Guest guest Posted October 4, 2006 Report Share Posted October 4, 2006 You are so not over reacting. This is actually the first time I have ever responded to one of these posts, usually I just kind of observe. I had the same thing happen and it is infuriating to me. What good is that IEP if they don't even follow it!! Oh, it just makes me so mad and I wanted to tell you that I totally understand. Am I over reacting? Today my non-verbal child came home from school and in her folder it said, " did not want to eat her peanuts so I gave her an apple. I know that you were probably pushing protein. " Well she knows that I am pushing protein because I told her this and it is in 's IEP that she is not to be fed anything that she did not bring with her to school. is full of yeast and we are limiting her fruits to two a day both of which she had in her lunch and so she had no more fruit option for the day. Am I wrong to be upset because that kind of infraction is not a huge deal but as a parent I feel undermined by the action of the teacher. Sheri --------------------------------- All-new - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 4, 2006 Report Share Posted October 4, 2006 I try to encourage people acting in good faith, just keep educating them. However, I would ahve been upset if someone had given peanuts instead of the apple becasue for this it is much more toxic... -------------- Original message -------------- From: Sheri <eszbi5@...> Today my non-verbal child came home from school and in her folder it said, " did not want to eat her peanuts so I gave her an apple. I know that you were probably pushing protein. " Well she knows that I am pushing protein because I told her this and it is in 's IEP that she is not to be fed anything that she did not bring with her to school. is full of yeast and we are limiting her fruits to two a day both of which she had in her lunch and so she had no more fruit option for the day. Am I wrong to be upset because that kind of infraction is not a huge deal but as a parent I feel undermined by the action of the teacher. Sheri --------------------------------- All-new - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 4, 2006 Report Share Posted October 4, 2006 I would be upset. I tried to not make a big deal at school about food when my son was younger because I didn't want him to feel so different. But now that he is a little better I can tell immediately if he has eaten something (like milk). He acts so bizarre that I just can not allow the schools to give him anything. I wish I had been stricter with the diet younger too because it might have helped him more. At the time it was difficult because I could see absolutely no difference. He was a little bizarre all the time. He still has many quirky days now but the few clear days keep me hoping that one day he will have lots of these days. Jerri Sheri wrote: > Today my non-verbal child came home from school and in her folder it said, " did not want to eat her peanuts so I gave her an apple. I know that you were probably pushing protein. " > Well she knows that I am pushing protein because I told her this and it is in 's IEP that she is not to be fed anything that she did not bring with her to school. is full of yeast and we are limiting her fruits to two a day both of which she had in her lunch and so she had no more fruit option for the day. > Am I wrong to be upset because that kind of infraction is not a huge deal but as a parent I feel undermined by the action of the teacher. Sheri > > > --------------------------------- > All-new - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 4, 2006 Report Share Posted October 4, 2006 Sheri, I think it is a huge deal. She has a yeast problem, and they fed sugar to her yeast. I feel this is as big of a deal as giving her dairy. Maybe letting them know how dangerous too much sugar, natural sugar included, is to her health and immune system will help them respect that. Too many people try to apply their own rules to the situation.....they think she is cranky and needs to eat and fruit is nutritious. We have been on the protocol for 4 years and I am just NOW understanding/remembering all of the instances of yeast problems over my son's life that neither I nor 3 different specialist even recognized. Startling. > > Today my non-verbal child came home from school and in her folder it said, " did not want to eat her peanuts so I gave her an apple. I know that you were probably pushing protein. " > Well she knows that I am pushing protein because I told her this and it is in 's IEP that she is not to be fed anything that she did not bring with her to school. is full of yeast and we are limiting her fruits to two a day both of which she had in her lunch and so she had no more fruit option for the day. > Am I wrong to be upset because that kind of infraction is not a huge deal but as a parent I feel undermined by the action of the teacher. Sheri > > > --------------------------------- > All-new - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 30, 2009 Report Share Posted September 30, 2009 I sent you the info the only states with NO religious or philosophical exemptions are WV and MS Sheri At 02:37 PM 9/30/2009, you wrote: >Ok, in my quest to find the specific NC laws on >vaccination, I found this...and it sounds like compulsory vaccination to me: > >Part 2. Immunization. > >§ 130A & #8209;152. Immunization required. > >(a) Every child present in this State >shall be immunized against diphtheria, tetanus, >whooping cough, poliomyelitis, red measles >(rubeola) and rubella. In addition, every child >present in this State shall be immunized against >any other disease upon a determination by the >Commission that the immunization is in the >interest of the public health. Every parent, >guardian, person in loco parentis and person or >agency, whether governmental or private, with >legal custody of a child shall have the >responsibility to ensure that the child has >received the required immunization at the age >required by the Commission. If a child has not >received the required immunizations by the >specified age, the responsible person shall >obtain the required immunization for the child >as soon as possible after the lack of the required immunization is determined. > >( Repealed by Session Laws >2002 & #8209;179, s. 10, effective October 1, 2002. > >© The Commission shall adopt and the >Department shall enforce rules concerning the >implementation of the immunization program. The rules shall provide for: > >(1) The child's age at administration of each vaccine; > >(2) The number of doses of each vaccine; > >(3) Exemptions from the immunization >requirements where medical practice suggests >that immunization would not be in the best >health interests of a specific category of children; > >(4) The procedures and practices for administering the vaccine; and > >(5) Redistribution of vaccines provided to local health departments. > >(c1) The Commission for Public Health shall, >pursuant to G.S. 130A & #8209;152 and G.S. >130A & #8209;433, adopt rules establishing >reasonable fees for the administration of >vaccines and rules limiting the requirements >that can be placed on children, their parents, >guardians, or custodians as a condition for >receiving vaccines provided by the State. These >rules shall become effective January 1, 1994. > >(d) Only vaccine preparations which meet >the standards of the United States Food and Drug >Administration or its successor in licensing >vaccines and are approved for use by the Commission may be used. > >(e) When the Commission requires >immunization against a disease not listed in >paragraph (a) of this section, or requires an >additional dose of a vaccine, the Commission is >authorized to exempt from the new requirement >children who are or who have been enrolled in >school (K & #8209;12) on or before the effective >date of the new requirement. (1957, c. 1357, s. >1; 1971, c. 191; 1973, c. 476, s. 128; c. 632, >s. 1; 1975, c. 84; 1977, c. 160; 1979, c. 56, s. >1; 1983, c. 891, s. 2; 1985, c. 158; 1993, c. >321, s. 281(a); 2002 & #8209;179, s. 10; 2007 & #8209;182, s. 2.) > > > > >------------------------------------ > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 30, 2009 Report Share Posted September 30, 2009 Thank you all, I will get in touch with and make sure we're all good to go. Thanks again, ~ > > I may be readin that wrong but it seemed to say it was repealed in 2002. I just moved from NC and religious exemptions worked just fine. , whose information was already passed along,is phenomenal and has been featured on the newsin NC. She even helped me when I moved out of the state. I would contact her for the facts. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.