Scientists Finally Know What Causes Celiac Disease!

Not exactly the whole story - why they keep missing this is beyond me

Celiac disease existed way back when - yes , but it was extremely rare ( One in 4000)

Reason it was linked to wheat in the late 1940s and then to gluten in the 1950s was because Norman Borlaug bioengineered modern wheat (a Tribred- 3 different plants ) right after World War II . His new wheat was pest & disease-resistant shorter stock larger bud higher-yield per acre. The seed started being used soon after that, & in increasing numbers of cases for celiac started popping up in the 1950s. The Side effect of Borlaug's new modern wheat was the gluten was different - more gluten in the grain perhaps ? - but was different than the gluten in the heirloom wheats.

This is a common myth that I've seen repeated in several forms, but it has no scientific validity.

This is a common myth that I've seen repeated in several forms, but it has no scientific validity.

I believe genetically engineered products have changed us and there is no scientific evidence because it hasn't been long enough to study or no one really is studying it!

Guess I'll have to read the article. I don't see anything new reported in this article.

What't new is the fact that scientists have finally connected the dots between the DQ2/DQ8 markers and the actual mechanics of gut damage from celiac disease. That's huge, and potentially of great benefit to researchers looking for treatments and cures, and thus, to people with celiac disease.

I believe genetically engineered products have changed us and there is no scientific evidence because it hasn't been long enough to study or no one really is studying it!

So your belief is based on nothing but your imagination?

Certainly not helpful in the long run for people suffering from this terrible disease right now. Cancer isn't curable but there are meds to help people. Why is it taking so long to find or release drugs for trial more widely in the states than is or should be done. A diet is not the answer.

There is a small percentage of those with celiac disease who have neither DQ2 nor 8. Search for HLA negative celiac disease to find the articles.

I have heard this I thought from Dr. Fasano but I am not sure it was from him.

At any rate, there is a very valid issue with feeling excluded, which is to say, if you have celiac, you have what 99% of other people do not have. If you do not have either HLA-DQ2 or HLA-DQ8 AND are celiac, you are even MORE of an "odd bird." The idea that physicians are able to find this out on their own initiative also is a lot like in my long experience thinking that pigs can fly. So I agree with Anne here.

It is supremely ignorant to call our genes "defective HLAs". These genes are much older than the defective practice of eating grains or hybridizing wild grasses to create the first form of wheat. Certain gliadin peptides are not digestible by any human's enzymes and some cause temporary intestinal permeability in all, according to Alessio Fasano's research.

Despite the addiction to gluteomorphins and the worship of wheat and the resulting irritation and madness fueling endless war in the Mideast by all 3 religions originating there, where the creation of wheat occurred, and the knowledge that high antibodies to gliadin in a pregnant mother results in higher probability for schizophrenia in adulthood for her child, as well as depression and the likelihood that this young adult will be put on an SSRI drug and become a mass shooter, the brainwashing, ignorance proliferated by medical school deans refusing to teach the dangers of gluten to central nervous systems, and the fact that the majority of Caucasians have an HLA gene that predisposes them to have an autoimmune attack if their brain induced by gluten they have the audacity to call wheat, barley and rye "safe food" and declare us defective. This is a genocidal mindset by Nazi inspired capitalists.

So your belief is based on nothing but your imagination?

Is it possible to do scientific studies without imagination? Someone's imagination worked with observation and decided to set up a study. Is there really anything other than imagination driving us? Is a skewed scientific study better than the imagination exercised by everyone every day to create the environment we live in? Look at us today, avoiding fat because the sugar industry wanted to distract us from the harm of sugar. You can't metabolize many nutrients without fat. Does the science presented make it true that avoiding valuable nutrients to keep the sugar industry happy will make us healthy? Sometimes common sense applied to imagination or common sense applied to science is all we've got to go on. My father decided that the battle over whether to cut fat or not didn't matter, he was going with fat. He existed because his ancestors ate fat so it made sense to his imagination. The scientific evidence has come around to proving him right.