Jump to content
  • Sign Up

Archived

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

HawkFire

Pork Digestive Systems Of Pigs... Does It Remove Gluten?

Recommended Posts

Whether or not you believe the outside condition of the animal to be clean, doesn't change the digestive system of the animal. It is true that the food is not digested well enough. It is true that the flesh of the animal contains many toxins and parasites. This is due to the digestive system of the animal. That is real. We all know that these food animals are not kept in pristine nor even clean environments. we do not pamper that which we intend to kill and consume. It is a mass marketing money making business. If you visited a single organic farm, you are not getting a picture of what the living conditions are of the meat from your supermarket. knowing the digestive system of a pig, it is safe to assume, the flesh is contaminated by bacteria, antibiotics, parasites and more..most likely even feces and worse. The pig does have a pus canal of sorts that runs down it's feet despite the claims of th eother poster. It is a sweat gland that also releases pus into the ground on which the pig walks and feeds. So, it is safe to assume that the pig is feeding off of it's own pus as well as it's own feces.

Pigs have been used for decades in our own country to clean sewage, garbage and animal feces from the streeets of large cities at the turn of the century. It was a wildly popular and economical choice for mass cleanups of industiralized growing city streets in New York city and Philidelphia to name a few. This animal was not meant for consumption. It was meant as an environmental cleaning machine. If raised in a pen for later slaughter, you will not find it's instincts suddenly changed. The nature of the animal is to consume never finding satisfaction in it's appitite. It will eat forever adn it's stomach accomodates this neverending need to eat (whatever is laying there) by dumping the food rapidly into it's system. That is why the flesh is contaminiated. It is natureal for this to occur. Maybe it is best not to eat the meat.

The question I have remains desptie the poster who objected to it. Does the protein gluten remain in the flesh of an animal that has a digestive system that pushes the food out rapidly? If bacteria, viruses, antibiotics, and parasites can enter the flesh from a poor digestive system, can a protein? I don't think that's an impossiblity. Has it been looked into? Probably not.

Oh, and I feel the need to put this thought in as well, I am not against the pig as a beautiful animal of the earth. I love all creatures and embrace their existence on our planet. I only wonder if it is safe to eat from a gluten perspective and what I have learned of the digestive system makes me never want to consume it's flesh again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The question I have remains desptie the poster who objected to it. Does the protein gluten remain in the flesh of an animal that has a digestive system that pushes the food out rapidly? If bacteria, viruses, antibiotics, and parasites can enter the flesh from a poor digestive system, can a protein? I don't think that's an impossiblity. Has it been looked into? Probably not.

Oh, and I feel the need to put this thought in as well, I am not against the pig as a beautiful animal of the earth. I love all creatures and embrace their existence on our planet. I only wonder if it is safe to eat from a gluten perspective and what I have learned of the digestive system makes me never want to consume it's flesh again.

IMHO, the links and information posted seem to be of questionable validity and do nothing more than to instill fear about eating pork. As mentioned by other posters, pigs are actually quite clean animals (and do not have pus glands in their legs)...I have no reason to believe pork is unhealthy to eat. AFAIK (and as mentioned earlier) gluten is not found in the meat of any animal.

Michelle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IMHO, the links and information posted seem to be of questionable validity and do nothing more than to instill fear about eating pork. As mentioned by other posters, pigs are actually quite clean animals (and do not have pus glands in their legs)...I have no reason to believe pork is unhealthy to eat. AFAIK (and as mentioned earlier) gluten is not found in the meat of any animal.

Michelle

http://www.mercola.com/2001/apr/11/pork.htm

If by "questionable" you mean they came from religious sites, then you're just being predjudiced. You can't dispute the biology of the pigs digestive system or that due to it's digestive system, and because of it's digestive system, it releases more poisons into it's flesh. That's not something you can dispute. Your problem with the whole question is personal, at best. You are offended on behalf of the pig. You cna't dismiss the known digestive system of the animal, what it was used for (a street cleaner) and ignore the fact tht more waste si found in it's *edible* flesh due to it's digestive system.

I know that the likelihood of the flesh being tested for a protein is very slim. But I don't know how small bacteria, viruses, and pesticides are in relation to a protein... so I was wondering if gluten could also be pushed into the flesh as a result of it's digestive system.

Declaring all meats free from gluten doesn't make sense if no one's considered testing the flesh of an animal with a digestive system that prematurely forces the food into storage creating a situation where toxins are then imbedded in the flesh. Why are y ou so adament that no protein (gluten) can possibley be in t he flesh if no test has been done on this animal with a specific digestive system unsimilar to a cow etc.?

Please stop feeling the need to defend the pig as "clean". It has nothing to do wtih the familiar image of a pig laying about in mud. Missing the point after this is just beligerance.

I am editing.. I believe it is safe to assume no tests have been done to see if a pigs digestive system, forces along proteins into the flesh along with bacteria and viruses. Ok. I would say, it remains unproven that th eflesh of a pig is safe to consume due to the FACTS on how a pig digests food. I'm sure that pigs are being fed enormous amounts of gluten grains as they are cheap standard feed for livestock. Lots of corn too, but surely an unnatural amount of gluten grains as well. I am not eating it for oter reasons AS WELL as this concern over gluten remaining in the flesh. and there is too a sweat canal that runs down the back of the back legs adn it is true that it is also a conduit for the release of additonal toxins as well as PUS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You can't dispute the biology of the pigs digestive system or that due to it's digestive system, and because of it's digestive system, it releases more poisons into it's flesh.

I have seen nothing in the links that shows me how the pigs digestive system is so flawed that it allows toxins into its flesh - in ALL animals - fat is where most toxins concentrate / lead goes to the bone marrow. The pig has the same digestive tract we do - cross sections of the small intestine are like ours. If the pig has so many toxins - how does it stay alive and reproduce? - an animal with all these toxins would be rendered infertile.

it remains unproven that th eflesh of a pig is safe to consume due to the FACTS on how a pig digests food. I'm sure that pigs are being fed enormous amounts of gluten grains as they are cheap standard feed for livestock. Lots of corn too, but surely an unnatural amount of gluten grains as well. I am not eating it for oter reasons AS WELL as this concern over gluten remaining in the flesh. and there is too a sweat canal that runs down the back of the back legs adn it is true that it is also a conduit for the release of additonal toxins as well as PUS.

You are now being beligerant - I could show you anatomy books, and/or an actual post mortem - and there is no pus canal - but I bet you would still believe there is some pus canal down the leg, and there is cover up by vets. I can prove my facts - WHERE can you show me in a book or a site - the location of the canal. I have been involved iwth vet medicine for 20 years - THERE IS NO PUS CANAL

You never even addressed the fact that any animal can have a long list pf parasites, zoonotic diseases OTHER THAN PIGS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
http://www.mercola.com/2001/apr/11/pork.htm

If by "questionable" you mean they came from religious sites, then you're just being predjudiced. You can't dispute the biology of the pigs digestive system or that due to it's digestive system, and because of it's digestive system, it releases more poisons into it's flesh. That's not something you can dispute. Your problem with the whole question is personal, at best. You are offended on behalf of the pig. You cna't dismiss the known digestive system of the animal, what it was used for (a street cleaner) and ignore the fact tht more waste si found in it's *edible* flesh due to it's digestive system.

I know that the likelihood of the flesh being tested for a protein is very slim. But I don't know how small bacteria, viruses, and pesticides are in relation to a protein... so I was wondering if gluten could also be pushed into the flesh as a result of it's digestive system.

Declaring all meats free from gluten doesn't make sense if no one's considered testing the flesh of an animal with a digestive system that prematurely forces the food into storage creating a situation where toxins are then imbedded in the flesh. Why are y ou so adament that no protein (gluten) can possibley be in t he flesh if no test has been done on this animal with a specific digestive system unsimilar to a cow etc.?

Please stop feeling the need to defend the pig as "clean". It has nothing to do wtih the familiar image of a pig laying about in mud. Missing the point after this is just beligerance.

I am editing.. I believe it is safe to assume no tests have been done to see if a pigs digestive system, forces along proteins into the flesh along with bacteria and viruses. Ok. I would say, it remains unproven that th eflesh of a pig is safe to consume due to the FACTS on how a pig digests food. I'm sure that pigs are being fed enormous amounts of gluten grains as they are cheap standard feed for livestock. Lots of corn too, but surely an unnatural amount of gluten grains as well. I am not eating it for oter reasons AS WELL as this concern over gluten remaining in the flesh. and there is too a sweat canal that runs down the back of the back legs adn it is true that it is also a conduit for the release of additonal toxins as well as PUS.

I say that the information is questionable, because it is not based in scientific fact...and I have not been able to find scientific data to back the claims. It really is a matter of taking what you read with a grain of salt...doesn't matter if it is posted on the internet, and article in the newspaper or written about in a book...just because something has been written down does not mean it is true. I also don't believe everything that Dr. Mercola writes...and am not fond of websites that want you to give up your email address just to read their articles.

There is validity in choosing the source of your meat...perhaps buying from an organic farm is a better choice to avoid meat that has been vaccinated, fed antibiotics, treated inhumanely and less cleanly, etc. There is also validity in choosing not to eat meat. Posting fear-mongering information doesn't help though.

A pig is clean, because it doesn't s*!t where it eats. If it is eating its waste, then there is an issue with the human beings who are taking care of that pig. Again, you can choose to buy from a conscientious producer, or choose not to eat it at all.

Finally, it makes no sense to me that there would be gluten in the meat of a pig anymore than it would be in the meat of a cow.

Michelle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also find no concrete evidence in those articles. It is personal choice. Like the above posters, the pig is very clean and has a digestive tract similiar to ours. Those articles are out there putting more fear and confusion into our brains. I eat pork still, it may not be everyday but it is frequent enough. I have no problems at all.

If you choose not to eat it that is your business, but there are alot of people who are newly diagnosed coming to this site. If they read an article like that which may or may not be completely factual they may get the wrong idea. There is nothing worse than finding out you have to rearrange your whole life so you can feel better. You come here for support and are then seeing things that make yourself uneasy abotu your choice in meat.

I am sorry, but I do not buy those articles, I too have studied animals and there are no pus canals in their legs. We have a fellow poster here who is married to a vet/studied vetrinary for many years and who knows what he/she is talking about. I believe her 100%, she is very credible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

my scientific /biological/anatomical explanation for the misconception that pigs have sewer canal in the leg:

for any interested readers.

The carpal organ of adult female wild swine is a sweat-type gland which secretes an odorous substance. The gland consists of 5 -7 lobes, each made up of lobules with convoluted glandular tubules. The gland secretion is transported in large excretory canals which empty from 5 to 7 clearly visible pores. An ultrastructural examination showed that the glandular tubules are made up of single-layered epithelium with different types of cells. One type, with rather electron-dense cytoplasm, is secretory cells full of granular material which empties into the tubule lumen. A second cell type has a glycogen-rich, transparent cytoplasm. Its role appears to be secreting a watery, electrolyte-containing liquid. In the intermediate zone of the tubules, there is a third type of cell with transparent cytoplasm. Its ultrastructural characteristics seem to indicate that its function is to reabsorb the excess watery component. In the wall of the glandular tubules, outside the epithelium, there are myoepithelial cells which facilitate the movement of the secretions toward the collector canal.

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/1...64.1999.00155.x

my husband helped me solve the mystery - the "pus canal" to which the bible refers - is actually a gland of female pigs. Has nothing to do with getting rid of toxins /pus as our ancestors may have believed. The article above has lots of scientific jargon.

ITS GLANDS! Located near the feet (thus the term carpal gland) that empties into a canal - which is then seccreted to the outside. Since it is only in females - it is a scent given off to attract the boys/provide a scent for her babies to follow. Since it is glycogen rich and secretory - it would be whitish / thick (resembling pus but it is NOT PUS). It is located on the feet becasue they travel and thus they can leave scent trail for the boys or the baby pigs to follow to find the female

Similar to the glands cats have in their feet and cheeks - they rub against you to mark you, they claw furniture to leave the scent and sharpen claws

It is not sewer pipe.

Sandy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, Sandy, very informative. It is good to know the facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're welcome! :)

It all made sense when dh said - maybe they are talking about the glands... and it went from there.

In biblical times - they would have seen this odorous substance coming from the leg and assumed it was pus or something vile.

Kind of like anal sacs/glands in dogs.. for those of you with dogs - if you have ever had the sacs expressed or your dog expressed them on his/her own when frightened - you know the smell :o

Anyone wanting little known details about domestic creatures, I will try and answer it for you.

:)

Sandy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dr. Mercola's website is has some good information but is also full of speculation and his unproven opinions. There is without question good information there, but he often takes that info and then makes huge jumps in logic. The information he has about pigs is pretty much along the lines of, "A pig can carry this disease or bacteria so in my opinion you shouldn't eat them." One of the diseases he talks about is absolutely proven to have no effect whatsoever on humans but he still uses it as a reason to avoid pigs. If you were to avoid everything that Mercola thinks might be doing us harm you'd have spend every waking minute of your life worrying about what you're doing, eating, drinking and breathing.

We now know from Sandy that the pig absolutely does not have a "canal" that secretes "pus."

I can't say whether or not anybody has ever tested pork for gluten (I also don't know whether anybody's ever tested apples, celery, peanuts, or rubarb) but animal experts and veterinarians at the large university where I work tell me there's just no way this could happen. The protein would not make its way into the meat. I know people with celiac who eat pork and who are perfectly healthy and have negative celiac blood tests. I eat pork with absolutely no reaction (in fact, I make an excellent smoked pulled pork). And no celiac expert in the world lists plain pork as a potential gluten threat. The CSA has warned us about many things over the years that were not a threat, so you can bet they would have warned us about pork if there were even a hint it might have gluten. All that tells me that pork is perfectly safe from a gluten standpoint.

I have nothing against anybody's religion and nothing against dietary restrictions based on religion. I certainly don't object if you don't want to eat pork or shrimp or whatever because you think the animal is unclean. I don't object if you decide not to eat something because you're afraid it MIGHT have gluten, even when all the evidence says it doesn't. And I don't object if somebody who's worried and just doesn't know asks a question like, can gluten in animal feed make its way into the meat we eat. Heck, I've seen people ask if tap water has gluten (it doesn't).

I DO object, however, when idle speculation based on nothing scientific whatsoever is presented in a way that might cause folks who are new to this to worry needlessly.

richard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good questions, I hope I found the answers

re: other animals with gluten issues - I have only ever found literature about celiac in the Irish Setter, but several owners have reported animals with gastrointestinal symptoms and rashes clear up with gluten free pet food. Food allergies in pets are common indeed - wheat, egg, dairy top the list.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.f...p;dopt=Abstract

This paper underlines the need of developing animal models to study the diverse complications of celiac disease (celiac disease). celiac disease is a multifactorial condition requiring both an exogenous element (gluten) and complex genetic factors; moreover, celiac disease is associated to several endocrine, immune and reproductive diseases, whose onset may be influenced by other environmental factors as well.

In particular, the intestinal absorption of exogenous factors may be important for the outcome of celiac disease as well as of the associated diabetes and/or thyroiditis.

Presently, there are no adequate animal models for the systemic complications of celiac disease; in particular, there are no gene knock-out models. However, models are available as regards either gluten enteropathy, such as Irish Setter and Balb/c e BDF1 mouse strains, and endocrine-immune diseases associated with celiac disease, such as BB rats and NOD mice.

NOD mice - non-obese diabetic

BB (BioBreeding) rat is one of the best models of spontaneous autoimmune diabetes and is used to study non-MHC loci contributing to Type 1 diabetes.

Regarding DH, it is the antibodies to gluten that cause the rash:

http://www.emedicine.com/DERM/topic95.htm#section~clinical

Dermatitis herpetiformis has recently been proposed as a cutaneous manifestation of asymptomatic-to-mild celiac disease. The genetic predisposition to the development of gluten sensitivity underlies the disease.

The criterion standard for the diagnosis of DH remains the presence of granular deposits of IgA in normal-appearing perilesional skin.

Patients with bullous pemphigoid, cicatricial pemphigoid, Henoch-Schanlein purpura, and alcoholic liver disease also may have IgA deposits in normal skin; however, the pattern of IgA deposits is different from that seen in patients with DH.

Biopsy specimens of lesional skin reveal neutrophils in the dermal papillae, with fibrin deposition, neutrophil fragments, and edema. Eosinophils may be present. Papillary microabscesses form and progress to subepidermal vacuolization and vesicle formation. Vesicles form in the lamina lucida, the weakest portion of the dermoepidermal junction

another site on skin reactions to food allergies in general:

http://www.pslgroup.com/dg/5fcaa.htm

skin reactions linked to food allergies

Sandy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do they even feed pigs wheat? Usually they feed cattle corn. There was an expierment done where they fed cows either corn or wheat and the ones on wheat got really sick. Even corn is pretty unnatural to cows. I've heard that it causes their gut to get unnaturally acidic. If they weren't being fed antibiotics they'd all die from gastrointestinal diseases before they could be slaughtered. In fact, that new, very dangerous variety of E. Coli probably is a result of the feedlots, it survives the very acidic stomach whereas older E. Coli wouldn't.

Well, whatever sort of meat you eat, protein has to be broken down into peptides and then amino acids before it can be used to build muscles and used by the body. So I don't think there's any chance that you're getting gluten when you eat pork.

Poor piggies, they get such a bad rap. Of course, it could be due to the Pig Ministery of Information trying to convince people not to eat them!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do they even feed pigs wheat? Usually they feed cattle corn. There was an expierment done where they fed cows either corn or wheat and the ones on wheat got really sick. Even corn is pretty unnatural to cows. I've heard that it causes their gut to get unnaturally acidic. If they weren't being fed antibiotics they'd all die from gastrointestinal diseases before they could be slaughtered. In fact, that new, very dangerous variety of E. Coli probably is a result of the feedlots, it survives the very acidic stomach whereas older E. Coli wouldn't.

Cows can easily get sick/die from the wrong feed. There was an incident just last year where a cattle farm went into receivership (due to the whole mad cow thing) and the agency responsible did not use the correct feed mix...quickly lost a lot of cattle.

Michelle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cattle by their nature were intended to forage and eat grasses and legumes.

I found some information and it was interesting as you will note that the first site I quote - says corn is superior. Yet information form the second contradicts that. From experience - grains cause bloat issues. Grass fed beef in this area need supplemental magnesium and selenium or they suffer from "grass tetany" in the spring (hypomagnesium). Early lush growth of grass in the spring has very little nutrition.

The links make for interesting "food for thought" , read it and see what you think.

In 1906, a chemist from the University of Michigan, Edwin B. Hart, was hired by Babcock. Hart previously had worked at the New York State Agricultural Experiment Station, and had studied physiological chemistry under Albrecht Kossel in Germany. Both worked with George C. Humphrey, who replaced Carlyle as animal husbandry professor, to plan a long-term feeding plan using a chemically-balanced diet of carbohydrates, fat, and protein instead of single plant rations as done in Babcock's earlier experiments. The "single-grain experiment" was thus born in 1907.

The experiment

From May 1907 to 1911, the experiment was carried out with Hart as director, Babcock providing the ideas, and Humphrey overseeing the welfare of the cows during the experiment. Edwin V. McCollum, an organic chemist from Connecticut, was hired by Hart to analyze the grain rations and the cow feces. The experiment called for four groups of four heifers each during which three groups were raised and two pregnancies were carried through during the experiment. The first group ate only wheat, the second group ate only bran, the third group ate only corn, and the last group ate a mixture of the other three.

In 1908, it was shown that the corn-fed animals were the most healthy of the group while the wheat-fed groups were the least healthy. All four groups bred during that year with the corn-fed calves being the healthiest while the wheat and mixed-fed calves were stillborn or later died. Similar results were found in 1909. In 1910, the corn-fed cows had their diets switched to wheat and the non-corn-fed cows were fed corn. This produced unhealthy calves for the formerly corn-fed cows while the remaining cows produced healthy calves. When the 1909 formulas were reintroduced to the respective cows in 1911, the same gestation results in 1909 occured again in 1911. These results were published in 1911. Similar results had been done in the Dutch East Indies (now Indonesia) in 1901, in Poland 1910, and in England in 1906 (though the English results were not published until 1912).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-grain_experiment

Yet, years later we now find this:

A corn diet can also give a cow acidosis. Unlike that in our own highly acidic stomachs, the normal pH of a rumen is neutral. Corn makes it unnaturally acidic, however, causing a kind of bovine heartburn, which in some cases can kill the animal but usually just makes it sick. Acidotic animals go off their feed, pant and salivate excessively, paw at their bellies and eat dirt. The condition can lead to diarrhea, ulcers, bloat, liver disease and a general weakening of the immune system that leaves the animal vulnerable to everything from pneumonia to feedlot polio." **

As well, it is the commercial meat industry's practice of keeping cattle in feedlots and feeding them grain that is responsible for the heightened prevalence of E. coli 0157:H7 bacteria. When cattle are grainfed, their intestinal tracts become far more acidic, which favors the growth of pathogenic E. coli bacteria, which in turn kills people who eat undercooked hamburger.

Grass-fed beef not only is lower in overall fat and in saturated fat, but it has the added advantage of providing more omega-3 fats. These crucial healthy fats are most plentiful in flaxseeds and fish, and are also found in walnuts, soybeans and in meat from animals that have grazed on omega-3 rich grass. When cattle are taken off grass, though, and shipped to a feedlot to be fattened on grain, they immediately begin losing the omega-3s they have stored in their tissues. As a consequence, the meat from feedlot animals typically contains only 15- 50 percent as much omega-3s as that from grass-fed livestock.

This is certainly an advantage for grass-fed beef, but it comes with a cost. The higher omega-3 levels and other differences in fatty acid composition contributes to flavors and odors in grass-fed meat that most people find undesirable.

Just as organic does not mean grass-fed, grass-fed does not mean organic. Pastured animals sometimes graze on land that has been treated with synthetic fertilizers and even doused with herbicides. Unless the meat label specifically says it is both grass-fed and organic, it isn't.

http://www.foodrevolution.org/grassfedbeef.htm

**Polio in cattle: polioencephalomalacia / usually caused by a thiamin (Vitamin B1) deficiency. Has been seen in animals under drought conditions drinking water high in sulfates. Symptoms: lethargy, anorexia, blindness, muscle tremor, exaggerated response to sound or touch, and incoordination, progressing to staggering, weakness, and eventually convulsions and inability to get up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thank you for the links--very informative.

They don't, however either confirm or rule out whether gluten itself is present in our skin.

I bet nobody's ever looked for it before.

I believe when they test for DH they look for IgA in the skin, so I can only deduce that it's not the gluten, but the antibodies that are found in the skin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
http://www.mercola.com/2001/apr/11/pork.htm

If by "questionable" you mean they came from religious sites, then you're just being predjudiced. You can't dispute the biology of the pigs digestive system or that due to it's digestive system, and because of it's digestive system, it releases more poisons into it's flesh. That's not something you can dispute. Your problem with the whole question is personal, at best. You are offended on behalf of the pig. You cna't dismiss the known digestive system of the animal, what it was used for (a street cleaner) and ignore the fact tht more waste si found in it's *edible* flesh due to it's digestive system.

I know that the likelihood of the flesh being tested for a protein is very slim. But I don't know how small bacteria, viruses, and pesticides are in relation to a protein... so I was wondering if gluten could also be pushed into the flesh as a result of it's digestive system.

Declaring all meats free from gluten doesn't make sense if no one's considered testing the flesh of an animal with a digestive system that prematurely forces the food into storage creating a situation where toxins are then imbedded in the flesh. Why are y ou so adament that no protein (gluten) can possibley be in t he flesh if no test has been done on this animal with a specific digestive system unsimilar to a cow etc.?

Please stop feeling the need to defend the pig as "clean". It has nothing to do wtih the familiar image of a pig laying about in mud. Missing the point after this is just beligerance.

I am editing.. I believe it is safe to assume no tests have been done to see if a pigs digestive system, forces along proteins into the flesh along with bacteria and viruses. Ok. I would say, it remains unproven that th eflesh of a pig is safe to consume due to the FACTS on how a pig digests food. I'm sure that pigs are being fed enormous amounts of gluten grains as they are cheap standard feed for livestock. Lots of corn too, but surely an unnatural amount of gluten grains as well. I am not eating it for oter reasons AS WELL as this concern over gluten remaining in the flesh. and there is too a sweat canal that runs down the back of the back legs adn it is true that it is also a conduit for the release of additonal toxins as well as PUS.

forcing "food" through the digestive system does not force toxins into the flesh....if anything it would do the opposite because there isnt enough time for absorption...also...many of these "toxins" are too large a molecule to be absorbed through the intestinal lining. it would be the same as if a human took a laxitive to speed up the digestion process....a laxitive doesnt force toxins into the skin!!! again, it does the opposite and does not allow for proper absorption which is why one needs to replenish fluids when they have diahrea!! furthermore...if you have children...or even if you dont...you yourself have had feces, dirt, urine...and worse in your own mouth at one point. if you are so concerned w/ pork...avoid it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I believe when they test for DH they look for IgA in the skin, so I can only deduce that it's not the gluten, but the antibodies that are found in the skin.

You are absolutely correct--that is what they look for. However, I don't trust "them" any further than I can throw the bathtub; I don't think "they" know what the heck they are doing. So for all we know, gluten itself might be present in our skin, but "they" have never bothered to look. There's an awful lot of things "they" have never bothered to look for!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are absolutely correct--that is what they look for. However, I don't trust "them" any further than I can throw the bathtub; I don't think "they" know what the heck they are doing. So for all we know, gluten itself might be present in our skin, but "they" have never bothered to look. There's an awful lot of things "they" have never bothered to look for!

True ... very true ... I'll cut myself off before I even get started ranting about that one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey guys--Hawkfire raised some interesting issues and some legitimate questions. While I do think that 2kids4me provided an enormous amount of concrete information that answers almost every question, I do NOT think that anybody ought to be bashing Hawkfire. There is a difference between treating someone with kindness and respect--even if you don't agree with his or her views--and smashing them down and being gleeful about doing so.

Some of you are treating her exactly the same way the doctors who don't believe gluten is a problem have treated most of us. Cut it out. :ph34r:

It is possible to disagree without being nasty about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...