This sounds crazy, but yesterday my gastroenterologist said that I might be able to eat wheat even though I have celiac disease! His reason is that my allergy tests came out negative for wheat...
Now, as far as I understand, you can be allergic to wheat but not have celiac disease. That much makes sense, as someone may react to chemicals in wheat other than gluten, but he/she may have no problems with the gluten itself. However, I don't think it works the other way around. If you can't eat gluten, then you can't eat anything that has gluten in it (and wheat very clearly contains gluten).
The doctor's explanation was something along the lines of: "Yes, but the gluten itself isn't what harms your intestine. It's after your immune system reacts to what you ate that it acts on the gluten and then makes it harmful to your body. In this case it's possible that your body doesn't react to wheat, so the gluten in that wheat won't do you harm. Meanwhile, it could be that you do react to barley, rye, etc. so that when you eat those your body does make the gluten in them harmful."
Isn't this complete nonsense? I would love my doctor to be right, but unless I'm missing something big I see no logic to what he's saying.
Can anyone chime in please?
ZoideMember Since 24 Jan 2009
Offline Last Active Jan 26 2009 06:17 PM
- Group Members
- Active Posts 3
- Profile Views 586
- Member Title New Community Member
- Age Age Unknown
- Birthday Birthday Unknown