Jump to content
  • Sign Up

Archived

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

Ali82

Celiac Disease Antibiotic Cure?

Recommended Posts

It would all be a function of what bacteria is being treated. I am taking both Levaquin and Doxycyline right now to go after two different bacterias. The Levaquin won't kill the Lyme, but the Doxy won't kill the bartonella.

I wasn't thinking along the lines of "untriggering" a gene, rather eliminating the autoimmune condition. If the autoimmune condition is caused by candida, metals, bacteria, etc. then working to stop that condition might, feasibly untrigger the reaction to gluten (in theory).

I'm sure it wouldn't be as simple as taking one antibiotic and being forever celiac disease-free anymore than taking one antibiotic would cure Lyme Disease. To cure the Lyme, I have been systematically getting rid of metals, other toxins, killing other infections/conditions that go along with Lyme because of the weakened immune system, eliminating parasites, restoring balance in the intestinal flora, etc. If there was ever a "cure" found to eliminate the autoimmune condition of celiac disease, I would guess it could be equally as complicated.

Yes you are correct. All problems should be deal with.

I myself am now chelating mercury and lead using the Cutler protocol. I use DMSA and ALA.

Before I started chelating, I couldn't eat lactose and complex carbohydrates. Now they are

no problem whatsoever. Before I was doing SCD. The smallest amount of complex carbohydrates

gave GI issues.

Once the metals are removed, I will be focusing on restoring the bacterial flora.

I am still wondering if the metals might have caused the celiac disease for me. Perhaps

the celiac disease caused the buildup of heavy metals, because the gut is leaky which makes

one absorb more heavy metals.

Clara the article mentioned that Tetracycline was used. Therefore I wrote I would use a newer

antibiotic which works in the same way that Tetracycline does. I believe these antibiotics

inhibit bacteria from multiplying rather than killing them.

If I am correct Tetracycline like antibiotics kill cell wall deficient bacteria(which might be causing

Celiac disease).

Greetings,

Ali

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am still wondering if the metals might have caused the celiac disease for me. Perhaps

the celiac disease caused the buildup of heavy metals, because the gut is leaky which makes

one absorb more heavy metals.

Heavy metals are believed to trigger autoimmune disease...mercury in particular. Mercury also is known to cause gut infections, dysbiosis, candida overgrowth and of course leaky gut (among other things). So indirectly the metals can certainly be a trigger for Celiac.....or *any* autoimmune condition for that matter.

Heavy metals are known to cause allergies, sensitivities, immune dysfunction as well as a long list of physical and cognitive symptoms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wasn't thinking along the lines of "untriggering" a gene, rather eliminating the autoimmune condition. If the autoimmune condition is caused by candida, metals, bacteria, etc. then working to stop that condition might, feasibly untrigger the reaction to gluten (in theory).

But the autoimmune disease is caused by a triggered gene. From the studies I've read, it's the celiac genes which produce the immune molecules that recognize gluten as a foreign substance. They would have to no longer be produced (the gene turned off) to turn off the autoimmune condition.

Of course, I'm not a genticist, and I could be wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ali,

I am also currently chelating heavy metals and have had improvement in both food and chemical sensitivities. I hit a wall briefly because my Dr.'s were unaware that I had copper toxicity. I had to stop chelation because it appeared that I was not able to excrete the metals (according to urine tests).

I was getting more and more copper via mineral IV's. I suspected copper was a problem and requested an RBC bloodtest which confirmed that it was high.

I am now back on my chelation treatments and feeling better already. Now I supplement all minerals with the exception of copper.

I am not following the Cutler protocol but I have read his book and am familiar with it. I have too many gut issues and chose not to go with an oral chelator. I tried DMSA for a very short time last year but am having better results by by-passing the gut with IV DMPS.

I was gluten-free for 3 years but since Xmas I have been off of the diet and I'm doing ok....although I still have alot of other foods that I continue to avoid. I take specific enzymes to aid in the digestion of gluten and dairy.

I do not have Celiac.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But the autoimmune disease is caused by a triggered gene. From the studies I've read, it's the celiac genes which produce the immune molecules that recognize gluten as a foreign substance. They would have to no longer be produced (the gene turned off) to turn off the autoimmune condition.

This assumes its a two player game ... i.e. gene and gluten. This may be the case but perhaps its not.

Instead .. what if its a complex series of circumstances ...Medicine really doesn't seem to understand celiac disease.

So many people may be genetically pre-disposed to a heart attack.. but the same person (or identical twins) living different lives one may have one the other not.

Who knows why, perhaps one did a lot of sport in their youth or doesn't like red meat ?? or ... but its not just one thing its the sum of everything.

The twins meet up on a public bus and one gets off and has caught the flu the other didn't ?

Genetics doubtless plays a role but how pre-determined is that role?

Immune systems are complex, they are partly genetic but also partly learned.

Perhaps bacteria infection is a part of this trigger but several other conditions need to be met. Some/Most/Many ?? people can meet all the conditions but their genetics say no... others say yes ?? but reversing some of the conditions may stop the trigger again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ali,

I am also currently chelating heavy metals and have had improvement in both food and chemical sensitivities. I hit a wall briefly because my Dr.'s were unaware that I had copper toxicity. I had to stop chelation because it appeared that I was not able to excrete the metals (according to urine tests).

I was getting more and more copper via mineral IV's. I suspected copper was a problem and requested an RBC bloodtest which confirmed that it was high.

I am now back on my chelation treatments and feeling better already. Now I supplement all minerals with the exception of copper.

I am not following the Cutler protocol but I have read his book and am familiar with it. I have too many gut issues and chose not to go with an oral chelator. I tried DMSA for a very short time last year but am having better results by by-passing the gut with IV DMPS.

I was gluten-free for 3 years but since Xmas I have been off of the diet and I'm doing ok....although I still have alot of other foods that I continue to avoid. I take specific enzymes to aid in the digestion of gluten and dairy.

I do not have Celiac.

Hi Rachel. I have too much copper in my body like you. I avoid chocolate,nuts and seeds and

greeny leafy vegetables.

You use IV DPMS. As far as I know DPMS does not chelate mercury from the brain. Furthermore

DPMS does not cause gut issues when used orally. DMSA and ALA do. So you could use DPMS

orally.

I would not dare IV chelation, because too much heavy metals are released and supposedly

not everything is getting out of the body resulting in redistribution.

How do you know that you don't have celiac disease?

Greetings,

Ali

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You use IV DPMS. As far as I know DPMS does not chelate mercury from the brain. Furthermore

DPMS does not cause gut issues when used orally. DMSA and ALA do. So you could use DPMS

orally.

Yes, DMPS does not chelate mercury from the brain. Its not a good idea to move mercury from the brain early on in treatment. The organs, extracellular mercury and intracellular mercury should be dealt with prior to mobilizing any mercury from the brain. The last thing you want to do is redistribute mercury to the brain....which is what can happen early on in treatment. DMPS will not be the only chelator I use but its the best one for me at this time. It usually takes more than one type of chelator to detox mercury and should be done in a certain order.

I would not dare IV chelation, because too much heavy metals are released and supposedly

not everything is getting out of the body resulting in redistribution.

This is only true if the Dr. is inexperienced and not looking at the whole picture. If someone is not ready for chelation it can be dangerous (regardless of the method). I am fortunate to have some very experienced Dr.'s who

treat each patient as an individual and do not rush into chelation of any kind without addressing other issues first.

I am also tested (Autonomic Response Testing) prior to strating any supplement, prescription medication, chelator, or any type of treatment. This lets my Dr.'s know ahead of time what my body will tolerate and what will be most effective for me. This is how we determine what doasage is best, etc.

IV DMPS was the best method of treatment for me and after 5 months I have not had a negative experience with it....nor have I had any symptoms of redistribution. It all comes down to the Dr.'s who are treating you and how knowledgeable they are....unfortunately there are many who are negligent and inexperienced.

IV DMPS is safe when done properly and when the body is prepared for it.

DMPS is less effective as an oral chelator which is why I chose IV instead. DMSA promotes yeast and other GI issues so I chose to not continue with it.

How do you know that you don't have celiac disease?

I had negative bloodwork, negative biopsy and I dont carry Celiac genes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A little more time now...

What I tried to express in the earlier post is that the whole immune system is a mixture of genetic and learned response.

It is in many ways a parallel to the nature vs nurture debate for psychology.

There are undoubtedly elements of both but no clear distinction of which is dominant.

Additionally, we have a vague definition of celiac disease. It can be stated as "only biopsy proven" at one end and "response to diet" at the other. A GI specialist might define it in terms of villi destruction whereas a neurologist may use completely different criteria as far as what they are treating.

How do you know that you don't have celiac disease?
OK the question isn't directed at me but the answer has to rely on How do we define celiac disease.

In other words some people do not have the recognised genes YET still have celiac disease by biopsy criteria... others have the genes and do not develop celiac disease... etc. from my perspective it would appear a simpler definition is the production of gluten specific antibodies... yet this doubtless would not be agreed with by some GI's...

This debate in many ways reminds me of the h. pylori debate... Over 90% of Dr's were absolutely certain that bacteria were not the cause of ulcers... indeed those that did believe this were ridiculed... yet today it is common knowledge even to non trained people and yet this was only 15 years ago! (or less)...

Ulcers affected far more people than celiac disease, even of 100% of celiac disease was diagnosed yet the sum knowledge up to 15 or less years ago was they were stress related and nothing could be done except limiting acid production.

I find it extremely plausible that celiac disease is an interaction of several factors, some chance and some genetic and some dietary. It may even have multiple independent causes (not a single bacteria) which affect different people differently as one small part of the whole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's an article on this website.

https://www.celiac.com/articles/788/1/Rod-S...ease/Page1.html

It doesn't address whether getting rid of the bacteria "cures" celiac disease.

Also from this website https://www.celiac.com/articles/779/1/Are-C...ron/Page1.html:

Some disturbance to this mix, such as an infection or use of antibiotics, might provide an opportunity for this gluten-ingesting bacteria to colonize and proliferate to a level where its pathogenic properties, such as production of endotoxins, are sensed by the immune system initiating the onset of celiac disease. The existence of such bacteria could also explain why there may be varying degrees of gluten sensitivity, even in individuals without DQ2 and DQ8 molecules.

The possibility that these gluten-ingesting bacteria may exist raises another intriguing question: If these gluten-ingesting bacteria are controlled or eliminated from the gut, could tolerance to gluten be restored? There could be a very real possibility that celiac disease might be cured by eliminating these bacteria. After all, peptic ulcers can be cured by eliminating Helicobacter pylori.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I find it extremely plausible that celiac disease is an interaction of several factors, some chance and some genetic and some dietary. It may even have multiple independent causes (not a single bacteria) which affect different people differently as one small part of the whole.

I agree that Celiac may have multiple triggers...whatever the trigger may be its more than likely something which places stress on the immune system.

There is definately a genetic component to Celiac....we know that for sure. Personally, I do not believe that a gluten intolerance in those who are not genetically susceptible can ever develop into full blown Celiac. It either is or it isnt...you either have a genetic predisposition or you dont.

The percentage of people who have non-celiac gluten intolerance is far greater than those who have Celiac. There are also MANY conditions which can lead to a gluten intolerance. In those people who are not genetically susceptible gluten can cause symptoms but without the genetic predisposition they will not develop Celiac Disease.

In most cases of non-celiac gluten sensitivity there are underlying issues that are contributing to the onset of food intolerances. When those underlying issues are diagnosed and treated the gluten sensitivity can (and often does) resolve.

My own intolerance was brought on by other factors...factors that are very treatable. Without a genetic predisposition there is no gene to be "triggered"....there is no chance for me to develop the disease. If I dont have that autoimmune respose every time I eat gluten there is no reason (that I can see) why I should remain gluten free for life AFTER all of my underlying issues have been resolved.

I may get an immune response now....but its not an autoimmune response...and there is no damage to my villi. There is no gene which needs to be "switched off"....because no gene was ever "switched on".

If I were to leave my underlying issues untreated and unresolved....the yes....I would most likely need to avoid gluten for life because my problems would remain unchanged. I would also have to strictly avoid chemicals, perfumes, fruits, veggies, soy, dairy, etc. etc.

Fortunately, I am being treated and there HAS been improvement. I was gluten-free for 3 years but am now off the diet and doing fine.

I'm sure it would be a different story if I were carrying a DQ2 or a DQ8.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not really arguing with anything you said here, just adding really....

I agree that Celiac may have multiple triggers...whatever the trigger may be its more than likely something which places stress on the immune system.

There is definately a genetic component to Celiac....we know that for sure. Personally, I do not believe that a gluten intolerance in those who are not genetically susceptible can ever develop into full blown Celiac. It either is or it isnt...you either have a genetic predisposition or you dont.

Again this ALL hinges on the definition of celiac. We have a sort of catch-22 diagnostically because no clear definition exists that is accepted by all 'experts'. (and I put experts in quotes deliberatly)

As I said earlier, the GI has one definition and the neurologist another and the geneticist another....

I think we agree that there are multiple ways to get total villous atrophy WHILST reacting to gluten... BUT that the reaction may be a different reaction.

To take your statement ....

I'm sure it would be a different story if I were carrying a DQ2 or a DQ8.
Yes your probably correct yet many GI's are not even interested in the genetics... AND many will diagnose celiac disease with absence of positive blood tests but positive biopsy. The question to paraphrase a certain TV MD is "What's the differential for total villous atrophy and reaction to gluten?"

The percentage of people who have non-celiac gluten intolerance is far greater than those who have Celiac. There are also MANY conditions which can lead to a gluten intolerance. In those people who are not genetically susceptible gluten can cause symptoms but without the genetic predisposition they will not develop Celiac Disease.

I agree with you but ... many GI's do not... hence the problem of definition and without a definition the research just doesn't get done.

quoting you out of order ....

I may get an immune response now....but its not an autoimmune response...and there is no damage to my villi. There is no gene which needs to be "switched off"....because no gene was ever "switched on".
I would go even further ... EVEN IF there is total destruction of the villi then its NOT celiac disease unless there is an autoimmune response...

That is really the point I'm trying to make... the definition of it being an autoimmune disease is to me the over riding factor. Lots of things can damage villi and lots can cause an allergic or other reaction to gluten. Just having the two together does not make it celiac disease UNLESS there is an auto immune response.

Going back to your order ...

In most cases of non-celiac gluten sensitivity there are underlying issues that are contributing to the onset of food intolerances. When those underlying issues are diagnosed and treated the gluten sensitivity can (and often does) resolve.
Exactly... hence the importance (IMHO complete over riding importance of blood tests and anti-gliadin antibodies = auto immune.

To me it is absolutely fundamental that the biopsy is NOT used as a diagnostic golden test. It is almost immaterial IMHO, if someone is producing antibodies then they are causing damage regardless of it it can be seen on their biopsy or not...

I'm hoping for your sake that your intolerance did not cause the associated neuropathy ... or adrenal/thyriod related problems but obviously those who are producing antibodies are at risk, even if the villi APPEAR normal.

Further, others are diagnosed as having celiac disease when they don't have the genes ... or even anti-bodies... thus making the whole research a mess.

Others with antibodies receive negative biopsies and are classed as non-celiac.. thus making an even bigger mess of the statistics!

So back to the bacteria ...

Many have the genes but never trigger celiac disease ??? Its hard to tell because of the mess I just described.... Just because someone has no villi and show improvement on a gluten-free diet doesn't make it the same illness ... so perhaps those who are diagnosed and don't have the genes are the ones who get negative blood tests??

Its also somewhat likely there are other possible genes but again the research is clouded ...

So on the other end I am not entirely convinced that even if you have the genetics eliminating the trigger AND time cannot at least reverse the immediate auto immune response to a crumb... I'm not even saying we can chug down a beer and pizza... but perhaps the immune system can be de-sensitised enough not to react.

The basis of the auto immune response is learned and mis identification of a 'harmless protein fragment' as a malign invader. Yet our response to REAL malign invaders does actually diminish over time... (If not we wouldn't need boosters for Tetanus) ...

The bodies immune system is not an on or off but a series of escalations. Its like a war where our bodies learn an attack and then pre-emptively wait and prepare for that attack: except we misinterpreted a harmless action as an attack. Immune response goes through numerous stages... initially just fever to try and "sweat out" a bactria or virus whilst the immune system does the manufacturing of the "big guns" and "precision strike weapons" ...

Often that's all that was needed (although humans having such a low temp it rarely does much except make us feel ill) or the bacteria is killed on its own.by the bodies natural processes or the body adds to natural processes (stomach acid is nasty ...) ... all the time the big guns and precision strike weapons are being manufactured based on intelligence. The "Final Stage" are the precision smart bombs.. the ones which are designed to seek and destroy a certain target autonomously.... and in the nornal course of things these are usually unneeded .. (We pick up millions of mildly harmful bacteria all the time and the other defense mechanisms cope) ...

However for the celiac these targetted missles are always being produced, the factories never quite shut down and the blue prints are kept in high alert.

These are the ones latch onto our villi... target the gluten and keep coming..

Hence reducing the alert state could give some relief... with time the readyness steps down....

There is however one huge catch!

I doubt anyone on this board is 100% gluten free..... Its not possible because of our environment .. try as we might we must pickup bits when we use a door handle someone has just used eating a sandwich or breath in airborne flour etc. etc. so our body keeps getting reminders and the high alert never quite steps down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The discussion remains very exciting. thank you all

for your inputs.

Wish somebody could provide the article which made

me start this topic.

To add. Yes from what I have read about celiac disease,

it's very complex and many factors are involved. That would

mean using appropriate antibioics would not stop/silence celiac disease.

BUT, maybe it all starts with on or a few bad bacteria and by

killing/removing these bacteria, we really can stop celiac disease. For example

a computer is a very complex machine. If there is no electricity the whole

computer does not work. So maybe the bad bacteria is what starts the

celiac disease reaction and by removing these bacteria, there is no way the reaction

can start.

Damage to the body by gluten is celiac disease. That is my definition.

Greetings Ali

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hi,

I just wanted to add this

Say someone has the genes for celiac. They become gluten intolerant and continue eating gluten unaware and in a few months or years they have damaged villi known as celiac disease.

Say someone else doesn't have the genes for celiac. They become gluten intolerant and continue eating gluten unaware. Instead of a few months or years for villi damage to occur, it takes many many years. The person eventually gets the villi damage after say 20 years. This is celiac too.

Maybe the damage is possible to anyone who is gluten intolerant but the time frame is different.

What about people like me. I am DQ2.2 positive. I have half the celiac gene. It was found in 4%of celiacs, without either DQ2.5 or DQ8 present. Some of these people also had DQ5 with DQ2.2(like me). Maybe I am not celiac now, but I bet I was on my way. I have symptoms for 23 years and I am only 32.

Research has proven that people with DQ2.2 have a response to gluten, but that it does not usually pass the threshold to cause celiac. But sometimes it does. And maybe it just takes longer. How can drs doing the research KNOW it has a gluten reaction, but think that is alright as long as it doesn't cause full blown celiac.

The other half celiac gene is some of the DQ7s. These people can get full blown celiac too, though rarely. They were 2% of celiacs in the same study. Some of these had DQ5 with DQ7.

There are people on this site with only DQ5 with biopsy proven celiac. DQ5 only was found in .4% of the celiacs in the study.

Rachel, I don't doubt you at all. It is great you have found answers and can eat gluten again. You have DQ1 and DQ3. Are they DQ5 and/or DQ7 by chance?

The truth is there is so much we don't know. Doctors are not rushing out to study non celiac gluten intolerant people. In fact they dismiss them a lot of times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I may be able to get access to the article,

...

Turns out I don't have access.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Research has proven that people with DQ2.2 have a response to gluten, but that it does not usually pass the threshold to cause celiac.

Going back to what I posted earlier, this depends on how we define celiac.

The person eventually gets the villi damage after say 20 years. This is celiac too.

Or it was celiac all along and just one symptom did not manifest itself strongly enough.

I can't accept that one person is celiac and another not based on where a sample is taken or when or who examines it?

Imagine you get a biopsy and its marginal and your classed non celiac, who is to say a month later it would not be positive or a different sample point would have been positive or a different person looking at the slide?

To take it the other way, what if the person then goes gluten-free and gets a biopsy after a year that is negative? Are they no longer celiac?

To my mind the person that eventually gets villi damage has probably been suffering countless other symptoms for most of those 20 years... regardless of if they hold a positive biopsy or not if they are suffering an auto immune reaction then calling it a different disease based on the villi are not quite being destroyed faster than they repair seems completely wrong.

Surely one is a progression, a more advanced or critical state than the former but still the same disease?

To put it another way, if you get bubonic plague you don't get the postules until late in the disease.. but when they come this doesn't suddenly mean that is when you got the disease, just the last stages of the disease? You had the disease all along, you were just waiting for one symptom that indicates a certain stage of that disease.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe in this whole discussion there is a huge variety of symptoms from celiac. Some may be caused or cured by antibiotics but I would guess it masks the symptoms like every other 'medicine' cure.

I am not a 'true celiac' because my blood tests were negative, biopsy negative and my TTG negative (by the Doctors standards) although my scores were 'elevated'. I don't think having my TTG 1 number below positive nor my IgA Anti-gliadin 2 numbers below positive means I'm ok if I eat gluten (and I kinda refute the definition of positive). My son also had the EXACT same pattern of numbers.. just a few points below positive. I highly doubt that all four of my boys - who have a positive reaction off of gluten - including my 2 year old contracted a bacteria already! I had them tested for bacteria including H Pylori because we had this in the family before and none were positive at all. None of their health problems were attributed to gluten intolerance. For example, my second son had bad Asthma and ear infections. What caused this? Well, when our house went gluten-free his Asthma and ear infections DISAPPEARED. I don't think that's a coincidence. As a matter of fact we have all been healthy - no sickness in 1 1/2 years now to note - got the flu and didn't hardly get sick. I think it's because we found the problem early enough to stop it. I do believe the increase in reflux and asthma in the United States is caused directly by Gluten. The numbers of increase coincide directly with the chance if a gene is dominant to have it. (i.e. 30% of the US is probably intolerant to Gluten.. and YES I do believe that number is VERY accurate!!) I've found nearly 100% symptom relief in all my friends I explained this too and got them to go gluten-free. Anyone I knew with a symptom sounding like celiac or some relation - is getting cured. My coworkers daughter had psoriasis and was embarassed because she is 16 and it's on her face. I told her about a recent link on gluten and psiorisis and my coworker complained about eating certain kinds of bread. Her daughter cut out gluten and her psiorisis is disappearing and she feels prettier. Another friend of mine had ulcerative colitis and has seen 12 doctors for 7 years and been sick. He was suddenly sick while in college with me. I told him to go gluten-free/CF. Within 3 days he slept more than 3 hours w/o going to the bathroom and IMMEDIATELY felt better. He told me his ulcerative colitis was triggered when he was put on PRILOSEC for REFLUX!!!!

I never realized the effect until I stopped - I didn't think I had ANYTHING wrong at all! Now that I have 3x as much energy and my eczema (or is it DH?) is gone it can't be a coincidence. My father has FSGS and now his FSGS is in remission but if he gets a trace of gluten it comes back. It's possible that bacteria overgrowth may make symptoms worse - and in some people that may be all it takes to feel better. Remember H Pylori that caused stomach ulcers and the doctor found he could permanently CURE it with antibiotics and became famous? My dad had that.. and he was 'cured' - it turns out everyone can have H. Pylori in their stomach but only a few susceptible individuals have it 'overgrow'. I think it was his "celiac" (remember we don't have this according to doctors) in his case that made him susceptible... but although getting rid of the H Pylori and taking antacids made him feel better - it never cured him because he had to continue the medicine to feel better. Now gluten free he doesn't take antacids and doesn't have ANY stomach problems at all. It improved his FSGS and blood pressure. The doctors have diagnosed us with a 'gluten allergy' (or intolerance) and not celiac and only because they absolutely cannot dispute the lack of medicine necessary now that we are gluten-free. His cure is a gluten-free diet and if he eats it or gets cross contaminated his symptoms return. On a gluten-free diet, 90% of the medicines we needed have been removed. Yes we still need some medicine here and there.. but in general we don't need much.

Hence the conclusion - if you want to take medicine and eat gluten (Because I'm sure the doctors will come up with a way to do this) then go ahead. It's a free country. But personally, I think we are killing ourselves taking medicine to hide underlying food problems.

In my case, if I get <5ppm gluten (basically any trace) I will get skin ezcema within 24 hours. Is this DH? It doesn't scar but it does itch alot. Doctors say no - I say yes. My two sons get it also but MUCH MUCH worse than I do - all over their buttocks, knees and elbows. My dad gets it on his lips and so did my grandmother. The doctors said they both had herpes. (BTW.. they don't have herpes.. but I do believe they have DH!). Amazing the herpes disappeared on the gluten-free diet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting topic .....

If you were diagnosed with celiac how do you know it's "classic celiac" or "gluten intolerance?"

I am now confused and thinking these are 2 separate issues.

My husband's "celiac" symptoms did not emerge until he had to do a couple of courses

of antibiotic (he had a blood infection). During the final week of antibiotic his non-stop

diarrhea started and here we are to today........ could this resultant "candida" do this

to him? that's what I am picking up in this topic. By the way, prior to this episode and since

then he has never needed antibiotic (only once in 1992) - I on the other hand am on

antibiotic about every year to year and a half for strep throat.

I'd love to "turn back the hands of time" on this disease and find a resolution for

all those who have celiac and gluten intolerance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hence the conclusion - if you want to take medicine and eat gluten (Because I'm sure the doctors will come up with a way to do this) then go ahead. It's a free country. But personally, I think we are killing ourselves taking medicine to hide underlying food problems.

That's not really the point of the discussion. The original article posted and the articles I posted are showing a link behind a bacteria and celiac disease. The hypothesis is will taking an antibiotic to get rid of a specific bacteria truly reverse celiac disease?

No one is suggesting hiding the disease behind medicine.

Deb, has he been given anything to combat the candida? Has he gone on an anti-candida diet? This would be a good topic for another thread under leaky gut. He shouldn't still have diarrhea.

I would guess that his celiac was triggered by the other illness. But that's not to say there are not other issues. If he's gluten-free and still having problems, there may be something else that needs to be addressed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Interesting topic .....

If you were diagnosed with celiac how do you know it's "classic celiac" or "gluten intolerance?"

I am now confused and thinking these are 2 separate issues.

My husband's "celiac" symptoms did not emerge until he had to do a couple of courses

of antibiotic (he had a blood infection). During the final week of antibiotic his non-stop

diarrhea started and here we are to today........ could this resultant "candida" do this

to him? that's what I am picking up in this topic. By the way, prior to this episode and since

then he has never needed antibiotic (only once in 1992) - I on the other hand am on

antibiotic about every year to year and a half for strep throat.

I'd love to "turn back the hands of time" on this disease and find a resolution for

all those who have celiac and gluten intolerance.

There is always occams razor.

It could be that antibiotics allowed a yeast infection that ....

.... or it could be that he had a blood infection that proved very tough (your wording is final week of antibiotics indicating a long course) and that the blood infection was what tipped the balance.

I highly doubt that all four of my boys - who have a positive reaction off of gluten - including my 2 year old contracted a bacteria already!

I'm not quite sure what you are saying here? Are you in some way saying your children were born without bacteria? If this was the case they would be dead.

The average human has 10x the number of bacterial cells in their body than human cells, it beggars belief you think your children were born with none?

I had them tested for bacteria including H Pylori because we had this in the family before and none were positive at all.

Again, I'm not certain what your implying... are you trying to say you had your children tested for every one of the billions of species? you obviously realise that each test is specific or you would not have written "including h. pylori" but your claim again beggars belief and is an impossibility.

Even supposing you found a MD willing to do hard jail time to subject your children to a barrage of countless tests there simply isn't time in an average human life to test for every known species of bactria, let alone the billions of unknown ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

all information I have read so far says that once gluten intolerance causing celiac is triggered then it is never fully gone. I do find it interesting that bacteria could be responsible, but I doubt the study has gone on long enough to see if the gluten reaction does not come back eventually. I wonder if in more years these people "cured" by antibiotics get a gluten reaction that occurs after another trigger sets off gluten intolerance. Their genes have not changed, so the risk is still there.

Teenagers often go into remission, but then gluten reactions eventually come back. I believe this might of happened to me.

I agree with you gfp about the definition of celiac not being set. My doctor is willing to diagnose me on diet. For me, I speak only for myself, celiac is one aspect of gluten intolerance. It is one symptom. for everyone who is gluten intolerant to be considered celiac, the definition of celiac would have to be gluten intolerance and not villi damage caused by gluten intolerance. I do NOT know if I have damaged villi cause I have never had a biopsy. I do know I had GI symptoms that are gone. But, I also had mental problems. Trust me, wanting to die is a serious symptom to me. Even if I was never going to get villi damage, I will NEVER eat gluten again because of the emotional symptoms it causes me. It is just as life threatening to be depressed(and my life is blessed except for this).

An opinion question here: If someone does have not have villi damage and hypothetically never will(play along with me here) do they run a higher risk of the same cancers?

I would cure myself if I could. Maybe it works in non celiac gene gluten intolerant people. I wonder what those people in the studies genes were Obviously way more research needs to be done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
all information I have read so far says that once gluten intolerance causing celiac is triggered then it is never fully gone. I do find it interesting that bacteria could be responsible, but I doubt the study has gone on long enough to see if the gluten reaction does not come back eventually. I wonder if in more years these people "cured" by antibiotics get a gluten reaction that occurs after another trigger sets off gluten intolerance. Their genes have not changed, so the risk is still there.

Teenagers often go into remission, but then gluten reactions eventually come back. I believe this might of happened to me.

I agree with you gfp about the definition of celiac not being set. My doctor is willing to diagnose me on diet. For me, I speak only for myself, celiac is one aspect of gluten intolerance. It is one symptom. for everyone who is gluten intolerant to be considered celiac, the definition of celiac would have to be gluten intolerance and not villi damage caused by gluten intolerance. I do NOT know if I have damaged villi cause I have never had a biopsy. I do know I had GI symptoms that are gone. But, I also had mental problems. Trust me, wanting to die is a serious symptom to me. Even if I was never going to get villi damage, I will NEVER eat gluten again because of the emotional symptoms it causes me. It is just as life threatening to be depressed(and my life is blessed except for this).

An opinion question here: If someone does have not have villi damage and hypothetically never will(play along with me here) do they run a higher risk of the same cancers?

I would cure myself if I could. Maybe it works in non celiac gene gluten intolerant people. I wonder what those people in the studies genes were Obviously way more research needs to be done.

Taking the last question last ..

An opinion question here: If someone does have not have villi damage and hypothetically never will(play along with me here) do they run a higher risk of the same cancers?

Its a two parter ....

1/ Increased Cancer Risk of the digestive system is partly a direct result of villi being destroyed or more accurately new villi being grown. Cancer (from my understanding) is caused at cell mitosis (division). So the more the villi are forced to divide cells to regrow increases the chance of one of those being mutant and causing cancer. (Simplistic view).

Our body has many many cell types, those designed to die and replicate have a sounder "code" than those not. For instance the cells of the stomach lining are designed to be continually killed and replaced over a short timeframe hence their mitosis is more reliable.

2/ External influences .. so environmental influences also play a part. For instance we continually make new skin cells but the risk of cancer increases when we get sunburn. So presence of an antagonist (gluten) may act as an accelerator?

3/ Genetics .. exerts a strong control. Are those at risk of celiac disease also genetically pre-disposed to certain cancers and does this overlap?

There are a lot of ? here .. because its not researched from that standpoint..hence me hammering on about the criteria for diagnosis. Because the current "golden standard" is worse than meaningless (since complete destruction of villi can occur without any gluten/celiac disease) the whole genetics side is skewed and we can't say by how much.

I do NOT know if I have damaged villi cause I have never had a biopsy.

Exactly and even if you did ... then what would either a positive or negative really mean?

Or to really throw the cat amongst the pigeons ... what if you had both positive and negative ?????

But, I also had mental problems.
Again, exactly and so do many ... hence celiac disease is not something limited to the gut!

The problem as I keep repeating (sorry) is that a neurologist would have completely different criteria for defining celiac disease than a GI.

I personally think the clear definition is the auto-immune response, not allergy response (IgE) ... BUT the problem is that in order for each study to be taken 'seriously' the IgA and IgG positives have to be verified against biopsy.

Somehow we are cutting out this group .. those with +ve blood and auto immune response and no or little villi damage... hence all the stats are just skewed and even firther we actually miss out on a huge thing...!

Its continually implied depression is caused by maladsorbtion (only) ... and the whole group of those with villi but positive blood tests that prove it is somewhat more complicated are ruled out because they don't have +ve biopsy.

As you and I are very aware ... feeling like crap when we eat gluten is a lot lot worse than having D or cramps.

Like you I never went as far as the biopsy because I went gluten-free after the blood tests and nothing on the face of the earth will make me go back to feeling like that!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
After searching on the internet for a while I found this abstract:

W. M. Roufail1 and Julian M. Ruffin1

(1) From the Department of Medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N. C.

Summary In 2 cases of gluten-sensitive enteropathy, clinical recovery, partial in one and complete in the other, followed the administration of a gluten-free diet. When challenged with gluten both patients had a pronounced relapse. After the prolonged administration of tetracycline both patients have resumed a normal diet and show no effect when challenged with gluten. If these results can be confirmed in other patients, there must be a factor other than gluten in the so-called gluten-sensitive enteropathy.

Effect of antibiotic therapy on gluten-sensitive enteropathy

Journal Digestive Diseases and Sciences

Publisher Springer Netherlands

ISSN 0163-2116 (Print) 1573-2568 (Online)

Issue Volume 11, Number 8 / August, 1966

. ....

. .. . . ...

I found this information very interesting. Maybe it is possible to cure Celiac disease with the correct antibiotics.

The tetracycline study, on 2 patients, was originally published in 1966, in the American Journal of Digestive Diseases, which folded in 1977.

At first I only saw the 2005 date, and wondered why I'd never heard of this.

Looks like the 2005 date is when someone republished the old article.

For all we know, the ONE patient w/ "complete" recovery didn't actually have celiac disease.

Certainly we'd have heard much more about this over the 42 years since original publication if it had any promise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Certainly we'd have heard much more about this over the 42 years since original publication if it had any promise.

The IDSA (infectious disease society of America) was just investigated for anti-trust violations by the attorney general in CT. There was a lot of solid evidence and the IDSA eventually agreed to completely reevaluate their guidelines for the treatment of Lyme Disease because of it. Almost every doctor on the panel had a conflict of interest, so the guidelines were written out of their financial interest rather than what is best for patients. Studies were biased and relevant studies that conflicted with their position were ignored.

You would think you would have heard more about this is there was any promise in it, but that's simply not the case in reality. The pharmaceutical/medical industry is BIG money and decisions aren't always made for the right reasons.

I'm not saying bacteria will be found to be the cause of celiac .... I am just saying not to put so much faith into the medical field. The two articles I posted are much more recent than the 1960's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Without antibiotics you would pretty likely not be here.

Are antibiotics overused? Yes but they are not some evil entity (as others have suggested on this forum).

Antibiotics along with vaccinations are what allows our average life expectancy to be something over our 30's.

Not to go completely off-topic, but...

I wish to know who is responsible for starting this false belief. Sure, people did die more often from relatively survivable diseases, but also from wars, etc, not to mention horrendous plagues. But in the case of many diseases it was mostly due to ignorance, poor hygiene, etc.

A few examples:

Socrates lived to over 70

Copernicus lived to over 70

Galileo lived to over 77

I'm no historian, and I don't know the names of very many people from past centuries, but these surely aren't the only people to have lived to such age.

----------End of Detour--------------------

As for Celiac being even possibly cured by antibiotics or anything else for that matter, seems to me it'd have to cause the immune system to stop producing the gliadin antibodies, but not disable it from fighting every true invader. I haven't read this entire thread, but I doubt this is the case with any of the people who seem to no longer have Celiac after the antibiotics. Until I read more, I suspect the autoimmune reaction wasn't actually taking place to begin with.

In my opinion, it is quite likely that Celiac is due more to the fact that wheat has been so "denatured" by all the extensive hybridization. If wheat always made so many people sick, I'd tend to think it would've been feared as poisonous, just as the Irish didn't want to eat potatoes because they thought they were poisonous. Indeed, nightshades are a problem for many, which I suspect is what had them thinking the way they did. Some people surely did get sick from them, just as they do today. And if the amount of the toxin in nightshades was to be increased dramatically, more people would subsequently have a problem with them. It wouldn't be because of better detection or changes in the human genome, but the change in the food itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In my opinion, it is quite likely that Celiac is due more to the fact that wheat has been so "denatured" by all the extensive hybridization.

Celiac's name comes from a translation of a term coined by Arataeus (or Aretaeus) in Greece ~350 BC.

. .. just as the Irish didn't want to eat potatoes because they thought they were poisonous.

:huh: I'm as Irish as an Irish-American can be and this seems dubious at best.

Potatoes were the main staple in Ireland when the potato famine struck. If not, it wouldn't have had the impact it had.

Carla - I understand your point, but the original paper about a possible "cure" WAS that a pharmaceutical did it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...