What is Mumps?
An Essay
The parotid glands concentrate iodide at 20 to 100 times serum levels. They excrete heavy metals into saliva. They contain the only intraglandular lymph nodes found in any salivary tissue—typically four to ten nodes scattered through the parenchyma, positioned at a crossroads of lymphatic drainage from the nasal passages, middle ear, pharynx, and oral cavity.
These anatomical facts appear in standard medical textbooks. They describe an organ designed for filtration, concentration, and excretion—not merely the production of digestive enzymes. When the parotid glands swell, the conventional explanation points to a virus. The glands themselves point to a different answer: swelling represents these organs doing exactly what they were designed to do, under conditions of unusual demand.
Examining mumps through the lens of parotid physiology rather than virology changes the picture entirely. The evidence reveals an organ with significant detoxification capacity, dozens of documented non-viral causes of swelling, an absence of rigorous contagion experiments, historical mortality so low it barely registered in vital statistics, and household transmission patterns that fit shared environmental exposure better than person-to-person infection. What emerges is not a viral disease but a developmental detoxification event—the body clearing accumulated burden through glands anatomically positioned for precisely that function.
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 Organ Itself
The parotid is the largest of the three paired major salivary glands, weighing 14 to 30 grams and located in the retromandibular fossa anterior to the external auditory canal. It secretes exclusively serous saliva—the watery, enzyme-rich type containing alpha-amylase, which initiates approximately 30 percent of starch digestion in the mouth. Daily saliva production totals 0.5 to 1.5 litres, with parotid glands contributing 20 to 25 percent at rest but exceeding 50 percent during stimulated secretion.
The parotid’s less-publicised functions extend far beyond digestion.
Iodide Concentration
Salivary glands concentrate iodide via the sodium-iodide symporter (NIS)—the same transporter found in thyroid tissue. The concentration ratio reaches 20 to 100 times higher than serum levels. This iodide participates in the lactoperoxidase antimicrobial system, converting to hypoiodous acid to defend against oral pathogens.
The clinical implications of this concentration capacity are well documented. Radioiodine therapy causes salivary gland damage precisely because the glands accumulate radioactive iodine so efficiently. Iodinated contrast media used in medical imaging triggers a condition called “iodide mumps”—parotid swelling indistinguishable from viral mumps, caused by toxic accumulation of iodine in the salivary ducts. First described in 1956 by Sussman and Miller, iodide mumps occurs in an estimated 1 to 2 percent of contrast administrations. Onset ranges from minutes to five days after exposure; the condition is self-limiting, resolving within 24 to 72 hours.
If parotid swelling can result from iodide toxicity, the glands are clearly responsive to circulating substances—not passive structures waiting to be invaded by viruses.
Heavy Metal Excretion
Research documents measurable concentrations of heavy metals in saliva, including mercury, lead, cadmium, arsenic, and antimony. A study published in Nature Scientific Reports detected 21 metals in human saliva using ICP-MS, finding 16 metals in 54 percent of participants and 8 metals in all participants. Dental amalgams continuously release metals into saliva, with chewing increasing mercury release.
Nineteenth-century pharmacology texts described salivary glands as secondary excretory routes for urea, uric acid, iodides, bromides, and thiocyanates. These were not speculative claims but documented observations: blood-borne substances appear in saliva. The salivary glands serve a significant excretory function that modern medicine acknowledges but rarely emphasises.
Lymphatic Position
The parotid’s lymphatic relationships explain why parotid inflammation affects surrounding structures and why facial conditions frequently involve parotid lymph nodes. The parotid lymph nodes receive drainage from the external ear, periauricular skin, temporal region, lateral eyelids, lateral cheek, and middle ear—making the parotid a major collecting station for the lateral face and head.
The presence of intraglandular lymph nodes—unique among salivary glands—results from late embryological encapsulation. The lymphatic system develops before the parotid becomes fully encapsulated, leaving lymph nodes embedded within the gland tissue itself. This anatomical peculiarity positions the parotid at a junction of lymphatic and cleansing activity.
Bilateral swelling—the classic presentation of mumps—points to a systemic trigger rather than a local insult. An organ richly vascularised, densely connected to lymphatic drainage, capable of concentrating iodide and excreting heavy metals, positioned at the crossroads of head and upper airway lymphatics, swells on both sides simultaneously. The conventional explanation attributes this to a virus with specific tropism for parotid tissue. The anatomy points to an alternative: systemic burden expressing through organs designed to handle it.
Dozens of Causes, One Symptom
Parotid gland swelling has numerous documented causes beyond viral infection. This differential diagnosis appears in standard medical references, yet its implications for historical “mumps” epidemiology are rarely considered.
Drug-Induced Parotitis
Systematic reviews establish probable causation for multiple medications:
L-asparaginase — 7 cases documented in 4 reports
Clozapine — 13 case reports
Phenylbutazone — 13 case reports
Additional implicated medications include iodinated contrast media, thiouracil, isoproterenol, ritodrine, methyldopa, nifedipine, captopril, valproic acid, nitrofurantoin, doxycycline, phenothiazines, tricyclic antidepressants, and antihistamines.
The mechanism varies by drug class, but the consistent finding is that parotid swelling represents a nonspecific response to circulating substances—not a signature of any single cause.
Inflammatory Conditions (Labeled “Autoimmune”)
Sjögren’s syndrome affects the parotid glands in approximately 60 percent of cases at diagnosis. Incidence runs 6.92 per 100,000 person-years with a 9:1 female predominance. Ultrasound reveals a characteristic “salt and pepper” appearance.
IgG4-related disease involves salivary glands in 27 to 53 percent of cases, presenting as painless bilateral swelling with excellent steroid response.
Sarcoidosis produces parotid involvement in 6 to 10 percent of cases. Heerfordt syndrome—uveoparotid fever—presents with parotitis, uveitis, facial palsy, and fever.
Metabolic Causes
Sialadenosis is chronic, bilateral, painless, non-inflammatory enlargement associated with diabetes mellitus (the most common cause, accounting for 50 percent of cases), alcoholism and liver cirrhosis, bulimia nervosa (up to 50 percent develop “chipmunk cheeks”), malnutrition, and hypothyroidism.
The mechanism involves peripheral autonomic neuropathy causing acinar cell hypertrophy with zymogen granule accumulation. The swelling is real, measurable, and entirely unrelated to viral infection.
Obstructive Causes
Sialolithiasis—salivary stones—is the most common benign cause of salivary gland swelling, with incidence of 7.27 to 14.10 per 100,000 per year. While 80 to 90 percent occur in the submandibular gland, 6 to 20 percent affect the parotid. The characteristic “mealtime syndrome” of postprandial swelling helps distinguish this from other causes.
Heavy Metal Exposure
Mercury vapour lodges in salivary glands, causing DNA damage documented by comet assay studies. Lead ions replace calcium and divalent cations, disrupting cellular function. Industrial-era children were exposed to coal smoke, lead paint, mercury-treated teething powders (widely used into the early 1900s), and arsenic-containing pesticides. Salivation and gland inflammation were recognised clinical signs of mercury toxicity long before virology existed.
The Diagnostic Implication
Before laboratory testing became standard in the 1960s through 1980s, mumps diagnosis was entirely clinical: bilateral parotid swelling, earache and tenderness at the angle of the jaw, prodromal fever and malaise, typical age range, and epidemic context.
This clinical diagnosis was unreliable because parotitis occurs in only 60 to 70 percent of symptomatic cases, 20 percent of cases are completely asymptomatic, and the conditions listed above present identically. A child in 1920 with bilateral parotid swelling from iodide exposure, bulimia-related sialadenosis, or drug-induced parotitis would have been diagnosed with “mumps” based on clinical presentation alone.
The dozens of non-viral causes establish that parotid swelling is a physiological response pattern, not a disease-specific signature. The glands swell when stressed, overloaded, or responding to circulating toxins. This is what parotid glands do.
The Missing Experiments
Daniel Roytas’s Can You Catch a Cold? documents 203 human transmission experiments conducted over the past century attempting to demonstrate sick-to-well transmission of colds and influenza. The results are striking: the mean contagion rate is 32 percent at best, the modal rate is zero (73 experiments—36 percent—failed to make a single person ill), and when four outlier experiments are removed, the rate drops to 22 percent.
Even this modest rate proves nothing about contagion. The experiments lack external validity because direct inoculation methods (spraying secretions into nasal passages, injecting filtered mucus subcutaneously) do not reflect natural modes of transmission. They lack internal validity because they failed to implement positive controls, random sampling, or sufficient blinding. Participants’ symptoms could have been caused by mechanical or chemical irritation, allergic or inflammatory response, nocebo effect, natural acquisition, or some other unknown factor.
The most comprehensive experiments—conducted by the U.S. Navy and Public Health Service during the 1918 influenza pandemic—went to extraordinary lengths. Researchers sprayed influenza secretions into the nasal passages and throats of 20 healthy sailors; none fell ill. They swabbed mucus directly from sick patients onto the noses and throats of 19 healthy men; none were adversely affected. They injected blood from influenza patients subcutaneously into healthy volunteers; every single man remained well. In one series, healthy volunteers sat with sick patients, talked with them face-to-face, had sick patients cough and breathe directly into their faces, and yet developed no illness.
Dr. Milton Rosenau, who directed this research, later wrote: “As a matter of fact, we entered the outbreak with a notion that we knew the cause of disease, and were quite sure we knew how it was transmitted from person to person. Perhaps, if we had learned anything, it is that we are not quite sure what we know about the disease.”
Now consider mumps. Roytas’s comprehensive catalogue of transmission experiments includes colds, influenza, whooping cough, and various respiratory agents. Mumps is absent. The 203 documented experiments do not include attempts to demonstrate mumps transmission through natural contact.
Influenza transmission was tested repeatedly—and failed repeatedly—yet mumps contagion was simply assumed rather than rigorously demonstrated. The virus model for mumps rests not on experimental proof of person-to-person transmission but on epidemiological patterns interpreted through a framework that presupposes contagion.
The measles transmission experiments that do exist are methodologically comparable to the failed influenza experiments. Anderson and Goldberger’s 1911 experiments injected rhesus monkeys with blood from human measles patients—a method that does not realistically illustrate infection routes occurring through sneezing or physical contact. Four of nine monkeys showed measles symptoms, but this demonstrates only that monkeys can produce measles-like symptoms when injected with blood from diseased humans. It says nothing about natural transmission.
The pattern across diseases labelled “contagious” is consistent: when researchers actually attempt to demonstrate transmission under controlled conditions, the results either fail entirely or require methods so far removed from natural exposure that they prove nothing about how disease spreads in the real world. Mumps was spared even this scrutiny. The contagious nature of mumps was assumed into existence.
Historical Mortality: A Disease That Barely Killed
The vital statistics contradict the impression of mumps as a serious threat requiring vaccination.
During 1963 to 1968, the United States averaged 39 annual mumps deaths among approximately 162,344 reported cases—a case fatality rate of approximately 3 deaths per 10,000 cases, or 0.03 percent. Against an estimated 4 million annual infections, only 43 proved fatal, yielding an infection fatality rate of approximately 1 in 93,000, or 0.001 percent.
Deaths resulted from complications, not parotid swelling itself. Mumps encephalitis, occurring in 1 to 2 per 10,000 cases, accounted for the majority of fatalities, with a case fatality rate among encephalitis patients of 1.4 percent. Meningitis, occurring in 5 to 10 percent of cases, was almost never fatal, with patients typically recovering completely.
The vaccine was introduced in the United States in 1967 (monovalent) and 1971 (MMR). Mumps only became nationally notifiable in 1968 in the US and 1988 in the UK, making pre-vaccine mortality trends difficult to assess. Available data shows mortality was inherently low and relatively stable. Unlike measles, where dramatic pre-vaccine mortality declines reflected improved nutrition and medical care, mumps simply never killed many people. It was intrinsically mild.
Mumps mortality was 1 in 93,000 infections, and deaths resulted from rare complications rather than the disease process itself. What exactly was being prevented? The answer, per vaccine advocacy, centres on complications—particularly orchitis and its supposed risk of sterility.
Orchitis and Sterility: Fear Versus Data
Orchitis—testicular inflammation—occurs in 20 to 40 percent of post-pubertal males with mumps. This range reflects variation across populations, time periods, and definitions. The condition is rare in prepubertal boys, which means the typical childhood mumps case carries minimal orchitis risk.
The sterility fear attached to mumps orchitis has driven much of the disease’s perceived seriousness. The clinical data contradicts it.
Laterality Determines Outcome
The critical distinction is between unilateral and bilateral orchitis:
Laterality Percentage Implications Unilateral 60–90% Fertility usually preserved Bilateral 10–30% (historical); 6.4% (vaccinated populations) Greater fertility risk
A study of 62 vaccinated patients found 93.6 percent unilateral and only 6.4 percent bilateral—substantially lower bilateral rates than historical data suggested. Even when orchitis occurs, the overwhelming majority of cases affect only one testis.
Sterility Is Rare
Primary research consistently shows:
Outcome Rate Source Testicular atrophy 30–60% of affected testes Multiple studies Complete sterility “Rare” CDC, Merck, StatPearls Impaired fertility (all orchitis) 7–13% Medscape, Nelson’s Subfertility (unilateral) ~25% Merck Manual Infertility (bilateral) 30–87% Multiple sources
The key distinction is between subfertility (reduced sperm counts, motility, or morphology) and complete sterility (azoospermia). Complete absence of sperm is uncommon. Even in cases of post-mumps azoospermia, testicular biopsy often yields occasional spermatozoa suitable for ICSI, with sperm retrieval rates of 75 to 85 percent.
The CDC’s 2023 surveillance manual explicitly states: “No studies have definitively assessed risk for PERMANENT infertility.” Testosterone production (Leydig cells) is typically preserved even when spermatogenesis fails.
The sterility fear that surrounds mumps contradicts the clinical literature. Subfertility in a fraction of cases—predominantly those with bilateral involvement, which itself is uncommon—is a different proposition than the widespread sterility implied in popular discourse.
Non-Viral Orchitis
Mumps is not the only cause of testicular inflammation. Documented etiologies include:
Bacterial epididymo-orchitis: Neisseria gonorrhoeae, Chlamydia trachomatis in sexually active young adults; E. coli, Klebsiella, Pseudomonas in older men
Drug-induced: Amiodarone causes orchitis in 3 to 11 percent of users, with testicular tissue concentrations reaching 25,000 times plasma levels
Systemic inflammatory conditions: Associated with polyarteritis nodosa, Behçet’s disease, systemic lupus erythematosus, rheumatoid arthritis
Other attributed causes: Trauma, and conditions labeled as Coxsackievirus, echovirus, Epstein-Barr virus, varicella, Zika virus (each following the same pattern of attribution without isolation)
The existence of multiple orchitis causes—including drug-induced cases where the mechanism is clearly toxic accumulation—indicates that testicular inflammation, like parotid swelling, represents a physiological response pattern rather than a virus-specific signature.
The Glandular Connection
The conventional explanation for why mumps affects both parotid glands and testes invokes viral tropism: the mumps virus supposedly uses glycans containing α2,3-linked sialic acid as cellular receptors, present on both salivary ductal cells and Sertoli/Leydig cells in testes. AXL and MER receptor tyrosine kinases, abundant in testicular cells, are said to facilitate viral replication.
But tropism is description, not explanation. Why this particular tropism pattern exists—and why it appears unique to mumps among paramyxoviruses—”remains incompletely answered” according to the literature.
An alternative explanation requires no virus. Parotid glands and testes share characteristics: both are secretory glands with high metabolic demand, both are hormonally sensitive, and both arise from epithelial tissues that respond similarly to endocrine signals. Both concentrate substances from the bloodstream—the parotids concentrate iodide; the testes concentrate various compounds including, notably, amiodarone at 25,000 times plasma levels.
If parotid swelling represents glandular response to systemic toxic burden, testicular involvement in some cases represents the same phenomenon expressed in another high-metabolic secretory organ. The glands are not being “targeted” by a virus with mysterious tropism. They are responding—as glands do—to circulating substances they are designed to process.
This framing predicts that orchitis would be more common in post-pubertal males (whose testes are metabolically active) than in prepubertal boys (whose testes are relatively quiescent). This is exactly what the data shows.
Household Patterns: Contagion or Shared Environment?
Mainstream medicine interprets household mumps epidemiology as evidence of contagion. The same data fits an alternative interpretation.
Simpson’s classic 1952 study in The Lancet found a mumps household secondary attack rate of 32 percent—notably lower than measles (76 percent) or chickenpox (61 to 100 percent). A Turkish study of unvaccinated children found a 65.3 percent attack rate—higher than hepatitis A (43.3 percent) but lower than varicella (75 percent).
If mumps is highly contagious—with a basic reproduction number (R₀) of 4 to 7, meaning one case can theoretically cause up to 12 new infections in susceptible populations—why do 68 percent of household contacts remain unaffected in Simpson’s data? Why do a third of children in the Turkish study not develop the condition despite living with affected siblings?
The conventional answer invokes prior immunity, subclinical infection, or individual variation in susceptibility. The data contradicts it.
Sequential, Not Simultaneous
Household members infected with mumps present sequentially, not simultaneously. With an incubation period of 16 to 18 days (range 12 to 25 days), secondary cases typically appear 12 to 25 days after the index case. Co-primary cases—simultaneous onset in multiple family members—were documented but rare.
The mainstream interpretation: person A infects person B, who incubates for two to three weeks before developing symptoms.
An alternative interpretation: household members share environmental exposures—the same food, the same water, the same air quality, the same household toxins. If parotid swelling represents the body’s response to accumulated burden reaching a threshold for elimination, family members exposed to the same environment would reach that threshold at different times based on individual metabolic capacity, toxic load, and physiological readiness.
The sequential pattern—onset staggered by 12 to 25 days rather than clustered—fits this model. Different children in the same household reach their detoxification threshold at different times. The appearance of “spread” reflects synchronized physiology in a shared environment, not transmission of a pathogen from one body to another.
Historical observations include cases where siblings developed mumps simultaneously, where family members were skipped entirely, and where no clear index case could be identified. These patterns contradict a strict contagion model but are entirely consistent with shared environmental exposure producing variable individual responses.
Seasonality
Mumps peaks in late winter and early spring in temperate climates—the same period associated with low vitamin D levels, indoor congregation, reduced fresh food availability, and (historically) increased coal smoke exposure. A Taiwan study found cases increased at temperatures around 20°C and declined above 25°C. High temperature, humidity, wind velocity, and low atmospheric pressure correlated with increased incidence.
School calendar effects are pronounced—reduced transmission during summer holidays confirms that institutional crowding correlates with incidence. The mainstream interpretation attributes this to enhanced viral transmission in crowded conditions. The same pattern emerges if children in similar environments, eating similar institutional food, breathing similar indoor air, reach similar detoxification thresholds at similar times.
Tropical regions show no seasonality—mumps occurs year-round. The virus supposedly requiring specific temperature or humidity conditions to spread cannot account for this. Seasonal variation in environmental burden—indoor air quality, dietary patterns, vitamin D status—can.
Developmental Timing
The pre-vaccine peak age for mumps was 5 to 9 years—the same range showing peak incidence for measles and chickenpox. By age 15, nearly all persons showed serological evidence of prior mumps infection. Adults rarely developed mumps because they had already experienced it as children.
The mainstream explanation: children are exposed to the virus upon entering school, infection confers lifelong immunity, and adults are protected by prior exposure.
The clustering of “childhood infectious diseases” in the 5-to-9-year age range has an alternative explanation. This period corresponds to:
Loss of maternal protection by 6 to 12 months, leaving children physiologically independent
First sustained exposure to large peer groups and institutional environments at school entry
Significant developmental transitions in lymphatic, endocrine, and metabolic systems
Increased metabolic throughput as children grow rapidly
Salivary gland development follows a relevant timeline. The parotid is the first salivary gland to develop (weeks 4 to 6 of gestation), but functional maturation continues through early childhood. Enzyme output and responsiveness increase around ages 4 to 9—overlapping precisely with the classic mumps age window.
If mumps represents a developmental detoxification event—the body clearing accumulated burden once metabolic and glandular capacity reaches a threshold—the age distribution follows without invoking viral exposure. Children experience mumps when their systems are ready to process the elimination, not when they encounter a pathogen.
The “Immunity” Question
A predictable objection: if mumps is not a viral infection, why do children experience it only once? The mainstream answer—lifelong immunity conferred by antibodies—assumes the viral framework. The terrain answer requires no such assumption.
Developmental events occur once. A tadpole transforms into a frog once. A caterpillar becomes a butterfly once. Puberty happens once. These are not infections that confer immunity; they are physiological transitions that, once completed, do not repeat because the work is done.
If mumps represents the body clearing a specific type of accumulated burden through glands designed for that purpose, then after clearing, that particular burden no longer exists. No burden, no need for the clearing process. What mainstream medicine calls “immunity” is better understood as completion.
The framing matters. “Immunity” implies defense against an external invader that might return. “Completion” describes finishing a physiological task that needed doing once.
Serology tests detect substances in the blood following mumps. Mainstream medicine calls these “antibodies” and attributes protective function to them. But as Thomas Cowan notes, it is “far from clear that antibodies are protective of anything.” No researcher has ever isolated a natural antibody directly from human serum and demonstrated it preventing disease. The substances detected in serology tests mark that an event occurred; they do not prove viral causation, and they do not demonstrate that these substances prevent recurrence.
The correlation between detectable serology markers and non-recurrence does not establish causation. Children who complete developmental transitions do not repeat them—with or without detectable markers. The presence of these substances documents completion; it does not explain what was completed or why it needed completing only once.
Traditional understanding offers a different framing: the body’s cleansing networks—lymphatic tissues, nervous system feedback, specialized glands—identify and eliminate unwanted substances through tagging and removal. When the parotid glands swell during mumps, they are doing what glands do: processing and clearing. The substances later detected in blood mark that this clearing occurred. They are not warriors that defeated an invader; they are receipts for work completed.
This explains something the viral model cannot: why children who experience measles, mumps, and chickenpox show documented health advantages later in life, including lower rates of chronic disease and cancer. If these were merely infections to be prevented, survival would confer no benefit beyond not dying. But if these are developmental clearing events—the body eliminating accumulated burden at appropriate physiological stages—then completing them leaves the child with less toxic load and better-functioning elimination systems. The process itself is beneficial. Preventing it through vaccination does not protect; it obstructs.
What Vaccination Actually Does
If mumps is not a viral infection, vaccination cannot prevent viral infection. So what is the vaccine doing?
The epidemiological record provides a clue. Before vaccination, mumps peaked at ages 5 to 9—the natural window for this developmental event. After vaccination began, the average age of cases shifted upward. More adolescents and adults now develop mumps. And the complication rate per case increased.
Mainstream epidemiology acknowledges these patterns. The interpretation offered: vaccine-induced immunity “wanes,” leaving older individuals vulnerable, and older individuals have worse outcomes. Solution: more boosters.
The terrain interpretation differs. Vaccination does not prevent a disease—it suppresses a necessary clearing process. The body still needs to do this work. When it finally attempts the clearing (in those who “break through”), the person is older, has accumulated more burden, and the clearing is correspondingly more severe.
The timing supports this reading. The MMR vaccine is administered at 12 to 15 months, with a second dose at 4 to 6 years—precisely when the body would be preparing for the 5-to-9-year clearing window. Inject foreign proteins, adjuvants, and preservatives into a child, and the body must now process that burden instead of preparing for its scheduled clearing. Resources are diverted. The developmental threshold is disrupted.
Delayed clearing is worse clearing. If mumps at 7 clears what accumulated over 7 years, mumps at 20 must clear what accumulated over 20 years—plus whatever the vaccines added to the burden. More toxins, harder clearing, more severe expression. The increased orchitis risk in post-pubertal males fits this framing: metabolically active testes are now involved in a clearing event they were never meant to participate in at that intensity.
The “fewer cases” metric creates an illusion of success. Fewer cases in the 5-to-9 window looks like the vaccine worked. But if those cases were beneficial—the body completing necessary developmental work—preventing them is not success. It is obstruction. The body either:
Delays the clearing until it can no longer be suppressed, at which point it emerges more severely
Attempts partial clearing that never completes, leaving chronic low-grade dysfunction
Never clears at all, and the accumulated burden manifests as other conditions
The explosion of chronic disease in vaccinated populations is consistent with suppressed elimination. Allergies, asthma, eczema, and conditions labeled “autoimmune” are all expressions of a body attempting to clear through whatever routes remain open. Block the acute clearing events—the childhood illnesses that generations of physicians recognized as normal developmental passages—and chronic conditions fill the vacuum.
An analogy: dam a river to stop spring flooding. The dam “works”—less flooding in spring. But pressure builds behind the dam. When flooding eventually occurs, it is catastrophic. Or the water finds other routes, eroding foundations you did not know were vulnerable.
Vaccination does not make mumps disappear. It makes mumps worse by delaying it, while creating the statistical appearance of success by measuring the wrong outcome. Fewer mild cases in childhood. More severe cases in adulthood. More chronic disease across the lifespan. The intervention looks effective only if you refuse to count everything it costs.
A Different Framework
The evidence assembled here—parotid physiology, non-viral causes of swelling, absent contagion experiments, negligible mortality, overstated sterility risk, household patterns, developmental timing—holds together without a virus.
An alternative framework has existed for centuries, predating virology by millennia. Hippocrates described mumps around 410 BCE, recording an outbreak on the island of Thasos: “Swellings appeared about the ears, in many on either side, and in the greatest number on both sides. They were of a lax, large, diffused character, without inflammation or pain, and they went away without any critical sign.”
This description—bilateral, painless, self-resolving—matches the clinical picture that later centuries would attribute to a virus. Hippocrates, working within humoral theory, understood the swelling as the body’s attempt to restore balance. He was not wrong that the body was doing something purposeful.
Herbert Shelton, the leading Natural Hygiene advocate of the twentieth century, wrote in The Hygienic Care of Children: “Children’s diseases are really parents’ mistakes... It may be difficult for the average reader to grasp the thought that parents’ mistakes are responsible for the so-called infectious diseases of childhood.” Shelton viewed childhood diseases as the body’s attempt to eliminate accumulated toxins—a “healing crisis” rather than an external attack.
John Tilden’s “toxaemia theory” attributed all disease to enervation (depleted nerve energy) leading to toxin accumulation. When elimination capacity is compromised and toxins accumulate beyond tolerance, the body initiates acute symptoms to force discharge. The symptoms are not the disease; they are the cure.
Henry Lindlahr wrote in Nature Cure: “Barring injury by accident (trauma), and conditions uncongenial to life and health, there is but one primary cause of disease, namely, violations of nature’s laws in our habits of living.”
These practitioners treated childhood illnesses—including mumps—with fasting, bed rest, fresh air, and no drugging or fever suppression. They allowed the “vital force” to complete its work. No specific antiviral treatment has ever proved effective for mumps; modern treatment remains supportive, identical in principle to what Natural Hygiene practitioners recommended a century ago.
The terrain model understands mumps as:
A developmental glandular detoxification event
Triggered when metabolic capacity allows deeper clearance
Expressed through the parotid glands due to their vascularity, lymphatic position, and excretory capability
Occasionally involving testes due to systemic glandular stress in metabolically active post-pubertal males
Historically benign and self-resolving
Declining in severity with improved living conditions—not because of vaccination, but because the underlying burden decreased
Children who experience mumps—like those who experience measles, chickenpox, and other childhood illnesses—show documented health advantages later in life. Studies indicate lower rates of chronic disease, including cancer, among adults who experienced these childhood conditions compared to those who did not. The body is doing something useful that suppression prevents.
Explain It To A 6 Year Old
What are those lumpy glands near my ears?
Those are your parotid glands. They make spit. But they do more than that—they also help clean your body. They’re like little washing machines that can collect stuff your body doesn’t want and help get rid of it.
So what is mumps?
You know how sometimes you clean your room? You gather up all the mess and put it somewhere so you can throw it out. Mumps is your body doing a big clean-up through those glands near your ears. They swell up because they’re working hard, collecting things your body has been saving up and doesn’t need anymore.
Why do kids get it and then never get it again?
Because once you finish cleaning, the mess is gone. You don’t need to clean up the same mess twice. Your body did the job, and now that job is done. It’s like how a caterpillar becomes a butterfly—it only happens once because after it happens, you’re different.
Can I catch it from another kid?
Doctors say you can. But no one has ever actually proved that by testing it properly. What we do know is that kids who eat the same food, breathe the same air, and live in the same place sometimes do this cleaning at around the same time. Like how everyone in your class might get hungry at the same time—not because hunger spreads, but because you all had breakfast at the same time.
Does it hurt?
Your cheeks might feel puffy and a bit sore. Chewing might be harder for a few days. But it goes away on its own. Almost every kid who gets it feels better pretty quickly.
Why do grown-ups worry about it?
Some grown-ups worry because doctors told them a scary story about mumps causing problems. The scary parts are very, very rare—and even the rare problems aren’t as bad as the story makes them sound. The doctors who wrote down how many people actually got hurt showed it was much less scary than people think.
Is it bad to get mumps?
No. Kids who go through mumps and other childhood illnesses often grow up healthier than kids who don’t. Your body knows what it’s doing. The swelling isn’t your body breaking—it’s your body working.
Conclusion
The parotid glands are not passive targets awaiting viral invasion. They are active organs with documented capacity to concentrate iodide at 20 to 100 times serum levels, excrete heavy metals into saliva, and respond to dozens of drugs, metabolic conditions, inflammatory processes, and environmental exposures with the same bilateral swelling attributed to mumps virus.
No rigorous human transmission experiment has demonstrated that mumps passes from person to person through natural contact. While influenza transmission was tested over 200 times—and failed to produce reliable contagion—mumps was simply assumed to be contagious based on epidemiological patterns that fit shared environmental exposure equally well.
Historical mortality was negligible: 1 death per 93,000 infections, and those deaths resulted from rare complications rather than the disease process itself. The sterility fear attached to orchitis contradicts the clinical data—complete sterility is documented as “rare,” with subfertility affecting a fraction of bilateral cases, which themselves represent a small minority.
Household transmission patterns show sequential rather than simultaneous onset, with 68 percent of contacts remaining unaffected despite close exposure. These patterns fit a model of shared environmental burden with staggered physiological response better than they fit person-to-person viral transmission.
The age distribution—peak incidence at 5 to 9 years, the same window as other “childhood infectious diseases”—corresponds to developmental transitions in lymphatic, endocrine, and glandular function. Children experience mumps when their systems are ready to process elimination, not merely when they encounter a pathogen.
What is mumps? A developmental detoxification event—the body clearing accumulated burden through glands designed for exactly that function. The swelling is not pathology to be prevented. It is physiology to be supported.
The question that remains is not whether viruses cause mumps. The question is why we assumed they did—and what that assumption has cost us in understanding what the body is actually trying to accomplish.
References
Andrewes, C. & Lovelock, J. “An Experiment on the Transmission of Colds.” British Medical Journal, 1947.
Bailey, Mark. “A Farewell to Virology (Expert Edition).” Dr Sam Bailey, 2022.
Bailey, Sam & Bailey, Mark. The Final Pandemic: An Antidote to Medical Tyranny. 2022.
Bartak, V. “Sperm Count, Morphology and Motility After Unilateral Mumps Orchitis.” Journal of Reproduction and Fertility, 1973.
Beard, C.M. et al. “The Incidence and Outcome of Mumps Orchitis in Rochester, Minnesota, 1935 to 1974.” Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 1977.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “Mumps: Epidemiology and Prevention of Vaccine-Preventable Diseases.” Pink Book, 2023.
Cowan, Thomas S. The Contagion Myth. Skyhorse Publishing, 2020.
D’Alessio, D.J. et al. “Transmission of Experimental Rhinovirus Colds in Volunteer Married Couples.” Journal of Infectious Diseases, 1984.
Gwaltney, J.M. et al. “Transmission of Rhinovirus Colds by Self-Inoculation.” New England Journal of Medicine, 1978.
Hippocrates. Epidemics, Book I. Circa 410 BCE.
Lindlahr, Henry. Nature Cure. 1914.
Rosenau, M., Keegan, W. & Goldberger, G. “Experiments Upon Volunteers to Determine the Cause and Mode of Spread of Influenza.” JAMA, 1918.
Roytas, Daniel. Can You Catch a Cold? Untold History and Human Experiments. 2024.
Shelton, Herbert. The Hygienic Care of Children. Dr. Shelton’s Health School, 1931.
Simpson, R.E.H. “Infectiousness of Communicable Diseases in the Household.” The Lancet, 1952.
Sussman, R.M. & Miller, J. “Iodide Mumps After Intravenous Urography.” New England Journal of Medicine, 1956.
Tae, B.S. et al. “Clinical Features of Mumps Orchitis in Vaccinated Postpubertal Males: A Single-Center Series of 62 Patients.” Korean Journal of Urology, 2012.
Tilden, John. Toxaemia Explained. 1926.
Tolzin, Hans. “Analysis of the Anderson and Goldberger Measles Experiments.” impf-report, 2011.
Trebing, William P. Good-Bye Germ Theory. Xlibris, 2006.
Unbekoming. “Autoimmunity: The Diagnostic Fiction.” Lies are Unbekoming, January 2026.
Unbekoming. “The Antibody Deception: Invisible Enemies, Visible Lies.” Lies are Unbekoming, June 2025.
Virus Mania: Corona/COVID-19, Measles, Swine Flu, Cervical Cancer, Avian Flu, SARS, BSE, Hepatitis C, AIDS, Polio, Spanish Flu. 3rd Edition. Engelbrecht, Köhnlein, Bailey & Scoglio, 2021.
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
That's totally brilliant. Especially how the childhood diseases are developmental milestones. Much gratitude.
I do lymphatic massages daily and I’ll now add the parotid gland to that routine.