This Celiac.com FAQ on celiac disease will guide you to all of the basic information you will need to know about the disease, its diagnosis, testing methods, a gluten-free diet, etc. Subscribe to FREE Celiac.com email alerts What are the major symptoms of celiac disease? Celiac Disease SymptomsWhat testing is available for celiac disease? - list blood tests, endo with biopsy, genetic test and enterolab (not diagnostic) Celiac Disease ScreeningInterpretation of Celiac Disease Blood Test ResultsCan I be tested even though I am eating gluten free? How long must gluten be taken for the serological tests to be meaningful?The Gluten-Free Diet 101 - A Beginner's Guide to Going Gluten-FreeIs celiac inherited? Should my children be tested? Ten Facts About Celiac Disease Genetic TestingIs there a link between celiac and other autoimmune diseases? Celiac Disease Research: Associated Diseases and DisordersIs there a list of gluten foods to avoid? Unsafe Gluten-Free Food List (Unsafe Ingredients)Is there a list of gluten free foods? Safe Gluten-Free Food List (Safe Ingredients)Gluten-Free Alcoholic BeveragesDistilled Spirits (Grain Alcohols) and Vinegar: Are they Gluten-Free?Where does gluten hide? Additional Things to Beware of to Maintain a 100% Gluten-Free DietFree recipes: Gluten-Free RecipesWhere can I buy gluten-free stuff? Support this site by shopping at The Celiac.com Store.For Additional Information: Subscribe to: Journal of Gluten Sensitivity
Check out "Organic Food Bar." They make a number of varieties, including one for vegans. All are "No preservates, additives, salt, or refined sugars. Gluten-Free." And no unfamiliar, chemical-sounding ingredients. Whole Foods has them. --Aldo
Your post on B5 was an eye opener for me. I thought that the really important Bs were the 1-2-3 and 6, and folic acid and, for vegetarians, 12. But my reading thus far is convincing me that B5--this supposedly in-everything vitamin with so little chance of a deficiency that there is no RDA for it--is more important than many think, and that most of us are probably not getting enough of it in our diet. I've not finished with the material on B5 but what I have read supports what you had to say about its importance in lipid metabolism, and why some are having difficulties with cholesterol. It's not much of a stretch, I think, to make the connection, as you did, that a deficiency of the vitamin can lead to the formation of gallstones.
Though I've read, repeatedly, that there is no danger of toxity even when using megadoses--some taking as much as 10 gms a day, usually for acne problems--one source cites the "standard therapeutic dose" to be from 50-200mgs a day. Another source claims that between 600--1200mgs daily will significantly lower cholesterol after several weeks. This brings up the question of how much is enough, and also is it really safe to increase one B without increasing the amount of all the others. Lieberman and Bruning ("The Real Vitamin and Mineral Book") answer in this way: "If there is a need for additional amounts, it is suggested that not more than one or two individual B vitamins be added at any one time, and that only two or three times the amount of the other Bs be taken." They claim that increasing the amounts more than this will lead to deficiencies in the other Bs.
You mention, LisaB, taking "good size doses of B5." May I ask if you are taking megadoses? In the range of several grams? And if so, do you feel this is safe? Over the long term?
I counted over 50 benefits of getting adequate B5. The ones that are particularly important to us, I think, are (and I will quote just as I found them): "important in maintaining a healthy digestive tract." "a cholesterol lowering agent." "immune stimulant." "helps release, along with cysteine and ATP, energy for carbs, fats, and protein." "essential element of coenzyme A, important for good metabolism." "important in preventing and alleviating arthritis." probably the greatest defense against stress, fatique, and depression." "helps build antibodies for fighting infection." And this one, especially important if you will be visiting a dentist soon: "adequate intake reduces the toxity effects of many antibiotics and protects against cellular damage caused by excessive radiation." "relieves intestinal gas and distention when there is no physical cause [wonder what might be causing this?] "in clinical trials it has significantly reduced serum triglyceride and cholesterol levels, while increasing HDL cholesterol levels." and "aids in bowel motility and efficient digestion. Without Pantothenic acid, acetylcholine cannot be produced. This chemical transmits messages to nerves that control the motor and secretory activities of the intestines."
I thought the following might be of interest: "For years, the richest known natural source of it [b5] was royal jelly, [which] when fed to bee larvae transforms them into queen bees..." This may be why it is said that taking B5 along with royal jelly makes it more effective. Maybe, maybe not. Not much evidence here to back this up. But I must confess that I bought a jar of "Really Raw Honey" soon after reading about this.
Personally, I was convinced enough by what I've read so far to up my intake of Bs from 50 to 100mgs, and to take an additional 200mgs of B5. (I'm not suggesting that anyone else should do the same, but it is what seems right to me at this time.) Maybe LisaB, who has looked into this matter for some time, can offer us some guidelines and suggestions on what would be a reasonable amount to take. From the run down of benefits, it would seem that many of us might be suffering
from a deficiency without knowing it. And since Doctors are not looking for this kind of thing, they will not see it even if it's there to be seen. --Aldo
Welcome. About your first Q: It's my understanding that they are referring to the same process, which may be why it's sometimes called the Liver/Gallbladder Flush. (Pl correct me if someone knows otherwise.) I suppose it's more accurate to call it the Liver Flush since--again it's only what I've read--stones in the gallbladder only get there from the liver. So it does seem that if you are flushing out stones from the gallbladder and this has been done successfully, you will (if you continue to do the flushing periodically) begin to flush out the stones in the liver, if they have not already been flushed out.
Your second Q: Is this Gallbladder Flush of specific concern to those of us who have celiac disease? And the related question: How does celiac disease relate to the liver? can both be answered best, I think, by reading a few articles that can be accessed at this Board's home page, and clicking on the "Site Index" at the left of the page.
Though no substitute for reading the complete articles, the following exerpts will give you an idea of how your questions would probably be answered by those who wrote these articles.
(From Gastroenterology April 2002)
"There just isn't much ambiguity there. If you've got celiac disease, you have gall bladder malfunction, of the sort that may well develop into atresia and gallstones."
(From Lancet Aug. 6, 1977)
"Upon receiving a diagnosis of gall bladder disease, whether gall stones or atresia, one might be wise to request a blood test for celiac disease. The anti-endomysial antibody test is currently the most reliable and available test."
(From Gall Bladder Disease and Celiac Disease by Ronald Hoggan)
"Now, given the low level of clinical suspicion for celiac disease, I anticipate the suggestion that absent gall bladder emptying, atresia, and gall stones might occur in the absence of celiac disease. I did another Medline search, and I can't find a single study that has tested atresia patients or gallstone patients for celiac disease. My answer to the suggestion that gall bladder disease may occur in the absence of celiac disease is that there is no evidence to support such a contention. Considerable evidence exists, however, which points to celiac disease as a likely cause of gall bladder malfunction, atresia, or stones. As for childhood gallstones, there appears to be only one answer.... it is associated with celiac disease."
Hope this helps. And please keep us informed as you make your way toward the Flush. I'm especially interested because you will be having--am I correct?--medical supervision? Or at least someone with a medical background advising you, when you're ready for it. I've almost decided to do it, but will wait on the final decision until I gather a bit more information--Aldo
The postscript that is there in the above post was not intended to go through, along with more graphic material that I thought unnecessary and successfully deleted, but on rereading the material, I noticed I missed these lines because they somehow got pushed to the bottom of the screen out of sight. (I had to keep restraining myself, and deleting material, to keep it within the bounds of civility.)
In rereading my response this morning to your question to see if in fact I did answer it, and to see, as always, how many unintended words replaced those intended--there usually are a few--I was reminded of what they often say about Internet info (and you may know this better than I do): take it with a liberal sprinkling of salt. That would be my attitude concerning the summary I copied from one of the websites that cover this topic. That is why I like to take in as many views/websites as possible, hoping that, even though lacking first hand experience, I will be able to sort out the good from the bad, when enough has been put into the info pipeline.
What I think I should have mentioned instead of, or in addition to, the summary was a recent family experience with gallbladder problems. My sister died this past summer after surgery for gallbladder cancer. She was considered to be the healthiest member of our fairly large family. She was rarely sick. In twenty three years of teaching, she had missed three--three --days of work. She had a complete physical two weeks before the cancer diagnosis. The results of the exam: Cholesterol and blood pressure on the high side, but other than that she was, they confidently proclaimed, in "excellent health." Three weeks later we were gathered in the surgery waiting room of Beth Israel Hospital, listening to the operating surgeon tell us that the gallbladder cancer had spread to the bile ducts, and the lymph system and that Sylvia had only a few months left, maybe six if she were lucky. It was to be four months. What is still baffling to many of us is how is it possible that she could appear to be so healthy, and be so sick. And not have this picked up after all those physicals and all those blood tests she had over the years. And even more baffling, how could she function so well over so many years having this problem, which must have taken years to develop. From the time she became jaundiced--she was still teaching and feeling okay, she said, except for some slight pain on the back right side--to the time when they determined that her gallbladder had to come out because of the stones, because of the cancer, and because they believed that was the only hope for recovery was a grand total of ONE week. From health--apparent health--to cancer surgery in one week, and end of story in four very short months.
This personal story, I think, does answer your question, Lorraine, at least more directly, if not entirely, this time. The hope is, as I understand it, that by flushing the liver/gallbladder we can eliminate the stones that are gumming up the works
and making it difficult for these organs to function as they should, the end result being for most of us cancer. Whether it does this, or only appears to, is obviously up to each of us to decide. I think it's worth investigating, and there are plenty of websites that can help us do that. --Aldo
s well as being cancerous, with possibly a blockage of the common bile duct. and was not functioning well, and that the right lobe of her liver was also diseased, but not cancerous--three cheers, right?--and then in a few days was examined, and in another few days was on the operating table.
Sorry about your son. What a way to start the journey!
About the reasons to have a gallbladder flush: I'm not qualified to answer. Still learning about it, with many questions still not fully answered. But I did find a short summary in the curezone.com web site that gives, I think, the main reasons for doing it.
90% of adults have intrahepatic stones (at least 3 small stones) - but 99% of them do not know that they have them. [intrahepatic stones are defined as "calculi, or concretions, located proximal to the confluence of the right and left hepatic ducts." My understanding of this medicalese is that the stones are located at the juncture of the two ducts within the liver. I've read that stones originate in the liver and from there move to the gallbladder. So if there are stones in the gallbladder there has to be stones in the liver. But not necessarily stones in the gallbladder if there are stones in the liver.]
People can have up to 3000 stones inside gallbladder and up to 3000 stones inside liver (very small stones - sand, or just a few big stones).
15 - 30% of children age 14 - 18 have intrahepatic stones (depend on country)(at least 3 small stones).
95% of people older then 35 have intrahepatic stones & gallstones, but very few of them have symptoms.
99.95% of people diagnosed with cancer have intrahepatic stones.
Of course, that last bit of information is the punch line--well below the belt you might say. But cancer is only one of the possible outcomes, they say, when there is a problem with the liver and gallbladder. Being the central player, they tell us, in so many vital functions necessary for health, when the liver ceases to function properly then the whole system begins to suffer.
You will find more details, Lorraine, if you go to the link in the first paragraph of the first post in this Topic. You will also get plenty of pros and cons, which have helped me get a better grasp of what the Flush is supposed to accomplish, what the risks are, and how to do it. --Aldo
First my apologies for not getting your posting name right. There's not much difference, I suppose, between Seeking Wholeness and Seeking Wellness except, maybe, that wholeness is a more fundamental and necessary state of being than wellness. But, in any case, a name is a name and I should have gotten it right.
I also noticed, this time around, that the last link (to the Hoggan article on the connection between GB disease and CE did not take. The link took me to a blank screen. In checking the web page ID I noticed that it no longer had the same identifying address that I used to create the link. The change was not just a letter or two, or a symbol here and there, but it was a substantial change. It's a minor matter, but if you know why this occurs I would be interested in hearing about it.
Rather than try to get the address right this time, and I'm not sure that is possible--it's bound to change between now and the next click, for some strange reason--the article can be read by going to the Celiac.com Home page, clicking on "Site Index" listed in the side bar to the left of the screen, and selecting "Research on Diseases and Disorders Associated with celiac disease." You can then find the article by scrolling down the alphabetical list of articles. The article kind of shook me up. Especially because of the history of GB problems in the family.
Sarah, why did you decide against the Epsom salts when doing your Flush? After reading a number of protocols, I came away with the belief that it would make the passage of stones less difficult because of its tendency to dilate and relax the bile ducts. Wouldn't you want to insure that this occurs, if you could, since a blockage in the bile duct seems to be the main safety concern? --Aldo
Yes, your post was very useful, so much so that I've spent many hours since, tracking down as much info as possible in order to make a well informed decision concerning whether I should be doing the Flush. In doing so, I became convinced that whether the procedure is for everyone, I believe we all should be aware of this treatment option that seems to hold so much promise not only for everyone who is having liver/gallbladder problems but for us with celiac disease, in particular. Because of this, I thought it was important to start a new topic: "Gallbladder Flush" so that it can be given the attention it deserves. (It's posted in the Post Diagnosis Forum). Thank you for bringing this treatment option to our attention. --Aldo
There are four basic questions, it seems to me, about the Flush, and in case some of you might not want to go netsurfing to check this out--though I very much recommend it--I'll list them and go on to briefly give my take on each question. First, the safety issue: How dangerous is it if a stone gets stuck in the bile duct? Are these "stones" really gallstones? Does one experience better health after they are--whatever they are--flushed from the body? And how is the Flush done? (The website I used for most of this information and found to be the most comprehensive and instructive can be accessed here.
About the safety issue. Naturapaths Murray and Pizzorno (Encyc. of Nat. Med.) are quoted as saying that comsuming a lot of any oil will result in contraction of the gallbladder and will increase the likelihood of a stone blocking the duct. "This may result," they say, "in cholecystitis, requiring immediate surgery to prevent death." This objection is generally dismissed as "scare tactics." Only if your did your Flush on a deserted island would this be a concern was one response to this possible outcome. No one denies that complications are possible and have occurred, leading to hospitalization and, occasionally, the removal of the gallbladder. But most insist that it is only a remote possiblity. One practitioner with 10 years experience with the procedure, Dr. Walt Stoll claims that only one of his patients had to have surgery, and that was because instructions were not correctly followed. My web search has led me to believe that complications occur more often than the enthusiasts would like to admit. For a first hand account of a botched
Flush, click here. For a positive first hand account, click
here. ((How credible any of these accounts are, we, of course, cannot know. Especially suspect are the negative ones: Were the instructions correctly followed? If the gallbladder was removed, was this because of a severely diseased organ and not, directly, because of the Flush.
About the gallstones. Are they "real" or not? This is a more difficult question to answer. On one website, they are called soap stones by one doctor, who neverthe less recommends the procedure to some of his patients, believing it has beneficial results, yet believing they are not true gallstones. Another site calls them "saponified artifacts." The question of whether or not they are real gallstones or soap stones (the "unreal" kind, according to some) seems to revolve around what you are willing to accept as an accurate definition of a gallstone. Going over several of them, it became clear to me--if what I was reading was accurate--that one could accept both explanations: there are "real" stones (formed when bile concentrates and thickens with cholesterol and mineral salts to such a degree that it produces crystals) and there are "soap" stones (the so-called unreal stones). It may be simplistic, and even wrong, but I see no reason, based on what I've read, not to consider soap stones as immature gallstones, that is, stones that are not yet crystallized or calcified enough to be considered, by many, as true gallstones. Though some who ridicule the procedure, thinking the stones not "real," can point to lab results that confirm that they are "only soap stones," one Doctor (Claude Lewis--"Are You Stoned?") claims he sent in a sample of stones--the product of a Flush he supervised--and the analysis was "91% cholesterol and the rest bile salts, water and inert ingredients." Lewis goes on to say that the report "...clearly states it was gallstones." But we still don't know, it seems to me, if these stones should be considered fully developed "real" stones or what might be called immature stones, the soap stones. According to one definition of a real stone: It must be composed of cholesterol, bile, pigment, bilirubin, biliverdin, protein, and calcium. If this is so, then the soap stones seem not to qualify as the real thing.
I believe the most important question concerning the Flush is how are you feeling after passing the "stones"? Are troubling symptoms fewer, or lessened, or completely gone? These claims are routinely made by many who have done the Flush. To read a seemingly endless postings of testmonials, click the link in the first paragraph above. Granted they are not scientifically verifiable, but taken together these first hand accounts tend to be convincing. If it's "just" the placebo response that is working these minor miracles, as some may claim, then so be it. I want that kind of a response regardless of what's causing it.
Finally, the details of the Flush. The link in the first paragraph will take you to nine of them. Many use the Hulda Clark protocols, or a variation of them. Most are two or more pages long. The shortest and simplest, and probably not among the best to use, is two paragraphs, six lines long. The variations are probably helpful not so much in getting the "job done," but in making it a more comfortable and stress free experience, since it's not uncommon for many to have nausea and, occasionally, vomiting after drinking the oil mixture. Probably the best way to decide on what protocols to use is to read them all, or as many as necessary to give you a feel of what you would be comfortable with. Check out this Board's Forum: "Coping With"--the Topic "Fasting." Look for the Posts by Seeking Wellness (Sarah) for her positive experience with the Flush. Sarah also has a link in one of her posts to a very good website and their variation on the Flush.
A must read article, I think, for all of us, not just those who are thinking of doing the Flush, is here on the Board. It's titled Gall Bladder Disease and celiac disease. You can read it here. What jumped out at me from the article was the following: "If you've got celiac disease, yuo have gall bladder malfunction, of the sort that may develop into atresis [partial or complete blockage of the bile duct] and gallstones." This possible connection, which according to the article is a "definite connection," has been mentioned in a number of posts already, further convinces me that a gallbladder flush may be what I need to do to speed up the healing process. (I still need to do more surfing around before deciding.) Any help (Sarah, or anyone else who has done the Flush) will be appreciated. Would you do anything different, if and when you do it again? And please add to, or correct, what I've written here to help us answer the most important question: should we with celiac disease do the Flush? --Aldo
Graphic, Yes, and very interesting and informative. But I'm now puzzled after reading what you had to say about the Flush: It helped to know that you actually handled one of the "stones" and it was, you said, definitely solid, and I suppose you were tempted to do this in answer to the arguments that these so-called stones are not stones but are really congealed olive oil. I went to the Andrew Weil Website to find out his take on this. He says, referring to what he calls "...the folk remedy known as the liver flush....The day after you manage to down the olive oil, you pass green globs that you may think are dissolved gallstones but are actually the residue of the olive oil you consumed."
Lately I've found his answers to many questions to be fairly conservative and seemingly less willing to probe very deeply into issues that stray a bit too far from the mainstream. But I'm reluctant to put his answer to this one in the same category. It seems to me that one should be about to discover the facts in this case very easily. And being the head of an Integrative Health Program at the Univ. of Arizona, he should, you would think, have had plenty of opportunity to have checked this out. I
I'm particularly interested in this because, with members of the family, including many relatives, having gallbladder issues, I thought of doing it myself, but held off because of "experts," like Weil, who are critical of the procedure. I don't doubt that you found something that felt solid, Sarah, but can you be sure that it it was a gallstone, and not olive oil wrapped around some partially digested food stuff? Forgive the question, but I find it hard to fathom why a matter like this is still being debated when it could so easily be answered quickly by a simple clinical testing procedure. Aldo
Whatever is your preferred protein of the day, I think it's important to have it around noon time and not at night, when digestive power is weaker. Protein metabolism being, we are told, the most problematic for most of us, possibly setting up a condition where undigested protein gets into our blood and creating allergic reactions, it does make sense that we eat concentrated protein when our digestion is best. The 4 o'clock meal is my shutoff time for protein, but most often I do it at the noon meal. Even those who have less difficulty with digesting protein must deal with its waste by-products. We are told it does not "burn clean," as carbs and fats do. If there is merit to this thinking, and I have seen nothing to contradict it, then we need to help the body deal with it, with smaller portions and at the right times. Or so it seems to me. --Aldo
Micky and Laudedale,
Have you tried digestive enzymes and eating smaller and more frequent meals? Both have helped me. I have added 2 lbs in each of the last two weeks, after not being able to put on weight and losing weight for so long I can't remember when I wasn't losing lbs. I now do five meals a day and find, surprisingly, that I have more appetite than before with just the three meals. The timing is, roughly, 6-9-1-4-7, saving the most concentrated protein meal for the 1 o'clock hour, that is, the egg, cheese, tofu, sardines or canned red salmon. (Of course, the healing of the intestines probably has helped with the weight gain, but even so, my body is telling me that it prefers the 5 meal plan over the 3.)
I also do, roughly again, a four day rotation with the foods. I think this is especially important when doing a 5, or as some do, a 4 or 6 meal plan. You don't want to create intolerances to any food that you are having too many times during the week. This is, I believe, a tendency we may have that others may not have to be concerned about so much. --Aldo
Because of recent research, I'm convinced as you are, of the importance of having adequate magnesium to balance calcium intake. One of the first things I noticed as I was feeling better was how I needed to cut my fingernails more often and how less fragile they were, and I have not increased my dairy that much but have always liked foods, as it turns out, that are rich in magnesium, but apparently have not been absorbing it very well until recently because of the celiac disease. I have read that "between 30 and 40% of the average daily intake of magnesium is absorbed in the small intestine." (From The Nutrition Almanac, 4th Ed., which then goes on to affirm much of the same information you provided.) If this is so, then it's not surprising that the magnesium was being underabsorped before I went gluten-free.
Good sources (Info from a number of sources and probably as reliable and accurate as predicting the weather in our part of the country--meaning not at all, if you're not from New England and wondering what I'm talking about.) But at least it may add some more items to the list, and possibly confirm others that have been mentioned. Especially good sources are Buckwheat, millet, corn flour, brown rice and rice bran, among the grains. All nuts--especially almonds--and seeds, especially pumpkin. Green leafy veggies, especially spinach; yellow beans, french beans, and broccoli. And especially the following fruits: avocado, prickly pear, Kiwi, banana, papaya, and pineapple juice. Dried fruits are also good sources, especially apricots and figs. And molasses, 1TB, has about 50mgs (RDA 400mgs). One source cautioned that the magnesium content of foods varies quite a bit depending on the soil, the amount of processing, and the manner of cooking. Boiling is said to leach the mineral out into the cooking water.
I think the reason most sources mention more often the dried form of apricots (and of figs) is that they are always available while the fresh apricots have only a very short season, are very expensive, and usually taste like carboard, at least the ones I've tasted (and will no longer)--and are probably as nutrient dense as cardboard. (I do look for fesh figs, when they're in season, but I buy them only if I hit the lottery that day.
Check out the organic dried apricots at Whole Foods, if there is one near you. They pack them in their own clear plastic containers and at a reasonable price. When soaked over night (I use distilled water) they plump right up to almost real size. I eat them as a snack with either yogurt or kefir. Delicious. Their org. dried figs (I prefer the calimyrna variety) are also very good but need the soaking even more than the apricots. --Aldo
I thought I could trust Nature's Path's printed banner on their box of Corn Flakes that says "Gluten Free," with an exclamation mark added, I guess, to underscore their committment that you could trust this product to be truly gluten free. (Judging by their website and the quality of their many products, anyone would have to say that they are an outstanding company.) But I doubt that their Corn Flakes are gluten-free.
The reason? The first time I had them I got the runs right after--since being gluten-free this is my typical reaction to an accident. The second time: ditto. The third time (Isn't twice enough? you're probably thinking, and normally I would have agreed except that I happened to like this cereal and there are so few safe choices among cold cereals that I wanted to be absolutely sure. Well, I'm sure now. I sent an email to the company detailing my adventure with the cereal, and also asking why two other cereals of theirs--Rice Puffs and Corn Puffs that are not marked gluten-free, but are free of just about everything else and are so marked on the cellophane packages--cause me no problems. Though I do not like them as much--not at all, really--they are a quick and welcome change from the hot cereals.
This is their answer:
Very odd indeed. The puffs are not marked gluten free
because of the chance of cross contamination. They
are made in a plant where other gluten containing grains
are puffed. The grain dust is significant and gets
into all products and there is no way to control the dust
except to not puff gluten containing grains. So it
would seem that something in the Cornflakes is causing a
reaction, not the gluten but maybe the sugar. If you
are used to eating a plain cereal without salt or sugar
and then eat something sweet it could be an osmotic
effect. Just a guess really.
Does anybody know what she is referring to by "an osmotic effect"? (Needless to say I am not eating anymore Puffs, even if there is no outer sign of possible innner damage.) The ingredients listed on the box (org. cornmeal, concentrated org. grape juice and sea salt) sound harmless enough, but I'm wondering if the warning: "May contain traces of peanuts, tree nuts, or soy" could indicate the source of the problem. I have no trouble with peanuts or any tree nuts--I regularly eat almond and peanut butters, and drink gluten-free Edensoy Unsweetened. Maybe the soy if processed using barley enzymes may be the source of the problem. But wouldn't this be too slight a contamination to cause my reaction since I did not react to the Puffs that the company admits are being showered constantly with gluten dust from their other products.
Does anybody have a clue as to what is happening here? Could it be that Michelle has answered the puzzle without realizing it. She said the gluten dust "gets into all products." If this is so, why are the Corn Flakes considered gluten-free? (I will wait to respond to her message and ask her this until after I get some feedback, hopefully, to this post.) Does she mean by osmotic effect that the sugar in the cornflakes is possibly carrying the gluten dust deeper into the body than the Puffs can because they have no added sugar. I understand that some components of foods are said to have this ability. Is sugar one of them, especially grape sugar, which contains the simple sugar glucose? It sounded to me like Michelle knows more about this than she is willing to say. Just my gut feeling. --Aldo