Malignancy and Mortality in Gluten Sensitivity

[MBombardier]

I saw on "The Adventures of a Gluten-Free Mom" blog that it was recommended that she print this out and take it to her son's pediatrician so he would write a letter to the school so her son's dietary restrictions would be taken seriously.

Malignancy and mortality in a population-based cohort of patients with coeliac disease or "gluten sensitivity".

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17206762

[Gloria]

Breast cancer is significantly reduced in the cohort of patients with gluten sensitivity.

Whoa! That's something I haven't read before.

Gloria

[tex]

Call me a skeptic, but I have a problem believing the results of that study. Look at what they're saying:

Malignant neoplasms were not significantly associated with coeliac disease; however, all-cause mortality was significantly increased following diagnosis. The standardized incidence and mortality ratios for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma were increased in coeliac disease patients but did not reach statistical significance. Lung and breast cancer incidence were significantly lower and all-cause mortality, mortality from malignant neoplasms, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and digestive system disorders were significantly higher in gluten sensitive patients compared to the Northern Ireland population.

Now I can see how people who are gluten-sensitive, (but not diagnosed with celiac disease), might have an increased risk of mortality, because presumably, they will not be subject to the GF diet, and will therefore remain untreated, (and possibly even symptomatic). There is no logical reason, however, why all-cause mortality would increase for celiacs, following diagnosis, unless the GF diet causes the increased risks, or unless suicide rates went way up because people were despondent over the diagnosis. I find either possibility very hard to believe. IMO, that study obviously involved one or more confounding factors, which invalidated the results.

Tex

[MBombardier]

I thought that was confusing, when I read it. It's almost like they are contradicting themselves. I thought it was interesting that Ron Hoggan, EdD, co-author of Dangerous Grains and editor of The Journal of Gluten Sensitivity recommended this article to take to the pediatrician.

I was looking around at web links with enterolab, which is why I ran across this. The blogger, Heidi, did enterolab testing for her son. She also mentioned the rectal challenge, which is the first time I had heard of that. No thank you...

I'm not pointing any fingers, but from this forum I am starting to learn enough to recognize that there is a lot of inaccurate, even ludicrous information out there.

[tex]

Marliss,

I wondered, too, why someone would select that article to accomplish the goals that they were pursuing. Presumably, it was because the article at least mentions the risk of serious consequences, but I consider it a very poor choice, since it doesn't really directly implicate poor diet control as a contributing factor to any of those dire consequences, and the authors do a very poor job of making any sort of case, concerning the risks of adverse events due to celiac disease. In effect, they simply said that celiacs die early, but not from the most commonly-associated forms of cancer. It's pointless information.

I'm not pointing any fingers, but from this forum I am starting to learn enough to recognize that there is a lot of inaccurate, even ludicrous information out there.

The sad part is, much of that information can be found at the websites of some of the most prestigious hospitals and clinics in the world. Since it's mixed in with all the valid information, that makes the situation very insidious, for the uninformed. That means that if we don't know more about it than they do, to begin with, then we are likely to be misled by their information. That makes it hard to win, doesn't it.

Tex