"Where My Coo-Coo Be?"

He spoke with an enthusiastic fervor that was not always understood by me. Gesturing helped his struggle with words. ... Though he was only 3 years old, his energy was a refreshing change from our non-stop worrying of 2 years, gone by. We could now relax. He ran all day, sometimes carrying his blanket, this comforting fabric appendage, made for him, by his paternal grandmother. It had been with him through it all. Change was in the air. Nursery school was just around the corner.

The world of little children was here. He would be among strangers, potential playmates, forced, to some degree, to speak their language, one he was familiar with, yet could not handle, very easily. But he was friendly, happy and always busy. Though 'John's' spoken vocabulary was limited and sometimes, unrecognizable, at times, his abilities were not! Our attempt to enroll him in a local nursery school, at the tender age of 2 1/2 , one year earlier, had been short-lived. Three illness episodes, two weeks apart, had put an end to that error in judgment. His grandmother was pleased. She worried a lot about her preemie grandson. He was simply too young; his immune system, too immature for structured time with other children.  His 13 week early entry into 'life', had propelled him into a world of developmental challenges. He did not care. He was always smiling, laughing, having fun and full of busy. He'd beaten the odds, an incredible feat, unto itself. He was alive. That was what mattered most. A language delay was window dressing, to me.The words would come, one day. In our family, words were a mainstay of our lives, a tool to the future. "Where my coo-coo be?”, he would ask many times. (“Where is my quilt?”) “Where did you last leave it?” I would respond. Words that should have been easily spoken by him, were problematic. The teacher inside me didn't worry. He was alive, healthy and safe. Being three was a great place to be.

Long before I became this person of 'responsibility', I had been a young special needs high school teacher. My male students had challenged the notion of the meaning of success. In my first year, a special staff lunch was organized for the departing vice-principal, to be served, in staggered fashion, over three, 45 minute lunch periods. My grade 9  and 10 male classes had help plan the event, astounding the staff, at this hastily executed last-minute production. Going off curriculum had shown the students, in dramatic fashion, their capacity for learning success. In uniform, my boys performed their duties, to applause. They had achieved the improbable. They were a delightful 'band of brothers'. Their learning struggles had captured my attention - more than those of my son - at his tender age of 3.

As a newly 'minted' teacher, I had been puzzled how 10 years of formal education had not managed to address and ameliorate the learning challenges of my 'bigger boys'. In the process of trying to educate them, what had we missed? Were reading, writing and tests the only true measures of their success, worth noting, in the learning curve? Was hope fading? Was the academic stream, in education, the only way to gauge learning success? (Whole brain stimulation was always the key to it all!) Did these other abilities not matter more, in the short term? What had we ignored? ... I would soon appreciate the true nature of learning when our first child arrived too soon to survive. ... What had made the difference for him. later, in his learning journey, was simply having fun, laughing and doing whatever suited him, that day. Education was never ever about curriculum!  It was always about engagement, interaction and diversification. Thoughts and ideas were the 'silent' partners in verbal expression, in this thing called language. Were they absent because the words weren't in place and in proper form? Modelling language helped to show our son the way. ... 'Creative' language was his journey to the real thing.

Preschool served as a simple 'litmus test' for our son. Through this new medium of learning, problems of development would be revealed, noticed by his trained teachers. Nursery school would help our son build vocabulary and syntax, the rules of language. Other children would also be his teachers. At home, he was busy from moment to moment, attempting new things, enjoying food, smiling, laughing, building wooden towers with his family. He would jump and squeal at the anticipated collapse. He loved his dogs. Was that not important, too? John would be surrounded by music and dance. They were fun, healing and happy things. All the senses would be activated. Though I could not ride a bike, swim or skate, he would learn these very important life skills, too. Everything mattered – not just words! At nursery school, there was no one who would understand him the way we did. But that was good. He needed to be challenged, to be would be prodded out of his intellectual shell to go where he was not familiar. He would problem-solve, create and learn to listen, to others, in a remedial circle of fun.

It was year end when I was called into the teachers' office. Why did they want to see me? What had he done? He was only 3 years old. But here were the results of the 'litmus test,' I had hoped for. Nursery school had been my investigative tool for our son, another layer of assessment, in helping me gauge his life's progress, so far. His teacher and the owner of the school spoke, with candor, about his verbal delay. Words were the movers and shakers of communication, the measure of intelligence, I understood. But they were not the only measure, I knew. They had recommended hearing and speech assessments. And so it was done.

His once a month, one-hour speech therapy sessions, lasting one year, ended on 'graduating' day. Viewing 100 'picture' cards, each showing 3 different 'action' poses of people or animals, our son pointed to the pose most aptly described by the spoken words of the speech therapist. Making only one mistake, out of 100, catapulted our son to the top of his graduating class of one! Therapy was officially done. Real world kindergarten beckoned. His enthusiasm began to build. A new chapter was waiting.

The 'Controversial' Dr. Oz!

I rarely watched Dr. Oz until an event of epic proportions began to unveil itself, recently. A fracas had been developing, this past year, directed at the illustrious doctor, by others of his profession, over topics that seemed to paint this man as a scallywag, a doctor without integrity. TheMomsey was confused. She gets that way, sometimes.

Here was a man, made famous by Oprah, who was simply doing his job, as host of his weekly talk-show on health and medical issues. He was now being vilified for the great job he was doing of informing his predominantly female audience of the many health related issues facing them and their families. He had tread where others had not. ...He was quickly becoming an influential figure and others feared his 'golden touch'.

Dr. Oz is a doctor, cardio-thoracic surgeon, husband, father and now talk-show celebrity, whose genuine concern for others, has brought his form of open-minded health care to the world. Our bodies are no longer taboo subjects because of Dr. Oz. He has made us more aware of the experts we are when it comes to knowing our own bodies and making the right decisions that reflect that knowledge. Weight loss issues are the most often discussed topics with his predominantly female audience. He has separated 'food' into its component parts - {protein, carbohydrates - (sugars and starches) - and fats} - to help simplify our understanding of food's role in our bodies. Nothing is left to chance, however. With large scale-models/diagrams/illustrations, on room-sized screens, gracing the stage and audience participation, Dr. Oz has left nothing to chance while demystifying the body from the inside out, in his quest to enlighten, educate and perhaps entertain us, as well. He has made us all a little bit wiser.

The 'open' forum format of Dr. Oz's show, having now surpassed 1,000 episodes, was a cause for great concern. His power was becoming unwieldy. Dr. Oz was being criticized for shining a bright light on some of the 'earthly' topics of the century: GMO foods and alternative therapies. ...The famous doctor has now been forced to defend himself against a torrential backlash from some of his harshest critics - other doctors - who have questioned his ability and integrity to govern, in other aspects of his professional life. But the real controversy, it seems, rests solely with the two topics at the center of the debate: GMO Foods and alternative therapies. (He had mistakenly showcased weight loss supplements, on several episodes of his show, giving them health prominence, not intended. The great doctor was quick to apologize for his error, in judgment. How many of us apologize for our lapses in thinking? But he would not be silenced!)

Dr. Oz's position on GMO foods and alternative therapies garnered much of the attention, from others, wishing to make him an outcast. From all of the 'reality' shows I have dared to watch, Dr. Oz is a breath of fresh air. He has the facts, the staff and top-notch credentials, coupled with years of experience, to do what must be done: educate and enlighten his audience. He had tread on the sanctity of GMO foods and alternative therapies. Do not touch, he was reminded. He wanted GMO's labeled, nothing more. Others did not, preferring not to induce confusion into the grocery/produce aisle for us - the befuddled consumer - when we went food shopping. How thoughtful of them! If we were not paying close attention previously, we were now. Dr. Oz was not endorsing anything other than his audience's 'right to know'. He was informing us, as we lived our lives, with an innocence no longer possible, since the revelation came to air. The internet and Dr. Oz have helped remove the greatest societal scourge from our lives: ignorance. 

The possible benefits of alternative therapies, some of which have been around for centuries, were being given both attention and credence by the illustrious doctor. ... His audience members wanted to know. ... They were thinking people, too, not to be  easily ignored. Not all of us have a family doctor. ... Dr. Mehmet Oz has become ours! His right to inform his world-wide audience is not done without due diligence, however. His staff of professionals, in different positions of responsibility, oversee the show, seen by millions around the world.

We have a right to know what is in the food we eat. It is that simple. Food keeps us healthy and alive! Let us not forget that. Politicians, from that exalted ethereal place called government, have a duty to perform: to protect us and enact legislation to protect us, as a whole. Government is not a thing but real people, part of a grassroots organization of players, elected (hired) by us to do good things for society. Leveling the playing field while keeping us informed and 'healthy' is the point of government. Dr. Oz wanted GMO labeling - a right for all citizens - across the country. That meant government legislation. ... In the last few years, the food supply now seems to be divided into a two-tiered system: organic versus the other stuff. How and when did that happen? Food budget and transportation availability will, undoubtedly, decide who benefits from food grown one way or the other, it would seem. Good food should be a basic right for all. Decades ago, organic was a word. Now it is a way of life. Trouble was afoot, long before Dr. Oz arrived on the scene. We are now just realizing the daunting affect pesticides, herbicides, insecticides have on our health and longevity. Organics are here to stay. Questionable 'ingredients' in our food = questionable additives in our bodies, corrupting every organ and the blood delivery system carrying these additives to our human 'machines'. I have stopped using certain foods as they interfere with my 'hypo' thyroid and overall health. Information, from all sources, has made me that way!

Access to information is our democratic right. Many countries have shunned GMO's. Dr. Oz wants it labeled, nothing more. It is our right to know and our right to choose. Sounds reasonable to me. Other countries have also embraced alternative therapies, these methodologies that have survived for centuries, long before Dr. Oz arrived, on the scene, to cause 'trouble' on television. ... Years ago, when it was found that a painkiller was killing our dog, I switched to an African tea called, Rooibos, known for its antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties, to save her. We had nothing to lose. The benefits of this caffeine-free tea were well known and studied. This was not our first introduction to 'alternative therapies'. In two other instances, silver hydrosol had miraculously healed facial wounds, on Mr. Wiggles, undiscovered till they were oozing fluid, sticky and inflamed.  Silver hydrosol had worked its magic. ... (Antibiotics had not been used.) ... Days later, both wounds had disappeared, healed completely without antibiotics. I was shocked.

For many of us, Dr Oz is the man we trust, who offers up everything, for us, to decipher on our own. Watching Dr. Oz is akin to going to class, in the comfort of our living room. Information serves to inform us, not harm us. In this modern high tech-wonder world, all manner of information, is now being presented, to us, as absolute truth, making experts of us all. The truth is out there, of course. But it would seem that Dr. Oz, our 'country' doctor, is simply trying to help us find it a little more easily, making us more aware and knowledgeable, in the process. Our health deserves that and much, much more.