RE: Re: [csb] yeast not excessive, but child responds to antifungals; regressions during pollen seasons

[Guest guest]

: I wonder in the light of all of this if my supposedly

all-encompassing viral immune test should include a test for secretory Iga

Candida antibodies? Or which one would be best (ISL does not do " stool " stuff)

to delineate what child might be a candidate for long-term anti-fungal

treatment? I'm going to forward to Ari Vojdani at Immunosciences to get his

view on this matter. Jaquelyn Re: [csb] yeast not excessive, but child responds

to antifungals; regressions during pollen seasons

Bill Shaw wrote a response to the original " yeast not excessive... "

post. His comments are presented with his permission. He delineates some

important mechanisms. We need keep in mind that lab findings wherein " no

yeast is cultured " and yet the child improves via antifungals may derive

from a variety of physiological mechanisms, with much variation from

child to child re: what specific mechanism is operating.

The most common reason for negative yeast cultures but positive response

to antifungals is false negative stool cultures due to high amounts of

secretory IgA antibodies to Candida that slow the growth of Candida in

vitro but are not potent enough to kill the organism in vitro or in

vivo. The Great Smokies CDSA no longer includes these antibodies and so

this information is not available on this test.

The virulence factor of C albicans-hyphal wall protein 1

(HWP1)-contains aminoacid sequences that are identical or highly

homologous to alpha-gliadin and gamma-gliadin T-cell epitopes.Since most

cildren with autism have both IgG and IgA wheat antibodies, many of

these antibodies will cross-react with Candida and slow its growth.

Consequently, only small amounts of Candida can trigger an allergic

reaction.

Microscopic examination of the stool frequently detects numerous Candida

even though the culture is negative. In addition, stool culture or

microscopic examination will fail to find Candida in the deep tissues of

the mucosa or under the mucus layer that shields the Candida from

antibodies and digestive enzymes in children with bowel inflammation.

The organic acid test frequently detects yeast markers in such cases

even when cultures are negative. Bill Shaw

During a conversation at the recent DAN! in Mclean, Va, Jim Neubrander

offered a fascinating model for understanding why some autistic kids

show no elevated yeast via CDSA but show positive response to antifungals.

Here is my rendition of Jim's hypothetical offering:

A. Virtually everyone has yeast, and most healthy people would test low

for Candida species on a CDSA.

B. Jim and other docs have reported that some autistic kids regress

(mildly?) during times of pollen, an observation that links immune

reactions to regressions.

C. Jim offered that perhaps the low-yeast-on-CDSA kids who improve via

an antifungal may be kids who have a hypersensitivity to at least some

antigens generated by yeast.

D. A parallel is found in allergies to cats and peanuts. Whereas most

individuals are fine while eating peanuts in the presence of cats, some

individuals know that the presence of either, even in trace amounts,

causes adverse reactions.

E. Perhaps the low-yeast-on-CDSA kids who improve via antifungals are

kids whose hypersensitivity reactions to yeast (see B above) are kids

for whom the antifungal is (temporarily) drastically reducing the level

of yeast-derived antigens, thereby minimizing or transiently eliminating

source of the child's yeast-hypersensitivity reaction.

This model is very different from the alternative model whereby the

child who improves via antifungals despite " no " yeast via CDSA is said

to have yeast colonization despite the negative lab findings.

[Guest guest]

May I have permission to forward this to a friend? Her daughter's OATS

should no yeast markers, but a recent traditional Chinese medicine eval

should high markers for yeast. This should help clarify things.

TIA,

Re: [csb] yeast not excessive, but child

responds to antifungals; regressions during pollen seasons

Bill Shaw wrote a response to the original " yeast not excessive... "

post. His comments are presented with his permission. He delineates some

important mechanisms. We need keep in mind that lab findings wherein " no

yeast is cultured " and yet the child improves via antifungals may derive

from a variety of physiological mechanisms, with much variation from

child to child re: what specific mechanism is operating.

The most common reason for negative yeast cultures but positive response

to antifungals is false negative stool cultures due to high amounts of

secretory IgA antibodies to Candida that slow the growth of Candida in

vitro but are not potent enough to kill the organism in vitro or in

vivo. The Great Smokies CDSA no longer includes these antibodies and so

this information is not available on this test.

The virulence factor of C albicans-hyphal wall protein 1

(HWP1)-contains aminoacid sequences that are identical or highly

homologous to alpha-gliadin and gamma-gliadin T-cell epitopes.Since most

cildren with autism have both IgG and IgA wheat antibodies, many of

these antibodies will cross-react with Candida and slow its growth.

Consequently, only small amounts of Candida can trigger an allergic

reaction.

Microscopic examination of the stool frequently detects numerous Candida

even though the culture is negative. In addition, stool culture or

microscopic examination will fail to find Candida in the deep tissues of

the mucosa or under the mucus layer that shields the Candida from

antibodies and digestive enzymes in children with bowel inflammation.

The organic acid test frequently detects yeast markers in such cases

even when cultures are negative. Bill Shaw

During a conversation at the recent DAN! in Mclean, Va, Jim Neubrander

offered a fascinating model for understanding why some autistic kids

show no elevated yeast via CDSA but show positive response to

antifungals.

Here is my rendition of Jim's hypothetical offering:

A. Virtually everyone has yeast, and most healthy people would test low

for Candida species on a CDSA.

B. Jim and other docs have reported that some autistic kids regress

(mildly?) during times of pollen, an observation that links immune

reactions to regressions.

C. Jim offered that perhaps the low-yeast-on-CDSA kids who improve via

an antifungal may be kids who have a hypersensitivity to at least some

antigens generated by yeast.

D. A parallel is found in allergies to cats and peanuts. Whereas most

individuals are fine while eating peanuts in the presence of cats, some

individuals know that the presence of either, even in trace amounts,

causes adverse reactions.

E. Perhaps the low-yeast-on-CDSA kids who improve via antifungals are

kids whose hypersensitivity reactions to yeast (see B above) are kids

for whom the antifungal is (temporarily) drastically reducing the level

of yeast-derived antigens, thereby minimizing or transiently eliminating

source of the child's yeast-hypersensitivity reaction.

This model is very different from the alternative model whereby the

child who improves via antifungals despite " no " yeast via CDSA is said

to have yeast colonization despite the negative lab findings.

[Guest guest]

,

Thnx for asking. The post contains only material that I posted or that

Bill gave permission to share, so yes, share with your friend. And tell

us more about the Chinese med eval!

Mathews wrote:

>May I have permission to forward this to a friend? Her daughter's OATS

>should no yeast markers, but a recent traditional Chinese medicine eval

>should high markers for yeast. This should help clarify things.

>

>TIA,

>

>

> Re: [csb] yeast not excessive, but child

>responds to antifungals; regressions during pollen seasons

>

>

>Bill Shaw wrote a response to the original " yeast not excessive... "

>post. His comments are presented with his permission. He delineates some

>

>important mechanisms. We need keep in mind that lab findings wherein " no

>

>yeast is cultured " and yet the child improves via antifungals may derive

>

>from a variety of physiological mechanisms, with much variation from

>child to child re: what specific mechanism is operating.

>

>The most common reason for negative yeast cultures but positive response

>

>to antifungals is false negative stool cultures due to high amounts of

>secretory IgA antibodies to Candida that slow the growth of Candida in

>vitro but are not potent enough to kill the organism in vitro or in

>vivo. The Great Smokies CDSA no longer includes these antibodies and so

>this information is not available on this test.

>

>The virulence factor of C albicans-hyphal wall protein 1

>(HWP1)-contains aminoacid sequences that are identical or highly

>homologous to alpha-gliadin and gamma-gliadin T-cell epitopes.Since most

>

>cildren with autism have both IgG and IgA wheat antibodies, many of

>these antibodies will cross-react with Candida and slow its growth.

>Consequently, only small amounts of Candida can trigger an allergic

>reaction.

>

>Microscopic examination of the stool frequently detects numerous Candida

>

>even though the culture is negative. In addition, stool culture or

>microscopic examination will fail to find Candida in the deep tissues of

>

>the mucosa or under the mucus layer that shields the Candida from

>antibodies and digestive enzymes in children with bowel inflammation.

>The organic acid test frequently detects yeast markers in such cases

>even when cultures are negative. Bill Shaw

>

>During a conversation at the recent DAN! in Mclean, Va, Jim Neubrander

>offered a fascinating model for understanding why some autistic kids

>show no elevated yeast via CDSA but show positive response to

>antifungals.

>

>Here is my rendition of Jim's hypothetical offering:

>

>A. Virtually everyone has yeast, and most healthy people would test low

>for Candida species on a CDSA.

>

>B. Jim and other docs have reported that some autistic kids regress

>(mildly?) during times of pollen, an observation that links immune

>reactions to regressions.

>

>C. Jim offered that perhaps the low-yeast-on-CDSA kids who improve via

>an antifungal may be kids who have a hypersensitivity to at least some

>antigens generated by yeast.

>

>D. A parallel is found in allergies to cats and peanuts. Whereas most

>individuals are fine while eating peanuts in the presence of cats, some

>individuals know that the presence of either, even in trace amounts,

>causes adverse reactions.

>

>E. Perhaps the low-yeast-on-CDSA kids who improve via antifungals are

>kids whose hypersensitivity reactions to yeast (see B above) are kids

>for whom the antifungal is (temporarily) drastically reducing the level

>of yeast-derived antigens, thereby minimizing or transiently eliminating

>source of the child's yeast-hypersensitivity reaction.

>

>

>This model is very different from the alternative model whereby the

>child who improves via antifungals despite " no " yeast via CDSA is said

>to have yeast colonization despite the negative lab findings.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>