Re: The gluten theory

[Guest guest]

A doctory on the celiac list posted this ... note he mentions the

" Possible role of microflora in the onset of CD " (you might like

that ). The previous posts were to the point that good

bacteria might prevent CD.

Personally I disagree with this line of inquiry because gliadin

is not a benign substance, so the fact the immune system reacts

to it might not be considered a " disease " in the usual sense,

but it is clear that some people's immune systems highly over-react!

-- Heidi

==========================

A UK study of the prevalence of coeliac disease in children, aged 7 years,

found:

" At age 7, 1% of children were IgA-EMA positive and likely therefore to

have subclinical coeliac disease, though less than 0.1% were reported to be

on a gluten-free diet. The prevalence of coeliac disease in these children

is therefore comparable to that in UK adults. "

" Occult coeliac disease seems to start in childhood, even in those who are

subsequently diagnosed as adults. The search for the trigger resulting in

the breakdown of immune tolerance to gluten therefore needs to focus on

infancy and intrauterine life. "

In previous posts I have cited studies showing commensal microflora to be a

necessary component in neonatal gut development and immunity. Again, the

possible role of microflora in the onset of CD cannot be overlooked.

----------

BMJ. 2004 Feb 7;328(7435):322-3

Free full text:

http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/328/7435/322

Undiagnosed coeliac disease at age seven: population based prospective

birth cohort study.

Bingley PJ, AJ, Norcross AJ, Unsworth DJ, Lock RJ, Ness AR,

RW.

Division of Medicine, University of Bristol, Southmead Hospital, Bristol

BS10 5NB.

PMID: 14764493 [PubMed - in process]

----------

On another note, for clarity's sake, I would like to take this opportunity

to edit a poorly worded portion of my " Part 1 - Twin Studies " post (words

don't always come out right when you're half asleep):

http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/CGI/wa.exe?A2=ind0402b & L=celiac & O=D & P=1772

My original statement was:

" While twin studies show there is a high concordance of CD in identical

twins, there are no studies showing that CD eventually occurs in both

identical twins if only one has it at one time. And this is true in one

study of 5 twin pairs followed up for 11-23 years where 2 of the twins

remained free of CD. The fact that CD may occur in identical twins at

different times in their lives further supports that environmental factors,

such as commensal microflora, are necessary to trigger the onset of CD. "

The properly worded statement should instead read:

" While twin studies show there is a high concordance of CD in identical

twins, there are no studies showing that CD eventually occurs in both

identical twins if only one twin has it at one time. In one study, 5 twin

pairs were followed-up for 11-23 years. 2 of these twins remained free of

CD throughout the study, belying the idea CD is inevitable. If, in fact,

CD were to occur in identical twins at different times in their lives, the

occurrence would tend to support the notion that environmental factors,

such as commensal microflora, are necessary to trigger the onset of CD. "

* * *