I take no credit for Ron's paper except that I made some small content
suggestions and suggested some alternate phrasing in some spots.  I have
never seen anyone explicitly put forth the suggestion that glutens are a
primary culprit in modern disease processes (although Ray Audette does
refer generically to "foreign proteins" in grains, beans, and dairy), but
the idea seems to have merit.  Certainly hunter/gatherers never eat the
stuff, and apparently some fairly healthy horticulturists do not either.

I had told Ron he'd better put something at the top explaining to people
that "gluten" is a phrase celiacs commonly use to refer to all proteins
peculiar to cereal grains, but perhaps that wasn't sufficient.  (Ron refers
to them as "toxic proteins" but I'm less willing to use that phrasing.)
But that is the short answer; "gluten" refers generically proteins peculiar
to all forms of cereal grains.  (All grains contain glutens, although the
amount varies.  Wheat is quite high in it, whereas if I'm not mistaken
brown rice is relatively low.)

The paper in question was delivered to a specialized audience of people
with celiac disease (a potentially deadly condition brought about by
intolerance to glutens) and health professionals who treat them.  My
forwarding it here was because it raises interesting issues that touch on
the concept of paleolithic nutrition.

One of the beliefs of some in the paleolithic nutrition field is that
excessive carbohydrate consumption causes many of the diseases of
civilization, especially hypertension, atherosclerosis, and diabetes.
Grains and grain products are post-agricultural humanity's primary source
for carbohydrate; hunter/gatherers, who of course would rarely eat grains,
seem to average only about 30% carbohydrate intake, with most of it very
high in fibre and quite low on the glycemic index, with animal and nut
protein frequently making up a majority of the calories.

However, it seems quite possible that dietary carbohydrate might be a red
herring, or a smaller ingredient than it is sometimes regarded as.  The
first thing to make me realize this was Staffan Lindeberg's studies on the
Kitava (and Lindeberg is also a member of this listserv, BTW).  The Kitava
are not hunter/gatherers, but are not exactly agriculturalists either; they
would best be defined as primitive horticulturists, as they mostly
cultivate wild plants and do not grow or consume cereal grains (and if I'm
not mistaken, do not eat dairy either). Their diet is relatively high in
carbohydrate and somewhat low in fat, although saturated fat intake is
fairly high.  About 80% of them smoke cigarettes on a daily basis, and
while they are physically active, they are only somewhat more so than most
Westerners.  Yet their rates of obesity, diabetes, stroke, and heart
attacks are vanishingly small. (I don't know if Lindeberg and his team ever
looked for rheumatoid arthritis or cancer, two common autoimmune diseases
typical to civilization.  Perhaps he can tell us that himself.)  Genetics
does not seem to be the explanation, either.  For a very good summary of
Lindeberg's work written by Lindeberg himself, with a bibliography of his
complete papers as published in peer-reviewed journals, see
http://www.panix.com/~donwiss/paleodiet/sl1.shtml.

In _The Paleolithic Prescription_, Eaton, Shostak, and Konner stated that
while grains and grain products were unnatural to humans in the wild, they
were "too valuable" to suggest giving up their use, although he never
explained exactly what he thought was valuable about them.  I wonder at
times whether Eaton has rethought that matter.