Gotschall's proof that the SCD minimizes or reverses Celiac?

[Guest guest]

or anyone familiar with Gotschall's work...do you know how she came to

the conclusion that the SCD minimizes or reverses Celiac disease?

I was just reading the PPNF journal last night and the lead article was

about Gotschall's SCD and the author mentions that Celiac disease (among

others) can be minimized or reversed by the SCD. Is Gotschall's claim that

Celiac can be minimized or reversed as long as one stays ON the SCD? Or that

they can return to eating gluten after being on the SCD for a period and

remain free of the disease, or at least have it to a lesser extent?

Gluten is illegal on the SCD, right? So if the former scenario above is the

case then it's obvious how Celiac disease can be healed on a diet that is

gluten-free. But if the latter scenario is her claim, what is it based on?

Did she do before and after anti-gliadin IgA tests and anti-tissue

transglutaminase IgA tests? Or is she basing it on symptomology?

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]

> or anyone familiar with Gotschall's work...do you know how she came to

>the conclusion that the SCD minimizes or reverses Celiac disease?

>

>I was just reading the PPNF journal last night and the lead article was

>about Gotschall's SCD and the author mentions that Celiac disease (among

>others) can be minimized or reversed by the SCD. Is Gotschall's claim that

>Celiac can be minimized or reversed as long as one stays ON the SCD? Or that

>they can return to eating gluten after being on the SCD for a period and

>remain free of the disease, or at least have it to a lesser extent?

>

>Gluten is illegal on the SCD, right? So if the former scenario above is the

>case then it's obvious how Celiac disease can be healed on a diet that is

>gluten-free. But if the latter scenario is her claim, what is it based on?

>Did she do before and after anti-gliadin IgA tests and anti-tissue

>transglutaminase IgA tests? Or is she basing it on symptomology?

>

>Suze Fisher

You can read her thoughts online, she goes into great depth:

http://www.scdiet.org/7archives/scdceli1.html

Until 1952, the most prominent experts in coeliac disease - a wasting condition

associated with the severe malabsorption of food - agreed that it was caused by

carbohydrate intolerance, the inability to digest certain types of carbohydrate.

A diet avoiding these carbohydrates was found to treat the condition

effectively. Then an article in the Lancet started the current fashion that

coeliacs are merely allergic to gluten. The success of a gluten-free diet,

however, required the diagnosis of coeliac disease to be thenceforth restricted

only to those patients who benefited from such a diet. Author and researcher

Elaine Gottschall explains that this change has left thousands of people with

severe symptoms which are going undiagnosed and untreated.

Basically if I understand what she is saying, the difference is far more basic

than IgA etc ... it's a basic difference in the *definition* of " celiac

disease " . In the 40's, it was considered " carbohydrate intolerance " and then the

it became defined as a type of " allergy to a protein " . Obviously those are two

very different issues ... if you define " celiac " as " carbohydrate intolerance " ,

then as soon as the person can tolerate carbs they are cured (as you put it,

that is based on symptomology).

Also she says in that article that the " carbs " people eat on the typical

gluten-free diet might contain gluten-like proteins that prevent the villi from

healing, and that a high carb diet in general might prevent people from healing.

Both of those things are true for a subset of celiacs and they get discussed a

lot in celiac groups ... cross contamination and cross reaction are very common,

and the candida issue comes into play (candida looking like gluten), plus there

are other issues. " Curing " in that case means " healing the villi " ... but that

only applies to celiacs, since gluten intolerant folks may well have no villi

damage (actually they don't by definition but few people actually get biopsied

unless they are really sick).

She also mentions that the villi flattening typical of celiac happens in lots of

diarrhea type diseases ... which is also true and one reason why there is more

emphasis now on other tests. To quote:

" If a patient fulfilled these established criteria, his condition would then be

given the name 'gluten-induced enteropathy cocliac disease " . Thus, only a small

number of persons exhibiting the clinical symptoms of malabsorption including

diarrhoea, bloated belly, and failure to thrive could now be classified as

coeliacs. The others, an even larger group, suffering with the same symptoms

(but who did not pass the required test using the intestinal biopsy criteria)

would be diagnosed as suffering from diarrhoea from an unknown cause,

steatoffhoea (fatty stools), malabsorption, sprue, etc. Therefore, if a

physician applied the strict definition for diagnosing coeliac disease, the

number of " true " coeliacs would remain very small while there would remain a

large group of patients with assorted diagnoses or no diagnosis of any kind "

That is basically a similar argument espoused by " Dangerous Grains " ... except

the DG argument goes beyond gut problems to address mental, skin, organ problems

that don't get diagnosed because the definition of " celiac " is too narrow.

Heidi

[Guest guest]

>-----Original Message-----

>From:

>[mailto: ]On Behalf Of Heidi

>Schuppenhauer

>

>> or anyone familiar with Gotschall's work...do you know how

>she came to

>>the conclusion that the SCD minimizes or reverses Celiac disease?

>

>You can read her thoughts online, she goes into great depth:

>

>http://www.scdiet.org/7archives/scdceli1.html

>

>Basically if I understand what she is saying, the difference is

>far more basic than IgA etc ... it's a basic difference in the

>*definition* of " celiac disease " . In the 40's, it was considered

> " carbohydrate intolerance " and then the it became defined as a

>type of " allergy to a protein " . Obviously those are two very

>different issues ... if you define " celiac " as " carbohydrate

>intolerance " , then as soon as the person can tolerate carbs they

>are cured (as you put it, that is based on symptomology).

Yes, that would explain some things. Interesting that she bases her

definition of celiac disease on the hypothesis of some docs over 50 years

ago, well before IgA testing for gliadin was developed, I presume?

Also interesting that these early docs blamed carbs as the culprit because

carbs were poorly digested by the celiac patients and when carbs were

removed from the diet they got better. I don't think it would be

unreasonable to assume that gluten was part and parcel of the carbs these

patients were eating. So eliminating carbs meant eliminating gluten.

Further, I think that it's painfully obvious today that carbs are NOT the

cause of GS or celiac for the simple reason that many if not the vast

majority of Celiacs consume a lot of SCD illegal carbs (seems like all they

talk about on the celiac list, LOL) and they remain in remission. If SCD

illegal carbs are the culprit then the vast majority of GF celiacs would

still be suffering from the disease.

Having said that, it seems that GS wreaks havoc on the digestive system and

many GS folks can't handle carbs until they heal their intestines. I assume

this is why those early docs assumed that carbs were the culprit in celiac

disease.

Weird that there is a sidebar with the article as follows:

" Did you know?

If you thought that sweetcorn was a gluten-free food, think again! Gluten is

one of the most important byproducts of maize, and bags of corn are sold as

animal feed. In the making of cornflour, the hardest part is separating the

gluten from the starch. "

I really wonder if she does her research sometimes because corn gluten is

NOT the same as wheat, barley, rye, etc. gluten. Sure, they all have gluten,

but only certain forms of gluten are problematic for GS folks in general.

She doesn't seem to understand that gluten per se is not the problem, but

rather gliadin, hordein and whatever the similar rye protein is for most GS

folks, if I " m not mistaken.

I wonder about the people she says weren't helped by a GF diet. I would take

a few guesses about why that is.

1) their gut has not healed and so they are not digesting carbs properly

2) they are getting hidden gluten in some foods which seems to be so common

(it's not always required to be on the label, right?)

I'm still not clear as to whether she's saying that the SCD can cure celiac

disease once the person goes OFF the diet, and starts eating gluten again,

for instance? Clearly, if one stays ON the SCD (which IS GF) they should be

fine.

Also, one thing I noticed from the early last century physicians she quotes

is that they consistently describe the stool of Celiacs as light in color,

foamy and frothy and usually foul smelling. I'm a confirmed gluten sensitive

individual and I rarely have had stools like this. Maybe when one reaches

end-stage GS, aka Celiac, this is typical?

Actually I shouldn't call celiac disease end-stage GS because not ever GS

person develops damaged villi, like autistic kids for instance, who tend to

get neurological symptoms (behavioral/cognitive), which I guess would be

end-stage GS for them.

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]

>

>Yes, that would explain some things. Interesting that she bases her

>definition of celiac disease on the hypothesis of some docs over 50 years

>ago, well before IgA testing for gliadin was developed, I presume?

Reading the SCDiet website answered a lot of those questions for me.

She is very loyal to Dr. Haas, it seems, who did most of his work back

then. It was groundbreaking work, and very important. My Mom actually

worked with celiac babies around then, and worked with the Haas diet

I think (she didn't call it that though).

>Also interesting that these early docs blamed carbs as the culprit because

>carbs were poorly digested by the celiac patients and when carbs were

>removed from the diet they got better. I don't think it would be

>unreasonable to assume that gluten was part and parcel of the carbs these

>patients were eating. So eliminating carbs meant eliminating gluten.

Right. Carbs=wheat, esp. back then. Actually that is still true, esp.

when you figure that many grain sources are contaminated (they

use the same grinders and packagers and silos and trucks for

all grains: even corn gets contaminated). Plus seeds in general

are the major allergens. Plus grasses and most grass seeds

are especially allergenic. (Some legumes are pretty bad too,

esp. peanuts and soy). So when you eliminate carbs you eliminate

a LOT of allergens. Actually the Atkins website said as much,

some time ago. That still leaves eggs and milk as allergens,

but they seem less problematic for many people, esp. if the

milk is fermented.

> Further, I think that it's painfully obvious today that carbs are NOT the

>cause of GS or celiac for the simple reason that many if not the vast

>majority of Celiacs consume a lot of SCD illegal carbs (seems like all they

>talk about on the celiac list, LOL) and they remain in remission. If SCD

>illegal carbs are the culprit then the vast majority of GF celiacs would

>still be suffering from the disease.

Yeah, and I've said that a lot. The response is that " a lot of celiacs never

heal " etc. etc. But statistically 80 - 95% of celiacs heal (as per biopsy)

within

a year or five, EVEN THOUGH they are eating a lousy diet and most of them

aren't even truly gluten free (only 30% really eat GF, when they studied

their diets). The 5 - 20% that have problems healing may well have

other stuff going on (lack of enzymes, carb intolerance, food contamination,

etc.). Carb intolerance DOES exist, and the symptoms are very similar

to celiac sometimes (blunted villi etc) and it probably is misdiagnosed

a lot. But Carb Intolerance and Celiac are still two different diseases.

Nowadays anyway. 50 years ago they were the same thing.

>Having said that, it seems that GS wreaks havoc on the digestive system and

>many GS folks can't handle carbs until they heal their intestines. I assume

>this is why those early docs assumed that carbs were the culprit in celiac

>disease.

Right. There is a whole 'nother issue of GS. I think THAT also gets

confused with various parasitic issues, dysbiosis, and candida too. And a LOT

of people, it seems, can't handle fructose. Also lactose. And that does

cause problems similar to celiac. And some folks can't handle disaccarides

(I thought it was interesting that giardia causes disaccaride intolerance ...).

If you define celiac as " a wasting disease characterized by diarrhea '' ...

well shoot, there are a LOT of conditions that cause that. Low carb

diets are probably very helpful in many of those (esp. since it's more

paleo and probiotic).

>Weird that there is a sidebar with the article as follows:

>

> " Did you know?

>If you thought that sweetcorn was a gluten-free food, think again! Gluten is

>one of the most important byproducts of maize, and bags of corn are sold as

>animal feed. In the making of cornflour, the hardest part is separating the

>gluten from the starch. "

>

>I really wonder if she does her research sometimes because corn gluten is

>NOT the same as wheat, barley, rye, etc. gluten. Sure, they all have gluten,

>but only certain forms of gluten are problematic for GS folks in general.

>She doesn't seem to understand that gluten per se is not the problem, but

>rather gliadin, hordein and whatever the similar rye protein is for most GS

>folks, if I " m not mistaken.

I wondered about that too, and almost quoted it. It's an example

of the language problem here: " What is the definition of celiac " ? " What

is the definition of gluten " ? The term " gluten " is HIGHLY misused

in the GI field ... as you know, it's one peptide of gliadin that's the

problem, but no one really knew that 40 years ago.

Thing is, part of how the " corn gluten " thing relates is that in Europe,

wheat starch IS allowed on a " celiac " diet. That is something

that the celiac groups in the US won't accept, and in fact there

seems to be some evidence that there is enough trace gluten

left in the wheat starch that the people getting wheat starch

aren't as healthy. So the bit about " The hardest part is separating

the gluten from the starch " IS relevant, but it's only relevant if

in fact you accept that celiac is at root an *allergy*. If it's not

an allergy, then bits of gluten are irrelevant. If it IS an allergy,

then yeah, wheat starch is a problem.

But the sidebar " Did you know ... " seems to imply that celiacs

ought to be suspicious of corn, period. Which is just weird.

If she said " corn proteins caused problems for the Anasazi "

of course, I'd buy it ...

>I wonder about the people she says weren't helped by a GF diet. I would take

>a few guesses about why that is.

>

>1) their gut has not healed and so they are not digesting carbs properly

>2) they are getting hidden gluten in some foods which seems to be so common

>(it's not always required to be on the label, right?)

It STILL isn't required to be on the label! Only " wheat " is. " gluten " they

still can't agree on a definition. And labelling laws came in, I think, in the

late '70s. They were very controversial back then, and still aren't followed

all that strictly. Before that, NOTHING had a label. I remember ... !

I'd add:

3) Lack of probiotics.

Probiotics seem to be VERY important in regulating all kinds of

allergies, for reasons that are unclear. They help the IgE ones too.

Kefir helps people amazingly.

>I'm still not clear as to whether she's saying that the SCD can cure celiac

>disease once the person goes OFF the diet, and starts eating gluten again,

>for instance? Clearly, if one stays ON the SCD (which IS GF) they should be

>fine.

She says if you start eating carbs again, of course you'll get sick again.

Which means, if you eat wheat again, you'll get sick, but of course I'd

agree there. So how do you tell if you are healed? IgA levels drop ... folks

who HAD celiac test fine after a year or two if they do any reasonable

lack of gluten. Villi heal. A healed celiac looks and tests like anyone else.

I guess the one thing you CAN say is that " healed celiacs " CAN eat a lot

of starch, and most do, and still stay healed. That part has been proven

over and over. The counterargument is: " A lot of them never heal " ... but

no numbers are given. From what I've heard on the celiac lists, there

ARE folks who don't heal at first, and many of those try an additional

therapy or three (enzymes, glutamine, butyrate enemas, kefir,

allergy testing, and SCD are some of the most common) and then they

get healed.

A lot of folks though are in a situation where they have

been " diagnosed " and their family is giving them a " special diet " .

There was one such family on TV. They detailed how the Mom made

two meals, every meal, one for " the family " and one for " the son " .

What a dedicated Mom!

OK, what do you think the chances are that " the son " REALLY got

GF food? Or that he never cheated and ate some of the " other " food?

Given that I react to most processed food and restaurant food, with

DH which is caused by IgA deposits and so is unlikely to be confused

with, say, food poisoning, I can't see how " the son " gets GF food.

No way. At best he gets " lower gluten " food. For me to get " non reactive "

food I had to ban it from the house, toss all my " open bin " food (sugar, salt,

etc),

clean the cupboards, get new ovens and pans. I did that kicking and

screaming, mind you, and after all that work there is no

way I'm letting bread crumbs in my kitchen.

Of course if it hadn't been ME that happened to, I would never have

believed it.

>Also, one thing I noticed from the early last century physicians she quotes

>is that they consistently describe the stool of Celiacs as light in color,

>foamy and frothy and usually foul smelling. I'm a confirmed gluten sensitive

>individual and I rarely have had stools like this. Maybe when one reaches

>end-stage GS, aka Celiac, this is typical?

Right. That is end stage. Really end stage. One woman in our group was

only diagnosed when she weighed 90 lbs and was hooked up to an IV

because she couldn't digest ANYTHING. I never had malabsorption,

according to Dr. Fine's tests anyway, and everything was " technically

normal " .

>Actually I shouldn't call celiac disease end-stage GS because not ever GS

>person develops damaged villi, like autistic kids for instance, who tend to

>get neurological symptoms (behavioral/cognitive), which I guess would be

>end-stage GS for them.

Right. Suicide is end-stage for the folks who get mainly depression.

Cancer for others. And some T1 diabetes is basically GS.

My symptoms were (and still are) mainly cognitive and DH (dermatitis

herpetiformis, not Dear Husband, though both can be similarly irritating. ;-) ).

So the arguments about " celiac " might be interesting,

but don't relate much to my situation. Actually I get symptoms from

an IgA reaction to casein too, even the trace amounts in butter :-(

>

Heidi

[Guest guest]

Heidi,

Thanks for the long and thoughtful post on this subject. I don't really have

anything to add to what you've said. I hope to find the time to write a

letter to the editor of the PPNF journal about the article on the SCD

though. I think it needs to be made clear that Gotschall is defining Celiac

totally differently than the rest of the scientific and medical

establishment so readers of the article will understand that when she says

the diet can cure Celiacs, she doesnt' mean they can be cured from an IgA

reaction to gliadin. And that the diet is GF, so it is at least as effective

as any other GF diet, if not more so for those whose digestion of carbs in

general has been messed up.

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]

>And that the diet is GF, so it is at least as effective

>as any other GF diet, if not more so for those whose digestion of carbs in

>general has been messed up.

>

>Suze Fisher

Thanks! Yes, it is an effective diet for a lot of people,

probably for a variety of reasons. It would be nice

if someone clarified the issues re: celiac and

gluten intolerance though, because a lot of people

do seem to read what she writes (accurately or not)

and come up with the idea they can start eating

gluten again, or that trace amounts of gluten

don't matter as long as there are no carbs attached.

-- Heidi