raw eggs?

March 7, 2003

At 11:29 PM 3/6/2003 -0500, you wrote:

>Fast-forward to the present. The modern fashion is to eat GLOP and GOOP

>and GUNK straight out of the box, so to speak, with no tedious

>preparation. Is it really that surprising that you're going to notice

>certain ailments correlating with certain genes? Of course not! Back when

>the G-foods were introduced, preparation technology was devised before

>certain genes could be entirely bred out of the species. But that most

>certainly doesn't mean that the genes -- or even the U-proteins in the

>G-foods -- *cause* the ailments. They're merely links in the chain of

>causation.

Well, I tend to agree. Most genes are there for a reason -- sometimes that

particular gene does not agree with what your society happens to

be doing (in this case, eating a diet that is 40% wheat, and finely ground

wheat

at that, and in a low-fat setting). I don't agree that it takes years and years

of damage, necessarily, most often celiac is diagnosed in babies (sometimes

breast-milk-fed babies).

My basic problem is with the notion that celiac is a " bogus " disease -- to

those of us struggling with it, it is hardly bogus! And the notion that

it is " caused by " bacterial overgrowth doesn't fit with our experience,

nor does it fit with the research. I'd love to hear scientifically based

reasons *why* it might be considered a " bogus " disease, but so far

it sounds like Gottschall is basing her ideas mostly on hypothesis,

not experiment, and everyone else is basing their ideas on Gottschall,

not experiment.

>No, it doesn't. You cannot physically be allergic to a carbohydrate,

>Heidi, only to a protein. And furthermore, what is so hard to believe

>about the idea that an infusion of food causes an organism to bloom? It's

>not exactly a controversial idea that you ought to completely cut out sugar

>if you have a candida problem, for example. And BTW, look at the preferred

>culturing medium for organisms in the laboratory -- agar, a starch.

Right, the allergy is to a protein. And I agree, and infusion of food

causes organisms to bloom. In this case, *part* of the " infusion of food "

has to do with the fact it doesn't

get digested properly, due to an allergy to the protein. *Take away the

protein*, and it gets digested ok and the organisms don't bloom -- unless

the person is so damaged they can't heal, in which case you need the SCD

for awhile.

And look

>at the fact that just as obesity has risen as the low-fat theory has been

>pushed and animal fat consumption has declined, bowel disease has risen as

>sugar and starch consumption have increased.

Sure has risen. And most of the starch is wheat. Bowel disease is climbing

in Asia too, as they add more wheat to their diets. And sure, improper

preparation and low fat adds to the problem.

>But when I grow bacteria in a jar (i.e. yeast or kefir),

>microscopic

>amounts of sugar don't do diddly for them -- they flare at LOTS of sugar.

>Bacteria grow in direct response to the amount of food they get, so do

>yeast.

>This is true, and I admit that on the surface, this is where Gottschall's

>theory seems to break down, but there are two reasons it actually holds

>up. First, the gluten theory requires a protein to be there to precipitate

>a flare, even if it's just a trace amount of corn protein in purified corn

>starch. But pure sucrose, which has absolutely no trace of protein at all,

>causes flares in people sensitive to sucrose.

But WHO are these people that flare at as light bit of sucrose? Do you? No

one I've met (who has celiac or gluten intolerance) does. They eat sucrose

all the time. SHE might know some people who do -- and there may be a

condition somewhere that acts like that. But it isn't celiac. There are

lots of healthy celiacs that eat tons of sugar. Well, the sugar will

probably cause other problems later, but it doesn't cause them overgrowth

problems at the moment. I would venture to say that the folks who are

sensitive to sucrose either have very damaged upper intestines (often the

case with celiac) or are " refractory " celiacs, many of whom are shown to be

getting trace amounts of gluten or are sensitive to casein or eggs.

>A relatively small amount of sugar and

>provide the initial impetus for a flare which seems out of all proportion

>to the amount of sugar consumed. Also, these microbes spew out toxic waste

>products. The sicker you are, the more sensitive you'll be to smaller

>amounts of these poisons, so a " flare " doesn't even have to be a dramatic

>microbe population bloom.

That's a theory to explain a reaction, sounds like, not based on studies of

actual microbes. It could well be that if you react to sugar, some of the

toxins attack the villi and cause a chain reaction too. I reacted to a

little bit of brown sugar once -- but it turned out that it was some old

brown sugar that had been " double dipped " with flour in the old days. I

threw it out, got some new brown sugar, and now brown sugar is ok.

>This immune response proceeds from the most foreign

>proteins through progressively less and less foreign proteins until even

>auto-immune reactions occur. Ceasing consumption of the offending starches

>and sugars, IOW following the Specific Carbohydrate Diet, allows the gut to

>heal by starving bad bugs -- only foods the body itself can digest are

>eaten. And in the early stages of healing, when the gut is still very

>damaged, most people find that they can't even eat many " legal " carbs

>because their gut is still too damaged to digest them and those carbs

>therefore wind up being fuel for bad microbes.

>This is a very clean theory that squares with available biochemistry and

>all the evident facts. Patients recover and the diet has a very high

>success rate -- and typically you find that those few patients who don't

>recover are eating way too many " legal " carbs, like honey, and not enough

>of the fats and fat-soluble vitamins (and other nutrients)

It's a very clean theory. It just doesn't fit with experience or current

experiments. So maybe all the celiacs are mistaken about their experience

and all the experimenters are lying, cheating, idiots on the drug companies

payroll. Her diet *works great* -- and a lot of celiacs use it -- and the

only reason I can't recommend her book to anyone is that she makes this

statement that " celiac isn't really a disease " which is NOT what someone

with celiac needs to hear.

If she makes a statement like that, she needs to show *exactly* why the

research that is currently being done is bogus, not a generalization like

" well, you know how dishonest those researchers are " . The " well, the gut is

damaged from 20 years of bad eating " does not hold up with babies born of

healthy adults, or to African children fed wheat gruel for the first time

after doing fine on millet. And she needs to explain the daily reactions of

thousands of celiacs, where those reactions don't fit her theory.

>The gluten theory by contrast doesn't account for the development of

>similar sensitivities to other proteins, or for the abatement of those

>sensitivities.

Sure it does. Same mechanism you mention -- damaged gut. All the

sensitivities die out if you don't eat the offending protein. The body

stops producing IgA when the offending protein is gone, and the IgA

is what causes most of the damage. You can measure the IgA in the

blood with a simple blood test. The IgA is not necessarily

very accurate in its reactions, which is why the similar sensitivities --

it attacks gliadin, but it also attacks body tissues that LOOK LIKE

gliadin.

>Again, " starch " is not a single thing. There are many different starches

>out there just as there are different sugars and proteins and

>fats. Treating all starch as " starch " is the same as treating all fat as

> " fat " , or all omega 3 fats as the same thing.

That is stretching it. When starches are digested differently, it

is usually because of differences in the trace amounts of other

things (like phytates and proteins).

> Did you ever have extreme bowel

>>disease? If you did, I'm willing to bet you'd have trouble with

>potatoes. But as far as potatoes go, I'm not aware of any traditional

>societies which ate potatoes and took special pains to prepare them to

>neutralize antinutrients the way healthy traditional societies always

>prepared grains and legumes. And that preparation has absolutely nothing

>to do with the protein content of any of those foods.

" And that preparation has absolutely nothing

to do with the protein content of any of those foods. "

???? The preparation has EVERYTHING to do

with the protein content of the foods. Potatoes don't have offending

proteins, and yeah, they are easy to digest. Manioc has proteins, and they

are highly toxic, and so it is processed down to pure starch. Corn has

offending proteins, so you soak it in lime. I'm not sure if phytates count

as proteins, but I don't think they are starches. MOST toxins in starchy

foods are lectins or proteins (well, lectins are proteins).

>Has replacing wheat with the same amount of, I don't know, spelt, say,

>cured anybody? (And I'm not talking about spelt; since I can't eat any

>grains I haven't kept up on the different protein and carb profiles of

>different grains, so if you're prefer to replace spelt with some other

>low-gluten grain, that's fine.) The SCD diet, which doesn't restrict carbs

>per se, only specific carbs (and which also doesn't restrict healthy fats

>like butter and meat fat and lard, though it unfortunately doesn't make a

>point of incorporating a lot of those fats into the diet) shows extreme

>success by removing certain carbs based exclusively on the types of

>starches and sugars they contain and allowing only those carb foods which

>we're biochemically well-adapted to digest.

No, spelt doesn't work, because it contains gliadin. Yes, SCD works because

it restricts gliadin-containing (and other grains with possibly offending

proteins) foods. Restricting straight sugar isn't a bad idea either.

The only point in contention is whether the original damage

occurred from wheat or from sugar. It's a non-issue once

the gut gets damaged -- restricting hard-to-digest foods is a

great idea for people with damaged guts.

However -- and this is a primary flaw in the SCD theory that

celiac is " bogus " -- most celiacs do OK with purified wheat

starch. Purified wheat starch is being use a lot in Europe,

and it works, at least short term. It still may have a bit

of gluten in it, which complicates the issue -- but it is clear

as anything that celiacs can eat the starch and not the protein.

>Actually, I've observed extreme fanaticism on many mailing lists. Many

>places, for example, are *extremely* hostile to the SCD theory and won't

>even allow mention of it. (It probably doesn't help that a lot of these

>organizations and lists are run and supported secretly by commercial

>interests which stand to lose if everybody followed Gottschall and gain if

>everybody starts taking drugs and manufactured food products.)

I agree mailing lists can be fanatic, but I haven't heard a lot of

hostility to SCD. More like " well, it works, but don't believe

what she says about celiac " . A lot of people DO follow Gottschall

or a Gottschall-like diet -- and really, whichever diet you follow, there

isn't any money in it for anyone except maybe the folks who bake

gluten-free starchy products, and they are mostly mom-and-pop

businesses at this point.

> It may be that a lot more people

>will have to suffer from bowel disease -- that bowel disease will have to

>reach the same sort of critical mass that obesity and heart disease already

>have -- before much more of an opposition forms.)

It IS at a critical mass, and frankly the " gluten researchers " are in a

minority

now, wanting to treat it with diet rather than drugs. Lutz in Germany

is treating gut damage with a low-carb diet, and others are treating

it with a low-gluten diet, and both are having success without drugs.

The only remaining descrepency, in my mind, is whether it is primarily

a gluten/grain problem or primarily a carb problem, and, like I said,

the researchers so far (like Lutz and Gottschall) are not making a distinction.

Most of the high-carb research uses wheat as the carb!

>As to the " TON " of research, I argue that it's just as flawed as all the

> " research " supporting the lipid hypothesis.

Have you read it? What specifically is it flawed? The lipid hypothesis was

mostly based on epidemiology, and the research didn't really support

the hypothesis -- hence the opposition. My aunt was a lipid researcher,

and she told me her results 30 years ago, and she knew darn well it

didn't support the theory and they said so.

>Here's an

>obvious question about these gluten-theory-supporting tests: in what

>condition was the gut when it was exposed to the gluten in the

>experiment? Since the conventional wisdom is that starch is harmless,

>scientists aren't going to bother securing guts which are healthy according

>to *Gottschall's* standards, but you can bet they'll tout any immune

>reaction as proof that they're right.

In America, you can't get any gut that meets Gottschall's standards!

But like I said, a lot of the reactors are young babies, which I guess

you will say don't count because they are born to American mothers.

So what test WILL you accept? If her hypothesis isn't testable, then

are we supposed to take it on faith?

>How do you address the problem of people who are not cured by avoiding

>gluten (and gliadin, etc.) but are cured by following the SCD, which

>distinguishes between good and bad foods based on the types of sugars and

>starches to be found in them, irrespective of protein content?

Basically, it is a stricter diet, and most people who don't heal

from celiac are not very careful with their diet, OR they have

other allergies. You can tell they are not careful with their

diet by testing IgA levels (which ONLY go up when you ingest gluten).

And it works because it helps with microbes, which ARE a big problem,

and high-starch diets do wreck havoc with microbes, and most people

who try to go off wheat end up eating way too many of other starches

and esp. grains. The SCD is a great diet for celiacs, no doubt about it.

I'm not arguing that starch is not an issue, or that high-starch diets

are harmless, or even that high-starch diets don't cause some

allergies. It's just that gluten is a separate issue -- it is slightly

TOXIC in the same way that some lectins and the protein in manioc

is toxic, and most Americans are eating huge amounts of a toxic

protein -- some of them react, some don't. Most of us accept the

argument that phytates are bad -- why is there so much resistance to

the idea that gluten might be bad?

The fact that it is coupled with a starch that might also be bad just

makes the idea of eating wheat less of a good idea. Between

phytates and gluten and starch, wheat is just plain problematic.

>How do you address the fact that so many people who can't tolerate plain

>milk can tolerate fully-fermented milk in which there's virtually no

>residual lactose, and that even most people who've developed a serious

>immune sensitization to casein can consume yoghurt after the gut has been

>allowed to heal? This is a huge, gaping hole in the gluten/gliadin/casein

>theory.

The accepted reason is just like she says -- because the gut is damaged.

If you heal the gut, MOST allergies go away, eventually. Gluten remains

a problem, even in trace amounts, but that is thought to be because

gluten is just not a good protein. Manioc protein is not a good protein

either, but it kills you faster.

Gluten is more of a problem now mainly because we are eating so

much MORE of it than ever, and the wheat has more gluten,

and they add more of it to the flour. Talk about poor preparation!

If we went back to moderate quantities of, say, spelt, properly

prepared, a lot fewer people would be sick.

Heidi S.

March 7, 2003

In a message dated 3/7/03 1:11:25 AM Eastern Standard Time,

Idol@... writes:

> That's why disaccharides are illegal (and dairy has to be fermented for 24

> hours, to break down virtually all the lactose) -

, are fermented dairy products ok for people on an anti-candida diet?

I'm on one for the time being, and am not supposed to have dairy.

Thanks,

Chris

____

" What can one say of a soul, of a heart, filled with compassion? It is a

heart which burns with love for every creature: for human beings, birds, and

animals, for serpents and for demons. The thought of them and the sight of

them make the tears of the saint flow. And this immense and intense

compassion, which flows from the heart of the saints, makes them unable to

bear the sight of the smallest, most insignificant wound in any creature.

Thus they pray ceaselessly, with tears, even for animals, for enemies of the

truth, and for those who do them wrong. "

--Saint Isaac the Syrian

March 8, 2003

Chris-

>, are fermented dairy products ok for people on an anti-candida diet?

>I'm on one for the time being, and am not supposed to have dairy.

I highly recommend that you purchase a copy of the latest edition of

_Breaking The VIcious Cycle_ if you feel you suffer from dysbiosis, but in

a word, yes, they're allowed, provided they're fermented long enough to

eliminate virtually all the lactose. Incubating yoghurt for 24 hours

accomplishes this. (You can make the yoghurt tastier and healthier by

making it with half milk and half cream, too.) Other fermented dairy

products are not " SCD legal " only because they haven't all been tested for

lactose content, but many people use kefir and some people use other

fermented dairy products too. I'm partial to creme fraiche myself.

-

March 1, 2007

I'll stick to what I know and am used to- I'm to chicken to consume raw

eggs, possibly harborers of salmonella.

Paracleanse

http://www.drhuldaclark.org/therapy_parasite.asp

She sells stuff, but I use products that have the three herbs in it

from health food store- they usually start with " para " , my favorite is

paragone

I havent used arginine or orthinine, and put epsolm salt into

capsules. It's not that bad, and only one night...I work nights, and

do it on day off, then go to work the next night. All is clear by

then, usually by 2 or 3, or even sooner.

Liver cleanse

http://www.drhuldaclark.org/therapy_liver.asp

As I've mentioned, I was diagnosed with fibromyalgia and m.s. All of

my symptoms have been gone for almost 6 years =)

Either I was misdiagnosed, or this protocol really cures those

diseases...seems I won't ever find out because I only know a few people

who have done this, but they weren't suffering like I was.

If this has helped anyone else, I'd like to know.

January 3, 2011

I would say that is incorrect. If you buy eggs in a grocery store that are

listed as " free-range " , you can be sure they are not truly free range, but that

the hens are given access to the outside world for a few minutes a day to meet

the labeling requirement. Otherwise, they are typically farmed in the same

squalid conditions as " regular " eggs. ALL commercially sold eggs are washed

with chemicals that I personally don't want near my food, raw or otherwise.

That said, if you can get TRUE free range eggs from a local source, and are sure

they are fresh, from healthy-non medicated hens, and NOT washed with a chemical

wash, then they should be perfectly safe to eat raw. Eggs should be " dirty "

when you get them, and should only be carefully rinsed by the final consumer=if

you are buying clean, shiny eggs, then they have been washed with stuff that

damages the integrity of the egg.

January 3, 2011