Dogs & Food Intolerance

[ladyjane]

Originally Posted by mimimomo

Examples in Animals
Food sensitivity testing for common offending allergens and peptides in dogs can be achieved. The sensitivity and testing is for grains most often associated with inflammatory bowel disease and other symptoms of adverse food reactions – such as, but not limited to wheat and other glutens, corn and soy. These three grain types are among the major constituents (top 5 ingredients) that make up the bulk of standard commercial kibble fed to most dogs. Another common allergen in pet foods or animal food compositions is beef, and the testing and screening is also directed to but not limited to other meats, fish, dairy, eggs, other grains, botanicals, oils from seeds or fish, botanicals, vegetables, nuts, or fruit.

A primary example of an immunologic food sensitivity or intolerance is sensitivity to wheat or other gluten foods, for example barley, rice, millet, and oats. In the Irish Setter breed, for example, wheat-sensitive enteropathy is an heritable condition. Immunological reactions to gluten foods causes atrophy of the intestinal villi and inflammation of the small intestine, which, in turn, results in diarrhea and weight loss from malabsorption of fluid, electrolytes, and dietary nutrients. Even though chronic or intermittent diarrhea and intermittent vomiting are the most common symptoms of this food sensitivity, there have been few studies of the prevalence of this condition in animals being presented to veterinarians with chronic diarrhea or vomiting or other common gastrointestinal symptoms. Furthermore, beyond costly measurements of serum IgE –mediated antibodies, there are no adequate methods in veterinary medicine to diagnose or noninvasively test for immunologic food sensitivities or intolerance. This frequently results in either no diagnosis or the missed diagnosis of an immunologic food sensitivity or intolerance.

Despite this situation, many animals with gluten or other food sensitivity or intolerance do not have diarrhea or weight loss, but instead have other signs and symptoms such as vague abdominal pain, nausea, abdominal bloating, flatulence, chronic fatigue, constipation, poor growth and maturity, iron deficiency anemia, osteoporosis, seizures or other neurologic disorders, or even just elevated serum liver enzyme levels. Some animals may be asymptomatic.

Furthermore, animals with gluten or other food sensitivity or intolerance may not have fully developed intestinal lesions. Therefore, the immunologic food sensitivity or intolerance of these animals may not be properly diagnosed using known testing methods, such as endoscopic intestinal biopsy and blood or serum testing. Additionally, these animals may present with other immunologic diseases such as the autoimmune diseases of skin, liver, joints, kidneys, pancreas, and thyroid gland, or microscopic colitis.

Saliva testing for food sensitivity and intolerance in animals differs significantly from all other food allergen tests available for use in animals. It is highly reproducible and clinically relevant. In serum, the food antigen or peptide being tested, and any specific IgA or IgG antibody in serum bind to each other and then fix complement. In saliva, the food antigen or peptide being tested reacts directly with the IgA or IgM antibody in the test animal’s saliva.

Delayed food-related sensitivities begin in the gastro-intestinal tract when the intestinal lining becomes hyperpermeable. This problem is known as "leaky gut syndrome" or intestinal dysbiosis, and is defined as an increase in permeability of the intestinal mucosa to partially digested protein macromolecules, micromolecules, antigens and toxins. The immunological reaction to these proteins or other molecules in the liver initiates and perpetuates chronic food sensitivity or intolerance. When the gut is unhealthy, the rest of the body is unhealthy. The disease process that ensues is typically chronic or intermittent and often involves the gut and skin, as well as internal organs such as the liver. Gastro-intestinal tract function is disrupted when the lining of the gut is inflamed or damaged. With a leaky gut, large food antigens can be absorbed into the body. The body's defense systems then attack this antigen or antigens and the result is the production of antibodies against what was once a harmless, innocuous food ingredient. These IgA or IgG antibodies and immune complexes are formed in the bloodstream and circulate throughout the body where they can damage other tissues along the way. In saliva, these reactants are typically IgA or IgM.

Jenny, where is this quoted from?

[mimimomo]

More Specific Information
Saliva is a source of body fluid for detection of an immune response to bacterial, food, and other antigens present in the oral cavity and gastrointestinal tract. Indeed, salivary antibody induction has been widely used as a model system to study secretory responses to ingested material, primarily because saliva is an easy secretion to collect and analyze. It seems to be a general feature that salivary IgA antibodies can be induced in a variety of species in the absence of serum antibodies. This has been demonstrated after immunization with particulate bacterial antigens in humans that could selectively induce an immune response to Streptococcus mutans by oral administration of the antigen. This route of administration resulted only in antibody production in saliva and not in serum. Similar mucosal immune response in the form of saliva IgA did occur in monkeys, rabbits, rats, and mice after oral administration of Streptococcus mutans, Staphylococcus or different viral antigens and peptides.


References
Kiyono H, Kweon M N, Hiroi T, Takahashi I. The mucosal immune system: from specialized immune defense to inflammation and allergy. Acta Odntol Scand 59:145, 2001.

Kanda M, Inove H, Fukuizumi T, Tsujisawa T, Tominaga K, Fukuda J. Detection and rapid increase of salivary antibodies to Staphylococcus lentus and indigenous bacterium in rabbit saliva, through a single tonsillar, Application of bacterial cells. Oral Microbiol Immunol 16:257, 2001.

Zee K Y, Samaranayake L P, Attstrom R. Salivary Immunoglobulin A levels in rapid and slow plaque formers: A pilot study. Microbio S 106 Suppl 2:81, 2001.

Plante M, Jones T, Allard F, Torossian K, Gauthier J, St-Felix N, White G L, Lowell G H, Burt D S. Nasal immunization with subunit proteosome influenza vaccines induces serum HAI, mucosal IgA and protection against influenza challenge. Vaccine 20:218, 2002.

Kraft S C, Rothbert R M, Kramer C M. Gastric output and circulating anti-BSA in adults. Clin and Exp Immuno 2:321-326, 1967.

Kagnoff M F. Effects of antigen feeding on intestinal and systemic immune responses. I. Priming of precursor cytotoxic T-cells by antigen feeding. J Immunol 120:395-399, 1978.

Challacombe S J, The induction of secretory IgA responses in: food allergy and intolerance edited by Brostoff J, Challacombe S J, published by W. B. Sanders Eastborne England, 1987.

Davies A. An investigation in to the serological properties of dysentery stools. Lancet 203:1009-1012, 1922.

Montrien B de, Serre. Etudes des immunoglobulins salivaires aptes vaccination locale antistreptococcique. Pathol Biol (Paris) 22:305-312, 1974.

McGhee J R, Michalek S M, Webb J et al., Effective immunity to dental caries: protection of gnotobiotic rats by local immunization with Streptococcus mutants. J Immuno 114:300-305, 1975.

Krasse B, Gahnberg L, Bratthall D. Antibodies reacting with Streptococcus mutants in secretion from minor salivary glands in humans. Adv Exp Med Biol 107:349-354, 1978.

Husband A M, Gowens J L. The origin and antigen-dependent distribution of IgA containing cells in the intestine. J Exp Med 148:1146-1160, 1978.

Mesenteric J, McGhee J R, Arnold R R. Selective induction of an immune response in external secretions by ingestion of bacterial antigen. J Clin Invest 61:731-737, 1978.

Walker W A, Isselbacher K J. Intestinal antibodies. New Engl J Med 297:767-773, 1977.

[mimimomo]

Post #58, 59, 60 & 62 are from Dr.Dodds'

Benefits of Salivary vs Serum Food Intolerance Test

I had to copy & paste from a word document.

[107barney]

There's no doubt you can test for antibodies by anestizing a dog and doing a biopsy as is done with a scope. The theory this somehow makes its way into saliva is a huge stretch that no one but Dodds and her followers buy into. Taken from Skeptvet --
"There is no research to suggest that the saliva testing is useful for identifying food allergies. It is sold based on questionable theory and anecdotes, which have little evidentiary value. And as far as uncontrolled testing, at least one dermatologist has run the test in dogs with confirmed food allergies responsive to diet change, and the test results were highly inaccurate."

[pstinard]

Originally Posted by 107barney

There's no doubt you can test for antibodies by anestizing a dog and doing a biopsy as is done with a scope. The theory this somehow makes its way into saliva is a huge stretch that no one but Dodds and her followers buy into. Taken from Skeptvet --
"There is no research to suggest that the saliva testing is useful for identifying food allergies. It is sold based on questionable theory and anecdotes, which have little evidentiary value. And as far as uncontrolled testing, at least one dermatologist has run the test in dogs with confirmed food allergies responsive to diet change, and the test results were highly inaccurate."

I've read the chunks of Dr. Dodds' writings quoted earlier in this thread by mimimono (https://my.imatrixbase.com/clients/1...ce_Testing.pdf). Dr. Dodds doesn't cite any specific sources for her information. It's pure speculation on her part. And the references that ARE cited at the end of the document are not used to support any particular point that Dr. Dodds is making--most have to do with antibodies to bacterial infections. Mixing fact, fiction, and speculation is the WORST kind of pseudoscience that can be practiced. Dr. Dodds is selling a commercial product. It has no scientific support that has been published to date. The only mitigating factors are that the test is harmless, and the only tangible loss is peoples' money. HOWEVER, people might be duped into ignoring treatments that DO work.

I'm almost afraid to mention it, but Dr. Dodds recently published a book titled "Canine Nutrigenomics." It is a speculative work that has just enough real facts thrown in to deceive the less discerning reader. And of course it promotes the Nutriscan test. I read about 84 pages of the book for free in Google Books online, and all it did was make me furious. Among her scholarly discussions of DNA, epigenetics, and the immune system, she throws in unproven dietary recommendations such as bee pollen and royal jelly. Here is what WebMD has to say about bee pollen (http://www.webmd.com/balance/bee-pol...side-effects):

You may also hear recommendations for using bee pollen for alcoholism, asthma, allergies, health maintenance, or stomach problems, but there is no proof that it helps with these conditions. Before you take any natural product for a health condition, check with your doctor. Bee pollen is also recommended by some herbalists to enhance athletic performance, reduce side effects of chemotherapy, and improve allergies and asthma. At this point, medical research has not shown that bee pollen is effective for any of these health concerns.

Until Dr. Dodds publishes her results on saliva testing in a reputable refereed journal--and even then, the results will have to be replicated by others--I cannot take her recommendations seriously.

[ladyjane]

Originally Posted by pstinard

I've read the chunks of Dr. Dodds' writings quoted earlier in this thread by mimimono (https://my.imatrixbase.com/clients/1...ce_Testing.pdf). Dr. Dodds doesn't cite any specific sources for her information. It's pure speculation on her part. And the references that ARE cited at the end of the document are not used to support any particular point that Dr. Dodds is making--most have to do with antibodies to bacterial infections. Mixing fact, fiction, and speculation is the WORST kind of pseudoscience that can be practiced. Dr. Dodds is selling a commercial product. It has no scientific support that has been published to date. The only mitigating factors are that the test is harmless, and the only tangible loss is peoples' money. HOWEVER, people might be duped into ignoring treatments that DO work.

I'm almost afraid to mention it, but Dr. Dodds recently published a book titled "Canine Nutrigenomics." It is a speculative work that has just enough real facts thrown in to deceive the less discerning reader. And of course it promotes the Nutriscan test. I read about 84 pages of the book for free in Google Books online, and all it did was make me furious. Among her scholarly discussions of DNA, epigenetics, and the immune system, she throws in unproven dietary recommendations such as bee pollen and royal jelly. Here is what WebMD has to say about bee pollen (http://www.webmd.com/balance/bee-pol...side-effects):

You may also hear recommendations for using bee pollen for alcoholism, asthma, allergies, health maintenance, or stomach problems, but there is no proof that it helps with these conditions. Before you take any natural product for a health condition, check with your doctor. Bee pollen is also recommended by some herbalists to enhance athletic performance, reduce side effects of chemotherapy, and improve allergies and asthma. At this point, medical research has not shown that bee pollen is effective for any of these health concerns.

Until Dr. Dodds publishes her results on saliva testing in a reputable refereed journal--and even then, the results will have to be replicated by others--I cannot take her recommendations seriously.

WOW....just wow! I seriously hope that the YTers who so strongly support Dr. Dodds and so totally believe in what she sells read your posts and fully grasp this.

Thank you so much for your feedback on all of this! I don't have the patience or the expertise to do all of this.

[107barney]

Originally Posted by pstinard

I've read the chunks of Dr. Dodds' writings quoted earlier in this thread by mimimono (https://my.imatrixbase.com/clients/1...ce_Testing.pdf). Dr. Dodds doesn't cite any specific sources for her information. It's pure speculation on her part. And the references that ARE cited at the end of the document are not used to support any particular point that Dr. Dodds is making--most have to do with antibodies to bacterial infections. Mixing fact, fiction, and speculation is the WORST kind of pseudoscience that can be practiced. Dr. Dodds is selling a commercial product. It has no scientific support that has been published to date. The only mitigating factors are that the test is harmless, and the only tangible loss is peoples' money. HOWEVER, people might be duped into ignoring treatments that DO work.

I'm almost afraid to mention it, but Dr. Dodds recently published a book titled "Canine Nutrigenomics." It is a speculative work that has just enough real facts thrown in to deceive the less discerning reader. And of course it promotes the Nutriscan test. I read about 84 pages of the book for free in Google Books online, and all it did was make me furious. Among her scholarly discussions of DNA, epigenetics, and the immune system, she throws in unproven dietary recommendations such as bee pollen and royal jelly. Here is what WebMD has to say about bee pollen (http://www.webmd.com/balance/bee-pol...side-effects):

You may also hear recommendations for using bee pollen for alcoholism, asthma, allergies, health maintenance, or stomach problems, but there is no proof that it helps with these conditions. Before you take any natural product for a health condition, check with your doctor. Bee pollen is also recommended by some herbalists to enhance athletic performance, reduce side effects of chemotherapy, and improve allergies and asthma. At this point, medical research has not shown that bee pollen is effective for any of these health concerns.

Until Dr. Dodds publishes her results on saliva testing in a reputable refereed journal--and even then, the results will have to be replicated by others--I cannot take her recommendations seriously.

I'm glad you brought up the book because I actually paid $9.99 for the kindle version. I am not a vet, not a veterinary nutritionist, and don't even work in the veterinary industry but I DO interact with MANY veterinary specialists and have been getting sound dietary recommendations for my animals from a veterinary nutritionist for nearly 7 years now. As a lay person, though, I find that the book espouses unbalanced and impracticable diets for dogs and makes some really strange suggestions.


For example, an apple should be fed to my senior dog with heart disease....really??? How come his boarded vet cardiologist hasn't mentioned the curative apples? Before someone comes along and says the cardiologist is invested in "drugs" and "money" please know that this particular hospital is a CHARITABLE HOSPITAL, a nonprofit, with veterinarians earning far less than they could get in the private sector. I'm quite sure if they thought an apple could help my 15 year old dog's genetic mitral valve disease and subsequent remodeled heart, they'd buy me a bag of granny smiths!!!


I have a problem also with some of the suggestions about epileptic dogs. Since I happen to have an epileptic yorkie who is under the care of three board certified specialists (neurology, internal medicine, nutrition), I have to laugh at the items in the book --


1. Don't feed high glycemic carbohydrates. Teddy likes carbs and his recommendations are to eat white potato, pasta, white rice. He happens to eat peas instead, but those were his recommendations and all of those are high glycemic carbs. They do not trigger seizures!!! I should also add here that the dog has a BCS of 4.5/9 and is slightly too lean! TOO LEAN. Not FAT, not CHUBBY, not even a little love handle.


2. Don't feed beef. What is this woman saying now????? TEDDY LOVES BEEF. Haven't seen him fall over into a grand mal seizure from eating beef in the last 6.5 years of his life.


3. Teddy should eat plenty of gelatin. There is no citation to a source that is reputable, but rather, a citation to a lay person epileptic dog website. There is a recipe in here for dog gummies and I admit, I might try it because I can gel up some chicken broth that Teddy might like.


4. Vets don't know how to test for thyroid disease. What is this woman talking about!!! My vets know how to run thyroid tests!!!!!!!!!!!


I feel I wasted $9.99. The only good thing that came out of this purchase (other than to feed the magic apples to cure my dog's heart and the special gummies for Teddy) is that a portion of the sale is donated to my favorite charity by Amazon.

[megansmomma]

Originally Posted by pstinard

I've read the chunks of Dr. Dodds' writings quoted earlier in this thread by mimimono (https://my.imatrixbase.com/clients/1...ce_Testing.pdf). Dr. Dodds doesn't cite any specific sources for her information. It's pure speculation on her part. And the references that ARE cited at the end of the document are not used to support any particular point that Dr. Dodds is making--most have to do with antibodies to bacterial infections. Mixing fact, fiction, and speculation is the WORST kind of pseudoscience that can be practiced. Dr. Dodds is selling a commercial product. It has no scientific support that has been published to date. The only mitigating factors are that the test is harmless, and the only tangible loss is peoples' money. HOWEVER, people might be duped into ignoring treatments that DO work.

I'm almost afraid to mention it, but Dr. Dodds recently published a book titled "Canine Nutrigenomics." It is a speculative work that has just enough real facts thrown in to deceive the less discerning reader. And of course it promotes the Nutriscan test. I read about 84 pages of the book for free in Google Books online, and all it did was make me furious. Among her scholarly discussions of DNA, epigenetics, and the immune system, she throws in unproven dietary recommendations such as bee pollen and royal jelly. Here is what WebMD has to say about bee pollen (http://www.webmd.com/balance/bee-pol...side-effects):

You may also hear recommendations for using bee pollen for alcoholism, asthma, allergies, health maintenance, or stomach problems, but there is no proof that it helps with these conditions. Before you take any natural product for a health condition, check with your doctor. Bee pollen is also recommended by some herbalists to enhance athletic performance, reduce side effects of chemotherapy, and improve allergies and asthma. At this point, medical research has not shown that bee pollen is effective for any of these health concerns.

Until Dr. Dodds publishes her results on saliva testing in a reputable refereed journal--and even then, the results will have to be replicated by others--I cannot take her recommendations seriously.

I love your entire post/review/opinion regarding this unsubstanciated saliva test. The highlighted part is what is so concerning to me because I know better than to take this sales pitch as such. It's those owners that are unfamiliar with how science bases medicine works that will be fooled into believe the sales pitch for this product. Somewhere in this thread another member stated something like if it might help it's money well spent. But what about all the money that is collected where the test doesn't work because it hasn't been proven? Isn't it like a crap shoot with most coming out just wasting their money on false hopes for a noninvasive test.

[megansmomma]

Interesting that I found a human version on the NurtaScan.

[gemy]

Canadian College of Naturopathic Medicine | $3M research grant awarded to Canada-US researchers investigating the impact of naturopathic medicine on late stage cancer survival


while human medicine at least some more research is being done.

[gemy]

Originally Posted by pstinard

I've read the chunks of Dr. Dodds' writings quoted earlier in this thread by mimimono (https://my.imatrixbase.com/clients/1...ce_Testing.pdf). Dr. Dodds doesn't cite any specific sources for her information. It's pure speculation on her part. And the references that ARE cited at the end of the document are not used to support any particular point that Dr. Dodds is making--most have to do with antibodies to bacterial infections. Mixing fact, fiction, and speculation is the WORST kind of pseudoscience that can be practiced. Dr. Dodds is selling a commercial product. It has no scientific support that has been published to date. The only mitigating factors are that the test is harmless, and the only tangible loss is peoples' money. HOWEVER, people might be duped into ignoring treatments that DO work.

I'm almost afraid to mention it, but Dr. Dodds recently published a book titled "Canine Nutrigenomics." It is a speculative work that has just enough real facts thrown in to deceive the less discerning reader. And of course it promotes the Nutriscan test. I read about 84 pages of the book for free in Google Books online, and all it did was make me furious. Among her scholarly discussions of DNA, epigenetics, and the immune system, she throws in unproven dietary recommendations such as bee pollen and royal jelly. Here is what WebMD has to say about bee pollen (http://www.webmd.com/balance/bee-pol...side-effects):

You may also hear recommendations for using bee pollen for alcoholism, asthma, allergies, health maintenance, or stomach problems, but there is no proof that it helps with these conditions. Before you take any natural product for a health condition, check with your doctor. Bee pollen is also recommended by some herbalists to enhance athletic performance, reduce side effects of chemotherapy, and improve allergies and asthma. At this point, medical research has not shown that bee pollen is effective for any of these health concerns.

Until Dr. Dodds publishes her results on saliva testing in a reputable refereed journal--and even then, the results will have to be replicated by others--I cannot take her recommendations seriously.

That is a piece of pure BS Bee pollen seems to be good for everything - when ever I read a claim like this I dismiss it!
Why does she even go there! crap

[Lovetodream88]

Originally Posted by pstinard

I've read the chunks of Dr. Dodds' writings quoted earlier in this thread by mimimono (https://my.imatrixbase.com/clients/1...ce_Testing.pdf). Dr. Dodds doesn't cite any specific sources for her information. It's pure speculation on her part. And the references that ARE cited at the end of the document are not used to support any particular point that Dr. Dodds is making--most have to do with antibodies to bacterial infections. Mixing fact, fiction, and speculation is the WORST kind of pseudoscience that can be practiced. Dr. Dodds is selling a commercial product. It has no scientific support that has been published to date. The only mitigating factors are that the test is harmless, and the only tangible loss is peoples' money. HOWEVER, people might be duped into ignoring treatments that DO work.

I'm almost afraid to mention it, but Dr. Dodds recently published a book titled "Canine Nutrigenomics." It is a speculative work that has just enough real facts thrown in to deceive the less discerning reader. And of course it promotes the Nutriscan test. I read about 84 pages of the book for free in Google Books online, and all it did was make me furious. Among her scholarly discussions of DNA, epigenetics, and the immune system, she throws in unproven dietary recommendations such as bee pollen and royal jelly. Here is what WebMD has to say about bee pollen (http://www.webmd.com/balance/bee-pol...side-effects):

You may also hear recommendations for using bee pollen for alcoholism, asthma, allergies, health maintenance, or stomach problems, but there is no proof that it helps with these conditions. Before you take any natural product for a health condition, check with your doctor. Bee pollen is also recommended by some herbalists to enhance athletic performance, reduce side effects of chemotherapy, and improve allergies and asthma. At this point, medical research has not shown that bee pollen is effective for any of these health concerns.

Until Dr. Dodds publishes her results on saliva testing in a reputable refereed journal--and even then, the results will have to be replicated by others--I cannot take her recommendations seriously.

Thanks for posting this it is great information.

[gemy]

For the thyroid this might be a part of the rationale:


Development of Accurate Diagnostic Tests for Canine Hypothyroidism | AKC Canine Health Foundation


Development of accurate tests


Dr Jean Dodds I remember her saying years ago that when the T4 simple test is simply not good enough to rule out thyroid problems especially when repeat tests are at either end of the range - ie borderline low or high.\\

[gemy]

Originally Posted by megansmomma

Interesting that I found a human version on the NurtaScan.

Going to go out and order that are you?

[pstinard]

Originally Posted by gemy

That is a piece of pure BS Bee pollen seems to be good for everything - when ever I read a claim like this I dismiss it!
Why does she even go there! crap

Just so people don't think I'm making this up, here is a screen shot from the portion of Dr. Dodds' book about bee pollen. Note that Dr. Dodds uses Mercola as a reference: