Coconut Oil

[Guest guest]

Well, I had asthma when I was younger, I guess I probably still do,

but it isn't much of an issue for me now. I can't say I have

experienced any problems with MSG or any other specific foods, but my

asthma and environmental allergies have pretty much went away since I

have removed processed food from my diet. So, I will definitely look

into the salycilates. Thanks, Bertie

[Guest guest]

On 9/4/06, Emma Davies <emma@...> wrote:

> I see how opiate-like peptides could cause an immune reaction, however

> I think the autism community who are those most affected by this

> problem, is of the concensus that opiate-like peptides have a

> pharmacological effect rather than an allergenic effect, hence

> " opiate-like " .

I didn't say opaite-like peptides have an immune effect. The opiate

like peptides have a pharmacological effect and the 33-residue

immunogenic gliadin fraction and likely other less well-studied

gliadin fractions have an immunological effect. The autism community

is only one community affected by gluten; the other is the gluten

intolerance community. One reacts primarily to the opiates, the other

primarily to the longer-residue peptides whose effects are

antibody-mediated and probably T cell-mediated as well.

> > I have some of those, definitely not all of them, and they are

> > certainly not specific enough for a diagnosis. How do you diagnose

> > salicylate intolerance?

> You'd be very unlucky if you had all of them!

Indeed. But I must say that whereas coconut oil seems to make me feel

good, Pepto Bismol does something very different. So I don't know if

the salicylate theory can completely explain it.

> Most people who have a problem with one

> chemical have a problem with other chemicals, because the same detox

> pathways are involved, however, some are lucky and just have a problem

> with a single chemical, or even just a problem with specific additives.

This would seem to seriously confound diagnosis.

> If you're more interested in direct biological test-tube proof, you

> could go to the expense of having your PST enzyme activity analysed,

> along with blood & urine for sulphite and sulphate levels, cysteine

> levels and various minerals. These tests usually show up some

> disturbance in the methylation or transsulfuration pathway.

Ok, so how is someone loosely claiming they have Lyme without the hard

proof different from someone claiming they have multiple food chemical

sensitivities without the hard proof?

> I can see how people could jump to that conclusion based on diagnosis

> by symptoms, however, awareness of salicylate intolerance is so low

> that people rarely have such an opportunity. Diagnosis by symptoms is

> not how salicylate intolerance is diagnosed. One is unlikely to reach

> an incorrect diagnosis if one has done the elimination/challenge diet

> correctly, as the resulting symptoms are very apparent.

Even if it is typical for multiple food chemical intolerances to be present?

Chris

--

The Truth About Cholesterol

Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

[Guest guest]

On 9/4/06, Emma Davies <emma@...> wrote:

> I did not say it meant nothing, I said the role of IgG and IgA are

> unclear and contradictory, and appear to have some protective effect.

IgG to gliadin is still an essential part of the diagnosis to celiac disease.

> There is a lack of documented correlation between IgG and food allergy

> - not correlation between IgG and IgE, but between IgG and actual

> observable reactions to foods.

This is because the criteria used is those symptoms that are

IgE-mediated, is it not? If so, the reasoning is circular.

> Many laboratories which offer IgG ELISA

> tests design their own in-house tests from scratch. There is no

> medical standard for these tests, so it is impossible to draw

> conclusions from them. Furthermore, a number of studies, for example:

>

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed & cmd=Retrieve & list_uids=1\

6393319 & dopt=Citation

> have found that IgG has an immune-modulating effect and prevents

> people from developing the allergic symptoms (which correlate closely

> with IgE response) to common allergens.

Again, this is entirely circular reasoning based on the use of

IgE-mediated symptoms as the criteria for diagnosing " allergic

symptoms. "

> > This relies on an enormous amount of unjustified assumption. First of

> > all, while I have seen repeated claims for the " purpose " of IgA in

> > textbooks, I have not once seen any indication that anyone who claims

> > to know what the purpose of the IgA is actually has a clue based on

> > experimental evidence.

> Point taken, however, as IgA has not been found in studies to

> correlate with any symptoms of ill health, how can we assume anything

> about it?

As I said, Dr. Fine claims in his article, available in the " research "

section of www.enterolab.com, that he has found a correlation between

IgA in the *stool* and intestinal damage. We will have to wait until

he publishes his results to judge the veracity of his claim but at

present it is a reason to suggest that IgA in the stool may be a

marker for harmful immunologic reactions to food.

> > Third, even if the IgA is not directly harmful, this does not mean it

> > is not a good indicator for gut damage induced by T-cell mediated

> > responses in the gut.

> True, it does not mean it is an indicator of anything. However, there

> is a plenty of evidence to suggest that most gut damage is caused by

> the pharmacological or physical, non-immune actions of substances like

> wheat lectins or other lectins, insoluble fibre, alcohols, and

> salicylates.

Not in celiac! In celiac, the gut damage is induced by antibodies to

tissue transglutaminase and T-cell mediated tissue damage. Other

people react in a similar but different way to the gluten peptides. I

do not understand why you choose to focus on your own problem as if

the immunologic reactions to peptides that large numbers of other

people are experiencing does not exist.

> Fibre actually promotes mucus production and speeds up

> the passage of food through the gut by physically damaging and

> destroying gut cells. Alcohols and salicylates cause so much damage

> that the body can't actually keep up with the destruction. Lectins

> bind to cell surfaces and disrupt their function.

And so somehow from this we can conclude that gluten peptides are not

immunogenic?

> Why do we need to explain most people's vague, self-diagnosed problems

> with wheat or gluten containing grains as an immune response?

From whence did you derive the description of these problems as

" self-diagnosed " ?

>Again, I

> was not suggesting that these issues do not exist, just that they are

> rarer than we think, and are over-self-diagnosed by people based on

> popular mythology about food allergy being the cause of all

> food-related illness.

And you have nothing to substantiate your perceived quantification of

gluten intolerance incidence.

>Of all the people you know personally who claim

> to have a problem with wheat, bread or grains, how many of them have

> actually had the proper laboratory tests to prove it?

At least 90%.

> > Finally, celiac is not an IgE reaction. The classic diagnosis, aside

> > from intestinal biopsy, is the combination of IgG and anti-tissue

> > transglutaminase.

> There are still many questions regarding the pathology of celiac

> disease, which is not as simple as a pure food allergy. Celiac disease

> is different to normal food allergy, as normally food is prevented

> from passing through the gut walls by a number of mechanisms. How was

> the gut damaged in the first place that allowed the proteins through

> to where antibodies could be sensitised?

Look, none of the papers from peer-reviewed journals published in 2005

or 2006 that I have seen have suggested that celiac disease is

mediated by IgE; therefore, I conclude unless you show me otherwise

that there is no evidence that celiac is an IgE response.

Furthermore, an essential blood marker for celiac diagnosis is IgG to

gliadin, which you have already stated is inversely correlated with

IgE. If this latter argument is correct, it casts further doubt upon

the concept of celiac as an IgE-mediated disease.

> Wheat gliadin contains a lectin-like substance that binds to human

> intestinal mucosa and damages it, and this has been debated as the

> " celiac disease toxin " for over 20 years, but as celiac disease is

> already managed by avoiding gluten, no one has bothered to clarify

> these mechanisms as nothing would change if it were proved.

I don't know where you get this idea. There is extensive work on the

molecular mechanisms of celiac disease. While the lectin-binding may

aggravate the condition or be involved in its etiology, celiac is

recognized by all the *celiac scientists* as a disease mediated by an

immunologic reaction to a specific 33-residue gliadin peptide. It is

also suggested that there are other immunologic peptides.

Again, although lectin-binding may aggravate the condition, it

provides no explanation for differentiating celiac from everyone else.

Celiacs, by contrast, have anti-tissue transglutaminase, which is

probably a response to this enzyme which, despite being intended to

repair intestinal tissue, deaminates the glutamine residues on the

33-residue gliadin peptide and dramatically increases its affinity for

the MHC Class II proteins to which it binds. Thus, there is a

plausible explanation for why celiacs would have elevated anti-tissue

transglutaminase in reaction to this peptide, but there is no clear

explanation of why the lectins would result in any more damage in

celiacs than they would in the general population.

> Lectins affect the function of the immune system and specific lectins

> even affect the function of specific antibodies like IgA, but lectins

> do not do this by causing an allergic immune response (this system is

> thought to predate intelligent responses), rather they do it by

> binding to the essential sugar receptors of glycoproteins.

And so somehow this negates the physiological effects of all other

food chemicals?

> One of the functions of antibodies is to bind to and remove

> circulating lectins from the body - in fact IgA specifically binds to

> wheat lectin, so it is no surprise that the body makes more IgA in

> response to the presence of wheat in the bloodstream, where it ought

> not to be.

The question is why 65% of people do not have IgA in the stool and the

other 35% do. It seems unlikely that two thirds of the population is

so IgA deficient that they yield false negatives on the test. The

explanation for this finding is not clear, but unless Dr. Fine is

simply publishing fraudulent data on his web site, it remains a

substantial concern that must be further investigated.

>This is not a classic allergic immune response, as it does

> not involve mast cells, basophils, etc.

Just because the classical understanding of immune reactions to food

is myopic in its focus does not mean that we must forever remain

myopic in order to adhere to it.

> In any case, the problem is

> the wheat lectin, not the immune system's response to it, as the

> immune system is just doing its job as it would do in anyone's body

> that is not missing IgA antibodies completely.

Again, this negates the physiological effects of everything else in wheat?

> I did not say that gluten allergy did not exist. In fact many

> failsafers are particularly prone to life-threatening classic

> allergic, anaphylactic reactions to any number of foods, because the

> huge overstimulation of their immune system by histamine makes them

> particularly prone to developing food and environmental allergies.

> What I said was food allergies are usually easy to identify and much

> rarer than we generally think. As most people's vague, self-defined

> problems with foods like wheat do not constitute the symptoms of

> celiac disease - or in the original case, coconut oil causing eczema,

> or in my case, coffee and pineapple causing urticaria, why do we need

> to explain such problems as an allergy, when there is plenty of

> evidence for much simpler pharmacological reactions? Sensitisation to

> an allergen is only one possibility as the cause of an inflammatory

> response.

Because you are ignoring substantial evidence that celiac is not the

only form of humorally mediated or humorally indicated form of gluten

intolerance. To give you an example of how myopic the researchers are

in this field, about five years ago there was a study that

investigated whether women with PCOS were more likely to be celiacs or

not, because both are associated with infertility. They did a

case-control study, and found that women with PCOS were EIGHT TIMES

more likely to have IgG to gliadin in their blood than controls. But,

since they did not find the other blood markers of celiac disease,

they concluded -- are you ready for it? -- they concluded that because

there was no relationship to celiac disease, the question of whether

gluten may play a role in PCOS does not deserve further study.

Does not deserve further study! The fact that most people do NOT have

IgG to gliadin in their blood but these people were 8 times more

lilkely to have IgG to gliadin in their blood -- IgG to the very same

immunogenic peptide that celiacs react to -- did not concern them

enough to warrant " further study. "

I'm sorry, but that absolutely *does* warrant further study.

Chris

--

The Truth About Cholesterol

Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

[Guest guest]

Hello Emma

I had stopped keeping track of this group due to a very busy life but

have stepped in the see what everyone is talking about. So, I have no

history of your previous discussions. I have spent this morning reading

a lot of posts though. I feel reading your information is at an

interesting time for me because I was preparing to go on a gluten

elimination diet after being off dairy for a month first. It has been my

hope that it is the dairy causing my constant post nasal drip and sinus

infections and sinus headaches. I love whole wheat and have not wanted

it to be my problem. I've already been off sugar and junk for the past

year and even more thoroughly over the past few weeks since trying to

get rid of these headaches.

This new thing about everyone wanting gluten intolerance to be the

cause of their health problems has been something I've been thinking

about since I also continue to become anemic due to very strong

menstrual cycles that apparently could be caused by a gluten intolerance

which can apparently cause a problem with the thyroid which then cause

problems with the menstrual cycle and then eventually cause problems

with anemia. Well, at least that's how I've understood it. It could be

the other thing I've read where they say celiac can cause internal

bleeding which would cause anemia or the damaged intestine not absorbing

vitamins or minerals.

The reason I write you is because you are presenting a different

possible cause to some of these problems I have been having.

I'm afraid I'm having a hard time following yours and Chris's

discussion with a clear understanding of all these new terminologies.

The discussions have been interesting and I hope you both are doing it

to educate each other and to open all of our eyes to the ways all of

these studies can be interpreted and how more research brings on more

light all the time.

I have recently read a book by Dr. Mark Hyman called Ultra Metabolism.

It is his book that has inspired me to do this elimination diet again.

He definitely talked about getting all chemicals, preservatives,

additives and basically anything that comes with a label out of your

diet. Although he admits that the recent labeling requirements now

require the basic natural state of some foods now require labels. But

the idea is all foods closest to their natural state are best. He does

talk about staying away from dairy and possibly gluten since so many

more people are intolerant of gluten then they realize. He states he's

writing this book based on the latest discoveries. Now I wonder why he

doesn't even talk about these salicylates and amines that occur

naturally.

Now after reading all your posts I really am feeling confused as to

what my illumination diet should be for the moment. About ten years ago

I was completely vegan and still had the sinus problems. I have been

oddly hoping that this time it's the dairy causing the problem since it

is ten years later. Back then I gave up thinking it was dairy and went

back on the dairy. So, why am I going on this dairy elimination again? I

just want it to be the simple answer to my sinus problems. I suppose I

can't make it be my problem if it's not my problem. Do you now get a

glimpse of why so many of us jump on these band wagons?

If you have the time to write me personally as to not bore the group

and suggest some alternative reading materials and possible ideas of a

different route I might take in figuring out what's causing these sinus

problems that would really be great.

It seems much easier to just chalk it up to season allergies but Dr.

Hyman says that more often than not people don't realize their problems

are due to eating things that they are intolerant of and they can cause

a whole of other host of problems in the body as the body tries to fight

off the offenders. So, it is he who has encouraged me again to

investigate and figure it out.

My email address is allhaul@....

I would love hear others who have eliminated sinus problems. Too bad

though that we are all so different and what works for one does not work

for all. But, hearing how others figured it out is always encouraging.

April

Re: Coconut oil

> This is because the criteria used is those symptoms that are

> IgE-mediated, is it not? If so, the reasoning is circular.

By observable reactions to food, I mean physical symptoms, not IgE

levels. IgE is incredibly easy to spot and diagnose, but it as taken

decades to connect celiac disease to wheat through IgG, and as yet

there is no proof that " an IgG/IgA based allergy " is the causative

factor, especially as antigliadin antibodies do not correlate

sufficiently with the disease, and even autoimmune antibodies only

show up as the disease progresses.

Again, you are assuming I am saying " it doesn't exist " , which is not

what I have been saying, I am saying that the field of allergy science

is wide open and as yet full of contradictory and inconclusive

information, some of which points to the theory that IgG and IgA are

protective of IgE responses, moreover, there is a much better

explanation for celiac disease than mere " gluten allergy " , which I

will run through again.

> Not in celiac! In celiac, the gut damage is induced by antibodies to

> tissue transglutaminase and T-cell mediated tissue damage. Other

> people react in a similar but different way to the gluten peptides.

You are misinterpreting what I am saying. There is much evidence in

celiac disease that lectins are the cause of the immune dysfunction in

the first place that leads to the autoimmune attack on the body's own

cells:

http://www.ncbi.

<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed & cmd=Retrieve & do

pt=AbstractPlus & list_uids=12439623 & query_hl=31 & itool=pubmed_docsum>

nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed & cmd=Retrieve & dopt=AbstractPlus & l

ist_uids=12439623 & query_hl=31 & itool=pubmed_docsum

We don't actually even need " gluten allergy " as an explanation for

celiac disease, which can be explained by wheat lectins alone.

I

> do not understand why you choose to focus on your own problem as if

> the immunologic reactions to peptides that large numbers of other

> people are experiencing does not exist.

I don't have a health problem with lectins, nor do lectins have

anything to do with the failsafe diet that I was talking about! I am

merely trying to explain that the pathophysiology of celiac disease is

rather more complicated than a simple food allergy, otherwise it would

have already have been solved.

> And so somehow from this we can conclude that gluten peptides are not

> immunogenic?

Again, in spite of never saying that gluten peptides weren't

immunogenic, which is not my opinion, you are still trying to tell me

I am claiming they aren't. What I originally said was that there are

many other explanations for self-diagnosed apparent " allergies " to

gluten and dairy, and that genuine allergies are rare. By persisting

in this angle of argument, are you trying to deny that chemical

explanations exist?

> > Why do we need to explain most people's vague, self-diagnosed

problems

> > with wheat or gluten containing grains as an immune response?

>

> From whence did you derive the description of these problems as

> " self-diagnosed " ?

Because I am not talking about celiac disease, I am talking about the

average person who has some digestive problems when they eat bread, or

who eats some coconut oil and comes out with eczema, and thinks it

must be an allergy because of all the popular mythology in our society

about allergy.

Around one in five people think they have some sort of food allergy,

with one in ten thinking they have a gluten allergy because it has

been popularised by the press, when there are far more appropriate

explanations for their digestive discomfort and brain fog - one of

which is the additive E282, another of which is lectins, a third of

which is their inability to fully digest polysaccharides.

> And you have nothing to substantiate your perceived quantification of

> gluten intolerance incidence.

Presuming you are actually talking about gluten allergy rather than

intolerance, Dr. Fine's figure is that only 1 in 100-200 Americans

actually have gluten allergy. This makes it rare, which is my

perceived quantification. Rather a discrepancy compared to the one in

ten of the population who " think " they have a gluten allergy.

> Look, none of the papers from peer-reviewed journals published in 2005

> or 2006 that I have seen have suggested that celiac disease is

> mediated by IgE; therefore, I conclude unless you show me otherwise

> that there is no evidence that celiac is an IgE response.

Admittedly I should not have implied that celiac was IgE, but I did

not persist in implying this.

> > Wheat gliadin contains a lectin-like substance that binds to human

> > intestinal mucosa and damages it, and this has been debated as the

> > " celiac disease toxin " for over 20 years, but as celiac disease is

> > already managed by avoiding gluten, no one has bothered to clarify

> > these mechanisms as nothing would change if it were proved.

>

> I don't know where you get this idea.

Straight out of one of the vast number of medical papers on celiac

disease and mannose binding lectins. There is a wealth of information

that implicates lectins in many autoimmune diseases. Food contains

lectins, invading pathogens create lectins in order to bind to cells.

Cells which have lectins attached to them look like foreign organisms

to the body and are attacked by antibodies.

> > Lectins affect the function of the immune system and specific

lectins

> > even affect the function of specific antibodies like IgA, but

lectins

> > do not do this by causing an allergic immune response (this system

is

> > thought to predate intelligent responses), rather they do it by

> > binding to the essential sugar receptors of glycoproteins.

>

> And so somehow this negates the physiological effects of all other

> food chemicals?

I presume you mean gluten rather than food chemicals, and I never said

it did.

> The question is why 65% of people do not have IgA in the stool and the

> other 35% do. It seems unlikely that two thirds of the population is

> so IgA deficient that they yield false negatives on the test.

I quote Dr. Fine:

----snip----

However, several studies have now revealed that it is only those with

significant villous atrophy of the small intestine who regularly show

a positive antiendomysial or antitissue transglutaminase antibody, the

specific tests relied upon most heavily for diagnosis of

gluten-induced disease. When there was only partial villous atrophy,

only 30% had a positive test.

[...]

We tested 227 normal volunteers with blood tests for celiac disease.

Twenty-five of these people (11%) had either antigliadin IgG or IgA in

their blood versus only one (0.4%) that had antiendomysial, antitissue

transglutaminase, and antigliadin IgA in the blood. So for every one

person in a population that has the antibodies that have 100%

specificity for celiac disease of the intestine (antiendomysial and

antitissue transglutaminase), there are 24 that have antibodies to

gliadin that may not have celiac disease.

----/snip----

Whilst Dr. Fine regards this as " you don't have celiac disease yet " ,

what these figures actually show is a failure of antigliadin IgA and

IgG to correlate closely enough with celiac disease to even be

described as causative.

As for the autoimmune antibodies, why would these only show up after

the villi were so damaged they were gone, if they were the actual

cause of the damage? Are the tests so bad they cannot be relied on? Is

the hypothesis flawed?

The " science " behind antigliadin antibodies causing celiac disease is

hardly satisfactory! Even the disproportionate presence of intestinal

permeability in those with antigliadin antibodies is no proof of

causation, merely correlation. How are you to show that the

antigliadin antibodies came before the intestinal permeability, not as

a result of the permeability alloweing gliadin into the bloodstream?

The antigliadin antibodies are programmed to attack gliadin, not the

cells of the intestine! Antibodies are highly specific. I fail to

understand how such a mechanism can work, yet I can see easily how an

antibody might attack a cell that has a wheat lectin bound to it, as

it would appear to be a foreign organism. This would certainly produce

intestinal permeability!

> > In any case, the problem is

> > the wheat lectin, not the immune system's response to it, as the

> > immune system is just doing its job as it would do in anyone's body

> > that is not missing IgA antibodies completely.

>

> Again, this negates the physiological effects of everything else in

wheat?

No, it suggests the biochemistry is more complex than you are

allowing, and the idea that antigliadin antibodies are behind celiac

disease is not proven, and that alternative - perhaps better -

explanations are available.

> Because you are ignoring substantial evidence that celiac is not the

> only form of humorally mediated or humorally indicated form of gluten

> intolerance. To give you an example of how myopic the researchers are

> in this field, about five years ago there was a study that

> investigated whether women with PCOS were more likely to be celiacs or

> not, because both are associated with infertility. They did a

> case-control study, and found that women with PCOS were EIGHT TIMES

> more likely to have IgG to gliadin in their blood than controls.

PCOS is correlated with high levels of testosterone and insulin.

Insulin is known to overstimulate the immune system. Correlation is

not causation.

[Guest guest]

I appreciate that you hate the sound of my restrictive diet (most

people hate the sound of failsafe until they get on it and discover it

is easier to stay on than it is to break), but it is the only true way

to normalise a body which has an impaired ability to remove these

chemicals.

-----------------------------oo

Can i jump in now? Ooh this is fun : )

Anyways i want to interject a point here because this is false.

I use Mannatech supplements and belong to a large network of

other patients/former-patients who take these as well..literally

every - single- person with MS, Fibro, CFS etc gets better, I have

not talked to anyone who stayed on the medicinal essential sugars

for long enough and did not improve dramatically.

Also i have EVIDENCE from live blood blackfield microscopy that

my liver is actually getting better, whereas a year ago it was

HORRIBLE. My oxidation levels are also going down with these

wonderful medicines, cool thing is they are supposed to be

in our food, but for lack of nutrients in the soil we do not

get nearly enough to sufficiently feed our cells.

No one is doomed to be dysfunctional forever , even

genetic disorders such as Downs have been cured by

these, the girls mother wrote a book about it with

pictures and everything! Her heart which had i think

5 different difformities rebuilt itself inside her body

because of taking these things! Her skull reshaped itself

over the course of YEARS.

And if all these people with eczema,fibro,ms etc had

these sensitivies -they are well now, and they are cured.

Whatever is in those supplements it overrides the disorder

or senstivity or whatever you call it.

AND on top of that in biblical times the consumption of

salt where affordable was very close to what renate consumes

daily, as long as she gets all her minerals and gets enough

liquids there is nothing wrong with it. Animals friggin eat

salt on giant blocks that owners put out for them and wild

animals will walk long distances just to find it.

Avioding salt is what will make you sick for sure.

Nonetheless i have nothing personal against the diet i suppose...

I personally dont like any diet that takes out essential nutrients-

So as long as it supplies every nutrient your body requires

that is fine.

However saying it is the " only " way is silly. The body can

and does repair itself, most people have no idea what essential

sugars are, and they are an absolute Requirement.

I like the WAP diet because it enables people to get more

of these out of their food, i have to take them supplementally

and i have made many improvements while on them, and i plan

to make more. : )

thanks so much

Bris

[Guest guest]

On 9/4/06, Emma Davies <emma@...> wrote:

> Coconut oil also made me feel very good. That doesn't mean it doesn't

> also contribute salicylates to the diet. We're talking about total

> chemical load here, not specific reactions to specific foods. The

> average aspirin tablet probably contains twenty times more salicylate

> than coconut oil. People are rarely able to spot specific reactions to

> specific foods before they begin the diet, as they are already full of

> the chemicals involved.

That makes much more sense. I would conclude from that that I

probably do not have a major problem with salicylates, except in

pharmacological doses.

Although! I just realized something: Out of all nuts, I have the most

horrible reaction to almonds, and it is far worse when they are raw.

Perhaps this is salicylates?

> > > Most people who have a problem with one

> > > chemical have a problem with other chemicals,

> > This would seem to seriously confound diagnosis.

> How come? All of the chemicals are excluded in the basic diet in order

> to control variables, and tested one at a time.

I'm not familiar enough with the protocol. It seems like the more

sensitivities you have, the more difficult it would be to figure out

which food chemicals were problems, especially since, as you say

above, the effect is dose-dependent, and not everyone responds to the

same dose. Also, I assume that some foods are high in multiple

different problematic food chemicals, right?

> Because the elimination/challenge diet provides very obvious changes

> in symptoms. Whilst I am sure that in a minority of cases some people

> will experience a placebo effect, placebo effects generally don't last

> for months and years, and full body rashes, eczema, asthma attacks and

> joints that audibly pop are rarely purely psychological. I spent two

> years trying to " will " my eczema to get better - it didn't work. The

> diet did.

Right, but the number of different chemicals in food is huge. If the

diet works, it works; but it *seems* to me, uneducated about the

protocol as I am, that one could easily come to the wrong conclusion

about which specific chemicals are problematic via elimination diets

for the reasons stated above. I might be wrong. I don't wish to

pursue the point much further, because I haven't tried it or

investigated it and I'm not really in a position to criticize it.

> Dr. Rosemary Waring's research shows that the lack of sulphate is the

> primary problem in 73% of autistic children (another study found low

> levels in 92%). All of those Waring checked had a low PST level

> because available sulphate limits PST activity. Similar sulphate

> deficiencies have been reported in people with

> migraine, rheumatoid arthritis, jaundice, and other allergic

> conditions.

What is believed to be the cause of th sulfate deficiency?

Chris

--

The Truth About Cholesterol

Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

[Guest guest]

On 9/4/06, Emma Davies <emma@...> wrote:

> By observable reactions to food, I mean physical symptoms, not IgE

> levels. IgE is incredibly easy to spot and diagnose, but it as taken

> decades to connect celiac disease to wheat through IgG, and as yet

> there is no proof that " an IgG/IgA based allergy " is the causative

> factor, especially as antigliadin antibodies do not correlate

> sufficiently with the disease, and even autoimmune antibodies only

> show up as the disease progresses.

What from this leads you to conclude celiac is IgE-mediated?

> Again, you are assuming I am saying " it doesn't exist " , which is not

> what I have been saying, I am saying that the field of allergy science

> is wide open and as yet full of contradictory and inconclusive

> information, some of which points to the theory that IgG and IgA are

> protective of IgE responses, moreover, there is a much better

> explanation for celiac disease than mere " gluten allergy " , which I

> will run through again.

At the risk that we are substantially misunderstanding each other,

I'll withold comment...

> > Not in celiac! In celiac, the gut damage is induced by antibodies to

> > tissue transglutaminase and T-cell mediated tissue damage. Other

> > people react in a similar but different way to the gluten peptides.

> You are misinterpreting what I am saying. There is much evidence in

> celiac disease that lectins are the cause of the immune dysfunction in

> the first place that leads to the autoimmune attack on the body's own

> cells:

>

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed & cmd=Retrieve & dopt=Abstra\

ctPlus & list_uids=12439623 & query_hl=31 & itool=pubmed_docsum

If 13% have this allele and 95% have DQ2, it would seem to place a

greater emphasis on the latter. I am not arguing that MHC's are the

be-all end-all of celiac; obviously they aren't, and most people with

DQ2 are not celiac. But at 13% incidence of an allele versus a 5%

incidence in the general population seems to hint more at an

aggravating factor than a fundamentally causative factor.

> We don't actually even need " gluten allergy " as an explanation for

> celiac disease, which can be explained by wheat lectins alone.

You'll have to elaborate for me to understand.

> I don't have a health problem with lectins, nor do lectins have

> anything to do with the failsafe diet that I was talking about!

I apologize for misunderstanding and mischaracterizing.

> I am

> merely trying to explain that the pathophysiology of celiac disease is

> rather more complicated than a simple food allergy, otherwise it would

> have already have been solved.

Simple food allergies are also more complicated than simple food

allergies. For example, I believe it is significant that vitamin A

suppresses the differentiation of eosinophil/basophil progenitors in

bone marrow and that asthmatic children have markedly reduced serum

vitamin A levels in proportion to the severity of their asthma, and I

do not see IgE allergies ever characterized as a vitamin A deficiency.

So I don't think that the complexity of celiac's connection to IgG is

necessarily any more underappreciated than the nuances of IgE

reactions.

> Again, in spite of never saying that gluten peptides weren't

> immunogenic, which is not my opinion, you are still trying to tell me

> I am claiming they aren't. What I originally said was that there are

> many other explanations for self-diagnosed apparent " allergies " to

> gluten and dairy, and that genuine allergies are rare. By persisting

> in this angle of argument, are you trying to deny that chemical

> explanations exist?

Had you come across as more equivocal, I might have understood your

position more quickly. I perceived you as very dismissive of both

Renate and withough sufficient information to make the statements

you made either time. I perceived your statements as very emphatic

that your food chemical theory triumphed over the other explanations,

without first seeking what I would have thought was the further

information required to make those judgements; thus, it appeared to me

as if you were drawing conclusions that were not justified with the

information available.

I don't think you think reactions to gluten do not exist, but you

certainly don't KNOW enough to make the claims you have made about

their rarity or otherwise make claims about their quantification.

> > From whence did you derive the description of these problems as

> > " self-diagnosed " ?

> Because I am not talking about celiac disease, I am talking about the

> average person who has some digestive problems when they eat bread, or

> who eats some coconut oil and comes out with eczema, and thinks it

> must be an allergy because of all the popular mythology in our society

> about allergy.

I am on a list of people with gluten and dairy problems, and I have

not once seen anyone happy to come to the conclusion that they can't

eat gluten or dairy without testing, nor have I ever heard of someone

in the general population who jumps to the conlusion that bread is the

cause of their woes. I do, however, know a good number of people who

have concluded based on laboratory evidence and symptoms that they

have these problems. I am not positive that the laboratory evidence

used for these diagnoses is conclusive, but it is nevertheless there.

> Around one in five people think they have some sort of food allergy,

> with one in ten thinking they have a gluten allergy because it has

> been popularised by the press, when there are far more appropriate

> explanations for their digestive discomfort and brain fog - one of

> which is the additive E282, another of which is lectins, a third of

> which is their inability to fully digest polysaccharides.

You have no basis on which to make these quantifications; or, you have

not indicated to me that you have any such basis.

> > And you have nothing to substantiate your perceived quantification of

> > gluten intolerance incidence.

> Presuming you are actually talking about gluten allergy rather than

> intolerance, Dr. Fine's figure is that only 1 in 100-200 Americans

> actually have gluten allergy.

I am disputing the productivity of dividing immunological reactions

into " allergies " and " intolerances " when they are both humorally

mediated. I believe it would be far more productive to state

specifically the type of reaction you are talking about; doing

otherwise just leads to confusion in my opinion.

> This makes it rare, which is my

> perceived quantification. Rather a discrepancy compared to the one in

> ten of the population who " think " they have a gluten allergy.

Your original response to indicating the rarity of problems with

gluten was in your dismissal of the importance of IgG and IgA

reactions. Dr. Fine's numbers are that 11% have the IgG and

30-something % have IgA in the stool, and he claims that he has

correlated the IgA with intestinal damage. Again, he has not

published this and I cannot judge his conclusions and he has not

offered them from what I have seen in great detail yet.

> Admittedly I should not have implied that celiac was IgE, but I did

> not persist in implying this.

Ok.

> > > Wheat gliadin contains a lectin-like substance that binds to human

> > > intestinal mucosa and damages it, and this has been debated as the

> > > " celiac disease toxin " for over 20 years, but as celiac disease is

> > > already managed by avoiding gluten, no one has bothered to clarify

> > > these mechanisms as nothing would change if it were proved.

> > I don't know where you get this idea.

> Straight out of one of the vast number of medical papers on celiac

> disease and mannose binding lectins. There is a wealth of information

> that implicates lectins in many autoimmune diseases. Food contains

> lectins, invading pathogens create lectins in order to bind to cells.

> Cells which have lectins attached to them look like foreign organisms

> to the body and are attacked by antibodies.

I think we miscommunicated here. I think I actually thought you were

saying no one had investigated the mechanism of celiac disease; I

didn't realize your comment applied to lectins specifically. I

apologize.

> Whilst Dr. Fine regards this as " you don't have celiac disease yet " ,

> what these figures actually show is a failure of antigliadin IgA and

> IgG to correlate closely enough with celiac disease to even be

> described as causative.

You can't make this judgment until it is investigated what these

antibodies *do* correlate with, if anything.

> As for the autoimmune antibodies, why would these only show up after

> the villi were so damaged they were gone, if they were the actual

> cause of the damage? Are the tests so bad they cannot be relied on? Is

> the hypothesis flawed?

I didn't say they were the cause of the damage and in fact I doubt

that they are. This does not mean that they are not a useful

diagnostic marker.

> The " science " behind antigliadin antibodies causing celiac disease is

> hardly satisfactory! Even the disproportionate presence of intestinal

> permeability in those with antigliadin antibodies is no proof of

> causation, merely correlation. How are you to show that the

> antigliadin antibodies came before the intestinal permeability, not as

> a result of the permeability alloweing gliadin into the bloodstream?

Actually I think IgG in the blood to gliadin would be primarily an

indicator of intestinal leakage.

> The antigliadin antibodies are programmed to attack gliadin, not the

> cells of the intestine!

Agreed.

>Antibodies are highly specific. I fail to

> understand how such a mechanism can work, yet I can see easily how an

> antibody might attack a cell that has a wheat lectin bound to it, as

> it would appear to be a foreign organism. This would certainly produce

> intestinal permeability!

I think that is sensible. However, binding of gliadin fractions to

MHC proteins will induce not only a humoral response but a

cell-mediated response, and there is as I understand it substantial

evidence for this cell-mediated response. Since the antibody response

would be first mediated by helper T cells, antibody reactions in the

gut may be indicators of this process.

> No, it suggests the biochemistry is more complex than you are

> allowing, and the idea that antigliadin antibodies are behind celiac

> disease is not proven, and that alternative - perhaps better -

> explanations are available.

I think we've been misunderstanding each other and I hope it is

beginning to resolve at this point.

> PCOS is correlated with high levels of testosterone and insulin.

> Insulin is known to overstimulate the immune system. Correlation is

> not causation.

I didn't say anything even close to " this demonstrates that IgG

reactions to gliadin cause PCOS. " I said the finding obviously

warrants further study. Don't you agree?

Chris

--

The Truth About Cholesterol

Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

[Guest guest]

Thank you Emma for the links and your shared experience.

I will look into the possible causes for sinus problems. When looking

at your links, so far I have not found the sources of histamines and

sulfites. Can you direct me or explain? The inflammation you are talking

about is exactly what Dr. Hyman talks about. I learned the value of

removing the causes of inflammation for more reasons than just clearing

the sinuses. He says many diseases today start with inflammation in the

body caused by allergies or food intolerances or food additives. It

makes sense that natural chemicals can be cause as well.

I really love fruit. Because of being hypoglycemic I have learned to

eat only a little per meal though. Once you had gotten yourself on a

diet clear of salicylates, were and are you able to put back in some

fruits occasionally without over stimulating your immune system?

April

Re: Coconut oil

--- In @ <mailto: %40>

, " Family " <allhaul@...>

wrote:

> I feel reading your information is at an

> interesting time for me because I was preparing to go on a gluten

> elimination diet after being off dairy for a month first. It has been

my

> hope that it is the dairy causing my constant post nasal drip and

sinus

> infections and sinus headaches.

This can be dairy; post-nasal drip and generally more mucus are a

common complaint in failsafers with dairy intolerance - mechanism

unknown. I get very mild mucus problems with milk - I used to have

them severely when I was a teenager (cause unknown, but I drank pints

of milk a day) - but not enough now to bother to remove dairy from my

diet.

However, there is also the possibility that this problem will go away

after removing salicylates and/or histamines and/or sulphites from the

diet, since the effects many environmental and food allergies are much

reduced when these chemicals stop overstimulating the immune system

through inflammation. For a long time I thought I had a dairy

intolerance as I seemed to react whenever I ate it, but it went away

when I went on the diet. Some symptoms seem to be caused by

interactions! It seems that if you've been dairy free for a month and

the problem hasn't cleared, it isn't dairy.

I love whole wheat and have not wanted

> it to be my problem.

I have not heard of this specific problem being associated with

wheat/gluten/grains (that doesn't of course rule it out).

I've already been off sugar and junk for the past

> year and even more thoroughly over the past few weeks since trying to

> get rid of these headaches.

Headaches are a common complaint. Especially sinus problems. There are

still hidden additives in some foods people classify as " wholefoods " -

if you drink wine/beer (even organic), you'll be getting some

sulphites, but a wholefood diet could point to a problem with natural

chemicals. One fact that people hate to hear is that organic

vegetables are higher in salicylates than non-organic ones, as

salicylates are produced in response to attacks from pests.

> This new thing about everyone wanting gluten intolerance to be the

> cause of their health problems has been something I've been thinking

> about since I also continue to become anemic due to very strong

> menstrual cycles that apparently could be caused by a gluten

intolerance

> which can apparently cause a problem with the thyroid which then cause

> problems with the menstrual cycle and then eventually cause problems

> with anemia. Well, at least that's how I've understood it.

I had many symptoms of disturbed thyroid, and terrible PMT problems

before the diet. My period has got lighter. The detox pathways

involved in the liver also deal with oestrogen - so it is possible

that your menstruation problem could be linked to this. The metabolic

disorder involved can cause a variety of disruptions to B vitamins,

iron, copper, zinc, and some other trace minerals, which does not help.

> The discussions have been interesting and I hope you both are doing it

> to educate each other and to open all of our eyes to the ways all of

> these studies can be interpreted and how more research brings on more

> light all the time.

I am afraid I do have some poor social skills and can irritate people

by sounding arrogant or sarcastic, or as though I'm trying to

invalidate them, which isn't my intention. I also have a tendency to

play the devil's advocate and point out ALL possible variables or

flaws that could possibly exist. I don't do it on purpose to be

unpleasant, and I hope people understand that.

> I have recently read a book by Dr. Mark Hyman called Ultra Metabolism.

> It is his book that has inspired me to do this elimination diet again.

> He definitely talked about getting all chemicals, preservatives,

> additives and basically anything that comes with a label out of your

> diet.

Now I wonder why he

> doesn't even talk about these salicylates and amines that occur

> naturally.

There is a serious deficiency of books in this area, which is

frustrating as I'm having trouble communicating some of this to

members of my family with the same problem. One book on the subject

contain grossly misleading information. Most books about " food

intolerance " wrongly imply all food problems are allergies, they are

usually popularist and deal with rotation diets and buy into common

mythology about allergy. If you are lucky, you might find a single

page dedicated to salicylates (usually erroneously described, along

with sulphite reactions as an " allergy " ).

Unfortunately awareness of the natural chemicals in foods is very,

very low - despite Feingold's discoveries being over thirty years old.

Prior to the 1950's, most of the investigation into problems with food

was centred around its pharmacological effects, until allergy research

took off, then the whole of the research field was distorted in favour

of allergy, and pharmacology was pushed out.

There is a very strong cultural attitude at the moment that fruits and

vegetables do nothing but good and will save us all from obesity and

cancer, though everyone is very eager to bash dairy and grains. One

event that has arisen alongside increased claims of " gluten

allergy/intolerance " is that in the mid-nineties, an E-number, E282

began to be added to most commercial bread, and this is now known to

cause brain-fogs, bread cravings, and other symptoms you would

associate with popular ideas about gluten intolerance.

I

> just want it to be the simple answer to my sinus problems. I suppose I

> can't make it be my problem if it's not my problem. Do you now get a

> glimpse of why so many of us jump on these band wagons?

I sympathise entirely - I have jumped on a lot of bandwagons and tried

a lot of things and spent a lot of money to make myself better. I

sometimes feel I have opened a huge can of worms. Publicly doing

Atkins was easier than this!

> If you have the time to write me personally as to not bore the group

> and suggest some alternative reading materials and possible ideas of a

> different route I might take in figuring out what's causing these

sinus

> problems that would really be great.

I'll post it here as I think one or two other people might be

interested - go to my blog: http://wisewitch.

<http://wisewitch.blogspot.com/> blogspot.com/

If you look down the left hand side, and explore the links marked

" food intolerance " , there are a number of websites. There are links to

an online copy of the elimination diet.

There are only a few books worth reading:

Joan Breakey - " Are You Food Sensitive? " - available from her site.

Sue Dengate - " Fed Up " , " Fed Up with Asthma " , and " Fed Up with ADHD " -

you will probably have to order them second hand off www.abebooks.com.

They are like gold dust to get hold of.

The Royal Prince Alfred Hospital in Australia also have a book,

" Friendly Food " - but it is mostly made up of unappealing recipes. The

introduction - the only part worth reading - is online.

Ben Feingold's book " Why Your Child is Hyperactive " is supposed to be

a good read (haven't read it yet), but the diet included is outdated

now.

Also, " E for Additives " by Maurice Hanssen and Jill Marsden documents

the nasty effects of each additive one by one.

.... that's just how under-explored this area is!

[Guest guest]

I keep hearing you say salicylate sensitivity is

Aspirin sensitivity...does that mean if i was to

react to Salicylates i would react to aspirin?

Just curious...

Also what i meant by oxidation is called oxidative stress.

In the blood sample my blood cells ( only the last couple

months since my infection mind you ) have shown severe

oxidative damage. Since taking their glycosilated antioxidant

i have gone from level 4 oxidation to a level 1.

According to my blood samples i am improving on all levels.

Does that mean im completely better yet, no.

But i have had problems with Mycoplasma on and off for sure...

he diagnosed that.

BTW i take LARGE amounts of the essential sugars and i

go through Mannatech.

Bris

-----------oo

>

>

> > Anyways i want to interject a point here because this is false.

> > I use Mannatech supplements and belong to a large network of

> > other patients/former-patients who take these as well..literally

> > every - single- person with MS, Fibro, CFS etc gets better, I have

> > not talked to anyone who stayed on the medicinal essential sugars

> > for long enough and did not improve dramatically.

>

> Essential sugars are useful in combating lectins/autoimmune disorders,

> I don't know how they might relate to transsulfuration though, but

> will investigate.

>

> I didn't get much benefit from the essential sugar type supplements I

> took, and efforts to include natural sources in my diet, but then they

> were full of salicylates!

>

> Am slightly dubious, that in spite of having an improvement, I'm aware

> you still live with many symptoms of ill health. It took me only about

> a month to get on my feet again after going on the diet.

>

>

> > Also i have EVIDENCE from live blood blackfield microscopy that

> > my liver is actually getting better, whereas a year ago it was

> > HORRIBLE. My oxidation levels are also going down with these

> > wonderful medicines, cool thing is they are supposed to be

> > in our food, but for lack of nutrients in the soil we do not

> > get nearly enough to sufficiently feed our cells.

>

> Oxidation is a liver detox pathway... but I'm possibly confused about

> what you mean? Oxidative damage?

>

>

> > No one is doomed to be dysfunctional forever

>

> I continue to have faith in that. I am continuing to experiment and

> treat my disorder - with sulphates, molybdenum, etc.

>

>

> > Nonetheless i have nothing personal against the diet i suppose...

> > I personally dont like any diet that takes out essential nutrients-

> > So as long as it supplies every nutrient your body requires

> > that is fine.

>

> The diet does not remove essential nutrients. Vitamin C and folic acid

> can be a problem unless done carefully, but in general they are a

> problem for everyone, regardless of restrictive diets. These two

> vitamins can be problematic for the condition in some anyway.

>

> It does largely remove some non-essential " nutrients " such as

> bioflavinoids and polyphenols... but these are aromatic rings and the

> body would only detox them through the PST pathway as toxins anyway.

>

>

> > However saying it is the " only " way is silly. The body can

> > and does repair itself

>

> The diet in fact encourages repair - a proportion of people are

> basically cured or much improved after as little as six months. Others

> don't get better, no one knows why yet, though I expect there is as

> much variation in how the diet is implemented as there is in possible

> causes for the problem.

>

> However - I also believe that some people with certain genes are

> simply not designed to eat certain foods. For example you would not

> ask an individual with low insulin levels (as in inherited T2

> diabetes) to base their diet on carbohydrates, any more than it should

> be expected that someone with inherited low PST activity be asked to

> conform to Western standards of eating - since the Western diet is

> rammed full of aromatic compounds, salicylates and additives in

> comparison to many native diets.

>

[Guest guest]

Emma,

> I, uh, wasn't. I incorrectly implied that in a very brief sentence in

> which I was trying to avoid complicating matters, but somehow

> succeeded in inviting an avalanche of criticism.

I'm sorry; I tend to read through an email and respond as I read in

conversational form. When I read later in your email that you did not

mean to suggest celiac was IgE-mediated, I should have gone back up

and fixed my post but neglected to.

> This was just meant as an example, as it is one of many studies in the

> area. The problem is not limited to one or two alleles, but several,

> in a field open to more discoveries:

Fair enough. I'm glad to have run into you, as I haven't been able to

discuss this with someone who knows as much about biochemistry as you

do. I'm interested in learning more about the lectin theory.

> " Interestingly, the MBL2 0/0 genotype was present in 7 of 33 HLA

> atypical celiac patients (21%) and in 13 of 116 HLA typical celiac

> patients (13%) but in only 7 of 147 healthy controls (5%).

> Furthermore, we found that MBL2 genotype is strongly associated with

> the occurrence of secondary autoimmune diseases. "

Ok, so could you briefly run by the basic tenets of the theory?

The lectins bind to the intestinal cells. Then they act as

chemoattractants for inflammatory cells?

Does fermentation break down lectins? There are a few studies showing

that sourdough cultures almost completely eliminate the immunogenic

gliadin peptides; I wonder if it is similar for lectins.

> Similar findings have been made in the study of lupus, T1 diabetes

> (wheat and soya lectins in particular), arthritis, and some

> non-autoimmune conditions such as stomach ulcers work through this

> mechanism. There are additional factors involved - several pathogens

> (including ones that inhabit the gut) strip off the protective sugar

> coatings of cells that allow other types of lectins to attach to what

> is below.

And also, apparently, infant nutrition. One study has found that cod

liver oil use during pregnancy (not quantified) is associated with a

70% reduction in risk of type 1 diabetes, and a 31-year prospective

cohort in over 10,000 infants in Finland found vitamin D given in the

first year of life to almost eliminate risk of type 1 diabetes, from

the lowest doses to exceeding 2000 IU per day.

> This is a good overview of lectins and disease for anyone interested

> (free full text):

> http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/318/7190/1023

Allright, thank you.

> > Had you come across as more equivocal, I might have understood your

> > position more quickly. I perceived you as very dismissive of both

> > Renate and withough sufficient information to make the statements

> > you made either time.

>

>

> My issue with Renate is that despite admitting to exhibiting chemical

> sensitivities, she has been very dismissive of what I have had to say

> from the beginning. She seemed intent on discouraging Bris from

> exploring the elimination/challenge diet as a possible solution to her

> problems, whilst not encouraging her to seek proof that her problem is

> lyme before advising treatments for it, even emailing me off-board

> claiming " hostility " because I demanded proof that lyme was Bris's

> problem, and because I became irritated with her on-board when she

> unjustly criticised the nutrition of the elimination diet for the nth

> time in an effort discourage its use to everyone. Can you blame me for

> being a little sharp with her, even, after her admission of chemical

> sensitivities, consider that there may be a problem with her own lyme

> diagnosis which she should explore?

Ok, I must have missed some of those emails.

>She has implied to me in the past

> that her diagnosis was symptom-based. Further, if Renate admits to

> chemical sensitivities, the salt she is taking is helping to excrete

> these chemicals - that is a factual statement whether she has lyme or

> not.

Is it also true, then, that someone with limited salt would use that

salt up in excreting them, and thus require more salt? Does my

life-long need to drink large amounts of water, urinate frequently,

and eat very salty food suggest these chemical sensitivities?

> Further, the statement that IgA and IgG antibodies are protective of

> IgE allergy is perfectly good science.

I have not read deeply into it, but doesn't this just reflect

differential helper T cell activity, rather than an active protective

effect of the antibodies?

Although, it does also make sense that IgG and IgA would prevent IgE

from grabbing the antigen by getting the antigen first. Maybe both

factors occur?

> If people find my tone or my language arrogant, I apologise. It is not

> intended to be taken that way. I try not to embellish my language with

> ummms and ahhhs and ifs whats maybes and possiblys, because it becomes

> hard to read, however, I do not make false statements of facts or draw

> conclusions based on a lack of evidence. I do however suggest

> alternative hypotheses and play the devil's advocate where I feel

> current explanations are lacking.

It probably depends on who's reading. Maybe's, probabilities, and

clear explanations of the evidence on which an assertion is based

increase someone's credibility to me, whereas emphatic statements

decrease credibility to me, unless they are overtly supported.

So, I'm sorry I misread you so badly.

> > I don't think you think reactions to gluten do not exist, but you

> > certainly don't KNOW enough to make the claims you have made about

> > their rarity or otherwise make claims about their quantification.

> No, that is not my opinion - either in terms of pharmacological

> intolerance, or immune allergy - as I stated several times in the last

> post on this subject. IgE reactions to wheat are fully documented and

> included in the 1-2% of the adult population statistic.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. I don't doubt your

quantification of the IgE reactions. I doubt your quantification of

the IgG/IgA-related issues because we are unable to define them and

you, although doubting the interpretation given to them by Fine and

others, do not, as far as I know, have sufficient basis to simply

dismiss the IgG/IgA issues as not meaning anything.

In retrospect, I think you were trying to say that the IgG/IgA issues

should not be classified as " allergies " and they are probably mediated

by other factors such as lectins. Something like that?

> However, you appear to be suggesting that gluten allergy is extremely

> common - when there are simply no scientific grounds for this. Had you

> shown me a study in which IgG and IgA antibodies to gluten in a normal

> population correlate with complaints of ill health as defined by

> " gluten intolerance " symptoms, I would be more convinced. All I have

> seen so far is information that some people have IgA and IgG

> antibodies to gluten, and a significant number of those have

> intestinal dysfunction (intestinal dysfunction in the rest of the

> population is not recorded, therefore the figure is somewhat

> meaningless).

Ok, you're right. This information is primarily coming from Dr. Fine,

and in all honesty I think EnteroLab is almost cult-like at this

point. I heard through the grapevine that Fine *intends* upon

publishing his data, but it seems to me that the years he's been

collecting it for should be sufficient enough to publish a preliminary

report. There isn't sufficient information on the web site to judge

whether or not the test is meaningful. He simply suggests in a very

vague sense that it is.

Nevertheless, why would the majority of people not have IgA to gliadin

in the stool? I'm aware that IgA deficiency is common, but I don't

think it is anywhere near common enough to account for the fact that

60-70% of people, almost all of whom or all of whom consume

substantial amounts of gluten, do not have IgA to it in their stool,

while 30% of other people do. This must mean *something* even if it

does not mean what Fine thinks it means.

And of course the other problem is that I don't think he tested for

IgA to other things. If those 35% or whatever it was have elevated

IgA to *everything* than it doesn't seem so much like pre-celiac or a

gluten-specific disease anymore.

>Intestinal dysfunction has multiple causes - one of

> which is frequently the inability to digest the type of starch found

> in grains, or irritation caused by the insoluble fibre found in

> grains. Again, there is much evidence that IgG and IgA are protective

> of the immune overreactions seen in IgE. Even if this had been a

> controlled study, correlation and causation are two different things,

> and it is perfectly reasonable to suggest that the " intestinal

> dysfunction " has allowed gluten into the blood, where antibodies have

> become alerted to it, not the other way around, and no evidence that

> this reaction is a harmful one since so many people have IgG

> antibodies to their favourite foods.

Yes, but this is for the IgG to gluten in the blood, which is part of

the standard diagnosis. Fine's test is for IgA in the *stool,* which

does not on the surface seem to relate to intestinal permeability.

>Therefore, gluten allergy may not

> be the causative factor in either " intestinal dysfunction " or celiac

> disease.

Ok. But what are your thoughts on the connection between celiac and

anti-tissue transglutaminase antibodies? My half-educated guess is

that the tissue transglutaminase is trying to fix the intestinal

lining, but because it deaminates the glutamine residues on the

33-residue gliadin peptide, dramatically increasing its affinity for

MHC proteins, it is seen by the body as a causative factor in the

immune reaction. Now nothing is really antibody-specific, because the

gliadin binding to MHC would also mediate other immune cells in

addition to B cells. And although I have no idea how the recognition

that the tissue transglutaminase is causing a problem would actually

occur or why the cells making it couldn't just downregulate it, this

still seems like the most coherent explanation if for no other reason

than the absence of other explanations. And that would seem to

suggest that the MHC-binding is important. Although it does not

suggest that it is the first thing to happen.

> It is impossible to extrapolate from such a complex and specific

> scenario above and suggest that food allergies in general are very

> common - as there is simply no evidence for this. IgG ELISA tests are

> non-standardised, built in-house by laboratories, and of highly

> variable quality. Further, every time I come across a site touting IgG

> ELISA tests, they describe the symptoms of food chemical intolerance -

> as widely as down to urinary urgency and hyperactivity. I would love

> to know the immune mechanism for urinary urgency.

Off the top of my head -- autoimmune-induced tissue damage could lead

to the need to clear cytoskeletal fragments that are not properly

disassembled through normal apoptosis?

> People on lists are generally very motivated people and not a

> representative cross-section of the population.

I know, and everyone I know who things they have a problem with gluten

is on a list. Everyone else I know eats gluten all the time without a

care.

> > Actually I think IgG in the blood to gliadin would be primarily an

> > indicator of intestinal leakage.

> Then we are in fact in agreement.

Our disagreement has been at least half imaginary.

> > I think that is sensible. However, binding of gliadin fractions to

> > MHC proteins will induce not only a humoral response but a

> > cell-mediated response, and there is as I understand it substantial

> > evidence for this cell-mediated response. Since the antibody response

> > would be first mediated by helper T cells, antibody reactions in the

> > gut may be indicators of this process.

> Again, these cells do not make simple mistakes, they must perceive

> native cells to be foreign in order to attack them. In order to be

> perceived as foreign, the cells must be damaged or changed in some way

> - through pathogens, lectins present in food, or other unknown mechanisms.

I have heard it advocated that tissue transglutaminase crosslinks

gliadin to intestinal cells. I don't know whether this is shown

experimentally or not, but regardless, what do you think of its

plausibility?

Chris

--

The Truth About Cholesterol

Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

[Guest guest]

Emma,

> That would be a false conclusion.

Ok. I can't look into this immediately, but I do think it is likely

to explain some of my issues, so thank you for bringing it up.

> Personally, I'm so reactive that I'm now 95% carnivorous and

> plant foods are limited largely to potato and grain.

Potatoes have always struck me as a food that I could not eat.

Especially when I ate potatoes with milk, I noticed. Grains I seem to

tolerate better. I am eating gluten-free now for the hell of it, but

my best-tolerated grain has always been the European Style Old-World

Sourdough Rye or whatever the heck it is called that is sold at Whole

Foods. It's like a half of a loaf size, and it is 100% rye and

sour-doughed. I do not tolerate Ezekiel Bread well, which is a mix of

wheat and other grains and beans and is sprouted rather than soured.

I don't think I tolerate beer well either, but I'm not positive. I

certainly tolerate bottle-conditioned beer much better than the

regular commercial beers. Some of them, and some vodkas, will give me

diarrhea, and others will not. Difficult to make any sense out of.

> It could well be. Almond and apricot family are particularly high in

> salicylates, they also contain a lot of benzene type compounds -

> benzaldehydes, amygdalin etc., they have a reputation as being quite

> reactive for people, along with some of the tropical fruits, tomatoes

> and spices.

Apricots were one of the foods I was " allergic " too when I was weaned

(at about 1 year old.) In addition, I could not tolerate milk from

any animal, milk from soy or almond, beef, eggs, carrots, peas,

pineapple, watermelon, and some other things. I could, however,

tolerate blueberries and strawberries.

I always figured I had a problem with nuts per se, but I realized

recently that I react to almonds much worse than any other. If I soak

and roast almonds, they aren't so bad, but after I realized this, I

ate them every day for a week in large quantities and eventually

started reacting to the soaked and roasted almonds too.

> There are some foods that are very reactive and contain multiple

> chemicals. Tomatoes, tropical fruit, almond family, etc.

I have a suspicion that I cannot tolerate tomatoes. Bananas I react

to sometimes and not others. Pineapple I always thought I could eat

but lately have not been so sure. Sometimes it feels like I've burned

my mouth when I eat pineapple, which I thought might be the enzymes.

> After going

> on the third gen pill in my twenties, I developed a DVT and was put on

> warfarin - whilst on warfarin I experienced a rapid decline in health

> and my symptoms became unbearable.

There was a recent study showing that people who use warfarin for one

to three years have dramatically increased calcification of the

arteries, like the animals fed warfarin.

Thank you for the information.

Chris

--

The Truth About Cholesterol

Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

[Guest guest]

I tried to be helpful and suggest you get checked for lyme and I

guess it hit a nerve because you've heard that too many times, so

sorry for that, but please just leave me out of your future posts.

Can't we just agree to disagree? I believe I'm getting pretty darn

healthy on my little protocol for lyme and won't consider any

alternative diagnoses until I see proof that this hasn't worked for

me, which so far I'm pretty impressed with the results so I don't

see that happening. I don't really like being diagnosed publicly as

having something when I haven't even asked your advice.

And it's not so much that I'm trying to dissuade everyone from

looking at the diet you're recommending as I am reacting to the

evident closed-mindedness that everyone's health problems are due to

this one thing.

I'm not telling people that I'm sure they have lyme and should do

XYZ, I'm just suggesting that they consider this because it is an

epidemic, and one that so far is difficult to find medical

practitioners who are very knowledgable about. If you have

symptoms, it's best to find out about it before you have seizures

and lose your driver's license or lose the functioning in your legs

or have a heart attack.

And I'm not even stuck on the salt/c protocol. I've heard teasel

root extract is very good for lyme, as are a couple of the lyme

literate MD's protocols, as is Samento, and I'm looking forward to

reading Buhner's book " Healing Lyme " . Most of my friends

here aren't very interested in alternative medicine and have gone

the picc line route and have had satisfactory results after 6 months

to a year of antibiotics. Some governor drank raw milk from a cow

that was injected with his blood and cured his lyme (didn't work

later for someone else, tho). But that's a neat approach. And some

guy on the westonaprice.org site says he got his lyme in remission

just by following the WAP dietary guidelines. I've also heard good

things about Rife and the Zapper (even heard the Zapper is a little

better!)

Emma said:

My issue with Renate is that despite admitting to exhibiting chemical

> sensitivities, she has been very dismissive of what I have had to

say

> from the beginning. She seemed intent on discouraging Bris from

> exploring the elimination/challenge diet as a possible solution to

her

> problems, whilst not encouraging her to seek proof that her

problem is

> lyme before advising treatments for it, even emailing me off-board

> claiming " hostility " because I demanded proof that lyme was Bris's

> problem, and because I became irritated with her on-board when she

> unjustly criticised the nutrition of the elimination diet for the

nth

> time in an effort discourage its use to everyone. Can you blame me

for

> being a little sharp with her, even, after her admission of

chemical

> sensitivities, consider that there may be a problem with her own

lyme

> diagnosis which she should explore?

[Guest guest]

> > I don't really like being diagnosed publicly as

> > having something when I haven't even asked your advice.

>

> This is an unfair comment, since I did not diagnose you with

anything.

> What I did was tell you why your salt/vit c protocol was working to

> help the VOC chemical sensitivities that YOU told me you had,

> regardless of whether you have lyme or not. Knowing this prompted

me

> to ask you whether you were certain about your lyme diagnosis.

>

Er, no, you rather strongly suggested that I did not have lyme due

to lack of positive blood test, although you later asserted that the

blood tests give false positives so even that would not convince you.

>

> > Did I or did I not ask her to TEST the diet?

> Have I or have I not asked others to TEST the diet?

But you see, that's what I was doing as well, in some cases saying

that others with a certain condition have found it much improved by

the salt/c protocol and that folks here who were troubled by certain

symptoms might benefit from trying the salt/c to see if it caused

relief from their symptoms as well. I think the first time it was

some skin condition like eczema, and I noted that a fellow in the

group had recommended the salt/c protocol to a co-worker who had

terrible skin problems and in a few weeks it cleared up

tremendously. This doesn't imply that anyone thinks the woman had

lyme, just that if those on the protocol notice it clears certain

symptoms for many in the group, it could do so for them as well,

regardless of whether they have lyme.

As I have repeatedly said, our ancestors ate much larger quantities

of salt than we do, and consumed much more vitamin c, in actually

the stronger natural form. So for some it could almost be a

deficiency state they're in, needing more salt and vitamin C for

their bodies to function correctly. While vitamin C deficiency has

received fairly good attention in some circles, there is a dearth of

information about salt deficiency short of the level of deficiency

that causes heat exhaustion. Just as lower levels of vitamin C,

while adequate to prevent scurvy, still do not allow the body to

perform well in terms of creating healthy blood vessels and all the

enzymes it needs for full health, I believe lower levels of salt,

enough to prevent heat exhaustion and electrical problems, are not

adequate for digestion and the other functions of salt in the body.

People on the salt/c protocol almost universally experience

improvement in their digestion, usually within the first three

months. Lifelong problems with constipation, bloating after eating,

and gas just vanish, even when the problems predate the lyme.

Others have written about the power of salt to clear up digestive

problems. One man even swears that a bit of salt will stop colic in

infants immediately. Wish I'd known that when mine were small!

[Guest guest]

Rhonda,

I use coconut oil for frying . I am not an expert on the subject but read

that it is supposed to help reduce the bad cholestrol as it is light and does

not burn as other oils do. It is actually quite tasty ..my son likes it

Demi

[Guest guest]

We use coconut oil in place of shortening in baking and sometimes as a

replacement for margarine. Not sure about the cholesterol though.

[Guest guest]

HI

Do you keep yours in the fridge? Does it get really hard like parrafin wax?

That's how mine is.

Thanks,

Rhonda

[Guest guest]

Hi Rhonda,

No, I keep it in the pantry, just like Crisco (although we don't have that

anymore) I never thought about it, perhaps I should keep it in the fridge????

It seems to keep just fine, tho.

[Guest guest]

Emma,

> That's a curious one, especially the combination. Can't explain potato

> problems with the failsafe diet, unless they were either old or

> particularly high in nitrates. I presume they were eaten at home, and

> not sulphited to keep them white like commercially prepared potatoes?

I think it is a starch/digestion issue. I react to starches poorly in

general. My best-tolerated carbohydrate food seems to be sourdough

100% rye. I shop at health food stores, and usually but not always

get organic potatoes. Not sure if they are sulphited or not.

> I don't know what your symptoms are apart from eczema. Do you have any

> GI problems? Potatoes and milk strike me as baddies for the Specific

> Carbohydrate Diet.

In general I tend to do poorly on things that are not allowed on the

SCD. But again, the sourdough rye is not so bad. This, however, is

primarily digestive in nature. I tend to feel like my gut is more

distended and that I have various sorts of gases moving around in my

gut when I eat more starches. When I react to almonds, by contrast, it

is like I have this brick in my chest that is pushing out into my

back, and I get a weird sort of headache feeling that I also get

sometimes from apples, which is combined with this odd sense of

hunger. Totally different phenomenon.

> Other possibilities: a glycoalkaloid thing? Solanine/nicotine is

> present in the plant and also an approved organic pesticide.

No idea.

> Could be sulphites for the beer... or any number of unknown additives.

> Vodka is considered failsafe in terms of salicylates/amines, but again

> it can contain unknown additives/colours/flavours. How are you with >wine?

Wine never causes any GI stress, and in general it makes me feel good.

> That list of foods is not surprising at all in terms of food

> chemicals. Eggs are a common allergen, but are also not tolerated by

> some failsafers who are particularly sensitive to sulphites.

> Explaining blueberries and strawberries in this context is much

> harder. Strawberries are high in salicylates and benzoates. It could

> depend on how and where they were grown, and reactions are very easy

> to miss once the chemical load has already accumulated in the body.

Hmm.

> > I always figured I had a problem with nuts per se, but I realized

> > recently that I react to almonds much worse than any other. If I soak

> > and roast almonds, they aren't so bad, but after I realized this, I

> > ate them every day for a week in large quantities and eventually

> > started reacting to the soaked and roasted almonds too.

> That sort of scenario could be a classic build-up. Cooking does partly

> destroy some benzenes and salicylates. Salicylates are largely in the

> skins of fruit/veg/nuts as well, if that's relevant in terms of almond

> skins.

The almonds had the skins on. I tolerate anything without skins much better.

> Yeah, doesn't surprise me. It's nasty stuff and I don't intend to ever

> take it again. If I get another DVT (I'm a mild genetic

> thrombophiliac), I'll request heparin shots only! I spent a long time

> taking cod liver oil and vitamin K to try to correct any potential

> problem. I can't take calcium carbonate for more than a couple of

> weeks without getting pain in my DVT leg. But, strangely, I never have

> the same problem with milk, or calcium citrate, independent of quantity.

Calcium carbonate does not strike me as something worth eating.

I ran into this today looking for something else, and though you might

take interest in it:

Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 2004 Oct;287(4):E744-9. Epub 2004 May

27. Related Articles, Links

Critical role of vitamin D in sulfate homeostasis: regulation of the

sodium-sulfate cotransporter by 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D3.

Bolt MJ, Liu W, Qiao G, Kong J, Zheng W, Krausz T, Cs-Szabo G, Sitrin MD, Li YC.

Department of Medicine, University of Chicago, IL 60637, USA.

As the fourth most abundant anion in the body, sulfate plays an

essential role in numerous physiological processes. One key protein

involved in transcellular transport of sulfate is the sodium-sulfate

cotransporter NaSi-1, and previous studies suggest that vitamin D

modulates sulfate homeostasis by regulating NaSi-1 expression. In the

present study, we found that, in mice lacking the vitamin D receptor

(VDR), NaSi-1 expression in the kidney was reduced by 72% but

intestinal NaSi-1 levels remained unchanged. In connection with these

findings, urinary sulfate excretion was increased by 42% whereas serum

sulfate concentration was reduced by 50% in VDR knockout mice.

Moreover, levels of hepatic glutathione and skeletal sulfated

proteoglycans were also reduced by 18 and 45%, respectively, in the

mutant mice. Similar results were observed in VDR knockout mice after

their blood ionized calcium levels and rachitic bone phenotype were

normalized by dietary means, indicating that vitamin D regulation of

NaSi-1 expression and sulfate metabolism is independent of its role in

calcium metabolism. Treatment of wild-type mice with

1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D3 or vitamin D analog markedly stimulated renal

NaSi-1 mRNA expression. These data provide strong in vivo evidence

that vitamin D plays a critical role in sulfate homeostasis. However,

the observation that serum sulfate and skeletal proteoglycan levels in

normocalcemic VDR knockout mice remained low in the absence of rickets

and osteomalacia suggests that the contribution of sulfate deficiency

to development of rickets and osteomalacia is minimal.

Chris

--

The Truth About Cholesterol

Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

[Guest guest]

Hi .

It doesn't go bad in the pantry? It gets so hard in the fridge. I expected it

to be more like an oil or at least soft like crisco.

Thanks,

Rhonda

[Guest guest]

So if i am sensitive to salicylates all i have to do

is take a couple aspirin?

Im ready to take the Pepsi Challenge : )

( what kind of reactions should i expect if indeed i am )

Bris

--------------------------oo

>

> >

> > I keep hearing you say salicylate sensitivity is

> > Aspirin sensitivity...does that mean if i was to

> > react to Salicylates i would react to aspirin?

>

>

> Yes. Aspirin and menthol/mint are almost pure salicylate. However,

> just to emphasise again, most people don't spot an individual

reaction

> to something if they already have a build-up of chemicals.

>

>

> > But i have had problems with Mycoplasma on and off for sure...

> > he diagnosed that.

>

>

> There's an interesting connection here, because some mycoplasmas

> produce large amounts of beta-glucuronidase.

>

> There are basically two methods of detoxing aromatic rings - the

fast

> method is through sulphation, the slow method is glucuronidation.

> Basically the liver conjugates the benzene/phenol/salicylate with a

> molecule of glucuronic acid - a kind of sugar - and this allows it

to

> be removed from the body. Some pathogens produce beta-

glucuronidase,

> which is an enzyme which digests this conjugate, and sends the

> benzene/phenol/salicylate back into circulation around your body,

so

> your liver is constantly being taxed by having to produce huge

amounts

> of glucuronic acid.

>

> Milk thistle (silymarin) inhibits beta-glucuronidase so it is good

for

> this problem. Calcium D-glucarate does the same thing.

>

> Kombucha tea contains large amounts of glucuronic acid, which is

the

> reason it is described as detoxifying the body and preventing

cancer

> (aromatics are carcinogenic). I've done a few moderately successful

> experiments with it, though if you drink it too soon it can do more

> harm than good, as it contains salicylates and oxalic acid too.

>

[Guest guest]

Thanks Ruthann

[Guest guest]

--- In , " Emma Davies " <emma@...>

wrote:

>> I am not so skeptical of lyme disease that I am not convinced

that 95%

> of cases of lyme with two positive blood tests from good

laboratories,

> and confirmatory symptoms, are genuine.

OK, but my health insurance only covers the tests from Quest lab,

which has about a 70% false-positive rate for their lyme tests.

What do you suggest I do, pay the $250 for the Western Blot from

Igenex and I don't know how much for the , when I did have the

classic bull's eye rash, had 50 of 75 symptoms of lyme on the

canlyme site, had a strong herx the first time I was on antibiotics,

and marked improvement afterward, both times? The problem is that

without a lot of fighting, I'm having trouble convincing the MD's

that the lyme isn't GONE after only 21 days of antibiotics, and that

after a few months all my symptoms come creeping back into the

picture. And I'd rather not be on a PICC line getting high doses of

strong antibiotics for the next 6 months, either. I'd rather do a

course of treatment that's far less toxic and seems to have a good

track record and that is working for me. Which is why I'm having

trouble understanding why you're trying so hard to get me to stop

doing it in favor of some untested diet thing, which I don't feel I

need.

>

> I am skeptical that the smaller subgroup of people diagnosed with

> " lyme " , who never had a bulls-eye rash or remember a bite, and who

do

> not get better within a few months with a course of antibiotics,

i.e.

> some of the poor people with " chronic lyme " , are actually suffering

> from an active infection.

The MD's who treat a lot of lyme here, are doing IV abx the first

few months, then anywhere from 6 months to a year and a half of

antibiotics follow-up for chronic lyme, which means after the first

year. So " a few months " would not do it.

This is the point where I want to see

> genuine isolation from culture, repeated blood tests, other blood

> chemistry, and reexamination of different possibilities... So these

> poor people don't spend the next five years wasting all of their

> energy and money on parasitic alternative therapists, trying to

treat

> a disease they may not have.

>

> Whether chronic lyme is caused by continuing infection, or - as

Chris

> mentioned - a possible problem actually detoxifying and removing

lyme

> toxins, or from a false positive test, remains to be debated, as

few

> people actually question their initial diagnosis.

>

The ironic thing here is that, there may be some people who are

actually misdiagnosed. There is the problem with the genetically

modified bacteria making the tryptophan supplement that introduced a

toxin and caused fibromyalgia, there's organophosphate poisoning,

there's fluoride sensitivity, there's your sensitivities, Gulf War

Syndrome, the lyme vaccine which causes lyme, and let's not forget

squalene and mycoplasma contaminants in the vaccines; all cause lyme-

like symptoms. Yet the dietary changes the alternative

practitioners suggest or recommend are often the same things they'd

do in those cases - improve digestion, stop the dysbiosis, improve

the acid/alkaline balance, get more enzymes in them, chelate, clear

the liver. These are pretty much all-purpose aids for any chronic

disease or poisoning. Even the salt/c, because large amounts of

vitamin C help the body detox a number of pollutants, and as you

said the salt aids the digestive system.

>

> > That is debatable, as we simply do not know what paleo man and

woman

> did or did not eat, only some of what neolithic man and woman ate.

> There's a strand of thinking that paleo people were virtually

> carnivorous, whilst others claim they were virtually vegan.

>

> I can't see Masai warriors and South African Bushmen get much

vitamin

> C in their diet. Nor can I see the people who inhabited Europe

during

> the last ice age got much. They didn't die of scurvy because their

> diet contained ample hydroxyproline and hydroxylysine - which

bypasses

> much vitamin C requirement.

I imagine, and this is just speculation, that our ancestors, when

they encountered ripe fruit, ate it on the spot, just like my kids

do whenever they find strawberries or raspberries. Stressed animals

make huge amounts of vitamin c, which is present in the same organs

these people ate raw as soon as they killed the animals. And the

blood the Masai drink is very salty, and they drink a fair amount of

it.

Reading " Sacred and Herbal Healing Beers " , I'm finding out that they

also used pine, spruce, cedar, and juniper in drinks, all of which

contain very high amounts of vitamin C. Native Americans would chew

pitch of certain coniferous trees like gum, and also ate the fresh

tips of them, which are high in vitamin C. Not to mention that the

natural forms contain all 14 or so forms of vitamin C and

bioflavinoids, so they are much more powerful.

>

>

> > People on the salt/c protocol almost universally experience

> > improvement in their digestion, usually within the first three

> > months. Lifelong problems with constipation, bloating after

eating,

> > and gas just vanish,

>

>

> Salt stimulates bile production which is how it exherts these

effects.

> Lack of bile can also be a taurine deficiency.

>

>

> even when the problems predate the lyme.

> > Others have written about the power of salt to clear up

digestive

> > problems. One man even swears that a bit of salt will stop

colic in

> > infants immediately. Wish I'd known that when mine were small!

>

>

> Since colic can be caused by salicylates passing from breast milk

to

> babies, this isn't terribly surprising. Nor is it surprising your

kids

> had colic, since you have said they have VOC sensitivities.

>

The question here seems to be cause or effect. Do they have

sensitivities because my body chemistry was out of whack from my

having lyme which affects how well nutrients are absorbed, as well

as the thyroid and adrenals? That's my personal opinion. Pottenger

said children of mothers with thyroid or adrenal problems have some

developmental problems because of the hormones they should be

getting from the placenta/breastmilk and didn't. Also the babies

get the good bacteria for their guts from their mothers, so if I had

dysbiosis from the lyme and problems it was creating in me, how

could I pass them the right stuff for healthy digestion? Both

children had digestive problems as babies, even from birth, just on

breastmilk. No doctors I knew could tell me what was wrong, they

were more like " well, some babies do that, they'll grow out of it "

and dismissed it.

Rather than putting them on a restrictive diet for the rest of their

lives, which is very difficult with children who eat at school and

parties and want what the other kids have, I'd rather find a way to

cure the cause, like giving them lots of raw dairy that has the

hormones and probiotics in it, and cod liver oil to cure the leaky

gut.

I don't doubt that restrictive diets help people who have digestive

problems, but I don't like that as a solution. I knew a woman whose

daughter had schizophrenia as long as she ate dairy, wheat, corn,

sugar, and something else. When she lived at home she was fine, but

when she grew up and left home, she wanted to eat what her freinds

ate, became extremely mentally ill, and wound up selling herself on

the street for $3 a pop.

[Guest guest]

Whoops! I meant false negative. Also on the canlyme site I read

there's a problem with some labs reading the wrong bands on the

Western Blot for lyme, so some tests could come up strongly positive,

but they're using the wrong bands and don't even acknowledge it.

--- In , " haecklers " <haecklers@...>

wrote:

> OK, but my health insurance only covers the tests from Quest lab,

> which has about a 70% false-positive rate for their lyme tests.

[Guest guest]

Both " The LCP Solution " by Stordy and " The Makers Diet " discuss the

benefits of coconut oil. Garden of Life makes a good product (Makers

Diet company) there are others. It does not have to be refrigerated.

It is solid in cold weather and liquid in hot. HTH - Ruthanne

[Guest guest]

Can you run the restrictive diet by me again?

On Sep 3, 2006, at 1:05 PM, Emma Davies wrote:

> Sadly, eating salt does not prevent reactions, it just lessens them,

> and unlike the use of magnesium sulphate and sulphur containing amino

> acids, it does nothing to restore the damaged liver detoxification

> pathway

Parashis

artpages@...

zine:

artpagesonline.com

portfolio:

http://www.artpagesonline.com/EPportfolio/000portfolio.html