Watch this important video (1:32 minutes) about fluoride and its dangers.
Wednesday, March 27, 2013
VIDEO: The Great Culling: Our Water - Dangers of Fluoride
Friday, March 22, 2013
ARTICLE: In Vaccines We Trust? Paul Offit threatens religious and philosophical vaccine exemptions. A response by Suzanne Humphries, MD
In Vaccines We Trust? Paul Offit threatens religious and philosophical vaccine exemptions. A response by Suzanne Humphries, MD
– August 26, 2012
Millionaire vaccine inventor and mandatory vaccine advocate Paul Offit recently released a short VIDEO for doctors on medscape. Here is a transcript of the speech. Please read it before moving along. It is only one page long. This statement that outlines Offit's personal belief system could be a prelude to the legal removal of all philosophical and religious vaccine exemptions in the United States of America. This is something that Offit has been working toward for years, and the likely end-purpose of his series of books.
Paul Offit believes that exempting your child from vaccination is morally reprehensible. He considers himself an authority on autism, all infectious diseases, morality, history, every religious system, and infant immunology. You may also recognize Dr Offit as the one who says that all vaccines are perfectly safe and infants can tolerate theoretically 10,000 of them at once:
"A more practical way to determine the diversity of the immune response would be to estimate the number of vaccines to which a child could respond at one time…. each infant would have the theoretical capacity to respond to about 10, 000 vaccines at any one time." [1]
The status accorded to him by the pharmaceutical and medical fields permits him to influence the opinions and practice of lower rung physicians regarding vaccine exemptions. Unfortunately, even doctors will simply believe the "expert"[2] without bothering to go and check their own medical literature, to see if the self-proclaimed expertise has a solid scientific foundation. Research shows that when people listen to the expert, the part of their brains that is capable of independent thought goes to sleep.[3]
In Offit's video, he said that religious exemptions do not "make sense" and went on to inform doctors on the chronological age of three religious scriptures, and how they could not possibly have anything to do with vaccination because vaccines are so much newer than those tattered and outmoded scribbles of hundreds or thousands of years ago. Those "outmoded" books, including the Old Testament and the Koran, include specific passages containing principles which obliquely address many health issues. To many people, these scriptures place vaccines amongst may things which are not consistent with scriptural hygiene. Here are specific references from the HOLY BIBLE and the KORAN. Dr Katme's explanation of the Islamic problems with vaccination can be read HERE. Hindu faith also has restrictions on what is permitted in their bodies, the treatment of cows and monkeys etc. Vaccination is an affront to many Hindus who know the contents of vaccines. The Dalai Lama hopefully does not understand the full impact of his alliances.
God gave Moses core principles on Mt. Sinai that are held in high esteem by both Christians and Jews the world over. Offit misses out on the timelessness of God's words. God's principles don't wear out. Neither do they need continuous repeating and revising.
God could have instructed Moses on how to inoculate the Israelites in the desert when the diseases came upon them. If you take note of the Old Testament books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, you'll see that there were very specific guidelines handed down on everything from worship of God to disease management, with warnings as to what would happen if those guidelines were ignored. The Israelites had highly skilled metal smiths and very sophisticated craftsmen and oil production. They had access to all the tools that Edward Jenner used to invent the smallpox vaccine, which included cowpox (not smallpox) pus scraped directly from infected cow bellies, a crude filter, glycerine, and a sharp prong. Paul Offit may not realize how crude the highly praised first vaccine really was. Still, medical vaccination or inoculation of any sort, was never part of God's instruction.
Hospital-based doctors who consider any disease that is supposedly treatable by pharmaceutical medicine to have a spiritual component, are considered to be quacks. Lip service, however, is given through the tolerance of chaplains and religious representatives, so long as they don't interfere with the use of drugs, vaccines or "medical science."
In the New Testament, did Jesus, the greatest human healer of all time, ever turn to Luke, the physician-apostle, to do any of the healing work of people brought to him? No. Did any of the apostles and disciples ever call on Luke to do God's healing for them? No. Did Jesus instruct Luke to carry on with his old medical practices later? No. Jesus left the Holy Spirit here on earth for any and all to ask for, receive and gain wisdom from.
In medical school, doctors are taught to view the human body as a random mistake-ridden vessel, which is to be forced into submission with antibiotics, antihypertensives, antihistamines, anti-inflammatories, surgery, drugs etc. The natural extension of this paradigm over the past 100 years has been for the medical profession to condition human beings to not trust anyone but certified medical doctors to fix this defective mistake-ridden aberration of creation. Veterinary science has similarly conditioned humans to consider animals as defective, mistake-ridden creation prototypes. The number one successful strategy in creating this industry has been to always implant fear into people's heads. That increases cortisol, undermines the immune system, and creates a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Vaccines are the template for the fear-based belief system that those who don't know their history will easily fall for. The trajectory of fear removes God from the picture. A fear-ridden populace couldn't possibly credit God with any usefulness once the medical/pharmaceutical industry sets itself up in God's place.
Through the resultant lack of faith in the human creation and the God who does actually have the power to heal all through both the design of the body and miracles, seeps the arrogance (and ignorance) of doctors and scientists who think they can outwit God's nature. While sometimes it might look like it's possible to outwit nature, for example by using antibiotics, the law of "What you sow you will reap" often comes back with a vengeance. Drug-resistant bacteria like MRSA, VRE, and overgrowth of the colitis-causing Clostridium difficile, are prime examples.
Doctors like Paul Offit believe that the slowly maturing immune system of an infant is defective[4] and that vaccinations[5][6], designed to put it into hyper-drive, will fix the defects. On the other hand, Dr Offit doesn't have much faith in his own laboratory creations, since he believes that the anti-vaccination movement "threatens us all," including presumably …the vaccinated.
Paul Offit makes reference to the two states that have ruled that parents do not have a religious privilege to decide how their children's bodies are treated, citing US Constitutional amendment 14. The 14th amendment was designed to protect newly freed slaves. It is being used for a different purpose in Mississippi and West Virginia. Many people are unaware that the 14th amendment is the most controversial amendment ever proposed, and that according to some legal experts, it was NEVER LEGALLY RATIFIED. See also this PDF.
If corporate medicine is going to be permitted to over-ride parental philosophical and religious objections, and invade the bodies of our children with dozens of vaccine antigens, chemicals, animal DNA, aborted fetal tissue, and CANCER CELLS, the source of these laws must come under scrutiny.
The impingement on Article I of the FIRST AMENDMENT of the Constitution should also be taken into consideration.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
It would appear that the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation has made PLANS that would steamroll right over the protection of our free speech.
"An anti-vaccine surveillance and alert system Seth Kalichman of the http://www.uconn.edu in the USA will establish an Internet-based global monitoring and rapid alert system for finding, analysing, and counteracting communication campaigns containing misinformation regarding vaccines to support global immunization efforts."
Only time will tell what is going to be considered "misinformation" and "counteraction." If parents were convinced that vaccines are safe and effective, there would be no anti-vaccination movement. It shouldn't take military action or Internet surveillance to maintain the health of communities or global immunization efforts. This type of action is not new. It is reminiscent of policies found in National Socialist empires, Stalinist countries, or Communist China.
Those who push removal of philosophical and religious exemption should at least be free of financial CONFLICTS OF INTEREST, and they are NOT. More importantly, in order to bolster the 30-billion-dollar-per-year-income vaccine industry they consider to be evidence-based science, they should not be proclaiming worldwide expertise in what it takes to have a personal relationship with Jesus, something they appear to have no experience in.
Dr Offit considers "evidence based medicine" to be separate from religion, or spirituality – yet the Christian scriptures, both old testament and new, make it perfectly clear that good health is solely predicated on a living relationship with God.
When it comes to vaccines, these flag bearers of evidence-based medicine use research protocols which involve tight selection and exclusion criteria for vaccine study entrants. They then recommend those same vaccines, assuring safety to concerned parents, to even the children who would have been refused entry to that vaccine safety study.
Instead of placebos, evidence based medicines uses vaccines, and calls them placebos, yet vaccines do not fit their own definition of placebo;
pla·ce·bo/pləˈsēbō/Noun:
1. A harmless pill, medicine, or procedure prescribed more for the psychological benefit to the patient than for any physiological effect.
2. A substance that has no therapeutic effect, used as a control in testing new drugs.
Here are some examples of vaccine trial "placebos":
The hepatitis A vaccine was the placebo for the influenza vaccine in a well publicized STUDY. The study's designer is quoted as SAYING that he didn't want to withhold a potentially beneficial treatment from the control subjects. "Hepatitis was not studied, but to keep the investigators from knowing which colonies received flu vaccine, they had to offer placebo shots, and hepatitis shots do some good while sterile water injections do not." So, if the placebo is supposed to have no therapeutic effect as the definition that was taken from an ardently pro-vaccine website that criticizes our criticism of their use of placebos, and the study used hepA placebo because "water does no good" … where on earth is the match up with even their definition of science?
You can go HERE and see for yourself how many dangerous false placebo trials are done. THIS is an interesting one where the placebo for evaluating the safety of albumin-containing vaccines in egg-allergic children is …an egg-containing vaccine.
Multi antigen vaccines used in trials, as placebos for other multi antigen vaccines happens all of the time. These studies would be the ones Offit refers to, regarding the safety of giving numerous vaccines on the same day.
Not using real placebos, like saline, is a trade sleight of hand, because harmful placebos will give results which show that the study vaccine appears to have the same safety profile as the placebo- and is therefore seemingly OK.
The truth is, that corporate medicine makes the rules up to suit its own needs. When children die and parents successfully sue the vaccine companies responsible for the deaths, first congressmen (who accept massive corporate medicine campaign funding) then the Supreme Court, jump in to protect vaccine interests. It is politics and money, which rule on vaccine recommendations. I've only cited a couple examples of the hypocrisy of the vaccine faithful. There are hundreds if not thousands more examples of both scientific hypocrisy and CORRUPTION.
Paul Offit challenges the issue of philosophical exemption using the word origins. He says: "Philo means love, sophos means wisdom. Exactly where is the wisdom in saying that it is better not to get vaccines than to get them?"
For many educated parents, scientists and parents of vaccine-injured children who have given birth to subsequently unvaccinated children, who have the kind of health that God intended (and pediatricians appear to not understand), there is plenty of wisdom and indeed love, in not vaccinating.
Many of us who once bowed at the altar of "eminence-based" medicine, have learned the hard way, and had to re-boot our belief system. We have learned through experience and researching the latest core scientific understanding of the immune system, that the human body can and does do the job God intended. By going back to the scriptures and understanding the principles from the "manufacturer's manual," we have a new found awe and respect for God's design. We are learning that we can trust God's design to maintain its health, providing we follow God's principles to support and maintain what he manufactured, which is what it means to have a relationship with God, and to believe in God's word.
And I ask you Paul Offit, where is the wisdom in injecting newborn infants with neurotoxins, carcinogens, foreign animal and viral DNA, and metals that are known to alter the natural course of God's exquisitely designed immunity? To many who believe in God, vaccines are anything but divine. Fear of disease and faith in vaccination, along with the alteration of the human organism with new bacteria, new vaccine viruses and chronic illness- are not part of God's curriculum.
In the developed world today, we see risk-averse parenting, and cocooned children, both of whom have become disconnected from the earth, largely as a result of corporate medicine. Yet when this same medical system fails with its drugs, etc, they turn back to such things as MAGGOT THERAPY, and in desperation, try FECAL TRANSPLANTATION. See THIS ARTICLE TOO. Both of these treatments are, in an ironic sort of way, God's contributions. Isn't that interesting? These are things that any nation in existence in the Old Testament times, could have done…
The problem with man trying to assume the role of God is that every new discovery shows scientists more of what they DON'T know. Occasionally the medical system discovers a mistake they have made and then they have to change course and discontinue some long-held practice because it caused cancer, heart disease, fetal malformations, or loss of life. But rarely is the public told about that. Where possible, such knowledge is kept "in house."
We have to ask ourselves why the most heavily funded research is towards chemically or biologically altering an immune system about which the MEDICAL SYSTEM KNOWS LITTLE.
Where are the studies that show the short and long term safety in vaccinating a woman who bears a new life in her womb? The vaccine product description states that they have not been tested for mutagenicity or teratogenicity. Certainly they will never be tested for long-term consequences on the developing child. Do the lessons of DIETHYLSTILBESTROL (DES) not apply to vaccines? The eminence based medical system will no doubt perform vaccine studies only asking carefully crafted pre-determined questions with an eye to what they want to see. The data generated by the statisticians of pharmaceutically funded studies, with cunningly chosen placebos, will no doubt find no toxicity in vaccinating pregnant women, whatsoever.
Where are the long term studies on vaccinated vs. unvaccinated and the status of their health? "It can't be done," say Offit, et al. Most importantly, where is the interest in successful treatment of the infectious diseases? After all, one of the most potent marketing phrases behind so many of these vaccines is "because there is no cure." Perhaps the word "cure" is banned on the potential research list.
As medical students, we learned the biochemical process of oxidative metabolism and the function of the amazing mitochondria. How many practicing doctors really appreciate the design of those biochemical and electrical pathways that are essential to properly functioning and robust health? How many doctors know how to put that knowledge into practice? Why doesn't medical education support nutritional programs that are geared toward this primary process of oxygen utilization into energy and inflammation reduction? There is nothing more important to the sustenance and vibrance of health. Just try holding your breath for three minutes and you will see how true that is. There is nothing more important than the body's use of oxygen, which extends far beyond the lungs and ultimately involves the mitochondria. Where are the studies looking into how vaccines alter the process of oxidative metabolism, the ratio of NAD/NADH? I shudder to think what the results would show. Where are the studies looking at whether vaccines have an adverse epigenetic effect on the development and function of the immune system? To me these intricate and elaborate processes are sacred and designed by a power far greater than Paul Offit or any scientist. Yet most of them act is if it would be possible for them to develop a far better human with a much better immune system than the ones they are studying.
Those of us who do not vaccinate our children have learned from each other how to support our children through the usual childhood illnesses, because we can't rely on conventional medicine's approach. It is just too limited in principles, vision and solutions.
In the timeline of humanity, vaccines are a modern invention but they have absolutely NO claim to the betterment of humanity. There are distinct and known factors that had a far bigger impact on diseases and mortality than vaccines, and they were implemented long before the vaccines were in full use. See AIELLO, NELSON, and MCKINLEY. See also "THE AMAZING DECLINE." Until the proper study is conducted to compare the health of vaccinated vs unvaccinated children, nobody has the authority to uphold vaccination as superior to holistic management.
Paul Offit claims to be an unbiased scientist with no personal interest in vaccination. To me, this does not make sense. In 2008 while sitting on the ACIP as a voting member, Children's Hospital Of Pennsylvania sold its royalty stake in Offit's vaccine RotaTeq for $182 million, and Offit received an unspecified percentage: his share of the intellectual property, said to be "in the millions." Why doesn't he just call himself what he really is? A "multimillionaire vaccine patent owner who, by INFLUENCING IMMUNIZATION PRACTICES while sitting on the Advisory Committee For Immunization Practices, had a huge personal interest in policymaking, and wants to remove your personal rights as to what goes into your infant and your body by way of injection, and touts his own personal feelings on religion and wisdom to naïve doctors over the internet."
According to a 2009 Philadelphia Magazine interview with Offit, a reporter asked him once if he was the Antichrist, and he replied, "I'm just one of the Devil's many humble servants."
Addendum:In the initial publication of this document I misspoke. I said "Public Law 97-280 96 STAT.1211 is a law that Declares the Bible to Be The Word of God. This represents Congress' stance that the Bible has its rightful place above the Constitution because our forefathers were inspired by the Bible in the writing of the Constitution." Public Law 97-280 96 STAT.1211 is not actually a "law," as my critics have so generously pointed out. Even though it is labeled a "Law," technically it was a "resolution." However, I'd like to have Dr Offit prove his statement about a child safely taking 10,000 vaccines (note he does not say vaccine antigens, but vaccines) at once. Here's my suggestion: Let's not give 10,000 vaccines to a child, but to a monkey who is about the same size and weight of a two month old child. That should be able to prove if Offit is right.
REFERENCES:
[1] Offit, Paul et al. 2002. Addressing Parents' Concerns: Do Multiple Vaccines Overwhelm or Weaken the Infant's Immune System? Pediatrics. 2002 Jan;109(1):124-9. PMID:11773551
[2] http://www.ted.com/talks/noreena_hertz_how_to_use_experts_and_when_not_to.html
[3] Engelmann et al. "Expert Financial Advice Neurobiologically "Offloads" Financial Decision-Making under Risk"PLoS ONE. 2009; 4(3): e4957. PMC2655712 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2655712/
[4] Chelvarajan RL et al. "Defective macrophage function in neonates and its impact on unresponsiveness of neonates to polysaccharide antigens." J Leukoc Biol. 2004 Jun;75(6):982-94. Epub 2004 Feb 24. PMID:14982942
[5] Siegrist CA." Neonatal and early life vaccinology."Vaccine. 2001 May 14;19(25-26):3331-46. PMID:11348697
[6] Marshall-Clark et al. "Neonatal immunity: how well has it grown up?" Immunol Today. 2000 Jan;21(1):35-41. PMID:10637557
Dr Humphries is a board certified nephrologist. She is also a licensed internist and a homeopath.
DrSuzanne.net
Wednesday, March 20, 2013
STUDY: GMO toxins found in nearly all pregnant women, unborn babies
Study: GMO toxins found in nearly all pregnant women, unborn babies
http://www.naturalnews.com/037493_gmo_toxins_pregnant_women.html
by Jonathan Benson, staff writer
October 10, 2012
(NaturalNews) A recent study published in the journal Reproductive Toxicology debunks yet another lie of the biotechnology industry concerning genetically-modified organisms (GMOs). According to an analysis conducted by researchers from the University of Sherbrooke Hospital Centre in Quebec, Canada, 100 percent of pregnant women and their unborn babies tested positive for GMO toxins in their blood, proving that transgenic materials are not effectively broken down and eliminated during digestion as we have all been told.
The study, which is featured in the new Jeffrey Smith documentary Genetic Roulette (http://www.naturalnews.com/037272_Genetic_Roulette_movie_GMO.html), examined the blood of 30 pregnant women and 39 non-pregnant women. The research team, led by Aziz Aris and Samuel Leblanc, looked for glyphosate (Roundup); gluphosinate, an active ingredient in various broad-spectrum herbicides; Cry1Ab, the Bt toxin of gluphosinate; and several metabolites of both glyphosate and gluphosinate.
Upon observation, they noticed that the non-pregnant women all had high levels of both glyphosate and gluphosinate in their blood, while none of the pregnant women had either of the two chemicals in their blood, illustrating that some type of metabolic change takes place when women become pregnant. As far as the other chemicals were concerned; however, 100 percent of the pregnant women and their unborn babies tested positive for 3-methylphosphinico propionic acid (3-MMPA), a metabolite of gluphosinate, while 93 percent of maternal blood and 80 percent of fetal cord blood tested positive for the Bt toxin Cry1Ab.
This is highly concerning, as it shows not only that these two untested chemicals are effectively bypassing the digestive systems of pregnant women, but that they are also persisting in their bloodstreams for an untold amount of time, where they proceed to infect the bloodstreams of unborn children. The long-term health effects of such exposure are largely unknown, as few formative safety studies have ever been conducted on either Bt toxin or the pesticide and herbicide chemicals used on GMO crops.
Gluphosinate, Cry1Ab both linked to causing major health problems
Existing studies do suggest; however, that gluphosinate, the precursor to 3-MMPA, can cause cancer, DNA damage, and reproductive toxicity. The European Union (EU) actually banned the use of gluphosinate in member states after determining that the herbicide is a significant threat to environmental and human health. (http://www.cbgnetwork.org/2785.html)
"This paper shows that this GM protein (Cry1Ab) can survive extensive food processing to enter the diet," says the U.K. group GM-Free Cymru. "It can then survive human digestion to enter the blood of the person eating it and then cross the placenta to enter the fetus." (http://www.gmfreecymru.org.uk/pivotal_papers/crucial24.htm)
Another recent study found that rats fed a lifetime of GM corn, many varieties of which contain the Cry1Ab toxin, developed horrific tumors all over their bodies. Compared to a control group not fed GM corn, GM corn-fed male mice died prematurely at a 66 percent higher rate, and GM corn-fed females died prematurely at a 250 percent higher rate. (http://www.naturalnews.com)
Be sure to check out the informative new film Genetic Roulette, which takes a comprehensive, in-depth, and scientific look at the non-safety of GMOs, and how these untested poisons are destroying the health of the world: http://geneticroulettemovie.com/
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/037493_gmo_toxins_pregnant_women.html#ixzz2O8sMdR5j
Monday, March 18, 2013
Oral Sensitivity in Children with Aspergers and High-Functioning Autism
Oral Sensitivity in Children with Aspergers and High-Functioning Autism
http://www.myaspergerschild.com/2012/03/oral-sensitivity-in-children-with.html
In contrast to motor-based swallowing problems, difficulties with eating can also stem from dysfunction with the sensory system. The act of swallowing does require both motor and sensory functions to complete the act.
All of us have a range of sensory tolerance, some of us more sensitive than others. If you have a low sensory threshold, you may have an affinity for stronger tasting foods or perhaps crunchy foods. Conversely, if you are on the other end of the sensory spectrum, you may prefer milder foods or soft foods. Kids also have taste and texture preferences and tend to prefer milder, simple foods.
Hypersensitive oral reactions are exaggerated responses to touch in the mouth or around the face. Younger Aspergers and HFA kids with hypersensitive oral reactions may not let you into their mouths for feeding, tooth brushing, or play. They may have problems moving from one food texture to the next, spitting out or gagging on any food but puree. They may gag when a spoon touches the tip of their tongues. A tiny lump of food may be gagged on instead of swallowed.
The following are red flags for sensory-based eating difficulties:
- Able to bite and chew solid foods, but not swallow them
- Gag on foods that require chewing
- Hypersensitive gag only with solids and not with liquids
- May try to swallow foods whole to avoid contact for chewing
- No problems with taking liquids
- Will separate textures from smooth food and pocket or expel them
Some kids become so sensitive and emotional, that their reactions go one step beyond hypersensitive and become “aversion reactions” (these are stronger, more emotional, and less logical reactions). These kids may cry, fuss, pull away, push food away, or refuse even to let you near their mouths. Gagging may turn into vomiting in an aversive reaction.
Fears can develop around eating or any touch around the mouth. Aspergers and HFA kids may try to control all aspects of a meal in an effort to protect themselves from uncomfortable situations. They may want only certain food textures, certain spoons, certain plates, and certain cups. Moms and dads become frustrated because their youngster will eat only a few foods prepared in very specific ways. Face washing and tooth brushing can seem impossible.
For most Aspergers kids, mouth hypersensitivity is one part of an overall body sensitivity to touch or changes in touch. These kids have a hard time handling touch on other parts of their bodies as well. Therefore, treatment for the face and mouth needs to be part of a treatment plan of relaxing or desensitizing touch reactions throughout the body
Because most hypersensitive kids have body as well as mouth over-sensitivities, they may allow touch or cuddling only if it is their idea. If you try to approach them, they may push you away, or rub or scratch the spot. The touch may be quite agitating.
Helping your youngster handle deep pressure or firm touch is usually a good starting place. Light ticklish touch can be too over-stimulating. Massage can be an excellent activity for these kids. Deep pressure touch, given in an organized, predictable way can be very helpful with touch sensitivities. When your youngster can anticipate the touch, it makes it easier to handle. A variety of other firm touch activities may be described by your youngster's therapist.
Let your Aspergers youngster know that you are going to touch. Approach the youngster within his/her vision so that the touch is not a surprise. Often, touch is handled well if the youngster sees it coming. Kids seem to be able to "prepare" themselves for the touch and sometimes can react more appropriately. Also, your youngster needs to learn that touch around the face and in the mouth can be fun.
Remember that the mouth is the most sensitive part of the face. Start by touching places away from the mouth and work toward the mouth. Consider starting on the trunk or back of the arms, and make a game of moving toward the face. In this playful way, the game becomes a distraction, so your youngster isn't just worrying about the touch. You also are moving in a predictable fashion that is less scary.
Tips for helping your child accept touch:
- Kiss your youngster's face with the stuffed toy, and then let him/her kiss the toy or your face.
- Play face-touch games with stuffed toys and dolls.
- Playfully taking turns with touching can help your youngster handle play around the mouth.
- Tooth brushing with regular or electric toothbrushes can help
- Wipe the face regularly (slowly and softly) with warm cloths, using deep pressure. This can be calming to an over-reactive youngster.
- Singing is nice to combine with touch activities. The predictability of the tune helps your youngster prepare for the touch.
Eating involves many different types of touches that the parent needs to understand. The spoon, fork, and cup touch the lips as they bring food to the mouth. The food temperature is a touch. Food texture (e.g., lumpy, wet, thick, etc.) is an important touch of eating. Some kids remove food from the spoon with their teeth very rapidly, so that the spoon doesn't touch their lips. Try gradually keeping the spoon or cup at the lips longer. Use the youngster's most favorite foods for this activity.
Food temperature often can cause over-reactions. Remember that room-temperature foods tend to be easier to handle. Notice the temperatures your youngster handles easily. Make temperature changes very slowly and with foods the youngster likes.
When Aspergers kids over-react by gagging when you try to switch to thicker, more textured or lumpy foods, you probably need to make the transition more slowly. Aspies usually will do better moving from strained foods to thickened strained foods, to blended foods, to thickened blended foods, to thickened blended foods with tiny, very soft lumps. Remember, it is easier to hide lumps in thickened foods. They are much too obvious when presented with strained foods. Good food thickeners include cereal, dehydrated foods, instant potatoes, instant puddings, and ground cracker crumbs.
When you present new body or mouth touches or new food textures, always start with familiar touches or textures. Making games of the touching helps kids think that the touch or the eating or the new texture o" their idea. Move at your youngster's pace, but be persistent.
Provide crunchy foods, and separate textures during meals. Keep crunchy foods on hand for your sensory-sensitive youngster, as these foods facilitate an important "sixth sense" called proprioception, in which sensory feedback makes the child aware of movement and body position. Crunchy foods may help your youngster to develop better proprioception. Also, avoid mixing foods together that have conflicting textures, such as mashed potatoes and gravy.
A speech-language pathologist or occupational therapist (OT) that is trained in oral sensitivities can implement an oral-sensory treatment program to help desensitize the child and reduce the sensitive gag response to textures. Also, the therapist can assist the mother or father with activities to transition the child to age-appropriate textures and tastes of food. If the sensory problem is more pronounced or pervasive, an OT with a background in sensory integration can provide more involved sensory intervention. These therapies may need to be preceded by resolution of medical problems first, especially reflux, before treatment activities can have an effect.
Advice to parents with Aspergers kids who have sensory-based eating problems may include to avoid forcing the child to eat certain foods, maintain a routine mealtime, have at least one preferred food available each meal, and to have the youngster join the family at mealtime versus eating alone.
Aspergers and High-Functioning Autistic kids with hypersensitive reactions to touch in the mouth and around the face need extra help learning to handle the touches of everyday life, especially for eating. You do not have to struggle with this one alone. Your youngster's pediatrician, dietitian, or therapy team can work with you and your youngster to figure out the best way to help.
The Aspergers Comprehensive Handbook
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
