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

On April 3, Sue Goldstein wrote:
>>I have no overt symptoms, only "silent" ones...for me no symptoms does not
equal no damage.<<

Like Sue I have little, if any, obvious symptoms after eating gluten. Her
experience should bother all of us, however, when it comes to what we take
as "sufficient evidence" that a food is or is not gluten free.

So little is known about the two multi-step chains of cause and effect
leading to both the overt GI symptoms and the villi damage, that it is safer
to assume each of us has our own private sensitivity to the villi damage and
a separate sensitivity to overt GI symptoms. We know from this forum that
the latter is true. Sue's experience is consistent with an antibody form of
the former.

Joe Murray or other doctors here may wish to comment on the connection
between overt and internal damage.

"Sufficient evidence"? Perhaps we can help each other here on this list. For
example I almost accept Don Wiss's experience with the lime in tortillas as
an "authenticated gluten sighting" and because of my overt insensitivity
will avoid lime (e.g. not only his brand, but Weight Watchers Baked Chips).
By authenticated, I mean the product is clearly identified, has a list of
ingredients, and produces a reaction like that the "scout" (Don)  has had
before from a more obvious gluten in small quantities. Couple this with
limited, if any, other known food sensitivities for Don. (Alright, there's
still a question of sulfite here yet.) Notice that this definition of
"sighting" excludes many (most?) of those buckwheat reports.

Perhaps others have sightings they'd like to share?

As for deciding something is gluten free by  the converse, namely no
reaction by even sensitive people, that I can't accept. Perhaps others with
more overt sensitivity would like to comment on that.

       Kemp Randolph
       [log in to unmask]