<<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 *