Jump to content
This site uses cookies. Continued use is acceptance of our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. More Info... ×
  • Welcome to Celiac.com!

    You have found your celiac tribe! Join us and ask questions in our forum, share your story, and connect with others.




  • Celiac.com Sponsor (A1):



    Celiac.com Sponsor (A1-M):


  • Get Celiac.com Updates:
    Support Celiac.com!
    eNewsletter
    Donate

Are There Really Only 60,000 Diagnosed People With Celiac In The Country?


srthomas21

Recommended Posts

srthomas21 Explorer

I just read this on my local Celiac disease support website and couldn't believe. According them there are only 1000 people diagnosed with Celiac in Utah and 60,000 in the country.

I thought it was being diagnosed a lot more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Celiac.com Sponsor (A8):
Celiac.com Sponsor (A8):



Celiac.com Sponsor (A8-M):



mushroom Proficient

Considering the extent of the disease that seems an extraordinarily low figure. Of course, given the diagnostic ability of the doctors, that could be possible :o:(

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fiddle-Faddle Community Regular

Many people choose to avoid an "official," biopsy diagnosis, for various reasons.

#1) The biopsy has a fairly high chance of a false negative, is invasive, and does carry some risk. More and more people are starting to look at it as unnecessary, especially as the sophisticated blood tests of today were not available 50 years ago, when the biopsy was declared the "gold standard" of diagnosis.

#2) Many people feel that the biopsy is often ordered, not because it is the only way to be sure, but because it earns more money than an office visit. (Having said this, I do want to point out that if intestinal symptoms continue even after a strict gluten/casein-free diet, then I personally do believe further investigation is warranted.)

3) An official diagnosis of celiac disease has been used by both health and life insurance companies as reason to deny coverage ("pre-existing condition"). Gene testing may carry the same risk of denial.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lisa Mentor

Open Original Shared Link

Yet, 97% of people with Celiac Disease, go undiagnosed, or misdiagnosed.

Until doctors become more informed about the prevalence of this disease and better diagnostic methods are established, it will remain a generally self-diagnosed disease.

An unwarranted biopsy should not be considered, but due to the fact that many, if not most people here have had extended histories of digestive issues, it should be considered. Currently the biopsy/endoscopy exam and the Serologic Blood Panel are the best options toward diagnosis. A positive dietary response is also supportive.

While Celiac Disease warrants a level of concern, other unchecked diseases could warrant a much greater concern. Celiac Disease is linked to intestinal lymphoma, if neglected. A biopsy should never be dismissed. And worries about a "pre-existing" condition, should never deter you from seeking a proper diagnoses to regain your health or perhaps save your life. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ENF Enthusiast

The number of diagnosed Celiacs seems to have risen, recently. Although we've been hearing, for years, that 97% of Celiacs are undiagnosed, the National Institute of Health is now saying it is 95%, This new percentage was also echoed in a NY Times article on Dec. 15, which is referenced in a thread in the Publicatons and Publicity forum. At least there's some progress happening, however slowly.

Open Original Shared Link

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...
G Love Newbie

I just read this on my local Celiac disease support website and couldn't believe. According them there are only 1000 people diagnosed with Celiac in Utah and 60,000 in the country.

I thought it was being diagnosed a lot more.

Hi ...

being an ex engineer - this number crunch may help you.

60,000 people would be about .02% of the US population (based on 320 million).

They say that 1 in 133 Americans are celiac, (even though I think it is more like 1% (Australia and UK))

If it is 1 in 133, then the total number or celiacs would be 2.4 Million people - most articles round it up to 3 million.

If only 5% WERE diagnosed - then 5% of 2.4 million would be 120,000.

I have read articles that suggest that the diagnosis rate may only be 2.5% which matches your original 60,000 figure. Amazingly Australia has nearly 20% diagnosed, but your media machine gives America a higher market growth rate.

One thing you should realise though is that America is blessed with entreprenuers / capitalists that see Gluten Free as a very lucrative niche. America now has the highest gluten free online demand of any country! The reason that diagnosis levels are so low is access to cheap healthcare, people's awareness of the symptoms (often taking ten years to diagnose) and medical doctors understanding celiac disease and be willing to test for it.

That said, gluten free online demand is booming in the USA. As 2009 was the highest growth year in five years. The best way to spread the word in your local community (IMHO) is to get your favourite eating places to extend their gluten-free options or you go elsewhere.

ALSO while celiac diagnosis is very low, friends and family of celiacs multiply their number and power considerably.

In Aust, while gene testing for DQ2 and DQ8 celiac genes gives you maybe 95% 'proof', biopsy is still the stongest method. If your give up gluten well before going for a biopsy, your test may be inconclusive. IN Australia, the celiac society will not accept you for membership unless your doctor writes this as a full diagnosis - hence some actual and practicing celiacs are not included in the stats.

Hope that helps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • Celiac.com Sponsor (A19):



  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      121,080
    • Most Online (within 30 mins)
      7,748

    Pattimelt
    Newest Member
    Pattimelt
    Joined

  • Celiac.com Sponsor (A20):


  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      120.3k
    • Total Posts
      1m

  • Celiac.com Sponsor (A22):





  • Celiac.com Sponsor (A21):



  • Upcoming Events

  • Posts

    • Tanner L
      Yes and variations in their sources for natural and artificial flavors could be the culprit as well.  I might be on the more sensitive side, but I do fine with McDonald's fries and burgers if I take the bun off, and other foods that have certified gluten free ingredients and only cross contamination risk preventing the gluten-free certification. 
    • trents
      Yes, the yeast could have been cultured on a wheat substrate. But another batch may use a yeast extract cultured on something else that did not contain gluten. These food companies will switch suppliers according to what is the cheapest source at any given time. I take it you are a pretty sensitive celiac.
    • Tanner L
      The regular cheddar and sour cream Ruffles have yeast extract, which is probably the source of gluten.  Pinpointing the exact cause of gluten exposure is always tricky, but I've come to learn my initial reaction to gluten compared to the ongoing symptoms that will occur days, weeks, and sometimes months later.  
    • plumbago
      Yes, that's probably best. (Honestly, that is an extraordinarily high number, I've never seen anything like that. I repeated my blood tests (not taken while pregnant BTW); before giving up cake, pizza, and beer, I wanted to know for sure! You don't wanna mess around with anything while pregnant. Congratulations and best of luck!
    • trents
      Here are the ingredients listed for the regular sour cream and cheddar Ruffles: Potatoes, Vegetable Oil (Canola, Corn, Soybean, and/or Sunflower Oil), Maltodextrin (Made from Corn), Salt, Whey, Cheddar Cheese (Milk, Cheese Cultures, Salt, Enzymes), Onion Powder, Monosodium Glutamate, Natural and Artificial Flavors, Buttermilk, Sour Cream (Cultured Cream, Skim Milk), Lactose, Butter (Cream, Salt), Sodium Caseinate, Yeast Extract, Citric Acid, Skim Milk, Blue Cheese (Milk, Cheese Cultures, Salt, Enzymes), Lactic Acid, Garlic Powder, Artificial Color (Yellow 6, Yellow 5), Whey Protein Isolate, and Milk Protein Concentrate. CONTAINS MILK INGREDIENTS. Here are the ingredients listed for the baked ones: INGREDIENTS: DRIED POTATOES, CORN STARCH, CORN OIL, SUGAR, MALTODEXTRIN (MADE FROM CORN), SALT, SOY LECITHIN, DEXTROSE, WHEY, WHEY PROTEIN CONCENTRATE, ONION POWDER, CHEDDAR CHEESE (MILK, CHEESE CULTURES, SALT, ENZYMES), MONOSODIUM GLUTAMATE, BLUE CHEESE (MILK, CHEESE CULTURES, SALT, ENZYMES), CITRIC ACID, ARTIFICIAL COLOR (YELLOW 6 LAKE, YELLOW 5 LAKE, YELLOW 5, YELLOW 6), SKIM MILK, NATURAL AND ARTIFICIAL FLAVORS, GARLIC POWDER, LACTIC ACID, DISODIUM INOSINATE, AND DISODIUM GUANYLATE. CONTAINS MILK AND SOY INGREDIENTS   They look a lot the same except for the baked product contains soy. What do you suppose is the hidden source of gluten in the regular Ruffles that is not found in the baked ones? Could you be mistaken in attributing your reaction to the Ruffles? Could it have been from gluten in something else you ate around the same time or even a non-gluten tummy event?
×
×
  • Create New...