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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.”
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.”
“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
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.
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
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.
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
