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

I am really puzzled at why some folks are so critical about the Time
Magazine June 19, 2004 article. Personally, I think the author did an
excellent job of putting a complicated explanation into "layman's" terms.
I believe the author led with an "eye-catcher" type of headline and
because he did not go into all the minute details of the conditions, I
think many people will read the article in its entirety.  Informing the
general public about fact that it is really not a "rare" condition and
emphasizing the necessity for improved labeling is what we want.

I totally understand that many people with celiac disease are nearly
disabled; however, MANY people with celiac "disease" (myself included)
have some complications in their life with trying to find things to eat
but in the whole scheme of things - there are far worse diseases or
conditions that one could have.  The only thing most people with celiac
have to do is eat a gluten free diet - no pills, no surgery, no hospital
stays, no chemo.  My mother has had celiac for 15 years and was deathly
ill before she was diagnosed, so I am aware of how sick a person can be
with celiac.  But within a month of being on the diet, she was
dramatically improved.  I often "explained" her condition to folks as
being "like" an allergy only with much more serious effects.  That's
because if you go into too much detail, people won't understand.  I
believe that is what the author was trying to do. Allergies are an auto-
immune response so to liken celiac disease to an allergy is not incorrect,
in my opinion.

You catch more flies with honey - and I, for one, think the article was
really good and I am embarrassed by the nit-picking criticism of it.  I
hope some more folks will do as I have - written the author with a big
THANK YOU!!!!!

* Please carefully compose your subject lines in all posts *