Get email alerts Get Celiac.com E-mail Alerts  




Celiac.com Sponsor:
Celiac.com Sponsor:




Ads by Google:






   Get email alerts  Subscribe to FREE Celiac.com email alerts

  • Announcements

    • admin

      Frequently Asked Questions About Celiac Disease   09/30/2015

      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 Symptoms What testing is available for celiac disease? - list blood tests, endo with biopsy, genetic test and enterolab (not diagnostic) Celiac Disease Screening Interpretation of Celiac Disease Blood Test Results Can 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-Free Is celiac inherited? Should my children be tested? Ten Facts About Celiac Disease Genetic Testing Is there a link between celiac and other autoimmune diseases? Celiac Disease Research: Associated Diseases and Disorders Is 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 Beverages Distilled Spirits (Grain Alcohols) and Vinegar: Are they Gluten-Free? Where does gluten hide? Additional Things to Beware of to Maintain a 100% Gluten-Free Diet Free recipes: Gluten-Free Recipes Where can I buy gluten-free stuff? Support this site by shopping at The Celiac.com Store.

Calling All Californians Ab16 Goes To Vote Soon! Please Read.
0

8 posts in this topic

NVIC CALIFORNIA ACTION ALERT

Tomorrow, Wednesday, April 25, 2007, at 1:30 p.m. there will be a hearing in the California State Assembly Committee on Education to vote on Assembly Bill 16 (AB 16). This bill was originally an HPV mandate but was unable to advance and has now been gutted and amended to remove HPV language and replace it with much more dangerous language. With only two days public notice, this bill was rammed through the Assembly Health Committee last week on a vote of 10- 4.

AB 16 WOULD REMOVE THE POWER FROM THE CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE TO APPROVE NEW VACCINE MANDATES AND HAND IT OVER TO STATE PUBLIC HEALTH OFFICIALS. ALL NEW VACCINES RECOMMENDED BY THE CDC FOR CHILDREN WOULD BE AUTOMATICALLY MANDATED FIVE YEARS LATER. Citizens would not be able to speak through their elected representatives and stop a new vaccine mandate, such as HPV vaccine, or stop any other new vaccine recommended by the CDC from being mandated.

AB 16 REMOVES THE MEDICAL EXEMPTION, RELIGIOUS EXEMPTION AND PHILOSOPHICAL EXEMPTION TO VACCINATION AND REPLACES IT WITH A PARENTAL "BELIEF" EXEMPTION WHICH HAS NO CONSTITUTIONAL OR LEGAL DEFENSE IF IT IS ELIMINATED IN THE FUTURE. Removal of medical exemption implies there are no medical reasons to exempt and leaves doctors as enforcers of government policy without any moral or legal responsibility for preventing vaccine injuries and deaths. Removal of religious exemption ignores the validity of deeply held religious beliefs opposing vaccination and the right to religious freedom, which is protected under the First Amendment. Exemption for philosophical or conscientiously held beliefs also has more legal standing than undefined parental "beliefs."

IF PASSED, THIS KIND OF LEGISLATION COULD SET PRECEDENT FOR OTHER STATES TO FOLLOW.

In a democracy, we elect men and women who will listen to our concerns and vote for laws which reflect the will of the majority of citizens. When our elected officials hand over power to unelected government officials, they usually do it so they can ignore the voice of the people and impose laws on citizens against their will.

Rick Rollens, co-founder of the MIND Institute at UC- Davis and father of a vaccine injured autistic son, will be testifying against AB 16 tomorrow at 1:30 p.m. in Room 4202 of the State Capitol in Sacramento, CA.

If you want to make your views known about this bill, following is a list of those on the Committee who will vote on the bill tomorrow.

California State Assembly Committee On Education Members

Committee Jurisdiction: Primary jurisdictions are education generally, certificated employees of schools, school finance, and school facilities.

Committee Members

Gene Mullin - Chair

District

Dem-19

Phone

(916) 319-2019

E-mail

Assemblymember.mullin@assembly.ca.gov

Martin Garrick - Vice Chair

District

Rep-74

Phone

(916) 319-2074

E-mail

Assemblymember.Garrick@assembly.ca.gov

Julia Brownley

District

Dem-41

Phone

(916) 319-2041

E-mail

Assemblymember.Brownley@assembly.ca.gov

Joe Coto

District

Dem-23

Phone

(916) 319-2023

E-mail

Assemblymember.coto@assembly.ca.gov

Mike Eng

District

Dem-49

Phone

(916) 319-2049

E-mail

Assemblymember.Eng@asm.ca.gov

Loni Hancock

District

Dem-14

Phone

(916) 319-2014

E-mail

Assemblymember.hancock@assembly.ca.gov

Bob Huff

District

Rep-60

Phone

(916) 319-2060

E-mail

Assemblymember.huff@assembly.ca.gov

Betty Karnette

District

Dem-54

Phone

(916) 319-2054

E-mail

Assemblymember.Karnette@assembly.ca.gov

Alan Nakanishi

District

Rep-10

Phone

(916) 319-2010

E-mail

Assemblymember.nakanishi@assembly.ca.gov

Jose Solorio

District

Dem-69

Phone

(916) 319-2069

E-mail

Assemblymember.solorio@assembly.ca.gov

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

Following is a summary of AB 16 from the California Legislature:

AB 16

Page 1

Date of Hearing:

April 17, 2007

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HEALTH

Mervyn Dymally, Chair

AB 16 (Hernandez)

As Amended: April 16, 2007

SUBJECT: Pupil immunizations.

SUMMARY : Prohibits a pupil from being unconditionally admitted to any public or private school or child care unless prior to his or her first admission he or she has been fully immunized. Defines "fully immunized" as the pupil has been vaccinated in accordance with the recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), 2007 Recommended Immunization Schedule for persons zero to 18 years of age, as specified. Requires all vaccines recommended by ACIP after January 1, 2006 to be approved by the state Public Health Officer (PHO) after consulting with the California Conference of Local Health Officers (CCLHO), but not until the fifth calendar year after the year in which the ACIP recommends a new vaccine. Authorizes the PHO to waive the prohibition on admission to schools or child care for a specific ACIP-recommended immunization for a period of one year under certain circumstances. Specifically, this bill :

1)Repeals existing laws relating to the full immunization of persons prior to admission into private and public institutions including specified child care facilities.

2)Declares that the Legislature does not intend to relinquish its responsibility on the matter of immunization requirements and will continue oversight of this process through legislative and budgetary mechanisms, as necessary.

3)Prohibits a governing authority, as defined, of a private or public elementary or secondary school, child care center, day nursery, nursery school, or family day care home from unconditionally admitting a pupil unless, prior to his or her first admission to that institution, he or she has been fully immunized.

4)Defines "fully immunized" as the pupil has been vaccinated in accordance with recommendations of the ACIP that are contained in the United States Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), 2007 Recommended Immunization Schedule for persons of zero to 18 years of age, and in accordance with #5) below, with an exception for "certain high-risk groups," as specified.

5)Requires all vaccines recommended by ACIP after January 1, 2006, to be approved by the PHO after consultation with the CCLHO, if he or she finds that the vaccines are safe and necessary for the protection of public health, before being included in the requirement in #3) above. Prohibits the inclusion of vaccines recommended by the ACIP from being included within #3) above until July 1 of the fifth calendar year after the calendar year in which the ACIP recommends the new vaccine.

6)Permits the PHO to waive the prohibition in #3) above for a specific ACIP-recommended immunization for a period of one year if the PHO, after consulting with the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the CCLHO, finds that there is a shortage of the recommended vaccine, that public or private funding of insurance coverage for the vaccine is not sufficient, that a delay is necessary to protect the public health, or fundamentally disagrees with the ACIP recommendations.

7)Requires the PHO to publish a public statement on why he or she chose to waive the requirement in #3) above.

8)Requires the Department of Public Health (DPH) to publish, update annually, and post on its website by July 1 of every year a list of the immunizations that are required under this bill, including the ACIPs recommended childhood and adolescent immunization schedule.

9)Requires DPH, in consultation with the state Department of Education, to make available to school districts information about new vaccines recommended by the ACIP, and the process by which a parent can obtain an exemption.

10) Permits a parent or guardian or adult who has assumed responsibility for the care and custody of a minor to file with the governing authority a letter or affidavit stating that any or all immunizations are contrary to his or her beliefs, in which case, immunization is not required for admission to a school or institution listed in #3) above. Allows temporary exclusion from the school or location whenever there is good cause to believe that the person has been exposed to one of the communicable diseases for which a vaccination is recommended.

11) Makes this bill operative on July 1, 2009.

EXISTING LAW :

1)Prohibits the governing authority of a school or other institution from unconditionally admitting any person as a pupil of any private or public elementary or secondary school, child care center, day nursery, nursery school, family day care home, or development center, unless prior to his or her first admission to that institution he or she has been fully immunized against diphtheria, haemophilus influenzae type b (except for children who have reached the age of four years and six months), measles, mumps (except for children who have reached the age of seven years), whooping cough, (except for children who have reached the age of seven years), poliomyelitis, rubella, tetanus, hepatitis B, and chickenpox, as specified.

2)Permits DPH to add to this list any other disease deemed appropriate, taking into consideration the recommendations of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), ACIP, and the AAP Committee of Infectious Diseases.

3)Waives the requirement in #1) above if the parent or guardian or adult who has assumed responsibility for the child's care and custody, or the person seeking admission is an emancipated minor, files a letter or affidavit with the governing authority stating that the immunization is contrary to his or her beliefs.

4)Permits a child who has had the requirement waived, whenever there is good cause to believe that the person has been exposed to one of specified communicable diseases, to be temporarily excluded from the school or institution until the local health officer is satisfied that the person is no longer at risk of developing the disease.

5)Renames the Department of Health Services (DHS) to the Department of Health Care Services and transfers public health responsibilities to a newly established DPH as of July 1,

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown

COMMENTS :

1)PURPOSE OF THIS BILL . This bill was initially introduced to mandate the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine. As amended on April 11, 2007, this bill establishes a process for California to adopt ACIP vaccine recommendations as a requirement for admission to schools and day care centers. In recent decades, as new vaccines were recommended for children by the ACIP, new immunization mandates were added to California's school-entry statute for a certain age or grade, only to later be outdated when immunization guidelines were updated to reflect new science or new vaccines. As a result of numerous legislative changes to the statute it has become antiquated and confusing. Accordingly, it is a public health imperative for the state's mandatory immunization requirements to stay current to maximize immunization rates and protect individual children and the general population from existing and emerging communicable diseases.

2)ACIP . ACIP consists of 15 experts in fields associated with immunization who have been selected by the Secretary of the U.S. DHHS to provide advice and guidance to the Secretary, the Assistant Secretary for Health, and the CDC on the most effective means to prevent vaccine-preventable diseases. ACIP develops written recommendations for the routine administration of vaccines to the pediatric and adult populations, along with schedules regarding the appropriate periodicity, dosage, and contraindications applicable to the vaccines and is the only entity in the federal government which makes such recommendations. The overall goals of ACIP are to provide advice which will assist in reducing the incidence of vaccine preventable diseases and to increase the safe usage of vaccines and related biological products.

3)2007 ACIP RECOMMENDATIONS . The changes to the previous childhood and adolescent immunization schedule, published January 2006, are as follows:

a) The new rotavirus vaccine (Rota) is recommended in a three-dose schedule at ages two, four, and six months;

B) The influenza vaccine is now recommended for all children aged six to 59 months; and,

c) Varicella vaccine recommendations are updated.

d) The new HPV vaccine is recommended in a three-dose schedule with the second and third doses administered two and six months after the first dose. Routine vaccination with HPV is recommended for females aged 11 and 12 years; the vaccination series can be started in females as young as age nine years; and a catch-up vaccination is recommended for females aged 13 to 26 years who have not been vaccinated previously, or who have not completed the full vaccine series.

4)PREVIOUS MANDATES . According to DHS, it has typically been at least six years between first licensure of a vaccine and its requirement for entry into school in California

5)CMA LETTER . This bill was amended, in part, based upon a letter submitted by the California Medical Association (CMA), indicating that the CMA sees a need for the Legislature to consider a more logical approach to enable the state to be more nimble in responding to new federally recommended immunizations. In previous years, new immunization mandates have been added for a certain age or grade, only to later be outdated when ACIP guidelines are updated to reflect new science or new vaccines. The CMA strongly recommends a more systematic, science-driven approach to ensure that the state-mandated immunization requirements are current and predictable, rather than the haphazard approach we now use and CMA suggests that school-entry immunization mandates should simply be statutorily linked to the ACIP guidelines, while allowing the PHO to delay the requirement for a year or two if any safety concerns are raised about a new vaccine, or if there is an inadequate supply, and preserving the parental opt-out provisions in current law. This approach removes the need for the Legislature to act each time and creates a more logical statutory framework that leads to predictability for families, the health care community and the education community.

6)SUPPORT . Proponents of the prior version of this bill made the following points: Initiating the new HPV requirement will pose some logistical challenges, such as ensuring sufficient supply, access, and simply coordinating the calendars of parents and children with availability in order to receive the three doses over a six month period. However, it is important to balance that urgency against the logistical practicalities so that there would not be a barrier to school entry. The disparity in the incidence and severity of cervical cancer between Hispanics and their non-Hispanic counterparts is unlikely to be reduced in the short term without significant changes in policy and practice and the discovery of a vaccine to prevent HPV infection is a major step forward in this field. Including the HPV vaccine as a required immunization will increase all Californians' accessibility to cervical cancer prevention and is a commonsense, preventive solution we can all support

7)OPPOSE . Opponents of the prior version of this bill raised the following concerns: There is no statewide epidemic, health crisis, or tragedy warranting the mandate of a HPV vaccine for 6th grade girls and that a mandatory vaccine should only be required when outbreaks of polio, tuberculosis, or other easily transmitted diseases may threaten a school or community. This bill would mandate the most expensive vaccine in history with vaccine producers reaping the benefits. Mandating that parents vaccinate their young daughters for a sexually transmitted disease is not public policy that protects parental responsibility and authority. Girls at the seventh grade level should not be refused entrance because they have not been vaccinated for actions not committed by them or risky behaviors in which they may never engage. By requiring HPV immunization and subsequently the discussion of sex between young public school girls, the state infringes on the right of parents to choose when it is appropriate to discuss that sensitive issue with their daughter, and thus, that this bill would supersede a parent's right to decide how to raise his/her children. Mandating the HPV vaccination will cause female students to believe that they will avoid contracting genital warts by being vaccinated for HPV and may very well cause a significant increase in sexual activity among the female student population in California public schools, which would impair the incentive female girls have to abstain from sexual activity with multiple partners while still in high school. There is a lack of sufficient notice to parents about their right to opt their daughters out of the requirement.

8)OPPOSE UNLESS AMENDED . Based on the prior version of this bill, the California Catholic Conference asks for an amendment to remove the mandate and instead to offer the vaccine on an "opt-in" for parents. The Conference writes because HPV is not spread by contagion, and because the vaccine does not protect against all kinds of cervical cancer, they believe that the immunization against the disease ought to be made the prerogative of the parents. The Campaign for Children and Families requests two amendments: a) language to disclose to everyone involved that the vaccine will not protect against all strains of HPV nor against all types of cervical cancer and that sexual abstinence is the only certain way to avoid contracting HPV and other sexually transmitted infections; and, B) language to ensure written parental permission is obtained. These requested amendments have not been addressed in this version of this bill.

9)RELATED LEGISLATION . a) SB 533 (Yee), pending in the Senate, adds pneumococcus, except for children who are four years and 11 months of age and older, to the list of childhood diseases for which immunization is required to enter school. B) SB 676 (Ridley-Thomas), pending in the Senate, requires DPH to maintain a list of diseases and conditions for which immunization are required prior to entry as a pupil into schools or child care, as specified. Authorizes the list to be modified at any time by DPH. Requires DPH at least once a year to review and modify, as needed, immunization requirements for pupils, taking into considerations specified conditions. c) AB 1429 (Evans), pending in the Assembly, requires health care service plans and health insurers that include coverage for the treatment of cervical cancer to include coverage for cervical cancer vaccinations.

10) TECHNICAL AMENDMENT . This bill permits the PHO to waive the prohibition on school admission for a specific ACIP recommended immunization, for a period of one year, under certain circumstances. However, it is the author's intent to permit the PHO the option to waive the prohibition for a specific ACIP recommended immunization for as long as the PHO decides it is warranted, or waive the prohibition for one year. An amendment is necessary to clarify that the PHO has both options available to him or her.

11) DOUBLE REFERRAL . This bill is double referred. Should this bill pass out of the Assembly Health Committee it will be referred to Assembly Education Committee.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :

Support

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, District IX (California) (prior version)

American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO (prior version)

California Association for Nurse Practitioners (prior version)

California Medical Association (prior version)

California Nurse Midwives Association (prior version)

California State Conference of the NAACP (prior version)

Lamda Letters Project (prior version)

NARAL Pro-Choice California (prior version)

National Council of La Raza (prior version)

Opposition

California Right to Life Committee, Inc (prior version)

Capitol Resource Institute (prior version)

California Family Council (prior version)

California Federation of Republican Women (prior version)

Concerned Women for America (prior version)

Pro-Family Law Center (prior version)

Traditional Values Coalition (prior version)

Three individuals (prior version)

Analysis Prepared by : Teri Boughton / HEALTH /

(916) 319-2097

*************************************************************

National Vaccine Information Center

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

email: news@nvic.org

voice: 703-938-dpt3

web: http://www.nvic.org

NVIC E-News is a free service of the National Vaccine Information Center and is supported through membership donations.

NVIC is funded through the financial support of its members and does not receive any government subsidies. Barbara Loe Fisher, President and Co- founder.

Learn more about vaccines, diseases and how to protect your informed consent rights at www.nvic.org

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Homeschool. My children will not receive that HPV experiment. I'm surprised they'd do this with all the autistic parents still pointing fingers at vaccines as a root cause. I'm surprised these folks aren't making more noise. Perhaps they are not aware? I know so many families in California who homeschool their children. Not because the schools are bad, but because they want the institution out of their everyday lives. I've homeschooled for semesters at a time. Simply because I needed a break from all the heavy handed involvement of the school. "DO this" "DO that" TWO HOURS OF HOMEWORK A DAY after a 7 hour school day. If my spouse came home with that much work AFTER work, I'd have labled him a "workaholic". But for mere children- this is ok? I needed a break and so did my children. Homeschooling was fun. (It was also extremely easy with all the teacher supply stores out there. I believe because we think we can not teach our children and that we believe we need the school system- we mistakenly believe we will have to comply with the new laws. I would remove my children before I would comply with a law I didn't believe in.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But, Hawkfire, not all working moms can afford to quit their jobs to homeschool, especially in California, where real estate prices are so ridiculously high.

Even more shocking is that some vaccines (the MMR, for example) contain egg, to which MANY people are allergic. And they are trying to take the medical exepmtion away???? :blink:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good thing I don't live in California. But if I would live there, I'd either homeschool or move somewhere else.

I have heard rumors that this was coming, here in Canada, too. It's just a matter of time before the police will show up at the doors of people who won't vaccinate, and forcibly take the kids to be vaccinated. At which point we might as well live in a communist country!

None of my kids vaccinate their children, they've all read my accumulated research on vaccines (accumulated over the course of more than ten years) and are too scared to expose their kids to all those poisons and viruses.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ursa,

I've heard about the coming force vaccinations as well.

I'd have to look, but I think something in the New Freedom Act may have something to do with that. That's psychiatric screening of all children and whoever meets their criteria gets put on high powered drugs to calm them down. I've read some horrible stories about what happens to these kids down the road, not a pretty picture.

I have the New Freedom Act saved over to my computer so if anyone wants the info let me know. I can pm it in whole to whoever.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have heard rumors that this was coming, here in Canada, too. It's just a matter of time before the police will show up at the doors of people who won't vaccinate, and forcibly take the kids to be vaccinated. At which point we might as well live in a communist country!

I'm pretty sure it won't be coming to Canada. There is a push to get people to vaccinate now, but the public health nurses (at least here) will stop calling when you say you do not participate in vaccination and would prefer to not be contacted with reminders (there is no religious or medical reason needed here.) It's become easier to say no now than it used to be, I can't see the right to say no being taken away without a big backlash.

Michelle

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Bill of rights "freedom of religion" could be the easiest way to overturn any decisions to eliminate religious exemption.

L.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But, Hawkfire, not all working moms can afford to quit their jobs to homeschool, especially in California, where real estate prices are so ridiculously high.

Even more shocking is that some vaccines (the MMR, for example) contain egg, to which MANY people are allergic. And they are trying to take the medical exepmtion away???? :blink:

I understand that to a degree. I know I'm moving to make my day to day life more affordable. I have to leave california. In order to be a stay at home mom, I have to do it.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
0

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      102,669
    • Total Posts
      914,341
  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Even gluten-free Foods Triggering Reaction After Initial Glutening?
      I was glutened in July.  Badly.  I have NO clue as to what got me.  I suspect two things 1) a gluten free store- brand, product that might have been mis-labeled and 2) a prescription generic medication (contacted the manufacturer to confirm a gluten-free status but got the old liability statement of no guarantees).  Both items were NEVER consumed by my gluten free hubby who acts as my canary.     I probably got glutened again by eating out while on vacation even though I only at at restaurants recommended by other celiacs.  The rest of the time I was at my parent's house and I have a dedicated kitchen there for us.   Who knows?  But I was sick with anxiety, tummy issues, vomiting, the works.  It was strange since anemia was my original symptom and I really did not have tummy issues at the time of my diagnosis.  So, celiac symptoms can evolve at least for me!  Six weeks after my first sign of a glutening, I was tested by my new GI because I was not getting well.  He thought I had SIBO or bile duct issues. I asked for celiac blood testing.    Turns out it was gluten all along!   During my glutening, I became lactose intolerant again, could only eat stewed foods because everything hurt to get through my digestive tract.   I was a basket case for three months.    Did I mention new problems resulting from my glutening?  Hives, itching, vomiting, passing out and tummy aches almost daily.  Anti-histamines helped.    My GP thinks I am her most "allergic" patient.  Except it was more like a histamine intolerance or a mast cell issue not allergies.   Who knows?  The hives eventually resolved as I healed from my glutening.    I refuse to test the two items that were suspect.    No way!    Three months later, I got dairy back.  Six months later I am eating gluten free anything....without any issues.  I also do not take any meds (except for Armour Thyroid) , supplements, eat out and I avoid even processed gluten-free items.  But, I feel great.     I suppose that I will eventually slip up and get glutened again.  But I am working hard not too.  I like feeling well.   So, really look to your diet.  I bet you just keep getting glutened.  Stick to whole foods, follow the FODMAP diet and wait.  Wait.  Wait.    
    • Lower left abdominal, left pelvic & other random pains
      Chiro?  Hubby went to one with a shoulder injury as recommended by our GP. It was a great experience.    I always resisted.  Why?  Just a "gut" feeling.  Good thing.  My bones started fracturing on their own.  I can not imagine anyone manipulating me now.  If you have celiac disease, get a bone scan first.  Just saying.......
    • Gluten or SIBO; Should I gluten challenge to find out?
      Noobette, sure did use gluten-free oats! I even had to test the oats alone before the test as they sometimes give me problems, probably due to fodmap.  As an update, my symptoms became bad enough that we aborted the challenge. My colleague revealed I was eating the gluten! So I skipped the decoy sample to just get this over with. I'm not sure that my symptoms were celiac, but they were bad either way. Headaches, blurpy noisy gut, fatigue, fogginess, bloating, gas, pains. But those are vague, I'll find out for sure in a few more weeks. 
    • Gluten free diet, positive celiac screen...what should I eat now?
      After my blood test (DGP IgA positive), I went crazy eating gluten until my endoscopy.  Because of work issues, I waited for seven weeks.  Seven weeks of saying goodbye to my favorite gluteny foods!  I knew what was coming going gluten free since my hubby has been gluten free for over 14 years.  I was eating a loaf of sourdough a day besides cakes and cookies.  Yum!  But the bad news was that by the time my endoscopy rolled around, I was experiencing tummy issues (just had anemia before).  So, my advice is to take time to say goodbye to gluten, but do not be a glutton (like me!)  
    • Gluten free diet, positive celiac screen...what should I eat now?
      It's okay if you have more than 1 cracker a day; the challenge is saying you must have at least 1 cracker a day so if you want to have more that's absolutely fine. In fact, if you want to gorge on all your favorite gluten goodies from now until the endoscopy then have at it because it looks like you'll be saying goodbye to it all after the endoscopy. You say it's about a month till you see the GI doc..... it will be longer until an endoscopy because the GI will have to order it & it will have to get scheduled.
  • Upcoming Events

  • Blog Entries

  • Recent Status Updates

  • Who's Online (See full list)

  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      59,684
    • Most Online
      1,763

    Newest Member
    Nikkishine
    Joined