On Oct 5, 8:50*pm, Dogman wrote:
On Fri, 5 Oct 2012 15:37:01 -0700 (PDT), "





wrote:
On Oct 5, 4:06 pm, Dogman wrote:
Remission without insulin therapy on gluten-free diet in a 6-year old
boy with type 1 diabetes mellitus:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22729336

Abstract

"A 5-year and 10-month old boy was diagnosed with classical type 1
diabetes mellitus (T1DM) without celiac disease. He started on a
gluten-free diet after 2-3 week without need of insulin treatment. At
the initiation of gluten-free diet, HbA1c was 7.8% and was stabilised
at 5.8%-6.0% without insulin therapy. Fasting blood glucose was
maintained at 4.0-5.0 mmol/l. At 16 months after diagnosis the fasting
blood glucose was 4.1 mmol/l and after 20 months he is still without
daily insulin therapy. There was no alteration in glutamic acid
decarboxylase positivity. The gluten-free diet was safe and without
side effects. The authors propose that the gluten-free diet has
prolonged remission in this patient with T1DM and that further trials
are indicated."
First obvious question is what was the carb level in the
diet with gluten and what was the carb level in the diet
without gluten. * IF in fact it was just going without gluten
that produced this result, you would think they would feature
that in the summary, because it would indeed be a powerful
and profound point. * But no mention is made, despite
indicting gluten, not refined carbs in general. * So, call
me skeptical....

As usual, you're missing the point. Yes, it was a low-glycemic
gluten-free diet. Which you could have ascertained for yourself with a
little digging. And it apparently got a 6 year old child (and a
NON-Celiac) off of insulin and his diabetes is now in remission. The
diet was the same generally used for patients with Celiac disease.

The point was that going gluten-free presented no side effects, was
safe, etc. And that by DIET alone, remission was possible. Not that
going gluten-free was solely responsible for the remission.

See: "further trials are indicated."

In the meantime, NO DRUGS!

And I know how that must just break your drug-loving, drug-pushing
heart. BOO freakin' hoo.

--
Dogman



Then the report is one half-assed presentation. To indict
gluten and not have one word about the fact that
the diet was actually a low glycemic diet in the summary
is completely misleading.

How about if I did an anecdotal report about producing
weight loss in a diet that excluded potatoes. And talked
about that, not the fact that it also was low glycemic, low
calorie, or whatever else it was?

In other words, IMO, from the summary and the complete
lack of mention that it was actually a low glycemic diet,
it's just another example of gross distortion in a desperate
attempt to target wheat.