One of my earliest experiences of realising that the world, and people, didn't function quite as I'd been taught they did came - astonishingly enough - courtesy of school. Not via a lesson or teacher, of course, but rather, through one of my friends.

I had a friend, we'll call her Catherine, who, at the age of sixteen, was widely considered to have it all. She was extremely clever (and top of the class for everything), pretty, slim, and, for a swot, reasonably popular - she wasn't in with the token Mean Girls (she was too nice for them), but she had two really close friends, Shauna and Natalie, who she did everything with. She even had neat handwriting and an immaculately tidy room. She might easily have been hated if she wasn't so nice - but she was, and so everyone generally liked her.

She also had a very nice family: married parents who'd been together since school and got along well together, a younger brother she was close to, and nearby grandparents, aunts and uncles, and cousins.

You'd imagine, then, that Catherine was having quite a pleasant experience growing up, and I had assumed that she was, until one day after history class, she grabbed my arm and hissed in a low whisper:

"Will you walk to maths with me?"

"But I'm not in your maths class," I said, puzzled. "You know I can't count and I'm in with the remedials."

"I know," she said. "But can you just walk with me to mine anyway? You'll still be able to get to yours on time."

Thinking she must have some vitally important gossip or something to share with me, I accompanied her, but was left none the wiser when we got to her classroom and no such gossip had been divulged.

A few weeks later, the same thing happened again: after history, Catherine asked me to walk with her to maths.

I couldn't understand it, and tried to think if there was anything linking these two events. The only thing I could think of was that on both occasions, our mutual friend Shauna - who was in Catherine's maths class - hadn't been in for history. Shauna had recently discovered the joys of alcopops, and older boys who could drive, and so was frequently MIA for morning classes.

So, eventually, I questioned Catherine about this, and was absolutely astonished when she shamefacedly admitted she needed me to walk with her from history to maths when Shauna wasn't there, as she was too anxious to walk there on her own. She said she never walked to class alone and had structured her timetable specifically in order to make sure there was always a "crossover friend" to walk between classes with.

"But... but..." I stuttered, trying to get my head around how perfect, poised Catherine could be too scared to walk down a corridor on her own. "You walk to school on your own."

"I know," she said, eyes cast downwards in shame. "I've been stealing my mum's gin and swigging it before I leave the house so I don't get too anxious on the way."

Believe me when I say if there was anyone in my year at school you would predict might start drinking hard liquor first thing in the morning, it was not Catherine. Shauna, maybe (Shauna, definitely, in later years, as it turned out) but not Catherine.

I couldn't understand it.

One would normally associate that level of crippling anxiety and burgeoning alcoholism with a severely damaged and traumatised person, which Catherine was not. Although she did well at school, that wasn't because of pressure from her parents, who hadn't been particularly academic themselves and would have supported her to leave school at 16 had she wanted to, like they did. She had a good family, nice friends, a future full of potential - what was she so anxious about?

Catherine did choose to go on to university, but she went to the nearest one to home - and where several of her schoolfriends were going - and upon graduation, immediately moved back home, in with mum and dad. She hung out with the same small, close-knit group of friends she'd had since school.

"It's weird," said a mutual friend of ours when, aged around 25, we met up for drinks in the city she'd moved to. "I see Catherine when I go back to see my parents for the holidays and it's like she hasn't moved on from school at all. Same friends, same pubs, same conversations. If she didn't look older, you'd literally think she was still sixteen."

"What's she doing for work?"

"She's still working in that shop she used to work in after school."

"But she's got a science degree!"

"I know."

It just didn't add up. Why had someone with such potential seemingly squandered it, "failed to launch", as it were - and why had she had such crippling anxiety at school?

I parked that question and hadn't given it too much more thought, until I was researching my last article, 'Bookworm or brainworm?', and was reading up on the biography of Marian Keyes.

For the unanointed, Ms Keyes (born 1963) is a prolific author of what is generally known as 'chick lit' (a term she abhors), having written 16 novels between 1995 and 2024, charting the lives, loves, and struggles of young women. She is Irish, and after completing a law degree at University College Dublin, moved to London in 1986, aged 23, where she lived for seven years, developed alcoholism, had a nervous breakdown, entered rehab, and emerged with the draft of her first book. Watermelon was published in 1995.

As everyone knows, and as coined by James Delingpole for the title of his first book, all first novels are "thinly disguised autobiographies", so if a novelist came from a hideously traumatic background, you can be absolutely sure you're going to read about it in their debut book.

Clearly, then, and as Watermelon outlines as protagonist 'Claire' moves back to live with her parents at age 29, Ms Keyes came from no such background. She had a good relationship with her parents and younger siblings, and had not endured the kind of severe family dysfunction or trauma that might account for her mental health struggles, which, as she recounts, began at a very early age.

She recalls always feeling consumed with anxiety and despair as a child, unable to imagine a successful future for herself - or any future at all. She was "an introvert and a big reader", and, although she did well at school, and went on to study law at a prestigious university - her parents being very proud, as they hadn't been to university themselves - she never pursued it, and upon graduation, promptly became a waitress.

Overwhelmed by the bright lights, big city lifestyle of London, she managed her omnipresent anxiety through excessive alcohol consumption, which ultimately culminated in a stint in rehab. Abandoning her London life entirely, in 1997, she moved back home to Ireland for good.

There's something... familiar about all this, I thought.

And then it hit me: her trajectory sounded an awful lot like my old schoolfriend, Catherine's.

With the small caveat that Catherine didn't go on to become a worldwide literary sensation, yes, but their personal biographies really did seem very similar. They both exhibited symptoms of damage and trauma that would ordinarily be associated with dysfunctional, abusive childhoods, which neither of them had. They were both very clever and excelled academically, yet failed to fulfil their potential in the professional fields they qualified in. They both shied away from striking out on their own and returned to the comforting familiarity of home. And they both used alcohol from an early age to manage their crippling anxiety.

A thesis was starting to form in my mind, and as I continued to scan Marian Keyes' first (and therefore most autobiographical) novel for clues, there it was.

'Claire' (Marian) reports that, very suddenly, as a two year old, she refused to eat anything but tinned peaches for the best part of a year.

When a child who has previously enjoyed a wide and varied diet suddenly becomes very fussy and rigid about what they will eat, and especially shows a strong preference for beige-coloured foods, it's a big red flag for one thing:

Vaccine injury, and in particular, the kind of neurological damage we call "autism".

I then went on to learn that adult Marian has recently started to seriously consider whether she might have "ADHD" - another form of so-called neurodiversity (in other words, vaccine injury) closely related to "autism".

That's what it is, I thought. That's what it is with Marian Keyes, and that's what it very likely was with my schoolfriend Catherine, as well.

These girls were not damaged by terribly traumatic childhoods, and they weren't exhibiting signs of "mental illness", either.

They were vaccine-injured, showing signs of neurological injury, and what we would now most likely call "autism" - and there's a very good chance that, if they were school-aged now, they'd be diagnosed with it.

They both showed the strong hyperlexia - an early obsession with letters and words - which can be a tell-tale sign of the condition, especially in girls.

They both experienced powerful anxiety, which they managed with alcohol, and those with autism are about four times more likely to become alcoholics than those without it.

And, although as far as I know Catherine didn't, Marian Keyes battled eating disorders all her life, and there is a very strong link between eating disorders and autism in girls.

When "autism" first came to prominence on the social scene in the 1990s, it was marketed to us in a very specific way - namely, that it only affected boys, and that the symptoms were both very obvious and very severe, ultimately making it impossible for the sufferer to function in everyday life. Rain Man was all most knew about autism, and what, after all, do neurotic teenage girls have in common with middle-aged men with an obsession with matchsticks?

But it's starting to appear clearer and clearer that many teenage girls exhibiting signs of depression, anxiety, and eating disorders, are not "neurotic". They're not reacting to terrible childhoods. They haven't been brainwashed by the glossy magazines.

Their brains are injured from being poisoned by powerful neurotoxins, injected into them at a time (infancy) when the blood-brain barrier is very permeable, and potent neurotoxins like aluminium - which many infant vaccines are loaded with - can get right in.

It's already known that those who died with an autism diagnosis have extremely high aluminium loads in their brains, and the most likely source of that aluminium, is childhood vaccination.

Note that the "neurotic teenage girl" dismissal is now being applied to the thousands of girls who have developed the neurological disorder POTS and need to walk with crutches to balance themselves.

"They're just doing it to get attention, like with eating disorders and transgenderism," haughty authorities dismiss them with. They note that these syndromes overwhelmingly develop in year 9 (age 13-14) girls.

In fact, POTS is a known-side effect of the (aluminium-laden) HPV vaccine, which is offered to all Year 8 (age 12-13) girls.

POTS is not attention-seeking social contagion. It's vaccine injury, just like a lot of eating disorders are, and just like transgenderism - with its extremely strong links to autism - probably is as well.

Autism, anorexia, and transgenderism all have powerful crossovers and links, in girls in particular, and that is highly likely to be because they all come from the same source.

We don't have a crisis of mental illness in modern society, as much as we have a crisis of neurological injury. Entire generations are walking around with various degrees of brain damage, and wondering why - despite appearing to have every advantage in life, just as Marian Keyes and my old friend Catherine did - they are suffering so terribly.

I referenced in my last article what an astonishing drop in achievement and social mobility there was between the Baby Boomers and the Millennials, and whilst this has been entirely blamed on social and economic factors - which certainly come into it - I suspect there is a rather large, needle-shaped elephant in the room.

Baby Boomers only received on average three or four vaccinations. Millennials received at least ten, and the later they were born, the more they received - and autism, eating disorders, and transgenderism have all increased exponentially, right in tandem with the ever-increasing vaccination schedule.

It seems more and more obvious that social factors - and more recently, especially screens - are getting the blame for what injections did.

Here is a prime example: after decades of rather unsuccessfully trying to bring down the teen pregnancy rate, authorities celebrated success when, very suddenly, teen pregnancy rates fell off a cliff in 2009 and have kept declining ever since.

When pressed for an explanation for this - had completely useless 'sex education' suddenly and miraculously started working? - "the experts" decreed that it was down to Facebook: that, instead of going out to parties, getting drunk, and engaging in procreational activity, teenagers were instead staying at home and talking to each other online.

But this doesn't add up. Facebook had been available to everybody since 2006. Why would it have no effect on teen pregnancy rates in 2007 or 2008, but then suddenly cause them to fall off a cliff in 2009?

Here's a more likely explanation:

In 2008, the sterilant HPV vaccine was widely introduced to all young teenage girls. It is estimated that this injection permanently sterilises around 25% of those who receive it, whilst undermining the fertility of many more recipients.

The sudden drop in teen pregnancy wasn't primarily because of social factors or screens: it was primarily because of needles.

Equally, there has been another mammoth generational shift between the Millennials (born 1981-1996) and Gen Z (born 1997 to 2012), in that the latter, overwhelmingly and more than any previous generation, do not drink, do not date, and do not even show much interest in going out of the house.

This is blamed on screens: that they have all the entertainment they could want on their devices, so they don't need to bother going out to find it.

Yet we Millennials had screens: we had five TV channels, with many families having additional services like Sky; we had Blockbuster to rent videos; we had Mega Drives, Nintendos, and Gameboys. We even had the internet - not normally at home, but easily accessible at school, college, the library etc.

We still went out, though: we drank and went to parties; we displayed interest in the opposite sex. Even those who were on the shyer or quieter side still typically wanted to go out, meet people, explore life, and have fun.

And obviously, some individual members of Gen Z still do, but an overarching trend has developed - as one article title put it, "no carbs, no smoking, and hardly any alcohol: The party's over for Gen Z".

The article begins "you'd be forgiven for calling them Gen ZZZ"...

It goes on; "overly concerned about their health and driven by a fear of aging (even if they’ve yet to turn 30), they don’t smoke, barely drink alcohol, avoid sugar and fast-digesting carbohydrates. They don’t go out much and rise at dawn to do 40 burpees and 80 lunges while their TikTok productivity gurus whisper to them, “Win the morning and you win the day.”

This is a generation that saves up to buy premium gym memberships and takes collagen, magnesium, protein and adaptogen supplements. They venerate order, discipline and the stoic doctrine..."

It all sounds a bit, well, autistic, doesn't it?

Yes, caring for your health is all well and good, but you really should not have to be so concerned about it when under the age of 30 - and the obsessions, fixations and ritualistic behaviours that have become so widely associated with this generation, bear a very strong resemblance to typical autistic traits - and this is hardly surprising when we consider this is the most vaccinated generation in the history of the world.

These kids were not just getting the same handful of shots as their parents, or even the ten or so of their older Millennial brothers and sisters: they were getting all of those AND the flu vaccine annually; the HPV vaccine at 12; the trivalent "teenage boosters" at 14, and then yet more injections if they wanted to go to university or travel.

And of course, many of them have had the Covid vaccine - multiple times in a lot of cases.

This is the most injected generation in history, which therefore means it's the most neurologically damaged generation in history.

That's why they're like they are. That's why they don't want to go out, or party, or date. That's why they are highly neurotic, prone to fixations and rituals.

It's also why they're chronically unwell. For many of them, obsession with their health and rigid diets are not a lifestyle choice, but a necessity, as more and more of them are diagnosed with coeliac disease, diabetes, PCOS, and other conditions which require strict diets to keep under control.

And although "the science" claims this isn't the case, an increasing number of people believe that Gen Z are ageing more rapidly than Millennials.

Now, consider what we know the ruling classes are aiming for in terms of crafting the 'perfect' citizen of the future...

What they envisage is a single, childless person who lives alone, and who has sacrificed their 'reality privilege' - going outside and having real-world experiences - and instead, exists primarily online, as an avatar in the metaverse.

They also want to ensure this generation is not long-lived, as, due to demographic shifts and collapsing birth rates, there will not, in the near future, be enough working-age tax-payers to sustain a large, long-lived cohort of pensioners. In order to "balance the books" and keep society functioning fairly seamlessly, social engineers need to ensure Gen Z and subsequent generations don't live a long time after retiring. So, if they were capable of getting them to age more rapidly, then this is certainly something they'd be highly incentivised to do.

I believe it is something they're capable of doing, and that they've done it. I believe they have used powerful injections, of aluminium and many other poisons, to craft the 'perfect' citizen as they envisage it: someone who will accept living alone, not reproducing, having little in the way of a real-world life (both working and socialising online), and not living to a grand old age.

I believe they're trying to create what might be described as extreme introverts - people with high levels of social anxiety who would rather sit alone inside, absorbing information from a screen (or a page), rather than going outside and interacting with other flesh and blood human beings.

A person of this disposition is obviously far easier to programme and control than a so-called extrovert who prefers being out in the world and having real-life experiences, and we saw the beginnings of this bid to create the 'perfect' citizen in previous generations, as huge emphasis was put on sitting alone in a room reading, over and above any other activity.

Children like Marian Keyes (who described her childhood self as very introverted and a big reader), and my old friend, Catherine, were heartily congratulated for all the hours they spent alone pouring over books, and the consequent high academic achievement this enabled, with the attendant anxiety, depression, and eating and alcohol disorders glossed over, until they became too big to ignore.

In reality, the early reading obsession - the "hyperlexia" - was just as much a signal that something was wrong, as the crippling anxiety and morning gin-swigging.

All these signs were pointing to the same kind of damage with the same root cause.

It's also of note that neither Marian Keyes, nor (to the best of my knowledge) Catherine went on to have children (Keyes did try to, but after experiencing fertility struggles, chose not to pursue IVF).

This is another way that neurologically injuring girls helps the ruling classes to achieve their cultural goals (depopulation being a big one) - autistic women are markedly less likely to have children (and markedly more likely to be long-term single).

Now, this is all sounding a bit depressing at this point, I know, but now I'm going to say something to cheer you up.

We like conspiracy theories at this site, and I have one regarding pubs and the consumption of beer...

It is known that the ruling classes are targeting for destruction, as a venue where people meet and socialise, pubs in particular. Many collapsed as a result of "Covid" restrictions, and many more have struggled to recover, with around 35 pubs closing permanently every month. Consequently, the number of pubs in the UK is now at a historical low.

Yet it does not seem to be alcohol consumption in particular that the ruling classes are trying to stop. After all, you can buy alcohol at any supermarket or corner store, often very cheaply, and even get it delivered straight to your door via delivery services.

However, here is the difference: people at home, especially women and couples, mostly drink wine.

Yet people in pubs - even if they rarely or never drink it at home - mostly drink beer.

What is beer - especially the popular IPA variety - rich in?

Orthosilicic acid (a form of silica).

What does orthosilicic acid do?

It removes aluminium from the body.

In fact, it is the only known substance that can do this. Whilst other forms of silica, such as silica supplements and Diatomaceous Earth, can remove aluminium from the digestive tract, only orthosilicic acid is proven to cross the digestive barrier and become active in the whole of the body.

Beer isn't the only source of orthosilicic acid - certain mineral waters have it too, including Volvic and Fiji and many others around the world (look for a silica content of 30ppm or more on the label) - but beer is nevertheless a very powerful aluminium detoxifier (and non-alcoholic beer works too).

So, imagine if you have sustained a childhood brain injury relating to aluminium, but from the age of 18, are regularly visiting the pub and having a few pints of orthosilicic acid rich IPA.

By the age of 35, your body burden of aluminium is likely to be markedly less than the person who sat at home every night drinking wine - which not only doesn't remove aluminium, but actively contains it.

Who is most likely to be drinking beer in the pub?

Men.

Who is most likely to be drinking wine at home?

Women.

And wouldn't you just know that women are more at risk Alzheimer's - the age-related neurological condition strongly correlated with both aluminium toxicity, and autism. In fact, it is already known and documented that beer-drinking (and that can include non-alcoholic varieties) is associated with a lower risk of Alzheimer's. (Tedious, patronising disclaimer: that doesn't mean drinking excessive quantities of beer is good for you.)

Women have been put off drinking beer by being told that it is uniquely fattening and loaded with carbohydrates, whereas this is really not true at all. When compared to alternative beverages such as orange juice and milk, beer is pretty low carb - around 3g per 100ml, as compared to milk's 5 and OJ's 10. A pint of beer has about the same number of carbohydrates as a (small) apple.

So, scaring women off beer and closing all the environments where they might be most likely to drink it, is a very handy way of keeping all that aluminium lodged in their brains.

Ensuring Gen Z don't drink at all does the same thing, for both sexes. Beer consumption is one of the best and most effective ways of removing aluminium from the body, and therefore it is abundantly clear why the malevolent ruling classes might want to put vast swathes of people off doing it.

Gen Z, as discussed earlier, are also very attentive to their diets, often adhering to very strict and exclusionary eating regimes, and this is another typical flag for neurological injury.

In her book, Gut and Psychology Syndrome (GAPS), author and neurosurgeon-turned-nutritionist, Dr. Natasha Campbell-McBride, talks about how vaccine injury often manifests itself most clearly in girls at puberty, where they suddenly become very fussy about what they eat.

An extremely common trajectory for vaccine-injured girls - who may have seemed fairly "neurotypical" as young children - is for them to announce around the age of 14 that they are becoming vegetarian - and this not infrequently turns into veganism, and then anorexia.

Dr. Campbell-McBride cautions in the strongest possible terms against encouraging seemingly innocuous "vegetarianism" in teenage girls, because a) it's often a red flag that an eating disorder is developing, and b) vegetarianism is the worst possible diet for those dealing with a vaccine-induced neurological injury.

The two substances in the diet that appear to exacerbate the symptoms of this kind of injury the most are gluten (the protein in wheat) and casein (the protein in dairy).

A teenage girl on a vegetarian diet is basically going to be eating nothing but gluten and dairy, in terms of bread, pasta, cheese, milk and so on.

Not incidentally, the author Marian Keyes who we discussed earlier, eats a primarily vegetarian diet.

Conversely, her husband is a big meat eater.

This pattern is overwhelmingly common: go out to any restaurant and watch couples dine. You will see the man with his steak and pint, and the woman with her pasta and glass of wine.

Guess which option is better for healing a vaccine-induced neurological injury?

This may be part of the reason - although boys are initially more vulnerable to vaccine injury, and typically display more obvious and severe signs when they are injured - that adult women seem to suffer more from the kind of neurological and gastrointestinal complaints related to vaccine-injury (women's mental health is currently worse than men's, whereas in earlier periods of history, the reverse has been true). This may be partially because their diets are doing nothing to heal the damage incurred from vaccination, and could be making it worse, whilst men's beer-drinking, meat-eating tendencies are more restorative.

You really can't heal from a vaccine injury on a vegetarian diet - even a gluten-free, casein-free one - you do need meat, and other animal products, like bone broth and gelatine, and there's a very good reason broth and jelly have traditionally been the foods fed to invalids to help them rebuild their strength (the GAPS book talks about this).

There you are, you see, I told you I would cheer you up: the answer to all the modern maladies of life are to eat more steak and drink more beer!

But seriously, anybody who suspects they may be dealing with vaccine-induced neurological damage (and I suspect the number of people who are is much, much higher than we have been led to believe, with many "subclinical" cases, like Marian Keyes and my old schoolfriend, flying under the radar) should be focusing on getting the aluminium out of their system, with either a silica-rich mineral water (Volvic, Fiji, or any water with a silica content of at least 30ppm), a silica-rich beer (IPAs, including non-alcoholic ones - such as my natural favourite, Punk AF), and considering a period on a GFCF - gluten-free, casein-free - diet (and yes, you can get gluten-free beer).

Also, introducing more animal products into their diet if they err towards vegetarianism, and exploring other suggestions in the GAPS book (developed specifically to help treat and reverse neurological injury from vaccination and other modern poisons).

It's also worth trying to cut down on daily exposure to aluminium, such as by avoiding tap water (unless you have a reverse osmosis filter which removes it), choosing aluminium-free deodorants and other personal care products, using stainless steel or cast-iron cookware instead of non-stick, and of course - surely needless to say - avoiding vaccinations. And that's all vaccinations, not just aluminium-containing ones, because even if aluminium is the primary culprit in vaccine injury, none of the other ingredients are health tonics either, and are only going to cause more damage.

No vaccine has ever improved the health of any living being it has been injected into, and they have only ever been population control measures to subdue fertility, shorten life, and ultimately, steal entire futures.

Or at least, that was the plan. The good news is that as long as we are alive, we can keep fighting back.

"You mean with steak and beer?"

Well, it's a pretty good start...

Thanks for reading! This website is entirely reader-supported, with no paywalls, adverts, or wealthy corporate backers, meaning your support is what powers this site to keep going. If you enjoyed this article, and would like to read more in the future, please consider…

1. Subscribing monthly at Substack or Patreon (where paid subscribers can comment on posts)

2. Making a one-off contribution via BuyMeACoffee

3. Contributing in either way via bank transfer to Nat West, account number 30835984, sort code 54-10-27, account name FINCH MA (please use your email address as a reference if you’d like me to acknowledge receipt).

Your support is what allows these articles to keep being created and is enormously appreciated. Thank you.