Hi Bilko
At least you have agreed that "It is true the IgA-Kp test is not standard path lab for AS".
I'm sorry but I just cannot understand how you can dismiss so easily the fact that Ebringer has used a narrower definition of AS than the average rheumatologist. From the evidence you have given, he required a crucial antibody test whilst the rheumatologist doesn't. This is not to doubt the value of Ebringer's work or the fact that the diet will work with so many people regardless of the criteria of diagnosis. The point I am making is that there must be many people currently diagnosed with AS who do not meet his definition of AS. The conclusions he made would not necessarily apply to them.
Perhaps you are happier to say that those who were not tested for antibodies, and in fact do not have them (we have to assume there are some), do not have AS as you said in a previous post. Then, among those diagnosed with AS, there are a number of people who do not have AS (according to you and Ebringer). Then it could be possible that these people do not respond to diet.
Of course there are people diagnosed with AS who have not succeeded with the diet because they didn't follow it rigorously enough or didn't apply it properly or for all the other reasons given on this thread. But I believe there just may be some who actually don't respond to diet. You can say they don't have AS if you like.
But if there are people diagnosed with AS who don't fit Ebringer's definition of AS you can't quote his conclusions as applying to them. That is what I said in my previous post and I am sticking to it.
Come on someone, anyone who is reading this, please back me up. This is not "subjective guff" or "trite" or "unnecessarily confusing". It is just basic logic.
Wally
