Enterolab results are in

[raemckee]

I got my report back for B and C. I have one of the main genes that predisposes to gluten sensitivity and celiac sprue. I also have a non-celiac gene predisposing to gluten sensitivity.

I have a sensitivity to gluten, soy, eggs from Panel B. From Panel C I have:

Food toward which you displayed most immunologic reactivity: Beef, Pork, Tuna, Corn
Food toward which you displayed intermediate reactivity: Rice, Chicken, Walnut, White potato
Food toward which you displayed least immunologic reactivity: Cashew
Food for which there was no significant immunologic reactivity: Oat, Almond

Is it unusual to be reactive to so many of these foods?

I have not ate beef for 20 years. How is it possible to test with the most immunologic reactivty to this?

The latest gastroenterologist I saw said MC works by causing increased secretions in the bowel. That results in the excess stool. If you have a link to a better understanding on how this disease works I'd appreciate it.

Thanks for all your help!

[tex]

Hi Rae,

It's somewhat uncommon to have so many food-sensitivities, but it's certainly not rare, on this board. Have you seen our list of lab test results?

http://www.perskyfarms.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=10089

I suspect the problem with beef may be that the main protein molecule may contain a peptide that closely resembles one of the primary peptides in wheat, to which most celiacs react. That's known as molecular mimicry. I reacted to beef while I was recovering, but after I healed, beef no longer caused any symptoms. I also have a copy of the most common celiac gene, DQ2.

Your GI doc was referring to secretory diarrhea, which is a form of diarrhea unique to the inflammatory bowel diseases, (including celiac disease). With secretory diarrhea, instead of removing water from the colon, water is infused into the lumen, instead, thus causing the high volume liquid D, so familiar with MC. There are a lot of old discussions in the archives, about the causes and effects of MC.

I'm writing a book about the disease, which contains a new theory about how it develops, and a lot of other details which are not commonly understood, (especially by the gastroenterology departments of most medical institutions). Hopefully, once it's finished and published, it will simplify providing answers to questions such as you've asked, because then I will be able to just quote from the book. In the meantime, I can't provide a link, because I disagree with a lot of details in the descriptions currently offered by all the "experts" on the medical websites.

You're most welcome,
Tex

[raemckee]

Thank you Tex. I'm looking forward to reading your book. Now I understand why I thought my grandmother was a sourpuss. I'm trying hard to maintain my former demeanor.

[Gabes-Apg]

and Tex, wouldnt the inflammation contribute, the motion passes quicker, so the bowel is not able to absorb as much of the water?

[tex]

and Tex, wouldnt the inflammation contribute, the motion passes quicker, so the bowel is not able to absorb as much of the water?

Well, yes, but it's not going to be able to absorb any water when it's pumping water into the lumen, because the flow through the boundary is going the wrong way.

Tex

[raemckee]

I still have a few questions about my EnteroLab report.

B) Gluten/Antigenic Food Sensitivity Stool/Gene Panel
Fecal Anti-casein (cow’s milk) IgA 6 Units (Normal Range is less than 10 Units)

1. If I have measurable fecal IgA for anti-gliadin, anti-ovalbumin (chicken egg) and anti-soy, why would they question my IgA reading for anti-casein?

"Interpretation of Fecal Anti-casein (cow’s milk) IgA: A value less than 10 Units indicates that there currently is minimal or no immunologic reaction to milk, and hence no direct evidence of food sensitivity to this specific food. However, because 1 in 500 people cannot make IgA at all, and rarely, some immunocompetent people can still have clinically significant reactions to a food antigen despite the lack of a significant antibody reaction (because the reactions primarily involve T cells), if you have an immune syndrome or symptoms associated with food sensitivity, such as chronic headaches, abdominal symptoms (pain, cramping, bloating, gas, diarrhea and/or constipation), chronic sinus congestion, arthritis, chronic skin problems/rashes, fibromyalgia, and/or chronic fatigue, it is recommended that you try a strict removal of suspect foods from your diet for up to 12 months despite a negative test. If you have been on a diet reduced or devoid of the suspect food for many months or years (usually but not always requires two or more years), this can also (but will not always) reduce your fecal antibody level to that food into the normal range despite underlying ongoing sensitivity to that food."

C) Antigenic Food Sensitivity Stool Panel
Mean Value 11 Antigenic Foods 15 Units (Normal Range is less than 10 Units)

2. If "sometimes a person can display what can be viewed as immunological and nutritional “exhaustion,” whereby a more significant and symptomatic immunologic food sensitivity is accompanied by a lower positive measured anti-food antibody value (rather than a higher positive). In such an instance, following clinical improvement and improved nutritional status (while the suspect antigenic foods are withdrawn), values can actually be higher for a time before finally falling into the negative range after several years." Then how can they adequately rank the reactivity of the food if the measurement cannot be relied on?

3. How concerned do I need to be about eliminating the immune stimulating food if the report said "Interpretation of Mean Value 11 Antigenic Foods: Overall, there was only a modest amount of immunological reactivity detected to these antigenic foods in terms of fecal IgA production."?

Thank you for your help!

[tex]

1. If I have measurable fecal IgA for anti-gliadin, anti-ovalbumin (chicken egg) and anti-soy, why would they question my IgA reading for anti-casein?

That's a standard disclaimer that they use for any negative test result, (in case the patient has selective IgA deficiency). The bottom line is that you're not producing a significant number of anti-casein antibodies.

C) Antigenic Food Sensitivity Stool Panel
Mean Value 11 Antigenic Foods 15 Units (Normal Range is less than 10 Units)

2. If "sometimes a person can display what can be viewed as immunological and nutritional “exhaustion,” whereby a more significant and symptomatic immunologic food sensitivity is accompanied by a lower positive measured anti-food antibody value (rather than a higher positive). In such an instance, following clinical improvement and improved nutritional status (while the suspect antigenic foods are withdrawn), values can actually be higher for a time before finally falling into the negative range after several years." Then how can they adequately rank the reactivity of the food if the measurement cannot be relied on?

The most reliable and accurate lab tests for detecting proteins in samples use Enzyme-Linked ImmunoSorbent Assay (ELISA) technology, (and this is what EnteroLab uses). However, nothing is chiseled in stone with any medical lab test that involves ELISA. Absolutely all of them are reliant on statistical analysis interpretation. IOW, there will always be a few false negative results, and there will always be a few false positive results, with any test. Results always have to be interpreted by statistical analysis methods.

Therefore, the results in this test are ranked according to statistical analysis. Claiming that the results "can't be relied on" is true, in the sense that absolutely nothing can be relied on, in the long run, in the real world. However, that disclaimer just acknowledges that there is no such thing as perfection in medical science, (or any other science for that matter, despite claims to the contrary). We just have to reach the best conclusions, based on the best mathematical methods, and go from there.

Statistically, test results such as that are increasingly accurate as the results deviate from the critical break point, (10, in this case). IOW, a result of 9, 10, or 11 may be only 90% accurate, but a result of 7 or 13 should be better than 98% accurate, and a result of 5 or 15 should be better than 99% accurate. Do you see what I'm saying. Your result of "15" is a highly reliable positive result, IMO.

3. How concerned do I need to be about eliminating the immune stimulating food if the report said "Interpretation of Mean Value 11 Antigenic Foods: Overall, there was only a modest amount of immunological reactivity detected to these antigenic foods in terms of fecal IgA production."?

Look at the section that lists which foods were the most reactive, and avoid them. There is a chance that you might not react to one or more of them, but the odds are against you in that category. The ones listed as "moderately reactive" will probably be a problem, also, (but there is a better chance that some of them may not be reactive). The ones listed as "minimally reactive", (or whatever similar wording was used), will be the least likely to cause problems, but that doesn't mean that you might not react to some or all of them. You have to determine that by trial and error, just as you would do with the results of testing using MRT. The difference between the EnteroLab results and MRT results is that the EnteroLab results are much more reliable, but that doesn't mean that they are perfect in every situation. No test is perfect in every situation. Even our own trial and error testing is not perfect in every situation.

You're most welcome,
Tex