Search This Blog

Friday, 19 November 2021

In Response To Forced Vaccination and Mandatory Medication

I reserve my right to be ill.

> and I assert my right to respond to my illness, including the threat of illness, in my own way.

You are not responsible for my health; nor do I give you permission to take control of it.

> you do not control how I support my immune system.

I am not responsible for your health, nor do I seek your permission to take charge of it.

> I do not and cannot control how you look after your immune system.

I have never given you permission to take responsibility for my health.

> I do not accept that you, or the government, knows better than me.

I believe that natural immunity is superior to vaccine immunity.

> I am entitled to believe this, and I don't care if you disagree with me. 

You may believe that vaccine immunity is superior to natural immunity.

> You may, but you do not have my permission to impose your beliefs on me.

I nurture my health through natural immunity, through diet, nutrition, exercise, and life-style.

> as I believe this is more important to my health than vaccine immunity.

I do not accept the pharmaceutical medicine has anything to offer me, or my health.

> you might think it does, and if so you, are absolutely entitled to do so.

If and when I am ill I will turn to natural medical therapies, not pharmaceutical medicine.

> this is entirely my choice, my decision; for which I take full responsibility.

Medical Negligence. A huge cost to patients, the NHS, and the national economy

The NHS is dominated by pharmaceutical medicine. And pharmaceutical medicine can, and often does, cause serious harm and injury to the patients it treats. This is costing the NHS dearly, at every level. Patients are harmed. The NHS has to pay compensation for the damage it has caused. And the national exchequer has to foot the ever-increasing bill.

This is why the Parliamentary Health and Social Care Committee is looking into the situation, seeking reforms to reduce massive cost of litigation.

The Medical Defence Union (MDU) is the UK's leading provider of medical indemnity, and clincial negligence claims for the medical profession. In the evidence it gave to the committee it said that litigation was now costing £2.2 billion annually. This massive sum is a rarely considered cost incurred by the NHS. The MDU's head of Professional Standards and Liaison, Dr Michael Devlin, told the inquiry:

            “The MDU has been sounding the alarm about the cost of compensation claims against the NHS for years, so we are relieved that the Health and Social Care Committee is examining the case for NHS litigation reform. Amounts being paid out in compensation annually are spiralling, increasing nearly 50% in the last five years from £1.48 billion to £2.2 billion last year..... With the NHS facing a funding crisis, we simply cannot sit by any longer and ignore numbers like £2.2 billion". (My emphasis).

So what is the MDU's solution to the problem? 

  • To ensure that there are fewer mistakes? 
  • To reduce the harm caused to patients? 
  • To better understand the nature and cause of the mistakes that are damaging patients? 
  • To look for safer treatments?

None of this appears to be what the MDU has in mind, at least not according to Dr Devlin, who continued:

            "The government must grasp the nettle and reform the system surrounding clinical negligence, so that it is fairer and mirrors society’s ability to pay. Reforms to the system for compensating patients could make a significant difference. One example is the need to ensure payments for long term care are based on the cost of NHS rather than private care, as is currently the case. Clinical negligence claims are not an indicator of poor medical standards nevertheless legal reforms must go hand in hand with improvements in patient safety. A learning culture in which incidents are thoroughly investigated and lessons learned and shared must be fostered.” (My emphasis).

So the MDU's answer to the problem, it would appear, is for the NHS to pay less compensation; and for patient's damaged by pharmaceutical medicine to receive less.

The GP magazine, Pulse, seems to have come to a similar conclusion in an article dated 12 November 2021. It stated that NHS Resolution, "an arm’s length body of the Department of Health and Social Care. that provides expertise to the NHS on resolving concerns and disputes fairly, sharing learning for improvement and preserving resources for patient care" said in their annual report that general practice could face £44m in Covid-related clinical negligence claims alone. It said that an estimated £44m, out of a forecast £885m total new claims due to the pandemic, may come through the clinical negligence scheme for general practice in 2020/21. It said that Trusts are expected to face negligence claims of £665m, then amazingly, that Covid-19 "would mean lower numbers of claims due to clinical work being cancelled - reducing claims by around £400m and resulting in a £500m net expected impact of the pandemic on claims made against the NHS".

So when the NHS does NOT provide patients with medical treatment it is calculated that it will save money! No treatment, no harm!

Perhaps they might have added that many patients are better off without the kind of 'treatment' currently being offered by the NHS! A doctor is quoted as saying the the forecasts are "concerning" but "not surprising", which again suggests that harming patients within the NHS is the expected norm.

The same doctor added that "since the first lockdown in March 2020, we’ve supported members with nearly 7,000 complaints and adverse incidents. While this isn’t an increase overall on numbers compared to pre-pandemic, we are surprised at the volume, given public understanding and sympathy with healthcare professionals, and also because complaints processes were put on hold at the height of the pandemic."  

NHS medical staff, it would appear, actually expected patients to be more 'understanding' and 'sympathetic towards medical negligence!

What this all demonstrates is that medical mistakes have become a routine, and accepted part of the performance of the NHS. 

I wonder how many patients realise this, or are told this, when they go to see their local GP, or walk through the door of an NHS hospital? The Pulse article certainly makes it clear what doctors wanted - 'reassurance' that complaints were dealt with 'proportionately and fairly' - and that compensation is 'more reasonable'. One doctors is quoted as saying

            "A package of legal reforms is needed to control rising costs and help to strike a balance between compensation that is reasonable, but also affordable for the NHS and society." (My emphasis).

So it is clear that within the NHS there is a routine acceptance that pharmaceutical medicine will cause patient harm, that is it, perhaps, a 'matter of concern', but the primary concern of the NHS is to protect itself from compensation claims for medical negligence. It has to be 'affordable' for the country so the solution is to reduce the cost. Patients can be seriously harmed by pharmaceutical medicine; but the objective is to make it cheaper!

The NHS considers the dangers of pharmaceutical medicine to be unavoidable. Nothing can be done about it. The costs (about 1.5% of the total NHS budget) are already factored into the NHS's budget plans. And more harm is expected in the future.

Yet no action is suggested to reduce medical negligence. It is notable that there is no suggestion that other medical therapies, safer natural therapies like homeopathy, should be reintroduced back into the NHS, so that patients could be offered a choice between risking medical negligence with conventional treatment; or to choose treatment that will not damage the patient, that will not  significant additional costs to the NHS, and an unnecessary charge on the national exchequer.

That would, of course, be too simple!

Thursday, 11 November 2021

Dapagliflozin. Yet another pharmaceutical drug is banned

 Another pharmaceutical drug has been effectively banned by the NHS

This happens on a regular basis; but banning a drug is now done with the minimum of fuss and publicity. The pharmaceutical medical establishment seems to think it is better for us patients not to know about it!

The drug is called Dapagliflozin, sold under the name of Forxiga, amongst many others. The headline is that it is "no longer indicated" for Type 1 Diabetes. What this meansis  that the drug was once "indicated" for use with diabetes patients.

"No longer indicated" is a lovely, neutral (meaningless?) phrase, so much nicer than "withdrawn", or "banned"! It means the same though - the drug has been used because it was previously considered to be effective and safe; but it is no longer considered to be either effective or safe.

This is not an unusual event. There has been a long history, stretching back many centuries, of hundreds of pharmaceutical drugs that have been banned, withdrawn, or are "no longer indicated".

All these drugs have caused significant patient harm. Yet all these drugs were initially approved for use with patients, deemed by medical science to be effective and safe. Dapagliflozin was approved in 2012 in Europe, and 2014 in the USA. So much for medical science! 

            "Dapagliflozin was found to be safe and well tolerated by healthy volunteers in double-blinded, placebo controlled ... studies".

So patients have been prescribed all these banned pharmaceutical drugs, often for decades, and patients have suffered damage as a direct consequence. So much for what is supposed to be the first principle of medical ethics - "First do no harm"!

            "This webpage outlines the long list of side effects known to be caused by this drug - even though doctors were advised it was "well indicated", were prepared to prescribe it, and have caused their patients to suffer from anxiety, bladder pain, bloody or cloudy urine, blurred vision, chills, cold sweats, confusion, cool, pale skin, decreased frequency or amount of urine, depression, difficult, burning, or painful urination, dizziness, fast heartbeat, frequent urge to urinate, headache, increased hunger, increased thirst, itching of the vagina or genitals, loss of appetite,loss of consciousness, lower back or side pain, nausea, nightmares, seizures, shakiness, slurred speech, swelling of the face, fingers, or lower legs, thick, white vaginal discharge with mild or no odour, trouble breathing, unusual tiredness or weakness, vomiting, weight gain. And these are the "more common" side effects of the drug. Read the entire page. Doctors were actually warned that the drug was known to cause gangrene

No wonder, perhaps, that Dapagliflozin has been banned, however belatedly!

But banning a pharmaceutical drug is different now. There has been NO public announcement. NO admission of culpability. NO apology. Just an explicit instruction to doctors - its use has to be 'discontinued', with immediate effect. In other words, the drug is now known to be dangerous.

            "It is recommended that use of dapagliflozin in patients with type I diabetes is reviewed and discontinued by or in consultation with a specialist and that this is done as soon as clinically practical. With the removal of the type I diabetes indication, the previously published risk minimisation materials for the drug will no longer be available."

This is what happens whenever anyone goes to see their doctor. They risk being prescribed drugs, described as safe, which are not safe; described as effective when they are not effective. And what this situation shows is that the drugs doctors are prescribing today are no safer, and no more effective, than the drugs they have prescribed to us in the past. You are NOT safe in your doctors hands.

So anyone who is currently taking pharmaceutical drugs or vaccines today should ask themselves - what guarantee do you have that these drugs are safe, and will not suffer the same fate as Dapagliflozin? And do you really want to continue risking drug damage?

Wednesday, 10 November 2021

Once anyone believes good health comes from a bottle of pills, or a vaccine, that person has lost his battle with ill-health.

Once anyone believes good health comes from a bottle of pills or a vaccine, that person has lost his battle with ill-health.

Thanks to the Organic Consumers Association for this marvellous thought........

 “No authority during Covid-19 has said:

  • People are sick, they need more time outdoors.
  • People are sick, they need more touch. 
  • People are sick, they need healthy gut flora. 
  • People are sick, they need pure water. 
  • People are sick, they need less electromagnetic pollution. 
  • People are sick, they need less chemicals in food. 
  • People are sick, let’s put diabetes warnings on soda pop. 
  • People are sick, let’s encourage them to meditate and pray more. 
  • People are sick, let’s get them in the garden. 
  • People are sick, let’s make our cities walkable. 
  • People are sick, let’s clean the air. 
  • People are sick, let’s provide free mould remediation on all dwellings.
  • People are sick, let’s promote education about local herbs.
  • People are sick, let’s make the best supplements and practices of the biohackers and health gurus available to all.
  • People are sick, let’s heal our agricultural soils.’

These are the real principles of maintaining and regaining good health. 

How much more healthy, safer from illness and disease, would we all be if conventional medicine were to tell us this, rather than pushing pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines?

Tuesday, 9 November 2021

The Menopause, HRT, and Breast Cancer

I have written about the menopause, hormone replacement therapy (HRT), and breast and cervical cancer many times before. To do so again is certainly deja vu! But headline health news recently provided us with "good" news - at least this is how it has been universally heralded:

HRT Prescription Charges to be Reduced.

       "The cost of repeat HRT prescriptions will be cut in a move set to save women who rely on the treatment 'hundreds of pounds per year', the government has announced. Working with NHS England, the government says it will look to implement longer prescribing cycles 'in line with NICE guidelines', so women receive fewer prescriptions, meaning they pay fewer prescription charges. The government has asked NHS England to review current practice and the barriers to implementing NICE guidance. To further improve access to HRT, the government will also look at the possibility of combining 2 hormone treatments into one prescription, so women only pay a single charge. It says this change would benefit around 10% of women accessing HRT".

Patients in particular were said to be delighted at the outcome - clearly the decision is going to save them money - and this is usually a good reason for delight! But should it be? The history of HRT is closely linked to breast and cervical cancer.

  • In the early 2000's, research began to demonstrate the strong link between HRT and cancer, to the extent that the research was stopped because it was considered unsafe, and unethical to continue.
       "....several trials produced results that were so bad they had to be discontinued.  In 2002, trials conducted by the Women’s Health Initiative in the USA, described as 'the largest and best designed federal studies of HRT'  was halted because women taking the hormones had a significantly increased risk of breast  and cervical cancer, heart attacks, stroke and blood clots. More trials were terminated in 2007, when a study of 5,692 women taking HRT raised similar concerns but added 'more definition to the health risks' (WDDTY 9 August 2007, source: British Medical Journal, 2007; 335: 239-44).
  • So from 2007, some 5 years too late, HRT was virtually suspended for several years.
  • Then, in 2015, like magic, HRT was rejuvenated. The research was discounted, so doctors could began prescribing it again, and so women began taking it again - in large numbers. HRT might cause breast cancer, heart problems and dementia, but (what the hell) women should take it anyway!
  • But then, in 2016, just one year later, there was a warning. HRT could cause breast cancer! As I said at the time, it was 'old news' presented as 'new news'. But nothing was done, no action was taken to protect women.
  • Now, a further 5 years on, we are being asked to rejoice - because these dangerous drugs are to be made available to women far cheaper than they were before.

What this demonstrates, of course, is that medical science has a short memory, even about its own research, and further, that this amnesia places patients at risk of dangerous and harmful drugs. It tells us that the conventional medical establishment is prepared to give patients pharmaceutical drugs, regardless of the harm they are known to cause!

So what does conventional medicine say about the causes of breast cancer? This is just one of the serious adverse reactions to HRT, but this is what the UK's NHS state

        "The causes of breast cancer are not fully understood, making it difficult to say why one woman may develop breast cancer and another may not."

If you persevere, and continue down the page, after causes such as 'age', 'family history', 'previous breast cancer and lumps', 'dense breast tissue' (all of which the patient, nor medicine can do anything about), you get to hormone replacement, and a recognition that "HRT is associated with an increased risk of developing breast cancer". Then it suggests that

        "There is no increased risk of breast cancer if you take HRT for less than 1 year. But if you take HRT for longer than 1 year, you have a higher risk of breast cancer than women who never use HRT."

Yet surely this is what the government has now negotiated for women, cheaper repeat prescriptions for a drug that should not be used for more than one year! What kind of medicine is this? It is more than amnesia. It provides patients with price incentives to take a dangerous drug for longer, against it's own current advice!

The NHS goes on to accept that "the increased risk of breast cancer falls after you stop taking HRT, but some increased risk remains for more than 10 years compared to women who have never used HRT".

The advice for women should surely be not to take HRT. But as pharmaceutical medicine has nothing else, certainly nothing safer to offer, it is prepared to prescribe a drug that has been proven to be lethal for women for many decades - since the 1940's.

And this is done by a medical system whose first principle is supposed to be "First, do no harm".

Yet there is an alternative, a safer medicine available. It is homeopathy. Homeopathy can deal with the menopause, and do so without causing breast and cervical cancer, heart problems, and dementia.

Why Homeopathy? for the Menopause.

Wednesday, 20 October 2021

The Immune System. Why Conventional Medicine wants to Re-educate us

The Conventional Medical Establishment is trying to "re-educate" us about our immune system. The new medical understanding is that the immune system protects us best only after we have been vaccinated, and even questions whether there is any such thing as "natural immunity". 

These are some comments I have seen recently on the Quora website, responses to a question about whether "young children have a natural immunity to Covid-19, even if they do not catch it". What these responses describe appears to be an entirely new understanding of what the immune system is, what it does, and how it does it.

        "No human of any age has immunity until infected or vaccinated."

        "I don't think they could have any natural immunity....."

        "No. No one has any immunity to COVID 19. We/Humans have never had it before; therefore, we have never developed any immunity."

        "No, Next question please". 

        "One cannot have a “natural” immunity to a non-preexisting entity. First, one has to be exposed."

        "No. To have an immune response to a specific virus your immune system has to see the virus, either by catching ir or being vaccinated against it...."

        " No. There is no such thing as “natural immunity”.

        "There is no natural immunity".

        "The coronavirus that causes Covid-19 is novel to the human race, so no one is immune to it, especially children."

        "No human has 'natural immunity' until they are infected and their immune system responds.

        "No, haven't you seen any local news? The hospitals are filled with children with Covid.

Most of the responses the questioner received were in the same vein. To date the questioner has received 53 similar responses. Perhaps this should not come as too much of a surprise. During the Covid-19 pandemic conventional medical 'experts' have been given free-rein, both by government and the mainstream media (MSM), to inform us about this entirely new understanding of our immune systems. 

"We have no immunity, we are all at risk, we all need the vaccine" has become part of the official narrative being incessantly forced on us.

Only vaccines can safe us from Covid-19!

So what you will now hear from me will be described by the conventional medical establishment as disinformation! However, I will quote only from conventional medical websites to describe what we used to believe the immune system is, and what it does. This 'misinformation', for examples, is taken from the John Hopkins Medicine website.

        "The immune system protects your child's body from outside invaders, such as bacteria, viruses, fungi, and toxins (chemicals produced by microbes). It is made up of different organs, cells, and proteins that work together. There are two main parts of the immune system:

  • The innate immune system, which you are born with.
  • The adaptive immune system, which you develop when your body is exposed to microbes or chemicals released by microbes."
THE INNATE IMMUNE SYSTEM. This is your child's rapid response system. It patrols your child’s body and is the first to respond when it finds an invader. The innate immune system is inherited and is active from the moment your child is born. When this system recognizes an invader, it goes into action immediately. The cells of this immune system surround and engulf the invader. The invader is killed inside the immune system cells. These cells are called phagocytes." (also from the JHM website, my emphasis).

THE ACQUIRED IMMUNE SYSTEM. The acquired immune system, with help from the innate system, produces cells (antibodies) to protect your body from a specific invader. These antibodies are developed by cells called B lymphocytes after the body has been exposed to the invader. The antibodies stay in your child's body. It can take several days for antibodies to develop. But after the first exposure, the immune system will recognize the invader and defend against it. The acquired immune system changes throughout your child's life." (also from the JHM website, with my emphasis).

The JHM website only then adds that "immunizations train your child's immune system to make antibodies to protect him or her from harmful diseases." It is almost an after-thought. But it is an after-thought that does not explain why the child's immune system should not work; why it should fail in its primary task; or what has compromised our 'natural immunity' so that we need vaccines.

The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases describes the function of the immune system as follows"

        "The overall function of the immune system is to prevent or limit infection..... The immune system can distinguish between normal, healthy cells and unhealthy cells by recognizing a variety of "danger" cues called danger-associated molecular patterns (DAMPs). Cells may be unhealthy because of infection or because of cellular damage caused by non-infectious agents like sunburn or cancer. Infectious microbes such as viruses and bacteria release another set of signals recognized by the immune system called pathogen-associated molecular patterns (PAMPs)." 

Let's try one more description of the immune system this time described by the NCBI, the National Centre for Biotechnology Information .

        "The immune system has a vital role: it protects your body from harmful substances, germs and cell changes that could make you ill. It is made up of various organs, cells and proteins. As long as your immune system is running smoothly, you don’t notice that it’s there. But if it stops working properly - because it’s weak or can't fight particularly aggressive germs - you get ill. Germs that your body has never encountered before are also likely to make you ill. Some germs will only make you ill the first time you come into contact with them. These include childhood diseases like chickenpox."

        "Without an immune system, we would have no way to fight harmful things that enter our body from the outside or harmful changes that occur inside our body. The main tasks of the body’s immune system are: 
  • to fight disease-causing germs (pathogens) like bacteria, viruses, parasites or fungi,
  • to remove them from the body, 
  • to recognize and neutralize harmful substances from the environment, and 
  • to fight disease-causing changes in the body, such as cancer cells.

This is how the immune system has been understood for a very long time. Thucydides, an Athenia historian and general, said this about acquired immunity in 430bce, during the Athenian Plague.

        "Yet it was with those who had recovered from the disease that the sick and the dying found most compassion. These knew what it was from experience and had no fear for themselves; for the same man was never attacked twice - never at least fatally."

So nothing in any of these conventional medical descriptions, pre-Covid-19, talk about the inability of the immune system to recognise new, or strange viruses, whether artificially produced in a Chinese laboratory, or not. They do not support what conventional medicine now seems to be saying. To the contrary, we have been told, and we have been aware for many millenia, that the immune system is designed to protect us against 'foreign substances'.

Nowhere, in any of these descriptions, is it suggested that we have NO immunity UNTIL we have CAUGHT the infection; and certainly not UNTIL we have been vaccinated.

  • So who is spreading disinformation?
  • Has conventional medicine been wrong about the immune system for centuries - until now? If so, where is the science?
  • Or perhaps our former understanding of innate and acquired immunity (= natural immunity?) does not lead to the financial rewards that 'vaccine acquired' immunity provides for the pharmaceutical industry?

I do not know who the young person was who asked the question. But the responses he/she received will have left him/her in little doubt that he/she was completely unprotected against the Covid-19 virus, and that he/she would either have to subject himself/herself to the virus, or get the vaccine.

Of course the immune system does not protect everyone from everything; if it could do that no-one would ever be ill. We have known this for a long time too. But the problem is not the immune system - it is our treatment and abuse of our immune system. If we eat badly, if we don't exercise properly, if we smoke, if we drink to access, if we take pharmaceutical drugs, et al., we can undermine, or compromise our immune system. When we abuse our bodies our immune system will not function so well; it will not give us the protection it should; we will succumb to illness.

The Covid-19 narrative has, at least (and to a very limited extent) been honest about this. We have been told that those people most at risk of infection, hospitalisation and death are people with compromised immune systems. However, the narrative has never gone on to develop this further. Conventional medicine should have been telling us how best we can support natural immunity but it has signally failed to do so.

So the pharmaceutical industry might want to promote their vaccines. It might want to downplay the importance of innate and acquired immunity - natural immunity. It might want to suggest that vaccine immunity is best.

But nobody needs to believe this blatant promotional sales pitch!

Natural immunity is alive and well; and unless we abuse it it will continue to protect us from most infections, and keep us well, just as it has always done.



91 Scientific studies prove naturally acquired immunity provides better protection protection than the Covid-19 Vaccines (a summary given of each study provided here)

Monday, 18 October 2021

Neurodiversity. A valuable concept: but it has an inherent danger

When faced with a failing, but still powerful and highly manipulative medical system, it is necessary to examine any new terminology that suddenly appears with regard to health. One such medical term is "Neurodiversity". It has been variously described, but the 'Genius Within' website provides a good comprehensive definition.

    "Neurodiversity is the concept that all humans vary in terms of our neurocognitive ability. Everyone has talents and things they struggle with. However, for some people the variation between those strengths and weaknesses is more pronounced, which can bring talent but can also be disabling.

    "Neurodiverse / neurodivergent people tend to find some things very easy and other things incredibly hard. This usually leads to an inconsistent performance at school or work.

    "Neurodiversity can be a competitive advantage when the individuals are in the right environment, making use of their strengths, instead of constantly trying to overcome challenges. To achieve this we must create inclusive spaces to work and learn that reduce disabling factors and amplify diverse abilities.

Given this definition I have no problem with the concept of Neurodiversity. Indeed, it is an approach to life that seeks to adopt a positive view towards all people, focusing what what every person has to offer than any deficit they may have. It seeks to avoid the problem of dealing with people as a merely a member of a 'minority' group, and all the stigma this can entail. Genius Within say that its aim "is to work towards a world where all variations in the rich tapestry of human cognition are accepted and enabled."

Yet Neurodiversity has been controversial among disability advocates. Those opposed to, or have doubts about the concept point out that it does not reflect the realities of individual lives, especially those people who have high support needs. I share this concern; but my issue is somewhat different.

I wholeheartedly applaud any other effort to avoid and overcome the problem of stigmatising minority groups whether this be through sociability, learning difficulties, attention span, changeability of mood, and other issues regarding mental functioning. Indeed I welcome anything that removes the social barriers to the acceptance and full involvement in social life of any individual.

Genius Within says that neurodiverse, or neurodivergent conditions include a variety of physically 'invisible', but ever-growing conditions such as:

  • ADHD (affecting 5% of the population)
  • Autism (2% of the population)
  • Dyslexia (10% of the population)
  • Dyspraxia (5% of the population)
  • Tourette syndrome (2% of the population)
They add that 7% of the population now have mental health needs, and 5% of the population have an acquired brain injury. So the neurodiverse population is a significant, and a growing one.

My quite specific problem with the definition of neurodiversity is given by the 'Understood' website which states that:
    "Neurodiversity is a viewpoint that brain differences are normal, rather than deficits."

The conditions listed above as neurodivergent are not "normal" conditions. They have a relatively modern rise to prominence. They are essentially new diseases, either previously unknown, or whose incidence have become more widespread in recent decades. Why is this? What is the pathology. Something has caused them. And my argument is that it is always vital we seek to find the causation of any illness.

So if neurodiversity is used to challenge the view that neurodevelopmental disorders are pathological, that knowing about the causation is not important, if we accept that they are "normal", medicine will be unable to progress.

My first contact with the concept of neurodiversity was in response to a blog I wrote, several years ago now, on the link between autism and childhood vaccines. I was taken to task by someone who told me that autism was NOT a disease, or an illness, but a gift. She said that she loved her son, and did not want him to be associated with being sick, or in any way abnormal. 

This made me realise that we were speaking about two quite different things. She was talking about the love she had for her son, and how he should be treated. I was talking about the pathology of the condition with which her son had been diagnosed.

There should be no conflict between these two approaches, the one can progress alongside the other. She should be able to love her autistic son, and I should be able to look at the cause of her son's condition. The two tasks were not mutually exclusive.

Treating the person as "normal" is important. Treating the condition itself as 'normal' risks failing to examine the cause of the condition - and doing away with it.

I understand that neurodiversity is especially popular within the autism rights movement. And this is my worry. My concern is that 'neurodiversity' will be used by the Conventional Medical Establishment (CME) to deflect attention away from the causation of these conditions, not least autism. 

The CME already denies vehemently any connection between autism and childhood vaccination. The rise of autism has been alarming, and it continues to rise. Yet when asked about the cause of the autism epidemic the CME says (quoting the UK's NHS):

          "The exact cause of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is currently unknown. It's a complex condition and may occur as a result of genetic predisposition (a natural tendency), environmental or unknown factors."

How a disease, unknown prior to the 1940's, can have a 'genetic' cause is not explained. Yet it would appear that the CME does know that it is NOT childhood vaccines. It dismisses any link out of hand!

          "In the past, a number of things were linked to ASD, but extensive research has found no evidence to suggest that any of these contribute to the condition."

Yet there are, in fact, 160 research papers that supports the vaccine / autism link.

I would hate to think that the neurodiversity movement would be taken over by the CME. There is a real danger that the pharmaceutical industry might want to 'support' the neurodiversity movement, another part of its programme to deny medical harm caused by adverse drug and vaccine effects. It provides them with an attractive argument. "Autistic children are lovely, loveable people; we should spend our time loving them, not asking questions about why they developed autism".

So Neurodiversity could become an excuse for pharmaceutical denial. We don't need to look at the pharmaceutical causes of autism, in case links are found with vaccines, or paracetamol, or antidepressants, or any other drug. We do not need to look at the pharmaceutical causes of Tourette's, in case links are found with drugs like Amphetamine Sulfate, Benzphetamine Hydrochlorideor, Cylert, Pemolline, or vaccines.  

And the same applies to any of the other conditions under the umbrella of neurodiversity.

The CME message would be clear. "We have to accept that we will all be ill, and that there is no treatment for these conditions. We don't need to know about causation. It is sufficient just to love people, don't bother to look at cause. And if you (the neurodiversity movement) do this, we will support you movement with money."  This is exactly what it has done with many health charities, and patient support groups. 

The pharmaceutical industry is highly profitable, the most highly profitable industry of all; and it uses its money to divert attention from its direct culpability in the causation of illness.

I have never known anybody who has purposely set out to have a child who suffers from any condition, neurological or any other, because they are lovable. Good parents will love them, of course; and value them, of course.

But causation should never be dismissed; we should not allow anyone who has caused any medical condition to deflect attention away from their culpability; we should not allow drug companies to get away with any patient harm that may have been caused by their highly profitable drugs and vaccines.