Fingerprints And Celiac Disease/gluten Intolerance

[caek-is-a-lie]

the only thing that makes me feel worse than folks who have been failed by the system -- is people who have been failed by the system and turn to pseudoscience.

Ummm...I believe the link to the scientific paper that I provided was real science, not pseudoscience. I think there would be a few ticked off PhD's if they heard you calling their legitimate work 'pseudoscience.' I also believe their conclusion was that the fingerprints can be used in conjunction with other methods to accurately assess the improvement of Celiacs on a gluten-free diet. They did, after all, provide proof that Celiac fingerprints return to normal over time on a gluten-free diet. And the intermediate photos showed a lot more horizontal white lines than the fully recovered picture in the same patient.

[Jestgar]

Ummm...I believe the link to the scientific paper that I provided was real science, not pseudoscience.

The paper you referenced is almost 40 years old. It may have been accurate for it's time, but science has advanced quite a bit. Have you seen anything from the last 5 years or so?

Here's one from 1974 that discounts that paper, and cites others that have also discounted that paper.

Open Original Shared Link

[caek-is-a-lie]

The paper you referenced is almost 40 years old. It may have been accurate for it's time, but science has advanced quite a bit. Have you seen anything from the last 5 years or so?

Open Original Shared Link

Open Original Shared Link

Both support using fingerprints as a diagnostic clue in Celiac patients.

Plus I found 7 additional papers from the 1970's that discovered the same thing as the newer studies. That was just one basic PubMed search that took me 10 seconds. I believe the scientific method was the same then as it is now, and journal submissions were still pier-reviewed, so I don't see how "old" science is any worse than "new" science, especially since so many "old" papers are still referenced in newer publications all the time, and 9 different labs came to the same conclusions. If their methods were sound and their work is repeatable, why would the year it was discovered make such a huge difference? I wasn't aware that scientific discoveries expired after 10 or 20 years, but believe what you like. I just hope people don't say that about my work in 30 years just because of the date of publication.

[Jestgar]

I believe the scientific method was the same then as it is now, and journal submissions were still pier-reviewed, so I don't see how "old" science is any worse than "new" science, especially since so many "old" papers are still referenced in newer publications all the time, and 9 different labs came to the same conclusions.

Not "old", just may not be as complete, since newer methods are available for testing.

The papers you referenced actually addressed patterns, not lines, and stated that they were neither sensitive, nor specific.

Due to its low sensitivity (55.6%) and specificity (69.4%) considering the presence of four or more whorls, it is not useful as a screening or as a method itself, for the diagnosis of celiac disease.

[caek-is-a-lie]

Look, I posted the original article because the YouTube video was gone and some of us wanted to know what the white lines look like. It helps us all know if we're talking about the same thing or not. I'm not saying this is how you diagnose Celiac. Of course not. Sure there's a good debate here about how valid the results are, although I doubt this thread is the best place to do that, but please understand why I posted this 'old' article. It had good pictures in it about the topic of this thread. That's all. It's not pseudoscience and I don't think its age made those references any less valid for the conversation. It sure was an interesting thread to begin with but it seems to have digressed quite a bit.

[Jestgar]

OK. I'm just being cantankerous. I personally don't think there's any validity to it, but that doesn't mean it isn't fun to talk about. I'll just shut up.

[Puddy]

Look, I posted the original article because the YouTube video was gone and some of us wanted to know what the white lines look like. It helps us all know if we're talking about the same thing or not. I'm not saying this is how you diagnose Celiac. Of course not. Sure there's a good debate here about how valid the results are, although I doubt this thread is the best place to do that, but please understand why I posted this 'old' article. It had good pictures in it about the topic of this thread. That's all. It's not pseudoscience and I don't think its age made those references any less valid for the conversation. It sure was an interesting thread to begin with but it seems to have digressed quite a bit.

Just as an aside......the YouTube video is still up and I watched it about 20 minutes ago.

[gfb1]

OK. I'm just being cantankerous.

heh, heh... me too, i suppose...

jeez... i go away for a day or two and i'm much more relaxed..

anyway. i concur with jestgar. there is NO validity to fingerprints, little white lines, the assorted diets that have been mentioned (except, of course, for the gluten-free diet...).

while the aforementioned articles are NOT pseudoscience (though the diets certainly are); several, as i pointed out in earlier posts, are bad science.

but, if it floats your boat....

btw... being ticked off is a normal state of affairs for Ph.D.'s. anybody who participates in a profession where they are only successful 6-10% of the time (grants and peer-reviewed papers) spends a lot of time being cranky.

[caleonard]

I just joined this forum and already I am very disappointed with it. There seem to be a few members that have a lot of negativity towards differing ideas and opinions.

I have followed the Blood Type diet (BTD) and now the Genotype diet (GTD), and along the way discovered that I am non-celiac gluten-sensitive. So the Genotype diet for me really fits with what I need to eat to be healthy. I also wanted to understand these diets better as I won't just blindly follow the latest diet craze. So I have read a lot of the scientific articles behind the BTD and GTD and I don't see any indication of "pseudoscience," rather I see a lot of thoughtful and insightful research and then a ground-breaking interpretation of that research. New ideas are often met with scorn because it means you have to really think about them and look into them to understand them or accept them and that takes a lot of work and time, which many of us would just rather not give, but that is okay.

I'm not saying everyone has to accept a new concept or that they must do research about it. However if that new concept has really helped someone and worked for them, who are you to tell them they are mistaken? I would not be where I am today without following the BTD/GTD and no one has the right to tell me otherwise.

I am distressed that some people on this board are using the term "pseudoscience" as a way to put down something with which they don't agree. I also really object to calling someone a "quack." Just because you haven't done the work of looking at that person's research, doesn't mean you can be rude about it. Lots of people do research into many different areas. Is it okay to call someone a "quack" just because you disagree with them? I don't see a lot of facts behind these negative statements, only emotions.

Please keep the terms "quack" and "pseudoscience" out of these conversations. Those terms are basically negative emotional reactions to something you don't agree with and are very disturbing to me. You can disagree with something; everyone has that right, but you don't have the right to call the thing you disagree with by negative names.

[Fiddle-Faddle]

Welcome, Caleonard!

You've made some very good points--but did you mean to post them on an 8-month-old thread?

Anyway, as long as you've resurrected the thread, I'll throw in my two cents. There is some evidence that nutritional deficiencies can cause differences in the fingernails, and if you google "nutritional deficiencies and skin," there are tons of articles on deficiencies in vitamins A and E and corresponding skin signs. We also know that gluten-induced autoimmune reactions can cause eczema and dermatitis herpetiformis.

So I don't think it's a major stretch to think that nutritional deficiencies and/or gluten-induced autoimmune reactions can affect the fingerprint in some measurable way.

I was unable to find any studies on the internet relating to this. But I think it would be a great research project for someone to undertake! In fact, I may suggest it to a few young scientists I know!

Again, welcome aboard--please stay awhile!

[camprunner]

This happened to me, too. I used to work for the school district, and had to be fingerprinted as part of my background check. I had to do the fingerprint part twice, since they couldn't get a good reading the first time.

I had no idea there could be some kind of link.

This is me. I don't actually live in the state I work in. I had to drive 2 1/2 hours each way to get them electronically done in that state because the the ink ones done at my local police department weren't readable I also didn't realize it could be linked

[camprunner]

This happened to me, too. I used to work for the school district, and had to be fingerprinted as part of my background check. I had to do the fingerprint part twice, since they couldn't get a good reading the first time.

I had no idea there could be some kind of link.

This is me. I don't actually live in the state I work in. I had to drive 2 1/2 hours each way to get them electronically done in that state because the the ink ones done at my local police department weren't readable I also didn't realize it could be linked