# The Walking, Sitting, Self-Medicated Wounded from Birth



## darkestshadeofblue (Mar 21, 2016)

Hi,

I would like to re-address and re-introduce the subject of the infant that grew into the inner child that became the adult with stunted emotional maturity and a plethora of issues that run the gamut from inability to function socially, to eating disorders to immobilization, addictions, isolation, depression, anxiety and physical ailments from the root chakra to the crown. It's all-encompassing.

So apparently there are millions of children - who were born into these families that couldn't create a nurturing environment, providing the skin-to-skin bonding, the eye-gazing, the warmth, the friendliness, the empathy and the love, compassion and *we've got your back* energy to the infant and so emerged, like from a battlefield, wounded, bleeding, heaving and literally dying for lack of that inner spark that is incorporated into the organism from conception to 3 years of age. 

Now we deal with what has been given. And this is probably the hardest path any human being has ever been asked to take. This is the road of the unknown, because nobody before us had to travel it. Nobody before us was given these parameters of being ignored, untouched, mocked and neglected on the basest of levels.

It's because of this newness, this archaic newness, because the illness is old but the manifestation of it, combined with awareness is new, we are here to heal ourselves. And this also is unchartered territory - i.e. who has left the codes to undo the harm and the injury to the psyche? Will it be the Source of All? And how exactly is one who was left with burnt synapses of connection exactly supposed to connect to the Source of All, when to themselves the endeavor is and always has been a catch-22? Try, fail, give-up, why bother? And where does Faith figure in - and how can you rise above what was never introduced in this physical realm as being tangible and accessible?

So, I posit, a think-tank - for the infants, the fetuses who were at their wit's end in not knowing why their caretakers chose to let them cry it out, be ignored and be basically raised like calves separated from their mothers - in how to undo the damage, rise above, find our voices, our strengths and our balance - and our roots and our place in this world. And through this venue, provide knowledge, wisdom and understanding to others. 

What is the key to elongating synapses to start something and then conclude? What are the healing measures of someone unwanted and who cannot understand (mentally grasp) the concept of love? I believe nothing is given without the ability to be able to handle what was given. The questions are many - let's start with the parameters. Negative plus negative plus positive = ?

Self-image. It's a good place to begin.


----------



## MHealthJo (Mar 21, 2016)

These are difficult and very very important questions, darkestshadeofblue. 

I think it's a very good thing that you wish to raise awareness about these important things.

I am so sorry that you experienced things that affected the course of your life a great deal.

I am not sure whether you have had the experience of working with a caring and skilled therapist (clinical psychologist), but I believe they (especially ones who work with the modality of schema therapy, and perhaps something like existential therapy also) would be the best source of what information and tools we currently know, in relation to healing. (There is also a lot of excellent information in various sections of this forum, for example.) Working with a caring and skilled therapist that we have become comfortable with makes many many things possible.

I do hope so much that more and more awareness grows about these things, and that research about healing continues.

Every time someone tells their story, awareness does increase. Thank you for talking about your experience.


----------



## darkestshadeofblue (Mar 22, 2016)

Dangers of ?Crying It Out?
Damaging children and their relationships for the longterm.

*See note on basic assumptions below.

Letting babies "cry it out" is an idea that has been around since at least the 1880s when the field of medicine was in a hullaballoo about germs and transmitting infection and so took to the notion that babies should rarely be touched (see Blum, 2002 (link is external), for a great review of this time period and attitudes towards childrearing).

In the 20th century, behaviorist John Watson (1928), interested in making psychology a hard science, took up the crusade against affection as president of the American Psychological Association. He applied the mechanistic paradigm of behaviorism to child rearing, warning about the dangers of too much mother love. The 20th century was the time when "men of science" were assumed to know better than mothers, grandmothers and families about how to raise a child. Too much kindness to a baby would result in a whiney, dependent, failed human being. Funny how "the experts" got away with this with no evidence to back it up! Instead there is evidence all around (then and now) showing the opposite to be true!

A government pamphlet from the time recommended that "mothering meant holding the baby quietly, in tranquility-inducing positions" and that "the mother should stop immediately if her arms feel tired" because "the baby is never to inconvenience the adult."  A baby older than six months "should be taught to sit silently in the crib; otherwise, he might need to be constantly watched and entertained by the mother, a serious waste of time." (See Blum, 2002.)

Don't these attitudes sound familiar? A parent reported to me recently that he was encouraged to let his baby cry herself to sleep so he "could get his life back." 

[Note: In other posts on infant sleep listed below, my co-authors and I point out flaws in studies of sleep training. Here is another example. Check out this article (link is external) and its table that lists the studies reviewed. The table shows that every study is flawed--either the intervention was not followed (fidelity) and/or only parent reports were used, not observation. Moreover, the age range of the children varied. Most importantly, note that most studies did not measure child wellbeing. So there is no responsible way to draw generalizable conclusions from this set of flawed studies. The standards for publishing such studies appears to be very low. In a forthcoming post, we note how many studies use an "Intent to Treat" criterion for distinguishing conditions, not bothering about what actually happened.]

With neuroscience, we can confirm what our ancestors took for granted---that letting babies get distressed is a practice that can damage children and their relational capacities in many ways for the long term. We know now that leaving babies to cry is a good way to make a less intelligent, less healthy but more anxious, uncooperative and alienated persons who can pass the same or worse traits on to the next generation.

The discredited behaviorist view sees the baby as an interloper into the life of the parents, an intrusion who must be controlled by various means so the adults can live their lives without too much bother. Perhaps we can excuse this attitude and ignorance because at the time, extended families were being broken up and new parents had to figure out how to deal with babies on their own, an unnatural condition for humanity--we have heretofore raised children in extended families. The parents always shared care with multiple adult relatives.

According to a behaviorist view completely ignorant of human development, the child 'has to be taught to be independent.' We can confirm now that forcing "independence" on a baby leads to greater dependence. Instead, giving babies what they need leads to greater independence later. In anthropological reports of small-band hunter-gatherers, parents took care of every need of babies and young children. Toddlers felt confident enough (and so did their parents) to walk into the bush on their own (see Hunter-Gatherer Childhoods, edited by Hewlett & Lamb, 2005).

Ignorant behaviorists then and now encourage parents to condition the baby to expect needs NOT to be met on demand, whether feeding or comforting.  It's assumed that the adults should 'be in charge' of the relationship.  Certainly this might foster a child that doesn't ask for as much help and attention (potentially withdrawing into depression and going into stasis or even wasting away) but it is more likely to foster a whiney, unhappy, aggressive and/or demanding child, one who has learned that one must scream to get needs met. A deep sense of insecurity is likely to stay with them the rest of life.

The fact is that caregivers who habitually respond to the needs of the baby before the baby gets distressed, preventing crying, are more likely to have children who are independent than the opposite (e.g., Stein & Newcomb, 1994). Soothing care is best from the outset. Once patterns of distress get established, it's much harder to change them.

Rats are often used to study how mammalian brains work and many effects are similar in human brains. In studies of rats with high or low nurturing mothers, there is a critical period for turning on genes that control anxiety for the rest of life. If in the first 10 days of life you have a low nurturing rat mother (the equivalent of the first 6 months of life in a human), the gene never gets turned on and the rat is anxious towards new situations for the rest of its life, unless drugs are administered to alleviate the anxiety. These researchers say that there are hundreds of genes affected by nurturance. Similar mechanisms are found in human brains--caregiver behavior matters for turning genes on and off. (See work of Michael Meaney and colleagues; e. g., Meaney, 2001).

We should understand the mother and child as a mutually responsive dyad. They are a symbiotic unit that make each other healthier and happier in mutual responsiveness. This expands to other caregivers too.

One strangely popular notion still around today is to let babies 'cry it out' (aka total extinction or unmodified extinction) when they are left alone, isolated in cribs or in other devices.  This comes from a misunderstanding of child brain development.

    Babies grow from being held. Their bodies get dysregulated when they are physically separated from caregivers. (See here for more.)

    Babies indicate a need through gesture and eventually, if necessary, through crying. Just as adults reach for liquid when thirsty, children search for what they need in the moment. Just as adults become calm once the need is met, so do babies.

    There are many longterm effects of undercare or need-neglect in babies (e.g., Bremmer et al, 1998; Blunt Bugental et al., 2003; Dawson et al., 2000; Heim et al 2003).

    Secure attachment is related to responsive parenting, such as comforting babies when they wake up and cry at night (link is external).

What does 'crying it out' actually do to the baby and to the dyad?

Read on:
Dangers of “Crying It Out” | Psychology Today

---------- Post Merged at 01:32 AM ---------- Previous Post was at 01:27 AM ----------

Emotional Trauma in the Womb
By
Samuel L?pez De Victoria, Ph.D.

The caller complained, ?I?ve been sad all my life. I?ve been to many therapists and none have been able to help me get rid of my sadness. Do you think you can help me??

Since I have seen many similar cases like this before, I told the caller, ?I have a good hunch on what is going on. Come on over and lets see if I can help.? After briefly treating the person, the sadness was gone and it has stayed that way ever since. I have treated hundreds of these situations where individuals have been able to experience release of seemingly hopeless issues. What has made the difference?

*There is a growing body of research showing that babies in the womb feel, taste, learn, and have some level of consciousness. One study had babies in the womb receiving ?vibroacoustic stimulation? (Gonzalez-Gonzalez et al., 2006). That is a fancy way of saying sound waves were transmitted*. For comparison purposes, there was also a control group that did not receive the treatment. After they were born, the babies who had received the stimulation were again given the same treatment. The result was that these babies recognized the signal and tended to calm down after receiving the signal. The researchers concluded that fetal life is able to learn and memorize with this capacity lasting into neonatal life (post-birth).

In other research, Anthony DeCasper and William Fifer created a nipple that was connected to an audio device (Kolata, 1984). This nipple test was given to 10 newborn babies. If a child sucked in one way they would hear their mother?s voice. Sucking in a different pattern would cause the child to hear another woman?s voice. The researchers found that the babies sucked in a way to hear their mothers. The same experiment was done using the sound of the mother?s heart beat and that of a male voice. The result was that the babies sucked in such a way as to hear the mother?s heart beat more often than the male voice.

DeCasper later did another test where he had sixteen pregnant women read a children?s book. They read the book out aloud twice a day for the last 6.5 weeks of their pregnancy. Once born, the babies were given the nipple test previously mentioned where they could listen either to their mother reading the original children?s book that was used or another book. The babies sucked to hear the original children?s book. What DeCasper concluded was that a prenatal auditory experience can influence auditory preferences after birth.

An author and well known obstetrician, Christiane Northrup (2005) shares that if a pregnant mother is going through high levels of fear or anxiety she creates a ?metabolic cascade.? Hormones known as cytokines are produced and the mother?s immune system is affected, including her child?s. Chronic anxiety in the mother can set the stage for a whole array of trauma based results such as prematurity, complications of birth, death, and miscarriage. The opposite is also true. When the mother is feeling healthy and happy, she produces oxytocin. This is often called the molecule of belonging. The presence of this component creates feelings of bonding and strengthens immunity in the baby. Neurotransmitters moving inside the mother?s body creates a chemical and physical imprint on the baby?s brain and body. The message imprinted is that there is safety and peace. The baby feels secure and taken care of.

Can a baby learn while in the womb? The research seems to point in that direction. In terms of mental health, can this be a clue to psychological issues adults exhibit? In some cases, I think so. I feel this way, not because I have done peer-reviewed research on the matter, but because of the hundreds that I have treated for their fetal life traumas. They experienced significant or total reduction of their negative and dysfunctional issues. Many of these patients had previously exhibited spontaneous and abrupt feelings of anger, fear, sadness, loneliness, hyper-vigilance and even co-dependent enablement.

The next time you experience one of these emotions and you cannot figure out where it came from perhaps it came before your physical birth. You may have had a detached mother or a scared one. You could have had a mother that did not want to get pregnant and resented the father. Maybe your mother was depressed and lonely. Hopefully, you had a happy and content mother who nurtured you in her heart and enjoyed having you in her life.

References
Gonzalez-Gonzalez, N. L., Suarez, M. N., Perez-Pinero, B., Armas, H., Domenech, E., & Bartha, J. L. (2006). Persistence of fetal memory into neonatal life. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica, 85, 1160-1164. doi:10.1080/00016340600855854

Kolata, Gina (1984). Studying learning in the womb. Science, 225, 302-303. doi:10.1126/science.6740312

Northrup, C. (2005). Mother-daughter wisdom. New York, NY: Bantam Books.

---------- Post Merged at 01:43 AM ---------- Previous Post was at 01:32 AM ----------

---------- Post Merged at 01:44 AM ---------- Previous Post was at 01:43 AM ----------

99% of the population has been traumatized from inception, conception, birth until 3. My biology is no different than the majority's. All illnesses today can be traced back to when the imprint of trauma was initially set into place during the formation of the person. ALL illnesses. ALL disorders can be traced back to that critical time when the DNA's original blueprint was being stored and the brain was being wired.  Autonomous system processes all stem from that time, from the physiological to memory triggers. No awareness, no consciousness - it is, however the programming that runs in the background in everyone of us. Genes are what we are given by parents, conditioning is what programs them.

But I wasn't abused as a child? I was loved. All it takes is one misfire and the entire organism is rendered *disordered*. One misfire can be a lack of attunement, thoughts of parents during conception, energy of mother during pregnancy, birth trauma, non-bonding after birth and a myriad of other traumas that set the pendulum into action to create fear in the growing and absorbing psyche of the child.


----------



## MHealthJo (Mar 22, 2016)

I'm not exactly sure if all research into these topics is conclusive yet.... We can't say that all problems in human health and functioning  originate in one place and time and one basis. I think we do need to take care about absolutist conclusions. Oversimplification and absolutism are often how misinformation and error happens in the first place.... so it's good to take care in that way and it's good for researchers to take some time doing high quality work before making each conclusion that they make.


----------



## darkestshadeofblue (Mar 23, 2016)

All of our disorders, diseases and relationship patterns stem from our DNA programming. All of it. And it's conclusive. It's called Epigenetics and it's real. More real than any other science being studied today, simply because it turns on and turns off every single aspect of the human condition - through positive/negative experiencing - and replicates itself with the DNA creating the template through which we then operate. It is through the genetic code that our illness can and will be repaired, cycles of dysfunctional (see also genetic *flaws*) restored to their original healthy orderly blueprint. This is the new psychology where energy meets matter and consciousness is key to healing.

Reviewing the Evidence for Mental Illness Being Epigenetic | Psychology Today
Grandma's Experiences Leave Epigenetic Mark on Your Genes | DiscoverMagazine.com 
Power of Attachment Relationships, Epigenetics, and Trauma s Mumblings




MHealthJo said:


> I'm not exactly sure if all research into these topics is conclusive yet.... We can't say that all problems in human health and functioning  originate in one place and time and one basis. I think we do need to take care about absolutist conclusions. Oversimplification and absolutism are often how misinformation and error happens in the first place.... so it's good to take care in that way and it's good for researchers to take some time doing high quality work before making each conclusion that they make.



---------- Post Merged at 02:50 AM ---------- Previous Post was at 02:43 AM ----------

Interesting discussion - Epigenetics at Work - YouTube


----------



## David Baxter PhD (Mar 27, 2016)

darkestshadeofblue, you've told us little or nothing nothing about yourself but you have posted several provocative articles which seem to have a goal, or interrelated goals.

Why are you posting these? Where are you going with all this? What is your agenda in this forum?


----------



## H011yHawkJ311yBean (Mar 28, 2016)

I know a bit about the "crying it out" method...

I know that genetics (nature) and how one is raised (nurture) both have influence on how a child develops.

There have been many studies that follow children in their development.  Twins were also studied.

Some main conclusions were that, even if there was a high chance of genetic/DNA/inheritance of a mental illness, mood disorder, etc... That if a child was still raised in a loving way and nurtured well, (and/or also lived in a good community with lots of safety, resources and support for that child's growth) that the genetic or inherited illnesses were proven to be less or non-existance...

At the same time, there were those who had very low probability of genetic/DNA/inheritance of mental illness, mood disorder, etc... And if that child was raised in abuse or neglect inside the family unit, (and/or also lived in a more desperate community with lots of danger, lacking resources and support for that child's growth), then it did not entirely matter (as much, or at all) if the child was not genetically prone to mental illness or mood disorders, and would be more likely to develop emotional or psychological problems.

Some examples:
Have Researchers Finally Settled The Nature Vs Nurture Debate? | IFLScience

Nature Nurture in Psychology | Simply Psychology

Nature and Nurture Debate - Genes or Environment?

Therefore, I am not sure why you think that (if I am interpreting what you are trying to convey properly) simply letting an infant cry and not immediately attend to its needs would be the guaranteed cause for said infant to somehow become a broken person with an underdeveloped emotional side.

Also there IS the possibility that a child has a chemical imbalance or some other physiological difference in his/her brain that can cause the "missing conscience," or lack of empathy or emotional understanding. 

As it is, I myself had some neglect, emotional abuse, emotional incest, etc, and that caused me to have some errant belief systems, and some amount of being "stuck in a rut." I must concur with others here who recommend a good therapist.

If you are open with your therapist, you can find so much out about yourself. You can begin to unlearn things. As I've noticed many times, and you may have heard this paraphrase: "The Truth can set you free, but it might **** you off first."


----------

