Jump to content

Follow Us:   Twitter Facebook Celiac.com Forum RSS      

Celiac.com Sponsor:

   Get email alerts  Subscribe to FREE Celiac.com email alerts

  arrowShare this page:
Celiac.com Sponsor:


Member Since 07 Jan 2004
Offline Last Active Feb 22 2012 02:16 PM

Topics I've Started

Gallbladder Flush

05 March 2004 - 11:55 AM

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

Gf Cold Cereals

17 February 2004 - 04:20 PM

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

Reactor And Nonreactor

15 February 2004 - 08:53 PM

A question keeps coming to mind whenever I read about the different reactions we are having to the same foods. Like today, when one post was recommending McGann's Irish Oatmeal because the poster never has a reaction to it and therefore considers it safe, and another post quickly offered the observation that she had a severe and unmistakable reaction soon after eating the oatmeal and so for her it was off limits.

The usual explanation--correct me if I'm wrong--is that we are different. Some can tolerate what others cannot. I'm not sure what this means, but I'm guessing that it means our digestive systems are different, that is, more or less damaged by the gluten, and possibly by food allergies, and so we can have a more or less (or no) reaction to the questionable food, or ingredient. If the condition is a food allergy I can understand one not bothering too much about the possible damage that is being done because our antibodies are doing supposedly their job. And apart from an elavated rise in antibodies there is no damage being done to the body, outside of, I would guess, a certain amount of wear and tear. (Is this so?)

My real concern is about those of us, probably most of us, who have celiac disease. Being an autoimmune disorder, isn't it slowly, and maybe not so slowly for some, wrecking havoc with our insides, whether we know it or not? And no matter how little gluten gets into our bodies? Or so I have been led to believe by reading the posts on this Board. If this is so, how can we be sure when ingesting a food that most would consider risky, like oatmeal--at least to the extent that nothing conclusive has been found either way--that we are not damaging our bodies? Especially if you're mostly a non-reactor, with only minor reactions. And isn't it possible for those who normally are very sensitive to gluten, or to certain forms of it, like in wheat, to be less sensitive to the form of gluten in other grains so that they are not visibly reacting but may be doing damage nonetheless. Is it possible to get a definitive answer to this? Or is it just one more troubling uncertainty that we will have to live with, along with everything else? --Aldo

Blood Type Diet

31 January 2004 - 01:41 PM

I've recently had some interest in following the guidelines suggested by the Blood Type Diet ([[I]Eat Right For Your Type and [I]Live Right For Your Type) and thought others on the Board might be similarly interested if we had a Topic dealing specifically with this Diet and how it might help us to return to health more quickly. My interest came from reading a number of posts by Sarah (Seeking Wholeness), from a few exchanges with her concerning questions I had about the Diet, and from reading Live Right, which she has recommended, on a number of occasions, when responding to a post.

I did a quick search of the Board to find out how much interest has already been shown. To date there have been 7 posters using 7 forums to post 23 messages. Most references are brief, almost asides, before going on to discuss the central concerns of the poster. About half of the posts are by Sarah, not surprisingly, because of her experience with it and her belief that it has helped her, and her belief--I hope I'm not putting words in her mouth that she would rather keep out--that it might be a big help in dealing with celiac disease.

I am going to do the Diet, while maintaing my interests in a few others, partly because I feel there is someone on this board I can go to with my questions when
necessary. And there may be others with this same interest who have yet not posted, or who have, who would be in a position to offer advice and guidance on the Diet, if only in sharing their experiences with us. (I understand of course that we are responsible for whatever actions we take and not the persons we've asked for advice, though I have more confidence in the posters here than the doctors I've had over many years. In fact, I've benefited from most of the posts I've read. Even topics that were initially of no interest to me turned out to be of interest. It's gotten to the point where I have to read everything that's posted in order not to feel I might be missing something I shouldn't. Still haven't found an ideal way of doing this.)

This has been a rather long winded explanation of why I think this new topic is necessary. If not necessary, it will quickly become apparent, I think, and the moderators can take the appropriate action.

In the meantime, I hope all those who are interested would respond. Just saying that you are interested would be enough. Even if not interested, if you think it would be a waste of time to explore what to you is a "wacky" idea, than that too would also be welcomed. --Aldo

Recurring Pain

23 January 2004 - 07:02 PM

I've asked my sister to describe the pain she has been experiencing, off and on, for many years, in the hope that some of you might know if it could be celiac related.

She says the pain starts in the left groin and spreads to the right groin, and from there to the back. It feels like menstrual cramps, she says. The pain usually lasts the night and will be gone by morning. Sometimes it will go on for another day or two; there is no fever. Then every other year or so the pain will be in the same locations but the intensity will be far greater and there will be a fever of about 102. This pain and fever usually last several days, only disappearing by taking Cipro. Needless to say, she feels awful during this time. She's been told that these attacks are probably caused by acute diverticulitis. Is this a common, or not so common, symptom of celiac disease? Could it be something else that mimics diverticulitis but is being overlooked by her doctor? (Note: my sister is a bread and pasta person who has had bouts of ill health throughout her life. She is more open to the possibility of celiac disease now that she accepts my own condition as probably celiac disease (I'm self-diagnosed), but she needs more convincing before she will have the testing done.


Celiac.com Sponsors: