Thanks, anti-vax movement...

[unixknight]

10 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

I remember reading that true "Gluten Sensitivity" is in only .6-1% of the population, if not less. Oddly though, everyone and their mother seems to be "allergic" to Gluten. They do it for attention, to feel special, to feel different, etc. 

When I was a kid, peanut allergies were unheard of.  Now my kid can't have a PB&J sandwich for lunch because, heaven forbid, some kid on the other side of the room might catch a whiff of it and collapse into a fatal case of anaphylactic shock.

[NeuroTypical]

Emmanuel, you literally beat me to that post by under one second.

[Emmanuel Goldstein]

13 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Emmanuel, you literally beat me to that post by under one second.

LOL. It is one of the funniest things I have seen in years.

[anatess2]

12 hours ago, LadyGunnar said:

I have a child that is mostly unvaccinated.  She had a horrible reaction to vaccines. The mmr was one of the worst.  We ended up at the er in the middle of the night. My daughter qas struggling to breathe from a very 106 high fever. We were told no more vaccines.  I struggled with the idea of vaccinating my next children. It makea me sick at the idea of it happening to them.  

 

I will never judge a parent for doing what they think it best for their children.  My fully vaccinated child got whopping cough. I don't blame whomever gave it to him. I would feel the same way with any thing we vaccinate for. 

This is the thing.... vaccination ONLY works if 80% of the population are vaccinated.  If not, then might as well throw vaccines out the window because it's not going to be effective - the communicable disease will simply just morph to overcome the vaccine and become stronger in the process.

The issue is then - that 20%.  Infants and the elderly are too weak to get vaccinated.  That accounts for a portion of that 20%.  Children like yours who cannot get vaccinated due to strong reactions get added to that 20%.  People with very weak immune systems due to having to be treated for other illnesses like cancer or palsy or lupos, etc. get added more to that 20%.

Add to that the people who refuse to get their kids vaccinated because... I don't know... autism or because some celebrity said... whatever.  I would think that you, having no choice but to be with the 20%, will encourage parents who don't have to be in that 20% to join the other 80% rather than just throwing up your hands and saying - I'm only here for my child and not anybody else's.

It's not about blaming other parents for your children's whopping cough.  It's about coming together as a society to eradicate whopping cough.

 

[Guest MormonGator]

43 minutes ago, unixknight said:

When I was a kid, peanut allergies were unheard of.  Now my kid can't have a PB&J sandwich for lunch because, heaven forbid, some kid on the other side of the room might catch a whiff of it and collapse into a fatal case of anaphylactic shock.

I think we've all met those kind of people. The kind where the mom claims to be gluten sensitive-which she knows is rare, but in her case, it's totally legit you know. The kid is so deathly allergic to peanuts that if he goes within 500 miles of a peanut, he'll die instantly. Because you know, that happens too. 

[unixknight]

4 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

I think we've all met those kind of people. The kind where the mom claims to be gluten sensitive-which she knows is rare, but in her case, it's totally legit you know. The kid is so deathly allergic to peanuts that if he goes within 500 miles of a peanut, he'll die instantly. Because you know, that happens too. 

When did it become fashionable to have  physical ailments?  Or for your kids to have them?  Is this a form of Munchausen's by proxy?

[Guest MormonGator]

3 minutes ago, unixknight said:

Is this a form of Munchausen's by proxy?

Yes and no. Some people are genuinely deluded. They honestly believe they or their kids have extremely rare diseases that they don't have.

However, I think I was right when I said people make up these things because they want to feel special, feel important, feel different, etc. It might be a subconscious thing. 
 

Edited January 22, 2019 by MormonGator

[Guest MormonGator]

54 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Emmanuel, you literally beat me to that post by under one second.

 

40 minutes ago, Emmanuel Goldstein said:

LOL. It is one of the funniest things I have seen in years.

Joking around about religion, politics, and how funny looking your kids are is one thing. 

But any joke about Gluten results in immediate, uncontrolled rage. 

[SpiritDragon]

39 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

This is the thing.... vaccination ONLY works if 80% of the population are vaccinated.  If not, then might as well throw vaccines out the window because it's not going to be effective - the communicable disease will simply just morph to overcome the vaccine and become stronger in the process.

The issue is then - that 20%.  Infants and the elderly are too weak to get vaccinated.  That accounts for a portion of that 20%.  Children like yours who cannot get vaccinated due to strong reactions get added to that 20%.  People with very weak immune systems due to having to be treated for other illnesses like cancer or palsy or lupos, etc. get added more to that 20%.

Add to that the people who refuse to get their kids vaccinated because... I don't know... autism or because some celebrity said... whatever.  I would think that you, having no choice but to be with the 20%, will encourage parents who don't have to be in that 20% to join the other 80% rather than just throwing up your hands and saying - I'm only here for my child and not anybody else's.

It's not about blaming other parents for your children's whopping cough.  It's about coming together as a society to eradicate whopping cough.

 

It actually completely depends on how contagious the disease is as to where the cut off point for herd immunity theoretically is. Measles is highly contagious and is thought to require more like 95% coverage for the herd immunity effect to take place. Whooping Cough cannot currently be stopped from transmitting with the vaccines, people are still carriers and may have mild symptoms thought to be a cold or flu, may have no symptoms at all, or may show more classic signs of the disease. Current vaccines cannot provide herd immunity from whooping cough because the disease is still transmitted, it's everywhere.

Stopping a highly contagious disease like measles using the theory of herd immunity would be impossible without vaccinating everyone simultaneously in the first place, and then if sufficient boosters weren't maintained for life a resurgence would still occur. It used to be thought that vaccines gave life long immunity and so for decades no one ever got booster shots, and most adults still don't, which left the vast majority of the population not immune because the vaccine-induced immunity wears out. So while the herd would have been insufficiently protected for decades while the disease declined and the credit was given to vaccines which now operate on a theory which debunks their own success. Vaccines can't have it both ways. Either they need to achieve herd immunity to confer protection, which has likely never been achieved in the case of measles (over 95% of the population up to date) or they have to admit that it doesn't require such high levels of vaccination, but then they couldn't use the herd immunity idea to bully people into doing something they aren't comfortable with for the "greater good".

[NeuroTypical]

1 hour ago, unixknight said:

When did it become fashionable to have  physical ailments?  Or for your kids to have them?  Is this a form of Munchausen's by proxy?

Honestly, I believe it's closely tied to the GMO/organic nonsense.  Basically, a marketing tactic to get more money out of upper-middle class white women, by making them feel like grocery shopping can help them save their children or the planet, if they spend $0.50 more per pound for carrots, or buy milk thistle complex to treat that sore throat.

The notion that you can do better for your family/the planet by making common sense stuff optional.  There is money to be made if you can misinform people. 

  

 

Edited January 22, 2019 by NeuroTypical

[anatess2]

31 minutes ago, SpiritDragon said:

It actually completely depends on how contagious the disease is as to where the cut off point for herd immunity theoretically is. Measles is highly contagious and is thought to require more like 95% coverage for the herd immunity effect to take place. Whooping Cough cannot currently be stopped from transmitting with the vaccines, people are still carriers and may have mild symptoms thought to be a cold or flu, may have no symptoms at all, or may show more classic signs of the disease. Current vaccines cannot provide herd immunity from whooping cough because the disease is still transmitted, it's everywhere.

Stopping a highly contagious disease like measles using the theory of herd immunity would be impossible without vaccinating everyone simultaneously in the first place, and then if sufficient boosters weren't maintained for life a resurgence would still occur. It used to be thought that vaccines gave life long immunity and so for decades no one ever got booster shots, and most adults still don't, which left the vast majority of the population not immune because the vaccine-induced immunity wears out. So while the herd would have been insufficiently protected for decades while the disease declined and the credit was given to vaccines which now operate on a theory which debunks their own success. Vaccines can't have it both ways. Either they need to achieve herd immunity to confer protection, which has likely never been achieved in the case of measles (over 95% of the population up to date) or they have to admit that it doesn't require such high levels of vaccination, but then they couldn't use the herd immunity idea to bully people into doing something they aren't comfortable with for the "greater good".

"Bully people" into doing something they aren't comfortable with?

Like, you know, bullying people that Obesity is bad for you?  The doctor fat shamed me!

So, ok... let's say you're 100% right.  It might be that vaccines aren't really doing anything.  But, you have no idea if your claim is true... you can't even prove it.  So, the answer to that is... let's stop encouraging vaccines?

This is the stuff that makes us Third Worlders just shake our heads at the privilege of First Worlders... they have such privilege that they can just choose to let communicable diseases run unchecked.  While we Third Worlders are still trying to beg First Worlders access to vaccines to get us out of our high death rates!

[SpiritDragon]

12 hours ago, anatess2 said:

"Bully people" into doing something they aren't comfortable with?

Like, you know, bullying people that Obesity is bad for you?  The doctor fat shamed me!

I have nothing against doctors or anyone telling people that they believe that vaccines are a good idea and the treatment they recommend, just as I applaud doctors who are proactive enough to have a candid talk with their patients about the risks associated with their weight. I don't support people being compelled to comply with their doctor's treatment recommendation though. I believe in informed consent where people are given the information and allowed to make a decision for themselves and their families. If we went to the level some here go with vaccines in suggesting that anyone with a fat kid should lose custody and be imprisoned, I would absolutely oppose such a cruel approach, just as I do with vaccines and any other treatment option. If all of your friends and neighbours begin to fat shame you to the point that their children are no longer allowed around in your presence lest they pick up fattening habits from you and tell everyone you're a horrible unintelligent person who the world would be better off without, and we need to legislate that your kids all go to fat camp for treatment and you are not allowed to opt out - that's bullying. I like to think people wouldn't stand for it in this case, and I don't know why they stand for it with vaccines.

Quote

So, ok... let's say you're 100% right.  It might be that vaccines aren't really doing anything.  But, you have no idea if your claim is true... you can't even prove it.  So, the answer to that is... let's stop encouraging vaccines?

I never said that vaccines are doing nothing, I simply pointed out that the herd immunity premise is demonstrably false in the case of measles simply by the numbers and is misinformation used to weaponize this issue and turn otherwise nice people into bullies on this issue. If herd immunity was needed to prevent outbreaks then we had insufficient coverage to explain the condition of measles temporary eradication simply because sufficient numbers of the adult population presented a much larger chink in the herd armour than unvaccinated children. The population wasn't then over 95% protected against measles and isn't now. If the reasoning now is that we don't have enough people vaccinated to create herd immunity, we need 95-99% coverage, how can we then claim the vaccine worked before at lower levels of uptake than are required now to create eradication? Do you not see the contradiction?

I further pointed out that when it comes to Whooping Cough in particular that the vaccine doesn't stop the transmission of the disease, it just alters the course of the disease. Thus whooping cough is still out there among all the vaccinated people with no stop in transmission we just have silent carriers who are spreading the disease without even knowing they are contagious.

https://web.archive.org/web/20131130004447/https://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm376937.htm

Most pertinent point from the above link

Quote

The FDA conducted the study in baboons, an animal model that closely reproduces the way whooping cough affects people. The scientists vaccinated two groups of baboons – one group with a whole-cell pertussis vaccine and the other group with an acellular pertussis vaccine currently used in the U. S. The animals were vaccinated at ages two, four, and six months, simulating the infant immunization schedule. The results of the FDA study found that both types of vaccines generated robust antibody responses in the animals, and none of the vaccinated animals developed outward signs of pertussis disease after being exposed to B. pertussis. However, there were differences in other aspects of the immune response. Animals that received an acellular pertussis vaccine had the bacteria in their airways for up to six weeks and were able to spread the infection to unvaccinated animals. In contrast, animals that received whole-cell vaccine cleared the bacteria within three weeks.

 

This research suggests that although individuals immunized with an acellular pertussis vaccine may be protected from disease, they may still become infected with the bacteria without always getting sick and are able to spread infection to others, including young infants who are susceptible to pertussis disease.

Here is a better read over of the study mentioned above: https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/early/2013/11/20/1314688110.full.pdf

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4482312/

Follow up study suggesting further plausibility that whooping cough outbreaks are largely due to asymptomatic transmission among the vaccinated to those with waning immunity or to the naive immune system that has either never naturally built immunity or done so via vaccination.

I'm not saying that vaccines are bad and that people shouldn't get them. I'm saying that there is a lot of misinformation on both sides and that herd immunity is the biggest means of creating social pressure on others to vaccinate although it doesn't really hold up to scrutiny in all cases, possibly none.

How many people are getting upset at the vaccinated child who unknowingly exposed the poor immune compromised kid next door who couldn't be vaccinated against whooping cough to the disease? Nobody, they blame the unvaccinated on the other side of town who stayed home in self appointed quarantine because he was symptomatic. The worst part is that the kid who actually got the disease would no longer get recolonized by the pertussis bacteria, but the vaccinated kid can become a carrier time and again.  So until we figure out a better vaccine herd immunity cannot be accomplished for Bordatella Pertussis (Whooping Cough).

This should be common knowledge, but it would likely hurt vaccine uptake so it is kept so quiet that new parents are told they need whooping cough boosters to protect their children, but we know the booster won't help stop transmission. There may however actually be a case for some kind of immunity being passed on to the fetus when given to the expecting mother.

Quote

This is the stuff that makes us Third Worlders just shake our heads at the privilege of First Worlders... they have such privilege that they can just choose to let communicable diseases run unchecked.  While we Third Worlders are still trying to beg First Worlders access to vaccines to get us out of our high death rates!

This very well may be. It could also be that third world sanitation needs to catch up and this will do it. It does a better job of explaining why diseases like scarlet fever went away at the same time as others even though no vaccine was ever rolled out for scarlet fever.

Edited January 23, 2019 by SpiritDragon

[LadyGunnar]

13 hours ago, anatess2 said:

This is the thing.... vaccination ONLY works if 80% of the population are vaccinated.  If not, then might as well throw vaccines out the window because it's not going to be effective - the communicable disease will simply just morph to overcome the vaccine and become stronger in the process.

The issue is then - that 20%.  Infants and the elderly are too weak to get vaccinated.  That accounts for a portion of that 20%.  Children like yours who cannot get vaccinated due to strong reactions get added to that 20%.  People with very weak immune systems due to having to be treated for other illnesses like cancer or palsy or lupos, etc. get added more to that 20%.

Add to that the people who refuse to get their kids vaccinated because... I don't know... autism or because some celebrity said... whatever.  I would think that you, having no choice but to be with the 20%, will encourage parents who don't have to be in that 20% to join the other 80% rather than just throwing up your hands and saying - I'm only here for my child and not anybody else's.

It's not about blaming other parents for your children's whopping cough.  It's about coming together as a society to eradicate whopping cough.

 

No. I know the fear and worry when it comes to vaccinating children. I would never want to force parents to vaccinate their child.  

[anatess2]

8 hours ago, LadyGunnar said:

No. I know the fear and worry when it comes to vaccinating children. I would never want to force parents to vaccinate their child.  

How exactly do you force parents to vaccinate a child?  Do you like, lock them in the pantry until they do?

Encourage.  Not force.  Encourage.

Of course, if you want to achieve 80% immunity, you can hand the thing over to the government.  

[anatess2]

12 hours ago, SpiritDragon said:

This very well may be. It could also be that third world sanitation needs to catch up and this will do it. It does a better job of explaining why diseases like scarlet fever went away at the same time as others even though no vaccine was ever rolled out for scarlet fever.

We Third Worlders are not so dire as to not have plain ole antibiotics.

Edited January 23, 2019 by anatess2

[LadyGunnar]

4 hours ago, anatess2 said:

How exactly do you force parents to vaccinate a child?  Do you like, lock them in the pantry until they do?

Encourage.  Not force.  Encourage.

Of course, if you want to achieve 80% immunity, you can hand the thing over to the government.  

It's all in the power. Kids can't go to school without vaccines without a waiver.  Thankfully my dd has one. For many parents, it is forcing them.  

[unixknight]

Just now, LadyGunnar said:

It's all in the power. 

Yep.  Personal health is one of the few areas in which we still have a modicum of protection from government.  That's eroding fast though.

[anatess2]

12 minutes ago, LadyGunnar said:

It's all in the power. Kids can't go to school without vaccines without a waiver.  Thankfully my dd has one. For many parents, it is forcing them.  

Those are government legislation.  That's like saying you are forced to wear a seatbelt when driving your car.  Or forced to build your house to withstand hurricane forces.

That's the interesting thing about government, isn't it?  It's fine to force people to wear clothes in public but it's not fine to force people to... <insert what government mandate you don't like>.

So... without government mandate, how do you propose to eradicate say... diptheria and hepatitis?

Edited January 23, 2019 by anatess2

[NeuroTypical]

Yuggh.  

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/01/23/an-anti-vaccination-hotspot-near-portland-suffers-public-health-emergency-over-measles/?utm_term=.00d772c8bee5

No word on the severity, or what the quality of life is like for the infected.  Again, I doubt anyone in the no-vac camp will start changing their minds until there are some funerals.

Quote

At the beginning of last week, there were only a handful of confirmed cases. On Friday, the day the emergency was declared, there were 19. By Sunday, that number had grown to 21. The latest update came Tuesday, when county officials said they had confirmed 23 cases and were investigating two more suspected cases. The vast majority of those who have fallen ill had not been immunized.

 

[unixknight]

55 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

No word on the severity, or what the quality of life is like for the infected.  Again, I doubt anyone in the no-vac camp will start changing their minds until there are some funerals.

You know that won't do it either.

[SpiritDragon]

On 1/23/2019 at 9:33 PM, NeuroTypical said:

Yuggh.  

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/01/23/an-anti-vaccination-hotspot-near-portland-suffers-public-health-emergency-over-measles/?utm_term=.00d772c8bee5

No word on the severity, or what the quality of life is like for the infected.  Again, I doubt anyone in the no-vac camp will start changing their minds until there are some funerals.

 

There really are two sides to this argument though. It's easy to get polarized, but it's important to listen to what people have to say and not just count them out as uneducated misinformed bumpkins or brainwashed do what the gubment says followers.

Consider that the DTP vaccine has recently been reviewed against information collected from the introduction of the vaccine to Guinnea Bissau Africa.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5868131/pdf/fpubh-06-00079.pdf

The review found consistently over multiple studies that the vaccinated were at twice the risk of death from all causes to the unvaccinated. Here's some highlights -

Quote

CONCLUSION:

Although having better nutritional status and being protected against three infections, 6-35 months old DTP-vaccinated children tended to have higher mortality than DTP-unvaccinated children. All studies of the introduction of DTP have found increased overall mortality.

Quote

DTP and oral polio vaccine (OPV) were first introduced to children aged 6–35  months in June 1981 in an urban area in Guinea-Bissau. Children who were DTP-vaccinated at the first weighing session after the introduction of DTP had significantly better weight-for-age z-scores than those not vaccinated.

• Although better survival was expected, the DTP-vaccinated children had twofold higher mortality than DTP-unvaccinated children.

• In a meta-analysis of the three studies of the introduction of DTP in urban and rural Guinea-Bissau, DTP-vaccinated children had twofold higher mortality than DTP-unvaccinated children.

Quote

Including this study, there are only three studies of the introduction of DTP, all from Guinea-Bissau (5, 12). We made a metaestimate for these studies, since they represent an unusual set of circumstances in relation to the discussion of potential biases in studies of the non-specific effects of vaccines (13–17). First, in all three studies the nutritional status was worse for children not vaccinated. Second, we administered nearly all vaccines, so most dates of vaccination were known precisely. Third, there were no campaigns with other vaccines or micronutrient supplements at the time of these studies. Fourth, they represent all the data sets available on the introduction of DTP in Guinea-Bissau, so reporting bias is not an issue (15).

Quote

The inherent biases in this study are clearly in favor of the DTP-vaccinated children (2): first, the DTP vaccine protects against three severe diseases. Second, the DTP-unvaccinated children were usually children deemed too sick or too weak to be vaccinated, as evidenced by the nurse’s notes on the BHP card and by the fact that these children had worse nutritional status. Third, DTP-unvaccinated children attended the weighing sessions less frequently (Table 1) and were, therefore, more likely to be staying for longer periods in the rural areas where the mortality risk was higher (12). Noteworthy, we were able to obtain mortality information from these children because their father and other relatives stayed in the study area. WHO experts have argued that the negative effect of DTP is exaggerated, because studies have only been conducted in  situations with herd immunity against pertussis and where the benefit of preventing pertussis would not be seen (13). However, pertussis was endemic in the 1980s before the roll out of the vaccination program in Guinea-Bissau, but all three studies of the introduction of DTP into urban and rural areas of Guinea-Bissau showed excess mortality associated with DTP vaccination.

Now in North America we use the acellular pertussis vaccine because the issues with the whole cell vaccine were becoming undeniable 20 years ago. Our current vaccines may be safer, but they are also less effective at creating immunity. In fact, they do not stop the transmission of whooping cough at all, but make the vaccinated into potential silent carriers who can spread the disease as they are colonized with the bacteria throughout their lives.

Where is the outrage that the vaccines doubled the body count, and did so in the face of better nutrition and health indicators among the vaccinated? Where is the call for better vaccines that actually stop the transmission of disease when whooping cough outbreaks occur? We're met instead with the same tired witch hunt of blaming those who dare avoid or delay vaccination.

I realize of course, your articles here are about measles, and I'm talking about Whooping Cough which is a different entity altogether. The point I'm trying to make is that studies like this are out there but seem to be swept under the rug with the idea there is nothing to see here, move along - anyone who believes this stuff is ignorant. Is this study not legitimate? It sure seems well done to me. I suppose my further point is that this study was done by looking back in time, the assumption of the day was simply that these vaccines were safe and effective, just as the assumption is today - 30 to 40 years later we find out that they were killing twice as many children as would have died with no vaccine. Shouldn't vaccines really have a legitimate safety test done before being rolled out on the populace? Determining the safety after the fact seems extra problematic when the treatment is something that is becoming compulsory. If the vaccine safety studies are simply being performed on real people by reporting adverse events as they happen, shouldn't people ethically have the right to refuse being study subjects?

I want to also make it clear that I'm really not trying to pick a fight. I just find this type of study and many others I have seen to be compelling and haven't had satisfactory answers to my questions. I get tired of feeling like people hate me for questioning the safety and effectiveness of vaccines and just feel like maybe if I can show some of the evidence that gives me pause it can help others to be more compassionate toward people like me. I don't expect to change anyone's mind on vaccination for their own kids, but I would appreciate if people could take a more civil attitude toward those with a different view and I would like to think more people could favour personal liberties to make health decisions for oneself and family.

[SpiritDragon]

I should add that I'm not accusing you @NeuroTypical of being uncivil in particular, just that that sentiment always comes out in these types of discussions. There is certainly a sense of belittling people with the minority view and righting them off as fools to believe such nonsensical stuff and to ignore any research that supports the concern and again right people off as simply listening to emotional mommy bloggers and former porn stars with no evidence whatsoever.

[NeuroTypical]

Ok, wow, that's interesting info I didn't know.  A well-versed voice of reason, speaking in terms of double-blind studies and metadata, disagreeing with my long-held belief?  Heaven forfend!  Only you, SD!  Thanks for this.

I trust there is little to none of this higher-death-rate-for-vaccinated-kids data in 1st world countries?  That's not a thing in the US, correct?

Edited January 26, 2019 by NeuroTypical

[SpiritDragon]

2 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Ok, wow, that's interesting info I didn't know.  A well-versed voice of reason, speaking in terms of double-blind studies and metadata, disagreeing with my long-held belief?  Heaven forfend!  Only you, SD!  Thanks for this.

I trust there is little to none of this higher-death-rate-for-vaccinated-kids data in 1st world countries?  That's not a thing in the US, correct?

I can't recall any studies showing increased mortality from vaccines in the United States off hand. I may have encountered some from other first world countries, but would have to look, as I can't recall any off hand. I'll have to get back to you on first world data, I imagine it's harder to find a true comparison of unvaccinated to vaccinated though because vaccines have been dominant for generations now in the Western world. This leaves studies that look at one vaccine at a time, which is useful for determining the effects of one vaccine, but it does so while other vaccines are in use which also confounds end points like mortality. Another challenge is that when placebo studies are used they tend to use the same adjuvant as the vaccine would, only taking out the antigen. This is a useful means of determining issues from the antigen specifically but not the whole vaccine. It would be like studying the effect of chocolate chip cookies on health by taking out the chocolate chips but still eating the cookies. It can only let us know the impact of the chocolate chips, not the complete cookies. This study would also be confounded by eating other types of cookies or products with similar ingredients.

 

 

 

[Guest]

On 1/22/2019 at 9:09 AM, MormonGator said:

I remember reading that true "Gluten Sensitivity" is in only .6-1% of the population, if not less.

I haven't looked it up, but that sounds about right.  On my side of the family (about 50 people) one SIL is allergic to gluten.  On my wife's side of the family (about 100 people) my wife has Hashimoto's. Considering the sample size, that's pretty close to the statistic you mentioned.

When we first learned that my wife had Hashimoto's, we figured that if she stopped eating gluten 100% for 10 years, there could be a "reset" that would allow her to have a normal life again. But several years later she saw NO changes to her hormone levels.  We asked the doctor why (explaining our theory about the 10 years).  She said that it didn't work that way.  And we shouldn't expect any changes... ever. 

So, we asked why we're supposed to change our diets.  It didn't seem to be making any difference.  The doctor said that "it helps".  How???  It just does... Ri i i ii ght...

So, we figured if it doesn't help her condition, why bother bending over backwards to try to find gluten free restaurants and eat only gluten free foods from the supermarket?

I don't mind because I'm fine with rice (I wonder why).  But my wife let me know that she just doesn't like rice.  I'd never heard that before.  But we're just eating a normal diet now.  And she doesn't seem hurt by it.

Edited January 26, 2019 by Guest