It’s all in your head: Scientist now believes his pioneering work on gluten allergy was wrong.

[spiritguide]

Full article posted here.

It’s all in your head: Scientist now believes his pioneering work on gluten allergy was wrong
By Scott Kaufman
Sunday, May 25, 2014 10:24 EDT

••The researcher whose work led scientific credence to claims that those without celiac disease — which causes an immune response in the small intestines in the presence of gluten — still benefit from a gluten-free diet has performed another, more rigorous study that leads him to believe that there is no such thing as non-celiac gluten sensitivity (NCGS).

In 2011, Peter Gibson, a professor of gastroenterology at Monash University in Australia, published a study that found that gluten proteins cause gastrointestinal distress even in people who don’t suffer from celiac disease. This study helped provided scientific backing to the “gluten-free” diet fad, but Gibson believed that the evidence on which the fad was based wasn’t thorough enough, so in 2013 he performed another study.

In the 2013 study, he provided his subjects with three diets: two “treatment” diets, one of which was low-gluten, one of which was high-gluten; and a baseline diet. He found that subjects reported similarly increased gastrointestinal distress on both the low- and high-gluten “treatment” diets compared to the baseline.

Gibson then performed a second experiment to ensure the suitability of the whey protein in the baseline diet, and discovered that when he repeated the experiment with the baseline diet labeled as “treatment,” his subjects reported increased gastrointestinal distress on it as well.

The subjects were responding to what the medical community calls “the nocebo effect,” in which a harmless substance causes negative reactions because the subjects in an experiment expect it to.

Gibson was forced to draw a conclusion that directly contradicted the one he drew in 2011: “In contrast to our first study,” he wrote, “we could find absolutely no specific response to gluten.”

Link to article...

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/05/25/its-all-in-your-head-scientist-now-believes-his-pioneering-work-on-gluten-allergy-was-wrong/

Peace!

[Snookie]

You might want to read cardiologist Dr. William Davis's book "Wheat Belly", and "The Gluten Effect" by Drs Vikki & Richard Petersen. Both books site a lot of examples where people who had several different complaints eliminated wheat from their diet, and their symptoms either improved or disappeared entirely.

My niece was diagnosed with MS. Her Dr. said an unusual thing to her "now don't go and try any silly new diets". This peaked her interest, and she found forums where people who removed wheat had their symptoms go away. Guess what happened when she removed wheat and gluten from her diet? She has been symptom free for over a year, and she went off her meds during this time while she was pregnant. She has not started taking her meds again, after having her baby who is 8 mo old, and she is STILL symptom free.

I suspect this Dr. may have been heavily "influenced" by either/or Monsanto or Big Agra and probably even Big Pharma. They don't get their cut do they when people get better?

My hubby and I have tried to if not remove, greatly reduce gluten and high carb foods from our diets for the last 4 mo. We have both lost weight he >30 lbs, me >20 lbs. My joints don't hurt as much, his memory has improved and our energy has increased, just to name a few.

Did the placebo effect have something to do with this? Perhaps, but most drugs which are prescribed can't improve on the placebo effect either, and most have extensive side effects.

One reason I don't put much stock in this study is that many of Dr Davis patients didn't believe him when he recommended they eliminate gluten, but were so desperate they tried it as a last resort. They were shocked to find how much their condition improved.

[Sidney]

In my opinion, this is a classic case of disinfo.

[HaulinBananas]

The thing about this "test" the doctor did is that he didn't take blood samples to see the effect of food.

In Grain Brain, Dr. Perlmutter saw the effects by looking at the lab results, and after eliminating certain foods, people not only got better, but the evidence was also available in lab results.

The wheat ("big agra") industry is fighting back, and also journalism tries to show a balanced view. However, the information coming out that shows the damaging effects of certain foods is based on more substance than this study which is based on people's beliefs.

In recent books about food, the food industry, food scientist, and medical issues (there's a slew of them out this year alone) - there are examples cited over and over again by the authors of how industries managed to skew results of studies and tests in their favor.

When it boils down to it, scientists are people who collect paychecks, have kids and spouses, mortgages, and want job security or funding. Science is not perfect, when industry pays for it or egos or politics get involved, science can be manipulated.

Great books referenced above. It takes more time and work to read these books and most people just want to read a short article, and there are some who just read the headlines. In Grain Brain Dr. Perlmutter is very specific in the first half of the book on foods, lab tests, the meanings of the tests, and how quickly various people with a broad range of physical and even psychological problems were healed/cured by eliminating specific foods.

Inflammation can be hidden, especially if it's in the brain. Eliminating certain foods will make a world of difference.

http://www.amazon.com/Grain-Brain-Surprising-Brains-Killers/dp/1444791907/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&sr=1-1&qid=1401216541



Grain Brain: The Surprising Truth about Wheat, Carbs, and Sugar - Your Brain's Silent Killers Paperback

[Dennis Leahy]

Perhaps the newer study is correct - forms the correct conclusion. However...

...the "syndrome" I hear most often associated with wheat/gluten (besides celiac disease) is called "leaky gut", which allows various substances to escape the intestines and get into the blood stream. I'd have to read the study - study the study protocol and procedures - to have a better opinion on whether or not the test subjects were evaluated properly. I'm not too confident of the subjective measure "reported increased gastrointestinal distress." Whether the test subjects could feel it or not is not definitive.

In the interview (http://www.gastro.org/journals-publications/gastroenterology/gastro-podcast/gastroenterology-podcast-august-2013), the author said the the test subjects' blood was tested - looking for symptoms of inflammation and increased antibodies in the bloodstream. I don't know enough to say whether this is a thorough way to actually search for symptoms of leaky gut, but the author felt it was conclusive proof that gluten was not the culprit.

Secondly, "whey" was the "control" substance? Seriously? Didn't the study author know that milk is one of the 3 most widely allergic foods?

Listening to the study author's podcast (I have not read the actual study), translated into layman terms, he is not letting "wheat" off the hook, but suspects the carbohydrate components of wheat (which would fall under FODMAP (http://shepherdworks.com.au/disease-information/low-fodmap-diet)s - Fermentable Oligosaccharides, Disaccharides, Monosaccharides and Polyols) may be the culprit rather than the protein in wheat (gluten is mainly protein.) That alone makes the article title sensationalist and misleading. Almost everyone reading the article (I would bet), would take away the false conclusion that wheat has been exonerated from being harmful.

As the study's author said in the interview: "possibilities that gluten may cause problems when on a high FODMAP diet - we didn't answer that question." And, that is a BIG question, because other that "seitan", the commercially available product that is mostly gluten, almost ALL wheat products contain both the proteins and carbohydrates of wheat. None of us even has access to lab-grade wheat carbohydrate minus gluten, or any high gluten food devoid of wheat carbohydrate. So, study authors, dieticians, and ultimately food consumers are left with the reality of a general population with a diet with a huge percentage of wheat - with all its components.

As an aside, if you look at foods considered as FODMAPs, well, as a vegan that leans HEAVILY (avocado, chickpea, lentil, apple, mango, cherry, plum, mushroom, onion, garlic, ...) on all but the "D" category on this list ... it pretty much leaves me with leafy greens and water. It would be awful news to me if I find out that a low FODMAP diet is best.

Dennis

[Hervé]

The Mainstream Media Declares: Gluten Sensitivity A Myth -- Who Cares? (http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/mainstream-media-declares-gluten-sensitivity-myth-who-cares?page=2)

Posted on: Tuesday, May 20th 2014 at 1:15 pm
Written By: Sayer Ji, Founder (http://www.greenmedinfo.com/gmi-blogs/sayer%20ji)



http://cdn.greenmedinfo.com/sites/default/files/ckeditor/Sayer%20Ji/images/gluten_sensitivity_myth%281%29.jpg

A profound change in worldwide consumer behavior has taken hold around the issue of wheat's status in the human diet (to the tune of a burgeoning multi-billion dollar 'gluten free' products industry), and lately, a battery of mainstream articles have come out claiming that the only population legitimately entitled to identify wheat as a cause of their malaise are those with classically defined and diagnosed celiac disease – albeit, an increasingly expanding population.

With articles titled, "Study: Gluten "sensitivity" may not exist (http://fox43.com/2014/05/19/study-gluten-sensitivity-may-not-exist/)," "Study says non-celiac gluten sensitivity may not be real (http://wqad.com/2014/05/19/study-says-non-celiac-gluten-sensitivity-may-not-be-real/)," "Gluten Sensitivity Probably Not a Real Condition, Study Says (http://wgno.com/2014/05/19/gluten-sensitivity-probably-not-a-real-condition-study-says/)," proliferating wildly, what is the truth?

The study referred to in the above articles was published in 2013 in the journal Gastroenterology and was lead by an Australian professor of gastroentology who first identified an expanded category of gluten sensitive disorders labeled 'non-celiac gluten sensitivity' (NCGS). His original study (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21224837), published in the American Journal of Gastroentology in 2011, found that gluten caused significant gastrointestinal distress in patients without celiac disease (CD), and was lauded as strong evidence that gluten avoidance may benefit a larger population than those suffering with CD.

His more recent study (http://www.gastrojournal.org/article/S0016-5085%2813%2900702-6/abstract?referrer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fpubmed%2F23648697?referrer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nc bi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fpubmed%2F23648697), a double-blind cross-over trial of 37 subjects with NCGS and irritable bowel syndrome, but not celiac disease, randomly assigned participants to groups given a 2-week diet of reduced dietary reduction of fermentable, poorly absorbed, short-chain carbohydrates, known by he acronym FODMAPs (http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/avoiding-fodmaps-because-gluten-free-diets-are-not-enough) (fermentable, oligo-, di-, monosaccharides, and polyols), and were then placed on high-gluten (16 g gluten/d), low-gluten (2 g gluten/d and 14 g whey protein/d), or control (16 g whey protein/d) diets for 1 week, followed by a washout period of at least 2 weeks.

The researchers assessed serum and fecal markers of intestinal inflammation/injury and immune activation, and indices of fatigue. Twenty-two participants then crossed over to groups given gluten (16 g/d), whey (16 g/d), or control (no additional protein) diets for 3 days. Their symptoms were then evaluated by visual analogue scales.

The study results were reported as follows:
"In all participants, gastrointestinal symptoms consistently and significantly improved during reduced FODMAP intake, but significantly worsened to a similar degree when their diets included gluten or whey protein. Gluten-specific effects were observed in only 8% of participants. There were no diet-specific changes in any biomarker. During the 3-day rechallenge, participants' symptoms increased by similar levels among groups. Gluten-specific gastrointestinal effects were not reproduced. An order effect was observed."
Despite mainstream reporting, the results did show that the reintroduction of gluten and whey caused a worsening of their symptoms, even though gastrointestinal effects and changes in various biomarkers were not reproduced except in one patient, who experienced a gliadin-specific T cell response similar to what is seen in celiac disease patients: "Only 1 patient elicited a positive T-cell response after the high-gluten (16 g/d) challenge, and her day-6 response was a >3-fold change from day 0 (Supplementary Figure 2A), a response similar to those reported in patients with celiac disease. " These exceptions do not support the unsophisticated mainstream reporting on the study which imply that 'gluten sensitivity' in general is an entirely fictitious entity.

Nonetheless, the study found that gluten is likely not alone responsible for all of the adverse health effects many without celiac disease experience as a result of gluten consumption, indicating that other factors beyond gluten in wheat, including fructans (which are reduced in the FODMAPs) diet, enzyme inhibitors (e.g. α-amylase/trypsin inhibitors), and lectins (which we have gone to great length to detail as a critical component of wheat toxicity (http://www.greenmedinfo.com/page/opening-pandoras-bread-box-critical-role-wheat-lectin-human-disease) beyond its 23,000+ proteins (http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/wheat-contains-not-one-23k-potentially-harmful-proteins)), likely play role in explaining why so many who employ a wheat free diet experience self-reported improvements in their health. Another confounder in the veritable explosion of 'gluten sensitivity' disorders over the past decade is the role that Roundup herbicide plays in amplifying dysbios in the gut (http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/news-release-gmos-linked-exploding-gluten-sensitivity-epidemic-free-pdf1), enhancing the potential for wheat to contribute to both celiac and non-celiac related adverse health effects.

This is why, although it is correct to state that 'Non-Celiac Gluten Sensitivity' may not be as large a problem as initially anticipated, 'Non-Celiac Wheat Sensitivity' very well is. Throwing out the baby (NCGS) with the bath water is certainly not the answer. While the wild-proliferation of irresponsible 'gluten free' marketing is a concerning trend – not unlike the 'fat free' and 'cholesterol free' nonsense of yesteryear – with 'gluten free' making its way onto obviously non-gluten containing products such as water, the significant toxicity of wheat cannot and should not be discounted.

With over 200 adverse health effects now documented in the biomedical literature linked to wheat consumption (http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/200-clinically-confirmed-reasons-not-eat-wheat), the time has come to point out the obvious: wheat, and all cereal grass 'grains,' have only been a part of the human diet for less than 95% of our existence as hunters and gatherers. When an 'ancestral' context is applied to the question of what we should eat, even the voluminous data we have collected on wheat toxicity (http://www.greenmedinfo.com/toxic-ingredient/wheat) may not be necessary to see through the rather reactionary rejection of the gluten free diet, and gluten free products industry. We propose that instead of using terminology such as 'Non-Celiac Gluten Toxicity' to describe the fundamental biological incompatibility between human physiology and the consumption of this mistakenly glorified 'king of grains,' we should be focusing on the thing itself – Wheat and its intrinsic and broad toxicity – instead of getting mired in taxonomical and clinical minutia which still privilege the 'evidence-based' model of absolutely clinical certainty over that of one's own direct experience following wheat removal from the diet. For an in-depth explanation of why wheat is not a health food, read: The Dark Side of Wheat: New Perspectives on Celiac Disease and Wheat Intolerance (http://www.greenmedinfo.com/page/dark-side-wheat-new-perspectives-celiac-disease-wheat-intolerance-sayer-ji).

In a previous post (http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/new-reason-why-wheat-and-gmos-can-destroy-your-health), we discussed the critical role that the human microbiome plays in mediating susceptibility to wheat protein's harmful potential, pointing out that like all health conditions, the individual's response to a toxin or toxicant is multifactorial, and in the case of wheat exposure, will depend on factors such as history of antibiotic exposure, agrochemical exposure in grains, tubers, and pulses (glyphosate (http://www.greenmedinfo.com/toxic-ingredient/glyphosate) used in wheat harvesting as a dessicant/herbicide), breastfeeding duration, dysbios, and a wide range of additional known and unknown factors. Waiting around for the conventional medical system to verify there is a problem in face of the widespread certainty of direct experience is a bit ridiculous. In other words, if you think you may have a problem with wheat (or gluten), simply remove it and see how you feel, and how your body responds. Re-challenge yourself, if you think you are ok, or that the improvements were more than just imagined. This is the N-of-1 clinical setting that all truth first flows through when it comes to understanding what the best diet and approach to your health is for you.

The story does not end here. A battery of new studies and reviews have looked at NCGS's role in a variety of disorders. Although the much tauted NCGS study with negative findings is being blown up in the mainstream, research continues to confirm the relevance of this diagnostic category. Feel free to do a little exploration of the research yourself on pubmed.gov (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=gluten+sensitivity+non+celiac).

[Snookie]

Only 37 people were part of the study? Also the length of time they were exposed to each type of diet was extremely short IMO. It took me at least 6 weeks to see a significant difference, although many notice improvement sooner.

[Tyy1907]

"May not exist." They come off so innocent sounding. What if it read "Study finds eating gluten has no gastrointestinal effect whatsoever" or "Study finds people who claim to be gluten sensitive may be full of sh!t". I agree, disinfo campaign. "Our mutant GMO wheat products are great!" Not buying it.

[sigma6]

You might want to read cardiologist Dr. William Davis's book "Wheat Belly", and "The Gluten Effect" by Drs Vikki & Richard Petersen. Both books site a lot of examples where people who had several different complaints eliminated wheat from their diet, and their symptoms either improved or disappeared entirely.

My niece was diagnosed with MS. Her Dr. said an unusual thing to her "now don't go and try any silly new diets". This peaked her interest, and she found forums where people who removed wheat had their symptoms go away. Guess what happened when she removed wheat and gluten from her diet? She has been symptom free for over a year, and she went off her meds during this time while she was pregnant. She has not started taking her meds again, after having her baby who is 8 mo old, and she is STILL symptom free.

I suspect this Dr. may have been heavily "influenced" by either/or Monsanto or Big Agra and probably even Big Pharma. They don't get their cut do they when people get better?

My hubby and I have tried to if not remove, greatly reduce gluten and high carb foods from our diets for the last 4 mo. We have both lost weight he >30 lbs, me >20 lbs. My joints don't hurt as much, his memory has improved and our energy has increased, just to name a few.

Did the placebo effect have something to do with this? Perhaps, but most drugs which are prescribed can't improve on the placebo effect either, and most have extensive side effects.

One reason I don't put much stock in this study is that many of Dr Davis patients didn't believe him when he recommended they eliminate gluten, but were so desperate they tried it as a last resort. They were shocked to find how much their condition improved.

Poor Doctor, just lost his "commission check" .....

[conk]

Only 37 people were part of the study? Also the length of time they were exposed to each type of diet was extremely short IMO. It took me at least 6 weeks to see a significant difference, although many notice improvement sooner.My holistic MD told me that he attended a conference on wheat and gluten sensitivity. Many patients continue to suffer the ill effects for up to a year after abstaining! The great books referenced above make the case very well. Wheat is not a healthful food, just the opposite.