This is not a short video but it has such important information! We hope all of you will take the time out of your busy lives to watch it! We will continue to share this series of videos as it is released. The information shared here is vitally important to understand for positive physical and mental health!
Food allergies affect over 15 million Americans, including 1 in every 13 children under the age of 18. The symptoms of these allergic reactions can range from minor (e.g., itching, swelling of the lips, intestinal cramps, diarrhea, and vomiting) to major or even life-threatening (e.g., development of hives and rashes, tightening of the throat to the point of being unable to breathe, significant drops in blood pressure).
Having such an allergy—or being the parent of a child with such an allergy—can impose unwelcome lifestyle limitations and cause a great deal of anxiety. At present, there is no known cure for serious food allergies that works for everyone. This means that the best approach for the time being is to completely avoid the food product to which you or your child has an allergic reaction. However, this is not always practical or possible to do. That’s why the majority of “treatments” currently available focus on managing the symptoms after an attack has taken place. For instance, individuals with serious food allergies may carry an auto-injector filled with epinephrine (adrenaline) with them at all times, just in case.
Naturally, because of the seriousness and the prevalence of food allergies, a great deal of research is being conducted on treatments to desensitize individuals to the foods they are allergic to. This may effectively “cure” the allergy for some sufferers. One of the fields that shows promise is the study of immunotherapy (more precisely, low-dose immunotherapy), in which extremely small amounts of the allergen are administered to allergy sufferers over time. The basic idea behind the experimental treatment is that the body will develop a tolerance to these low doses and that the allergic reaction will gradually cease.
The first work in immunotherapy was undertaken in the 1960s in England by Dr. S. Popper, who was trying to cure allergic reactions to pollen by injecting patients with low doses of the allergen in combination with the enzyme beta-glucuronidase in an approach called “enzyme potentiated desensitization” (EPD). While the then-experimental treatment showed early success, its use in the U.S. was suspended by the FDA for administrative reasons in 2001. However, follow-up work continued and an enhanced American version of the EPD injection called Low Dose Allergens (LDA) was later introduced.
The obvious drawback of this type of therapy is that the doses have to be injected by a physician. It is also necessary for patients to avoid outside exposure to larger doses of the allergens and to many medications while the treatment is underway. However, other researchers have continued to study desensitization via immunotherapy with the goal of finding other mechanisms of administering the low-dose allergens, such as oral medications, sublingual (under the tongue) medications, and others.
Some of the most promising work in this field is being performed at Stanford University School of Medicine by Kari Nadeau, Associate Professor of Allergies and Immunology. Nadeau is working with children afflicted with peanut allergies. Her approach is to give them minute doses of the peanut allergen and gradually escalate the doses over a period of months in the hope of them eventually developing immunity. Up to this point, Nadeau’s technique has produced positive results for many patients, but it does appear to have limitations. First, the therapy doesn’t seem to offer a permanent “cure”. Patients must continue to take low doses of the peanut allergens or risk losing their immunity. If they stop for more than a few days, the allergies can come back. Second, the treatment itself is time-consuming and often expensive.
While the jury is still out on immunotherapy, the concept shows promise. However, progressing from concept to proven treatment is clearly going to take much more work. As it stands today, some immunotherapy approaches work for some patients but don’t work for others. Plus, there are questions about how long immunity actually lasts and whether it must be maintained or periodically boosted. This is clearly a very important consideration since patients could run the risk of unknowingly losing immunity and coming into contact with the allergen, allowing it to trigger an unexpected—and potentially serious—attack.
So if you suffer from food allergies and are looking for a way to diminish them, the best advice we can offer at this time is to continue following the research and to consult with your own healthcare providers about the potential benefits and risks in your own case. If you do decide to pursue immunotherapy, be sure that it is being administered and overseen by well-trained medical professionals who can monitor progress and watch for side effects.
One thing is certain: food allergies are on the rise. According to a 2013 study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there were 50% more food allergies in 2011 than there were in 1997. An estimated 15 million Americans have food allergies, and the numbers are increasing. Four percent of the population has a food allergy now, as opposed to only one percent ten years ago. What is not so certain is what is causing this increase in food allergies. Experts believe it is likely due to a few different causes, including over-cleanliness, reluctance to feed children certain foods at an early age, and the quality of the foods we eat. It may also be that physicians are becoming more skilled at recognizing the problem and, therefore, that food allergies are diagnosed more frequently.
One interesting thing to note is that American children are more likely to have food allergies than children in other nations. It may be due in part to Americans being better-off than people in other countries. The CDC noted on their website that, “Food and respiratory allergy prevalence increased with income level. Children with family income equal to or greater than 200% of the poverty level had the highest prevalence rates.”
Experts surmise that the immune systems of people in poorer and undeveloped nations get exposed to pathogens far more often than people in nations with higher standards of cleanliness and more access to antibiotics. Exposure to a wide range of microbes at an early age helps to ensure that the immune system is kept busy and learns early to recognize the difference between a dangerous microbe and a harmless one. Many children in the US now grow up in homes so clean that they encounter relatively few germs until they are exposed to them in school.
Another issue is the reluctance of parents to feed their children foods that may possibly cause an allergy. For example, some women avoid eating peanuts during pregnancy and will not feed them to their children until they are older. However, if we look at the rate of peanut allergies in Israel, it is far lower than that in the US. The primary difference between the two countries is that Israeli parents feed their children peanut snacks at a far earlier age than American parents do.
The American diet also consists of far more processed foods and GMOs than the diets of other countries. The side effects of genetically modified foods have still not been thoroughly investigated, but more studies are finding health issues in animals fed genetically modified foods. In addition, conventionally-raised meat in the US is typically fed hormones and antibiotics, which may be wreaking havoc with our own immune systems when we eat meat from these animals.
Extensive pesticide and herbicide use can also increase the risk of food allergies. A study published in the Annals of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology found that people exposed to chemicals called dichlorophenols (DCPs) were more likely to develop food allergies. These chemicals are created when common pesticides and herbicides break down. People with the highest level of this chemical were more than twice as likely to have a food allergy.
The best thing you can do to help ensure that you and your family do not develop food allergies is to eat whole foods from reliable sources as often as your household budget will allow. Organically-grown foods may be one part of the answer. To be labeled “100% organic,” foods must not have been exposed to pesticides and herbicides, has not received hormones or antibiotics, and cannot be genetically modified. In addition, don’t be afraid of getting dirty! Regular exposure to germs helps keep your immune system exercised and it will be less likely to overreact to harmless microbes.
Getting adequate amounts of fiber in your diet is important for a variety of reasons. The primary ones are that it improves digestion and contributes to lowering your risk of contracting chronic diseases such as diabetes, cancer and heart disease. The FDA recommends that adults get at least 25 to 30 grams in their diet every day. However, our typical western diet, which is high in refined grains and processed food, provides the average person only about 15 grams of fiber per day.
There are two different types of dietary fiber: soluble and insoluble, each of which fulfill an important task. Soluble fiber dissolves in water (and our stomach’s digestive juices), transforming into a gel-like substance that helps to lower levels of “bad” LDL cholesterol and reduce high blood sugar. The primary purpose of insoluble fiber is to work as an indigestible bulking agent to keeps things moving along the digestive tract, which aids elimination and reduces the risk of constipation, hemorrhoids and diverticulosis. Fiber may also help you to lose weight, and is important in maintaining general bowel health.
Among the best sources of both soluble and insoluble fiber are the following:
- Beans and lentils – Make a three-bean salad, a bean burrito, some chili or soup. Hummus (chick pea puree) is another tasty option.
- Bran cereal – You don’t have to endure Grape Nuts to meet your daily requirement. Any cereal with 5 or more grams of fiber per serving is considered high in fiber.
- Whole grains – Chuck the white bread for whole-grain bread and pasta. It tastes better, and it does not make your blood sugar spike so quickly due to its higher fiber content.
- Brown rice – Has a great, nutty taste and is particularly nice with a little soy sauce added.
- Vegetables – Broccoli, cabbage, cauliflower, Brussels sprouts and celery are among the vegetables with the highest fiber. Be sure not to overcook them though. They should remain crunchy.
- Popcorn – A low-calorie snack (if you skip the added butter) and an easy source of fiber.
- Nuts and seeds – Those highest in fiber are almonds, pecans, walnuts, sunflower seeds and pumpkin seeds.
- Baked potatoes – Be sure to eat the skin, as it’s the part with the good fiber.
- Berries – There’s a lot of fiber contained in the seeds and skin of berries.
- Oatmeal – Steel-cut oats are the best in providing good amounts of cholesterol-lowering fiber. If you’re in a rush, instant oatmeal provides fiber as well, if at a lower amount.
So be sure to add more from the above list to your weekly menu and enjoy the many benefits that increased fiber has to offer! If you have questions about your diet choices, always remember that you can call either of our Billings offices and schedule an appointment to meet with Dr. Oblander or a member of our staff!
As summer turns to fall, lots of people (children and adults alike) will be spending more time inside and in closer proximity to one-another. Washing your hands is something simple we can all do to keep our schools, workplaces and homes just a little bit healthier. In fact, it’s actually been identified by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) as the single most effective way to prevent the spread of communicable diseases.
But researchers at Michigan State University recently found that only about 1 person in 20 actually washes his or her hands properly in even the most obvious hand washing scenario—after using a public restroom. According to a summary by writer Lindsay Abrams of the Atlantic:
“Of 3,749 people observed leaving the bathrooms, 66.9 percent used soap, while 10.3 percent didn’t wash their hands at all. The other 23 percent of people stopped at wetting their hands, in what the researchers, for some reason, call “attempted washing” (as if maybe those people just weren’t sure how to follow through). Although the researchers generously counted the combined time spent washing, rubbing, and rinsing, only 5.3 percent of people spent 15 seconds or longer doing so, thus fulfilling the requirements of proper handwashing. They average time spent was 6 seconds.
Why Hand Washing?
Bacterial and viral infections can be spread when the hands come into contact with infectious respiratory secretions and carry them elsewhere. This happens most often as a result of someone coughing, sneezing, shaking hands, or touching an object that has been in the proximity of a sick person and then touching the face—particularly the nose, mouth or eyes. This is one of the primary ways of transmitting the virus that causes the common cold.
Washing your hands after using the toilet or changing a diaper is of utmost importance, as the ingestion of even the smallest amount of fecal matter can cause serious illness from deadly pathogens such as E. coli, salmonella, giardiasis and hepatitis A, among others. You should also be particularly careful about washing your hands after touching garbage, handling animals or animal waste, visiting or caring for an ill person, or if your hands show visible dirt.
Those who handle food should routinely wash their hands, not only after using the toilet, but also after touching raw meat, fish or poultry, since the microbes present on uncooked food can cause gastrointestinal infections ranging from mild to severe or even life-threatening.
Perhaps those with the greatest need to wash their hands on a regular basis are healthcare workers. Because they’re constantly exposed to sick patients and patients with weakened immune systems, and since they frequently come into contact with contaminated surfaces, these professionals have a special responsibility. Before the importance of hand washing was widely understood within the healthcare community, millions of people became sick or died from infections passed along on the hands of their caregivers. During the 19th century, up to 25% of women died in childbirth from childbed fever (puerperal sepsis), a disease subsequently found to be caused by the bacteria Streptococcus pyogenes. After hand washing was introduced as a standard practice in the delivery room, the rate of death dropped to less than 1%.
It All Begins With Hand Awareness
Here are the “4 Principles of Hand Awareness”:
- Wash your hands when they are dirty and BEFORE eating
- DO NOT cough into your hands
- DO NOT sneeze into your hands
- Above all, DO NOT put your fingers into your eyes, nose or mouth
How to Wash Your Hands the Right Way
To wash your hands properly, you need only two things: soap and clean, running water. If these two things are not available, you can use an alcohol-based hand sanitizer that has a minimum 60% alcohol content.
Before washing your hands, remove all rings and other jewelry. Using running water, wet your hands thoroughly, then apply enough soap to work up a nice lather. Keeping your hands out of the water, rub them together, being sure to scrub both the front and backs of your hands, including your wrists, and also washing between the fingers and under the nails. Do this for 20 seconds, then rinse completely under the running water. Be sure to turn off the taps with a paper towel rather than your bare hand. According to the CDC, the whole process should take about as much time as singing “Happy Birthday” twice.
But What About Drying?
The Mayo Clinic recently published its own comprehensive review and analysis of every known hand washing-related study produced since 1970. Interestingly, their researchers found that drying hands was a key part of preventing the spread of bacteria. They also concluded that paper towels are better than blowers for this purpose. Here’s some of their reasoning:
- Most people prefer paper towels to blowers, so they’re more likely to use them.
- Blowers take too long, encouraging people to wipe their newly-cleaned hands on dirty pants or to skip the step altogether.
- It takes less energy to manufacture a paper towel than it does to dry hands with a blower.
- Blowers dry out the skin on your hands.
- Blowers scatter bacteria three to six feet from the device.
As chiropractic physicians, we have a special interest in helping our patients (and non-patients, for that matter) avoid illness and injury. This means helping them develop healthy lifestyle habits—like regular hand washing—that prevent disease. We also work closely with them in areas like diet, exercise, sleep and stress management. If you’d like to learn more about what we can do to help you stay healthy and live your life to its fullest, please call or visit our office today!
Over the past few years, health researchers around the world have become increasingly interested in exactly how our immune system develops. In particular, they want to understand how it might be shaped by the environment we live in—and especially by our interactions with microbes. One theory, known as the “hygiene hypothesis,” posits that reduced exposure to bacteria, symbiotic microorganisms (for instance, the flora that live in our digestive tract) and parasites makes us more susceptible to allergic diseases by suppressing the natural development of our immune system.
The basic idea is that modern standards of household and personal cleanliness, smaller family units and less outdoor time have all combined to limit the number and types of microbes many of us come into contact with, and that this has resulted in more people having immune systems that are over-sensitive or calibrated incorrectly. This line of thinking leads to an interesting question: Do people who have been exposed to more or different types of microbes actually have stronger immune systems? One way researchers have approached this question is to study individuals who have spent more time with animals (pets) or in the company of lots of children.
The Pet Effect
A recent Finnish study performed by researchers at Kuopio University Hospital found that babies who grow up in a home that has a pet are less likely to get coughs and colds in their first year of life than their counterparts who live in pet-free homes. Lead author of the study, Dr. Eija Bergroth, a pediatrician at the university, said, “We think the exposure to pets somehow matures the immune system so when the child meets the microbes, he might be better prepared for them.” Researchers believe that the dander that pets shed and the microbes that they bring in from outdoors prime babies’ newly-forming immune systems, teaching them to fend off allergies, bacteria and viruses.
Previous studies had found a link between the presence of pets in a baby’s home and a lower risk of allergies. And in a study performed on mice, exposure to household dust from a home in which a dog lived prevented a common respiratory virus that has been linked to the development of childhood asthma.
Researchers from the Finnish study, published in the journal Pediatrics, followed the health of 397 Finnish children during their first year of life. Parents recorded the state of their child’s health on a weekly basis, including any runny noses, coughing and ear infections. They also noted if the child took any antibiotics. The results of the study found that children with pets in the home had a 44% lower risk of contracting an ear infection and were 29% less likely to be prescribed antibiotics, when compared with babies from pet-free homes.
The type of pet in the home did make a difference in how likely babies were to become ill during their first year. Dogs in the home were associated with a 31% lower risk of illness in the first year, whereas the presence of cats in the home was associated with only a 6% improvement in risk. The greatest benefit was from outdoor pets (those that were not restricted only to the indoors), as they brought in a wider array of microbes on their fur.
According to researchers, early exposure to pets seems to be the key in developing greater resistance to microbes, as it is the time that a child’s immune system is learning to differentiate friendly from unfriendly microbes, and by getting a wide array of these in small amounts, babies’ immune systems become well-trained early on.
The Kid Effect
Maybe it’s just wishful thinking, but many moms and dads (as well as teachers and childcare workers) believe that being around young children boosts their immune system. It’s easy to see why this idea has some popular appeal. After all, young children typically have lots of contact with other young children, often in environments where lots of germs can be spread. They then bring these same germs into contact with adults, whose immune systems need to fight them off over a sustained period of time. The thinking goes that this, in turn, helps make these adults more resistant to them.
But what does the science actually say about this? Rigorous research is hard to come by, but perhaps the best anecdotal evidence can be found in the “common wisdom” imparted to new kindergarten and elementary school teachers. When one woman started teaching in California, her school board warned her that she should probably plan her finances for the first year of teaching based on being out sick more than her allotted number of “sick days,” and thus not being paid for them. The woman, who had always been remarkably healthy, laughed at this advice, but then spent 25% of her first year at home sick, likely because of all the germs she picked up from kids in the classroom.
However, this same schoolteacher rarely ever got sick again. Her exposure to a wide variety of germs transmitted by the kids did seem to boost her immune system over time, and enhanced her ability to be exposed to them in the future without getting sick herself. We can possibly infer that the same thing happens with small children in the home—they pick up germs at school and bring them home where the parents are exposed to them. This exposure then builds immunity over time rather than diminishing it. Dr. Jordan S. Orange, chief of immunology, allergy and rheumatology at Texas Children’s Hospital explains the simple mechanics of this “early exposure” process this way: “When you get it [immunity], you have it. So, if you get it earlier, you’re going to be immune earlier.”
It’s often hard to know whose science to believe and whose advice to take when it comes to Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) in our food. The information available on this subject is complex, the stakes are high (in terms of the health, social, environmental, political and economic issues involved) and passions run hot on all sides of the debate. So it’s not surprising that facts are often used selectively and much of the discussion is biased.
On one side of the debate, large agribusinesses such as Monsanto stress the potential human and environmental benefits of genetically altered crops, such as reduced pesticide use and being able to feed a growing worldwide population. On the other side of the debate, opponents of genetic engineering are often guilty of scaremongering and using emotionally-loaded labels like “Frankenfoods” to color the conversation. So what does the science currently tell us?
Genetically modified plants have now been with us for three decades, and have been widely planted since the mid-1990s. This kind of technology differs from conventional plant breeding in that it uses genes from other species to modify DNA rather than selecting for certain characteristics from within a breeding population. Of particular interest to farmers is the ability to engineer plants that are resistant to certain pests and herbicides, can tolerate harsher or more variable environments and have increased nutritional value (more vitamins or minerals, for example).
On the other side of the fence, concerns of consumers and environmental activists are threefold:
1. That genes from crop plants will spread to the wild and other, non-engineered or organic, crops or that there may be unanticipated environmental impacts
2. That there may be unknown long-term health effects from this relatively untested technology
3. That farmers, especially in developing countries, will become over-reliant on global seed companies rather than saving their own seed, resulting in greater dependency and poverty.
Thus far, some 13 plant species have been genetically engineered in one form or another, including wheat, soybeans, corn, tomatoes, alfalfa, canola, potatoes, rice and sugar beets. In 2010, genetically engineered crops accounted for over 320 million acres of planting–165 million in the USA alone. Over 80% of the soy and corn being eaten as food in the USA is now consumed in its genetically modified form.
Given the widespread planting and consumption of GM crops over the last decade, it might be expected that there would be a wide range of studies on the safety of these foods. However, a report in 2003 found only 10 such studies in a search of the literature. This number had grown to just 42 by 2011. Of these, 36 studies were found to demonstrate no negative effect when GM crops were fed to animal species, four had positive effects and two negative. The two negative studies were both carried out prior to 2000 and have not since been replicated. Despite the largely positive conclusions drawn from these studies, a subsequent review of 19 studies found that there was sufficient data to indicate a likelihood of liver and kidney damage. The authors also noted that some significant results were stated as being “biologically insignificant,” a conclusion that they found questionable.
It is notable that soy allergies in the UK rose by 50% following the introduction of GM soy products. One study found that levels of a known allergen, trypsin inhibitor, were increased by more than a quarter in GM compared to non-GM soy, and that these levels were seven times higher following cooking. Further studies have also demonstrated negative environmental effects related to the use of GM crops, such as an increased mortality of wetland and water insects exposed to genetically modified corn pollen, and increased use of herbicide in plantations of GM soy, cotton and corn compared with their conventional counterparts. This casts considerable doubt on one of the main proposed benefits of herbicide resistant crops.
Independent scientists reviewing the safety of GM crops have called into question both the general lack of safety testing of GM crops and absence of follow-up studies, especially ones that are not in some way funded by the biotech companies themselves. Given this and the lack of stringent testing requirements for GM crops prior to both widespread field planting and human consumption, there remains cause for concern. The notion of “substantial equivalence” that largely exempts GM food from safety testing if it is seen to be the same as its conventional counterpart, has also been flagged as unnecessarily lenient on a technology most regard as unproven.
While the general public has (for the most part) been reassured by the fact that there have been very few few short-term disasters, genes from GM crops continue to find their way into wild and conventionally grown (including organic) plants as well as the larger food chain. Until sufficiently rigorous independent studies are available to determine the short- and long-term effects of GM crops, it is hard not to conclude that we are currently in the middle of a long-running experiment in which most of the benefit is gained by the biotech companies while most of the risk is carried by consumers and the environment. The problem is that if GM crops, or even just some of them, are eventually found to be a risk not worth taking, it is hard to put the genie back in the bottle. In some respects, it is simply too late now to do the long-term safety assessment that should have been carried out well before widespread approval was granted.
For the time being, the best that consumers can do is to push for disclosure and choice so that they have more flexibility when they shop at the local grocery store.
There is no question that organic food costs more than conventionally grown food, and organic has long been out of reach for many consumers due to higher prices at the market. But if you have the money to fork out, is the extra that you are spending worth it? The bottom line is that it depends to some extent on the reason why you are buying organic in the first place. If it is because you believe it is more nutritious, then recent research suggests that you may just as well buy conventionally grown produce. But if you are concerned about pesticide intake and conventionally grown agriculture’s effect on the environment, in addition to avoiding GMOs (genetically modified organisms), then your money is well spent.
A recent meta-study performed by researchers at California’s Stanford University published in the journal Annals of Internal Medicine found that their analysis of 223 studies performed on food evaluating nutrient and contamination levels “lacks strong evidence that organic foods are significantly more nutritious than conventional foods.” However, they did conclude that “Consumption of organic foods may reduce exposure to pesticide residues and antibiotic-resistant bacteria.” Only 17 of the included studies had been performed on humans, the longest of these lasting for only two years. The long-term effect of one type of food compared with another has yet to be established.
There have been many criticisms of this study, one of the most relevant being that researchers did not define what they meant by “significant” in terms of health benefits. In terms of detectible pesticide residues, conventional produce had an average of 38%, and conventionally grown produce, 7%. However, the researchers did not take into account the type of pesticides and their individual impact on health. It’s also important to note that the amount of pesticide contamination is not the only factor to be considered. Charles Benbrook, from the Center for Sustaining Agriculture and Natural Resources at Washington State University says, “Pesticide dietary risk is a function of many factors, including the number of residues, their levels, and pesticide toxicity.”
In fact, studies that have followed young children from the earliest days of their mothers’ pregnancies through the first few years of childhood have found that exposure to pesticide residues from the beginning of pregnancy can have a significant effect on a child’s development. The children of women who consumed organic food during pregnancy and who ate it throughout childhood had a lower risk of birth defects, eczema, autism, learning and neurobehavioral problems.
Benbrook’s commentary letter on the study, also published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, stated that “I recently completed an assessment of relative pesticide health risks from residues in six important fruits-strawberries, apples, grapes, blueberries, pears, and peaches. Using the latest data from USDA’s Pesticide Data Program (USDA, 2012) on these foods, I found that the overall pesticide risk level in the conventional brands was 17.5 times higher than in the organic brands…. The differences translate into a 94% reduction in health risk from the selection of organic brands.”
Essentially, it’s what you are not getting in your organic produce that you are paying extra for. If your budget is limited, it might pay to take some time to discover which items of produce are likely to be highest in pesticide residues and buy organic forms of that produce. The rest of your produce can be conventionally grown, and there are many local farmers who basically grow their crops in an organic manner but are not certified, which can save you some money.
There are several events in my life that I wish I had done a better job of recording or saving for posterity. One such event that continues to stand out in my mind is my granddaughter’s runny nose. You may think that sounds funny but there is a reason that I wish I had done a better job of recording her runny nose.
You see…when this granddaughter was infant and toddler aged she had a runny nose that literally made my granddaughter a proverbial “snot nosed kid”. Excuse the grossness but the snot at times literally bubbled out of her nose. When she fell asleep – the congestion caused her to sound like a little old man. Keeping the snot wiped away from her nose could have employed a person full time.
Unfortunately, we did not live close to this sweet little girl when she was experiencing these problems. Trips to the doctor confirmed that she was not experiencing any allergies. However, I can tell you what made all the difference in the world was chiropractic adjustments. The few times that my husband was able to adjust her was like watching a miracle in action.
We would let her fall asleep (we knew she was sound asleep as soon as she started sounding like a little old man snoring) and then my husband would adjust her. It was something like this to start with….kkkkkzzzzzzugh…kkkkzzzzzzugh (you know the kind of horrible snoring sounds that make you think you need to wake the person so they can actually get some air into their lungs)…then the sound changed to…uuuuuzh….uuuuuzh (snoring but only ever so slightly)….then to deep full breathing without any snoring or obstruction. The whole transformation taking only a couple of minutes.
Yup…if I had been smart enough to record her breathing transformation – it could have been a YouTube hit video just because of how amazing the transformation was.
When infants are born…standard birthing procedures almost always guarantee that the infant’s head will be twisted to help move the shoulders out of the birthing canal. 80% of infants checked during the first few months of life had subluxations directly related to birth trauma. The most common ailment caused by the birthing process is infant colic – which not surprisingly is very successfully treated in almost all circumstances by chiropractic adjustments.
We had another granddaughter that initially experienced colic related to the birthing process. Not only was she fussy…she hurled a large portion of her mother’s milk consistently after nursing. After just two chiropractic adjustments, her colic and hurling tendencies were vanished.
The birthing process and then all of the regular experiences of childhood make infants and children ideal candidates for chiropractic treatment. The whole process of learning to move, crawl, walk and run – with all of the bumps and bangs and falls that come with their learning progression are a big reason why.
Chiropractic adjustments in children can remedy colic, allergies, bed wetting, ear infections, sinus problems, ADD/ADHD, and scoliosis just to name a few.
By the way, if you have a child that has a nose congestion issue like my granddaughter had and you can bring her to our office, give our office a call – I would love to video tape the difference that an adjustment will make! Yours in Health!