Italians eat a lot of wheat

[Ducky]

Then also show me only the summary of a meta-analysis that claims the opposite.
Then you match my evidence.

Ah, so you dont have it and you didnt read it either.
You are the one making the claims its for you to provide complete evidence not partial evidence and then asking to disprove your partial evidence.

You should be.
It is as interesting as discussing the effects of cigarettes on people with lung cancer.
Its revealing.

I do but I dont think we should mix things up making it more complicated as it is already. When doctors testing something theyre choosing one specific group of people, either healthy or sick not both in the same time.

[Aytundra]

@ Ducky, can you be resourceful and obtain the articles to read?
This sounds like a lot of table wrestling, or whining. A local library or university may help you obtain the article.
Reading this pingpong game, feels like I am watching Pokemons being pitted against each other, or skipping ropes entangling in a doubledutch
RRM vs Ducky. Uggh Ducky I should warn you as a spectator, that RRM's pretty good at this game.
RRM has a trump card in his hands, that meta analysis, you need a meta analysis to slap down onto this table on your side.
I think you know what I mean, he placed a King on the table, you need to place a King or something greater down, and also to make sure that card RRM is playing is legit, meaning you have to obtain the article and read it.

I lended a piece of my brain to someone, and then traded that piece of brain for the meta analysis, the article is pretty good.

[Aytundra]

Finished reading the meta analysis. Lachance LR et al
Aytundra concludes for herself, that if she is a schizophrenic, or celiac affected person, then she should be carefully concerned about avoiding gluten.

Now on another note.
Ducky what do you think of this article? RRM comments?
This article is about normal mothers, and then their children and chances of psychosis.

Maternal Antibodies to Dietary Antigens and Risk for Nonaffective Psychosis in Offspring Karlsson, H et al
Free Full text

[RRM]

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

Very good find, Aytundra.
"High levels of anti-gliadin IgG in the maternal circulation are associated with an elevated risk for the development of a nonaffective psychosis in offspring".

From table 2 we may conclude that healthy people do absorb opioid peptides (from wheat-gliadin).
And that higher levels of antibodies for wheat-gliadin, represents a greater risk for phsychosis in offspring.
This higher level of wheat-gluten antibodies may either be caused by increased intestinal permeability (more opioid peptides),
or by increased sensitivity to wheat-gluten.

[Ducky]

Let me see.

[Ducky]

From table 2 we may conclude that healthy people do absorb opioid peptides (from wheat-gliadin).

From table 2 we may also conclude that it completely contradicts what you're saying.

Comparison subjects have more IgG Anti-Gliadin levels than the case subjects. So following your logic, that gluten largely contributes to psychosis, it's the healthy comparison subjects should be ill and not the sick case subjects.

Now on another note.
Ducky what do you think of this article? RRM comments?
This article is about normal mothers, and then their children and chances of psychosis.

Its normal mothers vs sick mothers.

We dont know how much gluten they consumed. Thats important to begin with. One slice of bread, two slice of bread, one kilo of bread? So experience flawed.

[RRM]

Do you now acknowledge that normal, healthy people do absorb opioid peptides from wheat-gliadin?
Yes?
or no?

Comparison subjects have more IgG Anti-Gliadin levels than the case subjects.

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)

Anti-Gliadin.jpg

In this table, the number 27 means that 27 of 553 total controls (5%) are in the 95th percentile.
Yes, the number 27 (for controls) is higher than the number 23 (for case subjects), but that number 23 represents 23 out of 211 case subjects (11%).
So, in the highest percentiles, the case subjects are over-represented.
In the lowest percentiles, the controls are over-represented. (see the odds ratio)
This means that the higher the level of antibodies for wheat-gliadin in mama's blood (the higher percentiles), the greater the risk that her baby will develop a psychosis later in life.

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

Its normal mothers vs sick mothers.

No.
211 case subjects (with verified register-based diagnoses of nonaffective psychoses) and 553 (no history of inpatient psychiatric admission) comparison subjects consented to participate in the study.
In Sweden, blood is collected on a filter from all newborns in a screening program for early detection of metabolic diseases.
These maternal blood spots are obtained right after birth.
So at the very beginning of their life, before they got sick.
These blood spots were analyzed for antigen levels.
So, these antigen levels represent the antibodies produced by the mothers of case subjects and controls, to the wheat consumed by these mothers.
So, its the mothers of children who will develop a psychosis later in life, and the mothers of children who will not.

We dont know how much gluten they consumed. Thats important to begin with. One slice of bread, two slice of bread, one kilo of bread? So experience flawed.

Their diet was that of the average Swedish person at that time.
So, on a normal diet, you do absorb wheat opioid peptides.
And this poses a risk for developing psychosis in offspring.

[Ducky]

Do you now acknowledge that normal, healthy people do absorb opioid peptides from wheat-gliadin?
Yes?
or no?

After this study it looks like they do but not all.

1. Out of 533 healthy persons only 217 absorbed

2. Another question still remains: will they be able to cross the blood-brain barrier and thereby reach central opiate receptors?
If yes, how many? Or how many will be neutralized by IgG Anti-Gliadin Antibodies?

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)

Anti-Gliadin.jpg

In this table, the number 27 means that 27 of 553 total controls (5%) are in the 95th percentile.
Yes, the number 27 (for controls) is higher than the number 23 (for case subjects), but that number 23 represents 23 out of 211 case subjects (11%).
So, in the highest percentiles, the case subjects are over-represented.
In the lowest percentiles, the controls are over-represented. (see the odds ratio)

Where do you get it that the second and third column numbers are percentages? The first row states that its percentage but the second and third column say number of subjects.

So for example 136 healthy person had 75% Antibody Level. This means that not everybody had opioid peptides in their blood.

This means that the higher the level of antibodies for wheat-gliadin in mama's blood (the higher percentiles), the greater the risk that her baby will develop a psychosis later in life.

What about the healthy persons that didnt develope Nonaffective Psychosis?

So at the very beginning of their life, before they got sick.

How do you know that they weren't sick before? Do you know if its a genetic disease or not? You dont.

These blood spots were analyzed for antigen levels.
So, these antigen levels represent the antibodies produced by the mothers of case subjects and controls, to the wheat consumed by these mothers.
So, 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.

Their diet was that of the average Swedish person at that time.

Thats vague and unscientific. I dont think that every Swedish person eats the same thing in Sweden.

[Ducky]

You are also contradicting yourself on that Autism/Psychosis issue.

One time you say that gluten causes it, next time you say that it doesnt cause it. So which is it?

[Ducky]

OR=1 Exposure does not affect odds of outcome
OR>1 Exposure associated with higher odds of outcome
OR<1 Exposure associated with lower odds of outcome

Gliadin
  75th 55 136 1.0 0.7–1.5 1.0 0.7–1.5 1.1 0.7–1.6 1.1 0.7–1.6

So until 75% of opioid peptides in the blood Exposure does not affect odds of outcome.

And that is the largest group with "136" persons!

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2938757/

In the case of Casein the odds are Exposure associated with lower odds of outcome.

[RRM]

Out of 533 healthy persons only 217 absorbed

No.
Not at all.
Let me explain.

The first row states that its percentage

No. Percentile.
Not percentage.
Its a section or range of percentages, in which a given percentage of observations in a group of observations fall.
In the table above, the percentiles are based on those among controls.
Thats is why the number of controls in the 95th percentile is the same for casein and gliadin: 27, which is 5%. (95 + 5 = 100)
This is a standard measure used in statistics.
Its a way to compare the results of case subjects with those of controls.
The distribution for controls is like this:

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

Of course, you can add more percentiles, by calculating them.
For example: 99% of the controls will be in the 1st percentile: 0.99 x 553 = 547

Where do you get it that the second and third column numbers are percentages?

They are numbers.
The second column are the number of case subjects in the percentiles mentioned.
So, 55 of the 211 case subjects are in the 75th percentile (55/211 = 26%, instead of 24%, which is an insignificant difference)
34 of the 211 case subjects are in the 90th percentile (34/211 = 16%, instead of 10%)
23 of the 211 case subjects are in the 95th percentile (23/211 = 11%, instead of 5%, so that its twice as much)

The third column are the number of controls in the percentiles mentioned
135 of the 553 controls are in the 75th percentile (135/553 = 24%)
54 of the 553 controls are in the 85th percentile (54/553 = 10%)
27 of the 553 controls are in the 95th percentile (27/553 = 5%)

As you can see, the distribution in case subjects differs from the distribution in controls.
In the 95th percentile, the case subjects are over-represented.
Its not 5%, as is the case in controls, but instead, its 11%, which is about twice as high.
So, in the 95th percentile (those with the highest levels of antibodies) there are both case subjects (23) and controls (27),
but relatively much case case subjects (11% of total), and relatively few controls (5% of total).

So for example 136 healthy person had 75% Antibody Level.

No.
136 is 25% of 553.
136 controls are in the 75th percentile, because percentiles are based on levels observed among comparison subjects. (see "a" just below table)
Its the reference level, for comparing the case subjects with.

This means that not everybody had opioid peptides in their blood.

No, not at all.

This means that the higher the level of antibodies for wheat-gliadin in mama's blood (the higher percentiles), the greater the risk that her baby will develop a psychosis later in life.

What about the healthy persons that didnt develope Nonaffective Psychosis?

Thats the 553 controls.
They also absorbed opioid peptides and were among those with the highest levels of antibodies.
But among the 211 case subjects there were about twice as many people with such high levels.

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"

Their diet was that of the average Swedish person at that time.

Thats vague and unscientific. I dont think that every Swedish person eats the same thing in Sweden.

Please. Thats never the case.
Anywhere.
People are not lab rats.
They were 553 plus 211 people who ate what they ate.
They were not selected on what they ate.
Regarding diet, they were a random selection.
Those 553 controls were merely selected on the absence of a psychiatric history.
Diet had nothing to do with this.
As a group, they were just average people. Some consuming more wheat than others.
Both case subjects and controls absorbed gluten, developing antibodies for gliadin, to a lesser or greater extend.
And the higher the levels of these antibodies for gliadin, the greater the risk that their children would develop a psychosis later in life.

[RRM]

You are also contradicting yourself on that Autism/Psychosis issue.
One time you say that gluten causes it, next time you say that it doesnt cause it. So which is it?

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

So until 75% of opioid peptides in the blood Exposure does not affect odds of outcome.
And that is the largest group with "136" persons!

Percentiles, Ducky....
Percentiles.
The largest group would be in the 1st percentile: 547 people.
In the 75th percentile, the difference is insignificant, indeed.
So, in those people producing moderate amounts of antibodies, case subjects and controls are virtually equally represented.
Only in the group of people with very high levels of antibodies, the case subjects are over-represented.

[Aytundra]

So, its the mothers of children who will develop a psychosis later in life, and the mothers of children who will not.

So, its the mothers of children who will develop a psychosis later in life, and the mothers of children who will not.

Grammar structure or Sentence expression error! + an unfinished clause

its vs. it is vs. it's
mother or child? Which is it? Do my multiple choice quiz below!
will not. will not what? will not get psychosis, will not get antigens... endless possibilities. Please finish your sentence.

1. Who were the case subjects?
a) mothers with psychosis
b) children who developed psychosis

2. Who were the comparison subjects?
a) mothers without psychosis
b) children without developed psychosis

3. Who had blood drawn?
a) Swedish mothers
b) Swedish children
c) both Swedish mothers and Swedish children

4. Which set of blood spots was the antigen found in?
a) in the blood spots of mothers
b) in the blood spots of children
c) in the blood spots of mothers and children

5. Where did the researchers believe the antigen originated from?
a) produced from the mothers of children
b) produced from the children's own blood
c) produced by both mothers and children

We dont know how much gluten they consumed. Thats important to begin with. One slice of bread, two slice of bread, one kilo of bread? So experience flawed.

Their diet was that of the average Swedish person at that time.
So, on a normal diet, you do absorb wheat opioid peptides.
And this poses a risk for developing psychosis in offspring.

How many loafs of bread or grains of flour or an average Swedish diet? is irrelevant, thinking in my opinion.
How many antigens circulated against the opioid peptide(s) in the maternal body? is the right question to ask.
How many antigens made it through the placenta to the fetus is the right question to ask.

This is an association study. They found increased numbers of antigens in bloodspots correlates with increased intensity of psychosis developed in offsprings.

We don't know the mechanism. We can not know the mechanism from this study. We cannot say if the psychosis developed within these Swedish children were caused by genetics or environmental factors.

But if we must speculate on causes: Aytundra's opinions:
Genetics could be anything like: undiagnosed coeliac/celiac in mothers, leaky gut syndrome, weak intestinal membranes...
Environment factors could be: pavlov behavioural - after these children were born, these children ate what their mothers ate, and some mothers had diets higher in wheat and dairy hence more opioid peptides, hence forced more opioid peptides onto children than any average normal child can handle, resulting in psychosis.

Where Aytundra can also see it as: the bloodspots showing IgG antigens at birth could be irrelevant.
Like if a two twin babies were born today, and the babies had IgG antigens in the bloodspot, a preventative measure could be to raise one child without gluten, and then see if psychosis develops, and raise the second child with gluten, and see if psychosis develops.

[RRM]

Its normal mothers vs sick mothers.

its the mothers of children who will develop a psychosis later in life, and the mothers of children who will not.

Please finish your sentence.

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).

Do my multiple choice quiz below!

1. Who were the case subjects?
b) children who developed psychosis

2. Who were the comparison subjects?
b) children without developed psychosis

3. Who had blood drawn?
b) Swedish children

4. Which set of blood spots was the antigen found in?
b) in the blood spots of children

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.

[Aytundra]

RRM you got 4/5! That's 80%, a pass.
Ducky go do the quiz. I want to know what you think.

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.
--------------------------------------------------------
The standard answer to this question is:
a) produced from the mothers of children
Maternal Antibodies to Dietary Antigens and Risk for Nonaffective Psychosis in Offspring Karlsson et al
------------------------------------------------------
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.