RE: gluten, mercury and allergies ( was. RE: FW: RE: Please Help...)

[Guest guest]

>>Now, no one knows exactly why, but folks with IgA issues tend to do

>>weird things with calcium, magnesium, and other metals.

>

>Same for folks with mercury intoxication. That's the whole point of the hair

>elements test since mercury fairly reliably interrupts mineral transport in

>predictable ways. I wonder if both mercury and IgA allergies mess up mineral

>transport in *similar* ways?

The symptoms for gluten intolerance, candida overgrowth, lack of stomach acid,

lack of enzymes, stress, mercury, and a few

other problems are remarkably similar. Now for gluten and candida I can see the

connection easily: gluten intolerant folks generally have candida (because they

don't digest food right), but of course a lot of other things mess up candida

(like lack of stomach acid, which can also be caused by gluten intolerance and

probably somewhat in the reverse).

I suspect they all act similarly, esp. in that the bacterial balance of the

colon

gets disrupted. Considering that some big part of your nervous system is

devoted to the gut (remember the gut-brain discussion?) it makes sense.

IgA allergies don't have any *direct* symptoms to speak of (the only reliable

one I have is that the room starts feeling colder) ... high mercury levels don't

really have any symptoms either, until some problems develop. Ditto for lead.

>Well, we DO know that mercury interferes with the enzyme that digests

>gluten, and it does mess up one's gut flora and cause candida overgrowth, so

>it CAN be a factor in gluten intolerance. But I don't see any reason to

>believe that it's the sole cause of gluten intolerance. I'm not arguing that

>at all. I think it's just one of a number of things that can cause or

>trigger gluten intolerance. It may be that in recent times it plays much

>more of a role in gluten intolerance because at least 80% of our population

>has chronic mercury poisoning from amalgams, plus the fact that just about

>every child is given well beyond the government's " safe dose " limit via

>thimersol in vaccines. And then it's in thousands of common products from

>paints, OTC medications so we're just being saturated with it. Maybe 300

>years ago it wasn't a common trigger for gluten intolerance because most

>folks didn't get exposed to it.

Could be. Most of the " big " outbreaks of celiac seem to have been before

amalgams though.

It's actually *less* of a problem now than it was in the past. The average

American ate

more wheat in the 1800's, and the infant mortality rate was HUGE. One suspects a

mass

genetic die-off around then. Also you have cases like when they ship wheat to

Africa

and cause celiac in the kids. Could be fungicides ... but shipments of millet

and buckwheat

etc. don't seem to have that problem (and I'd guess similar fungicides are used

on

other grain crops). So while it could have a role, the issues (already shown in

studies)

of early feeding of cereals to kids and lack of breastfeeding are probably

bigger. The

celiac rates go up and down depending on the current baby-care fads in a given

country, where one presumes the mercury exposure from amalgams would be about

the same.

There is also the issue of " latent " problems vs. " obvious " problems. It could be

that a person has the IgA intolerance for years, but at a low enough level that

it isn't an issue. Then some stressor pushes them over the edge and they go

downhill fast. Usually the stressor is hormonal (teenagehood, pregnancy,

menopause

are the biggies) but mercury could be in there too. There really isn't a lot

of study on adult gluten intolerance because it was considered so rare (and

it WAS rare because most people tended to die of it in childhood until

recently).

>I'm only arguing that's a possibility given that we know it interferes with

>the enzyme necessary to digest gluten and give that it's become a ubiquitous

>poison, at least in the U.S.

Agreed. In Dangerous Grains it says most people just don't produce the enzymes

to digest gluten, but I don't know where they got that (or if it varies by

country).

>>2. Is mercury a sufficient requirement for gluten intolerance?

>>

>>I'd say again, clearly not, because in some places there is

>>a high overall dosage of mercury but people seem to

>>tolerate it or excrete it.

>

>I don't think it's a requirement either, but can you explain what you mean

>by this? Where is there a high overall dose of mercury where people are

>tolerating or excreting it?

I think it came up earlier in a discussion about fish ... that fish have always

been

high in mercury, and some cultures eat a lot of fish! It's not something I've

studied though.

>However, the confounding factor is that a lot of these folks not only remove

>the mercury from their body, but they also often do *other* things to get

>better at the same time, like going GF/CF or, doing saunas and other detox

>regimens, or add lots of antioxidants to their diet, and clean up their

>lifestyle, etc. So, anecdotally, I think it's hard to separate out all these

>factors. I DO think though, that there have been controlled studies on the

>effects of mercury removal, that remove the other variables. I will have to

>check for those results. But in any case, I think it's agreed that removing

>the most toxic non-radioactive metal in the world from one's body,

>generally tends to improve one's health ;-)

Yep, the ol' shotgun approach! Also with Autism, there isn't a clear etiology at

this point, to allow them to tweak *one* thing and cure it. Shoot, when I was

growing up they still thought it was caused by uncaring mothers.

Again, it's not

>>clear what is going on. A lot of people are taking a shotgun approach

>>to getting themselves well ... for good reasons ... and it works in a lot

>>of cases, but there isn't enough info to say exactly WHY it works.

>

>I think that may be true for some cases but not others. In terms of mercury,

>it's been well established that it causes " x " , " y " and " z " to happen, and

>when it's removed, these things tend to clear up. There's really been

>*extensive* research on mercury toxicity - over 14,000 studies according to

>Tom Warren in " Reversing Chronic Disease " . So it's not always a guessing

>game.

Right, they've studied mercury toxicity. But related to autism specifically?

Like you

said above, most of the parents try lots of different things. And even if most

kids

with autism have high mercury levels, you'd also have to show their *mothers*

had

high mercury levels or that their environmental load was higher than usual, for

it

to be a cause. Ditto for mercury and gluten intolerance. And then you'd have to

show

that it wasn't a side effect of something else. I.e. most everyone has mercury

fillings,

then why are only some of them having problems? But I'd have to read the book

to say anything useful!

>Amalgams are likely on their way out anyway, for cosmetic reasons

>>if nothing else. (It really is interesting that when vanity comes into

>>play, people REALLY change fast, where they will often shrug off health

>>benefits).

>

>I don't think so. The ADA has been defending their use for about a century,

>I believe. They are cheaper and quicker to set than alternatives (good

>incentive for dentists to keep using them). There are literally thousands of

>alternatives, but most dentists use the ADA recommended amalgams. Insurance

>companies won't cover amalgam removal for cosmetic purposes and most people

>don't know they are walking around with mercury in their mouths because they

>were told they are " silver " fillings and were not told they contain over 50%

>mercury. Maybe when there is greater public awareness, then the demand for

>alternatives will become widespread.

The dentists I go to all offer the white ones ... they don't show up! But we can

place a bet ... the public tends to go on bandwagons, and industry does

respond after awhile. Witness what happened to silicon breast implants

and the recent bit with GMO wheat. Or all those Atkins products on

the shelves now.

-- Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

> Re: gluten, mercury and allergies ( was. RE: FW: RE:

>Please Help...)

>

>>Well, we DO know that mercury interferes with the enzyme that digests

>>gluten, and it does mess up one's gut flora and cause candida

>overgrowth, so

>>it CAN be a factor in gluten intolerance. But I don't see any reason to

>>believe that it's the sole cause of gluten intolerance. I'm not

>arguing that

>>at all. I think it's just one of a number of things that can cause or

>>trigger gluten intolerance. It may be that in recent times it plays much

>>more of a role in gluten intolerance because at least 80% of our

>population

>>has chronic mercury poisoning from amalgams, plus the fact that just about

>>every child is given well beyond the government's " safe dose " limit via

>>thimersol in vaccines. And then it's in thousands of common products from

>>paints, OTC medications so we're just being saturated with it. Maybe 300

>>years ago it wasn't a common trigger for gluten intolerance because most

>>folks didn't get exposed to it.

>

>Could be. Most of the " big " outbreaks of celiac seem to have been

>before amalgams though.

Right, but again I'm not arguing that mercury intoxication is the sole cause

of gluten intolerance - only that it could likely be a common cause today

due to the sheer volume of Americans with chronic mercury poisoning. And I

don't know what type of intolerance it causes - IgG or IgE, I suppose. Or

maybe it *triggers* IgA in folks with the 4 susceptibility genes.

>

>There is also the issue of " latent " problems vs. " obvious "

>problems. It could be

>that a person has the IgA intolerance for years, but at a low

>enough level that

>it isn't an issue. Then some stressor pushes them over the edge and they go

>downhill fast. Usually the stressor is hormonal (teenagehood,

>pregnancy, menopause

>are the biggies) but mercury could be in there too.

Right...agreed.

>

>>I'm only arguing that's a possibility given that we know it

>interferes with

>>the enzyme necessary to digest gluten and give that it's become a

>ubiquitous

>>poison, at least in the U.S.

>

>Agreed. In Dangerous Grains it says most people just don't produce

>the enzymes

>to digest gluten, but I don't know where they got that (or if it

>varies by country).

Or by exposure to heavy metals or other toxins that interfere with its

production?

>

>

>>>2. Is mercury a sufficient requirement for gluten intolerance?

>>>

>>>I'd say again, clearly not, because in some places there is

>>>a high overall dosage of mercury but people seem to

>>>tolerate it or excrete it.

>>

>>I don't think it's a requirement either, but can you explain what you mean

>>by this? Where is there a high overall dose of mercury where people are

>>tolerating or excreting it?

>

>I think it came up earlier in a discussion about fish ... that

>fish have always been

>high in mercury, and some cultures eat a lot of fish! It's not

>something I've

>studied though.

Right, but the amount of exposure one gets from amalgams is MUCH higher than

from fish, so the exposure would be quite a bit lower if fish were your only

exposure (although that's almost impossible due to its ubiquitousness in the

environment and manufacturing). I'd also wager that the same amount of

exposure to a healthy body would cause less damage, and I tend to think each

succeeding generation is getting weaker and weaker. Which means we are less

and less able to tolerate exposure to toxins or heavy metals that our

ancestors may have handled without problems.

There are also different *forms* of mercury, with one being much more toxic

than the other, although I don't recall if it's the organic or inorganic

form that is most toxic. I'm also not sure which form fish contain and which

form amalgams contain. But they also get converted to other forms once

ingested, so I'm also not sure if the source makes a difference. With so

many uncertainties, I could've just omitted this para! LOL!

>

>Yep, the ol' shotgun approach! Also with Autism, there isn't a

>clear etiology at

>this point, to allow them to tweak *one* thing and cure it.

I'm not certain, but I think this is not true. I think there's quite a bit

of evidence that mercury is a prominent factor in the development of autism.

In fact some researchers refer to autism as a form of mercurial poisoning. I

haven't read much of the research, so I'm not sure how they got from a) the

fact that mercury is a potent neurotoxin to mercury causes autism.

>Again, it's not

>>>clear what is going on. A lot of people are taking a shotgun approach

>>>to getting themselves well ... for good reasons ... and it works in a lot

>>>of cases, but there isn't enough info to say exactly WHY it works.

>>

>>I think that may be true for some cases but not others. In terms

>of mercury,

>>it's been well established that it causes " x " , " y " and " z " to happen, and

>>when it's removed, these things tend to clear up. There's really been

>>*extensive* research on mercury toxicity - over 14,000 studies

>according to

>>Tom Warren in " Reversing Chronic Disease " . So it's not always a guessing

>>game.

>

>Right, they've studied mercury toxicity. But related to autism

>specifically?

Oh yes! Absolutely. I don't know to what extent, but I'm getting the

impression that there's been a lot of research in this area. Here's a really

interesting PPT on this subject.

www.eas.asu.edu/~autism/SixTalks-AutismOneMay2003[1].ppt On page 16 they

reference a paper by Bernard et al. " Autism: A Novel Type of Mercury

Poisoning " , FWIW.

Like you

>said above, most of the parents try lots of different things. And

>even if most kids

>with autism have high mercury levels, you'd also have to show

>their *mothers* had

>high mercury levels or that their environmental load was higher

>than usual, for it

>to be a cause.

Yes, this HAS been shown already. See the PPT above. They found that mothers

of kids with ASD had greater mercury exposure than controls. And that ASD

kids can't *clear* mercury like non-ASD kids can. That seems to be as

important a factor as mere exposure. In fact, those kids with the most

severe ASD had the *lowest* Hg levels in hair. Non-ASD kids have the highest

level (hair is one venue of excretion).

Ditto for mercury and gluten intolerance. And then

>you'd have to show

>that it wasn't a side effect of something else. I.e. most everyone

>has mercury fillings,

>then why are only some of them having problems? But I'd have to

>read the book

>to say anything useful!

And most Americans have health problems! Not that they are all tied to their

amalgams, but having the most toxic non-radioactive metal known leaking into

your body on a daily basis for several decades tends to have a negative

effect. Add that to bad diet, unhealthy lifestyle, other toxin exposure and

you've got a recipe for a nation of poor health. Oh wait, that's what we

already have! LOL

>

>>Amalgams are likely on their way out anyway, for cosmetic reasons

>>>if nothing else.

Another point worth mentioning, even if mercury in *amalgams* is on it's way

out (and NEW amalgams are MUCH more toxic than older ones, BTW) mercury

itself is not on it's way out of our lives. Rather it's increasing...from

industrial emissions, and it's extensive use in a huge array of common

products.

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

----------------------------

" The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

----------------------------

>

[Guest guest]

>Another point worth mentioning, even if mercury in *amalgams* is on it's way

>out (and NEW amalgams are MUCH more toxic than older ones, BTW) mercury

>itself is not on it's way out of our lives. Rather it's increasing...from

>industrial emissions, and it's extensive use in a huge array of common

>products.

Well, it's all interesting, I can't contribute more without studying ... but

on the industrial emission note it brings to mind certain recent

legislation etc. to relax industrial controls ... so everyone who

cares ... study the issues, and vote! (or hope that the industries

will just be nice and police themselves or the market system

will work to cause them to reduce emissions).

-- Heidi Jean