Jump to content
This site uses cookies. Continued use is acceptance of our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. More Info... ×
  • Welcome to Celiac.com!

    You have found your celiac tribe! Join us and ask questions in our forum, share your story, and connect with others.




  • Celiac.com Sponsor (A1):



    Celiac.com Sponsor (A1-M):


  • Get Celiac.com Updates:
    Support Our Content
    eNewsletter
    Donate

Fingerprints And Celiac Disease/gluten Intolerance


Lovelycherry

Recommended Posts

caek-is-a-lie Explorer
the only thing that makes me feel worse than folks who have been failed by the system -- is people who have been failed by the system and turn to pseudoscience.

Ummm...I believe the link to the scientific paper that I provided was real science, not pseudoscience. I think there would be a few ticked off PhD's if they heard you calling their legitimate work 'pseudoscience.' I also believe their conclusion was that the fingerprints can be used in conjunction with other methods to accurately assess the improvement of Celiacs on a gluten-free diet. They did, after all, provide proof that Celiac fingerprints return to normal over time on a gluten-free diet. And the intermediate photos showed a lot more horizontal white lines than the fully recovered picture in the same patient. :)


Celiac.com Sponsor (A8):
Celiac.com Sponsor (A8):



Celiac.com Sponsor (A8-M):



  • Replies 61
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Jestgar Rising Star
Ummm...I believe the link to the scientific paper that I provided was real science, not pseudoscience.

The paper you referenced is almost 40 years old. It may have been accurate for it's time, but science has advanced quite a bit. Have you seen anything from the last 5 years or so?

Here's one from 1974 that discounts that paper, and cites others that have also discounted that paper.

Open Original Shared Link

caek-is-a-lie Explorer
The paper you referenced is almost 40 years old. It may have been accurate for it's time, but science has advanced quite a bit. Have you seen anything from the last 5 years or so?

Open Original Shared Link

Open Original Shared Link

Both support using fingerprints as a diagnostic clue in Celiac patients.

Plus I found 7 additional papers from the 1970's that discovered the same thing as the newer studies. That was just one basic PubMed search that took me 10 seconds. I believe the scientific method was the same then as it is now, and journal submissions were still pier-reviewed, so I don't see how "old" science is any worse than "new" science, especially since so many "old" papers are still referenced in newer publications all the time, and 9 different labs came to the same conclusions. If their methods were sound and their work is repeatable, why would the year it was discovered make such a huge difference? I wasn't aware that scientific discoveries expired after 10 or 20 years, but believe what you like. I just hope people don't say that about my work in 30 years just because of the date of publication.

Jestgar Rising Star
I believe the scientific method was the same then as it is now, and journal submissions were still pier-reviewed, so I don't see how "old" science is any worse than "new" science, especially since so many "old" papers are still referenced in newer publications all the time, and 9 different labs came to the same conclusions.

Not "old", just may not be as complete, since newer methods are available for testing.

The papers you referenced actually addressed patterns, not lines, and stated that they were neither sensitive, nor specific.

Due to its low sensitivity (55.6%) and specificity (69.4%) considering the presence of four or more whorls, it is not useful as a screening or as a method itself, for the diagnosis of celiac disease.
caek-is-a-lie Explorer

Look, I posted the original article because the YouTube video was gone and some of us wanted to know what the white lines look like. It helps us all know if we're talking about the same thing or not. I'm not saying this is how you diagnose Celiac. Of course not. Sure there's a good debate here about how valid the results are, although I doubt this thread is the best place to do that, but please understand why I posted this 'old' article. It had good pictures in it about the topic of this thread. That's all. It's not pseudoscience and I don't think its age made those references any less valid for the conversation. It sure was an interesting thread to begin with but it seems to have digressed quite a bit.

Jestgar Rising Star

OK. I'm just being cantankerous. I personally don't think there's any validity to it, but that doesn't mean it isn't fun to talk about. I'll just shut up.

Puddy Explorer
Look, I posted the original article because the YouTube video was gone and some of us wanted to know what the white lines look like. It helps us all know if we're talking about the same thing or not. I'm not saying this is how you diagnose Celiac. Of course not. Sure there's a good debate here about how valid the results are, although I doubt this thread is the best place to do that, but please understand why I posted this 'old' article. It had good pictures in it about the topic of this thread. That's all. It's not pseudoscience and I don't think its age made those references any less valid for the conversation. It sure was an interesting thread to begin with but it seems to have digressed quite a bit.

Just as an aside......the YouTube video is still up and I watched it about 20 minutes ago.


Celiac.com Sponsor (A8):
Celiac.com Sponsor (A8):



Celiac.com Sponsor (A8-M):



gfb1 Rookie
OK. I'm just being cantankerous.

heh, heh... me too, i suppose... :)

jeez... i go away for a day or two and i'm much more relaxed..

anyway. i concur with jestgar. there is NO validity to fingerprints, little white lines, the assorted diets that have been mentioned (except, of course, for the gluten-free diet...).

while the aforementioned articles are NOT pseudoscience (though the diets certainly are); several, as i pointed out in earlier posts, are bad science.

but, if it floats your boat....

btw... being ticked off is a normal state of affairs for Ph.D.'s. anybody who participates in a profession where they are only successful 6-10% of the time (grants and peer-reviewed papers) spends a lot of time being cranky. :)

  • 9 months later...
caleonard Newbie

I just joined this forum and already I am very disappointed with it. There seem to be a few members that have a lot of negativity towards differing ideas and opinions.

I have followed the Blood Type diet (BTD) and now the Genotype diet (GTD), and along the way discovered that I am non-celiac gluten-sensitive. So the Genotype diet for me really fits with what I need to eat to be healthy. I also wanted to understand these diets better as I won't just blindly follow the latest diet craze. So I have read a lot of the scientific articles behind the BTD and GTD and I don't see any indication of "pseudoscience," rather I see a lot of thoughtful and insightful research and then a ground-breaking interpretation of that research. New ideas are often met with scorn because it means you have to really think about them and look into them to understand them or accept them and that takes a lot of work and time, which many of us would just rather not give, but that is okay.

I'm not saying everyone has to accept a new concept or that they must do research about it. However if that new concept has really helped someone and worked for them, who are you to tell them they are mistaken? I would not be where I am today without following the BTD/GTD and no one has the right to tell me otherwise.

I am distressed that some people on this board are using the term "pseudoscience" as a way to put down something with which they don't agree. I also really object to calling someone a "quack." Just because you haven't done the work of looking at that person's research, doesn't mean you can be rude about it. Lots of people do research into many different areas. Is it okay to call someone a "quack" just because you disagree with them? I don't see a lot of facts behind these negative statements, only emotions.

Please keep the terms "quack" and "pseudoscience" out of these conversations. Those terms are basically negative emotional reactions to something you don't agree with and are very disturbing to me. You can disagree with something; everyone has that right, but you don't have the right to call the thing you disagree with by negative names.

Fiddle-Faddle Community Regular

Welcome, Caleonard!

You've made some very good points--but did you mean to post them on an 8-month-old thread?

Anyway, as long as you've resurrected the thread, I'll throw in my two cents. There is some evidence that nutritional deficiencies can cause differences in the fingernails, and if you google "nutritional deficiencies and skin," there are tons of articles on deficiencies in vitamins A and E and corresponding skin signs. We also know that gluten-induced autoimmune reactions can cause eczema and dermatitis herpetiformis.

So I don't think it's a major stretch to think that nutritional deficiencies and/or gluten-induced autoimmune reactions can affect the fingerprint in some measurable way.

I was unable to find any studies on the internet relating to this. But I think it would be a great research project for someone to undertake! In fact, I may suggest it to a few young scientists I know!

Again, welcome aboard--please stay awhile!

camprunner Apprentice

This happened to me, too. I used to work for the school district, and had to be fingerprinted as part of my background check. I had to do the fingerprint part twice, since they couldn't get a good reading the first time.

I had no idea there could be some kind of link.

This is me. I don't actually live in the state I work in. I had to drive 2 1/2 hours each way to get them electronically done in that state because the the ink ones done at my local police department weren't readable :( I also didn't realize it could be linked

camprunner Apprentice

This happened to me, too. I used to work for the school district, and had to be fingerprinted as part of my background check. I had to do the fingerprint part twice, since they couldn't get a good reading the first time.

I had no idea there could be some kind of link.

This is me. I don't actually live in the state I work in. I had to drive 2 1/2 hours each way to get them electronically done in that state because the the ink ones done at my local police department weren't readable :( I also didn't realize it could be linked

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • Celiac.com Sponsor (A19):



  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      127,927
    • Most Online (within 30 mins)
      7,748

    DoraN
    Newest Member
    DoraN
    Joined

  • Celiac.com Sponsor (A20):


  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      121k
    • Total Posts
      70.5k

  • Celiac.com Sponsor (A22):




  • Who's Online (See full list)

    • There are no registered users currently online

  • Celiac.com Sponsor (A21):



  • Upcoming Events

  • Posts

    • Scott Adams
      The first set of results show two positive results for celiac disease, so at the very least it looks like you could have it, or at the least NCGS.   Approximately 10x more people have non-celiac gluten sensitivity than have celiac disease, but there isn’t yet a test for NCGS. If your symptoms go away on a gluten-free diet it would likely signal NCGS.      
    • Scott Adams
      Elevated tissue transglutaminase IgA (tTG-IgA) levels are highly specific for celiac disease, and they are a key biomarker used in its diagnosis. However, there are some rare instances where elevated tTG-IgA levels have been reported in conditions other than celiac disease. While these cases are not common, they have been documented in the literature. Below are some examples and references to studies or reviews that discuss these scenarios:  1. Non-Celiac Gluten Sensitivity (NCGS)    - NCGS typically does not cause elevated tTG-IgA levels, as it is not an autoimmune condition. However, some individuals with NCGS may have mild elevations in tTG-IgA due to intestinal inflammation or other factors, though this is not well-documented in large studies.    - Reference: Catassi, C., et al. (2013). *Non-Celiac Gluten Sensitivity: The New Frontier of Gluten-Related Disorders*. Nutrients, 5(10), 3839–3853. [DOI:10.3390/nu5103839](https://doi.org/10.3390/nu5103839)  2. Autoimmune Diseases    - Elevated tTG-IgA levels have been reported in other autoimmune conditions, such as type 1 diabetes, autoimmune hepatitis, and systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). This is thought to be due to cross-reactivity or polyautoimmunity.    - Reference: Sblattero, D., et al. (2000). *The Role of Anti-Tissue Transglutaminase in the Diagnosis and Management of Celiac Disease*. Autoimmunity Reviews, 1(3), 129–135. [DOI:10.1016/S1568-9972(01)00022-3](https://doi.org/10.1016/S1568-9972(01)00022-3)  3. Chronic Liver Disease    - Conditions like chronic hepatitis or cirrhosis can sometimes lead to elevated tTG-IgA levels, possibly due to increased intestinal permeability or immune dysregulation.    - Reference: Vecchi, M., et al. (2003). *High Prevalence of Celiac Disease in Patients with Chronic Liver Disease: A Role for Gluten-Free Diet?* Gastroenterology, 125(5), 1522–1523. [DOI:10.1016/j.gastro.2003.08.031](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gastro.2003.08.031)  4. Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD)    - Some patients with Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis may have elevated tTG-IgA levels due to intestinal inflammation and damage, though this is not common.    - Reference: Walker-Smith, J. A., et al. (1990). *Celiac Disease and Inflammatory Bowel Disease*. Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition, 10(3), 389–391. [DOI:10.1097/00005176-199004000-00020](https://doi.org/10.1097/00005176-199004000-00020)  5. Infections and Parasites    - While infections (e.g., giardiasis) are more commonly associated with false-positive tTG-IgA results, chronic infections or parasitic infestations can sometimes lead to elevated levels due to mucosal damage.    - Reference: Rostami, K., et al. (1999). *The Role of Infections in Celiac Disease*. European Journal of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, 11(11), 1255–1258. [DOI:10.1097/00042737-199911000-00010](https://doi.org/10.1097/00042737-199911000-00010)  6. Cardiac Conditions    - Rarely, heart failure or severe cardiovascular disease has been associated with elevated tTG-IgA levels, possibly due to gut ischemia and increased intestinal permeability.    - Reference: Ludvigsson, J. F., et al. (2007). *Celiac Disease and Risk of Cardiovascular Disease: A Population-Based Cohort Study*. American Heart Journal, 153(6), 972–976. [DOI:10.1016/j.ahj.2007.03.019](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ahj.2007.03.019)  Key Points: - Elevated tTG-IgA levels are highly specific for celiac disease, and in most cases, a positive result strongly suggests celiac disease. - Other conditions causing elevated tTG-IgA are rare and often accompanied by additional clinical findings. - If celiac disease is suspected, further testing (e.g., endoscopy with biopsy) is typically required for confirmation. If you’re looking for more specific studies, I recommend searching PubMed or other medical databases using terms like "elevated tTG-IgA non-celiac" or "tTG-IgA in non-celiac conditions." Let me know if you’d like help with that!
    • MaryMJ
      I called zero water and they state their filters do not contain gluten or gluten containing ingredients. 
    • trents
      I agree. Doesn't look like you have celiac disease. Your elevated DGP-IGG must be due to something else. And it was within normal at that after your gluten challenge so it is erratic and doesn't seem to be tied to gluten consumption.
    • Jack Common
      Hello! I want to share my situation. I had symptoms like some food intolerance, diarrhea, bloating, belching one year ago. I thought I could have celiac disease so I did the blood tests. The results were ambiguous for me so I saw the doctor and he said I needed to do tests to check whether I had any parasites as well. It turned out I had giardiasis. After treating it my symptoms didn't disappear immediately. And I decided to start a gluten free diet despite my doctor said I didn't have it. After some time symptoms disappeared but that time it wasn't unclear whether I'd had them because of eliminating gluten or that parasite. The symptoms for both are very similar. Giardiasis also damages the small intestine. The only way to check this was to start eating bread again as I thought. Now about my results.   These are my first test results (almost a year ago) when I had symptoms: The Tissue Transglutaminase IgA antibody - 0.5 U/ml (for the lab I did the tests 0.0 - 3.0 is normal) The Tissue Transglutaminase IgG antibody - 6.6 U/ml (for the lab I did the tests 0.0 - 3.0 is normal) Immunoglobulin A - 1.91 g/l (for the lab I did the tests 0.7 to 4 g/l is normal) IgA Endomysial antibody (EMA) - < 1:10 titer (for the lab I did the tests < 1:10 titer is normal) IgG Endomysial antibody (EMA) - < 1:10 titer (for the lab I did the tests < 1:10 titer is normal) Deamidated gliadin peptide IgA - 0.3 U/ml (for the lab I did the tests 0.0 - 6.0 is normal) Deamidated gliadin peptide IgG - 46.1 U/ml (for the lab I did the tests 0.0 - 6.0 is normal)   Then I didn't eat gluten for six months. Symptoms disappeared. And I started a gluten challenge. Before the challenge I did some tests. My results: The Tissue Transglutaminase IgG antibody - 0.5 U/ml (for the lab I did the tests < 20 U/ml is normal)) Deamidated gliadin peptide IgG - 28 U/ml (for the lab I did the tests < 20 U/ml is normal)   During the challenge I ate 6 slices of wheat bread. After the challenge my results are: The Tissue Transglutaminase IgA antibody - 2.0 U/ml (for the lab I did the tests < 20 U/ml is normal) The Tissue Transglutaminase IgG antibody - 2.0 U/ml (for the lab I did the tests < 20 U/ml is normal) Immunoglobulin A - 1.31 g/l (for the lab I did the tests 0.7 to 4 g/l is normal) Deamidated gliadin peptide IgA - 2.0 U/ml (for the lab I did the tests < 20 U/ml is normal) Deamidated gliadin peptide IgG - 2.13 U/ml (for the lab I did the tests < 20 U/ml is normal)   To be sure I continued consuming gluten. I ate a lot each day. Two months after I did the tests again. My results I got today are: The Tissue Transglutaminase IgA antibody - 0.7 U/ml (for the lab I did the tests < 20 U/ml is normal) Immunoglobulin A - 1.62 g/l (for the lab I did the tests 0.7 to 4 g/l is normal) Deamidated gliadin peptide IgG - 25.6 U/ml (for the lab I did the tests < 20 U/ml is normal)   Nowadays I didn't have any symptoms except tiredness but I think it's just work. I think it was this parasite because two years ago, for example, and before I didn't have these symptoms and I always ate gluten food. But I'm still not sure especially because the Deamidated gliadin peptide IgG results are sometimes high. What do you think? @Scott Adams
×
×
  • Create New...