<<Disclaimer: Verify this information before applying it to your situation.>>

He did print accurate information, but I dispute his cause-effect 
reasoning.  This was my response to him:

First, thank you for at least printing accurate information about 
celiac disease.  If I didn't know better, however, I'd think your mag 
gets funding from wheat producers.   Have you been inconvenienced by 
someone needing to avoid gluten?  Your charts give the appearance of 
science to the unsophisticated, but they cannot be used to establish 
a cause-effect relationship and may be only coincidence.

You have helped to make life more difficult for celiacs, most of whom 
have been accused of malingering more than once while trying to eat 
safely.  Family gatherings can be extremely difficult in this regard. 
It has become easier lately, but that doesn't mean it's easy.  Are 
you aware that labeling laws, even the new ones, are not yet 
stringent enough for celiacs to trust because actual gluten need not 
be disclosed?   ...that researchers have demonstrated that only a few 
molecules, much less than a breadcrumb, can cause intestinal damage 
to a celiac?  ... that a substantial number of celiacs are 
asymptomatic and that their doctors have difficulty getting them to 
comply with a gluten free diet, even though they face substantial 
health risks by not complying?  ...that the diagnosis of celiac 
requires that damage be done to the intestine, proven by a biopsy, 
although the person may have symptoms for a long time prior to the 
damage showing up in a biopsy?  ... that a g-f diet heals the 
intestine, which means that an untested celiac who goes on the diet 
risks never getting accurately diagnosed, including some of those Dr. 
Fasano tests, referenced in your article?  ...that celiac is still 
very much underdiagnosed, and that many people who have been 
diagnosed with IBS are actually celiac?  ...that many doctors are 
still misinformed about celiac (having been taught the incidence is 
1/4000), because there's no well-financed drug company "updating" 
doctors on how to make use of their treatment?

You make the assumption that people fear the gluten bogeyman because 
of the press coverage of celiac and the need for gluten free 
foods.   While there may be a few hypochondriacs out there fearing 
gluten, my observation is that the opposite of your position is 
true.  For about the last 12 years, I've been on the celiac listserv 
and monitoring online information.  Early on there was little 
accurate information anywhere but the celiac listserv 
([log in to unmask]).  Celiacs have to screen everything that 
crosses or touches their lips - medication, toothpaste, lip balm, 
beverages - no exceptions.  There have always been people, even 
without of knowing the term "gluten," who figured out that wheat was 
making them sick and went in search of information.  Many tested 
negative but got sick again when they started eating wheat (and its 
relatives) again.  Even the experts had no explanation, but doctors 
said not to eat what makes you sick while offering no help.  The term 
"gluten intolerance" used be synonymous with celiac, but recently it 
has been used to describe this group as has "gluten 
sensitivity."  This has come about because this large and growing 
group is asking for help and answers.  My theory about the 
coincidence with the Atkins diet is that people who went on Atkins 
and were no longer sick probably went in search of the grain that was 
causing the problem, since grains aren't allowed.

It came out on the listserv years ago that some doctors are unskilled 
at doing a celiac biopsy and miss the damaged area of the 
intestine.   Some labs have a poor track record for processing biopsy 
results, because some test results require subjective, rather than 
objective evaluation.  This information came from people who 
supposedly tested negative but were still being made sick by 
gluten.  They were correctly diagnosed only after going to one of the 
nationally-known experts or the Mayo Clinic.  One woman actually 
demanded that her biopsy samples be sent to another lab known to be 
more experienced at processing celiac tests.  Her results were 
changed from "negative" to "positive."

Do you know that there's a theory that the timing of introduction of 
wheat into a baby's diet affects the development of celiac?  Not 
everyone with the documented genetic predisposition develops the 
disease, and there is new research being done to see if delaying the 
introduction of gluten in susceptible infants can prevent the disease 
process.  Here is a link to the article, by Dr. Fasano, whom you 
quote.  Scientific 
American: 
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=celiac-disease-insights&page=6

I'm sending this to you directly, because I don't know if you read 
all the commentary on your web site.  You have tapped into a world 
that is invisible to most people but one where maintaining health is 
a real struggle.  I hope that as a responsible journalist you care 
about how your writing affects people.

(signature)

p.s.  I love whole wheat bread, and I'd kill for a piece, but a 
chocolate chip cookie almost sent me to the hospital a few years ago 
(before I got smarter about this).

At 05:05 PM 7/30/2009, you wrote:

>After reading the posts about Daniel Engber's article "Throwing out
>the Wheat' in Slate, I was ready, as a long-time Slate subscriber, to
>fire off an angry missive....

* All posts for product information must include the applicable country *
Archives are at: Http://Listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?LIST=CELIAC