Re: New online enzyme articles -

[Guest guest]

> >>And maybe Kirkman does not want parents to just do the enzymes

> without the diet, and then the parents will never know if the diet

is

> an integral part of the puzzle for that specific child.

>

> Why would this be so bad? Is there a reason that you could not try

> the enzymes first (being more efficient, easier and cheaper) and

then

> if you didn't see success, then turn to food removal or

eliminations?

> The thing is, Dr. Pangborn did not write that you should not try

the

> diet and the enzymes to see which one works best, or if you need

both

> or either one. He wrote that the Kirkman enzymes were not effective

> enough to be used on their own and MUST be used with the GFCF diet.

I

> just don't feel that Complete is that awlful a product, and a

person

> MAY be able to use it instead of the GFCF diet. And some people are

> not able to do the diet at all for a number of reasons (and being a

> bad, lazy, unloving parent is not one of them). So this does not

> leave any room for them.

>

>

> >>What if they say " yes - go ahead just use enzymes, maybe they

> > are setting themselves up to lawsuits

>

> This is truly the biggest reason, and is the reason that over the

> counter supplements are not allowed to make any kind of health

> claims. There is also the political climate and the atmosphere of

> change. People adopt change at various rates. There is a well-

> established pattern among humans and markets which follows the Bell

> Curve. First the Risk Takers, then the Early Adopters, then

> mainstream, then the Established Adopters, and then a certain group

> who won't accept something no matter how good it is just because

that

> is their goal in life.

>

> Encouraging parents to deny entire food groups is not a very

> healthful recommendation either. It is a matter of trade-offs.

>

> >>if, in the future, testing will be available to see which kids

> really need the GFCF diet too, and the parents are furious Kirkman

> encouraged them not to try it when the child was younger and more

> likely to be recovered.

>

> It seems that there will be just as many people who become furious

> that they were not told they MAY be able to use the easier, more

> efficient, and cheaper enzymes than the GFCF diet and then told

they

> need to buy bottles and bottles of supplements in order to replace

> nutrients. And since the enzymes are helping in ways the diet may

not

> be able to help (as shown by people on the diet getting even better

> results with enzymes), aren't you really denying that improvement

in

> health from people...or at least discouraging it and telling

parents

> not to try it?

>

>

> >>I think they are just being cautious. After all, unless he has

> changed it, Houston's Q and A says the same thing on their

website.

> Maybe Kirkman wants to wait and see before committing to this.

>

> I agree. It is a much more conservative approach. But Dr.

Pangborn's

> article seems to say the exact opposite of what Mr. Humphrey's says

> is Kirkman point of view on this. Very conflicting and confusing

> because it is posted on the Kirkman site. Just add this to the

> continuation of conflicting and confusing information in the world

of

> AS.

>

> I am not arguing with you, , and appreciate your point of view.

> This is one reason this board is so important, because the parents

> need to support each other and pass along things that work even

> when " official " people do not...or feel they cannot.

>

> .

- you are such an asset to this board, and you were so key in

OUR decision to try the enzymes. I so appreciate your honesty and

great knowledge on these issues. I was really just thinking out loud

in my post, and may have come across wrong. You are an amazing

debater (are you a lawyer in your other life??) and really good at

breaking down facts into key points. The one thing I would like to

say is that I did not mean to imply parents that do not do the diet

are lazy or unloving. I realize that in many instances extenuating

circumstances are an issue. I should have said in my post that the

main reason the diet was not a big problem for us was the fact that I

am a stay at home mom, Nick was young (under two) so school lunches

were not an issue and he quickly forgot his forbidden foods, and that

we had enough money to get the special foods required. Not to

mention the fact that we are homebodies who do not go out to eat very

often or serve meals to people at our home much. Plus his change was

so immediate and unmistakable that it motivated us to continue.

As far as Kirkman's waffling on the enzyme topic, all I can say is

that I have been very happy with Kirkman's products and their

customer assistance in the last year, and really do not know why

they do not recommend enzymes alone, or AT LEAST they should say that

some parents have reported success in using them alone to give

parents a heads up to this possibility. I agree parents should know

this is the case.

Cheers

[Guest guest]

Oh , I certainly didn't mean to imply YOU were saying some

parents were lazy about doing the GFCF diet, but I have heard it said

several times and it just irks me. I am glad you were thinking out

loud, as am I. In fact, on another board, there was a big discussion

about it - guess it was fresh on my mind. My boys were already in

elementary school when I first heard about the diet, but I can

remember how much easier it was to control their daily lives when

they were pre-schoolers. I really feel anyone who wants to do the

diet and can do it, should go ahead with it. It has obviously helped

a great many people, especially when there wasn't any other choice.

You are also too kind with your compliments. I have a Masters in

Science and worked in biotech for a long time, so the topic of

enzymes was very familiar to both my husband and me by the time it

came up. I didn't have nearly the learning curve as many people do on

this particular subject. My husband works in ag and enzymes are very

standard in livestock production as well as in crop production. So, I

kind of feel like I " cheated " with knowing about it beforehand, lol.

My comfort level was extremely high to begin with.

One thing I have learned is that dietary supplement companies can't

make any claim about something being used to treat or cure any

ailment. That is why all the supplement bottles don't say what they

are for on the label and have those disclaimers on them. As soon as

you make any health claim (whether it is true or not), the Food and

Drug Administration steps in and it becomes part of the " regulated "

medical establishment. Also, you are immediately required to produce

the necessary clinical trials that prove your claim. And most things

become prescription at that point. What a mess. So this is also a

reason supplement companies may be reluctant to say " Product X helps

Condition Y " .

I think that saying something like " some parents have reported

success in using enzymes alone " would be sufficient. Just not the you

MUST use them only with a restrictive diet. Some people will want

tests which prove they break down all the peptides first, which would

be nice if it is possible, but there are not such tests that prove

the GFCF diet removes all peptides either. Nor are there tests which

prove a lot of the things in AS treatment. I think just not blocking

the option is reasonable, and then people can see what works best for

their situation.

.