|
|
History of
Gluten Grain Intolerance
(references in progress.)
• Digestive and related medical problems are mentioned in very ancient
documents such as the book of Exodus and throughout the Holy Scriptures.
Secular medical literature alludes to descriptions that resemble gluten or
possibly food intolerance conditions in writings from 100 AD, 300 AD, and
other medical writings particularly from the 18th century until present.
The term “coeliac affliction” meaning “abdominal” was the general term
applied to these conditions. (References in progress.)
• After the invention of stronger microscopes, Louis Pasteur, a French
government scientist, publicized the new field of microbiology and his
development of immunizations or “biologicals” starting around 1850-1900.
Another well respected and very capable researcher, Antonie Bechamp, a
peer of Pasteur, disagreed with many of Pasteur’s theories. He and others
predicted that these theories would send the medical sciences on a wrong
turn. Nevertheless, medicine in general turned to the study of
bacteriology and the use of vaccinations to find answers for many
illnesses. Pasteur’s ideas gained sway and has greatly influenced the
direction of medical research including the field of immunology since his
time. This is interesting information as at least the celiac subset of
gluten intolerance is believed to be an autoimmune reaction. Now, research
still in progress is calling in question some of the conclusions and
practices these tenets regarding immunology have produced.
• Professional practicing between 1900 and 1930 observed such a sharp
decline in public health that some of them set out to find answers to
the dilemma. Many of them and also many missionaries and explorers were
conversely impressed by the contrast in health between peoples who were
subsisting on centuries old dietary practices dictated by their local food
supplies, and the health of modern societies consuming the “displacing
foods of modern commerce”, mainly processed whilte flours and sugars,
canned milk and other foods, and the new inexpensive hydrogenated
vegetable oils such as “Crisco” type products. One careful researcher, a
Cleveland based dentist, Dr. Weston A. Price, spent nearly 10 years
traveling to many isolated cultures to observe these peoples, their
dietary practices and food preparation methods, and their overall health.
He lined up villages, counted cavities, made notes on general health, and
took saliva samples and samples of their foods back to his laboratory. He
found 11 consistent major basic diet component variations between these
isolated peoples around the world and the “modernized” world. He also
found excellent general health and fine, straight teeth set in wide faces
with dental arches that had plenty of room for wisdom teeth, and very low
incidences of cavities. He also observed a heartbreaking decline in
overall health, susceptibility to illness, and “dental deformities”
meaning narrowed dental arches, other skeletal degradations, and many
other degenerational health issues once these peoples came in contact with
civilization and adopted modern foods. Other researchers of his era
performing parallel research had similar findings.
• Much research was performed between 1900 and 1950 on a rather loosely
defined set of symptoms called “celiac disease”, as many professionals
became alarmed by a noticeable increase in digestive disorders and other
degenerative health problems in the general public during this time
period. Some of those researchers focused on undigested starches and
sugars in grains, starchy vegetables and other complex carbohydrates.
Later, researchers turned their attention from these sugars to focus more
narrowly on only the gluten in certain grains as the source of this
constellation of symptoms. Diagnostic criteria was established in the
1950’s, and at that time a few patients with a correspondingly more narrow
presentation of symptoms began to be identified as “gluten intolerant or
celiac”. The prevalence of this particular presentation was considered to
be extremely rare in the United States. Medical students received minimal
training (20 minutes) regarding this disorder, and were told they would
probably never see a case in their practice. Therefore US doctors rarely
ever even thought of it when diagnosing their patients.
European doctors researched celiac disease much more thoroughly from the
1970’s and diagnosis rates climbed accordingly. While an American patient
waited on the average for 11 years for a celiac diagnosis, eventually a
European patient was often identified in only a few weeks.
In the early 1990’s a young specialist from Naples, Italy, Dr. Alesio
Fasano, joined the University of Maryland research team and as a matter of
course ran a check in the University of Maryland hospital computer for the
number of celiacs diagnosed in the past 10 years. To his astonishment, the
search returned one diagnosis. His reaction, “Where are the American
Celiacs?” prompted a 5 year study involving over 13,000 patients across 32
states, seeking to establish prevalence rates of celiac disease in the
United States. At the end of the study, Dr. Fasano was right. New figures
showed that 1 in 133 Americans sampled from the healthy population, and 1
in 56 in the symptomatic population had celiac disease, and they were 97%
undiagnosed! The study was published in the Archives of Internal Medicine,
February, 2003. Other studies have since been conducted that validate
these figures.
This new information has brought relief to many celiac sufferers in the
United States, and also some confusion and disjointed dynamics as the
media, medical community and general public is made aware of this disease
at the same time. Much more research is now being conducted making it
difficult for professionals to keep abreast of the newest developments on
a confusing, complicated disease they barely knew existed a couple of
years ago.
Meanwhile, to complicate matters, as the word spreads among celiac
patients, many symptomatic family members and friends realize they also
fit the profile of celiac disease very closely. However many of them test
negatively for the antibodies or villi damage required by diagnostic
criterion. Some of them try the diet and may discover that indeed they do
improve on the gluten free diet. Others, confused by their negative tests,
and give up without trying investigating the diet. Still others who knew
already that they can’t eat gluten may intentionally go back on gluten for
a period of weeks or months in order to be tested so they can finally have
their “magic diagnosis”, confirming their need for this “funny diet”.
Unfortunately, these patients may find the “gluten challenge” very very
miserable and some may actually be damaged by it, as their bodies are now
much more sensitized to its effects. Unfortunately , many of these
patients who have already proved by positive diet response that they
should avoid gluten, do not receive a positive diagnosis either, despite
their obvious misery during and after their gluten challenge.
It appears anecdotally that celiac disease as defined by positive blood
tests and positive biopsy is in fact only a relatively small subset of
gluten intolerance. Many other seemingly truly gluten intolerant people
appear to not be in the celiac subset.
The negative testing but seemingly gluten sensitive patients comprise a
large segment of the gluten intolerant community. Unfortunately, research
has never been done on this group of patients, and at present, none is in
process. All research on gluten intolerance has been performed on biopsy
diagnosed celiacs. Many doctors recognize that their negative testing
patients have previously improved on a gluten free diet, but they still
hesitate to recommend a strict gluten free diet when they have no proven
research to back up their diagnosis. This leaves most gluten intolerant
patients in a medical “No Man’s Land”, forced to make their own decisions
as best they can determine.
September 2007 update
Several labs now offer tests
for additional antibodies believed to be involved in the gluten reactivity
process. They also check more places in the immune system for these
antibodies. Apparently some patients may have one antibody but not
others, so some researchers believe all the known antibodies should be
checked in all possible places.
The additional antibodies
include:
Gluteomorphins - (antibodies
to the gluten molecule, not just gliadin, a piece inside wheat gluten).
Wheat - the whole kernel
This ensures that anything not yet discovered in wheat is also tested.
The additional places in the
immune system include:
IgA - Some celiac tests
check gliadin IgA, many don't.
IgG - Some celiac tests
check gliadin IgG, Many don't.
IgM - Very few labs check any
antibodies in the IgM system.
At this time, there are four
labs that offer at least some of these additional tests in various
combinations.
ALCAT Laboratories -
This lab does not check antibodies. It tests the reaction of white
blood cells to
the substance in question, gluten and wheat are included in their options.
Neuroimmunology Labs -
(based on study performed at Immunosciences Laboratories, a research lab)
Optimum Health Resources -
Offers home collection without prescription
Enterolab offers stool tests which do not test additional
antibodies, but this test often appears to be more sensitive than blood
tests. This test is based on announced but unpublished research.
See
Lab Charts page for
panels offered.
|
