(1) As a general rule, I have a problem with labelling - I think it tends to be overused simply because it allows people to categorize and forget. Although, I do recognize that there are definitely circumstances where correct identification is important.

(2) The effects of environmental chemicals is poorly understood, studied and documented. Add to that social influences affecting gene expression and you have a very, very difficult mess to understand. About a year ago, I was having dinner with some educators and the conversation turned to the rise in ADD / ADHD. The dominant thoughts at the table were (1) the increase is due to better diagnosis, (2) the increase is due to environmental pollutants / contaminants, (2) the increase is due to misdiagnosis. I put forward (outside the box, as usual), the idea that it may have to do with loss of social factors that previously mitigated against ADD / ADHD expression - namely that in the past, children tended to stay home with a caregiver (usually the mother) longer than they do now. Nowadays, kids get sent to daycare, early education programs, etc. Recent studies have shown that baby rats (or was it mice?) who are groomed by their mothers, exhibit less anxiety than those that are not because grooming affects the way certain genes are expressed (the most obvious example of non-chemical influences affecting gene expression is animal coat colour. The colour of many cats and dogs is dependent on temperature, with the tips of the paws, ears, tail often being a different colour because they tend to be cooler). In our own case, we certainly notice that Jason is calmer when one of us is at home. He was an absolute disaster when he used to spend the day at daycare. So, now, we pay for someone to be home after school so he isn’t away from his home environment for extended periods. It would be preferable if one of us could stay home (JJ is much calmer when I am home for a few days).

(3) I find most scientists to be no better than religious fundamentalist - believing only in the literal written word. Present a new idea to a scientist and the first thing they will say is, “Where is that published?” If it is not published, it is not real. As previously mentioned, JJ has eczema and I am 100% convinced that certain foods aggravate it (cow dairy, nuts of any sort, spinach, soya. He may also be sensitive to wheat, but it is hard for us to confirm this). However, the doctors don’t believe it because it is not part of the sacred canon. When we were in Peru, on dermatologist, to prove to us that it had nothing to do with the food, prescribed prednisone for JJ. JJ immediately improved. He discounted our observation. (Not that I want JJ on prednisone.)

Finally, part of the increase in “disease” may be because we are able to intervene and prolong life. Sofia always tells me how surprised she is that there are so many people allergic to peanuts in Canada. She never heard of that in Peru. A Sudanese friend of mine said the same about peanut allergy and Sudan. My comment is always that (1) people tend to be poor, (2) health care is quite poor, (3) infant mortality is relatively high. If the child dies of peanut allergy, it is likely to be attributed as a tragic infant death related to poverty rather than some external factor (like peanut allergy).

I have no idea what quality of life JJ would have without his creams and antibiotics. His fingers tend to get infected fairly often and he is on antibiotics a few times per year for that. Perhaps, in another time, he would have already died from complications from skin infection. My main concern is that that he will contract an antibiotic resistant strain of Staphylococcus Aureus.

BTW, you can always Photoshop (or GIMP) in a BFG.

R’acquel: I admire people who know how to talk things out thourough. Thanks Richard. How to respond? I’ll take my time by following up with your links first to gain more insight from your own perspectives At the stage of needing to review my son’s situation with school atm, along with a deadline to complete.