Don't believe everything you hear?

[jgivens]

Was the title of the article I read in my new June issue of Nutrition Action Healthletter, a publication by the Center for Science in the Public Interest.

In the article it talks about how nuts Dr. Oz's statement that "the major signs of gluten sensitivity is weight gain. When you have gluten sensitivity it's really getting your hormones out of whack, and that then leads to inflammation and swelling."

I can just hear the rest of you laughing over that! The only thing I "gained" from gluten sensitivity was WD and that is NO way to gain weight!! It gets worse though.

The article goes on to quote Dr. Joseph Murray, gastroenterologist and professor of medicine at the Mayo Clinic. While he points out the fallacy of gaining weight when one has a gluten sensitivity, he says something really, really stupid. "'We don't know if there is a true non-celiac gluten sensitivity, says Murray. 'It could be wheat intolerance, it could be wheat sensitivity or it could be something else entirely.'" He goes on to talk about research done in Australia where symptoms lessened for folks who ate the low FODMAP diet, but then adding back gluten produced no more (or fewer) symptoms than adding back a placebo(whey). Murray says, "That tells us that their symptoms were probably not due to gluten. The whole premise that there is a disorder called non-celiac gluten sensitivity is way overblown. There really isn't hard scientific evidence to support it." The research was done on a pool of 37 (!) people.

This was the last issue in a subscription I have gotten for 15 years. I won't be renewing...

[Chrisdat]

I subscribed for years to the CSP letter. Even bought a gift subscription for my parents. I found that though they are NOT in the pocket of the food industry, they are extremely and inexcusably slow in recognizing new research. They trumpet traditional medical views, even in the face of new evidence.

I stopped my subscription when they remained firmly low-fat (Dean Ornish low-fat) for years after clear evidence that extremely low-fat diets are not the "heart-healthy" panacea they consistently wrote about.

Not surprised they are defending the "no such thing as non-celiac gluten sensitivity".

Unfortunately, they are a PR machine. I see them often quoted in the media as the authoritative source on nutrition.

[tex]

Unfortunately, they are a PR machine. I see them often quoted in the media as the authoritative source on nutrition.

Proving once again how easy it is to spread fake science, lies, and half-truths; and how difficult it is to promote the truth. Since money and power are always behind such campaigns to smother the truth, obviously too many people have too much to lose to allow the truth to become become officially recognized.

Consider Dr. Murray's pathetic statement, for example:

It could be wheat intolerance, it could be wheat sensitivity or it could be something else entirely.

All he would have had to do was to use his brain to think for a minute to realize the absurdity of that cop out. People who have non-celiac gluten sensitivity are not only sensitive to wheat, but also to barley, rye, and often oats. For someone paid as much as he is, that's a sad commentary.

And since most people who have non-celiac gluten sensitivity are also sensitive to all dairy products and derivatives (not just casein), the pathetic trial that was used to "prove" that non-celiac gluten sensitivity does not exist, was fatally flawed right from the outset — it did not actually use a placebo as a comparison for gluten, because the so-called "placebo" was a reactive antigen for most people who have non-celiac gluten sensitivity. So my question is, "Is Peter Gibson (the researcher who published the original article disputing non-celiac gluten sensitivity) dishonest, or just stupid? I don't see any other possible explanation.

Tex

[JFR]

For a great analysis of the politics of nutritional science I recommend this book:

The Big Fat Surprise: Why Butter, Meat and Cheese Belong in a Healthy Diet by Nina Teicholz

While butter and cheese may be out for many of us, the analysis of the politics behind the government and medical establishment health/nutrition recommendations is very sound. This book is about the politics of science. When it comes to research on nutrition there is a lot more politics than science.

Jean

[tex]

When it comes to research on nutrition there is a lot more politics than science.

Ain't that the gospel truth.

Tex

[Zizzle]

I was a long-time subscriber to the CSPI newsletter and gave it as gifts too! I haven't renewed in a couple of years, but they still send it to me. I suppose it's decent advice for the masses, but not for us more enlightened folks here.

My husband and I were attacked by a virtual stranger at a 40th birthday party last night, when my husband said he couldn't drink the beer bc he was gluten intolerant. This jerk cried out something about gluten intolerance not existing. So we had to go into the explanations that I have celiac and my husband's recurrent headaches and allergies were alleviated by the diet. So frustrating! That lame-ass study of 37 people sure accomplished what they had in mind for it.

[Leah]

The whole medical field is still so backwards. One of my clients went to see a registered dietician because her sugars and cholesterol numbers were high ( her sugar was actually in the diabetic range). I knew what diet they were going to put her on, but decided to keep my mouth shut and just see what happened. Low and behold : low fat proteins, one serving of grains per meal, and as MUCH FRUIT AS SHE WANTED! What? All that sugar? Three months later, her cholesterol numbers are even higher and her sugars only went down 10 points. I told her to do what she thinks best, but to come to me when she really wants to know what to eat ( eye roll). They don't want to be sued, so they follow the government recommendations. So frustrating.

Leah

[jgivens]

I'm ashamed to admit that I used to give it as a gift as well, but stopped when my father (one of the gift recipients) accepted EVERYTHING he read in it as the gospel truth and (the start of his dementia) started thinking that if he did not eat exactly as that newsletter said, he would die a slow and painful death. My mother would try to hide the newsletter before he got his hands on it. LOL--He lived to the ripe old age of 94, was relatively physically healthy, but had quite a bit of dementia.

The sad thing about the article was that its purpose was to explain to the general public how wrong it is to believe ALL research, which they proved by giving more faulty research!!! Yes Tex, you are soooo right. I had to chuckle when I read that the placebo in Peter Gibson's study was whey. It really gives one pause---just when you think you have heard the dumbest stuff, articles and researchers come along to top it!