This Celiac.com FAQ on celiac disease will guide you to all of the basic information you will need to know about the disease, its diagnosis, testing methods, a gluten-free diet, etc. Subscribe to FREE Celiac.com email alerts What are the major symptoms of celiac disease? Celiac Disease SymptomsWhat testing is available for celiac disease? - list blood tests, endo with biopsy, genetic test and enterolab (not diagnostic) Celiac Disease ScreeningInterpretation of Celiac Disease Blood Test ResultsCan I be tested even though I am eating gluten free? How long must gluten be taken for the serological tests to be meaningful?The Gluten-Free Diet 101 - A Beginner's Guide to Going Gluten-FreeIs celiac inherited? Should my children be tested? Ten Facts About Celiac Disease Genetic TestingIs there a link between celiac and other autoimmune diseases? Celiac Disease Research: Associated Diseases and DisordersIs there a list of gluten foods to avoid? Unsafe Gluten-Free Food List (Unsafe Ingredients)Is there a list of gluten free foods? Safe Gluten-Free Food List (Safe Ingredients)Gluten-Free Alcoholic BeveragesDistilled Spirits (Grain Alcohols) and Vinegar: Are they Gluten-Free?Where does gluten hide? Additional Things to Beware of to Maintain a 100% Gluten-Free DietFree recipes: Gluten-Free RecipesWhere can I buy gluten-free stuff? Support this site by shopping at The Celiac.com Store.For Additional Information: Subscribe to: Journal of Gluten Sensitivity
Well, I tested negatively for the Ttg test. I was postive on the Antigliadin IGG, but that was the only one. My GI basically said that test was worthless. My general was the one who first suspected Celiac and tested me for it. My GI said it was impossible because the ttg was negative. Well anyway, while I was being tested in all kinds of ways from my GI, except for endoscopy, I experimented with gluten. I would go off it for 2 weeks, I would get better. I would eat a lot of bread for 2 weeks and I would get sick.... My GI, basically said, well, he doesn't think that would be it, but if I believe it kind of thing... UGH... Anyway, he has dismissed me, since he couldn't "find the cause."
I have now been gluten free for a little while. ALL of my gastrointestinal symptoms are gone. I now have my energy back. I still don't know what I have, but I guess it doesn't matter if gluten free seems to be the answer...
You know, it is very interesting to read this board. When people say the test results are in with a frown face, you don't know if it is because the results were positive in which case they have a disease which will really change their lifestyle for life, or are frowning because the test is negative which means they know no more than when they started and they have nothing they can do to relieve their symptoms. It is just odd when you think about it.
I am in the same boat. I don't know if I want them to finally diagnose me as celiac or not! It would be good to know once and for all, but oh what a change it would mean.
I'm in the same boat...waiting to get in with specialists. You should be able to go back to your doctor and tell them you want the celiac panel blood work done, though. ANY doctor can order this and it is an easy test for them to do. You should get results back from the lab in a short amount of time. Be demanding... You are the customer!
To me, one of the biggest issues, is that Gluten intolerance seems to be much more of a problem than "just" celiac disease. There are also other food related intolerances. If the probability of celiac is 1/100, I wonder what the probability is that someone would have some kind of food related inolerance? I think part of the problem is that medical doctors don't look at the whole body. You have the GI who only wants to look at the digestive system. When people have issues outside of that, he just promptly ignores what they have to say, and certainly doesn't think to ask himself. Personally, I would be happy if I could find a doctor who was medically trained, but believed in holistic medicine as well. In NY, the naturopathic doctors can't even order blood tests. I don't think doctors think about the relationship between food and health.
I have children with special needs. It is a problem there as well. If a mother brings in her young baby with a problem, unless it is a broken bone or something "medically obvious" the doctor tends to ignore the issue.
I have two links on the previous page that discuss why there would still be the problem with gluten even though the host was now body, blood of Jesus. In Catholicism, communion is more than symbolic. That is the difference between it and many other Christian denominations. For Catholics, though, having the precious blood is every bit as good as taking the host. There isn't a difference from a theology standpoint.
I have a question for all of you, and this thread got me to thinking. I started having some of my problems when I upped the amount of yogert I was eating... Hmmm. I know one of the first things the doctor did was to ask if I was lactose intolerant, and I told her I never drank milk, but I told her I had plenty of yogurt. She told me not to worry because there was no lactose, but neither of us ever thought about the casein. So, anyway, is their a blood test to check to see if I have a problem with casein? If so, what is it.
Not sure why you felt such a need for such a "snarky" response.
You feel the Church should change its teachings, I feel that it would be entirely inappropriate to do so on such an important matter. Can't you just agree to disagree.... Some of us are traditionalist Catholics who don't want all the changes that some of the progressives want. We simply believe in the reasons for why some things have to stay as they are, you obviously don't. So be it...
Would a person with Celiac disease be protected by transubstantiation from being harmed by gluten in the host?
The argument that the accidental qualities of bread cannot harm the intestine of one who suffers from Celiac disease (due to non-tolerance of gluten in wheat bread) is false. It is of course true that the substance of the bread does not remain after the consecration of the sacred species. However, all the accidents remain, which include not just the exterior appearance, but everything that is subject to the senses and that science can investigate, including the chemical composition. The chemical effects of the gluten on the intestinal wall will consequently still remain, just as much as the appearance and texture of bread, for they are just as accidental to the real nature of what is there as the appearance and texture. Here lies the miracle and the mystery of the Blessed Eucharist. It would be a miracle if the accidental qualities of gluten were not to harm the intestine. Although such miracles can happen, we cannot depend upon such an extraordinary intervention of Almighty God. Consequently, a person who suffers from Celiac disease needs to ask the priest to give him or her a very small portion of the host. It is never allowed to manufacture the host out of rice or a non-wheaten material that does not contain gluten. Such hosts are not valid matter for the Holy Eucharist. [Answered by Fr. Peter R. Scott]
I am ONLY talking about the Catholic Church. The Catholic teaching is different from most protestant teachings in the meaning of Holy Communion. When I speak of church doctrine, I am only speaking of the doctrine that relates to the Catholic Church. I was a protestant for years. In my non-denominational church, I really don't think there would have been ANY problem with the matter of the "bread." They could have easily used a gluten-free bread for communion. That is simply no the case based on Catholic Doctrine. The teachings are simply different for different churches. I am saying for Catholics, they have really three choices. They can just take the precious blood, which is the body and blood of Jesus every bit as much as the host. They are not "missing anything" by not taking the hose. They could use a very low-gluten host that is available. Or, they could take their chances with the regular host, which I don't think would be the wisest choice. They might even be able to take a fraction of the low-gluten host if that were possible. Even one crumb, is the same as the whole....
Where as you say the Church has problems with Celiacs, I think you have a problem with Church teachings. The bottom line is that the "matter" of the bread and wine during communion DO matter! A simple matter of researching church teaching for the last 2000 years will explain why. The church can't just change because some people can't take gluten. The fact is that celiacs can easily receive the body and blood of Jesus through the precious blood. That to me is simple enough. I really don't see why it is such a problem.
I have never heard the "Catholic Church" calling celiac scandalous. They have provided options for Celiacs. Please tell me where you are getting that...
What is scandalous, to me, is that children aren't tested. 1 out of 100 is a VERY high number. Not only is it not routinely tested for, but as this board clearly demonstrates, when people WANT to be tested, it isn't readily available.
My Gastro said he pretty much ruled out Celiac because the TTg was negative and the antigliadin IGA was negative (zero in fact). The Antigliadin IGG was 21 where 0-9 was normal. He had me do the barium test and the 72 hour fecal fat test. (HORRID test). That showed 15.4 where (0-6) is normal, so I showed for malabsorption.
So anyway, here is the interesting part, I called a celiac helpline which is connected to Chicago University. They told me that having an absolute 0 for the antigliadin IGA test is a red flag for total IGA deficiency. So anyway, I thought I would pass that along.
I was also wondering what other people had for their Antigliadin IGA score. Is it really that rare to be 0?