Most of you are aware that I have maintained for a few years or so that there is no such thing as a true autoimmune disease, and this was also mentioned in my book. In thinking more about that theory, some clarification has come to mind. I thought I would post it here to see if anyone could point out why this theory is not valid.
As many of you know, basically I maintain that all so-called autoimmune diseases are the result of a response to an exogenous antigen, thus disqualifying them from meeting the description of a true autoimmune process (because if avoiding one or more exogenous antigens can stop a reaction, then the reaction cannot truly be autoimmune by definition). In order for a true autoimmune reaction to actually exist, it would have to be self-perpetuating, and it would have to be a result of a reaction to one or more endogenous antigens.
And of course, it is claimed that the discovery of anti-tissue transglutaminase antibodies verifies the existence of an autoimmune reaction in the case of celiac disease and other IBDs, and arthritis, for example. A similar reaction can be found in endomysium tissue and this is referred to as an anti-endomysial reaction (implying the production of antibodies to the endomysium tissue that serves as a sheath for muscle fiber). But actually, the endomysium contains a form of transglutaminase, known as tissue transglutaminase (TTG), and it's the antibodies that bind to this TTG that are known as anti-endomysial antibodies (EMA).
But here's the problem with that whole scenario: While the detection of anti-TTG antibodies, or EMAs, may serve as efficient markers to aid in the diagnosis of celiac disease (or other so-called autoimmune syndromes), as I mentioned above, a true autoimmune disease would have to be self-perpetuating in order to meet the definition of an autoimmune reaction. Period! Would it not? And that's clearly not the case here. With celiac disease for example, all one has to do is to remove gluten (an exogenous antigen) from the diet, and the production of EMAs will stop. Completely! The fact that the so-called autoimmune reaction cannot continue, thus verifying that the reaction is not self-perpetuating, proves that it was never an autoimmune reaction to begin with. It was merely a result of a reaction to an exogenous antigen (in this case gluten).
So either I am right, and celiac disease (for example) is not a true autoimmune disease, or my theory is wrong.
If my theory is wrong, then where is the error? Here, for example, is proof that withdrawing gluten from the diet of a celiac will absolutely stop the production of those anti-TTG antibodies:
The red emphasis is mine, of course.Results: Persistently elevated anti-tTG antibody levels were significantly associated with abnormal duodenal histology ( P < 0.001), low ferritin ( P < 0.01) and poor adherence to the GFD ( P <0> 85% while the sensitivity was 39–60%. Anti-tTG antibody concentrations fell rapidly following successful initiation of a GFD, and maintenance of normalization identified those who continued to be adherent to the diet.
Anti-tissue Transglutaminase Antibodies in the Follow-up of Adult Coeliac Disease
Clearly, celiac disease is due to a reaction against an exogenous antigen, not a reaction against "self", so how in the world can the guys in the white coats justify calling it an autoimmune disease? And this is just an "easy" example. If this line of reasoning is applied to other so-called autoimmune diseases, eventually they will also be found to not actually be autoimmune diseases.
Tex
