals—mammals and amphibians—proving that the reaction was not only universal but also predictable using the method of injection.”
Latypova extends this to the modern context: “Vaccination for anything is in principle impossible due to the effects of anaphylaxis, and should have been abandoned shortly after Richet’s Nobel.”
Two Mechanisms, One Erased
Richet discovered something else that proved inconvenient for the developing vaccination paradigm.
To create food anaphylaxis in animals, he combined two mechanisms: ingestion and injection. Fraser explains: “Richet created anaphylaxis in the animal through ingestion of a food combined with an injection of the same proteins. The doctor combined two functional mechanisms to achieve the condition.”
In one experiment, Richet fed dogs raw meat, then injected raw meat proteins. The animals developed anaphylaxis to the food. Through ingestion alone, creating food anaphylaxis proved difficult. At a 1913 International Medical Congress in London, Richet confirmed that “experimental alimentary anaphylaxis is difficult to bring about under conditions of healthy digestion.”
Dogs eat raw meat constantly without developing anaphylaxis. But inject those same proteins, and the animal becomes sensitized.
Here is where constructed ignorance begins.
Fraser documents how subsequent medical literature handled Richet’s findings: “Doctors relied on one aspect of Richet’s anaphylaxis research. Richet had stated that food sensitization occurred when proteins unmodified by the digestive system entered the blood stream. And so, ingestion of food by persons with inadequate digestion appeared to be a common sense prerequisite for food allergy.”
What about the injection mechanism?
“Of these two mechanisms Richet had explored in his research, injection was exorcised from the nascent ingestion hypothesis.”
The medical establishment kept the part about faulty digestion. They erased the part about injection.
Caught in the Act
The erasure becomes visible in allergist Warren Vaughan’s 1941 textbook Strange Malady:
“How can one become allergic to egg when nobody has ever injected egg into him? Under certain conditions egg protein taken by mouth may be absorbed undigested through the intestines and into the blood just as though it had been injected through the skin.”
Fraser’s response: “Vaughan assumed that egg proteins had never been injected—and he may have been correct, but it seems not to have been investigated as even a possible mechanism of sensitization. In one sentence, the doctor removed injection from the discussion of anaphylaxis altogether.”
The punchline: “And yet, emulsified egg lecithin had been used extensively in vaccines prior to the publication of Vaughan’s book.”
Egg proteins were being injected. Into children. Via vaccination. And the question of whether this might sensitize them was simply not asked.
The pattern repeated. Fraser documents cases where doctors used injection to prove anaphylaxis—injecting guinea pigs with blood from allergic patients to trigger reactions—while simultaneously refusing to consider injection as the cause of sensitization in those same patients.
They demonstrated the mechanism. They used it diagnostically. They denied it as etiology.
The Streetlight Effect
There is a name for the phenomenon of looking only where the light is good rather than where the answers might be found: the streetlight effect. A man searches for his keys under a streetlight. A passerby asks where he dropped them. “Over there in the dark,” the man replies, “but the light is better here.”
Medical research operates under institutional streetlights. Funding flows toward genetic factors and infectious triggers—areas that don’t implicate the products of the pharmaceutical industry. Questions that might reveal vaccination or medication as causes remain in the dark, unasked and unfunded.
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 injections. Never adjuvants. Never the obvious questions that would shine light into corners the industry prefers to keep dark.
Dawn Lester and David Parker, in their comprehensive work What Really Makes You Ill?, identify how this constructed ignorance operates: “The rigid adherence to a flawed theory will inevitably result in a failure to understand and correctly interpret circumstances observed in the real world.”
When your framework excludes injection as a possible cause, you will never find injection as an actual cause—regardless of how much evidence accumulates in the shadows.
“Autoimmunity”: The Cover Story
The concept of autoimmunity performs a specific function: it explains away tissue damage and inflammation without implicating external causes.
Consider what the word claims. Auto—self. Immunity—the body’s defense system. Autoimmunity: the body’s defense system attacking itself. The framing presupposes that no external cause exists. The body has simply malfunctioned. It mistakes its own tissues for invaders and destroys them.
Lester and Parker identify the logical 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.”
Dr. Peter Duesberg, in his 1996 book Inventing the AIDS Virus, noted: “The autoimmunity hypothesis, however, suffers several fatal flaws. For one thing, autoimmune reactions have been poorly documented in any disease, not to mention AIDS. In fact, they may never occur in an otherwise healthy person. Moreover, the immune system works so well precisely because it has built in (but poorly understood) safeguards that prevent it from attacking its own host body.”
That observation deserves emphasis: autoimmune reactions may never occur in an otherwise healthy person. The terrain must already be compromised. Something must have happened first.
Critics will point to genetic susceptibility—certain people are “predisposed” to autoimmune conditions. This misses the point. Even if genetics loads the gun, injection pulls the trigger. Without the trigger, the susceptibility never manifests. The question is not whether some people are more vulnerable; the question is what they are vulnerable to. The answer, documented since 1913, is injection of foreign proteins.
Amandha Dawn Vollmer, a naturopathic doctor and author of It’s Not A Germ or Gene, articulates the terrain perspective: “Autoimmune diseases are framed as the body attacking itself for no reason. Doctors tell patients their immune system is defective, when in reality, their body is trying to clean up damaged tissues, remove toxicity, and restore function.”
The body doesn’t attack itself. The body responds to damage. When tissues have been injured by toxic exposures—including injected substances—inflammation follows. Antibodies appear. The immune system engages with damaged cells.
Medicine looks at this engagement and calls it self-attack. The actual sequence: exposure → damage → immune response to damage. The framing: immune response → damage (cause unknown).
The arrow points the wrong direction, and the initial exposure disappears from the story.
What Anaphylaxis and “Autoimmunity” Actually Share
Mainstream medicine categorizes anaphylaxis and autoimmune diseases separately. Anaphylaxis is an acute allergic reaction—immediate, dramatic, sometimes fatal. Autoimmune diseases are chronic conditions—slow, progressive, managed with lifetime medication.
But consider what both involve: the body responding with inflammation to substances or damaged tissues. In anaphylaxis, the response is rapid and systemic. In conditions labeled “autoimmune,” the response is slower, often localized to specific tissue types, and chronic.
The difference may be one of degree and timing rather than mechanism.
Richet demonstrated that injection sensitizes. Repeated exposures amplify responses. If the sensitizing substances or their effects persist in tissues, chronic inflammation follows. If cross-reactivity develops—where the body responds to its own proteins that resemble injected foreign proteins—inflammation affects those tissues wherever they exist.
“Autoimmunity” may be anaphylaxis extended and mislabeled. The sequence: initial injection sensitizes → subsequent exposures amplify → if foreign proteins lodge in tissues or trigger cross-reactivity, inflammation becomes chronic rather than acute → medicine observes the chronic inflammation and calls it “autoimmune disease” rather than tracing it back to the sensitizing injections.
Latypova makes this connection explicit in our interview: “Food allergies are the phenomenon of anaphylaxis, described by Charles Richet, for which he was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1913... Vaccination for anything is in principle impossible due to the effects of anaphylaxis.”
If vaccination creates anaphylaxis, and if repeated vaccinations and toxic exposures create chronic inflammatory states, then what medicine calls “autoimmunity” is the long-term consequence of what Richet documented in its acute form.
The category separation protects the causal mechanism from scrutiny. Keep anaphylaxis as an acknowledged (if underemphasized) risk of vaccination. Keep “autoimmunity” as a separate mystery with “unknown causes.” Never connect them.
They Know What Causes It
The medical establishment claims not to know what causes autoimmune diseases.
In research laboratories, scientists reliably induce these conditions in animals using specific substances.
Lester and Parker document that “certain toxic substances are specifically used for autoimmune disease animal research studies. The reason that these toxic substances are used, is because they are known to induce conditions in animals that approximate to those observed in humans diagnosed with certain autoimmune diseases.”
Mercury is one such substance—a known neurotoxin that remains in some vaccines.
Another is TMPD (tetramethylpentadecane), also called pristane, described by the chemical industry as “a hydrocarbon oil adjuvant” and marketed for its ability to act as an “autoimmune disorder induction reagent.”
This requires emphasis. Pristane is the standard reagent for inducing lupus-like disease in mouse models. A single intraperitoneal injection reliably produces the condition in susceptible strains. Researchers use it precisely because it works—because they know exactly how to create “autoimmune” conditions when they want to study them. Then those same researchers claim not to know what causes these conditions in humans.
A March 2010 article entitled Toxicology of Autoimmune Diseases states: “The adjuvant properties of certain hydrocarbons can precipitate inflammatory or autoimmune disease in humans and animals.” The article further notes: “The chemicals most often associated with development of autoimmunity in humans are medications.”
The article concludes: “There is ample evidence that exposure to a variety of drugs and chemicals can lead to autoimmunity.”
A December 2002 article, Environmental chemicals and autoimmune disease: cause and effect, documents that over 70 medications induce lupus-like autoimmune conditions. The critical finding: “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.
The Adjuvant Connection
Vaccines contain adjuvants—substances specifically designed to provoke immune responses. Without adjuvants, many vaccines produce insufficient antibody responses. The adjuvant creates the reaction.
Aluminum hydroxide and aluminum phosphate are common vaccine adjuvants. Aluminum is a documented neurotoxin. Squalene, used in some vaccines, has demonstrated specific effects on connective tissue.
Virus Mania, by Engelbrecht, Köhnlein, and Bailey, documents: “If squalene is injected subcutaneously (under the skin) or intramuscularly (into the muscle), which is more unnatural, it 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.”
The authors cite animal experiments: “In animal experiments, squalene has caused the clinically apparent picture of arthritis (inflammatory joint disease).”
Inject an adjuvant. Create arthritis. Call the arthritis an “autoimmune disease” with “unknown cause.”
Latypova, drawing on her pharmaceutical background, explains the mechanism further: “Vaccines contain thousands of foreign proteins, and oftentimes these are food based (albumins derived from wheat and other cereals), fish, meat/gelatine, egg, yeast, peanut and other nut oils, aborted fetal tissues, etc.”
When these proteins are injected rather than digested, sensitization occurs—exactly as Richet demonstrated. The explosion of food allergies in recent decades parallels the expansion of the childhood vaccine schedule.
Dr. Marizelle | Undiagnosed, a naturopathic doctor specializing in terrain medicine and author of Germs Are Not Our Enemy, frames the broader pattern: symptoms labeled “autoimmune” reflect the body’s intelligent response to compromised environments caused by poor nutrition, toxins, electromagnetic stress, or disrupted natural rhythms. Microbes are not enemies but allies that appear to help restore balance. What medicine calls autoimmunity “is not the body attacking itself but a purposeful healing process.”
CREST: Anatomy of a Diagnosis
A reader recently emailed me: “This past year, I have been diagnosed with an autoimmune disease, CREST syndrome, which has a lot of inflammation problems associated with it. I have had the symptoms for years, but just didn’t know that they all tied together and that they were a result of an autoimmune disease.”
Her experience is typical. Symptoms accumulate over years. Eventually they coalesce into a diagnosis—an acronym, an “autoimmune” label, an explanation that the body is attacking itself for unknown reasons.
CREST serves as the case study for this essay, but the analysis applies to any condition carrying the autoimmune label—rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, multiple sclerosis, Hashimoto’s thyroiditis, type 1 diabetes. The pattern is identical: impressive medical terminology, the claim of self-attack, “cause unknown,” and treatments that suppress symptoms while never addressing causes. CREST simply makes the pattern concrete and examinable.
A person develops symptoms. Their fingers turn white, then blue, then red when exposed to cold. Hard nodules form under the skin around finger joints. Swallowing becomes difficult. The skin on their fingers tightens. Small red spots appear on face and hands.
Tests are run. Anticentromere antibodies are detected. A diagnosis is delivered: CREST syndrome, a form of limited systemic sclerosis.
CREST is an acronym:
Calcinosis: calcium deposits in skin and soft tissues
Raynaud’s phenomenon: blood vessel constriction causing color changes in extremities
Esophageal dysmotility: impaired esophagus movement causing reflux and swallowing difficulties
Sclerodactyly: thickening and tightening of finger skin
Telangiectasia: visible dilated blood vessels
The patient asks: What caused this?
The doctor answers: We don’t know. Your immune system is attacking your own connective tissue.
The patient is never asked about vaccination history. The possibility of injection-induced sensitization is never investigated. The patient begins lifetime immunosuppressant drugs.
Reading CREST Through Richet’s Lens
Consider each element of CREST in light of what Richet demonstrated about sensitization and what industrial toxicology confirms about tissue damage.
Calcinosis—calcium deposits in soft tissues—represents the body’s attempt to wall off and neutralize irritants. When tissue is chronically inflamed or damaged, calcium deposition is a protective response. The question is not “why is the body depositing calcium?” but “what is the body attempting to contain?”
Raynaud’s phenomenon—vasospasm in extremities—indicates dysfunction in blood vessel regulation. The nervous system and endocrine system control vascular tone. Neurotoxins like mercury and aluminum disrupt this regulation. The small vessels of fingers and toes, furthest from the heart, manifest the dysfunction first.
Esophageal dysmotility—impaired esophagus movement—reflects damage to smooth muscle or the nerves controlling it. Neurotoxic damage disrupts coordination. The problem isn’t the immune system attacking the esophagus; it’s neurological control being impaired.
Sclerodactyly—skin thickening on fingers—represents abnormal collagen deposition. When connective tissue is chronically inflamed or damaged, fibrosis occurs—the body lays down scar tissue. This is response to injury, not spontaneous self-attack.
Telangiectasia—dilated superficial blood vessels—indicates vascular damage and failed regulation. Damaged vessels dilate and become visible. This is structural damage.
Every element maps to tissue damage and aberrant repair. The antibodies detected are markers of immune system engagement with damaged tissue—evidence of injury, not evidence of the injury’s cause.
Herbert Shelton, in Natural Hygiene: Man’s Pristine Way of Life, explained the actual function of inflammation: “Inflammation, whether in a wound or in a so-called disease, is a remedial, a reparative and, also, a defensive process.” As Lester and Parker cite him, he identified the underlying cause: “Inflammation in any part of the body arises out of the same cause—toxemia.”
When symptoms are suppressed rather than causes addressed, “Death or mortification of the inflamed part represents the unsuccessful termination of the remedial effort.”
The Treatment Trap
Having diagnosed an “autoimmune disease” with “unknown cause,” medicine offers treatment: immunosuppressants.
The logic seems straightforward: if the immune system is attacking the body, suppress the immune system. But the immune system isn’t attacking the body. It’s responding to damage and attempting repair. Suppressing it stops the visible inflammatory response while the underlying cause continues.
Lester and Parker document the consequences: immunosuppressive drugs like azathioprine cause “serious ‘side effects’... particularly low blood pressure and liver damage; the effects also include vomiting and diarrhoea, all of which are indicative of the drug’s toxicity and the body’s efforts to expel it.”
Methotrexate “can adversely affect the blood and the liver; these effects are all clear indications of its toxicity.”
The patient now has the original toxic burden that created the condition, plus the added toxic burden of immunosuppressive drugs, plus a suppressed immune system less able to clear toxins and repair damage. The condition becomes chronic. The patient becomes a lifetime pharmaceutical customer.
Vollmer describes this pattern: “Round and round we go, into the revolving door of being a pharma customer for life... Good business model, bad model of health.”
The Funding Incentive
“Cause unknown” is profitable.
Unknown causes require research funding. Unknown causes mean no prevention is possible. Unknown causes mean no one is liable. Unknown causes mean treatments rather than cures, management rather than resolution.
If autoimmune conditions were recognized as iatrogenic—caused by medical interventions—accountability would follow. The legal immunity protecting vaccine manufacturers might face challenges. Chemical companies might face lawsuits. The pharmaceutical industry would lose billions in immunosuppressant sales.
Instead, “cause unknown” protects everyone except the patient.
Research funding flows toward genetics and infectious triggers—convenient areas that will never yield actionable prevention because they aren’t actual causes. The keys remain in the dark while scientists search under the institutional streetlight.
The Body Doesn’t Attack Itself
The human body is a self-regulating organism that constantly works to maintain health. Duesberg noted its safeguards against self-attack. Lester and Parker emphasize its intelligence: “The human body is not inert; it does not make mistakes nor does it try to destroy itself. On the contrary, the human body is a complex, self-regulating organism that constantly seeks to attain and maintain itself in the state of health, and, when harmed, it will make every effort to repair the damage and heal itself.”
What medicine labels “autoimmunity” is the body responding to injury. The injury has external causes: toxic exposures, injected substances, nutritional deficiencies that impair repair, accumulated damage from pharmaceutical interventions.
The inflammatory response is not the disease. It is the body’s attempt to address disease. Suppressing it does not create health; it prevents healing while the damage continues.
Richet showed us in 1901 what happens when we inject foreign proteins: sensitization, heightened inflammatory response, sometimes death. He won the Nobel Prize for this work. His findings were not disproven—they were selectively adopted. Medicine kept the parts that didn’t implicate injection. The rest was exorcised from the literature.
For over a century, the mechanism has been documented. For over a century, medicine has claimed not to know why bodies become inflamed and damaged after repeated exposures to injected substances.
Explain It To A 6 Year Old
Why do some people get sick with “autoimmune” diseases?
Your body is like a house. Food is supposed to come in through the front door—your mouth and tummy. When food comes in through the door, your body knows how to handle it. It breaks the food into tiny pieces and uses those pieces to make you strong.
But what if someone broke in through the window and put stuff directly into your house? Your body would say, “Wait—that’s not how things are supposed to get in here!” And it would remember. The next time something came in through the window, your body would get even more upset. And the next time, even more upset than that.
That’s what happens with injections. They put things into your body through the “window” instead of the “door.” Your body remembers and gets more and more reactive each time.
But doctors say the body attacks itself. Is that true?
Imagine firefighters showing up at a burning house. They’re spraying water everywhere, breaking windows, making a big mess. Someone who didn’t see the fire might think, “Those firefighters are destroying that house!”
But the firefighters aren’t the problem. The fire is the problem. The firefighters are trying to help.
When doctors see inflammation in your body, they sometimes blame your body for “attacking itself.” But your body is like the firefighters—it’s responding to a problem, not creating one. Something hurt your body first. The inflammation is your body trying to fix it.
Why do doctors say “cause unknown”?
Imagine you lost your keys in a dark part of the yard, but you only look for them under the streetlight because that’s where you can see.
Doctors look where it’s easy to look—and where they won’t get in trouble for looking. Looking at whether injections caused the problem would make a lot of powerful people upset. So they look at genes and “mysterious malfunctions” instead. They search under the streetlight while the keys sit in the dark.
So what’s really happening?
Your body never attacks itself. When there’s inflammation and damage, something caused it—usually something that got into your body the wrong way, or poison that built up over time. The “autoimmune disease” label is a way of saying “we see a problem but we’re not going to look for what really caused it.”
Your body is smart. It’s always trying to heal. Sometimes it needs help figuring out what’s hurting it—and then removing that thing. That’s very different from a body that’s broken and attacks itself for no reason.
The Constructed Ignorance
The body doesn’t attack itself. It responds to what is done to it. The mystery of autoimmunity is not a mystery at all. It is a carefully maintained zone of constructed ignorance, protecting the industries that profit from both the cause and the treatment.
Richet told us in 1913. We just stopped listening.
References
Arce, Marizelle. Germs Are Not Our Enemy: Why the New Terrain Medicine Is Best for Optimal Health.
Besredka, A. and P. Roux. Anaphylaxis and Anti-Anaphylaxis. London: Heinemann, 1919.
Cowan, Thomas S. Vaccines, Autoimmunity, and the Changing Nature of Childhood Illness. Chelsea Green, 2018.
Duesberg, Peter. Inventing the AIDS Virus. 1996.
Engelbrecht, Torsten, Claus Köhnlein, and Samantha Bailey. Virus Mania. 3rd ed. 2021.
“Environmental chemicals and autoimmune disease: cause and effect.” December 2002.
Fraser, Heather. The Peanut Allergy Epidemic. Skyhorse Publishing, 2011/2015/2017.
Girardot, Marc. Interview with Unbekoming. Lies are Unbekoming, December 2023.
Latypova, Sasha. Interview with Unbekoming. Lies are Unbekoming, January 2026.
Latypova, Sasha. “The second shot, or what do vaccinators and sewer rats have in common?” Due Diligence and Art, 2024.
Latypova, Sasha. “Alimentary Anaphylaxis, or the origins of the Anything-But-Vaccines deflection strategy.” Due Diligence and Art, 2024.
Lester, Dawn and David Parker. What Really Makes You Ill? Why Everything You Thought You Knew About Disease Is Wrong. 2019.
Pollard KM, Hultman P, Kono DH. “Toxicology of autoimmune diseases.” Chemical Research in Toxicology. March 2010.
Richet, Charles. Nobel Lecture, December 11, 1913. nobelprize.org.
Shelton, Herbert. Natural Hygiene: Man’s Pristine Way of Life.
Vaughan, Warren. Strange Malady. 1941.
Vollmer, Amandha Dawn. “It’s Not A Germ or Gene.” ADV’s Healthy Dose of Truth, March 2025.
Source: https://unbekoming.substack.com/p/autoimmunity-the-diagnostic-fiction
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário