1

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

• 61 children, diagnosed as dyslexic by educational psychologists, were given the Sunflower assessment (Sunflower Screen).

• Each child was designated to one of five Sunflower practitioners for treatment. Each child received five 40-minute treatment sessions and was then re-assessed. Normally seven appointments would be required.

• 34 males and 27 females, between the ages of 6 and 13 years were treated.

• None of them completed the Sunflower process for reasons of finance and time.

2

• Treatment took place over an 8-12 week period. (Normally

4 - 9 months)

• Some of them did not even start the nutritional phase.

• Each child was treated in accordance with what was found.

The data that is being presented here is based on that whichwas collected from each of the 61 children before the firsttreatment and after the fifth treatment session.

3

A child accompanied by his mother during a therapy session with a Sunflower practitioner

4

SUNFLOWER SCREENDiagnostic Sample of Sunflower Assessment Sheet Involving the

Muscular-Skeletal (M/S), Neurological (NE) and Biological (Bio) M/S NE Bio

STANDING(Visual)

1. Feet together E/C sway 22. (L) (R) leg E/C sway 23. Ears 24. Shoulders 25. Hips 26. Thoracics 27. Lumbars 28. Cervicals 29. Feet 2

SUPINE10. Magnet-arms, legs, neck 111. Leg lengths 112. Arm lengths 113. K27 switching 214. Cat I 115. Cat II 116. Sacral fixation 117. Lumbars 118. Thoracics 119. Cervicals 120. Atlas 121. TMJ 122. SBC 123. CRC (L) eye (R) ear 224. CRC (R) ear (L) pal 225. CRC (L) pal (L) eye 226. Eyes (L) (R) Head still 227. Head distort E (L) (R) op 128. Humming 129. Counting 130. Eye position circle 231. Trochlear inferior medial 232. Abucens lateral 233. Near/far 234. Pupillary Light Reflex 235. Tendon reflex U/L 136. Tendon reflex L/L 137. Babinski 2

M/S NE BioSTANDING(Visual)

38. Now time 139. Ph Š Banana (L) (R) 140. SNS Š eyes up 141. PSNS - eyes down 142. Pituitary Š (L) shoulder 143. Pituitary Š (R) shoulder 144. Auto-immune 145. 51% liver 246. 51% Adrenals 247. 51% small intenstine 248. 51% large intenstine 249. Aerobic (10 @ 1 Hz) 150. Anaerobic (10 @ 3 Hz) 151. Water 152. Allergy/sensitivity 153. CO2 154. Prostaglandins 155. Kinin 156. Histadine 157. H2 O2 158. Candida 159. Fungus 160. Parasites 161. Gunge 1

SITTING62. Zinc taste test 163. Sugar test 164. PLUS 465. Foetal position reflex 166. Moro startle reflex 167. Fear paralysis reflex 168. Asymmetrical TNR ) 169. Dominance - hand (pen) )70. - Eye (tube) ) 271. - Ear (watch) ) 2

} 4STANDING ) 1

72 Dominance Š foot ) 273. Gait 3

LEFT BLOCK SUBTOTALRIGHT BLOCK SUBTOTAL

Musculoskeletal (M/S) TotalNeurological (NE) total

Biological (BIO) Total40 30 30

OVERALL SCORE (%)

5

CLUSTER ANALYSISAnalysis of Clinical Data Showing Scores, Percentages of Theory and Standard

Deviation(Data Abstracted from, 61 Sets of Results) (* p = 0.05)

Maximun theoretical

score

First score mean

First score mean as %

Theory

First score Standard deviation

Second score mean

Second score

mean as % Theory

Second score

Standard deviation

Difference between 1st & 2nd

Significant to p=0.05

1 Vestibular Function 17 6.41 37.70 3.05 14.90 87.66 1.55 8.49 4.6*2 Structural Alignment 10 3.88 38.77 1.63 7.20 71.79 1.55 3.32 3.18*3 Osteopathic Lesion Patterns 9 4.31 47.91 1.82 8.85 98.36 0.47 4.54 2.29*4 Adrenal Stress Indicators 3 2.16 72.13 1.13 2.80 93.44 0.60 0.64 1.735 Autoimmune Indicators 4 2.41 60.25 1.23 3.46 86.48 0.84 1.05 2.076 Primitive Reflexes 8 4.88 61.07 2.31 7.67 95.49 0.85 2.79 3.167 Zinc Tally Test 1 0.28 27.87 0.45 0.40 40.16 0.63 0.12 1.18 Fatty Acid Metabolism 1 0.39 39.34 0.49 0.87 86.89 0.34 0.48 0.839 Sugar Handling Problem 1 0.51 50.82 0.50 0.87 86.89 0.34 0.36 0.8410 Integ.Mvmt & Co-ordination 15 5.93 39.56 3.16 11.46 76.59 2.43 5.55 5.5911 Cervical Problems and TMS 3 1.21 40.44 0.98 3.00 100.00 0.00 1.88 0.98*12 Lower Spinal Problems 4 1.92 47.95 0.98 3.95 98.77 0.22 2.03 102*13 Gait 3 1.08 36.07 1.08 2.82 93.99 0.50 1.74 1.58*14 Cranial Reflex Faults 6 0.70 11.75 1.26 5.87 97.81 0.53 5.17 1.79*15 Humming 1 0.79 78.69 0.41 0.98 98.36 0.13 0.19 0.5816 Counting 1 0.62 62.30 0.48 0.98 98.36 0.13 0.36 0.6117 Toxic Load 3 0.98 32.97 1.09 2.57 85.79 0.88 1.59 1.9718 Cross Laterality 5 2.69 53.77 2.00 3.66 73.11 1.74 0.97 3.7419 Musculo Skeletal (M/S) 40 15.75 39.36 5.30 34.93 87.34 2.44 19.18 7.74*20 Neurological (Ne) 30 20.49 68.31 5.18 27.59 91.97 2.13 7.1 7.3121 Biochemical (Bio) 30 18.31 61.04 4.85 26.78 89.26 3.88 8.47 8.73Overall M/S, Ne & Bio Factors 100 54.55 89.30

Significance +ve if difference between first and second score is more than the sum of the before and after SDs.

6

SUMMARY OF CLUSTER ANALYSIS

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.0060.00

70.00

80.00

90.00

100.00

Vestib

ular F

unct

ion

Struct

ural

Alignm

ent

Osteo

path

ic Le

sion

Patte

rns

Adren

al Stre

ss In

dicat

ors

Autoim

mun

e Ind

icato

rs

Primitiv

e Refl

exes

Zinc

Tally

Tes

t

Fatty

Acid

Met

aboli

sm

Sugar

Han

dling

Pro

blem

Integ

.Mvm

t & C

o-or

dinat

ion

Cervic

al Pro

blem

s an

d TM

S

Lower

Spin

al Pro

blem

sGait

Crania

l Refl

ex F

aults

Humm

ing

Count

ing

Toxic

Loa

d

Cross

Lat

erali

ty

Mus

culo

Skelet

al

Neuro

logica

l

Bioche

mica

l

Before Treatment After Treatment

7

CLUSTER ANALYSIS - SUMMARYData Clusters & Percentage Improvements

1 Vestibular Function 132%*2 Structural Alignment 78%*3 Osteopathic Lesion Patterns 105%*4 Adrenal Stress Indicators 30%5 Autoimmune Indicators 30%6 Primitive Reflexes 57%7 Zinc Tally Test 44%8 Fatty Acid Metabolism 121%9 Sugar Handling Problem 90%10 Integ.Mvmt & Co-ordination 93%11 Cervical Problems and TMS 147%*12 Lower Spinal Problems 106%*13 Gait 161%*14 Cranial Reflex Faults 732%*15 Humming 25%16 Counting 57%17 Toxic Load 162%18 Cross Laterality 35%19 Musculo Skeletal 122%*20 Neurological 25%21 Biochemical 46%22 Overall Score 66%

CLUSTERPERCENTAGE

IMPROVEMENT

8

AVERAGE BEFORE AND AFTER SCORESFOR GROUP OF 61 CHILDREN

%100 40 30 30 100

90 36 27 27 90 Excellent

80 32 24 24 80

70 28 21 21 70 Good

60 24 18 18 60 Marginal

50 20 15 15 50

40 16 12 12 40 Poor

30 12 9 9 30

20 8 6 6 20

10 4 3 3 10

0 0

M/S Ne Bio Total

After

Before

9Sunflower Therapy in progress

10

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Zin

c

De

tox

EF

A

Au

t Im

m

Vit

C Mg

B6

Ch

oli

ne

B3

B5

F A

cid

Vit

E

Se

len

ium

Tyr

osi

ne

Tyr

os

Co

pp

er

Ch

rom

ium

CL

A

B12

Mu

lti

B

B C

aro

ten

e

Ma

ng

an

ese

Bif

ido

ph

ilu

s

Ca

lciu

m

Pin

ea

l S

up

po

rt

CL

H

Ph

osp

ha

tes

Sim

ale

se

SUMMARY OF NUTRITIONAL DATAGraph of total number of prescriptions used during

Sunflower Therapy

11

CASE HISTORIES

Case History 1- Aime

Aime was first referred in August, 1999, at 9y6m, with difficulties in reading and spelling. Aime had always been highly articulate, but she was becoming frustrated and disappointed with her poor academic performance.

Aime’s test results showed evidence of dyslexic learning difficulties with problems in sound processing, short term memory, sequencing, eye-hand co-ordination and speed of information processing.

Aime took part in the Sunflower Research Project in 2001 and she was re-assessed in July, 2002 at 12y 5m. Test results showed a significant improvement in many of Amie’s abilities with an overall gain of 19 IQ points in her Performance IQ. Major improvements were found in the following areas:

Eye-hand co-ordination 98th percentileVisual tracking 98th percentileSpeed of information processing 98th percentileSpatial reasoning 63rd percentile

12

Such improvements mean that Aime is much more competent at tasks such as copying from the blackboard, taking notes from dictation and completing pieces of written work.

Aime is now an avid reader with a reading age 19mths in advance of her age. Her SATS grades are much better and she is showing a flair for creative writing.

Aime’s parents are delighted with the improvements they have seen. Almost immediately they noticed that her co-ordination skills improved. Aime is now the captain of her school netball team and is the goal scorer! She has developed an enthusiasm for riding and is thinking of making this her career.

13

Case History 2 - Georgina

Georgina was first assessed in September 2000 at a Chronological Age of 8y 4m. She was experiencing difficulties with reading and spelling. Her development was normal in every other respect and her IQ was assesed as average. However, she had dyslexic learning difficulties including problems with sound processing, short term memory, sequencing and eye-hand co-ordination.

During 2000-2001 Georgina took part in the Sunflower Research Project. She was reassessed in September 2003 at age 11y 4m.

Georgina had made 3 years progress in reading over the three years since she was first assessed i.e.progress at the rate expected for her ability level where previously she was making very slow progress. She has progressed from the level of an absolute beginner to the level where she can read simple text confidently.

Georgina’s parents report that she is now far more relaxed and less distressed concerning her academic progress. She is also socially much more confident. She has joined the Guides, takes dancing lessons and has become a keen member of the local Drama group.

14

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS OF GERMAN STUDY (50 CHILDREN)

QUALITY FIRSTSCORE

SECONDSCORE

AVERAGE %IMPROVEMENT

Self Esteem 22.34 13.22 40.81General Health 12.59 10.43 17.14Endocrine 11.00 08.86 19.42Dyspraxia 09.77 06.18 36.74Dyslexia 24.72 15.72 36.39Depression/Anxiety 37.45 22.63 39.56Autistic Spectrum 28.34 15.75 44.42ADHD 36.59 19.45 46.83Personality/disposition 30.02 13.56 54.80

15

Practitioners and their patients, 2002-2003 training group, Germany

16

CONCLUSIONS

Although not all the improvements measured are significant (at p= 0.05) they have all improved.

This gives added credence to the value of an integrated approach to help children with complex sets of problems

The broad spread of the initial scores shows that it is more efficient to treat every child individually.

Standard Deviation indicated by second score in virtually every case, suggests that individual treatment was consistently effective.

As the children were treated by five different practitioners and showed similar improvements (though not all in the same areas), we can be confident that the

improvements are associated with the Sunflower Therapy they received.

17

• In some cases no nutritional therapy/treatment at all was given. Nonetheless, some of these children improved on their nutritional assessments. It seems that by first sorting out the major structural impairments the body is able to operate more efficiently, with less need for additional supplementation.

• The German data indicates that the therapy works equally well regardless of the language spoken.

• The savings that could be made by enabling children to be healthy, balanced and well, so that they can make the most of their opportunities to co-operate and contribute to their communities, could be immense.

18

Sunflower therapists attending an advanced course, November 2003

19

QUESTIONS?