RE: South Park Science 101

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/27/2005 1:04:27 PM Eastern Standard Time,

heidis@... writes:

12. " Gluten intolerance " is thought to be a situation where the IgA system

thinks one peptide string in gliadin is a microbe, and it is thought be be

mainly inherited (it only occurs in folks that have certain HLA genes). When

gluten isn't eaten, the IgA levels go down, but the system will return to full

reactivity when it is eaten again.

So ..... as far as the rectal challenge, it's based on the science above.

All of which, AFAIK is generally accepted as " good science " . You can use any

piece of gut tissue to check for antigen recognition, however, the gut tissue

at the " nether end " is the easiest to reach.

_____

Why isn't the gluten digested? And why does the reaction occur in people

who are NOT gluten intolerant (which I believe you've stated?)?

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/27/05 5:19:12 PM Eastern Standard Time,

heidis@... writes:

> The rectal challenge only shows a reaction in people who are gluten

> intolerant, which is why it's useful.

___

Ah, I see. What was the study you mentioned that found a reaction regardless

of gluten intolerance, do you remember?

Chris

____

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

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

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

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

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

the smallest, most insignificant wound in any creature. Thus they pray

ceaselessly, with tears, even for animals, for enemies of the truth, and for

those

who do them wrong. "

--Saint Isaac the Syrian

[Guest guest]

>Why isn't the gluten digested? And why does the reaction occur in people

>who are NOT gluten intolerant (which I believe you've stated?)?

>

>Chris

The rectal challenge only shows a reaction in people who are gluten intolerant,

which is why it's useful. Gliadin might glom onto the villi of anyone who eats

it (maybe sourdough, olive oil, wine help, but that's a guess). But most people

don't mount an immune reaction to it, or if they do, it's minor.

As for the location .... the IgA system is more or less the same for the entire

digestive tract, so it doesn't really matter if gluten normally gets there or

not. Like, if you have a skin allergy to grass, it doesn't matter if you get

grass on your toes or on your nose, you'll still itch: your skin is one " unit "

as far as your body is concerned.

As for why the gliadin peptides aren't fully digested ... it's probably because

humans never ate grains much. We seem to have enzymes that are good at digesting

meat (esp. raw meat, as we all know!). Gluten does PARTIALLY digest, but there

are strands of peptides that don't (the one that is thought to be the issue is

like 30 peptides long).

As for why grain peptides can be such irritants and allergens ... I'd guess it's

to protect the seed from getting eaten. Beans have lectins that do the same kind

of thing, and gliadin is a lectin. Lectins are often toxic, and often they are

around to kill microbes or maybe poison potential eaters, but in any case, they

are very chemically active compounds.

Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

> South Park Science 101

>

>

>9. Inherited bad guy recognition: Much of the time, your body

>learns to recognize an antigen by being exposed to it. For

>instance, when you catch one type of cold, you develop antibodies

>to that cold, and never catch that cold again. Sometimes the body

> " unlearns " too, so for rabies shots on dogs for instance,

> " booster " shots have to be given to maintain the antibodies.

>Whether the body retains or forgets the " learning " depends (on

I just want to point out that some independent research has shown that a

single rabies vacc may actually provide immunity for the lifetime of the

dog, and at minimum seems to be effective for at least 7 years, IIRC.

Booster shots, are generally done for economic reasons, not scientific ones.

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

----------------------------

" The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

----------------------------

[Guest guest]

>Ah, I see. What was the study you mentioned that found a reaction regardless

>of gluten intolerance, do you remember?

>

>Chris

I answered in another post, but basically the gliadin does seem to glom onto the

villi in everyone. The studies don't seem to regard this as an *issue* (though I

do! villi are important in digestion) ... it's just a side effect of how

gliadin is. Lectins glom onto certain carbs, and I guess the villi have carbs in

them that attract gliadin. THAT effect is mitigated by other foods in the diet.

My GUESS is that the " traditional Mediterranean diet " (which has used wheat for

more years than most) uses olive oil and red wine to neutralize the gliadin. But

the Mediterranean folks tend to lack the gene that causes the allergic response,

so ALL they are dealing with is the villi issue.

Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

:

>I just want to point out that some independent research has shown that a

>single rabies vacc may actually provide immunity for the lifetime of the

>dog, and at minimum seems to be effective for at least 7 years, IIRC.

>Booster shots, are generally done for economic reasons, not scientific ones.

HAH! That's nice to know! However, I think it's also the law in our state.

Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

>I just want to point out that some independent research has shown that a

>single rabies vacc may actually provide immunity for the lifetime of the

>dog, and at minimum seems to be effective for at least 7 years, IIRC.

>Booster shots, are generally done for economic reasons, not scientific ones.

>

>

>Suze Fisher

>

Not only that, the yearly rabies booster shot required by most states

can actually harm the animal, especially dogs. Veterinarians have come

out against the yearly dose in some cases - ethical vets, anyway.

Deanna

[Guest guest]

> RE: South Park Science 101

>

>

>

> :

>>I just want to point out that some independent research has shown that a

>>single rabies vacc may actually provide immunity for the lifetime of the

>>dog, and at minimum seems to be effective for at least 7 years, IIRC.

>>Booster shots, are generally done for economic reasons, not

>scientific ones.

>

>HAH! That's nice to know! However, I think it's also the law in our state.

It is in all states, and again, the reasons are largely revenue-driven (you

gotta license 'em with proof of vaccine and renew the license on a regular

basis (cha ching! for your municipality). But the vaccine itself can be, and

often is, very damaging to dogs. Many folks no longer vaccinate for that

reason, law or no law. The original studies done on the duration of immunity

showing only a few years immunity, were done by......................aw,

this is too easy.....the vaccine manufacturers! Nothing changes.

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

----------------------------

" The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

----------------------------

[Guest guest]

Heidi-

>So ..... as far as the rectal challenge, it's based on the science above.

>All of which, AFAIK is generally accepted as " good science " . You can use

>any piece of gut tissue to check for antigen recognition, however, the gut

>tissue at the " nether end " is the easiest to reach.

I'm sorry, but " generally accepted " means nothing. It's argument on

authority, and as I think you'd acknowledge, authority is very, very often

wrong in the domains of diet and medicine.

I'm not disputing that a rectal challenge will elicit an immune

response. I'm disputing the generalizable utility of a an immune response

elicited by a rectal challenge. What I'm asking for is the application of

some basic logic.

So let's postulate some other kind of rectal challenge. Take a slab of

cleanly-processed grass-fed beef. Now cut it up into bite-size pieces and

" rectally challenge " someone with a serving of meat. Somehow I have this

niggling suspicion that the experiment will end badly for the test

subject. Or consider a very different example: a car. Pour some gasoline

up the tail pipe and see what happens. Should these " challenges " lead us

to conclude that grass-fed beef is unhealthy for humans and that gasoline

is dangerous when given to cars? Of course not! Both " challenges " are

designed without the logical application of a proper understanding of the

workings of the systems involved.

Logic and a holistic understanding of the systems involved are both

essential, and they're both catastrophically lacking almost everywhere you

look. Should we generalize from herbivorous rabbits fed oxidized

cholesterol to humans eating meat? Of course not! But people have and do

despite the many logical and factual flaws in such a

generalization. Rectal challenge data deployed as proof of the gluten

theory of bowel disease is exactly such a logical fallacy for reasons I've

detailed over and over again. Should people with a gluten allergy avoid

gluten? Sure -- they have more to lose from impaired digestion and

dysbiosis than some other people. But the rectal challenge tells us

nothing more than that.

-

[Guest guest]

>I'm sorry, but " generally accepted " means nothing. It's argument on

>authority, and as I think you'd acknowledge, authority is very, very often

>wrong in the domains of diet and medicine.

Ummm ... I guess one could argue that " science means nothing " and

" authority means nothing " . But it's not an argument I'd make. Every

argument we make here is based, ultimately, on lab science, and the

consensus of scientists. Sometimes they are wrong, or more commonly,

there are two or more " camps " duking it out until a consensus

is reached.

Like I've said many times, I'm not convinced that " authority is wrong " in the

domains of diet and medicine. More often than not, the scientists have

good knowledge and the marketing arm is making a different set of claims,

or there is a time lag between research and the doctor's office. There *is*

no " authority " I am aware of in this stuff, just a lot of different voices

arguing. However, I tend to listen to the " techies " ... the ones with the most

knowledge doing the research ... they tend to be ahead of the pack.

>I'm not disputing that a rectal challenge will elicit an immune

>response. I'm disputing the generalizable utility of a an immune response

>elicited by a rectal challenge. What I'm asking for is the application of

>some basic logic.

>

>So let's postulate some other kind of rectal challenge. Take a slab of

>cleanly-processed grass-fed beef. Now cut it up into bite-size pieces and

> " rectally challenge " someone with a serving of meat. Somehow I have this

>niggling suspicion that the experiment will end badly for the test

>subject. Or consider a very different example: a car. Pour some gasoline

>up the tail pipe and see what happens. Should these " challenges " lead us

>to conclude that grass-fed beef is unhealthy for humans and that gasoline

>is dangerous when given to cars? Of course not! Both " challenges " are

>designed without the logical application of a proper understanding of the

>workings of the systems involved.

Well, if you look at what they did:

http://www.clinsci.org/cs/101/cs1010199.htm

A slurry of gluten powder in physiological saline was introduced into the

rectum, and biopsies taken before and at 2 h or 4 h after the challenge were

examined immunohistochemically by computerized image analysis. Cell counts were

analysed by logistic regression, and the best equations were obtained for each

challenge group. The 2 h challenge yielded diagnostic sensitivity and

specificity of 69.6% and 78.6% respectively. The 4 h challenge provided

sensitivity and specificity of 100% and 100% respectively. These results were

compared with other clinical diagnostic predictors, including anti-endomysial

antibodies, which yielded diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of 70% and 98%

respectively. It is concluded that a 4 h rectal challenge is a highly sensitive

means of identifying gluten-sensitized individuals, and would be of particular

value in cases showing negative antibody screening or equivocal biopsy

appearances.

The compared the folks with a postive result with folks who got (or did not get)

a positive result from a biopsy or blood test. Folks with villous damage

get it in the upper intestine, where food DOES normally go. Now if folks

with villous damage ALSO reliably react in the nether regions, then it's

easier to test down there. And in fact that seems to be the case.

>Logic and a holistic understanding of the systems involved are both

>essential, and they're both catastrophically lacking almost everywhere you

>look. Should we generalize from herbivorous rabbits fed oxidized

>cholesterol to humans eating meat? Of course not! But people have and do

>despite the many logical and factual flaws in such a

>generalization.

But they didn't devise this based on generalization. Again, this is a rhetorical

tactic, but ignores all the science involved. The immune system involves cells

reacting to antigens. The entire digestive tract will react to the same set of

antigens. It is very, very logical. Food (in this case allergic food) does go

down

the digestive tract.

Grass fed beef in the same region, if it produced the same result, would

indicate an immune reaction. MOST FOLKS don't get an immune reaction

from gluten slurry, even though it's in the " wrong place at the wrong time " .

> Rectal challenge data deployed as proof of the gluten

>theory of bowel disease is exactly such a logical fallacy for reasons I've

>detailed over and over again. Should people with a gluten allergy avoid

>gluten? Sure -- they have more to lose from impaired digestion and

>dysbiosis than some other people. But the rectal challenge tells us

>nothing more than that.

So what more *should* it tell us? It tells if someone is allergic to gluten,

which is ALL it is supposed to show. If someone is NOT allergic to gluten,

it will show that too, in which case any bowel disease that the person has,

can be reliably said to NOT be from gluten. Shortens the search, gives the

person more information.

>

Heidi Jean