I can't help but notice how everyone thinks of sprue as a disease and I'm not really sure I agree with this. When one thinks of a disease, they think of how the person is sick for life or until the disease goes away. In other words, the person is unhealthy. With sprue, one can live perfectly healthy as long as they stay away from what to them is a harmful substance. Are dogs diseased just because chocolate is poisonous to them and not to us? Are people who get drunk easily diseased in comparison to those who have an extremely high tolerance to alcohol? Sure, people with celiac are set apart from the rest of the population in that a certain substance that doesn't affect most people is poisonous to them, but does that go along with the definition of "disease"? Are they not just genetically different?

It's not as if we were made to consume wheat or anything that contains gluten. No Amerindian population consumed gluten before the arrival of the Spanish, for example. They survived just as well as all the other populations who had different staples.

So, yeah.

Is diabetes a disease?
Is lactose intolerance a disease?
Is phenylketonuria a disease?

It's a disease because your immune system attacks itself and thus destroys or damages the villi in your small intestine. The result is the disability to absorbing nutrients and other vitamins.

To be more specific, it's an auto-immune disease.

Yes
No
Yes

Clearly you misunderstood.

I sustain that sprue is no more than just a genetic variation in the population that in and of itself does not harm the people who have it. Gluten affects us in the same kind of way any other plant poison does. Solanine, for example, is poisonous to humans, but we're not diseased because of this, right? Same thing for people with sprue. A person with sprue who stays away from this "poison"(gluten) is perfectly fine in the same way that a person who stays away from snake venom is healthy.

The American Heritage Dictionary describes disease as:



That describes celiac disease to me. So yes, it is a disease.

Tell me, how is this a genetic defect if it's not necessary to consume gluten to be healthy? What about when a person is on the diet? You can't give a definition and just say "So yeah, it is because of what that definition says."

Sure I can - that's what I did.

Just because I don't need to eat gluten to be healthy, does not make the autoimmune response that will result if I consume it less of a disease. Is a peanut allergy a disease? I would submit that it is, even though you do not need to consume peanuts to be healthy.

First of all, this is such a personal question.

One that kind of gets my goat, shall I say.

Nobody likes to be labelled as sick, chronically ill, or have a "pre-existing" condition. I feel half dead the majority of the time from my problems, but still hate to be labelled as "diseased". And it is true that *most* with Celiac are otherwise healthy on the gluten-free diet. But the reality is that it is not "normal" to have Celiac. You have to look at this from a medical standpoint, not opinion. Because the facts speak for themselves. I agree that Celiac Disease is exactly that. A disease.

I find that some people tend to think that "Celiac" is simply an inability to process wheat. Celiac is not an allergy or "intolerance". They say things like "we were never meant to eat wheat" so this is normal, or "wheat has more gluten in it now and that's why we're reacting". Wrong and wrong. The vast majority of people can eat wheat and not have intestinal damage. They do not have a leaky gut, a tendancy for autoimmune disease, or react to multiple foods. If a miniscule amount of gluten can trigger an attack in a Celiac, then that attack will happen regardless of a higher gluten content or not. Also, there have been other foods found to cause problems in those with autoimmunity, like casein. The problem is NOT the foods, it's the disease process behind Celiac (leaky gut, and genetic "abnormal" immune response).

Unfortunately, Celiac Disease IS a disease. An autoimmune disease. It is NEVER beneficial for the body to attack it's own healthy tissue, which is exactly what happens in Celiac Disease. This is NOT normal. 99% of the population can eat gluten and not have their body react in the same way. On the other hand, poison of any kind is toxic to the human body and will likely kill ALL of those who ingest it, and trigger the SAME fatal response.

People with Celiac Disease have a leaky gut that lets in environmental triggers, food stuffs, and toxins that others do not. We also have a "screwed up" immune system: some of us have multiple autoimmune diseases (some life-threatening), and a higher than normal cancer and neuropathy risk that DOES NOT go away on the gluten-free diet.

Some people also have refractory Celiac, which doesn't respond to the diet.

I guess I just hate when people make it sound like Celiac is such a good thing and we all will be so "healthy" on the gluten-free diet. Um...no. Many of us who actually DO have Celiac and/or the genes for autoimmunity go on to develop other serious autoimmune diseases. Unless you have been stuffing your face on pure CRAP for the past 30 years of your life, there is no reason to think this. A gluten-free diet can be unhealthy and cause weight gain just as well. The only bonus is most easily accessed junk food is off limits. But no one should be eating that crap anyway. Conversely, a diet with whole grains can be healthy for non-Celiacs. For instance, oatmeal and high fibre whole grains (with gluten) have been shown to help prevent Type 2 diabetes, the common form related to obesity.

Bottom line, Celiac IS a disease, and we need a better treatment than the gluten-free diet.

We are not normal.

Whoo-hooo!

I agree with you Vyktor. Just like people getting stung by bees sometimes have dangerous reactions, others have very mild reactions. But everyone reacts. Personally I think the same is true of gluten. Everyone reacts, some of us just more than others. If we were eating the diet we evolved to eat, the word wouldn't be in our vocabulary.

1.) Type 1 diabetes is an autoimmune disease, like Celiac. If you consider one a disease, you may want to consider both. They share genetic overlap.

2.) Lactose intolerance results from an ezyme deficiency.

3.) PKU results from an enzyme deficiency as well.

So does the fact that I get sick from a snake bite mean that I'm diseased? By your logic it would. Let's not forget that a "venom" is something that causes an adverse reaction in our bodies.

It seems like your logic is because our genes don't hurt us, the gluten does, it can't be a disease. If that's your definition of a non-disease, then sure, it's not a disease.

Yes, and technically that enzyme deficiency is more normal than not. Adult lactose tolerance is due to a genetic mutation that occured who knows when. We're technically NOT supposed to be able to digest lactose as adults.

EDIT: I was referring to lactose intolerance.

In reference to the other conditions that stem from sprue: yes, they do exist, but why? Have you ever considered the fact that we're surrounded by this poison and that most of us have consumed large quantities of it for several years before stopping its consumption? Is it not possible that the cancer and the other conditions or diseases occur only because our body has been ravaged for a long time? I really highly doubt that the pure presence of the genes is what causes something like hashimoto's thyroiditis(which I have heard actually calms down once the poison is no longer consumed). Of course we'd have a higher risk of cancer in the same way anyone does if they're constantly exposed to carcinogens.



Oh, and if nothing else, having to suddenly think about what you're putting in your mouth certainly makes you think more about what's also healthy and what's not. Also, it certainly forces a lot of people to cook more food which is usually better than buying preprocessed foods like cookies and such.

Well, if snake bites made you sick but no one else, would it be a disease? What if whenever a snake bit you your immune system attacked itself and certain organs in your body stopped functioning properly. What do call that? Just ordinary poison?

Why does everyone focus on the fact that gluten causes an autoimmune response? Who cares what the actual explanation for the damage is? Ok, it hurts us. If we don't consume it, we're fine. That's all that matters and that's why I don't see it as a disease. To me, a disease and its symptoms are persistent, even if they don't bother you. The genes don't harm us, it's the substance.

This thread is officially over.

The thread is over because you dodged everyones question and repeated the same thing twenty times? Dude, it's your opinion and I respect that, but you're just beating around the bush.

We know what you're saying, according to your logic, it can't be a disease because we feel fine without the gluten. You think, that in order for it to be a disease, we have to always be sick whether or not we consume gluten (aka the genes have to damage us). I don't see how this makes sense at all. People with Celiacs, aka 1% of the population (or so the experts say) get an auto-immune reaction from gluten. I'm sure you know that.

Why can't gluten be the cause to our disease? Likewise, a diet avoiding gluten can be the cure.

The disorder is always there. That is true for Celiac as well.

But then again, acne isn't a disease, sugar is just a poison.

Nah. It's over because it turned into an argument. Everyone is right.

It's over, just when I found it?

I kind of side with Vyktor on this.....I suppose I think of Celiac as a condition more than a disease. Once it's treated, it no longer seems like a disease...

But I don't feel like arguing, and can't even shore up my opinion with anything other than...that's what I think.

Officially celiac disease is a disease because a minority of people have an abnormal immune reaction to something that is considered to be very normal--eating gluten. I too believe that it is more of a genetic trait than a disease, primarily because of the fact that gluten has only been part of the human diet for somewhere around 10,000 to 20,000 years, and before that there were no celiacs--right? So the shift to farming and eating gluten revealed a genetic trait in some people that was likely already present, but would have caused no harm if societies had never made the shift to eating gluten-based grains.

Is an allergy a disease? I don't think so--not even one that can kill you with a single bite of the allergen. Is celiac sprue a disease? Technically yes, but again, I like to think of it more as a genetic trait or condition rather than a disease.

Take care,
Scott

I'm in the "it is a disease" boat as well.

My daughter, while mostly healthy when she does not consume gluten, is subject to many other issues because of having Celiac. Her immune system is compromised as a Celiac sufferer--all the time--not just when she inadvertantly consumes gluten.

Do I like that it is called "Celiac Disease"? Not especially.

The idea that a gluten-free diet is "good enough" is simply NOT good enough for me, but since the medical community think that gluten-free completely resolves Celiac, making strides for better treatments is very, very difficult.

In addition...can something that IS NOT a disease be cured???

Look for my thread that has a research article that says that Celiac Disease was cured by stem cell transplant in a patient with cancer (i.e. an immune system disorder seemingly lined to autoimmune diseases in *some* cases).

What do people think about this???


Just to add my two cents/"sense"...this is why I respectfully disagree with the "it's a genetic condition that some people have not evolved to eat wheat theory":

I (like many others with Celiac) could tolerate wheat JUST FINE prior to the disease being triggered. Same genes all along. There have been a few viruses linked to triggering Celiac (I was stressed and always sick with something just prior to my symptoms appearing out of nowhere). In twin studies, the concordance rate is NOT 100%, as it would be if the "evolution theory" was true.

We don't exactly know the origins of Celiac. Of course after the introduction of gluten in the diet, but a lot of those people (childhood onset) would have died off early on in life. No one knew why they were wasting away. Gluten being a trigger for Celiac wasn't known until this last century. Also, perhaps the initial trigger (virus perhaps) has mutated or become more common today. So what I'm saying is that people with the genes for the disease must have somehow survived in order to pass them on. Likely in many cases the same thing happened as what happens today....many people with the genes for autoimmune disease DO NOT EXPRESS them and don't get the disease. If Celiac was strictly a "genetic" condition to "gluten intolerance", this would not occur. This is what makes Celiac an autoimmune "disease".

I can see why Scott is saying this, because there has been an increase in non-Celiac "gluten sensitiveity". I personally think this has more to do with poor diets in general. Diets high in fat, sugar, yeast, etc. can all contribute to a leaky gut in someone who wasn't "genetically prone" to it in the first place. This is also thought to be a cause of "IBS", which often resolves for some at least on a processed food free, gluten-free, dairy free, and low fat diet. I am not sure yet if I think that genetically modified crops and hormones in milk etc. play a role. Likely.This would explain the increase, whereas genetics can't here. Genetics haven't changed in the past 50 years, and more and more people say they react to gluten but are not Celiac. If anything, we would have evolved to adapt MORE so to wheat (assuming this provided an increase in survival). Also, in people who react to gluten but are NOT Celiac, there may be an additional percentage of people who really are born missing an enzyme etc. One day these people may be able to treat it like lactose intolerance and take a pill.

Regardless, we can all enjoy our gluten-free beer and cakes, etc. in harmony, "diseased" or not. I do agree Scott that the term "condition" is perhaps more fitting for treated Celiac.

My humble opinion.

Thoughts?

I agree with Vyktor.

People who are allergic to peanuts or shellfish are not considered to have a disease. Yes, I know celiac disease is not an allergy, but the comparison is between two groups of people who can't eat a certain food because it makes them ill.

And I don't agree that lactose intolerance is an enzyme deficiency. Are we SUPPOSED to have an enzyme to process the milk of another species? No human baby is lactose intolerant to human milk!

The fact that gluten harms our bodies has more to do with the fact that wheat has been genetically altered over the last couple of hundred years to have far, far more gluten, and the fact that breads, cereals, and pastas are now part (heck, sometimes ALL) of every meal for most people eating a standard Western diet.

I read that celiac disease is almost unheard of in Asian countries, but that, within a couple of generations of moving to Europe or America, Asian populations exhibit rates of celiac similar to whatever Western country they are in.

How many people do you know who suffer from rheumatoid arthritis, and what do you want to bet that their symptoms are triggered by eating gluten? And most people don't consider arthrits a disease, but a "condition" (though I'm not sure there's much of a difference )

Of course, in some ways, it's to our advantage to call celiac disease a disease--at least the doctors have to stop accusing us of "it's all in your head!"

Guess we can't win either way...

I am of the genetic difference not disease frame of mind myself. If we are not consuming gluten we are not diseased. I know many won't agree but I have felt that way ever since I was diagnosed.

I have enjoyed these boards for a few months now since I discovered them and I have gained valuable information. But honestly, this thread?? WHO CARES what Celiac is labeled as??? Why spend time worrying about it? Call it a disease, condition, intolerance, genetic difference, whatever makes you comfortable. I couldn't care less what it's called or considered. I just deal with it the best I can and move forward......

See my last post on this thread(other than this one).

Hello Sara,

Obviously some of us do care enough about this topic to discuss it here--if you do not feel the same way please feel free to move to some other topic that you feel is worthy of discussion.

Take care,
Scott

Apparently, the people who have posted in this thread DO care, some of them passionately. I'm glad you are able to "move forward" in your own way, but for some of us, the way to move forward is to discuss our feelings about it, even if we are not quite in sync with you.

I lean toward thinking of it as a genetic condition- one that may lie dormant for years until it's triggered and becomes active. However-- I always refer to it as a disease when speaking about it to people, because if you say anything else, they often dismiss it as unimportant.

-Sarah

I'm kinda with you on this one. Don't care what the word used is. But it is kind of interesting to watch other people debate it.

Yes, I tend to do this, too, for the same reason.

I think of Celiac as a chronic condition--a disease, yes, but one that can be managed.

First off, let me congratulate you on having gone gluten-free before every system in the body had a (or multiple) serious problem(s), w/ several conditions lingering or perhaps permanent.

No one who's been thru what some here have been thru, especially those w/ permanent resulting conditions, would fathom asking whether it's a disease.

If there's some definition of disease that doesn't include auto-immune as a category, I'd like to see it.


Sooooo, "affects like a plant poison" huh? . .. . I bet if knew anything about this, I could dispute it pretty effectively. But I don't.
<helllllllp . .. .someone . .. . .helllllllp>

I happen to have a bad thyroid due to this. It's not life threatening but suddenly being dependent on pills at 18 is not pleasant. I realize other people have much worse health than I do but it's a real shock when it happens all of the sudden. Not going to complain, though.

Also, in reference to the plant poison thing, my point was that I tend to look at it from a more general point of view. I don't focus on what actually happens when gluten makes us sick(which would be the autoimmune reaction). To me only the culprit for the damage(or the trigger if you will) is what deserves our attention. The body isn't going to attack our duodenum unless we've consumed or been exposed to gluten.

Not true. Most plant proteins do *not* evoke an auto-immune response - they do not cause the body to produce chemicals that attack itself, they do damage directly.

Perhaps both Tarnalberry and ViktOr have valid points. When we hear about poisonings (intentional or otherwise), we hear about nausea, vomiting, severe diarrhea, severe stomach pain--same symptoms as celiac, how about that? I'm guessing that this is what ViktOr meant, although, technically, Tarnalberry is correct.

Just thought of something else--let's not forget that there is a link between autistic kids with celiac and mercury poisoning...

This discussion may be bringing us all to a better understanding of why the medical community has a very specific and distinct definition of "celiac disease".

Just having the celiac gene does not qualify a person as having the disease. Millions of people have the genes, but never develop the disease.

Just having the symptoms and the gene does not qualify a person as having the disease. A lot of people have symptoms and may even have the gene, but are not diagnosed with the disease.

The medical community defines the disease as a person having the gene and verifiable damage from the disease by way of a biopsy.

Maybe there is a reason for this distinction afterall. Perhaps some of us have the disease and some of us have a condition, but not full blown disease.

This circles back to the question - is there really a difference between celiac disease and gluten intolerance? Maybe so. Maybe one is the disease and the other a condition.

Seems to me that's how definitions work - according to specifics.

Yes, but the specifics don't matter to the average person. What matters is the fact that the person gets sick by consuming this substance and the only way to prevent being ill is by NOT consuming it. When you talk about drug use, you don't ever make any reference to the effects the drug has on our body on a molecular level. We only talk about what we feel or observe.

For example, what's the difference between overdosing on cocaine and getting cyanide poisoning? Well overdosing on cocaine means the person's metabolism rises too much and causes all sorts of damage similar to what happens when one has really bad hyperthyroidism. Cyanide, on the other hand, is some kind of enzyme inhibitor that does who knows what. But who cares? The mechanisms for damage are different but the effect is basically the same -- death.

What I'm trying to say is that by this logic, this gluten intolerance is in many ways no different than an extreme solanine intolerance, for example. Oh, and intolerances can vary from person to person and population to population, so saying "well people with sprue are different from most people and are therefore diseased" isn't really a valid argument. We're all genetically unique .

Your distinction may be sufficient for an average person on the diet in this case, but it would not be sufficient for a medical community trying to do accurate differential diagnoses and research treatment and cures.

As for the first analogy, that's exactly the reason why it *IS* important to make the distinction. Knowing how these things works tells us that celiacs should not take things like echinacea (which encourages increased immune response) if there's any chance they could get gluten while it would make no difference to someone who is lactose intolerance. How you deal with the after effects make the mechanism of action different as well, as well as understanding why crumbs and contamination are a problem.

I think what ViktOr is trying to say (correct me if I'm wrong!) is that we should use the term "damage" rather than "disease."

Those celiacs who have been gluten-free with no other causes of damage are perfectly healthy; they do not have a disease. They have recovered from the damage. Those who have not yet gone gluten-free are still damaged. But is it a disease?

Heck, look at all those stupid doctors who diagnose "fibromyalgia" and "IBS" and call them "idiopathic diseases!" The medical community can't even stick to its own definitions here. A "syndrome" is a collection of symptoms with no known cause. Once you identify the cause, does that make it a disease? Doesn't it depend on the cause?

With us, the cause is gluten, not genetics. (Remember, there are people on this board who had villi damage but no celiac genes, and also remember that nobody with a healthy digestive system ever bothers to be tested for the celiac "genes.")

Human bodies were not designed to process the amount of gluten currently in the typical Western diet--but we're supposed to believe that the damage from consuming poison means we have a disease???????

For example, crack babies and babies of alcoholics aren't considered diseased, they are considered damaged. They are certainly not healthy--but they are not carrying any kind of disease. Their ill health was caused by an external source. We read over and over again that their tiny bodies were "poisoned" by the cocaine or alcohol that their mothers ingested during pregnancy.

Celiac is more like systemic poisoning than like, say, the flu or the common cold or tuberculosis, even though all 4 are caused by external sources.

The word, "disease" carries the connotation of communicability--germs, viruses, or bacteria. Even some cancers seem to have be caused by viruses (which is why the pharmaceutical companies are now pushing Gardasil).

I think the term, "damage" is far more accurate than "disease."

So everyone here accepts diabetes as a disease, right?

Ok, what about the fact that a number of people with diabetes, especially pre-diabetes and type 2, are able to live without insulin supplementation if they follow the proper diet/exercise regime? So, just because they can 'cure' themselves by adjusting their diets and daily lives (like we do) they don't have a disease?

Last I checked, any autoimmune disorder (regardless of the 'trigger') qualified as a disease in the medical pantheon of definitions.

What everyone is discussing is the definition of a word. Here's Merriam Webster's version:

2 : a condition of the living animal or plant body or of one of its parts that impairs normal functioning and is typically manifested by distinguishing signs and symptoms.


It says nothing about the cause. It also lists 'Celiac Disease' in it's related topics.

oh pooh it's over...

and here i was going to ask--if you take the sugar out of a diabetic do they "cure"?

i'm sorry i think of disease in the terms of some ungodly mendicant promenading the darkness as contagious as a rabid dog and breathing those little black flutters on every living thing like the Mummy . i think of a disease as the bug that sucks in after your cool exhales from flushed cheeks in the middle of winter snowball fight. you know that instance you cough and feel it tickle into your throat and system. you know you are going to be sick.

i think of the gluten as the disease, the virus, the antigen...the cause.

but sugar is not the cause for diabetes. i don't think of disease in terms of a labeling or identifying of someone's condition. my midset sees it as the poison itself, the snake, the bacteria swarming some culture to vanquish them. which may be wrong in logic and general understanding of the meaning of some insignificant word; but i was just wondering--if you take the sugar out of a diabetic do they become "normal"? if you don't infect/inject a diabetic with sugar are they going to have problems?

moreover, does not a Celiac become a contagious specimen, a diseased rat of an existence with disheveled fur and beady eyes certainly enraged and aggravated throughout its central nervous system enough to just want to kill somebody? somebody, say, who does not know a damn thing about this life yet? maybe some punk kid who's eighteen years old and has never has his throat choke up with cottony Candida. has never had his whole body envelop it, form a serious weakness that they develop definitions and categories for; an anemia that needs to be fed (but cannot) through an IV. maybe some thing that does not understand. does not understand how we can't afford anymore tests and treatments that tell 'i don't know' from professionals and experts irregardlessly unconcerned when they call up and say, "10 dollars is not enough a month sir. that will take 15 years to pay off;" when we can't afford these things that don't give answers to save us from the overdose of an unknown disease!! and not because we can't access the means and not because we fear the unknown (Lord it is thy bidding); but, because some hotshots who want to argue whether or not the chicken came first don't have any deficiencies.

and maybe this punk who we are going to kill now should be more greatful with the access here and that we can't kill him; more on his knees praising the fates that well there was no celiacs such and such years ago and now they put more wheat...and well there was no arguments!!

"I'm going to have to take er out back and shoot er chile. Don't want er kentaminatin dem chickens now do ye?"

I see where you were going with the original question - bascially - is celiac a diseased state of the body or is it just a variant among people?
Since it comes down to interpretation of the word disease...I found this description of "disease"....I quite liked it as it even considered cultural differences...





Sandy

"Sometimes the categorizaton of a condition as a disease is controversial within the culture."

I'd say that's an appropriate comment on this whole discussion. Obviously, some people just don't like the idea of having a 'disease'. I prefer calling it that, it gets people off my back. Oh, another thing I've found helpful when at a restaurant or arguing with the people at the ticket desk at the movies is to say "you don't want to see what happens if I get any (insert food group here) in my food, that's why I have to (have food specially prepared, bring my own drink to the movies, whatever)." I make it sound worse than it is, though I'm not lying, they wouldn't want to see it, I just don't mention the fact that they'd have to wait around to do so.... hahahha.

So what's abnormal about us? The fact that we can't consume something than humans don't necessarily have to consume and only started doing so by chance? What's the norm, really? I'm not Japanese. If I go to Japan, am I diseased because I can't genetically have their facial features? Over there, that's the norm.

Just because a certain substance hurts us doesn't mean we're diseased or functioning abnormally. We only get sick when we're exposed to what is really a poison to us. What's so abnormal about that?

Actually, no, I don't.

My endocrinologist told me that she is now routinely testing diabetic patients for celiac via bloodwork. Those who test positive and go off gluten are able to normalize their blood sugar by being off gluten. Not off carbs, but off gluten.

It appears that at last SOME people presenting with classic diabetic symptoms actually have a problem with gluten. Off gluten, they are perfectly healthy.

I would not be surprised if it turns out that most human beings are not able to process the amount of gluten in today's standard Western diet without their immune systems turning on their bodies, especially with the ever-increasing number of antibiotics and vaccines (with various preservatives, contaminations, and side effects) being administered. Look how many people we all know with diagnoses of autism, fibromyalgia, MS, IBS, rheumatoid arthritis, autoimmune thyroid disease, diabetes, etc.--ALL most likely CAUSED by gluten.

So if most people turn out to be gluten-intolerant, what does that do to the definition of celiac disease?

Edit: I totally left out Lyme Disease, which seems to cause gluten intolerance in many people here, and might even cause official eliac disease (as defined by villi blunting) for some.