Italians eat a lot of wheat

[RRM]

5. Where did the researchers believe the antigen originated from?

b) produced from the children's own blood, in response to the wheat consumed, and the gliadin absorbed by the mothers.

RRM wrote what he believes.

Yes, you are right.
That was a mistake.
I even previously had written it down correctly, see this post: http://www.waitalk.com/viewtopic.php?f= ... 559#p39856)

So, these antigen levels represent the antibodies produced by the mothers of case subjects and controls, to the wheat consumed by these mothers.

So, the mothers of both case subjects and controls consumed wheat, absorbed gliadin, and developed antibodies against gliadin,
to a lesser or greater extend,
and the greatest extend (90th percentile) is associated with an increased risk for developing psychosis in offspring,
even more apparent in the 95th percentile.

[Aytundra]

Aytundra answer is: (sorry out of the box thinking 'unfair multiple choice quiz.' lol)
d) could be from maternal antigens that circulated through the umbilical cord.
could be from child's own antigens, that reacted to opioid peptides that circulated through the umbilical cord.

This is what aytundra believes, or first thoughts after reading their article, my first impressions.

Yes, you are right. That was a mistake. (i even previously had interpret it correctly, see this post: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=3584&p=39856&sid=d096727d01912de1a7dcaaba4fc54559#p39856)

i know (Grins, it was funny, and frustrating and time consuming reading all of RRM and Ducky comments. All at the same time my mind was bouncing off walls. My walls are speckled with colour now. Too many thoughts going on at the same time. Was RRM saying this or that, was Ducky saying this or that? Was the article Karlsson et al saying this or that. And most importantly what was all the aytundra(s) saying....! lol)

[RRM]

This is what aytundra believes, or first thoughts after reading their article, my first impressions.

could be from maternal antigens that circulated through the umbilical cord.
could be from child's own antigens, that reacted to opioid peptides that circulated through the umbilical cord.

At least its the first (from across placenta), though it could also be both (from placenta, and produced by baby), but not the latter only (produced by baby only).
As this is what they wrote:
"IgG is actively transported across the placenta during the later stages of pregnancy to provide passive immunization of the fetus (15), and hence such antibodies reflect maternal exposures and immune responses to specific antigens".

[Aytundra]

This is what aytundra believes, or first thoughts after reading their article, my first impressions.

could be from maternal antigens that circulated through the umbilical cord.
could be from child's own antigens, that reacted to opioid peptides that circulated through the umbilical cord.

At least its the first (from across placenta) , though it could also be both (from placenta, and produced by baby), but not the latter only (produced by baby only).
As this is what they wrote:
"IgG is actively transported across the placenta during the later stages of pregnancy to provide passive immunization of the fetus (15), and hence such antibodies reflect maternal exposures and immune responses to specific antigens".

Yes I agree, Maternal antigens first, and maybe later the child will develop child's own antigen.
Is it possible that the child develops antigen inside the womb or is it possible for the child to develop antigens after child is born?
Rather the question is:
Did the opioid peptides make it through the umbilical cords?
That we will not know unless we find studies.

[Aytundra]

Its the mothers of children who will develop a psychosis later in life, and the mothers of children who will not develop a psychosis later in life.
(Regarding the consumption of wheat and absorption of gliadin).

Let's tackle another problem.
Sentence structure. The expression of your thought here RRM, it is still messed up.

Will the mothers develop psychosis?
a) mothers with antigen
b) mothers without antigen

Its the mothers of children who will develop a psychosis later in life, and the mothers of children who will not develop a psychosis later in life.
(Regarding the consumption of wheat and absorption of gliadin).

Or did you mean to say the children will develop psychosis, if their blood spots had antigens (from mother, or from child's own body).

Will the child develop psychosis?
a) child with antigen
b) child without antigen

[RRM]

Will the mothers develop psychosis?

Possibly, but that has not been investigated.
There are undoubtedly mothers among the case subjects, but when you say: "the mothers",
i think you mean to say: "the mothers of the case subjects and controls".

Or did you mean to say the children will develop psychosis, if their blood spots had antigens (from mother, or from child's own body).

No, there just is an increased risk for the offspring to develop a psychosis later in life, if the level of antigens in their blood was high. (90th percentile)
28% of all the study participants (case subjects + controls) are case subjects (psychosis).
46% of the people that had very high levels of antigens in their blood (95th percentile) are case subjects (psychosis).

Will the child develop psychosis?
a) child with antigen
b) child without antigen

The study does not report about any children without antigen.
Both case subjects and controls had various levels of gliadin antigens in their blood.
Its just that in "the high level of antigens" section (90th percentile), there are relatively many case subjects (psychosis),
and relatively few controls (no psychosis).

Last edited by RRM on 07 Jul 2014 05:46 pm, edited 2 times in total.

[Aytundra]

This article is about normal mothers, and then their children and chances of psychosis.

Its normal mothers vs sick mothers.

No...
its the mothers of children who will develop a psychosis later in life, and the mothers of children who will not.

Yes thats what I said: healthy vs sick.

No, thats not what you said.You said: "its normal mothers vs sick mothers"

Will the mothers develop psychosis?

Possibly, but that has not been investigated.

Okay Ducky,
I think we have an answer, this study is not about normal mothers vs. sick mothers.
---------------------------------------

Wow, Long post!
The effects of sentence confusion. Ppl write clearly. Write every detail. Pretty please! I ask you all! (myself included).

[Ducky]

Okay Ducky,
I think we have an answer, this study is not about normal mothers vs. sick mothers.

Obviously its about their children otherwise why take pregnant women?

[Ducky]

Please show me:
Exactly which 2 quotes of mine are contradictive?

I never claimed that the Wai diet may cure autism.
Never. Not even suggested it. Or hinted.
Not on the website, not on this forum. Nowhere.
A diet without opioid peptides does not cure autism.
But that does not validate that there is no role for opioid peptides in the cause.
Are you claiming that?

Then what is it exactly that you are claiming? Because for 5 pages you are arguing how gluten affects mental diseases.

Looks like you yourself don't really know what you are claiming.

If something is greatly affecting some illness wouldn't the omission of this thing largely reduce the disease?

[Ducky]

The distribution for controls is like this:

5th: 526
50th: 276
75th: 136
90th: 54
95th: 27

So 136 persons out of 553 had more than 75% Anti-Gliadin in their blood? Is that it?

PS: your edit timing is very short, couldn't you extend it?

[RRM]

Its normal mothers vs sick mothers.

this study is not about normal mothers vs. sick mothers.

Obviously its about their children otherwise why take pregnant women?

Yes, the children. Not the mothers.
No, they did not take pregnant women.
They investigated stored blood, taken from newborns.
Not pregnant women.

Looks like you yourself don't really know what you are claiming.

Autism is not a state of mind.
Autism is a neurodevelopmental disorder.
This means that as the brain grows, something goes wrong.
In the cause of autism, there are impairments of the growth and development of the brain or central nervous system.
This affects brain functioning, which will become apparent as the child is growing up.
I claim that wheat consumption may cause impairment of the growth of the brain.
I did never claim that by eliminating wheat from one's diet, one may undo the damage already done.
In the case of autism, i only claim the possibility of preventing autism.
Not curing it.

If something is greatly affecting some illness wouldn't the omission of this thing largely reduce the disease?

That totally depends on what kind of illness it is.
Autism is a neurodevelopmental disorder.
A neurodevelopmental disorder is the kind of illness that does not go away by the omission of what cased it.
That is because the development of the brain has been impaired.
So, the brain has not developed properly.
Once the child has become an adult, brain development has ended.
The omission of what caused the brain not to develop properly, will therefore have little effect, as the brain is no longer developing.
The damage has already been done.
You cannot undo that damage.
You cannot make the adult have the brain development of a child.
That stage has passed.
Thats is why i never claimed that diet may cure autism.
Cure, no.
Prevention, yes.
I just claim that wheat consumption may have a role in the cause of autism. (before brain development has been completed)

So 136 persons out of 553 had more than 75% Anti-Gliadin in their blood? Is that it?

No. Its not 75%.
The 75 is percentile. Not percent (%).
What they did:
They measured the level of anti-Gliadin in the blood.
Then they draw a line, in such a way that separates the top 5% of controls that had the most anti-Gliadin in their blood.
5% of 553 controls = 27
So, they selected the 27 controls that had the most (the highest levels of) anti-Gliadin in their blood.
All other controls had less anti-Gliadin in their blood.
They did the same for anti-casein levels; they selected the 27 controls that had the highest levels of anti-Gliadin.
Those 27 controls are in the top 5%.
Thats is what they call the 95th percentile.
Those top 5%, those 27 people with the highest levels, are in the 95th percentile. (95 + 5 = 100)

The 75th percentile is also a selected group of controls.
In the 75th percentile are the 25% of the controls that had the highest levels of anti-Gliadin in their blood.
Thats a selection of 136 controls.
Of course, the controls that were in the 95th percentile, are also in this 75th percentile.
So, the 27 controls that fall in the 95th percentile, are also in the 75th percentile.
Of the 136 controls in the 75th percentile, 27 of them are also in the 95th percentile.
Those 136 controls are 25% of all controls.
The remaining 75% of all controls all had lower levels of anti-Gliadin than those 136 controls in the 75th percentile.
So 136 persons out of 553 (the 75th percentile group) had more anti-Gliadin in their blood than the other controls.

[Ducky]

I did never claim that by eliminating wheat from one's diet, one may undo the damage already done.

So you are claiming that gluten causes unrepairable damage to the brain?

That contradicts that latter study above where children of healthy mothers also had Anti-Gliadin in their blood and they were still healthy.

[RRM]

I did never claim that by eliminating wheat from one's diet, one may undo the damage already done.

So you are claiming that gluten causes unrepairable damage to the brain?

That it may.
That wheat intake is a risk factor.

That contradicts that latter study above where children of healthy mothers also had Anti-Gliadin in their blood and they were still healthy.

No.
The latter study above is about psychosis, not autism. (and this study did not show the mothers were/remained healthy, or not)
But for the sake of discussion, suppose it was about autism.
No. It does not contradict it.
The study shows that newborns who had high levels of anti-Gliadin in their blood, are more likely to develop a psychosis than those with lower levels of anti-Gliadin.
More likely.
Not all of them.

Similarly, smoking cigarettes increases the risk of developing lung cancer.
That does not mean that everybody who smokes cigarettes will develop lung cancer.
Some people have been smoking 2 packs of cigarettes daily all their life, and are still healthy when they are old.
That does not contradict that smoking increases the risk of developing lung cancer.
Similarly, high levels of anti-Gliadin is associated with increased risk of psychosis.
That does not contradict that people with high levels of anti-Gliadin may never develop a psychosis.
Whether an individual will actually develop a psychosis, or autism, or lung cancer, depends on this individual's susceptibilty.
Smoking is just a risk factor.
As is wheat consumption.
A risk factor increases the risk.

[Ducky]

The study shows that newborns who had high levels of anti-Gliadin in their blood, are more likely to develop a psychosis than those with lower levels of anti-Gliadin.

No.
This is what the table says:

Case subjects total = 211 (N= total number)
Control subjects total = 553 (N= total number)

Antigen level for gliadin in the 75th percentile:
Case subjects 55 = 26% of toial case subjects (55/211)
Control subjects 136 = 24% of total control subjects (136/553)

Antigen level for gliadin in the 90th percentile:
Case subjects: 34 = 16% of total case subjects
Control subjects: 54 = 10% of total control subjects

Antigen level for gliadin in the 95th percentile:
Case subjects: 23/211 = 11% (of total case subjects)
Control subjects: 27/553 = 5% (of total control subjects)

24 vs 26 is not that much of a difference. You are clearly exaggerating. If that was such a big deal as you claim it scientists would have repeated this experiment many times to get a clearer picture.

This study didnt prove that gluten caused unrepairable damage to the brain.

And in the case of casein there was no difference.

Your example of smoking is not really a good example of comparison either.

Smoking affects everybody, whether you get cancer or not we can see it on your lungs. Gluten does not affect everybody's brain as we could see it in the study. It's more like celiac disease, some are affected some aren't.

[Ducky]

Me: So you are claiming that gluten causes unrepairable damage to the brain?

RRM:
That it may.
That wheat intake is a risk factor.

Japan has the highest number of autistic children and they also have the lowest rate of wheat consumption.
http://www.targetmap.com/viewer.aspx?reportId=15821
http://chartsbin.com/view/5267
Here are more data if you want to find relation between wheat and autism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epidemiology_of_autism