Diversity or diversion?

0Shares
0
Written by: Miri
September 14, 2021
 | No Comments

An interesting discussion sprung out of my nutrition post yesterday, on the subject of "neurodiversity", a wildly contentious subject highly likely to offend people whatever one's perspective, so naturally, I thought I'd dive right in...

Do I believe in the concept of "neurodiversity"? No, I don't, any more than I believe in the concept of "cardio-diversity" or "gastro-diversity". That's not how human physiology works. Your organs, including your brain, are either healthy and functional, or they're damaged and dysfunctional. While the degree of damage can certainly vary by a considerable margin, there is nevertheless no "diverse" middle ground. The concept of "neurodiversity" is nothing but a cynical marketing ploy, dreamed up by some advertising hotshot on Madison Avenue on a six-figure salary, to cover up - primarily - vaccine damage.

Not convinced? Well, let's look at it from another perspective: just imagine that a pharmaceutical company produced, say, a widely used painkiller that was found to cause heart problems. Let's say that the pharmaceutical company that did this was Merck, since they have (Merck produced the painkiller Vioxx, which was eventually found to have caused over 100,000 heart attacks, many of them fatal, and eventually Merck were forced to withdraw it. They then went on to produce the extremely lucrative HPV vaccine, and it was revealed that in internal emails around Merck, employees 'joked' that HPV stood for 'Help Pay for Vioxx').

Let's just imagine that, when regulators presented Merck with clear evidence their product was damaging people's hearts - sometimes mildly, sometimes severely - Merck went to their marketing department, and said, how can we get out of this?

Their marketing department replied, "tell the regulators that actually there's nothing wrong with people's hearts. After all, in a lot of people, the damage is only mild and isn't severely interfering with their functioning, so say that they've just got a heart that's "differently wired" - different, but not less. Diverse. They've got a diverse heart. Come on, you know what a fashionable buzzword "diversity" is at the moment, stick it on anything, people instantly lap it up."

"Hmm, good idea," says Merck. "But what about the people who are severely ill?"

"Say diversity is a spectrum," reply the PR guys. "But don't focus much attention on the people who are actually really ill, keep drawing attention to the people who only have mild damage and keep pointing out how they can function fine and the only thing that holds them back is - not the damage our product has given them - but a prejudiced, intolerant society that has, for instance, a lot of stairs in buildings which are a challenge for people with cardio-diversity, and that sort of thing. Completely divert the conversation away from the idea that these people have damage - because then that instantly begs the question of what caused the damage - and instead point an accusatory finger at the public for not being tolerant and accepting enough of those who are different. You know those bleeding-heart liberals will instantly start vigorously virtue-signalling over that and, as a result, any idea that we could be at fault will be completely lost."

"Brilliant!" says Merck, and goes back to the regulators to present them with the revolutionary new concept of "cardio-diversity".

Well, that is exactly what has happened with "neurodiversity". The damage we refer to as autism, dyslexia, dyspraxia and so on are not "diverse gifts" from a "differently wired" brain, they are neurological damage caused by environmental poisons - often, though not exclusively, vaccines. Other poisons include glyphosate, the pill, antidepressants, aluminium and mercury. There are multibillion dollar industries behind these products and so the concept of "neurodiversity" has been invented to safeguard their profits. It's as simple as that and anybody who pushes the "neurodiversity" trope is - generally unwittingly, but nevertheless - complicit in the cover-up.

I obviously get why someone would rather see themselves as "diverse, not damaged" (so do the pharma PR companies, which is why this strategy has been so immensely successful), but the reality is there's no such thing as physiological "diversity" where it comes to how organs function. Personalities can be diverse, organs can't. Your brain is healthy, or it isn't. If someone's been diagnosed with autism, and presuming that diagnosis is accurate (since many doctors are wildly overzealous in applying it to anyone in the slightest bit unusual or eccentric), then that person has some degree of neurological damage.

People with so-called "high functioning autism" have mild damage, but damage they nevertheless have. Many people can live with mild damage and prefer not to expend a lot of time, energy and money fixing it, which is fair enough, especially if they've had overall successful lives - but to say it's not damage is a grave disservice to all the families who haven't been so lucky as to have mild damage - and is enabling of the pharmaceutical companies to keep covering it up.

The reason pharmaceutical companies and their lackeys in media have trained the public to react in knee-jerk outrage when it is suggested autism is neurological damage, rather than a natural, healthy variant - "a gift", even - is because damage has both a cause and a cure, and this irrefutable fact would be the death knell for pharmaceutical companies and their immensely lucrative products.

That is why Joe Public is taught to instantly reject anything that purports to be a treatment for autism as "quackery", despite the thousands of families all around the world who have successfully used these protocols. That is why the masses are taught to repeat like a mantra, "autism is genetic, nothing can be done" - despite the fact millions of pounds have been poured down the black hole of "autism as genetic" research and haven't come up with a single conclusive result. There is no "autism gene".

You also can't do a blood test or brain scan to diagnose autism. It's diagnosed purely on the basis of clinical observation (which isn't so for real genetic disorders), which means when people do successfully reverse their children's autism through alternative therapies, the medical profession replies by saying the original diagnosis was a mistake and they were never really autistic, because autism is genetic, lifelong, and irreversible - so if it was reversed, by definition, it wasn't really autism. A neat little trick that keeps millions of families suffering needlessly. Families say, "treatment may have worked for your son, because he obviously wasn't really autistic. But mine is, so nothing will work." And so they don't even try.

Because the degree of damage is so variable, so is the success rate of alternative therapies. Sometimes a child's autism is completely reversed, and sometimes the improvements are more modest, but I have never heard of a family using the GAPS protocol (referenced in my last post) and not seeing significant improvements. That of course completely blows the "autism as genetic" theory out of the water, as you can't treat genetic conditions with diet, which is why the establishment is so desperate to obscure these treatments and rubbish them as "dangerous quackery", so people won't even try them - and see for themselves the transformative results which will reveal the hideous, life-shattering lie of "neurodiversity".

For those who say, "well, my child was clearly 'different' from birth so it must be genetic", you need to understand how many toxins can get into a baby during pregnancy. Many mothers are vaccinated during pregnancy. Many have mercury fillings. Many have past use of the pill or antidepressants which create toxic loads that can get into the baby. Almost all eat glyphosate-ridden products. All of the aforementioned can cause neurological damage, and they can do it before a baby is born. Again, see GAPS (written by a neurologist) for more on this.

If you find the above "ableist" or "offensive", you have to ask yourself why - who is that narrative serving? Not the families torn apart by autism and desperate for a cure. Not the "high functioning" socially awkward teenagers who long to be part of a peer group but are unable to properly read social cues. Not the adults who have never been able to hold down a job or a relationship and will be living with their parents for the rest of their lives (parents who are desperately worried about what will happen to their children when they die).

The solution for these people is not for society to become more "tolerant" of the fact they are damaged and suffering. Obviously, I don't support being unkind to anyone, and we all need to be mindful of the fact that everyone is dealing with their own unique challenges and some have more challenges than others - but other people "being nice" is not a solution to the challenges experienced by profoundly disabled people, nor to broken families and shattered lives.

The solution is for us to identify what is causing this damage and stop it from happening, as well as treating the people who have already been badly affected and want such treatment. I sincerely hope it goes without saying that I don't support forcing treatment on anyone, and if those who have an autism diagnosis are happy to stay as they are, that's obviously their call and we must respect their choice. But it is simply not appropriate for such people to use their own good fortune at being spared the worst ravages of this disorder, to deny it is a disorder at all and therefore claim no treatment is needed. Treatment is needed - desperately.

In order for this treatment to be widely recognised and made available, we first have to stop aiding and abetting criminals by pushing "neurodiversity" and see the autism epidemic for what it really is - unscrupulous and evil industries poisoning people for profit - just as they have always done (check out the origin of the phrase "mad as a hatter" for more on that).

I don't want to see a society that is more "tolerant" and "accepting" of avoidable damage and preventable pain. I want to see that damage and pain stopped - and those who are causing it, held to account.

If you enjoyed reading this, please consider supporting the site via donation:

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Search

Archives

Categories

.
©2022 Miri A Finch. All Rights Reserved.
linkedin facebook pinterest youtube rss twitter instagram facebook-blank rss-blank linkedin-blank pinterest youtube twitter instagram