The Streetlight Effect
An Essay
What
The vaccinated versus unvaccinated study does not exist.
Not “hasn’t been done well.” Not “needs more funding.” Does not exist. No large-scale, long-term study has ever compared total health outcomes of vaccinated children against those who received no vaccines at all. The most basic question a parent might ask—what happens to children who get the full schedule versus children who get none of it?—has never been answered.
The tampon-cervical cancer study does not exist.
Women insert products containing lead, arsenic, cadmium, dioxins, and PFAS directly against cervical tissue, for days each month, for decades. The vaginal epithelium absorbs substances more efficiently than swallowing them—pharmaceutical companies exploit this property deliberately. No study has examined whether this chemical exposure causes the cancer that develops in that tissue.
The long-term antidepressant outcome study does not exist.
Millions take SSRIs for decades. No study has followed patients long enough to determine whether these drugs improve life outcomes compared to people who experienced similar depression but did not take them.
These are not gaps in the research. These are the research.
The streetlight effect takes its name from an old joke. A drunk searches for his keys under a streetlight. A policeman asks where he dropped them. “In the bushes,” the drunk says. “Then why are you looking here?” “Because this is where the light is.”
The joke works because the behaviour is absurd. No one would search where they know the answer isn’t, simply because that’s where they can see.
Except institutions do exactly this. Every day. As policy.
The streetlight effect, as it operates in captured institutions, is not cognitive error. It is not researchers making innocent mistakes. It is the deliberate positioning of the light to ensure certain questions are never asked and certain answers are never found.
This is not censorship. Censorship is visible, resistible, galvanizing. The streetlight effect is invisible. The scientist who never receives funding for the destabilizing question does not experience suppression—they experience a career that simply moved in other directions. The question dies without ever being asked. The ignorance is architecturally produced.
Peter Duke (The Duke Report™️) calls this epistemic warfare—the deliberate construction of ignorance as a strategic weapon. The battlefield is what you’re allowed to know.
The drunk in the joke is stupid. The people positioning the lampposts are not.
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
The Machine
The streetlight effect does not operate alone. It is one component in a larger machine that creates stable falsehood.
Consider a pole balanced perfectly vertical. This represents truth in equilibrium. It requires no energy to maintain—gravity holds it in place. Now tilt the pole twenty degrees from vertical. Enormous energy must flow into the base to prevent collapse. Struts, supports, constant adjustment. A partial deviation from truth demands perpetual maintenance.
But invert the pole completely—one hundred eighty degrees—and it balances again. Not because it has escaped gravity, but because the inversion is complete enough to create its own coherent structure. A partial lie must argue with reality. A complete inversion replaces reality. The internal logic becomes consistent, even though every element points in the wrong direction.
This is how medical orthodoxy maintains itself. The cholesterol hypothesis, the viral theory of disease, the vaccine safety consensus—these are not partial deviations requiring constant defense. They are complete inversions that have found their own equilibrium. Once trillions of dollars of infrastructure are built around the inverted pole—careers, institutions, industries, identities—the structure stands for generations.
The streetlight effect is what keeps the inversion stable. It ensures the studies that would expose the inversion never get funded. The questions that would topple the pole never get asked. The light shines where the answers aren’t, and the darkness protects what cannot survive scrutiny.
The Components
The founding lie. Every inversion begins with a deliberate decision to construct a reality opposite to truth. Someone knows the truth and chooses to build the inversion. The tobacco executives who wrote “doubt is our product” in 1953. Ancel Keys selecting six countries from twenty-two. Simon Flexner declaring viral causation without demonstrating any virus. The founding lie need not be elaborate—it needs only to be simple enough to anchor a heuristic and complete enough to form a coherent alternative.
Epistemic capture. The systematic colonization of institutions that produce and validate knowledge. Journals, regulatory bodies, funding agencies, medical schools. When captured, the inversion gains legitimacy. It becomes “the science” rather than a lie being told. Two-thirds of medical school department chairs have financial ties to pharmaceutical companies. Two-thirds of researchers carry conflicts of interest. The top two-thirds of universities own pharmaceutical stock. Most clinical trials are conducted by for-profit Contract Research Organizations. Up to 40% of medical journal articles are ghostwritten by the industry. The $27 billion spent annually on drug promotion exceeds the entire NIH budget. Capture this system and you capture the epistemology of the entire society. The inversion no longer needs to persuade—it certifies.
The herd-mind limitation. Collective cognition cannot perform slow thinking. It holds only simple heuristics—two-variable formulas compressing reality into actionable shortcuts. “Cholesterol causes heart disease; statins prevent it.” “Viruses cause illness; vaccines prevent it.” “HPV causes cancer; Gardasil prevents it.” Two variables, one relationship. This is not stupidity—individuals can think slowly and hold multiple variables. But the collective runs on pattern-matching shortcuts. Whoever installs the two anchor points controls the collective understanding. The streetlight effect ensures no competing formula can form, because the evidence that would generate it remains in darkness.
The complicity of comfort. The inversion succeeds not only because institutions enforce it but because populations prefer it. A comfortable lie demands nothing. An uncomfortable truth demands everything—action, disruption, reversal of past choices, separation from the herd. The parent who accepts that vaccines are safe can believe they protected their child. The parent who questions must face what they may have done, and must find the courage to refuse the next injection while doctor, family, and social circle apply pressure. The comfortable lie offers belonging. The uncomfortable truth offers exile. Given the choice, most people choose comfort. They are not stupid. They are human. The inversion exploits this.
Convergent opportunism. Once the inversion is seeded, other actors discover the structure serves them. They join maintenance without coordination. Pharmaceutical companies profit from the products the inversion protects. Doctors maintain income and status by following captured protocols. Regulators secure future employment by approving what industry wants approved. Journals collect advertising revenue and reprint fees. Academic careers are built on the approved research agenda. Politicians receive donations. Media companies receive advertising. No one needs to be in a room together. Their interests converge on the same structure like iron filings around a magnet. The original architects can retire or die. The founding lie no longer requires their maintenance. The ecosystem maintains itself.
The streetlight effect. Research, funding, and career advancement concentrate in the illuminated zone. Questions that would destabilize the inversion lie in darkness—not forbidden, merely unrewarded. Scientists go where the light is. The ignorance is architecturally produced.
The components interlock. Epistemic capture makes the heuristic installation possible—the two anchor points are certified as “settled science.” The herd-mind limitation makes capture effective—the collective cannot audit the institutions it trusts. The complicity of comfort ensures the collective does not want to audit them—the truth is too costly. Convergent opportunism maintains the streetlight—each actor has incentive to keep the illuminated zone stable. The streetlight produces the ignorance that protects the founding lie from scrutiny. No central control required. Each component creates conditions for the others.
How the Light Gets Positioned
Funding control. Fund what you want studied. Don’t fund what you don’t want studied. A study that doesn’t exist cannot produce inconvenient findings.
Definitional control. Define questions narrowly enough that desired answers become inevitable. Define vaccine safety as “does not cause the specific harm we’re testing for in the short window we’re testing,” and you can find vaccines safe while ignoring every harm you didn’t test for. Define “isolation” as detecting genetic sequences rather than extracting particles, and you can claim viruses are isolated without ever demonstrating they exist.
Methodological control. Use active comparators instead of inert placebos. The HPV vaccine trials used aluminum adjuvant as the “placebo”—a toxic substance guaranteeing the control group would experience adverse events. Exclude participants likely to have adverse reactions. End trials before long-term effects appear. Choose surrogate endpoints instead of outcomes that matter.
Publication control. Fund journals, sit on editorial boards, peer review each other’s papers. Authors with conflicts of interest are twenty times less likely to publish negative findings. The Lancet generates up to two million euros from reprints when a positive drug study is published. The same investment funds—BlackRock, Vanguard—that own major pharmaceutical stakes also own the journals that evaluate their products. Publish what supports the narrative. A finding that isn’t published doesn’t enter “the scientific consensus.”
Career control. Reward researchers who produce useful findings. Punish those who produce threatening ones. Kilmer McCully discovered homocysteine—his laboratory was moved to the basement, his funding evaporated, no institution would hire him for two years. The survivors learned what questions not to ask. Upton Sinclair identified the mechanism: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” Mortgages create beliefs.
Narrative control. Establish “scientific consensus” through the mechanisms above, then use it as a weapon. Anyone who questions it is “anti-science.” The lamppost is defended by making it socially impossible to point out it’s in the wrong place.
Once you begin, you cannot stop. The streetlight effect is not a one-time decision but continuous operation. Every year, researchers must be funded for approved questions and not funded for forbidden ones. Every year, journals must publish approved findings and reject threatening ones. The moment you stop, someone asks the forbidden question, funds the forbidden study, publishes the forbidden finding. This is why captured institutions respond to challenges with ferocity. A question that might move the lamppost threatens the entire inverted structure—because for the people who positioned the lamp, it does.
Why
Money is the mechanism. Power is the motive. Extraction is the outcome.
Control what questions get asked and you control what answers are possible. The chain is short: control what is studied → control what is known → control what is believed → control what is done.
The streetlight effect is infrastructure for extraction. You cannot build a system that extracts wealth through manufactured illness if people can see what is causing the illness. The lamppost must be positioned away from the cause before the extraction pipeline can operate. Shine the light on claimed viruses, genes, bad luck. Leave toxins, chemicals, iatrogenic injury in darkness. Attribute illness to nature rather than industry. The treatment becomes drugs rather than removal of harm. The patient becomes a customer. The extraction runs indefinitely.
The streetlight effect is not a bug in the system of knowledge production. It is the system.
The HPV Case
In 2006, journalists Torsten Engelbrecht and Claus Köhnlein contacted the German Cancer Research Centre—the DKFZ, one of the world’s leading cancer institutions—with four requests:
A study proving HPV exists through proper isolation.
A study proving HPV causes cervical cancer.
A study proving non-viral factors can be excluded as primary causes.
A study proving HPV vaccines are safe and effective.
The DKFZ provided literature for requests one, two, and four—though what they called “isolation” for request one was not isolation in any meaningful scientific sense. It was detection of genetic material declared viral without demonstrating that any virus existed. No particle was extracted from human tissue, purified, and shown to cause disease. The methodology assumes what it claims to prove.
For request three, they provided nothing.
This is the streetlight effect in its pure form. The question “could something other than the claimed virus cause this cancer?” was never investigated. Not because it was asked and answered. Because it was never asked. The light was positioned on virology from the start. Toxicology remained in darkness.
The statistics expose the positioning. Up to 80% of women test positive for HPV markers at some point. Less than 1% develop cervical cancer. In Germany, 0.017% of women develop cervical cancer annually. The marker is nearly universal. The disease is rare. If the marker caused the disease, the pattern would be different.
The establishment response is not to investigate what actually causes the cancer. The response is to add qualifiers—HPV is “necessary but not sufficient,” cofactors are required. The cofactors are vague enough to explain any distribution of cases: “immune status,” “genetic susceptibility,” “lifestyle factors.” The theory cannot be falsified because it absorbs any evidence. This is the hallmark of a stable inversion—internal coherence maintained by excluding the data that would destroy it.
Meanwhile, the chemical hypothesis sits in darkness, unstudied.
In 2024, researchers published the first study measuring metal concentrations in tampons. They found lead in every sample tested—at concentrations ten times higher than maximum levels allowed in drinking water. Arsenic in 95% of samples. Cadmium in 100%. Dioxins from chlorine bleaching. PFAS in products marketed as “organic” and “natural.”
The average woman who menstruates uses approximately 11,000 tampons over her reproductive lifetime. Each remains in contact with vaginal mucosa for hours. The vaginal epithelium is not a barrier; it is a gateway—pharmaceutical companies use vaginal administration precisely because it delivers substances to the body more efficiently than swallowing them.
Fifty years of cumulative exposure to documented carcinogens, delivered directly to the tissue where the cancer develops. The research examining this exposure as a cause of cervical cancer does not exist.
The mutation patterns found in HPV-negative cervical cancers—TP53, KRAS, PTEN, ARID1A—are consistent with chemical-induced DNA damage. The cancers that don’t fit the viral story fit the chemical story. No one is funded to look.
The HPV vaccine trials used aluminum adjuvant as the “placebo”—a toxic substance that guaranteed the control group would experience adverse events, making the vaccine appear safe by comparison. The trials never established whether the vaccine prevents cancer; they used surrogate endpoints and ended before cancer could develop. The protection claimed wears off before women reach the age when cervical cancer typically occurs.
The entire apparatus—causation claim, screening program, vaccine—is built on a lamppost positioned to illuminate virology and leave toxicology in darkness. The studies that would challenge this positioning do not exist. The questions that would threaten vaccine revenue do not get asked.
The founding lie. The captured institutions. The simple formula. The comfortable belief. The convergent interests. The positioned light. All the components, interlocking. The machine runs.
The Polio Precedent
The HPV case is contemporary. The pattern is not new.
In 1907, Simon Flexner of the Rockefeller Institute claimed to have isolated a poliovirus. His method: inject diseased human spinal cord tissue into monkey brains. When monkeys became ill, inject their tissue into other monkeys. Declare that whatever caused the illness must be a virus.
Flexner admitted in his 1909 paper that he “failed utterly to discover bacteria” and could not demonstrate any pathogen under the microscope. His conclusion: the agent “belongs to the class of the minute and filterable viruses that have not thus far been demonstrated with certainty.”
He could not demonstrate any virus. He concluded one must exist anyway—because he found no other explanation. He did not look for other explanations. He did not investigate toxins. He assumed viral causation and built an empire on the assumption.
The Rockefeller Institute was not a neutral scientific body. It was an instrument of Rockefeller interests—specifically, the interest in redirecting American medicine toward patentable drugs. In 1911, the Institute succeeded in having poliomyelitis entered into US Public Health Law as “a contagious, infectious disease caused by an air-borne virus.” No proof of contagion existed. No proof of any virus existed. Children with the disease kept in general hospital wards did not infect other patients. The law said it was contagious anyway.
By classifying poliomyelitis as viral, the Rockefeller Institute cut off investigation of alternatives. The lamppost was positioned. Toxicology was in darkness.
Then came DDT.
After World War II, DDT was released for civilian use, declared safe for humans. Cities sprayed beaches and swimming pools. Housewives sprayed kitchens and children’s mattresses. Farmers sprayed crops and dairy cows. From 1945 through 1952, US DDT production increased tenfold.
Polio cases increased in parallel. From 25,000 in 1943 to over 280,000 in 1952.
Dr. Morton Biskind testified to Congress in 1950, documenting over 200 cases where severe symptoms—including paralysis—disappeared when DDT exposure was eliminated. Dr. Ralph Scobey noted that polio symptoms matched known toxic poisoning patterns and that hospital polio wards never saw transmission between patients.
The Rockefeller-controlled National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis rejected this evidence. They funded vaccine research instead.
Beginning in 1951, as DDT use declined amid public concern and livestock deaths, polio cases fell by two-thirds—well before the Salk vaccine was widely administered. The decline tracked DDT reduction, not vaccine introduction.
The vaccine was credited anyway. The streetlight effect operated for decades, protecting the viral hypothesis from toxicological evidence.
Beyond Medicine
The streetlight effect operates wherever institutions benefit from not knowing.
LeBron James has played professional basketball for over twenty years. During that time, footage has accumulated showing him grabbing referees, screaming profanities in officials’ faces, flopping theatrically, committing uncalled fouls—each action a violation that would result in ejection or fines for other players. The footage is not hidden. It happens on national television, in real time, in front of millions of viewers.
ESPN does not report on it.
The same ESPN that posts about a player wearing an armband—content so trivial it borders on self-parody—does not mention a player grabbing a referee. No memo is required. ESPN holds broadcast rights to the NBA worth billions. They are not journalists covering the league; they are partners with the league. A reporter who runs that story damages their access. An editor who approves it damages their network’s relationship. Everyone understands what’s expected. The silence self-organizes.
The league benefits. The network benefits. The player benefits. The advertisers benefit. No coordination required. Each actor maintains their piece of the structure, and the pieces interlock without a blueprint.
The Lakers have led the NBA in free throw differential for four consecutive seasons. No other team has appeared in the top three more than once during that span. Their cumulative differential over those four years is +1,200. No other team has reached even +500. The numbers are public. The pattern is measurable. The coverage does not mention it.
The evidence is on screen. The media controls where the light of attention shines. Highlights are illuminated. Uncalled fouls happen in peripheral vision. Preferential treatment registers as background noise. People aren’t failing to see. They’re searching where they’ve been trained to search.
The Cholesterol Case
In 1852, Austrian pathologist Karl von Rokitansky proposed that atherosclerotic plaques were remnants of blood clots. He had performed thousands of autopsies and noticed that plaques looked exactly like clots in various stages of organization. The thrombogenic hypothesis—heart disease caused by clotting, not cholesterol accumulation—had compelling evidence from the start.
A century later, Ancel Keys positioned the lamppost elsewhere.
In 1953, Keys published a graph showing correlation between fat consumption and heart disease deaths in six countries. The points lay almost perfectly on a line. Data was available from twenty-two countries. Keys chose six. When Yerushalmy and Hilleboe analyzed all twenty-two countries in 1957, the correlation vanished.
The lamppost was positioned anyway.
The sugar industry recognized the threat. In the 1960s, researchers were linking sugar consumption to heart disease. The Sugar Research Foundation paid Harvard researchers the equivalent of $50,000 to write a review attacking anti-sugar studies while promoting the fat hypothesis. The researchers assured executives they were “well aware of your particular interest.”
The debate about sugar died. The war on fat intensified. The processed food industry could now replace expensive animal fats with cheap vegetable oils and sugar while marketing their products as “heart-healthy.”
Kilmer McCully discovered that homocysteine, not cholesterol, was destroying arteries. Children with genetic disorders causing high homocysteine developed severe atherosclerosis and died of heart attacks—despite normal cholesterol. McCully published his findings. Despite Harvard credentials and compelling evidence, he lost his position. His laboratory was moved to the basement. His funding evaporated. For two years, no institution would hire him.
The Framingham Heart Study, the longest-running cardiovascular study in history, produced a finding buried deep in its thirty-year report: “For each 1 mg/dl drop in cholesterol, there was an 11% increase in coronary and total mortality.” People whose cholesterol decreased were more likely to die. The study’s director later admitted: “In Framingham, the more saturated fat one ate, the more cholesterol one ate, the more calories one ate, the lower the person’s serum cholesterol.”
This contradicted everything the study was cited to support. The finding was not publicized.
Statins generate over $20 billion annually. The University of British Columbia’s Therapeutics Initiative concluded: “Statins have not been shown to provide an overall health benefit in primary prevention trials.” People without existing heart disease who take statins are no less likely to die.
The lamppost remains on cholesterol. The questions about clotting, sugar, homocysteine, stress, and metabolic dysfunction remain in darkness. Rokitansky’s thrombogenic hypothesis—supported by 170 years of autopsy evidence—sits unstudied while billions flow into cholesterol research. The studies that would move the light do not get funded. The researchers who ask the wrong questions do not get hired.
Seventy years. Billions of prescriptions. The founding lie. The captured institutions. The simple formula. The comfortable belief. The convergent interests. The positioned light. The same architecture.
Seeing the Lamp
The streetlight effect leaves signatures.
The absent study. A question any reasonable person would want answered, never investigated. The vaccinated-versus-unvaccinated comparison. The tampon-cancer link. The long-term antidepressant outcomes. When obvious questions remain unasked, ask who benefits from not knowing.
The aggressive defence. When someone asks the forbidden question, the response is not engagement but destruction—career attacks, accusations of conspiracy thinking, demands for retraction. Institutions confident in their evidence respond with evidence. Institutions defending a positioned lamppost respond with force.
The unfalsifiable theory. When a theory absorbs any contradictory evidence—when exceptions are explained away with cofactors, when it cannot specify conditions under which it would be proven wrong—you are looking at narrative maintenance, not science. You are looking at a stable inversion.
The funding trail. Who paid for the studies that exist? Who would have paid for the studies that don’t exist? The asymmetry reveals where the lamppost stands.
The career pattern. Who prospers in the field? Who disappears? When researchers who produce industry-friendly findings rise while researchers who produce threatening findings lose funding, laboratory space, positions—the incentive structure is visible.
The simple formula. When complex reality is compressed into two variables and one relationship—cholesterol causes heart disease, viruses cause illness, vaccines prevent disease—ask who installed the formula and who profits from it.
The comfort test. Does the official position demand anything of you, or does it offer easy absolution? The comfortable lie asks nothing. The uncomfortable truth asks everything.
The system depends on trust. Trust in institutions. Trust in expertise. Trust that the questions being asked are the right questions and the absence of other questions is innocent.
The streetlight effect ends when enough people start asking different questions. Why isn’t there a study on that? Who decided not to fund it? What would we find if someone looked in the dark?
The drunk searching under the streetlight is a figure of comedy. The institutions searching only where their funders want them to look are not funny.
They are why children receive vaccines never tested against unvaccinated controls.
They are why women develop cancers from products no one investigated.
They are why treatments that might work are never studied while treatments that profit the right people are studied endlessly.
The lamppost was positioned. It can be repositioned. But first you have to see it—and see the machine it is part of.
The next time you hear “no studies show,” ask the next question.
Who made sure those studies don’t exist?
That’s where the keys are.
References
HPV and Cervical Cancer
Engelbrecht, Torsten and Köhnlein, Claus. Virus Mania: How the Medical Industry Continually Invents Epidemics, Making Billion-Dollar Profits at Our Expense. Trafford Publishing, 2007.
Holland, Mary, Mack Rosenberg, Kim, and Iorio, Eileen. The HPV Vaccine on Trial: Seeking Justice for a Generation Betrayed. Skyhorse Publishing, 2018.
German Cancer Research Centre (DKFZ). Email correspondence with Engelbrecht and Köhnlein, October-December 2006.
Shearston, J.A. et al. “Tampons as a source of exposure to metal(loid)s.” Environment International, 190, 108849, 2024.
Marroquin, J. et al. “Chemicals in menstrual products: A systematic review.” BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 131(5), 655-664, 2024.
Lee, Kwang-Beom et al. “Untold story of human cervical cancers: HPV-negative cervical cancer.” BMC Cancer, 2022.
Polio and DDT
Flexner, Simon and Lewis, Paul A. “The Transmission of Acute Poliomyelitis to Monkeys.” Journal of the American Medical Association, 1909.
Flexner, Simon and Lewis, Paul A. “The Nature of the Virus of Epidemic Poliomyelitis.” Journal of the American Medical Association, December 1909.
Biskind, Morton S. “Statement on Clinical Intoxication from DDT and Other New Insecticides.” Journal of Insurance Medicine, 1951.
Biskind, Morton S. Testimony before the House Select Committee to Investigate the Use of Chemicals in Food Products, 1950.
Scobey, Ralph R. Statement to the House Select Committee to Investigate the Use of Chemicals in Food Products, 1952.
Cholesterol and Heart Disease
Rokitansky, Karl von. A Manual of Pathological Anatomy. 1852.
Yerushalmy, J. and Hilleboe, H.E. “Fat in the Diet and Mortality from Heart Disease: A Methodologic Note.” New York State Journal of Medicine, 1957.
Kearns, C.E. et al. “Sugar Industry and Coronary Heart Disease Research: A Historical Analysis of Internal Industry Documents.” JAMA Internal Medicine, 2016.
McCully, Kilmer S. The Heart Revolution. HarperPerennial, 1999.
Rockefeller Medicine
Brown, E. Richard. Rockefeller Medicine Men: Medicine and Capitalism in America. University of California Press, 1979.
Flexner, Abraham. Medical Education in the United States and Canada (The Flexner Report). Carnegie Foundation, 1910.
Pharmaceutical Industry Influence
Gøtzsche, Peter C. Deadly Medicines and Organised Crime: How Big Pharma Has Corrupted Healthcare. Radcliffe Publishing, 2013.
Angell, Marcia. The Truth About the Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What to Do About It. Random House, 2004.
Light, Donald W. “Institutional Corruption of Pharmaceuticals and the Myth of Safe and Effective Drugs.” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 2013.
Virology
Bailey, Mark. A Farewell to Virology. 2022.
Epistemic Capture and the Streetlight Effect
Duke, Peter. Work on epistemic warfare and the architecture of manufactured ignorance.
Rogers, Toby. Testimony before the U.S. Senate on epistemic capture, 2025.
Unbekoming. “The Mechanics of Stable Falsehood.” Lies are Unbekoming, December 2025.
Unbekoming. “Epistemic Capture.” Lies are Unbekoming, September 2025.
Unbekoming. “The HPV Lie: Pap Smears, Gardasil, and a Cancer Caused by Something Else.” Lies are Unbekoming, January 2026.
Unbekoming. “Toxicology vs Virology: The Rockefeller Institute and the Criminal Polio Fraud.” Lies are Unbekoming, March 2025.
Unbekoming. “A Farewell to Virology (Expert Edition).” Lies are Unbekoming, January 2025.
Unbekoming. “The War on Knowing.” Lies are Unbekoming.
Unbekoming. “Extraction: The Middle Class as Colony.” Lies are Unbekoming, November 2025.
Unbekoming. “LeBron’s Immunity.” Lies are Unbekoming, December 2025.
Unbekoming. “The Wrong Enemy: Blood Clots. Not Cholesterol.” Lies are Unbekoming, September 2025.
Book: Medicalized Motherhood: From First Pill to Permanent Patient
Available as a free download. 123 interventions documented across six phases—from pre-conception capture through postpartum surveillance. Includes practical tools: birth plan template, provider interview questions, quick reference card, and a new chapter on interrupting the cascade. Download it, share it with someone facing their first prenatal appointment, their induction date, their cesarean recommendation. The cascade works because women don’t see it coming. This book makes it visible.
Support Independent Research
This work remains free because paid subscribers make it possible. If you find value here, consider joining them.
What paid subscribers get: Access to the Deep Dive Audio Library — 180+ in-depth discussions (30-50 min each) exploring the books behind these essays. New discussions added weekly. That’s 100+ hours of content for less than the price of a single audiobook.
[Upgrade to Paid – $5/month or $50/year]
Get in touch Essay ideas, stories, or expertise to share: unbekoming@outlook.com
Bitcoin: 3Q6BK8x8zjoPaXykQggzvoJxg5FiEbkb3U
Ethereum: 0x4CB0d39d8466a34609318FC1B003B745893788b3
New Biology Clinic
For those of you looking for practitioners who actually understand terrain medicine and the principles we explore here, I want to share something valuable. Dr. Tom Cowan—whose books and podcasts have shaped much of my own thinking about health—has created the New Biology Clinic, a virtual practice staffed by wellness specialists who operate from the same foundational understanding. This isn’t about symptom suppression or the conventional model. It’s about personalized guidance rooted in how living systems actually work. The clinic offers individual and family memberships that include not just private consults, but group sessions covering movement, nutrition, breathwork, biofield tuning, and more. Everything is virtual, making it accessible wherever you are. If you’ve been searching for practitioners who won’t look at you blankly when you mention structured water or the importance of the extracellular matrix, this is worth exploring. Use discount code “Unbekoming” to get $100 off the member activation fee. You can learn more and sign up at newbiologyclinic.com
Those who champion the streetlight effect are the first to claim, when people ask uncomfortable questions, "There's no evidence supporting this claim" as if this proved anything. "There's no evidence that vaccines cause autism", when no properly done studies have been conducted. "There's no evidence that the mRNA injections cause cancer" when no studies have been done and thousands of the jabbed develop aggressive cancers. "There's no evidence" is the false logic that is accepted by the dim-witted debaters who fail to cite the most honored aphorism of empirical science: "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". While the charlatans who know this to be true pretend that it isn't, those who accept the findings without calling out the charlatans for violating this fundamental principle dishonor themselves and the scientific method, and are as big a part of the problem as those who sell them their lies.
"The streetlight effect ends when enough people start asking different questions. Why isn’t there a study on that? Who decided not to fund it? What would we find if someone looked in the dark?"
"The Needle's Secret"