Grandchildren with Special Needs?

IrishEyes

IrishEyes

Member
Location
Midwest
Our family history on both sides had no history of children born with special needs.
My experience in Early Childhood Education and Development couldn't help but make me notice
the increase in children with this.
I have 2 grandchildren who have special needs, a 31 yr old, mentality of a 12 year old and
21 year old, mentality of a 2-3 year old.
My last 5 years in a classroom of 3 year old's I saw my class of 12 go from one with special needs to six in that 5 year span.
This was shocking to me and has always peeked my curiosity as to why.
I do not buy the cause is totally due to vaccines as a few of the children I taught were not vaccinated.

Do any of you think about this, study it or been given reasons for it? I will forever be curious and reading up on
this and probably will never know the answer.
 

Higher exposure to plastics especially in food and beverages. New and different chemicals added to highly processed food. The increase in highly processed food as part of the diet. Increasing number of outgassing toxins in other everyday consumer goods. Better medical care for newborns, a higher survival rate. More and more pharmaceutical material entering the water supply from all the prescriptions people take. Increased agricultural toxins. Constant bombardment from cell phones and cordless devices. Background radiation. Just off the top of my head.
 
While in the military, I remember a Sergeant that had a son that was 14. One day, the Sergeant came into my office and wanted permission to bring his son to a “Bring Your Child To Work Day,” which I had no knowledge about, until I went to AS and received some information about it and what was our policy regarding such.

As it turned out, he was allowed to bring his son, but had to stay with him for his time there. When he brought his son to meet me, I was happy to learn that he was very alert and was able to communicate and ask questions about the various jobs we do. I enjoyed having him. His dad had told me prior to that day that his son was very into anything military. I (faked) swore him in and gave him our Division’s patch and a Sergeant’s patch like his dad wore. I also gave him a really nice mug with the motto, “Bella Ac Pace Paramus” engraved on it.
 

Flarbalard said:
Higher exposure to plastics especially in food and beverages. New and different chemicals added to highly processed food. The increase in highly processed food as part of the diet. Increasing number of outgassing toxins in other everyday consumer goods. Better medical care for newborns, a higher survival rate. More and more pharmaceutical material entering the water supply from all the prescriptions people take. Increased agricultural toxins. Constant bombardment from cell phones and cordless devices. Background radiation. Just off the top of my head.
Click to expand...
You've given this a lot of thought! So many and maybe all can sure be contributing to it. You almost touched on my thoughts on it.
Been There said:
While in the military, I remember a Sergeant that had a son that was 14. One day, the Sergeant came into my office and wanted permission to bring his son to a “Bring Your Child To Work Day,” which I had no knowledge about, until I went to AS and received some information about it and what was our policy regarding such.

As it turned out, he was allowed to bring his son, but had to stay with him for his time there. When he brought his son to meet me, I was happy to learn that he was very alert and was able to communicate and ask questions about the various jobs we do. I enjoyed having him. His dad had told me prior to that day that his son was very into anything military. I (faked) swore him in and gave him our Division’s patch and a Sergeant’s patch like his dad wore. I also gave him a really nice mug with the motto, “Bella Ac Pace Paramus” engraved on it.
Click to expand...
That was so wonderful you thought to do that! My grandson that is 2-3 year old mentally loves policemen, which my son was a k-9 officer. Son gave him an old uniform of his and grandson would put it on and go sit on his large scale trike in the back yard to "Make money" and give out tickets.
 
Flarbalard said:
Higher exposure to plastics especially in food and beverages. New and different chemicals added to highly processed food. The increase in highly processed food as part of the diet. Increasing number of outgassing toxins in other everyday consumer goods. Better medical care for newborns, a higher survival rate. More and more pharmaceutical material entering the water supply from all the prescriptions people take. Increased agricultural toxins. Constant bombardment from cell phones and cordless devices. Background radiation. Just off the top of my head.
Click to expand...

Also air pollution, there have been a few studies that found higher autism rates correlated to how much air pollution the mothers are exposed to.
 
IrishEyes said:
Our family history on both sides had no history of children born with special needs.
My experience in Early Childhood Education and Development couldn't help but make me notice
the increase in children with this.
I have 2 grandchildren who have special needs, a 31 yr old, mentality of a 12 year old and
21 year old, mentality of a 2-3 year old.
My last 5 years in a classroom of 3 year old's I saw my class of 12 go from one with special needs to six in that 5 year span.
This was shocking to me and has always peeked my curiosity as to why.
I do not buy the cause is totally due to vaccines as a few of the children I taught were not vaccinated.

Do any of you think about this, study it or been given reasons for it? I will forever be curious and reading up on
this and probably will never know the answer.
Click to expand...
Considering I had and raised a child with a chronic, serious neurological condition called hydrocephalus, and my grandson has Crohn's, I've thought a ton about this. My mother once said she thought the increase was due to the way doctors treated childbirth. I think it's more related to all the chemicals in our air, water, food, etc.
 
I don't know if I am onto something or not. I was thinking, my generation is the main one when prescribed birth control began and it had a 90-95% success rate. Pill you took daily for 28 days and had a regular menstrual cycle. Then later they had a pill you could go 3 months without menstrual , soon after another pill you could go 6 months and then lo and behold the Depo shot arrived and it lasted longer.
When those began to get longer and longer, I thought how safe can that really be, that is so not what nature intended, can you mess with something like that and not screw up the natural order of things? What do those drugs do long term and is each generation going to pass up mutated genes in some way?
When I had that increase of children coming into day care I began asking mothers if I could ask them questions about this. Everyone said yes. A couple of them said they began on the pill but then changed to the shot, others had only used the shot. Some had more than one child and 1 or 2 of the children showed signs of a slight slow learning and then the one had severe problems. Not sure what would designate why one would be so much more severe unless some of the possible causes above contributed and that child just got the double whammy.
I can see where could lead to a really huge lawsuit by many parents if it could be true. Because they really pumped the ads for those shots when they came out.
If I sound bonkers, let me know. But I honestly don't think there was enough study done on this for a long enough time to know how safe it really was for children conceived during a certain period when the drugs from those shots were still in their system.
 
IrishEyes said:
I don't know if I am onto something or not. I was thinking, my generation is the main one when prescribed birth control began and it had a 90-95% success rate. Pill you took daily for 28 days and had a regular menstrual cycle. Then later they had a pill you could go 3 months without menstrual , soon after another pill you could go 6 months and then lo and behold the Depo shot arrived and it lasted longer.
When those began to get longer and longer, I thought how safe can that really be, that is so not what nature intended, can you mess with something like that and not screw up the natural order of things? What do those drugs do long term and is each generation going to pass up mutated genes in some way?
When I had that increase of children coming into day care I began asking mothers if I could ask them questions about this. Everyone said yes. A couple of them said they began on the pill but then changed to the shot, others had only used the shot. Some had more than one child and 1 or 2 of the children showed signs of a slight slow learning and then the one had severe problems. Not sure what would designate why one would be so much more severe unless some of the possible causes above contributed and that child just got the double whammy.
I can see where could lead to a really huge lawsuit by many parents if it could be true. Because they really pumped the ads for those shots when they came out.
If I sound bonkers, let me know. But I honestly don't think there was enough study done on this for a long enough time to know how safe it really was for children conceived during a certain period when the drugs from those shots were still in their system.
Click to expand...
Thank goodness I am too old to worry about all that. :rolleyes:
 
IrishEyes said:
I don't know if I am onto something or not. I was thinking, my generation is the main one when prescribed birth control began and it had a 90-95% success rate. Pill you took daily for 28 days and had a regular menstrual cycle. Then later they had a pill you could go 3 months without menstrual , soon after another pill you could go 6 months and then lo and behold the Depo shot arrived and it lasted longer.
When those began to get longer and longer, I thought how safe can that really be, that is so not what nature intended, can you mess with something like that and not screw up the natural order of things? What do those drugs do long term and is each generation going to pass up mutated genes in some way?
When I had that increase of children coming into day care I began asking mothers if I could ask them questions about this. Everyone said yes. A couple of them said they began on the pill but then changed to the shot, others had only used the shot. Some had more than one child and 1 or 2 of the children showed signs of a slight slow learning and then the one had severe problems. Not sure what would designate why one would be so much more severe unless some of the possible causes above contributed and that child just got the double whammy.
I can see where could lead to a really huge lawsuit by many parents if it could be true. Because they really pumped the ads for those shots when they came out.
If I sound bonkers, let me know. But I honestly don't think there was enough study done on this for a long enough time to know how safe it really was for children conceived during a certain period when the drugs from those shots were still in their system.
Click to expand...
In 1966 lower doses were approved, but the high-dose pills were still sold until 1988. My pharmacist told me I'd been taking ten times the necessary dose. By 1967 serious side effects were just being acknowledged.
 
IrishEyes said:
My last 5 years in a classroom of 3 year old's I saw my class of 12 go from one with special needs to six in that 5 year span.
Click to expand...

that is nevertheless a very small sample size in terms of population.

I would be curious to see if there are any actual statistics supporting this.

Some possible reasons why some things may have increased - as mentioned better survival rates of pre term infants, possible better medical care so children with conditions are not dying as infants, better diagnosis of things like autism, coeliac disease rather than actual increase in numbers, children with conditions not being shut away in institutions therefore more in community and mainstream care
 
January said:
that is nevertheless a very small sample size in terms of population.

I would be curious to see if there are any actual statistics supporting this.

Some possible reasons why some things may have increased - as mentioned better survival rates of pre term infants, possible better medical care so children with conditions are not dying as infants, better diagnosis of things like autism, coeliac disease rather than actual increase in numbers, children with conditions not being shut away in institutions therefore more in community and mainstream care
Click to expand...
I agree, the class room is a small number for making statistics, then speaking with other teachers from may other areas at conferences some were noticing it also.
I don't know if the increase declined, leveled out or kept rising after I left the center. When I use the term Special Needs, it was inclusive to all children showing a necessity for extra care in a personal way.
My oldest Grandson was diagnosed Autistic, the younger one had many benchmarks on 5 types that they could not label/diagnose him with any one ailment. Each of them required extra care in some form from the teachers and family none the less.
The institution reference I will admit did not enter my mind that could be a factor. How much it factors in I don't think would be much as how many people could have afford the cost of that.
I have read many study reports on this topic and never I have I seen one that even referenced any study that included information about birth control use being suggested. It's always genetics, poverty levels, race, environmental, nutrition. To me that is a red flag.
I have always wondered why isn't that aspect even mentioned or thought of?
One of the hardest things I had to do in that career was approach a parent and suggest them to have their child evaluated. The 3 I did. I didn't suggest on the behavior as a cause it was the struggle and disconnect I observed in the child in certain situations. I had seen teachers who could not deal with an ill-mannered child and tried to use this as a way to remove them from their classroom, that is a whole other story!
 
gruntlabor said:
In 1966 lower doses were approved, but the high-dose pills were still sold until 1988. My pharmacist told me I'd been taking ten times the necessary dose. By 1967 serious side effects were just being acknowledged.
Click to expand...
Thank you for that, I did not know that fact. My sons were all 70's babies. I had my tubes tied after my last one in 77, so quit taking them so I never followed it's course until my DIL's later were talking about all the ones to choose from available. And yes for all the presumed reasons the shot offered, that's what they went with.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top