Overcome the Diagnosis
An Essay
The most dangerous moment in any illness is not the onset of symptoms but the moment someone in a white coat gives those symptoms a name.
In 1992, a medical journal published a case study of a man diagnosed with metastatic oesophageal cancer. Doctors told him the disease had spread throughout his body. His family was informed he had only months to live. Everyone—the patient, his wife, his children, his physicians—was convinced death was imminent. Shortly after receiving this grave prognosis, the man died.
The autopsy found almost nothing. A single two-centimetre nodule on his liver. No tumours riddling his body. No metastatic spread. His doctor admitted, “I do not know the pathological cause of his death.” Medical professionals speculated that the man had been killed by the expectation of cancer rather than by cancer itself. The diagnosis was the lethal agent.
This case is not an anomaly buried in obscure literature. It represents a pattern documented across decades of research into what scientists call the nocebo effect—the phenomenon whereby negative expectations produce negative outcomes. The man died because he believed he was dying. The diagnosis created the reality it claimed to describe.
Robert Mendelsohn, a pediatrician who spent decades observing the medical system from within, understood this mechanism: “Telling a patient he or she is going to die is tantamount to a curse. The patient believes it so it comes true.” The diagnostic pronouncement functions as incantation. The authority figure speaks, and the body obeys.
Consider what this means. A mere collection of words—”You have metastatic cancer”—delivered by an authority figure in a clinical setting, proved more lethal than any tumour. The body responded to information as though it were a physical assault. And in a sense, it was. The diagnosis functioned as a curse, programming biological systems toward the outcome it predicted.
Support Independent Research
This work remains free because paid subscribers make it possible. If you find value here, consider joining them.
What paid subscribers get: Access to the Deep Dive Audio Library — 180+ in-depth discussions (30-50 min each) exploring the books behind these essays. New discussions added weekly. That’s 100+ hours of content for less than the price of a single audiobook.
[Upgrade to Paid – $5/month or $50/year]
Get in touch Essay ideas, stories, or expertise to share: unbekoming@outlook.com
Part One: The Harm
The nocebo effect is not metaphor or speculation. It is a measurable phenomenon that influences physiology outside conscious control—circulation, respiration, immune function, cellular behaviour. In 1983, British researchers divided over 400 cancer patients into three groups during a chemotherapy trial. Two groups received different forms of chemotherapy. The third received saline—salt water. Among the 130 patients who believed they were receiving chemotherapy but were actually getting placebo injections, 31 percent developed hair loss. Thirty-five percent experienced drug-related nausea. Twenty-two percent developed drug-related vomiting. These are chemotherapy side effects, not cancer symptoms. The patients lost their hair, vomited, and felt ill because they expected to. Belief alone restructured their physiology.
The case of “Mr. Wright” demonstrates the same mechanism operating in reverse. Diagnosed with lymphosarcoma and given months to live, his body was riddled with tumours the size of oranges. He heard promising reports about an experimental treatment called Krebiozen and convinced his doctors to administer it. Shortly after beginning treatment, his tumours shrank dramatically. He returned to good health for several months—until he encountered news reports debunking Krebiozen as ineffective. His tumours promptly returned. His doctors, recognising what was happening, told him the original dose had been insufficient and began administering “high-dose Krebiozen”—actually saline injections. The cancer disappeared again. Months later, a medical authority declared conclusively that Krebiozen was worthless. Within days of reading this news, Mr. Wright was dead.
His body was responding not to chemicals but to information. The diagnosis created disease. The belief in cure created remission. The destruction of that belief restored the disease. At no point did the underlying biochemistry operate independently of what Mr. Wright believed about his condition.
These cases reveal something profound about the nature of diagnosis itself. The diagnostic moment is not a neutral act of observation. It is an intervention—one that can harm as surely as any drug or surgery. When a physician pronounces “You have cancer” or “This is rheumatoid arthritis” or “Your genes predispose you to heart disease,” they are not simply describing a pre-existing reality. They are participating in its creation.
The harm extends beyond the psychological. Once labelled, patients enter medical machinery that inflicts physical damage in pursuit of treating the label. A radiologist from Emory University experienced this firsthand. Following a routine annual physical, he underwent virtual colonoscopy—a CAT scan that found no colon problems but identified a kidney mass, a two-centimetre liver mass, and multiple lung nodules. Further scans showed the kidney mass was a cyst. The liver lesion wasn’t. High-resolution lung scans revealed seven to eight nodules.
CAT scan–guided liver biopsy proved inconclusive. PET scan was negative. After debate, surgeons performed video-aided thoracoscopy, collapsing part of his lung to find the nodules, removing three small lung sections. He awoke in recovery after five hours with a chest tube, bladder catheter, central venous line, arterial catheter, spinal catheter for anaesthesia, oxygen, heparin shots, prophylactic antibiotics, and patient-controlled narcotics.
Four days later the tubes and drugs were slowly removed, but excruciating pain lingered. Two weeks at home on OxyContin and Percodan before pain became bearable. Five weeks before near-normal function returned, except for rib pain from surgically interrupted nerves.
The diagnosis? Histoplasmosis. A common, often asymptomatic fungal infection.
This is diagnosis as iatrogenic harm—the finding itself triggered interventions that damaged him. A routine physical became five weeks of disability and chronic nerve pain because modern imaging found something that required no treatment.
A 2002 BMJ study reveals how diagnosis distorts perception of risk itself. Researchers examined women who had already undergone prophylactic bilateral mastectomy after receiving BRCA genetic diagnoses. Most women overestimated their risk of breast cancer by more than 90 percent compared to computer-generated risk estimates. Twenty-two of 75 women believed their risk was 100 percent. The maximum risk assigned to anyone with a BRCA variant, according to the models, is 80 percent.
The most disturbing finding: the 18 women with the lowest computed risk—those with no or very limited family history of breast cancer—believed they were at the highest risk. On average, these women estimated their risk at 80 percent. Their computed risk, according to the models, was approximately 12 percent.
These women removed healthy breasts because they believed they faced near-certain cancer. Their belief was wrong by a factor of seven. The machinery that produced this belief—the testing, the counselling, the risk communication—failed them catastrophically. The diagnosis didn’t just harm them physically through unnecessary surgery; it first harmed them psychologically by creating terror based on inflated numbers.
The mechanism operates on children as readily as adults. Mendelsohn documented how a diagnosis of “functional heart murmur”—a harmless heart sound found in at least one-third of all children at some point—transforms healthy children into invalids:
“Whether or not he reassures the family that the murmur is innocent, both mother and daughter may suspect—perhaps for the rest of their lives—that something really is wrong! Studies have shown that families of children with heart murmurs tend to do two things: they restrict their child’s activity and do not allow them to play in sports, and they encourage them to eat more. Naturally these are the worst things they can do! They literally make cardiac cripples out of their children.”
The child had no symptoms. The murmur required no treatment. But the diagnosis—the mere naming of a finding—restructured the family’s behaviour in ways that created the very disability they feared. The label produced the disease.
During the Spanish influenza pandemic, public health officials understood the danger of such terror. Chicago’s director of public health stated, “It is our job to keep people from fear. Worry kills more than the disease.” Medical doctor William Kerr wrote in a published journal article that “the element of fear in the presence of the miserable sufferer is one of our modern bogies.” Newspapers advised that if people eliminated their fear of the disease, there would not be a single case of Spanish influenza in the country—for people could not catch something they did not fear. A century ago, authorities recognised what modern medicine has forgotten: the psychological component of illness is not peripheral. It is often primary.
The mechanism operates through expectation and suggestion. Daniel Roytas, whose research synthesises decades of nocebo studies, describes how these processes work: “Expectation and suggestion are ordinary mental processes that all humans engage in and respond to. Furthermore, the mind and the body are not separate—they are parts of an integrated whole. What happens to one will inevitably affect the other.” When someone receives a diagnosis, they receive simultaneously a set of expectations about their future—expectations that the body reads as instructions.
The pattern extends to the smallest suggestion. In 1930, researchers conducting a common cold study told one participant he had been inoculated with filtered mucus secretions from a sick person. He had actually received sterile broth—nothing capable of causing illness. A nurse mentioned the next day how peculiar it was that he hadn’t developed a cold. Convinced he had been exposed to the virus, the man developed a severe cold that evening: sneezing, coughing, sore throat, blocked nose. The expectation of illness produced illness. The diagnosis—even an informal one delivered by implication—created the disease.
A 1981 study attached electrodes to the heads of 34 college students and told them the device would deliver an electrical impulse capable of causing headaches. No electrical current was ever administered. Seventy-one percent of the students developed headaches. The mere expectation of harm was sufficient to produce it.
A 2002 experiment compared genuine and placebo knee surgery on 180 patients with osteoarthritis. The real treatment involved standard arthroscopic surgery. The fake treatment involved only a small skin incision behind the knee—made to appear as though surgery had occurred. The placebo group experienced the same reductions in pain and improvements in knee function as those who underwent real surgery. Both groups were blinded until 24 months after the trial. When asked which treatment they thought they’d received, only 13 percent in either group guessed correctly. People healed because they believed they had been healed.
The harm extends beyond the initial diagnostic moment. Once labelled, the patient enters what might be called a nocebo cascade. They research their condition and discover its typical progression. They join support groups where they hear stories of decline. They receive ongoing medical attention that reinforces the reality of their disease. Each encounter deepens the expectation, and the body continues responding to expectation as faithfully as it responds to any other input. The diagnosis becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy maintained through continuous reinforcement.
Dawn Lester, whose decade-long investigation into the nature of illness produced What Really Makes You Ill, describes this dynamic precisely: “The experience of symptoms is not the same thing as the ‘label’ given to those symptoms. By owning the ‘label’, the body will hold on to it and be defined by it.” The distinction matters enormously. A person experiencing joint pain and fatigue is having a real experience. A person who has been told they “have rheumatoid arthritis” has been given an identity. The symptoms may be identical; the psychological and physiological consequences of the label are not.
Mendelsohn identified the deeper transformation diagnosis accomplishes: “We learn to fear not the doctor but what brings us to the doctor in the first place: our body and its natural processes.” The diagnostic encounter teaches distrust of the body itself. Every sensation becomes a potential symptom. Every symptom becomes a potential disease. The patient learns to regard their own physiology as enemy territory requiring surveillance and management by external authorities.
This is not to deny that people suffer. The symptoms are real. The pain is real. The dysfunction is real. What is questionable is whether packaging these experiences into named disease entities—and delivering those names as authoritative pronouncements—helps or harms the person receiving them.
The evidence suggests it often harms.
Part Two: The Mechanism
The nocebo effect explains how diagnosis damages. But understanding why diagnosis operates as it does requires examining the conceptual framework that makes such pronouncements possible in the first place.
Florence Nightingale wrote over a century ago that “the specific disease doctrine is the grand refuge of weak, uncultured, unstable minds.” She argued there are no specific diseases—only specific disease conditions. Her critique was not semantic. She was identifying a fundamental error in how medicine conceptualises illness: the assumption that symptoms can be meaningfully grouped into discrete entities called “diseases” that exist as biological realities independent of the individual experiencing them.
Mendelsohn coined a term for how this framework operates in practice: “creative diagnosis.” He defined it as “a euphemism I coined to describe the indefensible behavior of doctors who keep themselves busy by finding disease where none exists. They do it by redefining the norms of health and sickness and employing other deceptions to create an artificial need for their services.”
The phrase captures the active nature of diagnosis. Disease is not discovered but created. The doctor does not find what was already there; the doctor manufactures what will justify intervention.
Consider what happens when someone receives a diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis. Dr. Thomas Cowan has analysed this process in detail. The patient presents with joint pain, swelling, and fatigue. The doctor examines them, orders blood tests, perhaps imaging. The tests return showing elevated inflammatory markers and something called “rheumatoid factor.” The doctor announces: “You have rheumatoid arthritis.”
What has actually been established? The patient has symptoms. Certain markers appear elevated when measured. A label has been applied. But the label explains nothing. It describes a pattern of symptoms and test results, assigns them a name, and presents that name as though it were a cause. The patient leaves believing something called “rheumatoid arthritis” has invaded their body and is producing their symptoms. In reality, they have been given a Latin description of their symptoms and told to treat the description as though it were an explanation.
Cowan has traced the circularity of this process. Rheumatoid factor—the test supposedly confirming the disease—appears in approximately five percent of healthy people. It appears in higher percentages of people with other conditions: hepatitis, bacterial infections, even ageing. The symptoms used to diagnose rheumatoid arthritis overlap substantially with lupus, psoriatic arthritis, and various other conditions. There is no gold standard test that definitively identifies rheumatoid arthritis as a distinct biological entity. The diagnosis is a consensus judgment based on pattern matching against criteria developed by committee.
The tests themselves deserve scrutiny. Mendelsohn documented their unreliability: “My favorite study is one in which 197 out of 200 people were ‘cured’ of their abnormalities simply by repeating their lab tests!” The pronouncement that declares you diseased cannot reliably distinguish disease from statistical noise. Run the test again, and the disease vanishes. Yet the first result—the abnormal one—triggers the cascade of interventions, prescriptions, and identity transformation that follows diagnosis.
The problem is structural: “There are very few people in whom a battery of thirty or forty tests will not reveal at least one ‘statistical abnormality’ which can then lead to an entire series of potentially damaging and disabling medical events.” Order enough tests, and everyone is sick. The diagnostic apparatus manufactures its own demand.
The diagnosis functions as a minting operation. Something is created from nothing. The patient walks in with symptoms and walks out with a disease—a thing, an entity, something they now “have” that they must manage for life. The disease did not exist as a biological reality before the diagnostic moment. It was called into existence by the act of naming.
This is not merely philosophical hairsplitting. The distinction between experiencing symptoms and “having a disease” shapes everything that follows. A person experiencing symptoms might ask: What is my body responding to? What conditions are producing this response? How might I change those conditions? A person who “has a disease” asks different questions: How do I manage this thing I have? What medications suppress its manifestations? How do I live with my condition?
The first orientation preserves agency and points toward causes. The second surrenders agency and manages effects. The medical system profits enormously from the second orientation.
Mendelsohn understood the economic architecture: “For decades the loss leader of Modern Medicine has been the annual physical exam. It is the device doctors employ to get their hands on perfectly healthy people so that they can declare that they are sick.” The retail term is precise. A loss leader draws customers into the store; the profits come from what they purchase once inside. The physical exam is the entry point. The diagnoses that follow generate the revenue.
The case of a 68-year-old retired fighter pilot illustrates how completely the diagnostic framework can fail its subjects. Thirty years of active duty with the U.S. Air Force, followed by 12 years as a defense contractor. At 66, he underwent triple bypass surgery following a diagnosis of advanced atherosclerosis with 90 percent arterial blockage.
The detail that matters: he had been on extremely high doses of statins and their predecessors for over 40 years, faithfully following every protocol his doctors prescribed for what they told him was familial hypercholesterolemia—the genetic condition of high cholesterol.
His father, also a 30-year fighter pilot, had been diagnosed and treated for hypercholesterolemia as well. The medical establishment’s explanation was ready-made: bad genes, passed from father to son. Genetic destiny.
Except the hypothesis failed its most basic test. Four decades of pharmaceutical compliance—the entire intervention the genetic model prescribes—ended with him gutted on a surgical table. When he asked his doctors why the protocols hadn’t protected him, the fallback was always the same: “unlucky genes.”
His current cardiologist insists he remain on 80mg daily of Atorvastatin for life. The cardiologist assures him he “will have a heart attack or a stroke” and “will die” if he refuses the medication. The same medication that failed to prevent 90 percent blockage over 40 years of use.
No one has ever actually tested him for genetic familial hypercholesterolemia. He has been treated as genetically defective based on a label and a lipid panel—not on demonstrated genetic evidence. Clinical diagnosis based on cholesterol levels and family history—not genetic confirmation—remains standard of care. The “genetic” label inflates the apparent genetic population while obscuring how many people are simply being diagnosed with high cholesterol and a family history of shared environmental exposures.
If genetic cholesterol disorder were the death sentence portrayed, genetically confirmed carriers should die at elevated rates consistently across time. Dutch researchers tracked such families back to 1800—over two centuries of mortality data. They screened healthy individuals, identified those with genetically confirmed familial hypercholesterolemia, and traced their family members backward through historical records.
Carriers’ all-cause mortality did not significantly differ from national rates through the 19th century. The researchers suggested that high cholesterol may have been protective against infectious disease—genetically modified mice with high cholesterol show protection against severe bacterial infections. In an era when infection was a leading killer, the metabolic variation now labelled as defect may have conferred survival advantage.
Mortality only rose after 1915. It peaked between 1935 and 1964. Even at peak, mortality was less than twice the general population. Forty percent of people with familial hypercholesterolemia lived completely normal lifespans.
The researchers concluded that “environmental factors” were more important than cholesterol levels in determining outcomes.
If this were genetic destiny, mortality patterns wouldn’t track environmental changes across centuries. They would be stable, determined by unchanging genetic code. Instead, the data shows something that looks nothing like genetic determinism and everything like environmental causation intersecting with a metabolic variation.
The pattern repeats across genetic diagnoses. The foundational BRCA research—the papers that launched genetic testing, preventive surgeries, and a billion-dollar industry—exhibits the same structural flaws. In every family studied in the 1994 Science paper that announced BRCA1 to the world, at least one woman carried the “cancer-causing mutation” and lived to age 80 without developing cancer. This appears in the paper itself. The authors state plainly: carriers of clearly deleterious mutations, mutations “causing breast cancer in women at very young ages,” included individuals who carried those same mutations for eight decades without ever developing malignancy.
Thirty-five to fifty-five percent of those who test positive for a BRCA variant never develop breast cancer. This figure comes from the research itself. The variant, by itself, does not determine who gets cancer.
The families in these studies were not randomly selected. They were identified precisely because they had abnormal cancer clustering—six, eight, ten cases across generations, often diagnosed before age 50. This is called ascertainment bias. When you select families because they have extreme disease clustering, you’ve pre-selected for whatever factors cause that clustering. Finding a genetic marker that tracks with disease in such families tells you the marker is associated with disease in families that were already unusual. It does not tell you what that marker means in the general population.
The circularity is complete: families were selected because they had cancer, a marker was found, and the cancer rate in those families became the “risk” assigned to the marker. The 87 percent risk figure that led Angelina Jolie to remove her breasts derived from statistical outliers—then was applied to anyone who tested positive, regardless of whether their family history resembled those unusual pedigrees.
A 2007 analysis in the Journal of Medical Genetics used simulation studies to quantify the magnitude of this bias. Researchers found that risk estimates derived from clinically ascertained families are inflated by a factor of two to three. A five-fold risk estimate, run through proper bias correction, becomes a two-fold risk. The authors explicitly warned against using these inflated estimates for clinical recommendations.
The warning was not heeded. The surgeries continued.
What happens to researchers who challenge diagnostic orthodoxy reveals the system’s investment in maintaining its frameworks. In 1968, a young pathologist named Kilmer McCully examined the arteries of an eight-year-old boy who had died of a stroke. The child had homocystinuria, a condition causing massive elevation of homocysteine, an amino acid. His arteries looked like those of an elderly man with severe atherosclerosis. McCully made a connection that should have revolutionised cardiology: homocysteine, not cholesterol, was destroying arteries.
Children with conditions causing high homocysteine developed severe atherosclerosis and died of heart attacks and strokes in childhood. Their cholesterol levels were normal. The only abnormality was elevated homocysteine.
McCully made a fatal error—he published his findings in 1969, just as the cholesterol hypothesis was gaining momentum. His discovery threatened the emerging billion-dollar statin industry. The response was swift. Despite his Harvard pedigree and impeccable research, McCully was denied tenure at Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital. His laboratory was moved to the basement. His research funding evaporated. For two years, no medical institution would hire him.
The message was clear: challenge the diagnostic framework and be destroyed. The simple solution McCully proposed—B vitamins costing pennies per day—went unpromoted while statins generated hundreds of billions over subsequent decades.
Mendelsohn understood the religious nature of this authority: “Modern Medicine can’t survive without our faith, because Modern Medicine is neither an art nor a science. It’s a religion.” The diagnostic pronouncement requires belief to function. The patient must accept the doctor’s authority to name their condition. They must trust that the name corresponds to a biological reality. They must have faith that the prescribed interventions address that reality. “Just ask why? enough times,” Mendelsohn observed, “and sooner or later you’ll reach the Chasm of Faith. Your doctor will retreat into the fact that you have no way of knowing or understanding all the wonders he has at his command. Just trust me.”
Mark Gober captures the economic logic plainly: “Long-term pharmaceutical prescriptions are great for pharmaceutical companies’ bottom lines... In addition to a prescription customer, having a customer for lifetime obviously benefits the bottom line compared to, say, someone who uses the product once and never returns. It’s just math.” The diagnosis creates the customer. The label ensures repeat business. The genetic framing—you were born broken—guarantees the customer can never escape.
The diagnostic-pharmaceutical complex operates through multiple extraction mechanisms. First, the diagnosis itself—the test, the specialist consultation, the imaging. Then the ongoing monitoring—regular appointments, blood work, scans to track the condition’s “progression.” Then the interventions—medications with their own side effects requiring additional medications, procedures generating further procedures. Each step generates revenue while binding the patient more tightly to the system.
The diagnostic code is currency. It unlocks insurance reimbursements, justifies specialist referrals, authorises prescriptions. A patient without a diagnosis is a patient without a billing pathway. The system requires diagnoses the way banks require account numbers. This structural necessity shapes clinical practice in ways that harm patients. Every encounter must produce a code. Every code represents a disease. Every patient becomes, by administrative requirement, diseased.
The genetic diagnosis represents the final turn of the extraction screw. A person told they have a bacterial infection might recover. A person told they have a vitamin deficiency might correct it. But a person told their genes are defective? That person is captured for life. There is no recovering from your DNA. There is no correcting your chromosomes. The genetic diagnosis says: you are the problem. Not your environment, not your exposures, not your choices. You. You are built wrong.
This is the ultimate disempowerment. Every other explanation for disease implies responsibility somewhere in the system. Chemical exposure points to manufacturers. Radiation points to infrastructure. Malnutrition points to the food supply. Each explanation identifies actors who could be held accountable.
Genetic determinism points only at you.
Your disease is not caused by what was done to you. It is caused by what you are. The defect is not in the environment but in your heritage. No corporation is liable. No regulator is negligent. No policy failed. You were born broken.
But genetics adds a second turn of the screw: you can do nothing about it. You cannot change your genes. The diagnosis simultaneously assigns you complete responsibility for your condition and removes all agency to address it. The trap is complete. You are to blame, but you are also helpless. The only path forward runs through the institutions that diagnosed you.
This creates the perfect dependent: a patient who believes their body is fundamentally defective, who accepts that decline is written in their cells, who sees the medical system as their only hope. This patient will not question. This patient will not refuse. This patient will not investigate environmental causes because they have been told their genes have already decided. This patient is the ideal extraction target—compliant, dependent, grateful, and convinced that the alternative to medical management is death.
The distinction Lester draws is crucial: “There are no ‘diseases’ out there that attack us. Just as there is no germ that will attack us, there is no disease that comes and attacks us. What we’ve got is a body that has symptoms.” The body has symptoms. It does not “have” diseases. Diseases are conceptual frameworks imposed on symptoms—frameworks that serve institutional needs rather than patient understanding.
Part Three: The Escape
The harm is real. The mechanism is documented. What remains is the question of escape.
The first step is linguistic precision. Lester recommends a simple practice: “There are two ways of saying the same thing. We can say ‘I am angry’ or we can say ‘Anger is arising.’ Both express the same thing but they’re not identical. One identifies with the anger, you become the anger. The other is simply an awareness of what’s happening.”
The same principle applies to diagnosis. “I am diabetic” is an identity statement. “I am experiencing elevated blood sugar” is a description of a temporary condition. The first binds you to a disease framework. The second leaves space for change. The first accepts a label. The second describes a situation.
This is not denial. The elevated blood sugar is real. The symptoms are real. What is being refused is the conversion of description into identity, of symptom into sentence.
The second step is to recognise symptoms as intelligent responses rather than system failures. The terrain model understands symptoms as the body’s communication—signals that something in the conditions of life requires attention. Terrain Therapy expresses this directly: “Symptoms are Nature’s warnings and evidence of Nature’s method of cure.”
The body responds to four primary assaults: toxicity, electromagnetic exposure, chronic stress, and nutritional deficiency. Symptoms indicate that one or more of these assaults is occurring. They are not the disease—they are the body’s attempt to manage the disease conditions. Suppressing symptoms without addressing their causes is like disconnecting a fire alarm without extinguishing the fire.
The third step is reclaiming agency. This means abandoning the victim narrative that diagnosis imposes. “If we are a victim, we can never get better because we are not doing anything to ourselves,” Lester observes. “If we think we are the victim of something from outside, we will never look inside and ask what’s going on.”
The victim position is comfortable in one sense—it absolves responsibility. If your genes made you sick, you cannot be blamed. If a pathogen attacked you, you were merely unlucky. But this comfort comes at the cost of power. A victim is defined as helpless. A person who recognises their capacity to influence their conditions is defined as capable.
The fourth step is to question the sources of diagnostic authority. Medical education is pharmaceutical-centric. Doctors learn to recognise patterns that match diagnostic categories and to prescribe approved interventions. They are not trained to question whether those categories correspond to biological reality. They are not rewarded for helping patients escape the diagnostic framework. They operate within a system that requires diagnoses for billing and prescriptions for revenue.
Lester suggests practical measures: “Prepare a list of questions and write it down before you visit your doctor. If the doctor prescribes something, find out what it’s for and why it’s being prescribed. If the doctor recommends any vaccinations, ask what’s in them. If the doctor recommends a test, it’s okay to ask what it’s for and whether you can have time to think about it. Take note of the main points.”
This approach can reveal which practitioners deserve trust and which are operating as system functionaries. “There are doctors who are on our side,” Lester acknowledges. “Many readers may even find that their own doctor is supportive.” But if not—if the doctor cannot or will not explain, cannot tolerate questions, cannot countenance alternatives—”perhaps people need to consider whether they really need a doctor.”
A fifth step emerges from the research: selective ignorance can be wisdom. Not willful denial or refusal to address symptoms. Not rejection of medical care when sick. But thoughtful restraint in testing healthy people for abnormalities we cannot reliably interpret and cannot confidently treat.
Mendelsohn arrived at this conclusion decades ago: “I don’t advise anyone who has no symptoms to go to the doctor for a physical examination. For people with symptoms, it’s not such a good idea, either. The entire diagnostic procedure—from the moment you enter the office to the moment you leave clutching a prescription or a referral appointment—is a seldom useful ritual.” A pediatrician with decades of experience, recommending avoidance of the diagnostic encounter altogether.
The concept of pseudodisease is crucial here. Cancers exist that will never progress, that would never have caused symptoms or death, that the body is managing successfully without intervention. Approximately half of older men have prostate cancer at autopsy, yet only three percent die from it. Up to 39 percent of middle-aged women show evidence of breast cancer at autopsy, yet lifetime risk of dying from breast cancer is under four percent. The harder we look, the more we find—but only a fraction of findings would ever have caused problems.
The mammography screening programs of the 1970s provide a case study in diagnosis creating harm. Mendelsohn documented the results: “By 1976, this massive x-ray screening project had detected about 1,800 cancers... A review was made of the results. It disclosed forty-eight cases of mistaken diagnosis, thirty-seven of which had resulted in the needless removal of breasts.” Thirty-seven women lost breasts to diagnoses that were simply wrong. The screening program that promised to save them instead mutilated them.
When something is labelled cancer, the cultural compulsion to treat overwhelms rational assessment. The diagnosis itself triggers a cascade of interventions that may cause more harm than the condition being diagnosed. The conventional wisdom—finding cancer early saves lives—feels true because we want it to be true, because cancer is scary and knowing feels safer than not knowing.
But feeling safe is different from being safe. Some trees fall in forests and no one hears them. Some abnormalities exist in bodies and never cause harm. The absence of diagnosis, in such cases, is not ignorance. It is protection from a system that cannot distinguish what requires treatment from what requires leaving alone.
Dr. Marizelle | Undiagnosed, a naturopathic physician, frames the fundamental principle: “A gene cannot occlude an artery. A gene cannot oxidize lipids. A gene cannot calcify tissue. A gene cannot inflame endothelium. But lived conditions can—and do.”
If disease were genetically determined, behaviour would be irrelevant. Nutrition would be a footnote. Sleep and movement would be superficial. Psychological stress would be immaterial. Yet these variables shape outcomes and even reverse pathology. Arterial narrowing diminishes. Blood chemistry stabilises. Inflammatory markers fall. These are not signs of genetic phenomena. They are physiological responses to changed conditions.
“Heart disease, therefore, is not genetic,” she concludes. “It is grown. And anything grown can, in principle, be altered, reshaped, or ungrown.”
The same logic applies to every diagnostic label. What is grown can be ungrown. What conditions created, changed conditions can uncreate.
The spontaneous remission literature documents what becomes possible when the diagnostic framework releases its grip. Marilyn Schlitz at the Institute of Noetic Sciences assembled the largest database of medically documented spontaneous remissions in the world—over 3,500 references from more than 800 journals. These are cases where serious illness resolved without treatment or with treatment considered inadequate to produce the result. The phenomenon is “not as rare as previously believed”—the impression of rarity is “at least partly an artifact of underreporting.” Healing happens. It happens more than the medical system acknowledges. It happens when the body is supported rather than assaulted, when agency is reclaimed rather than surrendered, when the victim narrative is abandoned.
Anita Moorjani’s case is instructive. After four years of cancer, she was terminal—tumours the size of lemons throughout her lymphatic system, organs shutting down, skin weeping toxins. Her doctor told her husband she wouldn’t survive the night. She experienced a profound shift in consciousness during a near-death experience and recovered completely. Her case is documented. It is inexplicable within the diagnostic framework. It makes perfect sense within a framework that recognises consciousness, belief, and identity as primary determinants of physical outcome.
The path forward is individual. Each person’s constellation of circumstances is unique. The factors contributing to their symptoms are particular to their history, environment, and choices. Generic protocols derived from disease categories cannot address this particularity. Only attention to one’s own situation—what toxins am I exposed to, what stresses am I under, what nutrition am I lacking, what beliefs am I holding—can illuminate the path toward health.
Lester’s guidance is gentle: “The simplest thing is for people to perhaps ask themselves what is their priority. Then ask what one step can I take today? It’s important to recognise that taking simple steps can have profound effects. Also, make sure you celebrate small steps and small achievements.” The journey away from the diagnostic framework is not accomplished in a single dramatic gesture. It unfolds through accumulated choices, each one reclaiming a small piece of agency from a system designed to make you dependent.
The escape is possible. People do it. They refuse the label. They question the prognosis. They investigate alternatives. They change their conditions. They heal. Not always. Not inevitably. But far more often than the diagnostic framework admits.
Roytas captures the psychology of this shift: “A critical point to highlight in all of this is that placebo and nocebo aren’t psychological ‘ghosts in the machine’ completely divorced from how the mind normally works. Expectation and suggestion are ordinary mental processes that all humans engage in and respond to. The key implication here is that we all have the capacity to create positive or negative trajectories for ourselves and others.” The same mechanisms that make diagnosis dangerous make recovery possible. The expectations that program decline can be replaced with expectations that support healing. The suggestions that reinforce disease can be countered with suggestions that reinforce vitality.
This does not mean healing is simply a matter of positive thinking. The four assaults are real. Toxicity damages tissues. Electromagnetic exposure disrupts cellular function. Chronic stress degrades systems. Malnutrition deprives cells of what they need. These must be addressed—not merely thought away. But the psychological dimension determines whether the body’s healing responses are supported or sabotaged. A person who believes they are terminally ill allocates resources toward managed decline. A person who believes their body is responding intelligently to conditions allocates resources toward identifying and changing those conditions.
The diagnosis is not destiny. It is a story told about you by people who profit from a particular ending. You are not obligated to accept it. The symptoms are real. The suffering is real. But the meaning assigned to that suffering—the identity imposed, the trajectory predicted, the dependency created—these are constructions. They can be examined. They can be questioned. They can be set aside.
Your body is not broken. It is responding. Listen to what it is responding to. Change what you can change. Trust its intelligence. The authority that diagnosed you is not the authority on what is possible for you.
The medical system mints diseases. You do not have to spend them.
References
Cowan, T. (2025). “Are Medical Diagnoses Real Entities?” Webinar, March 2025.
Engelbrecht, T., Köhnlein, C., Bailey, S., & Scoglio, S. (2021). Virus Mania: Corona/COVID-19, Measles, Swine Flu, Cervical Cancer, Avian Flu, SARS, BSE, Hepatitis C, AIDS, Polio, Spanish Flu (3rd ed.). Books on Demand.
Gober, M. (2023). An End to Upside Down Medicine: Contagion, Viruses, and Vaccines—Rethinking the Germ-Disease Theory. Waterside Productions.
Goldgar, D., Venne, V., Conner, T., & Buys, S. (2007). BRCA phenocopies or ascertainment bias? Journal of Medical Genetics, 44(8), e86.
Kendrick, M. (2021). The Clot Thickens: The Enduring Mystery of Heart Disease. Columbus Publishing.
Lester, D. (2025). Written interview with Unbekoming.
Lester, D., & Parker, D. (2019). What Really Makes You Ill? Why Everything You Thought You Knew About Disease Is Wrong. Independently published.
Lipton, B. (2005). The Biology of Belief: Unleashing the Power of Consciousness, Matter & Miracles. Hay House.
Marizelle, Dr. (2025). “Heart Disease Is Not Inherited, It Isn’t Even a Disease.” Undiagnosed (Substack).
McCully, K. (1999). The Heart Revolution: The Extraordinary Discovery That Finally Laid the Cholesterol Myth to Rest. HarperPerennial.
Mendelsohn, R. (1979). Confessions of a Medical Heretic. Contemporary Books.
Mendelsohn, R. (1981). Male Practice: How Doctors Manipulate Women. Contemporary Books.
Metcalfe, K., et al. (2002). Women who undergo prophylactic bilateral mastectomy overstate risk of cancer. BMJ, 325(7369), 921.
Miki, Y., et al. (1994). A strong candidate for the breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility gene BRCA1. Science, 266(5182), 66-71.
Moorjani, A. (2012). Dying to Be Me: My Journey from Cancer, to Near Death, to True Healing. Hay House.
Nightingale, F. (1860). Notes on Nursing: What It Is, and What It Is Not. D. Appleton and Company.
Roytas, D. (2024). Can You Catch a Cold? Untold History and Human Experiments. Independently published.
Schlitz, M., & Lewis, N. (1993). Spontaneous Remission: An Annotated Bibliography. Institute of Noetic Sciences.
Sijbrands, E.J., et al. (2001). Mortality over two centuries in large pedigree with familial hypercholesterolaemia. BMJ, 322(7293), 1019-1023.
Terrain Therapy. (2022). Compilation of historical terrain theory writings.
Trebing, W. P. (2006). Good-Bye Germ Theory: Ending a Century of Medical Fraud. Xlibris.
Unbekoming. (2025). “Extraction: The Middle Class as Colony.” Lies are Unbekoming (Substack).
Unbekoming. (2025). “The Fifth Wall: Genetics as the Final Fortress of Medical Extraction.” Lies are Unbekoming (Substack).
Unbekoming. (2025). “When Knowing Less Is More: On Cancer Screening.” Lies are Unbekoming (Substack).
Unbekoming. (2025). “When Your Body Whispers, Listen: The Intelligence of Symptoms.” Lies are Unbekoming (Substack).
Unbekoming. (2026). “The BRCA Gene and the Women Who Lost Their Breasts to a Hypothesis.” Lies are Unbekoming (Substack).
Unbekoming. (2026). “Your Genetic Heart Disease Isn’t Genetic.” Lies are Unbekoming (Substack).
Welch, H.G. (2004). Should I Be Tested for Cancer? Maybe Not and Here’s Why. University of California Press.
Medicalized Motherhood: From First Pill to Permanent Patient
Available as a free download. 123 interventions documented across six phases—from pre-conception capture through postpartum surveillance. Includes practical tools: birth plan template, provider interview questions, quick reference card, and a new chapter on interrupting the cascade. Download it, share it with someone facing their first prenatal appointment, their induction date, their cesarean recommendation. The cascade works because women don’t see it coming. This book makes it visible.
Support Independent Research
This work remains free because paid subscribers make it possible. If you find value here, consider joining them.
What paid subscribers get: Access to the Deep Dive Audio Library — 170+ in-depth discussions (30-50 min each) exploring the books behind these essays. New discussions added weekly. That’s 100+ hours of content for less than the price of a single audiobook.
[Upgrade to Paid – $5/month or $50/year]
Get in touch Essay ideas, stories, or expertise to share: unbekoming@outlook.com
Bitcoin: 3Q6BK8x8zjoPaXykQggzvoJxg5FiEbkb3U
Ethereum: 0x4CB0d39d8466a34609318FC1B003B745893788b3
New Biology Clinic
For those of you looking for practitioners who actually understand terrain medicine and the principles we explore here, I want to share something valuable. Dr. Tom Cowan—whose books and podcasts have shaped much of my own thinking about health—has created the New Biology Clinic, a virtual practice staffed by wellness specialists who operate from the same foundational understanding. This isn’t about symptom suppression or the conventional model. It’s about personalized guidance rooted in how living systems actually work. The clinic offers individual and family memberships that include not just private consults, but group sessions covering movement, nutrition, breathwork, biofield tuning, and more. Everything is virtual, making it accessible wherever you are. If you’ve been searching for practitioners who won’t look at you blankly when you mention structured water or the importance of the extracellular matrix, this is worth exploring. Use discount code “Unbekoming” to get $100 off the member activation fee. You can learn more and sign up at newbiologyclinic.com
Author's Note
Bohdan's grandfather story cuts to the heart of it. A man dealing with illness, continuing to live—until the word "cancer" was spoken. Two weeks from diagnosis to death. The pronouncement did what the condition had not.
George and Ingrid both describe something similar from the opposite direction: refusing the authority of the prognosis. George's ankle healed without the predicted limp. Ingrid's healed faster when she ignored the prescription. The body responded to what they believed, not what they were told.
Paul's framing of diagnosis as "negative magic"—"negative incantations"—isn't metaphor. The nocebo research confirms it. Words spoken by authority figures produce physiological changes. The ritual matters. The white coat matters. The clinical setting matters. These are the conditions under which the curse takes hold.
Eileen's reflection on her dog deserves attention. After two years of illness and multiple experts, her question: "Why do you act as if your dog is sick?" The answer revealed how much energy she was feeding into the expectation. The hologram, as she puts it, that she herself was creating. This applies to humans too. How much of "living with a condition" is actually maintaining it?
Danu's parallel case is instructive. Same diagnosis—incidental adenoma. She declined intervention; seven years later, no problem. Her friend accepted surgery, then hormone medication, then kidney cancer. Two paths from the same starting point. The intervention itself became the trajectory.
Ati raises the hardest problem: diagnosis shock leaves people unable to think. They're in a daze—and who do they reach for? The doctor who just cursed them. The system that created the panic offers itself as the only solution. Breaking that loop requires reaching people before the diagnosis, not after.
Several of you mentioned COVID as a mass demonstration of these principles. Cousin Clem's description of the 24/7 case count tickers, the death sentence framing—this was nocebo at scale. George walked through it untouched because he refused the story.
On Mendelsohn's death at 61—I don't know. But the pattern of early deaths and destroyed careers among those who challenge medical orthodoxy is documented. McCully's treatment after the homocysteine discovery is one example among many.
Thank you for reading.
I tell people all the time that I don’t get sick because I refuse to. 30 years on my job, never called in sick. After a broken ankle (went to work with a cast on against Dr instructions) I was told that without physical therapy I would walk with a limp. I told them I wouldn’t because I KNEW I wouldn’t. Physical therapist cannot know my body better than I do.
When I heard about this new virus killing people in China, I told my brother I would gladly be exposed and prove it was nothing: COVID-19 came and went, I took no precautions and obviously never fell ill.
Health is body, mind, and spirit. Believe in yourself, believe in your body, and believe in God. “Though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I shall fear no evil.”