[Info] All Disease and Health Begins in the Gut

[RobinN]

There is no Health without a Healthy Duodenum and Intestines

How well our digestion works directly determines how well our body and brain function. The old adage "we are what we eat" appears to hold true.

At the center of it all is the duodenum. The duodenum is the initial section of the small intestines. It controls many aspects of food passage (stomach) and absorption (small intestines) and holds the keys to the most important control mechanisms of our living body biochemistry.

A duodenum that is healthy and functions properly governs multiple actions and functions of stomach, pancreas, liver, and gallbladder. Moreover, the duodenum directly affects much of our life-supporting nutrient absorption (including all-important calcium).

A duodenum that is inflamed no longer can fulfill these central control functions. Damage to the duodenum most often is induced by allergenic and inflammatory foods: sugars and alcohols, wheat (gliadin and other grain gluten proteins), and many other food allergens.

Inflammation throughout the intestines affects the intestinal mucous lining. This is the very tissue that hosts the majority of our body’s lymph and immune system cells. They affect the body’s nutrient and mineral absorption, auto-immune defense capability, toxin drainage ability, pH balance and anti-parasitic properties, defense from non-communicable and communicable diseases.

Increasingly, research identifies strong links to underlying non-celiac and/or celiac gluten sensitivity. Other signs of compromised duodenal activity are: chronic or acute inflammation, bloating, gas, constipation or diarrhea, dysbiosis (leaky gut syndrome), as well as the diagnoses of mineral deficiencies or imbalances, such as anemia, hypocalcemia, and conditions such as lazy stomach, liver and gallbladder inflammation, pancreatitis, irritable bowel (IBS, IBD), Crohn’s, other gastrointestinal conditions, even elevated cholesterol levels, anxiety, neurological disorders, and more (see chart).

For more of the story click here:

All disease and health begins in the gut

 

[Chaz1]

great info Robin, thank you.

 

[epileric]

Actually I question the validity of this article & author. Rivkah Roth works in osteopathy, naturopathy, acupuncture & TCM. Speaking as someone that was trained in acupressure I can say that none of these are recognized by science and evidence that they work is minimal. None of these practices teach their practitioners how to understand the proper biology of digestion either.

Also, if you read her citations you’ll see that a few of them aren’t related to what she’s referencing & others are studies specifically on celiac disease, not gluten sensitivity. I can’t help but think that if all she can cite is celiac then the studies and facts on gluten sensitivity are not in. Even those people that do accept it feel that it doesn’t affect more than 6% of the US population with another 1% having celiac disease. For what she claims gluten sensitivity to be responsible for, it would certainly affect more than just 7% of the population. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704893604576200393522456636.html#articleTabs%3Darticle

She makes claims on how the duodenum absorbs various minerals & vitamins, they’re all true but they are true of the whole small intestine. Despite doing some absorption its major function is food breakdown

The duodenum is largely responsible for the breakdown of food in the small intestine, using enzymes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duodenum#Function She really seems to be trying to make the duodenum appear more important than it is.

I’ve seen many claims that blame gluten sensitivity for numerous things. So far there is no test to prove it even exists & all we have are anecdotes. There are not even a set of defined symptoms for gluten sensitivity

Some experts think as many as 1 in 20 Americans may have some form of it, but there is no test or defined set of symptoms

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704893604576200393522456636.html#articleTabs%3Darticle

The internet is a great thing but I really have to question if this is not just another Morgellons and start seeing things that aren’t there, even if it is common online.

 

[DogtorJ]

The duodenum IS important, but....

...the jejunum, ileum and even colon also absorb nutrients, with the ileum being able to actively absorb most of what the jejunum and duodenum absorb (or fail to as a result of the villous atrophy induced by gluten, casein, soy and corn lectins).

I used to think that the duodenum was THE most important part of the small bowel when I first started reading about my own celiac disease. But what I found later is that, amazingly, different areas of the small intestine absorb different nutrients, helping to explain the "snow flake" individuality of gluten intolerants.

But...there is no doubt that the duodenum does more than help finish the digestion that the stomach starts. A little Google searching will reveal scientific articles that list the various nutrients (iron, iodine, B complex, calcium/minerals, trace minerals, proteins, fats, carbohydrates) and where they are principally absorbed. This is not unknown information.

And...gluten (along with the other "glue foods" of casein from cow's milk, soy, and corn, all of which are used to make industrial adhesives) attaches itself to the villi of the upper small bowel (duodenum) first, in a patchy manner as one would expect from a "glue", making its way down the small intestine over time. This is why the signs can be so covert for years and years. It takes time- for MOST- to have the villi damaged to the point of being clinically evident, especially with the ileum being an effective back up.

BUT...what has happened in the recent past is that we have managed to trash our ileums, one factor being the persistence of the Measles portion of the MMR vaccine in some children who receive it. They have definitively shown this in autistc children (lymphoid nodular hyperplasia of the ileum). So...the signs of upper small bowel malabsorption are showing up MUCH sooner than in the past.
First of all.

None of these practices teach anyone how to understand the proper biology of digestion either.

That may be true but people in these fields tend to think outside the box, looking for answers to important questions that the medical profession often leaves unanswered. There is a better answer to why an individual is chronically ill than "genetics" or "Some people (or children) are just that way." Some of the wisest people I know are osteopaths, chiropractors or naturopaths.

Also, if you read her citations you’ll see that a few of them aren’t related to what she’s referencing & others are studies specifically on celiac disease, not gluten sensitivity. I can’t help but think that if all she can cite is celiac then the studies and facts on gluten sensitivity are not in. Even those people that do accept it feel that it doesn’t affect more than 6% of the US population with another 1% having celiac disease. For what she claims gluten sensitivity to be responsible for, it would certainly affect more than just 7% of the population. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704893604576200393522456636.html#articleTabs%3Darticle

People simply need to get up to speed on the distinctions being made between gluten sensitivity vs. "celiac disease" by those in the celiac research community. Terms have changed and been redefined. The focus is no longer on classic celiac disease. It is all about what gluten does once it enters the body of the sensitized individual. Celiac (coeliac) disease was a set of severe symptoms that only happened in the worst of the worst, one of the reasons that gluten sensitivity has been overlooked for so long.

She makes claims on how the duodenum absorbs various minerals & vitamins, they’re all true but they are true of the whole small intestine. Despite doing some absorption its major function is food breakdown http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duodenum#Function She really seems to be trying to make the duodenum appear more important than it is.

Answered above.

So far there is no test to prove it even exists & all we have are anecdotes.

That is what was being said 20 years ago. Things have changed dramatically. There are many tests available, some as indicators and others (e.g. intestinal biopsy) that prove the damage gluten does in both people and dogs. I was taught about gluten intolerance in the Irish Setter 33 years ago. We knew then that gluten induced villous atrophy of the duodenum.

We have MUCH more than anecdotal evidence. Formal celiac research has exploded in the past 5 years. Betty Crocker doesn't make gluten-free products because 1% of the population needs them.

 

[epileric]

And...gluten (along with the other "glue foods" of casein from cow's milk, soy, and corn, all of which are used to make industrial adhesives)

What it’s used for is completely irrelevant. There is an old joke about this awful chemical called Dihydrogen monoxide. It is used as an industrial solvent and coolant, in nuclear power plants, in the production of Styrofoam, in biological and chemical weapons manufacture, in the development of genetically engineering crops and animals, as a spray-on fire suppressant and retardant, as a major ingredient in many home-brewed bombs and many other things. In case you haven’t figured it out Dihydrogen Monoxide is Water (2 hydrogen 1 oxygen molecule) and I’m not about to stop drinking water because it has many uses nor do those uses make water any more dangerous.

attaches itself to the villi of the upper small bowel (duodenum) first, in a patchy manner as one would expect from a "glue", making its way down the small intestine over time. This is why the signs can be so covert for years and years. It takes time- for MOST- to have the villi damaged to the point of being clinically evident, especially with the ileum being an effective back up.

I’ve seen that claim before but never at any scientifically based site or place, nor could I find a sufficient scientific study claiming that to be true.

That may be true but people in these fields tend to think outside the box, looking for answers to important questions that the medical profession often leaves unanswered.

So you’re saying that people with less training are “thinking outside the box”? I see that as asking a shoemaker to hem your pants because as an untrained individual he thinks outside the box. True that there are many questions science has not answered but that is moot because it does not mean someone with less knowledge on the issue is any more likely to find the answers.

There is a better answer to why an individual is chronically ill than "genetics" or "Some people (or children) are just that way." Some of the wisest people I know are osteopaths, chiropractors or naturopaths.

I never said anything about genetics. I said that if someone is going to talk about the digestive system shouldn’t they understand the basic biology of it? It has been shown that there is more than one reason for people to get sick.

People simply need to get up to speed on the distinctions being made between gluten sensitivity vs. "celiac disease" by those in the celiac research community. Terms have changed and been redefined. The focus is no longer on classic celiac disease. It is all about what gluten does once it enters the body of the sensitized individual. Celiac (coeliac) disease was a set of severe symptoms that only happened in the worst of the worst, one of the reasons that gluten sensitivity has been overlooked for so long.

There is a big distinction and for that reason what applies to celiac disease may not apply to gluten sensitivity, making the studies for one irrelevant to the other.

For the first time, we have scientific evidence that indeed, gluten sensitivity not only exists, but is very different from celiac disease," says lead author Alessio Fasano, medical director of the University of Maryland's Center for Celiac Research.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704893604576200393522456636.html#articleTabs%3Darticle

That is what was being said 20 years ago.

Actually if you read the report I linked to it was written last year.

Things have changed dramatically. There are many tests available, some as indicators and others (e.g. intestinal biopsy) that prove the damage gluten does in both people and dogs. I was taught about gluten intolerance in the Irish Setter 33 years ago. We knew then that gluten induced villous atrophy of the duodenum.

An intestinal biopsy tests for malabsorption & tumors. It does not prove that gluten was the problem- that’s a bit of a jump in assumptions

The small-bowel biopsy is used to diagnose and confirm disease of the intestinal mucosa (the lining of the small intestine). The test is most commonly done to test for tumors of the small bowel or malabsorption syndromes.

http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/small+intestine+biopsy Even if it did determine gluten sensitivity, why does the article give such vague symptoms that everyone would have rather than say to get a test?

Also, Even if this is true in dogs, that does not mean it’s true in humans, even scientists don’t get too excited until their tests have progressed from mice/rats to humans.

We have MUCH more than anecdotal evidence. Formal celiac research has exploded in the past 5 years. Betty Crocker doesn't make gluten-free products because 1% of the population needs them.

I haven’t seen any good evidence yet. You can't mistake Betty Crockers marketing to mean that we need something. We should know by now that having a good market isn’t evidence that there is a need. If it were, there would be all the evidence in that world that we need junk food.

 

[Bernard]

Many people are familiar with the old adage "You are what you eat." I've long maintained that it should be "You are what you digest."

There has been growing interest in gluten sensitivity issues over the last few years thanks in part to parents of children with autism and adhd. I think there is a lot work still to be done to study the issue before science catches up to parents' intuition.

 

[MarkyMark]

I have no doubt that my seizures are related to my intestinal health. I'm trying ways to heal. Yes I'm sensitive to gluten, dairy, sugar, starch. Candida has settled in and I'm trying to find ways to stregthen my body and getting rid of the yeasts and bad guys.

 

[epileric]

I know a lot of research has been done on gluten & as of /07 there hasn't been much evidence that it does much for autistic children, despite parents intuition.

There is evidence of widespread use by parents of complementary and alternative therapies (CAM) including exclusion diets for their children with autism. Despite this, there is a lack of evidence to support the use of gluten and/or casein free diet as an effective intervention for persons with autism and also a lack of research on potential harms and disbenefits of such diets.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD003498.pub3/abstract;jsessionid=11AE11E685CE456681DF75DE988CC561.d02t02

 

[MarkyMark]

epileric,

There are many parents who would disagree with that statement. Excerpts are very easy to find.....changing lifestyles and swicting paradigms take work. I know parents who have seen tremendous benefits with diet change. It may not be everyone's sole answer, but it sure is the place to start

 

[englishp]

The ancient Chinese have long believed that the soul of the body resides in the bowels...they seemed to understand the importance of that portion of the body.

 

[RobinN]

In the past 5 years there have been many parents writing on forums how diet plays a role in their child's "disorder". Most don't have time to take part in any formal research. Forums and blogs tell the story very well.

I agree MarkyMark... it is the place to start.

 

[epileric]

I agree that excerpts and experiences are very easy to find but sadly they don't always reflect what is accurate. Like I mentioned before, the imaginary condition, morgellons disease which a parent started on an internet website and so many people believed it that even the mayo clinic did a study & found it all be to a great fabrication. That makes it a great example of how something can be abundantly present online yet not be true.

Personally I think medical & scientific sites are the best place to start but we should be very skeptical of everything & understand that as we've seen with morgellons, that what is true is not necessarily defined by the majority.

 

[MarkyMark]

I think we can all appreciate science and scientific studies. The problem these days is that corporate greed gets in the way which make many so called studies unreliable, at least they are to me.

If "science" always had it right then hundreds of thousands of people would not be dead taking Vioxx (this is just one small example)

I think the problem today is people ignoring the truth covering things up so others can profit. Take vaccines for example......you have scientists, chemists, toxicologists who agree that many vaccine ingredients are dangerous and potentially harmful. Put those ingredients in a vaccine, then all of those concerns magically disappear.

I guess we all have our own beliefs....this is just mine

 

[RobinN]

I am talking about hundreds of parents seeing improvement. This is not just an excerpt. There are DAN doctors all over the country working with children on this issue. There are specialty care facilities scattered across our country working with people of all ages.

imaginary condition - I think not

You read what the main stream wants you to read. If you were digging deep as a concerned parent might be, you would see the community as it really is.

 

[epileric]

I am talking about hundreds of parents seeing improvement. This is not just an excerpt.

There was a time when thousands of people saw with their own eyes witches that flew on brooms. Another example is the pathology teacher in my college told the class on the 1st day that everyone in class will think they are sick with something they learn about at some point throughout the semester. Of course it was true, everyone thought they had at least one disease that was taught which described their symptoms. Of course they didn't have it. That is why we need solid evidence & more than just someones perception.

There are DAN doctors all over the country working with children on this issue. There are specialty care facilities scattered across our country working with people of all ages.

DAN! doctors attend a 1 day seminar, that isn't very intense training. Even if it were the better, the allegation is that it is for autism, not seizures. Saying that it'll cure them both is like saying that allergy pills will cure bacterial pink eye because both make your eyes itch.

DAN! doctors are credentialed medical doctors who choose to attend a one-day DAN! training. There is no further credentialing, testing, or follow up.

http://autism.about.com/od/alternativetreatmens/f/dandoc.htm

If you were digging deep as a concerned parent might be, you would see the community as it really is.

If I were a parent I'd want the best for my child. Don't you think that'd make me a less objective observer?

 

[MarkyMark]

It's tens of thousands of parents seeing improvement. They don't need to wait for some study to acknowledge what they are doing is right. What company would profit from such a study? Why would they conduct a study in the first place if no money was to be made?

 

[epileric]

It's tens of thousands of parents seeing improvement. They don't need to wait for some study to acknowledge what they are doing is right. What company would profit from such a study? Why would they conduct a study in the first place if no money was to be made?

The numbers are irrelevant. The point is that time & time again it has been proven that what we as humans see is not always reality, especially when we are emotionally invested in it.

As for claiming there to be no profit??? Big money is already being made from these treatments. Are you saying when medical professionals make money it's corrupt but not when alternative practitioners make money? Don't you think they'd have proven it with a proper study to give validity to their treatments if they could?

If "science" always had it right then hundreds of thousands of people would not be dead taking Vioxx (this is just one small example)

Actually only 27,785 died while taking Vioxx. Of those, nobody knows how many would have died sooner without vioxx or how many already had heart problems.

FDA Estimates Vioxx Caused 27,785 Deaths

 

[MarkyMark]

The numbers are not irrelevant, they are important. Unfortunately big numbers get dismissed because it doesn't fall into someone else's agenda.

Yes! I'm saying that our medical system is corrupt. I'm saying that our medical system is pathetic when it comes to treating chronic illness. The last time I checked, 400,000 people die every year by taking properly prescribed medication. Not overdoses, not illegal drugs, not missing their doses......taking their meds the way their doctor wanted them to take it. How many people die per year because they took the vitamin c or b complex their alternative practitioner said they should take.

People are not sick because of medication deficiencies. Very good chance they are sick of nutritional deficiencies. We are made of minerals and nutrients.

"The point is that time & time again it has been proven that what we as humans see is not always reality"

Totally agree! Especially when billions of dollars are at stake

 

[epileric]

The numbers are not irrelevant, they are important. Unfortunately big numbers get dismissed because it doesn't fall into someone else's agenda.

Actually, the numbers I was referring to were the numbers of people you claimed to see improvement. To clarify, it has been shown that ALL people tend to perceive things differently, especially when they are emotionally involved in something. If all peoples perception is skewed or slanted then it doesn’t matter how many people you claim saw improvement because everyones perceptions are not likely to be accurate.

Yes! I'm saying that our medical system is corrupt. I'm saying that our medical system is pathetic when it comes to treating chronic illness. The last time I checked, 400,000 people die every year by taking properly prescribed medication. Not overdoses, not illegal drugs, not missing their doses......taking their meds the way their doctor wanted them to take it. How many people die per year because they took the vitamin c or b complex their alternative practitioner said they should take.

Regarding how many people died while taking meds, I’m very curious where you got that number. Can you cite it please? I also have to wonder how many would have died not taking their meds. Seeing as how the people needing meds have something wrong to start the probability of someone taking anything for a sickness passing away is higher than that of any fully healthy person. As well, the 400,000 number means nothing until we can see what percentage of people are taking prescribed meds. Everywhere I’ve checked it says about 50% of Americans are taking prescribed medications. and the most recent estimate of US population is 312,780,968. That means that approximately 312,380,968 people (312,780,968 – 400,000) were probably helped by medications or to look at it another way only 0.128% taking meds died. I’m not saying that there’s not room for improvement but I think that’s a far cry from being dangerous. Even at that, we don’t know how many were killed by the meds themselves. For example, many epileptics take medications yet are victims of SUDEP which is not known to be caused by anti-epileptic drugs. For that matter, anti-epileptic drugs are known to lessen the chances of SUDEP.

I have to agree that the medical systems in N. America need to be revised but there have been many deaths & problems taking supplements as well.

Since 1983, the American Association of Poison Control Centers has kept statistics on reports of poisonings for every type of substance, including dietary supplements. That first year, there were 14,006 reports related to the use of vitamins, minerals, essential oils — which are not classified as a dietary supplement but are widely sold in supplement stores for a variety of uses — and homeopathic remedies. Herbs were not categorized that year, because they were rarely used then.
By 2005, the number had grown ninefold: 125,595 incidents were reported related to vitamins, minerals, essential oils, herbs and other supplements. In all, over the 23-year span, the association — a national organization of state and local poison centers — has received more than 1.6 million reports of exposures to such products, including 251,799 that were serious enough to require hospitalization. From 1983 to 2004 there were 230 reported deaths from supplements, with the yearly numbers rising from 4 in 1994, the year the supplement bill passed, to a record 27 in 2005

Diet Supplements and Safety: Some Disquieting Data

People are not sick because of medication deficiencies. Very good chance they are sick of nutritional deficiencies. We are made of minerals and nutrients.

Actually people in North America very rarely have such deficiencies. All the places I’ve seen claims of such deficiencies are places that sell supplements. Note that most vitamin deficiencies are rare in North America.

 

[RobinN]

An essay in Science Times on Jan. 16 about those risks overstated the number of adverse reactions to supplements reported in the database.

The database has no category for poisoning incidents, so that number is not known.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/06/science/06dietcxn.html

I wonder if Pharmaceutical companies advertise in the NY Times.

Your "proof" seems to be discredited by pubmed.
No wonder women need to take vitamins and minerals when pregnant
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0001441/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18201330
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8600562
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12209158
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8632110