So he solicited the help of a few colleagues who were able to develop the fecal fat test and by using that test they proved that removing wheat from the diet reduced the amount of unabsorbed fat in the stool, whereas reintroducing wheat into the diet increased fecal fat content. This information was brought to the International Congress of the International Pediatric Association in 1950.
But guess what? Publication of the results was delayed because it was rejected by a prestigious American Magazine. Does that ring a bell? The same thing happened to Dr. Fine when he attempted to publish his research showing that celiac disease can be detected early (by detecting antibodies in stool, rather than blood), instead of having to wait until the villa of the small intestine are almost totally destroyed, as is required by the current celiac disease "gold standard" diagnostic criteria requiring a Marsh 3 level of villus damage to qualify for a celiac diagnosis. Furthermore, his research showed that the inflammation that perpetuates MC is due to food sensitivities (again, marked by antibodies in stool), and he demonstrated that removing those foods from the diet can control the symptoms.
So with a contrarian claim involving not just 1, but 2 diseases, and trashing the "gold standard" diagnostic criteria for celiac disease, it's not at all surprising that Dr. Fine's articles were refused publication. Mainstream medicine still hasn't come to grips with all of the implications of celiac disease yet, so they're certainly not ready to take on a similar issue with MC. After all, CC was first described only 40 years ago, so MC is still way back in the queue. And according to some authorities, even today approximately 19 out of 20 cases of celiac disease are never diagnosed, because of the primitive and unrealistic diagnostic criteria that continue to be used by the medical community.
But there's another issue here. It's now pretty well accepted that diet changes (avoiding gluten) are a complete treatment for celiac disease, and no additional (medical) intervention is required. Celiac disese was the first IBD ever medically described. It shouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that if 1 type of IBD (celiac disease) can be completely controlled by diet changes then it's very likely that the other types of IBD can be controlled by diet changes also. Some types of IBD just require more complex diet changes than celiac disease. So one would think that medicine would be focusing it's research on investigating ways to control the other IBDs by diet changes. At the very least they should be diligently trying to systematically rule out the option of using diet to treat the other IBDs. But instead they focus on drug-based treatments only. No one is interested in treating anything with diet changes, because there's no money in it for anyone in the industry, especially for the drug companies, where all but a small fraction of research funding originates.
The bias in medicine clearly states that all disease should be treated with drugs. For evidence, one need look no further than the fact that while in medical school, physicians do not even receive enough training about dietary issues to be able to make intelligent decisions about their own health, let along the health of patients who may have all sorts of dietary issues. So it's painfully clear that most of the bias associated with this issue is (as usual) all about money. And while the various industries involved scramble to make just as much money as they can (at the expense of all IBD patients) everyone who has an IBD continues to suffer needlessly, because of industry greed and inappropriate abuse of power.
Tex
