Justice for Thalia Vida Gardner: Father Arrested

In March of 2015, I came across a series of Facebook posts from the family of a beautiful black-eyed baby girl named Thalia Vida Gardner. Her parents claimed that she had died unexpectedly after a serious adverse reaction to vaccines. They were, via GoFundMe, requesting thousands of dollars to "prove" that her death was a vaccine reaction.

It didn't take me long to find evidence calling those claims into question-- most notably, posts from concerned members of Thalia's family, who pointed out that her diagnosis at her time of death was traumatic brain injury, and that she had opiates in her system.

The entire tragic story is chronicled on the following posts:

Did Vaccines Really Kill Her?
12 Questions About Thalia Vida Gardner's Death
An Open Letter to Karla Gardner
Updates on Thalia Vida Gardner

In the long months that have passed since then, I have not had much of a break from this story. I've been badgered and berated by people asking me why there was no arrest, since many internet users don't seem to understand that an investigation like this can take months or years. Thalia's paternal grandmother has emailed me about once a month, telling me that her son isn't in jail and demanding that I remove screencaps from my blog. Jaci Rizzo-- the grandmother-- has even emailed my friends and relatives demanding that they somehow force me to remove blog posts that speak poorly of her son.

Most painfully, Thalia's story has led to many people personally attacking me and my integrity. Several commenters on previous articles accused me of completely fabricating Thalia's entire story for the purpose of driving traffic to my blog, and a now-widely-circulated "Open Letter to Juniper Russo" claimed that I was being well-paid by pharmaceutical companies to attack a grieving family.

I did none of those things. I have never profited in any way from Thalia's death and have no allegiance to anyone-- or anything-- besides justice. My motive has been, since day one, to see justice served, and to see other innocent children spared painful and horrific deaths.

Until now, I had no answer when people asked me why there was no arrest yet. I am not judge, jury, or law enforcement-- I'm only a concerned citizen who saw vaccines being blamed for what appeared to be a death caused by child abuse. Now, I finally have an answer.

On July 14, 2016, Thalia Vida Gardner's father, Tyler Justin Gardner, was arrested. He was specifically charged with child abuse and neglect with substantial bodily or mental harm-- a felony charge that, in his jurisdiction, carries a sentence of 6-15 years in prison. He is being held on $80,000 bail.

Tyler hasn't been convicted yet and is legally considered innocent until proven guilty. However, if 16 months of thorough investigation revealed child abuse-- rather than a vaccine injury-- I think it's at least safe to say that Thalia's death was not vaccine-related.

I will update readers if and when there is a conviction. In the mean time, I ask that followers stop harassing me and my family, and that everyone keep those who loved Thalia in their thoughts and prayers.

My "Normal" Baby's 12-Month Regression

In my former life as an autism-fearing, anti-vax mom, stories like my son's kept me awake at night. I'd pore over all the tales on the internet: "I took my normal baby for his 12-month shots, and the next day, he was autistic."

My son did seem to be typical, by all accounts. Even though my mommy-instinct told me something was different, Early Intervention reassured me after two screenings-- one at six weeks and one at six months-- that he was doing fine. His pediatrician echoed their statements. The consensus was: this is a completely normal baby. Maybe a little wobbly, and on the late side when it comes to crawling and sitting up, but he's fine.

Well, then my "completely normal baby" started nearing his first birthday. He was cruising, standing unsupported, responding to his name, saying a few words. Then, bam: two weeks ago, he stopped being able to stand alone. He stopped cruising. He stopped taking steps. He no longer waved consistently when someone told him to say bye-bye. He stopped answering to his name. He traded his vocabulary of five words for a single one: "Hand," which he started repeating over and over again ad nauseum while looking at a hand.

If this had happened just two weeks later than it did, it would have coincided perfectly with his twelve-month vaccines, which included MMR. But, because it happened before his twelve-month shots, I know with certainty that his developmental regression had nothing to do with his vaccines.

You don't have to take my word for it, though: every major medical establishment in the world agrees that here is no link between immunization and autism. Studies involving a total of millions of children have concluded that vaccines don't increase the risk of autism or worsen autism symptoms in children who are predisposed. Vaccines do, however, coincide with the times when the first signs of autism show up: 12 months, 18 months, and two years. It's easy to see how the timing of these regressions and symptoms can look suspicious.

But, just as I know with certainty that my oldest child was autistic before she was vaccinated-- by the mere fact that she was diagnosed with developmental delays before she'd had a single shot-- I know with certainty that my son's developmental regression occurred before he was vaccinated. It further confirms what I've known for a long time, which is that I gave my kids autism through wonderfully unique genes, not through anything in their environment.

My son will be meeting with Early Intervention tomorrow, and once again, I'm struck by how profoundly different my feelings and experiences have been between when my oldest was diagnosed with developmental delays and when my youngest was. As I've written about before, I was naive and impressionable and full of self-blame seven years ago, but now? This is a walk in the park. Where once I felt fear and sadness and apprehension, I now feel nothing but overwhelming love for my children. I'm excited to watch them grow and thrive and become their own beautiful selves.

I can't wait to see what comes next. Parents with neurotypical kids have a fairly good idea of what they're getting. I have the privilege of discovering my kids anew every single day. Their passions become my passions. Their triumphs become my triumphs. I can't wait to guide my second child through whatever help he needs and then celebrate his successes, however small or large. I can't wait to learn what his strengths are and to mold my parenting to fit the ever-changing needs of a child who marches to the beat of a different drummer. I am genuinely excited to be taking this journey with my children, their tiny hands in mine.

Autism acceptance and vaccine advocacy became my life's work after a string of surprising coincidences, so I believe that it's a wonderful act of fate that I was once again blessed with a child who, by his mere existence, is showing the world about the necessity of evidence-based health care and the reality of autism as a heritable genetic condition. It will be a while before I find out for sure if my son really does have autism. It's possible, though not likely, that he will be neurotypical and just had a temporary developmental glitch. But, if he is autistic, I know for sure that it was encoded in his DNA, not a vaccine. I know for sure that he is not broken, but a beautiful and perfect human being made exactly the way nature intended him.

Updates on Thalia Vida Gardner

I was going to wait until there was an arrest to give further updates on this case-- a baby girl whose death was blamed on vaccines-- but it's been brought up recently in anti-vaccine groups and has gotten us a renewed wave of hate mail,  so I'll go ahead and share what (little) information I have. This information is based on what's publicly available on Thalia's mother, father, and grandparents' Facebook and crowdfunding pages.

Here is what I know:



-Tyler Justin Gardner is still awaiting and expecting criminal charges.

-Tyler does not have custody or care of his children right now; their son is in CPS custody.

-Tyler says he needs donations because he no longer has money to pay for the lawyer he was going to hire in his criminal defense.

-Karla and Tyler are no longer together.

Post by Thalia's grandmother. The translation is poor but the message gets through.

-Karla's family has a very negative opinion of Tyler and does not believe that Thalia's death was a vaccine reaction. They have not said much because they are legally limited in what they can say.

-The toxicology component of Thalia's autopsy is not yet complete. This process often takes months and it is not unusual that there is not an arrest yet.

-There is still no compelling evidence that Thalia died of a vaccine reaction.

-Tyler is still requesting money for a private autopsy to "prove" that his daughter died of a vaccine reaction. He clearly does not expect her initial autopsy to show a vaccine reaction, or he would not already be preparing for the outcome.

-In the months since Thalia's death, I have received hundreds of comments on the topic. They fall into three categories: rabid anti-vaxxers claiming that vaccines killed Thalia and that I'm a terrible person; angry (and, frankly, embarrassing) messages from Tyler and his mother showing wild inconsistencies in their story and claims about what happened... and dozens, like these, from people who say they are close to the family and know that vaccines did not cause her reaction. I have no way of confirming their authenticity, but they often include detailed information about the family that I was unaware of, that isn't public record.

No, there are no arrests or convictions yet. I can't say definitively that Thalia Vida was murdered by her father. But I can say that she absolutely, positively, did not die of a vaccine reaction, and that in the very least, the authorities have found reason to believe that her father is dangerous and an unfit parent. There will be no justice for Thalia until her toxicology results are complete and her father is given trial through due process, but I remain firmly by belief that her death had nothing at all to do with immunization.

For more information about this case, see our previous posts here.

Goat's Milk for Babies- A Deadly Mistake

"Human milk for human babies!"

That's the mantra of the crunchy community, for for good reason. Breast is best. Except in special cases, it is the ideal way to feed babies for at least the first twelve months of life. That's why I breastfed my oldest for two and a half  years and risked my life struggling to breastfeed my youngest. I'm in absolute agreement with my fellow crunchy moms that human babies are meant to drink human milk.

Human milk.

That means not cow's milk, soy milk, almond milk, rice milk, or goat's milk. What I can't understand is why so many of my fellow natural mamas agree with the first four but try to make an exception when it comes to goat's milk. Raw, unpasteurized goat's milk is widely touted as a safe and acceptable substitute for breast milk even though it is decidedly not human milk.

Goat's milk is made for this kid, not your kid.

Most moms I know who feed goat's milk do so because they believe it's similar to human milk and therefore more natural and healthy than formula. There's really no evidence to back this claim, though: goat's milk is much more similar to cow's milk than it is to human milk. After all, goats and cows are both cloven-hooved herbivores who give birth to young that can walk soon after birth. Goats and cows have wobbly, bleating babies with similar nutritional needs. A human babies' needs are unlike either.

Human babies, for example, are meant to have a diet high in sugars that support brain development but don't keep our babies full for very long. That's why lactose comprises 7% of human milk but only 4.1% of goat milk and 4.6% of cow's milk. Newborn calves and goat kids also need to grow very large bodies very quickly, so their milk is rich in protein: the milk of both goats and cattle is about 3.5% protein, compared to human milk, which is only 1% protein.

Maybe too much protein doesn't sound like a bad thing, but human babies' kidneys aren't mean to process that much protein at once, so drinking the milk of a cow or goat can be seriously damaging. The USDA warns that babies who drink these high-protein milks are at a very high risk of suffering from fatal damage to their kidneys because their little bodies just can't process it. When their little kidneys can't do their job of getting rid of acid in the body, it can also cause metabolic acidosis-- when their blood becomes dangerously acidic.

That's really just the beginning of it, though. According to a jarring case report by the American Academy of Pediatrics, which was released after a baby had several strokes after being given goat's milk, it can trigger many other life-threatening complications. Goat's milk doesn't contain the careful balance of electrolytes found in human milk, so babies given goat's milk sometimes suffer from serious electrolyte problems that can kill them. And, despite claims to the contrary, goat's milk is not hypoallergenic; it causes serious allergic reactions in many babies. Those can include anything from intestinal bleeding to horrible rashes to body-wide swelling and death.

Even if your baby is one of the lucky few who can process goat's milk with no problems, she won't get the nutrition she needs to thrive. Goat's milk doesn't contain nearly enough B vitamins or vitamin C to sustain a human baby, and unlike formula, it contains essentially no iron or vitamin D. Some moms try to address this by adding vitamins to make "homemade formula," but even in the best of circumstances, goat's milk can't emulate breast milk nearly as well as commercial formula can. 

My son had to be weaned at five months.
We switched to formula-- not goat's milk.

Goat's milk is dangerous for human babies even when it's been pasteurized, but it is even more deadly when it hasn't been processed or boiled. Proponents of goat's milk often believe that pasteurization is harmful, even though unprocessed goat's milk tends to be teeming with bacteria that, while often manageable for healthy adults, can be fatal to newborn babies. E. coli, which often winds up in milk of all sorts, causes severe diarrhea, while brucellosis-- which is nearly eradicated among vaccinated livestock but still pops up on Luddite farms-- has a death rate of about 1 in 50. Human milk and formula don't carry these risks.

Human babies are meant to drink human milk. When that's not possible, the only responsible thing that any parent can do is to feed them a commercially produced baby formula. Formula has been perfected over the course of the last century to be as close as possible to human milk. It may not be perfect-- breast will always be best-- but it has been fine-tuned and carefully engineered by the world's leading scientists, pediatricians, and nutritionists to provide the closest possible approximation to breast milk. It may not be "natural," but I'd rather have a living baby who drinks formula than a dead one who drank the milk of a free-range goat.

Don't Wait Too Long to Introduce Solid Food

One of the biggest weaknesses of the crunchy community is the constant struggle to one-up any medical recommendations. The evidence suggests that delayed cord clamping might be beneficial? Great, let's leave the placenta to rot. The AAP says that room-sharing is healthiest for babies? Let's demand bed-sharing for absolutely everyone, even when the mother is on Xanax and hydrocodone, and then blame the anti-cosleeping movement when a mom kills two babies in a row this way.  Experts recommend waiting until around six months to introduce solids? Well, let's go ahead and wait a year. 

I understand where the mistake comes from. After all, we do hear constantly that breast milk is ideal nutrition for babies for the first year of life. And we've heard that introducing solids too early can cause a variety of problems, including childhood obesity and the health effects that come with it. It's easy to infer from this information that it's safe and healthy to wait a full year before introducing solid food-- but that doesn't mean it's correct.

My son eating kale at seven months. He survived.

I've seen the scenario played out many times in breastfeeding support groups. A breastfeeding mom "hears" that it's best to wait as long as possible to introduce solid food, since breast milk is the perfect source of nutrition for babies and should be the primary source of nutrition in the first year. Yet, every mom I've known who has done this has ended up with the same thing: a baby who, by fifteen months or so, is suffering from failure to thrive and anemia. The mom almost always wants to know of "natural" ways to address this that won't compromise her breastfeeding relationship.

I might have been one of those moms if it hadn't been for the fact that both of my kids were positively insistent on eating solid foods before one year-- or even six months. My youngest, in particular, has demanded since four months of age that he absolutely must have whatever everyone else is eating. I'm lucky because of that, because the risks of waiting too long for solids can be serious.

You've probably heard that "food before one is just for fun," or some similar adage, from your pediatrician. About fifteen years ago, doctors started really emphasizing that babies should not be eating solids too early in life, because they were finding that babies who were given a lot of early solids (like cereal in their bottles at one month) were not healthy. And it's true that, for the most part, solids in the first year are for playing and learning. That doesn't make them any less important, though: knowing how to eat, and enjoy, healthy foods is critical. It's not good when your one-and-a-half-year-old doesn't like food at all and just wants to nurse, all because you thought that the "just for fun" meant that it was unnecessary.

Solids in the first year are also nutritionally pretty important, especially for breastfed babies. While breast milk is definitely the preferred and healthiest way to feed babies, it has its limitations. For one thing, most mothers' breast milk supply starts to even out at around six months. The babies' bodies need more and more calories, but their  mothers' breast milk production can't keep up. The result is that the little ones just don't get as much milk as they need, and after several months of this, they can stop growing or even sometimes lose weight.

Breast milk also contains almost no iron. Babies' bodies are prepared for this: they store up a lot of iron before birth and it keeps them going for several months. But midway through their first year of life, that iron starts to deplete and they need to be getting at least a little from their diets. It doesn't take much-- just a little bitty bit of cereal or prunes or greens or even beans-- but that small amount of iron is critical for keeping babies' brains and bodies developing normally. 

If you're breastfeeding, your baby should already be getting a vitamin D supplement, but on the off chance that you're for some reason not doing that, your little one needs to get vitamin D from his diet. A lot of baby cereals are fortified with vitamin D, as are baby yogurts. Introducing vitamin D-rich solids in the first year is absolutely necessary, especially for breastfed babies. 

Plus, while most moms believe that waiting to introduce solids will prevent allergies, science has actually found the opposite to be true. While pediatricians used to recommend delayed solids to prevent allergies, that recommendation may have actually caused more allergies. That's why, after a study in 2010 and several reviews that followed it, the AAP turned back on the delayed-solid recommendation and said that it's actually best to introduce food sooner rather than later.

So when should you feed solids? Your baby will probably let you know: he'll start grabbing food off your plate and generally showing interest in what the Big People are eating. The American Academy of Pediatrics further suggests looking for these signs:

• Your baby should be able to hold his head steady while he's sitting in a high chair.
• Babies who are ready for solids open their mouths when they see food, especially if you hold a spoon directly in front of their mouths.
• Your little one should swallow solids without much trouble. If he spits or gags, wait a few more weeks.
• Most of the time, babies aren't ready for solids until they're physically large enough: about 13 pounds. That means premies and low-birthweight babies might need to start solids a little later.

For most babies, those milestones are going to be reached at around six months, although any time between four and seven months can be considered normal. Before that point, the AAP strongly encourages moms to exclusively breastfeed if at all possible. After that, breast milk should still be the main staple of you little one's diet until at least his first birthday. But that doesn't mean that there's no point in giving him solids at all.

Breastfeeding is great. Breastfeeding exclusively for six months is even better. Giving mostly breast milk for at least one year is fantastic. However, it's not helpful to you or your baby to forgo solids entirely for a year or more. Not only does it not provide any benefits to either of you, but it can even be dangerous. Go ahead, guilt-free: give your baby solids when he's ready and when your pediatrician approves-- not when your Breast Buddies suggest it.

I Went From Screen-Free to Handing My Baby an iPhone

When my oldest child was born in 2008, the recommendations were clear: screen time of any sort was absolutely off-limits. This wasn't just something that I'd heard within the "crunchy" community. The American Academy of Pediatrics and the Zero to Three, the two primary science-based authorities on parenthood, both said that "screen" entertainment, such as TV and computers, was not at all acceptable for babies and toddlers.

I took their word for it, at absolute face value. I felt like there was something emanating from the screen that could somehow harm my baby. When I wrote late at night in the rocking chair, I would turn her head away or cover her eyes. In the waiting room at the pediatrician's office, I would constantly turn her head toward me, repeating, "No screen time," much to the confusion of the parents around me.

This went on for three years, at which point she started getting screen time with strict limits.

I had it in my head that a child who sees screens during key phases of development won't correctly learn how reality works. The way I saw it, basic concepts like object permanence (that an object continues to exist when out of view), size, movement, and communication fall apart on screen. Babies and toddlers are still learning what faces and objects are, and what they can do. On a screen, all bets are off: anything is real and nothing is real. The expert recommendation of zero screen time seemed to fit my ideology.

But in the six years between my daughter's birth and my son's birth, something happened: the smart phone explosion. In just six years, screens went from being specific objects with specific functions, to magical machines that did everything: a phone, music-player, computer, camera, camcorder, teleconference caller, and video game console all in one. This changed so many things.

It started with music. My son loves his lullabies and there were times that I would pick out his favorite and put it in his car seat with him while he fell asleep. No harm done, right? Then I found a number of apps that were, really, identical to the baby toys I might have found in the store: push the button and it makes a sound. He delighted in "helping" me take pictures and examining them afterward. And, most importantly, when I had to be separated from him for medical reasons, it meant that he was still able to see my face and know who I was.

I felt a twinge of guilt about it, but I couldn't see any evidence of the harm when I would entertain him with a vocabulary-building or lullaby-playing baby app while I stole a five-minute shower. I couldn't even see evidence of harm when I let him play with it for the entirety of a long car ride. After all-- developmentally speaking-- how different is an educational app from a boardbook or toy?

I was relieved but not surprised when Zero to Three caught up to the modern world and issued recommendations that were in agreement with my experience as a mom: instead of "no screen time," they now recommend smarter screen time. Of course, they still don't recommend using screens as a go-to babysitter or pacifier, but they say that introducing screens early in life can be just fine as long as the child is getting plenty of age-appropriate content and parent interaction-- and as long as screen time is balanced out with time spent playing with real, three-dimensional toys.

I don't want my son to become a smartphone zombie or to value screens over the real world. But I do think that in today's world, screens are so ubiquitous and so useful that it's unreasonable to forgo them all the way through toddlerhood. Today, I'm a fan of smart screen time instead of no screen time.

Amber Teething Necklaces Don't Work (and Can Be Dangerous)

Amber teething necklaces, which are used to relieve pain in teething and colicky babies, have become more and more popular over the last several years. When my daughter was born seven years ago, they were already starting to pick up speed, and by the time my nine-month-old son was dealing with teething, it seemed like everyone was pushing them on me. With so many moms and dads recommending amber teething necklaces, it seems like they must work fairly well, but the fact is that these supposedly pain-relieving crystals don't work and they might actually be dangerous.

Advocates for amber teething necklaces (consisting almost entirely of people who sell them for profit) claim that the necklaces reduce teething pain because of a compound called succinic acid, which one retailer touts can "helps fight toxic free radicals, helps improve the immune system, and reduces stress." Baltic amber, which is a fossilized tree resin and is generally the form used in teething necklaces, does contain succinic acid, but there's not much validity to claims about its medicinal effects.

There's no reason to believe that succinic acid in amber can absorb through a baby's skin, because it is a compound built into a solid crystal that is literally rock-hard and does not excrete oil or any other kind of fluid. The melting point for amber is far above the body temperature of even the most fevered baby, so expecting it to seep into the baby's skin is no wiser than putting an iron rod under his pillow and expecting it to treat anemia. Human babies don't magically absorb medicine or nutrients in ways that contradict physics.

Even if succinic acid in amber teething necklaces did absorb through skin, there's no evidence that it works. Succinic acid is found in many foods and plants; it's abundant in nature and nontoxic. While a little succinic acid might be theoretically harmless, there's no reason to think it works to treat teething pain. There hasn't been a single study of the use of succinic acid or Baltic amber to relieve pain, improve the immune system, or reduce stress. One very small study in 2003 suggested that large amounts of oral succinic acid might reduce anxiety in mice being exposed to dangerously high temperatures, but it's quite a leap to assume that the same findings could be applied to teething human children.

Finally, there's a lot of reason to suspect that amber teething necklaces could be dangerous. A report in Pediatrics in Review notes that amber necklaces are among many traditional treatments that have no evidence to back them and could in fact prove very dangerous. They have popped up several times in the media because of children choking and strangling while using these little charms. Although advocates of amber teething necklaces note that they are supposed to be used with supervision and should never be chewed or sucked, it's a risk that I wouldn't be willing to take for a treatment that is very unlikely to work.

For my family, amber teething necklaces are a no-go and we'll stick with safer, more effective methods for relieving teething pain. I don't want to subject my children to something that could be dangerous (not to mention expensive) unless there's a good reason to think that it will work. If you're concerned about your baby's stress or discomfort from teething, get in touch with his pediatrician for tips on relieving the pain safely and effectively.

How Homeopathic Teething Tablets Work

I spent much of my early career working in stores that sold natural health products, including supplements and medicinal herbs. Among our top-selling products were always homeopathic remedies, and none were sold at a higher volume than teething tablets for cranky babies. Hyland's Teething Tablets, in particular, seemed to be the favorite of every exhausted parent. They would grab a bottle and, rubbing their eyes sleepily, proclaim, "I don't know how they work, but they do."

I knew that the placebo effect and confirmation bias were powerful forces, but I was taken aback by just how many people swore by a product that so clearly doesn't work. Study after study after study has confirmed that homeopathic remedies (which should not be confused with herbal supplements) are no more effective than a placebo for treating any disease or condition. These little concoctions, which are sold in the form of lactose or sucrose "sugar pills," admittedly contain no active ingredients, just the metaphysical "essence" of natural compounds. It is biologically and physically impossible for a homeopathic remedy like teething tablets to work more effectively than a placebo.

Of course, there's no way to convince parents of that, when they've witnessed firsthand how quickly homeopathic teething tablets work for their children. Many a parent has given a homeopathic teething tablet to a colicky or teething baby and immediately seen the baby stop crying and fall peacefully asleep. It's no secret that a three-month-old baby knows nothing about medicine and has no expectations, so of course we can't attribute the apparent success to the placebo effect. So just how do homeopathic teething tablets work?

The secret, in this case, is in the placebo itself. Homeopathic teething tablets are made in a sweet-tasting base of lactose or sucrose, which makes them palatable and also enables them to dissolve instantly on contact with a baby's saliva. In general, we consider placebos, and "sugar pills" in particular, to be completely inert, but sugar is actually a very powerful medicine for little babies.

Sugar is one of the most potent pain relievers for babies under one year of age, especially in the sensitive newborn stage. Many hospitals use sugar, with strong evidence that it works, to help ease the pain of circumcision, newborn injections, injuries, and other discomforts experienced by babies in hospital settings. You may have heard your own parents or grandparents recommend honey (which is off-limits because of botulism) or even soda as a home remedy for colic or teething. Babies given sugar quickly feel calmed and experience much less pain than they feel without it.

So, ultimately, homeopathic teething tablets do work, but they don't work in the way that many parents assume. They work to the same degree that a tiny amount of sugar would work, by using sweetness to help a baby feel calm and at ease. They don't contain any medicinally active compounds that could work in any way beyond sugary tablets themselves.

Save yourself the money (and avoid falling for a scam) by using tiny amounts of sugar-water in lieu of homeopathic teething tablets as your own home remedy for colic or teething pain. Although it's not a good idea to give your baby sugar, especially in large amounts, there's no harm in giving tiny, occasional dose of safe, sterilized sugar with your doctor's approval, when all medicine-free and sugar-free treatments have failed. Of course, always check with your baby's pediatrician before using any home remedy to treat colic or teething. A little expert advice can go a very long way and might help you get a good night's sleep without needing to resort to sweet flavors.