In 1963, while physicists celebrated their field’s golden age - splitting atoms, building accelerators, winning Nobel prizes - an engineer named Dewey B. Larson published a book that claimed the entire edifice of atomic physics rested on a fifty-year-old misunderstanding. The nuclear atom, that iconic image of electrons orbiting a dense nucleus like planets around a sun, might not exist at all. Not because atoms don’t exist, but because the “nucleus” that Ernest Rutherford supposedly discovered in 1911 might actually be the entire atom itself, with no orbiting electrons, no quantum jumps between shells, no wave-particle paradoxes - just tiny atoms separated by relatively vast spaces, misinterpreted for half a century as complex internal structures.
Larson’s argument begins with Rutherford’s famous gold foil experiment, where alpha particles fired at metal foil mostly passed through, while a few bounced back at sharp angles. Rutherford concluded he’d found a tiny, dense nucleus at the atom’s heart, with electrons orbiting the surrounding empty space. But Larson points out that identical results would occur if atoms were simply much smaller than previously thought, separated by relatively large distances even in “solid” matter. The alpha particles passed through empty space between atoms, not through atoms themselves. This simpler explanation required no new physics, no special forces, no revolutionary concepts - yet it was never seriously considered. Instead, physics embarked on increasingly complex theories to explain the behavior of a nucleus that might not exist.
The consequences of this potential error cascade through every branch of atomic physics. When electrons refused to obey electromagnetic laws in their supposed orbits, Bohr simply declared those laws didn’t apply inside atoms. When compression experiments showed matter shrinking continuously - impossible if electrons occupy fixed quantum orbits - physicists invented new exceptions. When the observed electron behaved nothing like the theoretical atomic electron, theorists stripped away its properties until Heisenberg declared it didn’t “exist objectively” but was merely a mathematical symbol. Each contradiction met with another patch, another special rule, another principle declaring the problem unsolvable rather than admitting the theory might be wrong. Modern physicists found themselves in the absurd position of claiming atoms have “no real properties” while engineers daily build devices that depend on precisely those properties.
What makes Larson’s critique compelling isn’t just his alternative interpretation, but his systematic exposure of how science protects established theories from fundamental challenge. He documents the circular reasoning where conclusions assume their premises, the “principles of impotence” that declare problems unsolvable rather than theories wrong, the mathematical complexity deployed as a smokescreen when simpler approaches fail. His book reads less like a scientific paper than a legal brief, prosecuting the case that physics chose elaborate impossibility over simple revision. Whether ultimately right or wrong, Larson forces readers to confront an uncomfortable question: could thousands of brilliant scientists spend a century elaborating an error, simply because no one thought to check whether the foundation was solid? In science, as in life, the most dangerous assumptions are the ones we don’t know we’re making.
With thanks to Dewey Larson.
The Case Against the Nuclear Atom: Dewey B. Larson
This deep dive is based on the book:
Insights and reflections from “The Case Against the Nuclear Atom”
You can access the complete library with your Paid Subscription.
Thank you for your support.
Imagine a magnificent palace that has stood for generations, its spires reaching toward the heavens, its halls filled with treasures of knowledge. Tourists flock to admire its architecture, students memorize every corridor, and the palace guards proudly declare it the finest structure ever built. But one day, a curious visitor decides to examine the foundation and makes a startling discovery: the entire palace rests not on bedrock, but on a single playing card balanced on edge.
This is the story Dewey Larson tells about atomic physics. In 1911, Ernest Rutherford placed a card on the ground - his interpretation of an experiment. Bohr quickly built a platform on that card in 1913. By 1920, an entire floor had been constructed. Today, a hundred-story palace of mathematical equations, Nobel prizes, and textbook certainties towers above. Yet no one has checked whether that first card was placed correctly.
When problems arose - when rooms didn’t fit or stairs led nowhere - the architects didn’t question the foundation. Instead, they invented new rules: “In this palace, gravity works differently.” “These doors don’t need to open; we’ll call them symbols.” “If you can’t see the room clearly, that’s a fundamental property of palace visibility.” Each patch made the structure more elaborate, more impossible to understand, and more disconnected from the ground it supposedly stood upon.
The palace guides now tell visitors that the building has “no actual physical properties” and exists “only as mathematical blueprints.” Yet engineers in the basement workshops keep building real devices using real atomic properties, apparently unaware that upstairs, the theorists claim such properties don’t exist.
Meanwhile, outside the palace, evidence accumulates like snow against the walls. Atoms compress when they shouldn’t. Particles transform into each other like water becoming ice becoming steam. The supposedly permanent building blocks dissolve and reconstitute. But rather than check the foundation, the palace guards add more rules, more exceptions, more mathematical towers that lean at impossible angles.
Larson isn’t suggesting we tear down the palace entirely. Some rooms contain real treasures - Planck’s quantum discoveries, spectroscopic patterns, mathematical relationships that predict and explain. But these treasures don’t depend on that first playing card. They could be moved to a structure built on bedrock, one that doesn’t require believing impossible things before breakfast.
The tragedy isn’t that Rutherford might have placed his card wrongly - anyone can misinterpret an experiment. The tragedy is that a century later, with vastly more knowledge and evidence, the scientific community still refuses to look down and check whether that card is actually standing on solid ground or hovering in mid-air, suspended only by the collective insistence that it must be there because the palace above is too beautiful, too complex, and too important to be standing on nothing at all.
In 1911, Ernest Rutherford shot particles through gold foil and concluded atoms have a tiny, dense nucleus with electrons orbiting around it - like a miniature solar system. This became the foundation of all atomic physics. But Larson points out something remarkable: Rutherford could have reached a simpler conclusion - that atoms themselves are just much smaller than expected, with empty space between them.
Think about it - if atoms are tiny points separated by relatively vast distances, you’d get exactly Rutherford’s results without needing mysterious nuclei. The evidence actually fits this simpler explanation better. Solids compress continuously under pressure, which shouldn’t happen if electrons exist in fixed orbits. The electron we observe in experiments behaves nothing like the theoretical atomic electron, which supposedly jumps magically between orbits and exists only as probability clouds.
Here’s the kicker: modern physicists have tied themselves in knots trying to save the nuclear theory. They’ve declared that atoms have “no real properties” and exist only as mathematical equations. Yet engineers build working devices based on very real atomic properties every day. When particles kept converting into each other - matter into energy, protons into neutrons - instead of questioning whether atoms have “parts” at all, physicists just added more patches and exceptions.
Larson argues we’ve spent a century building on a foundation that was never properly examined. Not because scientists are incompetent, but because once an idea becomes orthodox, the scientific community resists checking fundamental assumptions. Like the emperor’s new clothes, thousands of brilliant minds work out elaborate details of a structure that might not exist at all.
The Foundation Crack: Rutherford’s 1911 experiment showing particles passing through gold foil could mean atoms have nuclei OR simply that atoms are much smaller than the spaces between them - the simpler explanation was never seriously considered.
The Compression Problem: Solids compress continuously under pressure (cesium loses 2/3 of its volume), impossible if electrons exist in fixed quantum orbits as Bohr’s model requires - the orbits would have to continuously shrink, violating quantum theory’s core principle.
The Electron Identity Crisis: The electron we observe experimentally has definite, measurable properties, while the theoretical atomic electron has been stripped of all properties to solve problems - Heisenberg admits it doesn’t “exist objectively” but is just a mathematical symbol.
The Radioactivity Misconception: Particles emitted during radioactive decay were assumed to pre-exist in atoms, but modern physics acknowledges they’re created during the process - this removes the original “proof” that atoms contain electrons as building blocks.
The Electrical Force Failure: The theory that electric attraction holds atoms together can’t explain why metals cohere, why similar atoms bond, or how neutral atoms create charges in the first place - even proponents admit they don’t understand metallic bonding.
The Mathematical Shell Game: When theories fail, physicists add mathematical complexity until problems become “unsolvable in practice” then claim victory for solving them “in principle” - complexity becomes a shield against disproof rather than a path to understanding.
The Conformity Prison: Einstein was marginalized for questioning quantum orthodoxy; journal committees are ultraconservative; specialists with vested interests judge new ideas - creating a system where revolutionary discoveries can be buried for decades like Mendel’s genetics or Waterston’s kinetic theory.
The Model-Reality Confusion: The nuclear atom is just a model designed to explain limited observations, but it’s treated as reality - when the model fails outside its narrow scope, physicists declare reality itself incomprehensible rather than questioning the model.
The Circular Reasoning Trap: “Proofs” assume their conclusions - ionic crystals prove charges exist because “charges must exist”; positrons are rare because “electrons are common” which is what needs proving; the same evidence interpreted opposite ways for different particles.
The Building Block Breakdown: Hundreds of “elementary” particles with no clear roles; all particles interconvert (protons→neutrons, matter→energy); physicists can’t even define “elementary particle” anymore - suggesting particles aren’t building blocks but different forms of something more fundamental.
The Historical Blindness: The Ptolemaic system worked for 1,000 years before being wrong; phlogiston theory was accepted by brilliant scientists; yet physicists assume current theory is final truth despite mounting contradictions - success doesn’t guarantee correctness.
The Alternative Path: Evidence points toward atoms as integral units of motion in various forms rather than assembled from parts; compression shows inter-atomic distance is just force equilibrium, not atom size; particles are incomplete atoms, not constituents - but this simpler picture is ignored because it challenges century-old assumptions.
If you remember just one thing from Larson’s book, remember this: The “atomic nucleus” that physics has studied for a century might actually be the entire atom.
When Rutherford shot particles through gold foil in 1911 and found that atoms were mostly empty space with a tiny dense center, everyone assumed this dense center was a nucleus surrounded by orbiting electrons. But the experiment equally supports a simpler conclusion: atoms themselves are just incredibly tiny, and what seems like “empty space” is simply the gap between atoms, like the space between scattered marbles on a floor.
This single realization unravels everything. If there’s no nucleus, there are no orbiting electrons. No mysterious quantum jumps. No particles that exist only as “probability clouds.” No need for forces that work differently inside atoms. No paradox about why compressed solids don’t follow quantum rules. No confusion about why observed electrons behave nothing like theoretical atomic electrons.
Every puzzle, paradox, and patch in modern atomic physics stems from trying to explain something that doesn’t exist - like medieval astronomers adding epicycles to explain planetary motion in an Earth-centered universe. The instant you switch perspectives, the complications vanish.
The tragedy isn’t the mistake - anyone can misinterpret an experiment. The tragedy is that a century of brilliant minds built an entire field on this assumption without ever seriously checking if it was correct. They were so busy working out the details of nuclear structure that nobody asked whether the nucleus existed at all.
This is why Larson titled his book “The Case Against the Nuclear Atom.” Not against atoms - against the idea that atoms have nuclei. It’s the difference between seeing a distant lighthouse and assuming it’s a ship with a bright light on its mast. The light is real, but the ship you’ve imagined around it is not.
Question 1: What alternative interpretation does Larson propose for Rutherford’s scattering experiments, and how does it differ from the nuclear atom hypothesis?
Answer: Rutherford interpreted his scattering experiments as revealing a tiny, dense nucleus at the atom’s center, with electrons orbiting in the surrounding space. Larson proposes that what Rutherford actually discovered was the entire atom itself - not a nucleus within a larger structure. The alpha particles passed through seemingly empty space not because atoms are mostly empty with electrons orbiting a nucleus, but because the atoms themselves are extremely small and widely separated in solids. The inter-atomic distance represents the equilibrium point between attractive and repulsive forces between whole atoms, not the size of atoms in contact.
Question 2: How does the observed compressibility of solids under high pressure contradict the Bohr model’s fixed electron orbits?
Answer: The Bohr model requires electrons to occupy specific, quantized orbits with no intermediate positions allowed. If atoms were in contact as the model assumes, compression would force these orbits to continuously shrink, violating the fundamental quantum principle that only certain discrete orbital sizes are permitted. Experiments show cesium loses two-thirds of its volume under 100,000 atmospheres, and metals like iron and copper can be compressed to half their original volume. This continuous compression is incompatible with fixed quantum orbits but perfectly consistent with Larson’s view that compression simply reduces the equilibrium distance between separate atoms.
Question 3: What crucial distinction does Larson make between the “experimental electron” observed in laboratories and the hypothetical “atomic electron”?
Answer: The experimental electron is a well-defined, measurable entity - we can determine its mass, charge, and velocity, control its movement, and use it in devices like electron microscopes. In contrast, the hypothetical atomic electron has been progressively stripped of definite properties to “solve” theoretical problems. It supposedly jumps between orbits instantaneously without traversing the space between, exists only as probability distributions, cannot have simultaneous definite position and momentum, and according to Heisenberg, doesn’t “exist objectively” but is merely a mathematical symbol. These are fundamentally different entities sharing only a name.
Question 4: Why does the emission of electrons during radioactive decay not necessarily prove that electrons existed as constituents within the atom?
Answer: Modern physics recognizes that particles can be created and destroyed in various processes. Physicists now accept that beta particles (electrons) are created during radioactive decay, not pre-existing in the atom. Similarly, photons emitted during radioactivity are understood to be created in the process. The same logic applies - if we accept photons are created rather than pre-existing, and if we know electrons can be created in many other processes (pair production, cosmic ray showers), then electron emission provides no evidence they were constituents. The emission could equally indicate creation during the disintegration process.
Question 5: What historical examples of successful but ultimately incorrect theories does Larson use to challenge current atomic theory?
Answer: Larson cites several theories that gave correct results for centuries before being overthrown. The Ptolemaic geocentric system successfully predicted astronomical observations for over 1,000 years. The phlogiston theory coherently explained combustion and was accepted by leading scientists like Priestley and Scheele. The caloric theory of heat and the luminiferous ether concept similarly enjoyed long success. These examples demonstrate that a theory’s ability to explain observations and gain universal acceptance doesn’t guarantee its truth - exactly the situation Larson argues exists with nuclear atom theory.
Question 6: How does Larson critique the electrical theory of matter, particularly regarding ionic bonds and the cohesion of solids?
Answer: Larson points out several fatal flaws. First, oppositely charged particles should neutralize on contact, yet ionic solids supposedly contain positive and negative ions in direct contact. Second, many substances that form ions in solution are demonstrably not ionic in solid form, suggesting ions are created during dissolution, not pre-existing. Third, the theory requires different explanations for “ionic” versus “non-ionic” compounds, introducing concepts like “shared electrons” that explain nothing about the actual cohesive force. Fourth, metals cannot be explained at all - even proponents admit they don’t understand why metals hold together. A single unknown cohesive force would be simpler than multiple unknown forces the electrical theory requires.
Question 7: What is Moseley’s Law, and why does Larson argue it supports any atomic theory equally, not specifically the nuclear model?
Answer: Moseley’s Law establishes a mathematical relationship between atomic number and characteristic X-ray frequencies. Moseley found that each element contains a “fundamental quantity” that increases by regular steps. However, this quantity enters his equations only as a dimensionless number - it could be any kind of unit. While Moseley assumed it was nuclear charge (based on Rutherford’s hypothesis), the mathematical relationship works regardless of what these units actually are. Any atomic theory must account for atomic numbers, so any viable theory automatically satisfies Moseley’s Law. The law provides no specific support for the nuclear model over alternatives.
Question 8: How do ad hoc assumptions and “principles of impotence” perpetuate potentially erroneous theories in physics?
Answer: Ad hoc assumptions are custom-made explanations created to save a theory from contradictory evidence. When Bohr’s electrons violated electromagnetic laws, he simply postulated these laws didn’t apply to atoms. Principles of impotence declare certain problems unsolvable rather than admitting theoretical failure - like claiming we can never know both position and momentum simultaneously. Each contradiction met with another assumption creates an unfalsifiable structure. As Larson notes, this resembles adding epicycles to Ptolemaic astronomy - each addition buries the original error deeper. A fundamentally wrong theory can persist indefinitely using these devices.
Question 9: What is the difference between a “model” and a “picture” of the atom, and why is this distinction important?
Answer: A model is a conceptual tool designed to explain certain observations - it may capture some aspects while ignoring others. The billiard-ball atom model worked for gas behavior but said nothing about internal structure. A picture represents the actual physical reality. The nuclear atom started as Rutherford’s model but became treated as a picture - as reality itself. This confusion leads to absurdities where theorists claim atoms have “no direct properties” (describing their model’s limitations) while experimentalists successfully measure atomic properties daily. Recognizing nuclear theory as merely a limited model, not reality, explains why it fails outside its narrow scope.
Question 10: How does circular reasoning appear in common proofs of atomic theory, such as those involving ionic compounds?
Answer: Larson provides several examples. One textbook “proves” NaCl contains ions by showing its crystal structure, then declaring “the only possible interpretation” is that atoms are charged - but this assumes the electrical theory they’re trying to prove. Another explains positrons’ rarity by saying they disappear through collision with electrons, which assumes the universe is already full of electrons - exactly what they’re trying to explain. The emission of electrons is cited as proof electrons exist in atoms, yet the same emission of photons isn’t considered proof that photons pre-exist in atoms. The conclusions are predetermined by the assumptions.
Question 11: Why does the instability of free neutrons create a fundamental problem for the proton-neutron model of the nucleus?
Answer: Free neutrons decay with a half-life of about 13 minutes under terrestrial conditions. If neutrons are inherently unstable, they cannot be constituents of stable atoms that exist for billions of years. The standard response is to assume neutrons become stable inside the nucleus through some unknown mechanism - but this is pure assumption with no independent evidence. Larson argues that accepting such assumptions is only justified if we have definite proof that nuclei exist. Without such proof, assuming both the existence of nuclei AND a special stabilizing mechanism is completely unjustified - it’s using one unsupported assumption to prop up another.
Question 12: What philosophical implications regarding free will and determinism does Larson draw from the Uncertainty Principle debate?
Answer: Larson argues the philosophical debate is fundamentally misguided. Philosophers assume Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle represents nature’s voice, revealing inherent indeterminacy that might allow free will. But uncertainty is a property of the Copenhagen atom-model, not physical atoms. Whether events are strictly determined or involve chance, they still produce specific results. Free will, if it exists, must be able to override these results - something incompatible with both determinism AND statistical chance. The principle tells us nothing about free will because it describes a theoretical model’s limitations, not reality’s properties. As Schrödinger concluded, quantum mechanics contributes nothing to the free will debate.
Question 13: How does the demonstrated interchangeability of matter, energy, and radiation challenge the “building block” concept of atoms?
Answer: The “building block” concept requires permanent, discrete components that combine to form atoms. However, experiments show all basic entities are interchangeable: electrons and positrons annihilate into radiation, protons become neutrons, atoms undergo fission and fusion, mesons are created from kinetic energy and decay into other particles, mass converts to energy in reactors while accelerators convert energy to mass. This suggests a common underlying substance that can take various forms - more like modeling clay than building blocks. Even Heisenberg admits “there is only one kind of matter.” The subatomic particles appear to be incomplete atoms rather than atomic constituents.
Question 14: What role does conformity pressure within the scientific community play in preventing challenges to established theories?
Answer: Larson describes intense pressure to accept “official” viewpoints. Einstein was marginalized when he opposed quantum orthodoxy - “he faded out altogether from the scientific arena.” Dissenters may question details but not fundamentals; challenging basic theory is professional suicide. University physicists who rejected quantum theory would be like “atheists in the priesthood.” Evaluation of new ideas falls to specialists with vested interests in maintaining current theory. Journal committees are ultraconservative. The result: revolutionary ideas from “combative” personalities might succeed, but discoveries by “retiring” researchers like Waterston or Mendel get buried for decades.
Question 15: What significant scientific discoveries does Larson cite that were initially ignored or rejected (Mendel, Waterston)?
Answer: Mendel published his laws of heredity in 1866, but they were completely ignored until rediscovered in 1900 - genetics stood still for 34 years. Waterston submitted the first complete kinetic theory to the Royal Society in 1845, but it was rejected as “nonsense, unfit even for reading.” Haldane called this “the most disastrous mistake in the Royal Society’s history,” arguing that thermodynamics would have developed along “simpler, more correct lines” if Waterston’s work had been published. These cases demonstrate that without proper evaluation mechanisms, crucial discoveries can be lost because one gatekeeper fails to recognize their importance.
Question 16: How do “hair-raising extrapolations,” such as theories about stellar energy generation, illustrate problems in modern physics?
Answer: Physicists confidently claim stars generate energy through hydrogen fusion, based on experiments at Earth’s tiny temperatures and pressures extrapolated to stellar conditions millions of times greater. This “knowledge” becomes dogma - astronomers accept it even when observations contradict it. Giants and supergiants require “unknown energy sources,” white dwarf models cause “uneasiness,” and some stars appear impossibly young. Rather than question the physicists’ extrapolation, astronomers distort their own field to fit. This shows how speculation in one specialty becomes unquestionable “fact” in another, and how extraordinarily long extrapolations gain false certainty through repetition.
Question 17: What evidence from chemical bonding, particularly in metals and non-ionic compounds, contradicts the electronic theory?
Answer: The electronic theory cannot explain metallic bonding - theorists openly admit they don’t understand why metals cohere. Non-ionic compounds require bizarre concepts like “shared electrons” oscillating between atoms to create “exchange forces,” but no one explains how such forces actually arise. Vanadium forms three compounds (VO, VN, VC) with identical cubic structure and apparently identical bonding, yet has different valences in each - impossible under electronic theory. Atoms bond as readily to like charges as opposite charges (potassium to potassium vs. potassium to chlorine), suggesting the force isn’t electrical. The theory needs different mechanisms for each bond type rather than one unified explanation.
Question 18: How does the proliferation of “elementary particles” with no clear roles undermine the concept of atomic building blocks?
Answer: The original concept assumed atoms were built from a few elementary particles - electrons and protons. Now physicists have discovered hundreds of particles, many with no conceivable role in atomic structure. The mu meson, for example, has no known function. Particles once thought elementary prove to be interconvertible - they’re created and destroyed, transform into each other, and can’t be permanently distinguished. Physicists can’t even define “elementary particle” anymore. This suggests these aren’t building blocks but rather different forms the same basic substance can take - primary units formed directly from the fundamental substrate rather than components that combine to form atoms.
Question 19: What reforms does Larson propose for evaluating new scientific ideas, including professional critics and review agencies?
Answer: Larson proposes several reforms: First, create agencies to give preliminary hearings to unconventional ideas, determining if they merit wider consideration - not endorsing them but removing the “crackpot” stigma. Second, establish professional scientific critics (like literary critics) who aren’t invested in particular theories and can provide unbiased evaluation. Third, produce special textbooks for researchers that honestly present uncertainties and assumptions rather than false certainty. Fourth, ensure opportunities for rebuttal when ideas are rejected. These measures would prevent repetitions of the Mendel and Waterston cases where valuable discoveries were lost through indifference or hostility.
Question 20: Based on experimental evidence, what characteristics must any replacement for nuclear atom theory possess (motion-based, quantized, etc.)?
Answer: The new theory must explain: particle interconvertibility (suggesting everything is forms of motion since all particles can become radiation/motion); a force accounting for cohesion without electrical charges; why atoms are much smaller than inter-atomic distances; continuous compressibility without fixed orbits; spectroscopic energy levels without orbital electrons; Moseley units that aren’t charges or particles; radioactive creation of particles; quantized phenomena (extending Planck’s quantum concept); and primary rather than elementary particles. Larson suggests atoms might be integral units with various forms of motion that can be detached, rather than assembled from parts.
Question 21: How does the Copenhagen interpretation’s claim that atoms have “no immediate and direct properties” conflict with experimental observations?
Answer: The Copenhagen school claims atoms exist only as mathematical abstractions - probability waves without definite properties until observed. Heisenberg says atoms don’t “exist objectively” and are merely “symbols.” Yet experimentalists routinely measure atomic properties: mass, magnetic moment, cross-sections, spectra. Engineers build devices requiring precise atomic behavior. The electron microscope works because electrons have definite, controllable properties. This absurd contradiction exists because theorists describe their failed model’s limitations as if describing reality. The Copenhagen model has no properties because it only addresses mathematical aspects; actual atoms clearly have definite properties.
Question 22: What specific examples does Larson provide of mathematical complexity being used to obscure theoretical failures rather than solve problems?
Answer: Quantum mechanics allegedly solves chemical problems “in principle” but can’t calculate results for any specific molecule due to “mathematical complexity.” Heisenberg’s ferromagnetism theory is considered correct but yields no quantitative results because of “great mathematical complication.” When simpler mathematics fails, theorists add complexity (non-commutative algebra, non-Euclidean geometry) knowing it will exceed computational ability, then claim the problem is “solved in principle.” The mathematics becomes what Lande calls a “veil” hiding simple meanings. This allows theorists to claim success while producing no testable results - mathematical complexity becomes an excuse for failure rather than a path to understanding.
If you’ve found the content interesting, useful and maybe even helpful, please consider supporting it through a small paid subscription. While 99% of everything here is free, your paid subscription is important as it helps in covering some of the operational costs and supports the continuation of this independent research and journalism work. It also helps keep it free for those that cannot afford to pay.
Unbekoming Interview Library: Great interviews across a spectrum of important topics.
Unbekoming Book Summary Library: Concise summaries of important books.
I’m always in search of good stories, people with valuable expertise and helpful books. Please don’t hesitate to get in touch at unbekoming@outlook.com
Watch and share this profound 21-minute video to understand and appreciate what health looks like without vaccination.