Jump to content
RemedySpot.com

RE: prevalence of gluten intolerance (was: opioids, sugar, etc.)

Rate this topic


Guest guest

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

> Re: prevalence of gluten intolerance (was: opioids, sugar,

>etc.)

>

>

>

>>Heidi,

>>

>>Where are you getting the " 10% " figure from? The 30% is from Dr. Fine's

>>stool test, right?

>>

>>Suze Fisher

>

>10% is from Dangerous Grains and most of the writups ... it's the number

>of random Americans that test high for IgA in blood tests (rather than

>stool tests).

Ah, I thought so. From my understanding then, the 10% figure is probably

quite inaccurate since the blood test is not nearly as sensitive as the

stool test. If the stool test is indeed much more sensitive and accurate

than the blood test, then the stool test figures at 29% prevalence would be

the current accurate figure, it seems.

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>

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

>Ah, I thought so. From my understanding then, the 10% figure is probably

>quite inaccurate since the blood test is not nearly as sensitive as the

>stool test. If the stool test is indeed much more sensitive and accurate

>than the blood test, then the stool test figures at 29% prevalence would be

>the current accurate figure, it seems.

>

>Suze Fisher

I agree. I'm not sure most people are quite willing to hear that though!

Folks are still getting used to the idea that " as many as 1 out of 100 "

people react negatively to wheat. When the 1 in 230 figure came out

a few years ago, scientists in the US were shocked, because it had

been thought to be so very very rare ...

Heidi Jean

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...