Does anyone want to read this article and try to explain it to me...I'm very confused. It basically says the leaky gut theory is a bunch of hooey. I have to post the whole article and not a link as it is a file on a yahoo group.
Leaky Gut Theory Cannot Be True
By Bee Wilder
June 1, 2006
In order to discuss the leaky gut theory we first have to start by discussing allergy testing. First of all even the medical community agrees that allergy tests are inconclusive, and that clinical evidence must also be considered before making a final decision about whether a person has a "true" allergy or not.
Here's a quote from http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/e...cle/003519.htm
"The accuracy of allergy testing varies quite a bit. Even the same test performed at different times on a person may give different results. A person may react to a substance during testing, but never react during normal exposure. A person may also have a negative allergy test and yet still be allergic to the substance." Also, even doctors know that some tests assess the levels of immune responses which are not necessarily related to an allergy.
In order to do allergy tests the “actual food" or "whole food" cannot be used because they need a form that can be injected under the skin, or in liquid form to test in blood samples (when they test blood samples they add the substance to the blood and then check it for reactions, mostly for antibodies) – the antibody theory is another whole subject that doesn’t hold up to common sense either. Therefore they use a substance contained in the food that is suspected of causing reactions. To test peanuts they use peanut protein, which is not the whole peanut. To test eggs they use egg protein, and so on.
I first started to suspect the whole allergy field when my girlfriend died of cancer May 10, 2005. She was already very ill, and her allergy tests done in February indicated she was allergic to almost everything under the sun, including almost all meats and numerous vegetables. That didn't make sense to me, so I wondered if they use grass-fed beef or free-range certified organic eggs in the tests. They don't, of course.
They use a fractionated substance, not the whole food, and I suspect they make them synthetically, although I couldn’t prove it. It stands to reason that reactions to one substance in a food, which may be synthetic, is very difference than reactions to the whole unadulterated food, complete with enzymes, nutrients, etc., not just the protein.
Did you know that what happens in a laboratory does not necessarily happen in the body, as proved by meats, which create acid when added to water in a laboratory, but they do not make acid in the body.
When I studied allergic reactions I found out they are exactly the same as healing reactions. This means that a person can "react" to a food, but if it is unadulterated whole food the reactions are healing reactions and not allergic reactions. See my complete article "Allergies, What They Are & How to Treat Them" in the Allergies Folder.
This leads us to the leaky gut theory, which does not make sense to me because of what I understand about digestion. First of all, food is almost totally digested and broken down into small particles by the time it leaves the duodenum (the part between the stomach and the small intestines).
The job of the intestines is mainly absorption. Here's an excerpt from "The Long Hallow Tube - A Primer in Digestion" (in our digestion folder): "Absorption [of food] takes place via the villi, small projections in the mucous membrane. Each villus has a network of capillaries through which the broken-down components of the food are absorbed. The nutrients then pass through the epithelial cells in the inner lining of the villi, at which point they enter the capillaries. The small intestine is attached to the rear abdominal wall by a thin sheet of membrane called the mesentery, which carries blood vessels to nourish the small intestine and carries absorbed nutrients to the liver and other parts of the body."
Villi in the intestines are covered by an outer layer of epithelium, which food must pass through before it gains entry into the villi. Epithelium is tissue composed of a layer of cells – note the word 'cells.' Epithelium lines both the outside (skin) and the inside (e.g. intestine) of organisms. The outermost layer of our skin is composed of dead squamous epithelial cells, as are the mucous membranes lining the inside of mouths and body cavities. Other epithelial cells line the insides of the lungs, the gastrointestinal tract, the reproductive and urinary tracts, etc. Please note that candida infects the outer layers of the epithelium of mucus membranes.
Functions of epithelial cells include secretion, absorption, protection, transcellular transport, sensation detection, and “selective permeability.”
If food is not digested into small enough particles it cannot pass through the epithelium cells of the villi, and it would pass out of the body as undigested food. Even the very tiny holes in the villa made by candida hyphae (threadlike filaments it puts out when it changes and starts to overgrow) would not allow food particles to pass through the layers of the villa into the blood stream. Candida is sticking it’s long feet into the epithelial cells, which will damages those cells for sure, but damaged epithelial cells cannot function so they wouldn't be able to absorb any food particles.
In other words, the cells lining the intestines do not allow large particles to pass through them – it is physically impossible – the cells themselves would have to enlarge somehow. Therefore large undigested food particles pass through the intestines, unabsorbed and out of the body, just like fibres. That blows the whole leaky gut theory out of the window, doesn’t it?