Jump to content
  • Sign Up
Celiac.com Sponsor:


Celiac.com Sponsor:


Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Jnkmnky

Would You Cure Yourself If You Could....

Recommended Posts

As I see it, the grain is the problem. To alter the body's response to gluten is like trying to make the human body tolerate infections of deadly viruses.

I disagree. Technically what happens to you when you have Celiac is that your immune system THINKS you are being poisoned when it comes into contact with gluten and reacts to what it PERCEIVES as a poisonous substance in the human body. Your body ejects all of the food inside your digestive system in an effort to get the offending material out (diarrhea) and as a result of all the disturbance inside your intestines, your vili get damaged and that prevents you from getting important nutrients. That leads to malnutrion and then a host of subsequent problems that plaque your nutritionally unbalanced body -- osteoperosis, low bone density, ADD, depression etc.

Meanwhile there's really nothing going on to suggest that anything bad would happen if your system allowed that gluten to travel undisturbed through your digestive system.

Its like when someone yells "fire" in a crowded theater and there really wasn't a fire. Everyone panics and runs for the exits and a few people get crushed to death. So these people who died didn't die in a FIRE. They died because everyone THOUGHT there was a fire. Gluten is like that fire. The gluten isn't what's making you sick -- it's the body's misinterpretation of gluten that's the problem. That's why I never bought into the Dangerous Grains theory about grains. Grains aren't the problem here. They're what Hitchcock would call the "MacGuffin."

So I'm imagining that the cure for Celiac would literally involve someway of uncrossing the wires that make the immune system treat gluten as poison and not merely supressing the body's reaction. As far as "to alter the body's response to gluten is like trying to make the human body tolerate infections of deadly viruses" goes, I must point out there have been many instances in which modern science has found ways to help the body fight deadly viruses. Not too long ago, people used to die from minor infections that today a simple round of antibiotics would cure almost instantly. Case in point: ulcers and the H. pylori virus.

I disagree whith this quote. Celiac disease is a misnomer, in my opinion. It isn't a disease at all, but an extreme intolerance to gluten. You don't consider people with a peanut allergy or a pollen allergy diseased, do you? When they get in contact with the allergen, they get sick, or might die (as in peanut allergy), but they are healthy people who react to a substance their body has decided to reject.

Okay, but I don't understand the objection to the term "disease." Literally the word "disease", if you break it down to its etymological roots, is a situation in which the body is not (dis) at ease (ease). Are you at ease when you are being glutened? I'm not.

Also, technically, an allergy is a disease. The body is not at ease when exposed to pollen or cat dander. It's not a deadly disease like lymphoma, but it's still a disease. You go to the doctors for treatment and everything. Also, I went to an allergist and got tested for a wheat allergy. It came back negative. Yet I test positive for Celiac. Why? Celiac isnt classified as an allergy. Gluten doesn't disturb the body in the same way that an allergen does.

But all of that doesn't really matter. If there was a cure for the peanut allergy and I suffered from one, I'd take that pill. Likewise with pollen allergies. So whether or not something is really a "disease" is immaterial. I still don't want any of those three conditions no matter what they are classified as! Maybe there is a reason that we shouldn't call Celiac a disease, but that doesn't change the fact that it's an undesireable situation that I'd love to find a way out of.

People with celiac disease on a gluten free diet are healthy people. Unless they get accidentally glutened there is nothing wrong with them (unless they're still recovering from years of being sick because they didn't know they shouldn't eat gluten).

Right, but there are plenty of "healthy" people who suffer from a variety of "diseases." Alcoholism is a disease and there are plenty of sober alcoholics who enjoy near-perfect health. People who suffer from depression can be completely healthy in a variety of physical ways. Would you argue that depression isn't a disease? I am a Celiac. Yet I consider myself healthy. I have use of all my limbs. I'm mentally sane. I can breathe freely and hold down a job etc. The gluten-free diet has arrested the celiac disease, but I will never NOT have Celiac or be completely cured just because I stay away from gluten.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How is alcoholism a disease? I know it's called that, but how is that so?

A number of reasons, I guess. For starters, Alcoholism is considered an addiction. Addictions are destructive things. (Have ya seen Courtney Love lately? Whitney Houston?) What could be more "diseased" than that? If you can't stop engaging in behavior that you know is killing you through willpower alone, obviously something is wrong.

Also many scientists consider alcoholism a genetic condition. Studies show that alcoholics have different biological reactions to alcohol than non-alcoholics. Example: they get drunk faster. Some scientists theorize that alcoholism is literally an allergy to alcohol because sometimes an allergy can manifest itself as an addiction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your body ejects all of the food inside your digestive system in an effort to get the offending material out (diarrhea) and as a result of all the disturbance inside your intestines, your vili get damaged and that prevents you from getting important nutrients.

Meanwhile there's really nothing going on to suggest that anything bad would happen if your system allowed that gluten to travel undisturbed through your digestive system.

I don't agree with this theory because of the simple fact that not everyone with Celiac gets diarreah....and alot of people have no symptoms. What is going on when people have completely flattened villi and no diarreah? Nobody is yelling FIRE and nothing is rushing out of the digestive tract. Just as many people get constipation with Celiac so I don't see how the body is flushing out gluten in some but the opposite is true for others?? Doesn't make sense to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both of my parents are alcoholics, both sets of grandparents were as well. I always think that if it was a disease, I might have a little sympathy for them...but since I don't... I tend to view alcoholism as a choice a person with no morals makes on a daily basis. People with diseases don't generally have a choice to turn the problem off by choice... I guess people with Celiac disease do actually have a choice whether or not to "activate" the "disease.... Hmm. I'm thinking that maybe other's posting were right in saying they don't think of Celiac as a disease>..... Confusing!!! :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What interesting answers! I have to admit I would gladly take a pill if it would mean travel and eating out would be easier. I feel fine dealing with celiac in my own home. I can make my favorite foods and have found alternatives. But I miss worry free travel and eating out. Remember what it was like to look at a menu and not be limited to a salad? That is the part I would change in a heart beat!

Hez

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't agree with this theory because of the simple fact that not everyone with Celiac gets diarreah....and alot of people have no symptoms. What is going on when people have completely flattened villi and no diarreah? Nobody is yelling FIRE and nothing is rushing out of the digestive tract. Just as many people get constipation with Celiac so I don't see how the body is flushing out gluten in some but the opposite is true for others?? Doesn't make sense to me.

Yes, Diarrhea might not be the absolute universal Celiac symptom, but it's definitely my impression from reading these boards that most (if not all) of us suffer from it. And yes, while constipation is considered a symptom of celiac disease, it's much less common...and even the people who suffer from it don't report being as plagued by it regularly as the folks who suffer from diarreah. And lots of people have both.

Furthermore, bodies deal with poisons (or in this case, perceived poisons) in different ways. Some people detox by sweating profusely. Some people get nauseous and vomit. Sometimes the digestive system shuts down altogether -- constipation. Some people dry up and get thirsty in an effort to coax the body into drinking a lot of water in order to flush the body clean. My dermatologist explained to me the other day that DH is actually the body's way of getting gluten out of the body through the pores of the skin. Those globules that lurk under those DH sores are actually balls of subcutaneaous gluten! Nevertheless, those are all immune responses and they are what cause the main problems that Celiacs have.

Both of my parents are alcoholics, both sets of grandparents were as well. I always think that if it was a disease, I might have a little sympathy for them...but since I don't... I tend to view alcoholism as a choice a person with no morals makes on a daily basis. People with diseases don't generally have a choice to turn the problem off by choice... I guess people with Celiac disease do actually have a choice whether or not to "activate" the "disease.... Hmm. I'm thinking that maybe other's posting were right in saying they don't think of Celiac as a disease>..... Confusing!!! :blink:

My parents are alcoholics too. (We just trade war stories sometime!!!!) But here's the deal: just because my parents have a disease, that doesn't mean that they aren't also ass%$@#s for not getting their butts over to AA and ensuring that my childhood was happy and stable. And just because someone has a disease doesn't mean that you are required to have sympathy for them -- especially if they were a dick to you as a result of having that disease. I can be a total rageaholic when I get glutened. Yet, that doesn't mean I don't still owe the people I hurt while under the influence of gluten an apology or two. I mean, yeah, for a while I really hated the concept that alchoholism is a disease because it seemed to let my parents off the hook for being too drunk to know how to raise me property...but ultimately there are plenty of ways to arrest the disease. My parents simply didn't choose to take advantage of those methods, and that's where morality and freewill fits in. I have a disease -- Celiac -- and there's no cure, but if I abstain from eating gluten, I can arrest the disease and prevent any residual health problems. And then I can be there for my loved ones and all that good stuff. There's no "cure" for alcoholism but an alcoholic can go to AA and arrest the disease. And you know what? It's way easier to avoid alcohol than it is to avoid gluten...so there you go!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Technically what happens to you when you have Celiac is that your immune system THINKS you are being poisoned when it comes into contact with gluten and reacts to what it PERCEIVES as a poisonous substance in the human body...That leads to malnutrion and then a host of subsequent problems that plaque your nutritionally unbalanced body -- osteoperosis, low bone density, ADD, depression etc.

My point is, that the more time goes by, the more diseases man seems to suffer from. The USA is one of the worst in terms of heart disease, cancers, thyroid disease, autism...the list is endless. It goes hand-in-hand with the typical American diet - wheat based!! I am suggesting that the hybrid wheat IS the cause of many so-called "modern" health problems, especially those which were almost unheard of only a few generations ago. Most who suffer from Celiac are still diagnosed with something else, when all along the problems are caused by gluten. So the question is; just how many other diseases does wheat actually cause? What percentage of the population would need to be effected before the wheat is labeled the problem and not the person's immune system?

Meanwhile there's really nothing going on to suggest that anything bad would happen if your system allowed that gluten to travel undisturbed through your digestive system.

Again, I point to all the diseases suffered today, especially in countries that rely heavily on wheat. In order to prove that wheat is "ok", you'd practically have to remove it from an entire population, possibly for more than one generation. And only without a marked improvement in health could you then rule out the wheat. We all know such a study is unlikely to ever happen. Studies often take decades, and the experts argue over the results just as long. This is partly why it takes so long for the true culprits of many diseases to be discovered.

Also, technically, an allergy is a disease. The body is not at ease when exposed to pollen or cat dander. It's not a deadly disease like lymphoma, but it's still a disease. You go to the doctors for treatment and everything. Also, I went to an allergist and got tested for a wheat allergy. It came back negative. Yet I test positive for Celiac. Why? Celiac isnt classified as an allergy. Gluten doesn't disturb the body in the same way that an allergen does.

I'm interested in your view of allergies, since you assert that gluten is safe but the body only thinks it's bad. If pollen for example is safe, but the body only thinks it's bad, doesn't that put allergies in the same category with gluten intolerance? I'd say once more that perhaps gluten is more than something the body only perceives as bad. Perhaps it really IS bad.

Actually lots of "genetic" diseases are cured by modern science. Just because you can't change people's genes, doesn't mean you can't cure the diseases that those genes caused. Polio is genetic but you can be vaccinated against it. Skin cancer is considered genetic yet it's the most curable form of cancer. I inherited crooked teeth from my father but thanks to orthodonture, my teeth are straight. Sure, there might not be a cure for Celiac in our lifetimes, but there's absolutely no reason there wouldn't be a cure for Celiac just because it's genetic.

I have to disagree here. A cure for a genetic disorder should mean "fixing" the genes. You can remove a cancer or staighten teeth, but if genes are to blame, you can develope cancer again, and also pass the problem on to children. Cutting out a cancer is no more a cure than taking a drug to make a headache go away. It may address a result of the problem, but not the cause. It's no better than a pain killer for an open wound.

So, since not everyone who smokes gets lung cancer, would you say that smoking isn't bad, and the people who get cancer have a disease?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My point is, that the more time goes by, the more diseases man seems to suffer from. The USA is one of the worst in terms of heart disease, cancers, thyroid disease, autism...the list is endless. It goes hand-in-hand with the typical American diet - wheat based!! I am suggesting that the hybrid wheat IS the cause of many so-called "modern" health problems, especially those which were almost unheard of only a few generations ago. Most who suffer from Celiac are still diagnosed with something else, when all along the problems are caused by gluten. So the question is; just how many other diseases does wheat actually cause? What percentage of the population would need to be effected before the wheat is labeled the problem and not the person's immune system?

The reason that we have "more" disease today is because people are living longer and modern science is becoming more sophisticated and starting to recognize certain conditions as diseases. Take Alzeimers' disease. Several years ago, people didn't live long enough to catch Alzeimers. People died in childbirth or they died of simple bacterial infections when someone in their family caught a cold etc. If you were lucky enough to reach a ripe old age and started acting "dotty" and forgetful, people just wrote you off as senile or said, "oh his mind is going in his old age." Back when the average life expectancy was mid-thirties, people had other things to worry about besides why Grandpa can't remember where he lives. So now that our life expectancy is much higher and we have a significant population of senior citizens who are living active healthy lives, doctors start to notice the existence of a neurological disorder that plagues old people. Papers get written on the phenomena and one day someone names it "Alzeimers" and people start studying it in the hopes that a cure can be found. So from one perspective, you could think "hey there was no such thing as Alzeimers' fifty years ago, why are things getting so !@#$ed up?" but what's really happening is that Alzeimers was always around, we just hadn't named it yet.

It's the same thing with Celiac. While it seems that Celiac is "on the rise", it's actually only seems more common these days because people are getting properly diagnosed with it. Hundreds of years ago, so-and-so wasn't called a Celiac, he was "that guy who died of malnutrition for some weird reason." Or "that skinny girl who was always in a bad mood whose husband put her on an ice flue because she couldn't have babies." I get to call myself a Celiac because I lived long enough to realize I couldn't eat gluten. If I'd lived hundreds of years ago, I'd be dead by the time I reached my thirties and my Celiac Disease would never have been an issue.

Again, I point to all the diseases suffered today, especially in countries that rely heavily on wheat.

Can you give me an example of a country that doesn't rely heavily on wheat and that doesn't have any diseases plaguing its population? You're making a bit of a sophist argument. "Wheat is common. Disease is common. Therefore wheat causes disease." Not exactly. You could argue that countries where people breath oxygen suffer from a lot of disease and then make a case for mass suffocation. One thing is certain: a lot of countries rely heavily on wheat and there are a lot of diseases. However, there's no causal link between those two facts. If anything, the fact that wheat is so heavily relied upon is a pretty strong argument for its overall safety. Foods that cause a lot of problems for the people who eat them tend to disappear from the menu. The reason that flax seed is an obscure grain that you can only find in certain health food stores is because a lot of people are allergic to it and it never managed to become part of any civilization's diet. If wheat were really that bad, it would have done a lot more damage to the people who ate it. The cultures who relied on it would be gone by now because everyone got poisoned. And even if these wheat eaters did manage to survive by the skin of their teeth, they'd have been sterile and unable to maintain their populations -- remember that Celiac is a disease that affects your reproductive system. The fact that we're all here and alive (and complaining about wheat) even though our ancestors relied heavily on wheat is the biggest endorsement I can think of for wheat's overall safety and nutritional importance. It is estimated that 132 out of 133 people can eat wheat with little to no detriment. That's a lot of people!

I'm interested in your view of allergies, since you assert that gluten is safe but the body only thinks it's bad. If pollen for example is safe, but the body only thinks it's bad, doesn't that put allergies in the same category with gluten intolerance? I'd say once more that perhaps gluten is more than something the body only perceives as bad. Perhaps it really IS bad.

Then, what's your argument? If I'm allergic to cats, is there something intrinsically wrong with cats? That doesn't make any sense.

I have to disagree here. A cure for a genetic disorder should mean "fixing" the genes. You can remove a cancer or staighten teeth, but if genes are to blame, you can develope cancer again, and also pass the problem on to children. Cutting out a cancer is no more a cure than taking a drug to make a headache go away. It may address a result of the problem, but not the cause. It's no better than a pain killer for an open wound.

There are tons of genetic diseases that are considered "treatable" or "curable." Yes, the sufferers still can pass these diseases onto their children...but then these children can be treated or cured as well by the same (or even more advanced) methods. Let's say that there is a "cure" for Celiac in our lifetimes. If I got the pill and cured myself and then had children, chances are those children might get Celiac too. The good news is, I'm aware of Celiac disease because of my experiences so I'm probably going to get my kids tested really early and if they test positive, they're getting the pill. Subsequently they'll enjoy even better health than I did. Sure you could argue that this is just a band-aid because we didn't actually do anything about the genetic component of this disease and my kids still got it...but that doesn't change the fact that my kids aren't even going to be as sick as I was and they'll get to go to their friends' birthday parties without me calling up the birthday boy's mother and interrogating her about what's in the cake. I don't see how that's not still a good thing.

So, since not everyone who smokes gets lung cancer, would you say that smoking isn't bad, and the people who get cancer have a disease?

No. Because while not every single smoker develops lung cancer, smoking also causes emphysema, asthma and a variety of other additional disorders. Even before they discovered that smoking is bad for you, it was common for athletes to shun cigarettes because they noticed that smoking would "cut your wind" and lower your performance. It's pretty obvious when you open up the filtertip of a cigarette that someone has just smoked that those dark yellow stains will probably do some pretty hinky damage to the inside of your lungs. The same can't be said for gluten, which is the most nutritious and protein-rich part of the wheat plant. And it's not like "1 out of every 133 smokers comes down with lung cancer." The stats are a lot higher than that. And that's why cigarettes are considered more of a public health issue than gluten. Think about it: way more people have lung cancer than have Celiac. Yet more people eat gluten than smoke cigarettes. Shouldn't that be telling you something?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote

My parents are alcoholics too. (We just trade war stories sometime!!!!) But here's the deal: just because my parents have a disease, that doesn't mean that they aren't also ass%$@#s for not getting their butts over to AA and ensuring that my childhood was happy and stable. And just because someone has a disease doesn't mean that you are required to have sympathy for them -- especially if they were a dick to you as a result of having that disease. I can be a total rageaholic when I get glutened. Yet, that doesn't mean I don't still owe the people I hurt while under the influence of gluten an apology or two. I mean, yeah, for a while I really hated the concept that alchoholism is a disease because it seemed to let my parents off the hook for being too drunk to know how to raise me property...but ultimately there are plenty of ways to arrest the disease. My parents simply didn't choose to take advantage of those methods, and that's where morality and freewill fits in. I have a disease -- Celiac -- and there's no cure, but if I abstain from eating gluten, I can arrest the disease and prevent any residual health problems. And then I can be there for my loved ones and all that good stuff. There's no "cure" for alcoholism but an alcoholic can go to AA and arrest the disease. And you know what? It's way easier to avoid alcohol than it is to avoid gluten...so there you go!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The reason that we have "more" disease today is because people are living longer and modern science is becoming more sophisticated and starting to recognize certain conditions as diseases. Take Alzeimers' disease. Several years ago, people didn't live long enough to catch Alzeimers. People died in childbirth or they died of simple bacterial infections when someone in their family caught a cold etc. If you were lucky enough to reach a ripe old age and started acting "dotty" and forgetful, people just wrote you off as senile or said, "oh his mind is going in his old age." Back when the average life expectancy was mid-thirties, people had other things to worry about besides why Grandpa can't remember where he lives. So now that our life expectancy is much higher and we have a significant population of senior citizens who are living active healthy lives, doctors start to notice the existence of a neurological disorder that plagues old people. Papers get written on the phenomena and one day someone names it "Alzeimers" and people start studying it in the hopes that a cure can be found. So from one perspective, you could think "hey there was no such thing as Alzeimers' fifty years ago, why are things getting so !@#$ed up?" but what's really happening is that Alzeimers was always around, we just hadn't named it yet.

True to a point. Although I don't want to try and debate the whole "we live longer" thing, a common misconception is that we are living longer today than in generations past. Medical science has skewed the numbers. The fact is, people lived just as long thousands of years ago as today. The difference is (as you correctly noted) that we have lower infant mortality and such. Knowledge has helped us with hygene and so forth, and yes we know more about what makes people ill. However, once a person reached adulthood, the life expectancy went way up. If you average in all the dead babies, and victims of plagues, etc, then it lowers the number for the average age, but it's misleading. But let's put that aside...

To use your example of Alzeimers' disease, today we are seeing something new, which is being called "rapid onset Alzeimers'". There is growing evidence that there is a link to BSE, but the beef industry lobby is strong, and we aren't likely to get an admission anytime soon. There is also evidence that the use of aluminum salts may contribute to the disease. Both of these problems are far more prevelant today than ever before. So even IF people are living longer, it doesn't negate the fact that modern methods of the beef industry, and the wide-spread use of aluminum salts are linked to the occurence of Alzeimers'.

With regard to cancers and so many other things, just Google for water fluoridation, and you might get a new prospective. Also search for aluminum fluoride, and wow, what a surprize! People didn't put fluoride (a known toxin) into drinking water. Heck, they didn't even have this waste product to get rid of. This is modern science at work!

It's the same thing with Celiac. While it seems that Celiac is "on the rise", it's actually only seems more common these days because people are getting properly diagnosed with it. Hundreds of years ago, so-and-so wasn't called a Celiac, he was "that guy who died of malnutrition for some weird reason." Or "that skinny girl who was always in a bad mood whose husband put her on an ice flue because she couldn't have babies." I get to call myself a Celiac because I lived long enough to realize I couldn't eat gluten. If I'd lived hundreds of years ago, I'd be dead by the time I reached my thirties and my Celiac Disease would never have been an issue...The fact that we're all here and alive (and complaining about wheat) even though our ancestors relied heavily on wheat is the biggest endorsement I can think of for wheat's overall safety and nutritional importance.

You are overlooking the fact that wheat is NOT THE SAME as it was only a few generations ago. That's my main point. I'm not suggesting that wheat has always been bad. Only that modern-day wheat is so genetically different than it used to be, that we are seeing effects which could not have happened before.

Can you give me an example of a country that doesn't rely heavily on wheat and that doesn't have any diseases plaguing its population?

I never said wheat caused all diseases, so let's not go off in the wrong direction here. However, the Chinese people are known for longevity and good health, and they traditionally rely on rice and beans, etc. Only in more modern times are "western type" diseases creeping into their population. Is it any coincidence that they have also been adopting more western world foods like wheat? I'm sure other foods/factors can be blamed for some things, but that just bolsters my argument against the American diet/lifestyle in general. We lead much of the world in poor health, but our drugs keep the ol' ticker going! YAY!

Then, what's your argument? If I'm allergic to cats, is there something intrinsically wrong with cats? That doesn't make any sense.

Exactly. But you stated that Celiac is not classified (to use your word) as an allergy, so I'm asking you what makes it different. In a previous post, you wrote:"Also, technically, an allergy is a disease. The body is not at ease when exposed to pollen or cat dander. It's not a deadly disease like lymphoma, but it's still a disease. You go to the doctors for treatment and everything. Also, I went to an allergist and got tested for a wheat allergy. It came back negative. Yet I test positive for Celiac. Why? Celiac isnt classified as an allergy. Gluten doesn't disturb the body in the same way that an allergen does.". So, if the immune system goes after something it should not in both cases, and causes damage, even if it's just a rash, to me that seems like a very similar thing. Both can cause a problem which can be eliminated by avoiding the offending substance. We may be talking about some technical classification thing, and I'm not arguing that. I'm just asking for your explanation of the difference.

There are tons of genetic diseases that are considered "treatable" or "curable." Yes, the sufferers still can pass these diseases onto their children...but then these children can be treated or cured as well by the same (or even more advanced) methods. Let's say that there is a "cure" for Celiac in our lifetimes. If I got the pill and cured myself and then had children, chances are those children might get Celiac too. The good news is, I'm aware of Celiac disease because of my experiences so I'm probably going to get my kids tested really early and if they test positive, they're getting the pill. Subsequently they'll enjoy even better health than I did. Sure you could argue that this is just a band-aid because we didn't actually do anything about the genetic component of this disease and my kids still got it...but that doesn't change the fact that my kids aren't even going to be as sick as I was and they'll get to go to their friends' birthday parties without me calling up the birthday boy's mother and interrogating her about what's in the cake. I don't see how that's not still a good thing.

Yes, a band-aid is a term that comes to mind. Treatable and curable are two different things. That's what I was saying, so I'm glad you acknowledged that. Furthermore, if we continue to accept the treatment as the solution, history suggests the problem is likely to only get worse. So while short-term it might be a good thing, long term it's not. Also, our treatments often come with a price which is only discovered far later. That's when it's not a good thing anymore.

No. Because while not every single smoker develops lung cancer, smoking also causes emphysema, asthma and a variety of other additional disorders.

Right again, and gluten is causing all sorts of diseases too!

...And it's not like "1 out of every 133 smokers comes down with lung cancer." The stats are a lot higher than that. And that's why cigarettes are considered more of a public health issue than gluten.

Yeah, and smoking was originally believed to have health benefits. There are people still today, even doctors, who insist smoking is somehow good for you! It seems unimaginable, but it's true. Check this out: Dr. William Campbell Douglass

x-rays were like a miracle until they discovered what happens later on. Then they go "oops...". I'm suggesting that the new hybrids of wheat, which have more added genes than were there to begin with, are a likely cause of much more suffering than is currently thought, even by the Celiac community. It takes a long time before stuff like this sinks in. Galileo was challenged on a veriety of things which would later turn out to be correct. Incidentally, he lived centuries ago, and to a "ripe old age" of 78. What a surprize! If we live so much longer today than back then, well...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest BERNESES

Getting back to the original question- yes, I would opt for a pill. I would not go back to eating mounds of gluten because clearly i wasn't meant to, but it would be nice to know that if I accidently ingested it, I wouldn't spend days sick. That's not really a "cure" though. Not sure about surgery or altering my genes in some way. Gene therapy is still so new that i'd be very hesitant!

I always thought that Celiac's was an autoimmune disorder. I've always thought of alcoholism as a disease (like depression, anxiety). It's interesting to look at the language surrounding these issues. My personal opinion has always been that disease is a relatively benign word- literally dis- ease or "not being at ease" but I have been taken out on that one by some people who I work with (academia) who think that we just want to pathologize everything and cure it.

Like with depression- there is no "cure" (and I wouldn't have brain surgery to cure it, but that's just me) but there is a way to control the symptoms and make it manageable. I certainly wouldn't deny myself my anti-depressants on the grounds that I was "meant to be depressed." Just my two cents for what it's worth. B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am doubtful of a cure, and probably wouldn't trust it either...esp after reading Dangerous Grains and other research/articles... However, I would love to eat corn again some day!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am doubtful of a cure, and probably wouldn't trust it either...esp after reading Dangerous Grains and other research/articles... However, I would love to eat corn again some day!

Oh wow! You can't eat corn?! I sympathize with you. There was a span of time for me awhile ago when I thought I couldn't eat corn, but I found out it was the Genetically Modified corn that I react to. What a relief that was, as I love corn. Right now, I have to be careful to avoid the ones labeled "extra sweet". I don't know if it's GM, but it seems to have the same effect. The cheap brands are really bad though. Those are the worst for me. When I have certified organic corn, there's no noticable problem.

Have you tried certified organic tortilla chips? If they are made in the traditional way, the corn is first soaked in lime, which apparently releases the niacin that would otherwise be unavailable. It's interesting that a common disorder of niacin deficiency is pellagra, the symptoms of which include dermatitis, diarrhea and dementia. Sound familiar? Perhaps niacin can help make corn more acceptable for the Celiac, but I don't know. In any case niacin is essential, and is also in wheat, but wheat doesn't require the lime to get it unbound. Many legumes are a good source of niacin too. It seems the body can also convert tryptophan into niacin, though I don't know if one could rely on that altogether.

Anyway, just thought I'd pass that along...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the ideas... I would say most of the corn products I've tried should be non GMO...any corn, corn meal, tortilla chips corn on cob, popcorn, all give me abdominal pain :( I can do small amounts from time to time, like tolerating some Lundberg rice chips that have some corn in them. I may try and experiment with a few brands/types...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm with BERNESES on this one! While I'm enjoying my healthier life-style (and the near 50 lbs I've lost from it) it would be worth it, even if I still couldn't eat gluten foods, not to be so paranoid about every little stinking crumb. And maybe, just maybe, a slice of real pizza once in while (whine) :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Chinese people are known for longevity and good health, and they traditionally rely on rice and beans, etc. Only in more modern times are "western type" diseases creeping into their population. Is it any coincidence that they have also been adopting more western world foods like wheat?

The Chinese have always had wheat and/or gluten in their diet: soy sauce, noodles, beer etc. Sure, they don't quite rock the wheat the way we westerners do but Celiac disease doesn't recognize quantity. Celiacs get sick whether we accidentally get some soy sauce in our foods or simply eat an entire pizza. The average Chinese person "glutens" himself just as often as a westerner. It's generally considered the case that Chinese are healthier than we are (and becoming less so due to Westernization) because of their tendency to eat less meat and more fish. They are also more active than we are and smoke less.

So even IF people are living longer, it doesn't negate the fact that modern methods of the beef industry, and the wide-spread use of aluminum salts are linked to the occurence of Alzeimers'.

Right, but aluminum salts are a relatively new additive to foods that science is starting to learn are dangerous. It's not a grain we've been using for thousands of years. I agree that new diseases are emerging in response to environmental/industrial contaminants...but wheat gluten isn't a recent innovation. It's been around and in our diets for thousands of years.

You are overlooking the fact that wheat is NOT THE SAME as it was only a few generations ago. That's my main point. I'm not suggesting that wheat has always been bad. Only that modern-day wheat is so genetically different than it used to be, that we are seeing effects which could not have happened before.

That doesn’t really make sense from a Darwinian/Agricultural point of view. Okay, we’re a wheat-based society. But the decision to “go wheat” wasn’t about some person in charge going, “okay, y’all, everyone in this civilization is going to grow and eat wheat!” Wheat became prevalent because it made MOST of the people who ate it strong and healthy enough to survive, prosper and reproduce.

Let’s say you are a farmer and your farm produces a grain that is really unhealthy and goes rancid fast. Your family is going to eat at lot of this grain because you’re living off the land and eventually most of you are going to get sick and there are going to be less of you getting up everyday and tending the fields. Those of you who aren’t too sick to work are going to be weak and your overall output isn’t going to be very high. A lot of the farmer’s wives and daughters who are eating that grain are going to be infertile and with each generation there are going to be less and less of you around to tend the farm and that is going to diminish your crop output even further. Eventually your farm is going to go to seed (and the people who live around you and are buying and eating your grain aren’t going to be doing so hot either) and inevitably, that bad grain will no longer be distributed and eaten and thus will disappear altogether. Meanwhile, farmers who are growing good grain are strong, healthy, fertile and, as a result, distributing lots of that grain to everyone around them (who in turn also become healthy, strong and fertile, create an economically prosperous society and so on and so forth). The problem I have with Dangerous Grains is that it doesn’t take this aforementioned “natural selection” into account when it claims that 10,000 years or so ago we all started to eat this new bad strain of wheat. If this grain we all started eating back then was so bad, how come we all survived long enough to keep eating it…even today?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd just like to add a comment to the off-topic discussion. Traditional cultures always soaked or fermented their grains before eating them. (And of course, their grains were not hybridized.) Think sourdough bread, etc. This is something that was lost in most of Western civilization in the mid-19th/early 20th century. Would be interesting to know if Celiac would be as big an issue if all grains were soaked or fermented for 24 hours before eating. I'm not advocating this as a cure, but I think that losing this tradition for the sake of convenience has had some effect on our health.

Oh, and I would love a pill for those occasional times I accidentally get glutened, especially while eating out.

Liz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest BERNESES

Liz- Now that's interesting! I wonder how soaking or fermenting the grain affects it in terms of gluten (not that I'm going to try it!). Hmmm...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liz- Now that's interesting! I wonder how soaking or fermenting the grain affects it in terms of gluten (not that I'm going to try it!). Hmmm...

Of course, I can't remember exactly what it does to to the grain. The book, "Nourishing Traditions" by Sally Fallon explains it. It's something to do with the digestibility. (If I wasn't still suffering from brain fog from being glutened yesterday I'd go look it up.) I wouldn't try it either, but it's also interesting to note that rice doesn't need to be soaked. Beans are the other things that should be soaked for 24 hours - not quick soaked and cooked right away. Soy is supposedly easier to digest when it's fermented too. Makes me wonder what the world would be like if we weren't in such a hurry all the time and had plenty of time to prepare our food in traditional ways.

Liz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they come up with a pill or something I would not take it. The only thing I would find it to be good for is if you accidentally get glutened. I would not however just take something to give me the right to eat gluten. I am not for meds...they always have side effects. Now, I am all for them when needed but to be on something for life...the diet is much better for me anyway and I can have alot of good food.

Btw...I found glutenzymes.....now this does not give the right to eat gluten...I just take them before I go out to a public place because I have had reactions with breathing in stuff and it has helped.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest BERNESES

Kaiti- What are glutenzymes? It would be good to know in case of accidents. Thanks, B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would absolutely take a pill for the times when I want a bagel, or a slice of pizza. Sort of like taking Lactaid before consuming dairy. I don't think I would go back to my old eating habits, but being able to indulge every once in a while would be great.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a good point Carrie. And to be honest, I know several people, including myself who have lactose intolerance and use Lactaid. But none of them use it regularly, but only when they have to. They have it just in case, but won't use it just so they can eat ice cream or whatever. It's more something they use so that if they go out to eat or to someone's house, they won't get sick from something.

So I think that that might be an indicator that most of us with gluten problems probably wouldn't use a gluten pill very often either. I wonder if maybe once your body knows how sick you get from something, and you detox from it, your desire to have it on a regular basis goes way down.

Hmmm....

Nancy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, being vegetarian and gluten-free I would definitely love to have a cure for celiac. I don't feel as if my diet is healthier at all! I ate healthy before. I could eat whole wheat bread(haven't read the book "dangerous grains), but I think the reason we as Americans have problems is from eating processed junk! I didn't do that before, hardly at all. I miss alot of what I consider to be very healthy foods that had gluten in them. Homemade 100%whole wheat bread.

I also greatly miss being able to go out to eat and eat normal. When you don't eat meat either, it is hard. I have really had a hard time trying to find enough fiber and enough healthy food for that matter. I find I don't want to cook a vegetable meal, when I can't have my old meat substitutes.

Yes, this diet may be healthier then being able to eat fastfood, but white rice bread is not all that healthy for you.

I would LOVE for a cure or a pill(one that didn't have side effects of course,who wants to feel worse!).

MOnica

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Celiac.com Sponsor:

  • Forum Discussions

    Hi!   Sorry no one had your exact symptoms.  Do you have celiac disease?  Celiac disease is an autoimmune disease that attacks the small intestine.  Once destroyed digesting foods can be difficult because enzymes can not be released, et...
    Sorry, but I am not familiar with those tests.  They are not standard for celiac disease testing which does require you to be on a full gluten diet months before a blood draw or weeks before an endoscopy.   Your symptoms could be celiac di...
    Did you have any positives on the celiac blood tests?  Small intestinal damage can be spotty since it is larger than the size of a tennis court!   If you went on an elimination diet, you probably avoided foods that you had intolerances t...
×
×
  • Create New...