On Fri, 31 May 2002 06:05:21 -0500, Amadeus Schmidt <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

>On Thu, 30 May 2002 13:14:26 -0400, Todd Moody <[log in to unmask]>
>wrote:
>
>>  But in
>>any case, if the foreign protein theory is correct, the rate at
>>which the foreign proteins are introduced should not be a
>>critical variable, since it's what happens when they get in that
>>is supposed to matter.
>
>I'd like to report my suspicion, how foreign proteins work.
>
>1.Eaten proteins are always foreign. Every protein out of your own body.
>2.If any protein eaten manages to pass the gut walls *undigested*
>  it calls immediate imune responses. Which may later attack the body's
own
>  proteins if they are similar (autoimune).
>3.Cereal grain in particular carry lectins, designed to attack predators.
>  These, under certain circumstances not well understood,
>  can increase gut permeability.
>
>I've allergy against a meat protein (of veal or lamp or anything).
>Thus, these proteins once managed to come into my bloodstream.
>
>I think once your gut walls are permeable *any* protein present in the gut
>will enter and then cause the dangerous imune reactions.
>Then it's a foreign protein in Ray's sense.
>
>It doesn't matter which protein it is.
>In my case it's this meat and hazel and soy.
>
>Lectins from unprocessed grains support this process.
>And what came to my mind too -
>normally proteins are digested into amino acids or short peptides when
they
>reach the long intestine. They can only reach this area, when protein
>digestion is incomplete.
>But how can this come?
>Too quick leaving of the stomach?
>Maybe by acid in the food (vinegar) opening it's door?
>
>Or base in the food (natron) weakening the digestion forces.
>Or thinning of the digestion juices by water?
>Or more?
>
>regards
>
>Amadeus
>and it's a nice and sunny spring day outside


Hi - I am a newcomer to this list. When it comes to degree
of "foreignness" of intact or half-digested exogenous proteins which get
into the bloodstream, it seems to me that the source of proteins should be
relevant (at least in the sense of statistical distribution of negative
reactions in a population, not for a given individual).

I suppose that similarity of the foreign proteins to the endogenous
proteins has been generally recognized as the fundamental cause of some
autoimmune reactions (in accordance with your assertion). Of course, the
first naive interpretation of this could be that proteins from closely
related species should be more more harmful (e.g. mammalian vs poultry-
derived, animal-derived vs plant-derived etc). On the other hand, a high
degree of similarity more likely means that the amino-acid sequence is not
perceived as foreign at all by the immune system (unless the very fact
that a protein appears in the digestive tract is sufficient for its
classification as foreign). I assume this issue has probably been
completely resolved - does anyone know what the answer is?

Of course, the above controversy concerns only the sporadic or random
autoimmune reactions, as opposed to those evolved in evolutionary
competition among different species. In my opinion the latter are, being
the basic mechanism of molecular mimicry, far more importamt. I remember
reading somewhere (Ashton Embry's website? Bogin's article?) that
monocotyledon plants [which include grasses (e.g. cereals) and legumes (I
am not sure about the latter)] have evolved amino acid sequences
specifically designed to wreak havoc in the immune systems of their usual
mammalian predators. Of course, humans do not have good chances in this
evolutionary race being complete newcomers (the primates have evolved in
tropical enviroment, where almost all plants are dicotyledons).

The question of quantity of foreign proteins, raised in the Jim Swayze -
Todd Moody debate in another thread, is obviously also relevant in this
context. My guess would be that Jim's theory (that quantity counts) is
more viable simply because a minute exposure to a viral agent will not
AFAIK cause a virus-induced auto-immune disorder. I believe this
controversy can be reduced to the question of whether e.g. severity of
symptoms of coeliac disease is dependent on the dose of gluten. Does
anyone have data on this? If the answer is affirmative, it would seem to
me that consuming (often lectin-rich)plant-derived food and (protein-rich)
animal-derived food at different meals is of crucial importance. (I have
been doing that ever since I read a long time ago in a post of Cordain's
in the paleo diet list archives that these foods "were not necessarily
consumed simultaneously". However, judging by his recent book, he seems to
have changed his mind on this issue. Does anyone know what the current
opinions on this are?)

Regards

Darko