Visit the Microscopic Colitis Foundation Website
I guess, Wayne that this may answer a question that I had asked you a while back about being on Entocort and ingesting gluten if there is still damage going on..
Thoughts??????
People with celiac disease are sensitive to gluten, a component of wheat and other grains. No medication or surgical procedure can cure celiac disease. The only way to treat it is to adopt a completely gluten-free diet: avoiding all food and drink containing wheat, barley, rye, and other grains. But what if you don't have celiac? Is a gluten-free diet good for your health?
As diagnosis and awareness of celiac disease have increased, a wide variety of gluten-free foods have hit store shelves. While these products are essential for people with celiac disease and gluten sensitivity, their benefit for others is less definitive.
Celiac disease causes intestinal damage that's visible on a biopsy. Gluten sensitivity, meanwhile, may cause some of celiac disease's gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms -- diarrhea, gas, bloating, vomiting, and constipation -- but not intestinal damage. There's no evidence that gluten sensitivity will one day turn into celiac disease, so avoiding gluten is more about reducing present symptoms than preventing future damage.
Gluten alone is not harmful to anyone without celiac disease, but it is present in many unhealthy foods. Refined carbohydrates can make you feel sluggish, but it's probably the spike in blood glucose levels and the lack of fiber -- not the gluten -- that's to blame.
If you have GI symptoms, see your doctor before adopting a gluten-free diet. You may need to be tested for celiac disease, and going gluten free beforehand can make intestinal damage less obvious on a biopsy.
For people without celiac disease or gluten sensitivity, a strict gluten-free diet probably isn't worth any potential health benefits: It can be deficient in some nutrients, such as B vitamins (particularly folic acid).
Did Anybody Get This From John Hopkins Medical
Moderators: Rosie, Stanz, Jean, CAMary, moremuscle, JFR, Dee, xet, Peggy, Matthew, Gabes-Apg, grannyh, Gloria, Mars, starfire, Polly, Joefnh
Did Anybody Get This From John Hopkins Medical
"What the heart gives away is never gone ... It is kept in the hearts of others."
Hi Dee,
With all due respect to the prestigious name of Johns Hopkins, I have to say that the position of the doctors who made that statement, is simply a rehash of the same old
that they've been polluting the environment with for decades. They admit that gluten sensitivity causes the symptoms of celiac disease, but in the same breath, they claim that it doesn't damage the intestines. Well duh! They're talking out of both sides of their mouth, and making contradictory claims. They claim:
This researcher studied patients that had the common celiac genes, and showed antibodies in their blood, (proving that they were gluten sensitive). Many of the test subjects did not show intestinal damage, however, at the start of the study. By following them for a while, the researcher found that eventually, every one of them developed intestinal damage, as verified by a small intestinal biopsy. If that's not proof that contradicts the claim of the guys in the white coats from Johns Hopkins, I'm a
's uncle.
Or, maybe they were sleeping when the results of this study were published:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_o ... 751fc1fe3c
IOW, the good doctors at Johns Hopkins are still making false claims, based on inappropriate assumptions, and out-of-date information. Why do doctors who should know better, continue to make a claim that's so contrary to logic, when their position is not based on research, but rather on lack of research. Why don't they bother to make some attempt to update their cobweb-covered database, by reading current research articles. The articles I cited, were published recently, so they're cutting edge, as celiac research goes. Obviously, the doctors at Johns Hopkins cannot prove that someone will never develop intestinal damage - they can only prove that someone has, or does not have damage, at any given moment. Real scientists do not make such untenable statements, and for good reason - they tend to appear really dumb, when they eventually have to admit that they were wrong.
As far as taking Entocort is concerned, that fact that someone is taking Entocort in the first place, is bona fide proof that damage exists. After all, the Entocort is prescribed to reduce the inflammation. Right? Inflammation is physical damage, but on a microscopic scale. Just because it's not visible to the naked eye, does not mean that it doesn't exist.
Entocort does indeed suppress the inflammation, but it does not completely control it. It brings it down to a "tolerable" level for most patients, below the threshold at which a reaction is likely to be triggered. That's very similar to the situation in which up to 20 ppm of gluten, is allowed in products with a gluten-free label. Those products are not gluten-free, they're obviously low-gluten, but the governments of the world proclaim that it's OK to label them that way, because most celiacs will not react below that level.
I'm sorry, Dee, but that's the way I see it. If you're taking Entocort to control the symptoms of MC, though, I honestly believe that you shouldn't have any reason to be concerned about the small amount of inflammation that the Entocort might not control. It should be a negligible amount, for all practical purposes. It's the patients who are not yet in remission that I'm concerned about. The name of the game is to get the symptoms under control, as soon as possible, by whatever means seems appropriate at the time.
Love,
Wayne
With all due respect to the prestigious name of Johns Hopkins, I have to say that the position of the doctors who made that statement, is simply a rehash of the same old
that they've been polluting the environment with for decades. They admit that gluten sensitivity causes the symptoms of celiac disease, but in the same breath, they claim that it doesn't damage the intestines. Well duh! They're talking out of both sides of their mouth, and making contradictory claims. They claim:I suppose they were sleeping when this research was published:There's no evidence that gluten sensitivity will one day turn into celiac disease
This researcher studied patients that had the common celiac genes, and showed antibodies in their blood, (proving that they were gluten sensitive). Many of the test subjects did not show intestinal damage, however, at the start of the study. By following them for a while, the researcher found that eventually, every one of them developed intestinal damage, as verified by a small intestinal biopsy. If that's not proof that contradicts the claim of the guys in the white coats from Johns Hopkins, I'm a
's uncle.http://www.eitb.com/news/technology/det ... c-disease/The leading practical application of this study consisted of validating the determination of the genetic markers linked to the disease as a diagnostic tool. Combining genetic and serological markers provides a positive predictive value of 100%, since all patients suspected of having celiac disease and submitted to these two markers finally proved to be affected, as confirmed by an intestinal biopsy
Or, maybe they were sleeping when the results of this study were published:
The red emphasis is mine, of course, in both quotes.Conclusions
Patients with endomysial antibodies benefit from a GFD regardless of the degree of enteropathy. The diagnostic criteria for celiac disease need re-evaluation: endomysial antibody positivity without atrophy belongs to the spectrum of genetic gluten intolerance, and warrants dietary treatment.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_o ... 751fc1fe3c
IOW, the good doctors at Johns Hopkins are still making false claims, based on inappropriate assumptions, and out-of-date information. Why do doctors who should know better, continue to make a claim that's so contrary to logic, when their position is not based on research, but rather on lack of research. Why don't they bother to make some attempt to update their cobweb-covered database, by reading current research articles. The articles I cited, were published recently, so they're cutting edge, as celiac research goes. Obviously, the doctors at Johns Hopkins cannot prove that someone will never develop intestinal damage - they can only prove that someone has, or does not have damage, at any given moment. Real scientists do not make such untenable statements, and for good reason - they tend to appear really dumb, when they eventually have to admit that they were wrong.
As far as taking Entocort is concerned, that fact that someone is taking Entocort in the first place, is bona fide proof that damage exists. After all, the Entocort is prescribed to reduce the inflammation. Right? Inflammation is physical damage, but on a microscopic scale. Just because it's not visible to the naked eye, does not mean that it doesn't exist.
Entocort does indeed suppress the inflammation, but it does not completely control it. It brings it down to a "tolerable" level for most patients, below the threshold at which a reaction is likely to be triggered. That's very similar to the situation in which up to 20 ppm of gluten, is allowed in products with a gluten-free label. Those products are not gluten-free, they're obviously low-gluten, but the governments of the world proclaim that it's OK to label them that way, because most celiacs will not react below that level.
I'm sorry, Dee, but that's the way I see it. If you're taking Entocort to control the symptoms of MC, though, I honestly believe that you shouldn't have any reason to be concerned about the small amount of inflammation that the Entocort might not control. It should be a negligible amount, for all practical purposes. It's the patients who are not yet in remission that I'm concerned about. The name of the game is to get the symptoms under control, as soon as possible, by whatever means seems appropriate at the time.
Love,
Wayne
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.