💰 Dyslexia is not just an educational challenge—it has become a multi-billion US dollar per annum business. Every year, vast sums are poured into research, therapy programs, brain imaging, pharmaceuticals, tuition, and salaries for professionals across countless organizations. With so much money at stake, it is hardly surprising that dyslexia is often portrayed as a disease—something that can only be “treated” or “cured” through expensive interventions.
Silence from Institutions
As I have noted in earlier articles, I have written to many of these organizations and institutions. Most do not bother to respond. Meanwhile, I continue to encounter a steady stream of articles online—pieces that appear to be produced at the behest of organizations with vested interests.
These articles are strikingly similar in content and tone. They recycle the same explanations, the same disclaimers, and the same framing of dyslexia as a neurological defect requiring specialized, costly solutions.
You can expect to see at least one such article every week. Though attributed to different authors, the language and structure are often near-identical.
Patterns in the Messaging
Here are a few examples from 2010 that illustrate the repetition:
Claim: Dyslexia is caused by faulty communication between the eyes and the brain.
Claim: Dyslexics “see things differently” and require special training to interpret signals correctly.
Claim: Dyslexia is a neurological condition that prevents the brain from processing visual input as non-dyslexics do.
Claim: Dyslexics must be taught differently to reach their full potential.
Each article ends with a disclaimer distancing itself from medical advice, while still presenting dyslexia as a medicalized condition.
The Common Thread
Despite being published under different names—Edwin Jones, Joseph B. James, Charles Brantley, Howard Rodriguez, Samantha Rhodes—the articles share:
Identical explanations of dyslexia’s supposed neurological basis.
Repeated emphasis on the need for professional testing and specialized training.
Standard disclaimers warning readers to consult physicians, even though the content is framed as informational.
This uniformity raises serious questions: are these truly independent perspectives, or coordinated narratives designed to reinforce a profitable industry?
Conclusion
The business of dyslexia thrives on portraying it as a costly, lifelong condition. The repetition of narratives across countless articles suggests a deliberate effort to shape public perception.
Readers should be cautious. When multiple “authors” echo the same claims and disclaimers, it is worth asking: whose interests are being served?
No comments:
Post a Comment