Jump to content

Follow Us:   Twitter Facebook Celiac.com Forum RSS      

Get email alerts  Subscribe to FREE Celiac.com email alerts
arrowShare this page:
Subscribe Today!

Celiac.com Sponsor:
Celiac.com Sponsor:


Member Since 28 Aug 2011
Offline Last Active Oct 03 2011 10:43 AM

Posts I've Made

In Topic: Please Take My Quiz

01 October 2011 - 03:10 AM

thanks guys

In Topic: Gluten Intolerance

01 October 2011 - 03:05 AM

At this point, doctors don't know much of anything about gluten intolerance. It's only recently been studied enough to say that it likely exists, period. However, when they were looking at whether it exists, I believe that one of the 'proofs' was that the gluten caused problems, but no rise in antibody levels or blunting of villi (I wouldn't swear to that, but I think so).

That said - the idea that the biopsy is the 'gold standard,' which many doctors still adhere to, is actually being contested pretty strongly, even by one of the doctors who pushed hard to get it AS the gold standard originally! (Dr. Fassano).

You may want to look into it: if you google 'biopsy not the gold standard+ celiac disease' or other similar terms, the information will come up.

From what I'm reading, some doctors now consider positive blood work OR positive biopsy, plus a positive reaction to eliminating gluten from the diet, as indicative of celiac disease. Although I believe a number also urge one to be tested for the genes, as well, to try and double check it.

Did you have any positive effect on those weeks that you went gluten free, by any chance? Or was there no noticeable change?

Part of the reason for the change are studies like this one:
From abstract

Children with positive bloodwork, but either pos. or neg. biopsies, were studied. If they were put on a gluten-free diet, their symptoms improved AND their bloodwork improved, whether or not their biopsies were positive, indicating a higher likelihood that they were actually celiac.

Another, different study on pos blood work and neg biopsies also showed that a negative biopsy may not always mean celiac negative, as it were.

"Our results demonstrate that metabolic alterations may precede the development of small intestinal villous atrophy and provide a further rationale for early institution of gluten-free diet in patients with potential celiac disease, as recently suggested by prospective clinical studies,"

from abstract #2

wow, thanks for the great responses....appreciate it

In Topic: Please Take My Quiz

30 September 2011 - 09:10 AM

haha 90 people have viewed and one response....thanks for responding :)

In Topic: Biopsy Negative....now What?

30 September 2011 - 02:36 AM

OMG, you sound JUST like me! I tested low positive on the blood test and went gluten free for two weeks, then back on gluten for a week before my endoscopy. The doctor let my husband stay in the room when he did the test and showed my husband my villi and said they were completely normal and I do not have celiac (still waiting for the lab results of the biopsy though). My husband told him that I had gone gluten-free for two weeks and felt much better and, are you ready for this, the doctor told him it's all in my head!??!?!! WHAT?!?!?! I too am convinced I have it. All the pieces fell into place when I got the blood test results. I have to call on Monday to get my lab results of the biopsy, but I plan on going gluten-free no matter what the results are. I may splurge once in a while, but overall I'm avoiding it at all costs.

wow....we are totally in the same boat!!!!

In Topic: Biopsy Negative....now What?

28 September 2011 - 07:08 AM

thanks....my symptoms are, well have been diarrhea, lots of gas...bloating....so i have had most of the digestive part anyways......and a few other symptoms....i was convinced it was celiac disease....its like now some people are saying you can just cut back on gluten....maybe one piece of pizza, or one beer, just dont indulge....but i am staying away completely, at least for awhile.....thanks for the input....i appreciate it

Celiac.com Sponsors: