Hello and welcome (back)
,
I'm not sure about the labs but did want to respond to the gene ideology.
And it may come across sounding like I'm anti-Dr. Fine, which couldn't be farther from the truth. However, there have been people with NONE of the 'required' genes who also respond well to a 'tailored' diet.
Also, if people don't want to go to the expense of gene testing (although I fully support those who do want to) then they should know that it really isn't *required* for them to try the diet. However, I've seen many people remove only gluten and wonder why they don't get better.
Every person that I've helped do a Total Elimination Diet (who has gone through the process honestly) has had major health improvements. Of course, people only come to me, generally when they've either exhausted all their other resources or are facing some pretty brutal medication or surgery.
This same thing is being discussed over at BT - so I suppose I'll copy this here too:
Quote:
There could be other genes involved with gs anyway... there are really more questions than answers involved in genes and molecular reactions:
Is gliadin the only mechanism that people react to? Probably not... It's hard to find a pen when you don't really know what a pen looks like... or when you're looking for an elephant.
Are Marsh III lesions the true indicator of gs? Of course not, even minor damage should count... but it doesn't... yet.
Is a tTG level of 17 an indicator that gluten ingestion is okay? Probably not, but currently we 'say' it is because they decided on the number '20' in a boardroom somewhere.
Sorry, I just hesitate allowing people to get too hung up on what we 'know'... because a lot of info. is just 'lacking too much info'.
|