Re: Allergen testing question for Heidi

[Guest guest]

>Hello Heidi,

>

>It's time for me to get tested for food sensitivities.

>

>I've been to the two testing websites (York

<http://www.yorkallergyusa.com/>http://www.yorkallergyusa.com/

>and Enterolab <http://www.enterolab.com/)>http://www.enterolab.com/) that you

mentioned in a previous

>post and am trying to determine which tests I should take. I am not willing

>to pay the big bucks and get both full packages from both sites so I was

>hoping that you could help me figure out which of the tests that they offer

>would be the most helpful. I'm willing to buy the big package on either

>site and one or two additional tests if you think they are important. If it

>would be better to just have a couple of the less expensive tests I'm up for

>that too. Less money is better, but let's make sure that we do it right.

>

>Thanks,

>

>Ron

Congrats on taking " the big step! "

I'm a little biased in favor of Enterolab, maybe because what

I know of IgA, it is manufactured in the gut, so it makes sense

that would be the more sensitive test. But, it may be manufactured

in saliva too, in which case the York is darn easier and more

aesthetic. Thing is, I don't know of anyone whose had the York test,

so I don't know how it compares accuracy wise. Seems like

they might have a paper or two published, maybe Laurel or someone

can get a copy?

If I knew then what I know now, I would have gotten tested for

ALL the IgA's at once when I did the Enterolab test though.

I keep meeting folks who have real problems with eggs, for

instance, and more folks who have poblems with dairy than

I ever would have guessed.

-- Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

My D.O. is suggesting a testing source for IGa in Florida... it this one of

the ones you know about?

Kim

[Guest guest]

>

>

>My D.O. is suggesting a testing source for IGa in Florida... it this one of

>the ones you know about?

>Kim

No, I only know of Enterolabs and York.

Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

> Hello Heidi,

>

> It's time for me to get tested for food sensitivities.

>

> I've been to the two testing websites (York

http://www.yorkallergyusa.com/

> and Enterolab http://www.enterolab.com/) that you mentioned in a

previous

> post and am trying to determine which tests I should take.

Ron,

I just did the $99 " gluten sensitivity test " When it came back

positive, I did as Dr. Fine suggested and had them run the casein

sensitivity test (negative) and the test for intestinal malabsorption

(positive). They already have the sample--and your credit card

number--so it's easy. That's my low-budget recommendation.

B.

[Guest guest]

>>>>>>>>>>> > I've been to the two testing websites (York

http://www.yorkallergyusa.com/ and Enterolab http://www.enterolab.com/)

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

FYI a link to a message board called

http://www.glutenfreeforum.com/index.php?showtopic=2698 where they discuss

labs.

I just skimmed it and it looked like they were talking about the reliability

of some of the testing?

~Robin

[Guest guest]

Hi Heidi,

Great info. Thanks.

It does seem to me that the stool test would be better for the reasons you

cite but the more I think about it I'm inclined to want to see the breakdown

that York provides on the 114 individual foods. I'll decide in the next

couple of days and post the results when I get them.

Ron

> Congrats on taking " the big step! "

>

> I'm a little biased in favor of Enterolab, maybe because what

> I know of IgA, it is manufactured in the gut, so it makes sense

> that would be the more sensitive test. But, it may be manufactured

> in saliva too, in which case the York is darn easier and more

> aesthetic. Thing is, I don't know of anyone whose had the York test,

> so I don't know how it compares accuracy wise. Seems like

> they might have a paper or two published, maybe Laurel or someone

> can get a copy?

>

> If I knew then what I know now, I would have gotten tested for

> ALL the IgA's at once when I did the Enterolab test though.

> I keep meeting folks who have real problems with eggs, for

> instance, and more folks who have poblems with dairy than

> I ever would have guessed.

>

> -- Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

>Hi Heidi,

>

>Great info. Thanks.

>

>It does seem to me that the stool test would be better for the reasons you

>cite but the more I think about it I'm inclined to want to see the breakdown

>that York provides on the 114 individual foods. I'll decide in the next

>couple of days and post the results when I get them.

>

>Ron

The 114 food kit though, is an IgG test. The IgA test they have only test

for 5 or so, last I looked.

Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

Heidi-

>I know of IgA, it is manufactured in the gut, so it makes sense

>that would be the more sensitive test. But, it may be manufactured

>in saliva too,

It is; it's part of the digestion process.

-

[Guest guest]

(Heidi) I know of IgA, it is manufactured in the gut, so it makes sense

that would be the more sensitive test. But, it may be manufactured

in saliva too,

() It is; it's part of the digestion process.

() From my last night's reading: " One type of antibody, known as

IgA, is particularly prevalent in saliva. IgA antibodies help protect

against bacteria and also many viruses as well, including polio and

influenza. "

This is from " Licking Infection, " a chapter in a fascinating book that was

mentioned on this or some other list: " Honey, Mud, Maggots, and Other

Medical Marvels: the science behind folk remedies and old wives' tales " by

and Michele Root-Bernstein.

[Guest guest]

>() It is; it's part of the digestion process.

>

>() From my last night's reading: " One type of antibody, known as

>IgA, is particularly prevalent in saliva. IgA antibodies help protect

>against bacteria and also many viruses as well, including polio and

>influenza. "

Right, but the question is, would the IgA that causes problems

in the upper intestine be present in equivalent amounts in

saliva as it is in the upper intestine? It makes sense

to me, but , weren't you the one suggesting that

it wasn't as prevalent in the nether end of the digestive

tract so tests there wouldn't be as valid? The upper

and lower intestine share more in common than the upper

intestine shares with the mouth.

Anyway, if the IgA in the saliva is the same kinds etc. as in

the upper intestine, than testing saliva is nice and easy ...

I suspect that may be the case too, because the folks

at York are smart. Also people who are gluten intolerant

typically get cancer sores a lot, which could easily be

part of the IgA reaction. (hmmm ... I wonder if canker

sores are the mouth version of the " gut lesions " that

happen further down?).

>

Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

Hi Heidi and ,

This thread has been very helpful and clarified some of the mystery I

experienced when I was looking at the Enterolabs and York menu of tests.

I'm getting ready to make my decision but I would like one more

clarification if you would be willing.

I'm a little bit confused about the comments below concerning whether the

saliva test or the stool test is more accurate based on where the production

of the antibodies best reflects the condition of the digestive tract. If

I'm reading things correctly then is suggesting that it is less

accurate to test a stool sample than it is to test the saliva?

Ron

> >() It is; it's part of the digestion process.

> >

> >() From my last night's reading: " One type of

> antibody, known as

> >IgA, is particularly prevalent in saliva. IgA antibodies

> help protect

> >against bacteria and also many viruses as well, including polio and

> >influenza. "

>

> Right, but the question is, would the IgA that causes problems

> in the upper intestine be present in equivalent amounts in

> saliva as it is in the upper intestine? It makes sense

> to me, but , weren't you the one suggesting that

> it wasn't as prevalent in the nether end of the digestive

> tract so tests there wouldn't be as valid? The upper

> and lower intestine share more in common than the upper

> intestine shares with the mouth.

>

> Anyway, if the IgA in the saliva is the same kinds etc. as in

> the upper intestine, than testing saliva is nice and easy ...

> I suspect that may be the case too, because the folks

> at York are smart. Also people who are gluten intolerant

> typically get cancer sores a lot, which could easily be

> part of the IgA reaction. (hmmm ... I wonder if canker

> sores are the mouth version of the " gut lesions " that

> happen further down?).

> >

>

> Heidi Jean

>

[Guest guest]

Ron-

>If

>I'm reading things correctly then is suggesting that it is less

>accurate to test a stool sample than it is to test the saliva?

What? No, I don't know which is better or more accurate. I was just

saying that IgA does in fact first show up in saliva.

-

[Guest guest]

> Ron-

>

> >If

> >I'm reading things correctly then is suggesting that it is less

> >accurate to test a stool sample than it is to test the saliva?

>

> What? No, I don't know which is better or more accurate. I was just

> saying that IgA does in fact first show up in saliva.

Ron,

IIRC Heidi refers to objecting once-upon-a-time about the

accuracy of a rectal " gluten challenge " .

B.

/Miss Buttinsky

[Guest guest]

> Ron,

> IIRC Heidi refers to objecting once-upon-a-time about the

> accuracy of a rectal " gluten challenge " .

> B.

Okay, okay, he didn't object to the accuracy, he questioned the accuracy.

B.

/dang

[Guest guest]

Hi ,

> IIRC Heidi refers to objecting once-upon-a-time about the

> accuracy of a rectal " gluten challenge " .

Thanks for butting in, but I'm going to have be a dummy. Is the gluten

challenge that we are discussing the same thing as the IgA test for gluten

in the stool?

Ron

[Guest guest]

> Thanks for butting in, but I'm going to have be a dummy. Is the gluten

> challenge that we are discussing the same thing as the IgA test for

gluten

> in the stool?

Ron,

IIRC the rectal gluten challenge is sticking a sample of gluten on the

epithelium of the rectum and noting whether local inflammation ensued.

says it is inaccurate because ordinarily gluten would reach that

point after running the gamut of the digestion process.

Nope, not the same as the IgA test.

B.

/probably bungled

//Heidi, wake up

//read all about it on Onibasu

[Guest guest]

>I'm a little bit confused about the comments below concerning whether the

>saliva test or the stool test is more accurate based on where the production

>of the antibodies best reflects the condition of the digestive tract. If

>I'm reading things correctly then is suggesting that it is less

>accurate to test a stool sample than it is to test the saliva?

>

>Ron

See, I don't know the answer to that either. I know the *blood* has

far fewer antibodies than the digestive tract (IgA types anyway). But

I haven't seen any comparisons of stool samples vs. saliva, and

not enough people have done the saliva test yet to even have

an idea from the anecdotal evidence. I'm HOPEFUL the saliva

test is accurate, and the York folks probably have some data

on that.

But the " Nutramed " writup Connie posted brings up all

kinds of stuff about the sheer complexity of the issue. In

THAT writup the IgE's get involved in the digestive tract too,

and then they get into antibodies that attack the antibodies?

Sheesh. And in THAT paper a lot of the antigens were from

milk and eggs ... they talked more about those than about

wheat, but also mentioned the enteropathy, which means

they were finding villi damage from milk and eggs (which some

folks have theorized would happen, but I haven't

seen it actually studied before).

To date, based on studies comparing results from

blood tests and endoscopies, the " rectal challenge "

is considered to be the most accurate. That is, folks

who react on the rectal challenge are the same ones

that get villi damage when they eat wheat. But the

rectal challenge is basically based on the same kind

of logic as the skin scratch tests: if gluten comes

into contact with gut tissue, the gut tissue gets inflamed.

That particular test is similar to how they used to check

for IgA I think ... they used gut tissue from a guinea pig or

monkey, which would get inflamed in the presence

of the antibody. But I don't know how that test

compares to the stool or saliva test: both of those

tests are fairly recent and they are all being done by

different people, and of course each lab wants to make

money of their own proprietary test.

Now someone from the GFCFNN group was considering

trying the same thing in her MOUTH ... put some wheat thing

inbetween the cheek and teeth for awhile and see if

a canker sore develops or the skin gets red.

Anyway, the stool test is different ... they are testing

directly for the presence of IgA antibodies. And it seems

accurate, just messy. Now if saliva testing works as

well, that would be great!

Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

Hi Heidi,

Great response. Thank you. My intuition is that it makes more sense to

look for the antibodies on the way out rather than the way in so that is the

route that I'm going to take. It was tempting to do the saliva test because

of the price but I want to get the correct answer and your experience plus

my own particular logic point me towards EnteroLab.

I'll let you know what results I get.

Ron

> See, I don't know the answer to that either. I know the *blood* has

> far fewer antibodies than the digestive tract (IgA types anyway). But

> I haven't seen any comparisons of stool samples vs. saliva, and

> not enough people have done the saliva test yet to even have

> an idea from the anecdotal evidence. I'm HOPEFUL the saliva

> test is accurate, and the York folks probably have some data

> on that.

>

> But the " Nutramed " writup Connie posted brings up all

> kinds of stuff about the sheer complexity of the issue. In

> THAT writup the IgE's get involved in the digestive tract too,

> and then they get into antibodies that attack the antibodies?

> Sheesh. And in THAT paper a lot of the antigens were from

> milk and eggs ... they talked more about those than about

> wheat, but also mentioned the enteropathy, which means

> they were finding villi damage from milk and eggs (which some

> folks have theorized would happen, but I haven't

> seen it actually studied before).

[snip]

[Guest guest]

>Hi Heidi,

>

>Great response. Thank you. My intuition is that it makes more sense to

>look for the antibodies on the way out rather than the way in so that is the

>route that I'm going to take. It was tempting to do the saliva test because

>of the price but I want to get the correct answer and your experience plus

>my own particular logic point me towards EnteroLab.

>

>I'll let you know what results I get.

>

>Ron

Thanks ... I hadn't thought about it that way, but now that you mention

it, if you have 30 feet or so of tract producing IgA, it might accumulate.

The peptide that causes the problem doesn't digest, it seems, so the

IgA might be being produced the whole way?

Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

Heidi-

>Right, but the question is, would the IgA that causes problems

>in the upper intestine be present in equivalent amounts in

>saliva as it is in the upper intestine? It makes sense

>to me, but , weren't you the one suggesting that

>it wasn't as prevalent in the nether end of the digestive

>tract so tests there wouldn't be as valid?

Is that really how you interpreted my objection to the rectal challenge?

-

[Guest guest]

>

>

>>Right, but the question is, would the IgA that causes problems

>>in the upper intestine be present in equivalent amounts in

>>saliva as it is in the upper intestine? It makes sense

>>to me, but , weren't you the one suggesting that

>>it wasn't as prevalent in the nether end of the digestive

>>tract so tests there wouldn't be as valid?

>

>Is that really how you interpreted my objection to the rectal challenge?

>

>

>-

Well, yeah. I might not have followed the argument correctly,

but it seemed you were arguing that since food doesn't (normally)

go IN that end, testing that end wouldn't be valid.

-- Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

Heidi-

> >>to me, but , weren't you the one suggesting that

> >>it wasn't as prevalent in the nether end of the digestive

> >>tract so tests there wouldn't be as valid?

> >

> >Is that really how you interpreted my objection to the rectal challenge?

> >

>Well, yeah. I might not have followed the argument correctly,

>but it seemed you were arguing that since food doesn't (normally)

>go IN that end, testing that end wouldn't be valid.

Yes, but not because " it wasn't as prevalent in the nether end of the

digestive tract " .

-

[Guest guest]

>>Well, yeah. I might not have followed the argument correctly,

>>but it seemed you were arguing that since food doesn't (normally)

>>go IN that end, testing that end wouldn't be valid.

>

>Yes, but not because " it wasn't as prevalent in the nether end of the

>digestive tract " .

>

>-

OK, but I guess the difference escapes me.

Heidi Jean