Re: the cause(s) of gluten sensitivity (was: antibiotics?)

[Guest guest]

>>OK, but why in the world does there have to be a CAUSE for

>>gluten sensitivity, other than gluten?

>

>Because millions of people eat gluten and aren't sensitive to it? If it were

>gluten alone causing gluten sensitivity then everyone who eats gluten would

>be sensitive to it, which is not the case. So there has to be some other

>factor at play. Further, even among those with the GS genes, 1 out of 4

>aren't sensitive to it (according to Dr. Fine's research). So that rules out

>

>1) gluten being the sole cause of gluten sensitivity

>2) gluten AND having the GS genes together being the sole cause of gluten

>sensitivity

>

>Let's just be sure we're on the same page when we refer to gluten

>sensitivity so that we know we're discussing the same thing. When I refer to

>GS I mean an IgA reaction to gliadin. I assume you mean the same thing?

Well no, I'd add #3, gluten and the gene and " immune training " . There

are factors that train the immune system in what to react to and how

much to react to it. And people do study those things and correlations

have been shown. It's just that the correlations that HAVE been found

are never the ones that people keep bringing up here. The really

BIG factor in training the immune system is breastmilk. The factors

in breastmilk seem to be there for the very purpose of training the

immune system, and the exact timing of the first solid foods in

relation to breastmilk are a huge factor, it seems. This is a great

survival thing: if the mother survived, say, smallpox, she can teach

her baby to survive smallpox via her breastmilk.

But the IgA system exists to recognize microbes, and it does

that very well. When smallpox decimated the Indian tribes,

it spared a certain small percentage. Smallpox was endemic

for the Europeans, but most victims survived it. What was the

difference? The Europeans carried genes that " recognized " smallpox

as soon as they were exposed to it, before it made them very

sick. Having a built-in recognition for smallpox is a very good thing.

The system for recognizing gliadin is a similar system, probably

there to recognize something like candida, and if so, it would

recognize gliadin UNLESS IT IS TURNED OFF. Breast milk might

be the " turn this off " factor, telling the immune system that

even though this LOOKS like a microbe, it's really ok.

Or, there could be another gene that tends to mute the

genes that react. Genes tend to work together ... so if

you have a gluten reactive gene AND another gene, you'll

be ok.

But the people who talk about mercury being a problem are

generally talking about gut permeability issues, which primarily

effect IgG allergies. But gut permeability can be triggered by IgA

allergies, and in fact that is the primary link that has been found

to gut permeability. Maybe mercury can trigger gut permeability

too, but so far it seems to be mainly a theory: kids with autism

tend to have gut permeability, and everyone knows autism

is caused by mercury, so mercury must cause gut permeability. But

that is arguing the cause from the result: if autistics have

higher mercury levels, THAT may be the result of gut permeability,

not the other way around, or they might both be caused by another

thing.

THAT is what makes me argumentative! :-) ALL the things I've read

about " XYZ causes gluten intolerance " either mix IgG up with IgA,

or they argue from the conclusion. I.e. the author just doesn't

like 'XYZ' and so argues that 'XYZ' causes everything from hemorhoids

to cancer, doing a lot of quoting about epidemiological data and

ignoring the more indepth studies done as to the actual causation

of the various diseases.

>Now, if you're talking about gluten glomming onto villi, that to my

>knowledge, does not cause an immune reaction. Does it? Or perhaps there's

>some other mechanism whereby gluten causes ain immune reaction in_everyone

>that I've never heard of? Please specify what you mean by " so the immune

>system reacts to it " . In what way? IgA? Other?

It's one of those things that is still under discussion, but yeah,

a lot of researchers believe that the fact the villi are coated

by gliadin makes gliadin somewhat a toxin. Not a really bad toxin,

for most people, but disruptive in the way that, say, phytates are.

The immune system might in fact be reacting to it because it's

trying to clean the villi. There is some indication, though not definitive,

that gluten in large amounts damages ANYONE'S villi. This isn't

a weird thing ... bean peptides are commonly toxic, but cooking

the beans properly disables the lectins in beans. Gliadin doesn't

get disabled by cooking ... you can disable it maybe by combining

it with the right foods or by sourdoughing it, but by itself, it's

somewhat toxic. Most Americans have villi that are " somewhat

blunted " which makes you wonder.

And yeah, I was talking about the IgA reaction, though the

IgG reaction is common too. Most labs figure everyone has

an IgA reaction to gluten and only call it a problem if it's

over a certain level, which is something I haven't figured

out either, since the IgA itself is known to cause damage.

>And others aren't. So, for those that develop GS later in life (I seem to be

>one of them) something ELSE besides gluten causes the GS genes to express

>themselves thus causing an IgA reaction to gluten.

Except that you don't know (and neither does anyone else) if in

fact the genes " just started " to express themselves. The rates of

intolerance as measured in the blood don't get higher and higher

for older people, as you would expect if the gene gets " turned on "

in later age. The rates of *illness* follow this bumpy curve ... for

one individual, the usual route is that

1. They get sick before they are 5. And then recover.

2. They get sick again in their late teens. Then recover.

3. They get sick again in thier late 30's early 40s. Then recover.

4. Then get sick in their 60s.

If they don't die during any one episode, they get better

and the disease " goes away " . Some people skip a step.

But the onset seems so highly age related that people

tend to think it is hormones that trigger the symptoms (pregnancy

is also a big trigger). At any rate, I don't think the GENES would

turn off and on again.

>Right, but that doesn't mean the antibiotic treatment can't lead to GS. I'll

>go back and read that section of the Shaw book cuz I don't recall off the

>top of my head the mechanism whereby this might be possible or perhaps I

>mixed it up with something else. There are so many interralations between

>the gut microflora, the immune system and allergies!

I agree. Usually the allergies they talk about though are IgE and IgG.

>

>Not JUST gluten though, but gluten and a GS gene that has *expressed*.

>Without the expressed gene one doesn't get GS, as I understand it. So the

>other common denominator is a trigger - something that causes the gene to

>express itself. Now, perhaps in the case of *some* folks that could be

>simply too much gluten? I don't know. But I find it interesting that my GS

>genes seemed to have expressed at a time when I was consuming a lot LESS

>gluten than I previously had and at around age 40.

See, the " age 40 " thing is classic. Mine started at age 40 too. Though I

was also pregnant at the time! About half the folks in the gluten intolerance

group I'm in first had symptoms at age 40, though in retrospect they

realized some previous problems were likely gluten related.

As for " just gluten " being the trigger, that does in fact seem to be

the case in tribal cultures who get wheat for the first time. For today's

tribes you might say they were getting vaccines at the same time, tho

that is clearly not always the case, but the same seems to have held

true from historical accounts for earlier times.

>In any case, there are any number of things that cause genes to express or

>not express including nutrition, which is a biggie.

Absolutely nutrition makes a difference in how sick people get.

As for " expression " ... you don't *know* if the gene is expressing

or not. Just if you get symptoms or not. I got rid of most of my

symptoms by taking probiotic pills. easy peasy.

>But you said you have sinus problems, right? Even so, once the gene is

>*expressed* then certainly removing gluten will have a major positive impact

>on one's health. That still doesn't mean gluten itself is the only causal

>factor.

My sinus problems don't come and go depending on my environment

though. I suspect that is related to having a cystic fibrosis gene ...

folks with one cystic fibrosis gene have thick mucous, which I

certainly have. Now if you want to get into what triggers a cystic

fibrosis gene to express .... !!!!!

>

>I don't think you can draw that conclusion based on the food aid situation.

>Food aid is sent to people who don't have enough food, who are

>undernourished, malnourished, experiencing wars, drought, and/or famine.

>Since it has been established that our nutritional status can cause genes to

>express differently, this is a variable that must be taken into account when

>looking at the food aid situation. Thus, I don't think we can

>automatically assume that gluten alone is the sole cause of GS in the food

>aid recipient population, at minimum, since their nutritional status does

>not represent that of the entire rest of the world, and may be causing their

>genes to express in a particular way.

Maybe you can't assume that from *one* food aid situation, but really,

it's a big pattern. The fact they are poor and malnourished and get MORE

malnourished on American wheat is a smoking gun, in my book. But

again, it doesn't say anything about gene expression, just about

symptoms. You give them wheat, they get sick. You take away the

wheat, they get better. To figure out gene expression you'd have

to do a lot of tests, and no one has.

As for healthy people getting wheat ... you have Price's natives. And

the Inuit, who were quite healthy in Stefannson's time. They didn't

want to eat biscuits though, to hear him tell it. Likely they tried

the biscuits once and got ill off them!

>>From the research I've seen on dogs, gluten sensitivity is known to be a

>problem in Irish Setters. I haven't heard of it being a problem with any

>other breed, but that doesn't mean it's not. So, it seems that Irish Setters

>tend to have a GS gene. As with most or all dogs at the time of the research

>(several years ago) they were likely on a kibble diet. This is a sub-optimal

>diet for dogs and certainly could potentially cause problems that might lead

>to GS gene expression. But I'm not sure the research has gone very far in

>this area in relation to dogs. I'd love to see a study of Irish Setters on a

>doggie WAP diet (raw meat/bones/organs) versus Irish Setters on kibble

>comparing the prevalance of GS between the two groups.

Well you see this is the conundrum! If the setters are on a WAP diet,

they don't get gluten. So they won't be reacting to it. If you give them

gluten, then they aren't on a WAP diet! Further, it might take a couple of

years of damage before their IgA levels go up enough to measure.

(all the IgA measures are designed for folks who eat a LOT of gluten).

>

>Except for the fact that not everyone exposed to gluten is gluten sensitive

>and that it seems to require an *expressed* GS gene in order to be GS.

Again, no one has a test for an " expressed " gene. It's a theory, based

on IgA levels, which are poorly tested for anyway. I've met so many

people who get really, really sick off gluten, have the gene, but don't

test high for IgA. I don't know what's going on, but gene expression

probably isn't it.

>I think that would be a very informative test. Along with " before and after

>candida overgrowth " , " before and after vaccines " etc! Something, something,

>something is causing these GS genes to express in different people at

>different stages in their lives. It seems to me that there's more than one

>potential trigger. But it also seems to me that a trigger is almost always

>involved, or at least, *often* involved. Maybe, due to the pregnant mother's

>diet, or the infant's diet, an infant's GS genes will be expressed from

>birth, or shortly thereafter. But for others, this just doesn't seem to be

>the case, aside from whether or not they have symptoms.

We'll have to agree to disagree about the trigger thing. There

doesn't seem to be any really reliable way to

introduce wheat to a population without killing off a whole genotype.

Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

> There seems to be some sort of

> >>connection between yeast overgrowth and gluten sensitivity. Many

autistic

> >>kids, before they became autistic IIRC, were on long-term

> >antibiotics, often

> >>due to ear infections. Many of them had an accompanying yeast

infection.

> >>Some of them went into remission of their autism after anti-fungal

> >>treatment! This is such a great book, filling in many gaps

> >between seemingly

> >>unrelated health issues such as food allergies, yeast infections,

immune

> >>deficiency and vaccines, FWIW.

> >>

> >>

> >>Suze Fisher

That combination of factors agrees with what Kaufmann says: " I

believe that the majority of celiac patients have an antibiotic

induced mycotoxicosis... "

> >OK, but why in the world does there have to be a CAUSE for

> >gluten sensitivity, other than gluten?

>

> Because millions of people eat gluten and aren't sensitive to it?

If it were

> gluten alone causing gluten sensitivity then everyone who eats

gluten would

> be sensitive to it, which is not the case. So there has to be some

other

> factor at play.

Even the fungal angle on this problem isn't 100%. I mean, not 100%

of the people exposed to fungi get their GS gene expressed 100% of

the time.

And fungal infections are a red flag that one's immune system is out

of whack...to say the least.

> Further, even among those with the GS genes, 1 out of 4

> aren't sensitive to it (according to Dr. Fine's research). So that

rules out

>

> 1) gluten being the sole cause of gluten sensitivity

> 2) gluten AND having the GS genes together being the sole cause of

gluten

> sensitivity

>

> 2/3 of Americans do NOT have an IgA

> reaction to gluten, again, according to Dr. Fine. I doubt there are

any

> similar figures for Hg exposure since it's universally accepted in

the

> scientific community that Hg is toxic to everyone.

>

> Now, if you're talking about gluten glomming onto villi, that to my

> knowledge, does not cause an immune reaction. Does it? Or perhaps

there's

> some other mechanism whereby gluten causes ain immune reaction

in_everyone

> that I've never heard of?

Could it be that candida (which IIRC is similar at a molecular level

to gliadin) or other fungi/yeasts/molds ARE ENABLED BY the gliadin to

adhere to the villi with such intensity that it can, if in sufficient

numbers, cause a critical mass of damage to the gut? Then you end up

unable to assimilate sufficient amounts of nutrients to heal as long

as the gluten and infective microorganisms remain at high levels.

I'm thinking of the way Mark Purdey described how organophosphate

pesticides enabled manganese (or several other minerals) to take the

place of copper in the brains of cows with BSE.

All the factors had to be present, or BSE didn't develop.

Likewise, perhaps in GS it takes several factors to happen

simultaneously to cause it to develop. And continued intake of

gluten causes the problem to escalate? Or continued thriving of

fungus/mold/yeast due to mercury's continue to kill off the

beneficial bacteria? Etc. Etc.

INTERESTING NOTE: I was visiting with the manager of a health food

store yesterday about gluten. He said that he used to be a bread

baker. He said that they had to treat gluten like it was alive.

Conditions like temperature and humidity had to be within a certain

range for the gluten to perform optimally.

> >When they test babies for gluten intolerance, a lot of them

> >are in fact gluten intolerant, though they don't show symptoms

> >for years.

>

> And others aren't. So, for those that develop GS later in life (I

seem to be

> one of them) something ELSE besides gluten causes the GS genes to

express

> themselves thus causing an IgA reaction to gluten.

Isn't it likely that the mom's nutrient levels were such that the

baby was not getting everything it needed during gestation?

I'm thinking of the problem of mineral deficiencies...and the fact

that they can be very hard to replenish.

> Gluten intolerant kids get a LOT of infections.

Didn't Dr. Price also note that children whose parents were

insufficiently nourished at conception and during gestation were also

prone to more illnesses? He especially talked about TB's being more

prevalent in people whose physique was less deep, which was another

manifestation of the lack of A and D and minerals in the parents'

diet.

> Ditto for vaccines, mercury, sugar, fungi, or any of the other

> >various " triggers " people keep coming up with. The common element

> >in ALL the cases is gluten

>

> Not JUST gluten though, but gluten and a GS gene that has

*expressed*.

> Without the expressed gene one doesn't get GS, as I understand it.

So the

> other common denominator is a trigger - something that causes the

gene to

> express itself. Now, perhaps in the case of *some* folks that could

be

> simply too much gluten? I don't know. But I find it interesting

that my GS

> genes seemed to have expressed at a time when I was consuming a lot

LESS

> gluten than I previously had and at around age 40.

What else was happening in your diet at that time? Were you getting

plenty of A and D and minerals, for example? Was your stress level

extraordinarily high, and causing your " second brain " (your gut) to

falter?

> >Anyway, there is ample evidence, from the food aid sent to

> >other countries, that gluten all by itself can cause gluten

> >intolerance.

> I don't think you can draw that conclusion based on the food aid

situation.

> Food aid is sent to people who don't have enough food, who are

> undernourished, malnourished, experiencing wars, drought, and/or

famine.

I wonder how long the people receiving the aid have gone malnourished

before they received the wheat???

> Since it has been established that our nutritional status can cause

genes to

> express differently, this is a variable that must be taken into

account when

> looking at the food aid situation. Thus, I don't think we can

> automatically assume that gluten alone is the sole cause of GS in

the food

> aid recipient population, at minimum, since their nutritional

status does

> not represent that of the entire rest of the world, and may be

causing their

> genes to express in a particular way.

Yes. It seems to be that there must be distress, malnutrition in the

form of insufficient fat-soluble vitamins--and minerals?, and

ingestion of improperly prepared grains, and perhaps vaccinations

and/or antibiotics to " turn on " the GS gene.

When we send food aid to starving refugees, say, do we also immunize

them against things like TB, polio, or smallpox? or AIDS? What? I

have some friends at Feed the Children. Perhaps they can answer that

question.

> And since this seemed to be true in Price's time

> >too (prior to antibiotics) and it seems to be true in studies on

> >gluten sensitive dogs,

>

> From the research I've seen on dogs, gluten sensitivity is known to

be a

> problem in Irish Setters. I haven't heard of it being a problem

with any

> other breed, but that doesn't mean it's not. So, it seems that

Irish Setters

> tend to have a GS gene. As with most or all dogs at the time of the

research

> (several years ago) they were likely on a kibble diet. This is a

sub-optimal

> diet for dogs and certainly could potentially cause problems that

might lead

> to GS gene expression. But I'm not sure the research has gone very

far in

> this area in relation to dogs. I'd love to see a study of Irish

Setters on a

> doggie WAP diet (raw meat/bones/organs) versus Irish Setters on

kibble

> comparing the prevalance of GS between the two groups.

I would like to see that, too.

> there is no reason to think an additional

> >trigger is needed.

>

> Except for the fact that not everyone exposed to gluten is gluten

sensitive

> and that it seems to require an *expressed* GS gene in order to be

GS.

I understand that genes can be turned " on " or " off " depending on

what's going on with the person. My lab technician sister even told

me that people's blood types have been known to " change " during their

lifetime.

[Guest guest]

On 7/15/05, Heidi Schuppenhauer <heidis@...> wrote:

> But the people who talk about mercury being a problem are

> generally talking about gut permeability issues, which primarily

> effect IgG allergies. But gut permeability can be triggered by IgA

> allergies, and in fact that is the primary link that has been found

> to gut permeability. Maybe mercury can trigger gut permeability

> too, but so far it seems to be mainly a theory: kids with autism

> tend to have gut permeability, and everyone knows autism

> is caused by mercury, so mercury must cause gut permeability. But

> that is arguing the cause from the result: if autistics have

> higher mercury levels, THAT may be the result of gut permeability,

> not the other way around, or they might both be caused by another

> thing.

Gut permeability wouldn't explain why vaccinations-- injections,

bypassing the gut-- could cause the problem, though. However, I

believe in the past we've discussed how the BBB becomes more permeable

when the gut does, so maybe gut issues could allow the mercury in

vaccines to pass through the BBB easier.

I also recall that in the intelligence correlation discussion, I

favored the hypothesis that intelligent people require more nutrients

to the brain and therefore require and have a more permeable BBB,

allowing heavy metals to pass at a higher rate. I'm also remembering

now that some of the neurostimulants like glutamate make the BBB open

up, so maybe if there's a real lot of activity going on up there--

much more than average-- maybe the glutamate might have a hand in

opening up the BBB. (Not sure about the details of that mechanism

though, just thinking out loud.)

> Except that you don't know (and neither does anyone else) if in

> fact the genes " just started " to express themselves. The rates of

> intolerance as measured in the blood don't get higher and higher

> for older people, as you would expect if the gene gets " turned on "

> in later age. The rates of *illness* follow this bumpy curve ... for

> one individual, the usual route is that

>

> 1. They get sick before they are 5. And then recover.

> 2. They get sick again in their late teens. Then recover.

> 3. They get sick again in thier late 30's early 40s. Then recover.

> 4. Then get sick in their 60s.

Interesting. When I was an infant I was allergic to nearly

*everything*-- so bad that my mom had me on an APPLE JUICE diet! (With

supplements). Over time during my childhood I " outgrew " most of my

allergies, including eggs and milk. I had *bad* eczema as a baby, but

some trips to the chiropractor apparently helped.

Then, in my late teens, I had bad gut problems. My diet was awful

through my early to mid-teens, but I also smoked, which may have

helped, and quit at 15. When I went vegetarian at 18 everything just

went to hell. And, my eczema came back and probably covered a good

35% or 40% of my body at its peak, horrible. On NT and Primal

Defense, etc, I've been on the upswing. Still have some gut issues at

23, but much better than every before I think.

I guess I'll cherish it for the next 10 years...

Chris

[Guest guest]

Doug Kaufmann. His main web site is http://www.knowthecause.com and he

has several book sout. He and Dr. Dave Holland have written a few of

the articles on mercola.com also.

> >That combination of factors agrees with what Kaufmann says: " I

> >believe that the majority of celiac patients have an antibiotic

> >induced mycotoxicosis... "

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

I'll see if she can provide a link.

> >I understand that genes can be turned " on " or " off " depending on

> >what's going on with the person. My lab technician sister even told

> >me that people's blood types have been known to " change " during their

> >lifetime.

>

>

>