Jump to content

Follow Us:  Twitter Facebook RSS Feed            




   arrowShare this page:
   

   Get email alerts  Subscribe to FREE Celiac.com email alerts

 
Ads by Google:
Celiac.com Sponsor:                                    


Photo
- - - - -

My Biopsy Word For Word


  • Please log in to reply

72 replies to this topic

#46 squirmingitch

 
squirmingitch

    Advanced Community Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,343 posts
 

Posted 31 July 2012 - 11:17 AM

And wouldn't it be fair davemu for you to post the source of your information? You have not done that yet you ask the op to do so. Please provide links for documentation of your information.
  • 0

Self diagnosed dh Sept. 2011~~~ confirmed dx July 18, 2012
Gluten free Dec. 2011
Soy free Dec. 2011
Hubs self diagnosed dh March 30, 2012
Hubs gluten free March 30, 2012

Summer 2013 We both have added back a little soy which is near unavoidable & we are doing okay with that small amount.

 


Celiac.com Sponsor:

#47 davemu

 
davemu

    New Community Member

  • Advanced Members
  • Pip
  • 19 posts
 

Posted 31 July 2012 - 04:25 PM

Systematic review: the use of serology to exclude or diagnose coeliac disease (a comparison of the endomysial and tissue transglutaminase antibody tests).

Authors
Lewis NR, Scott BB.

----------
Meta-analysis: deamidated gliadin peptide antibody and tissue transglutaminase antibody compared as screening tests for coeliac disease.

Authors
Lewis NR, Scott BB.
Journal
Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2010 Jan;31(1):73-81.

----
Old and new serological tests for celiac disease screening.

Authors
Volta U, Fabbri A, Parisi C, Piscaglia M, Caio G, Tovoli F, Fiorini E.
Journal
Expert Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2010 Feb;4(1):31-5.



I will concede that the reported sensitivity is closer to 93%, not 95-99 as some other studies. But it's a far cry from 70%.
  • 0

#48 justlisa

 
justlisa

    Advanced Community Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 164 posts
 

Posted 31 July 2012 - 06:28 PM

Dave,

Do you realize that you are referencing a study that is dated 2006? And, this study uses citations of studies dating from 1983 to 2004??? To further complicate things and to call into question the "results" of your referenced study is the pure and simple fact that one must then analyze the data and methodology of these SIGNIFICANTLY DATED citations???

There is extraordinary, mounting evidence which supports the very fact that the efficacy of the current testing regimes is SERIOUSLY FLAWED...

Furthermore, one must look upon "studies" conducted utilizing data from such locales as Iran and Turkey with a jaundice eye...

In conclusion... To vehemently argue a position based upon the conclusions of a "study" of "studies" which are seriously dated and for which one can not reasonably qualify the data and methodology is, at best, naive and, at worst, negligent. IMHO
  • 0

#49 davemu

 
davemu

    New Community Member

  • Advanced Members
  • Pip
  • 19 posts
 

Posted 31 July 2012 - 06:49 PM

... And someone has yet to post one single piece of literature that speaks to this "extraordinary, mounting evidence". I don't know why my asking is just falling on deaf ears. I'm not vehemently arguing anything, if you cared to read my previous posts you would know that I just want to know where you guys are getting your numbers from. It seems like the source is as much a mystery to you as it is to me because nobody has mentioned any source but hearsay. If you use that as your evidence then there is no point to continue this coversation.

I should add that I didn't exclusively choose those articles (they were the first hits), but I don't know of anything newer that suggests these numbers are off. Again, instead of getting emotionally worked up that I dare question any of you, stop dodging my simple request and provide an actual resource (anything) to suggest our understanding of celiac bloodwork had evolved in the last years.
  • 0

#50 justlisa

 
justlisa

    Advanced Community Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 164 posts
 

Posted 31 July 2012 - 07:02 PM

I would suggest that you do more "googling" as the rest of us have... There is quite a bit of info in these forums which link to far more current "studies". It is, however, up to you to do more research.

And, yes, you were quite vehement in your position/support of your facts"...gleaned from "first hits" no less...

Everyone here is more than willing to help...you just need to be more open to it.

You might, also, spend a bit of time going through the articles on celiac.com. Many of the more recent articles reference more up-to-date studies and expert opinion. Could prove a good starting point... Google results placement will not, necessarily, provide you with the information you seek.
  • 0

#51 Jestgar

 
Jestgar

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,755 posts
 

Posted 31 July 2012 - 07:12 PM

I realize everyone is very passionate about their points, but please remember to stay nice (as you all have so far - just being proactive).
  • 0
"But then, in all honesty, if scientists don't play god, who will?"
- James Watson

My sources are unreliable, but their information is fascinating.
- Ashleigh Brilliant

Leap, and the net will appear.

#52 justlisa

 
justlisa

    Advanced Community Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 164 posts
 

Posted 31 July 2012 - 07:16 PM

Oh and Dave,

If you find my response to you "emotional", I would suggest you do a bit of self-reflection...it was anything but.

I am, simply, telling you two very important things:

1. This forum, while filled with a LOT of information and opinion, is NOT your neighborhood convenience store. No one-stop shopping will provide anyone with enough information to make informed, reasoned decisions.

2. YOU need to do more legwork... None of us, here, are mandated to "provide" YOU with evidence/support of our positions. You will, often, find such, but we are not required to do so. And, who would want that, anyway? Do your own homework.
  • 0

#53 Jestgar

 
Jestgar

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,755 posts
 

Posted 31 July 2012 - 07:20 PM

2. YOU need to do more legwork... None of us, here, are mandated to "provide" YOU with evidence/support of our positions. You will, often, find such, but we are not required to do so. And, who would want that, anyway? Do your own homework.

Actually, we do ask people to provide the source of their information if it's other than opinion.
  • 0
"But then, in all honesty, if scientists don't play god, who will?"
- James Watson

My sources are unreliable, but their information is fascinating.
- Ashleigh Brilliant

Leap, and the net will appear.

#54 justlisa

 
justlisa

    Advanced Community Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 164 posts
 

Posted 31 July 2012 - 08:04 PM

Jestgar,

Is there anything, in this thread, to infer that Troy (or others) are presenting scientific fact or merely opinions based upon the totality of their own research/investigative efforts? If there was a statement such as: " I just read this study...etc, etc" or " a recent study...etc, etc" then it would seem reasonable to ASK for such source data... And, if or if not provided, then the readers are left to determine the relevance/legitimacy...correct?

Is it not safe to assume that the vast majority of the members here are laymen...postic in a non-medical, non-scientific forum? If so, in my mind, it behooves all of us to absorb what we "learn" here, but validate for ourselves.

It has been my brief experience, in here, that most members will do their utmost to help with "answers" or "sourcing"...to the best of their capabilities.

In fact, much of what is related, in here, is based upon opinion/personal experience. That is, imo, what makes this forum invaluable to many.
  • 0

#55 Jestgar

 
Jestgar

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,755 posts
 

Posted 31 July 2012 - 08:21 PM

If what you present is opinion, then it's opinion. If you present something as fact, then we ask that you back it up. We don't expect people to present science papers, unless they are comfortable with that. All you have to tell us is where you got the information you are presenting, so anyone with an interest can go and research it for himself.
  • 0
"But then, in all honesty, if scientists don't play god, who will?"
- James Watson

My sources are unreliable, but their information is fascinating.
- Ashleigh Brilliant

Leap, and the net will appear.

#56 Jestgar

 
Jestgar

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,755 posts
 

Posted 31 July 2012 - 08:24 PM

I will also add a tidbit of information here. In the case of celiacs with dermatitis herpetiformis; we test negative on the blood panel even more often than celiacs with the GI issues.

Just to use this as an example.

I know nothing about dh. If this were something I wanted to look up, I'd have no idea where to start. It would be nice if this statement came with a source, even if it were something like "we had an informal poll on the board and..."

Actually, it is a pretty interesting statement. Hopefully squirming will come back and post where she got the info from, I'd like to read more about it.
  • 0
"But then, in all honesty, if scientists don't play god, who will?"
- James Watson

My sources are unreliable, but their information is fascinating.
- Ashleigh Brilliant

Leap, and the net will appear.

#57 troykm

 
troykm

    Community Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 47 posts
 

Posted 31 July 2012 - 08:27 PM

My specialist was the one who told me that around 25 percent of celiacs test negative in blood work.

To qualify her, not only is she a practicing gastroenterologist, she is also a professor and lectures here in melbourne at monash university on the subject, she is also a on staff gastroenterologist at several private hospitals.

Based on what she told me I have Googled and discovered what she has said has basis in current thinking.

So is that enough of a source for you? I would tend to believe my specialist who clearly is at the front of new information in gastroenterology over a 6 year old study.
  • 0

#58 troykm

 
troykm

    Community Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 47 posts
 

Posted 31 July 2012 - 08:28 PM

If you can't find what I can find on google then maybe you're not asking the right questions.
  • 0

#59 troykm

 
troykm

    Community Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 47 posts
 

Posted 31 July 2012 - 08:35 PM

Most of the current research on celiac disease is coming from europe and scandinavia. In fact I think you're find most of the current research come from countries outside of america because most other countries are actually interested in health and are not driven by pharmaceutical companies.

in France the research is so advanced they now think patient presenting with anxiety for the first time should automatically be screened for celiac.

Unfortunately I don't know what you want any of us to say. To what end to do you keep arguing with us? What is your ultimate goal in this thread? Or is your life so boring you just want to argue with people?
  • 1

#60 troykm

 
troykm

    Community Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 47 posts
 

Posted 31 July 2012 - 08:39 PM

Just to use this as an example.

I know nothing about dh. If this were something I wanted to look up, I'd have no idea where to start. It would be nice if this statement came with a source, even if it were something like "we had an informal poll on the board and..."

Actually, it is a pretty interesting statement. Hopefully squirming will come back and post where she got the info from, I'd like to read more about it.


Google! Simply Google dermatitis herpetiformis negative celiac blood test and presto! 27000 results.
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Celiac.com Sponsors: