GMO's Linked to Exploding Gluten Sensitivity Epidemic?
Moderators: Rosie, Stanz, Jean, CAMary, moremuscle, JFR, Dee, xet, Peggy, Matthew, Gabes-Apg, grannyh, Gloria, Mars, starfire, Polly, Joefnh
GMO's Linked to Exploding Gluten Sensitivity Epidemic?
DISCLAIMER: I am not a doctor and don't play one on TV.
LDN July 18, 2014
Joan
LDN July 18, 2014
Joan
This is the best explanation I've read on the topic. I truly believe the introduction of GMOs in the mid 1990s is at least partly to blame for the gluten sensitivity and food allergy epidemics.
1987 Mononucleosis (EBV)
2004 Hypomyopathic Dermatomyositis
2009 Lymphocytic Colitis
2010 GF/DF/SF Diet
2014 Low Dose Naltrexone
2004 Hypomyopathic Dermatomyositis
2009 Lymphocytic Colitis
2010 GF/DF/SF Diet
2014 Low Dose Naltrexone
This quote from the article says it all:
If the source of that report were a credible, impartial, responsible entity, then the report might actually mean something, but unfortunately they are little more than lobbyists for the anti-GMO movement, pretending that they have science to back up their claims, despite the fact that they have none. All they have to offer are half-truths disguised as science, and vocal opinions. I've pointed out the problems with the credibility of the Institute for Responsible Technology several times in the past.
Of course, they claim that "The analysis is based on Dept. of Agriculture data, Environmental Protection Act records, medical journal reviews, and international research", to make it sound legitimate, but this is similar to the drug companies sponsoring research that produces glowing reports about how great statins are, and why everyone should be taking them, based on FDA evidence, when they are the ones who sent that data to the FDA in the first place.
When a credible, unbiased group publishes similar information, I'll change my thinking about this. But if there is any truth to those claims, why does that never happen? Why is it that only people who make their living (or a good share of it) from the promotion of anti-GMO material, are the only ones who publish such articles? This has been going on for 15 or 20 years now. One wound think that if the theory had any validity, some solid scientific evidence would have surfaced by now, but instead they keep rehashing the same old stuff. This same information made the rounds early last summer. It's not news. It's propaganda, from people who make a lot of money by promoting it.
I'm not a fan of GMO either — I wouldn't throw Monsanto a floatin' turd if they were drowning in a cesspool. But by the same token, I have a very low tolerance for fake science. Promoting assumptions and theories as fact, is fake science. Fake science doesn't help anyone but the people who promote it.
Tex
But one would never guess that to be the case based on reading the title of the article (nor the rest of the article). As Mr. Rogers would have said, "Can you say 'misleading'?"Whether GMOs are indeed a causative factor in the escalating trend of gluten sensitivity or merely an obstacle to cure is yet to be determined.
If the source of that report were a credible, impartial, responsible entity, then the report might actually mean something, but unfortunately they are little more than lobbyists for the anti-GMO movement, pretending that they have science to back up their claims, despite the fact that they have none. All they have to offer are half-truths disguised as science, and vocal opinions. I've pointed out the problems with the credibility of the Institute for Responsible Technology several times in the past.
Of course, they claim that "The analysis is based on Dept. of Agriculture data, Environmental Protection Act records, medical journal reviews, and international research", to make it sound legitimate, but this is similar to the drug companies sponsoring research that produces glowing reports about how great statins are, and why everyone should be taking them, based on FDA evidence, when they are the ones who sent that data to the FDA in the first place.
When a credible, unbiased group publishes similar information, I'll change my thinking about this. But if there is any truth to those claims, why does that never happen? Why is it that only people who make their living (or a good share of it) from the promotion of anti-GMO material, are the only ones who publish such articles? This has been going on for 15 or 20 years now. One wound think that if the theory had any validity, some solid scientific evidence would have surfaced by now, but instead they keep rehashing the same old stuff. This same information made the rounds early last summer. It's not news. It's propaganda, from people who make a lot of money by promoting it.
I'm not a fan of GMO either — I wouldn't throw Monsanto a floatin' turd if they were drowning in a cesspool. But by the same token, I have a very low tolerance for fake science. Promoting assumptions and theories as fact, is fake science. Fake science doesn't help anyone but the people who promote it.
Tex
It is suspected that some of the hardest material known to science can be found in the skulls of GI specialists who insist that diet has nothing to do with the treatment of microscopic colitis.
Hi, A large study from Sweden links even one course of antibiotics could cause gluten sensitivity. If GMO foods are considered an antibiotic then we will be comsuming them at lower doses daily. Talking to support groups about diet, GMO foods, etc. most people say " I do not have to avoid those foods I am healthy". But the minute they have a problem I get am e-mail or a call. Example, I was talking to a friend about my gluten free diet. When, I left " He said to his DW, " I would rather die then follow that diet" One month later after complaining for five years about an itchy rash he finally went to a skin doctor and was dx with DH. I got a call that day and he has been gluten free since and the rash slowly healed. Jon
Jon,
Unfortunately, GMO foods are not antibiotics. So why would anyone want to consider them to be an antibiotic?
Everyone seems to want to blame gluten-sensitivity on everything except wheat. Why is that?
The problem is that we can't digest wheat, and we never could. Why can't people just accept that and get over it?
Tex
Unfortunately, GMO foods are not antibiotics. So why would anyone want to consider them to be an antibiotic?
Everyone seems to want to blame gluten-sensitivity on everything except wheat. Why is that?
The problem is that we can't digest wheat, and we never could. Why can't people just accept that and get over it?Tex
It is suspected that some of the hardest material known to science can be found in the skulls of GI specialists who insist that diet has nothing to do with the treatment of microscopic colitis.
If we could never digest wheat, (I'm not disputing that at all), apparently it once went through most humans undigested without causing much trouble on the way out. Something has changed in the last 20 years which I imagine is increasingly permeable intestines, which allow all that gluten to wreak more havoc systemically.The problem is that we can't digest wheat, and we never could. Why can't people just accept that and get over it?
1987 Mononucleosis (EBV)
2004 Hypomyopathic Dermatomyositis
2009 Lymphocytic Colitis
2010 GF/DF/SF Diet
2014 Low Dose Naltrexone
2004 Hypomyopathic Dermatomyositis
2009 Lymphocytic Colitis
2010 GF/DF/SF Diet
2014 Low Dose Naltrexone
Sure, it goes through some people without triggering a reaction (at least it does for a varying number of years), but no one is immune to it's action — it causes increased intestinal permeability for every living soul. Have you forgotten about the reference (published by Dr. Fasano's team) that I've cited here many times?
The phrase "irrespective of the genetic expression of autoimmunity" means that it applies to everyone, not only people who have a celiac gene. Gluten sensitivity is a disease waiting to happen, and it's been happening for 10,000 years, ever since gluten was introduced into the human diet.
Back in earlier times, Darwin's theory fine-tuned the gene pool, but these days that doesn't happen. Medical science attempts to treat any and every condition that arises. I'm not saying that's wrong, I'm just pointing out why the species as a whole is becoming more and more prone to genetically-based health issues. We're breeding ourselves into a state of devolution, because Darwin's theory no longer applies.
Before the industrial revolution came along, and began to put everyone in an office environment, those individuals who had severe allergies or other disabilities had a real problem surviving, because they couldn't stand up to hard labor. That affected the gene pool. There are no restrictions on the gene pool these days, for all practical purposes. When I was about 12 years old, it if hadn't been for a doctor, and a shot of cortisol, I would have died of suffocation, due to a severe asthma attack one night. If I had been born decades earlier, I probably would have been eliminated at that point.
What has changed in the last 20 years is that we have stopped ignoring gluten sensitivity, so we're suddenly aware of it. Were you aware of celiac disease 20 years ago? If you were even aware of it, did you understand what it implied? Had you ever heard of MC 20 years ago?
We are the parameters in the equation that have changed. And our diet has changed as we (as a society) continue to eat increasingly larger amounts of gluten. And as we do so, more of us trigger gluten sensitivity earlier in our lives. It's that simple.
Tex
Gliadin, zonulin and gut permeability: Effects on celiac and non-celiac intestinal mucosa and intestinal cell lines.CONCLUSIONS: Based on our results, we concluded that gliadin activates zonulin signaling irrespective of the genetic expression of autoimmunity, leading to increased intestinal permeability to macromolecules.
The phrase "irrespective of the genetic expression of autoimmunity" means that it applies to everyone, not only people who have a celiac gene. Gluten sensitivity is a disease waiting to happen, and it's been happening for 10,000 years, ever since gluten was introduced into the human diet.
Back in earlier times, Darwin's theory fine-tuned the gene pool, but these days that doesn't happen. Medical science attempts to treat any and every condition that arises. I'm not saying that's wrong, I'm just pointing out why the species as a whole is becoming more and more prone to genetically-based health issues. We're breeding ourselves into a state of devolution, because Darwin's theory no longer applies.
Before the industrial revolution came along, and began to put everyone in an office environment, those individuals who had severe allergies or other disabilities had a real problem surviving, because they couldn't stand up to hard labor. That affected the gene pool. There are no restrictions on the gene pool these days, for all practical purposes. When I was about 12 years old, it if hadn't been for a doctor, and a shot of cortisol, I would have died of suffocation, due to a severe asthma attack one night. If I had been born decades earlier, I probably would have been eliminated at that point.
What has changed in the last 20 years is that we have stopped ignoring gluten sensitivity, so we're suddenly aware of it. Were you aware of celiac disease 20 years ago? If you were even aware of it, did you understand what it implied? Had you ever heard of MC 20 years ago?
We are the parameters in the equation that have changed. And our diet has changed as we (as a society) continue to eat increasingly larger amounts of gluten. And as we do so, more of us trigger gluten sensitivity earlier in our lives. It's that simple.
Tex
It is suspected that some of the hardest material known to science can be found in the skulls of GI specialists who insist that diet has nothing to do with the treatment of microscopic colitis.