Jump to content

  • 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 Our Content
    eNewsletter
    Donate

Diagnosis And Statistics

gfp

Recommended Posts

gfp Enthusiast
gfp
Posted
According to the study the mean period of gluten exposure was 2.4 years, although it was likely longer as recent studies have shown that many celiacs are asymptomatic for many years before damage occurs that is severe enough to cause obvious symptoms.

Yet another article proving conslusively thay celiac disease is actually caused by the actual biopsy. ???

Using the biopsy as the gold standard 100% of patients not biopsied did not have celiac disease. So statistically only patients biopsied had celiac disease. The control (blood tests) do not have celiac disease since they didn't have a biopsy.

Meanwhile celaic STARTs with the biopsy, those of us who suffered before the biopsy presumably were making it up since to have celiac disease you must have a biopsy.

This seems like some stupid catch-22. Any study that studies celiac disease has to use the biopsy as a gold standard... (or be ridiculed) and regardless of any other symptoms for it to be called celiac disease they need a biopsy? Every time blood tests are compared its with biopsy as a gold standard and presumed to be 100% reliable...

Am I the only person thinks this is ironic?

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

Celiac.com Sponsor (A8-M):


tom Contributor
tom
Posted

The whole thing just pisses me off.

jerseyangel Proficient
jerseyangel
Posted
Meanwhile celaic STARTs with the biopsy, those of us who suffered before the biopsy presumably were making it up since to have celiac disease you must have a biopsy.

The whole thing just pisses me off.

Yes it does me, too. :(

ravenwoodglass Mentor
ravenwoodglass
Posted

Hopefully someday they will realize that celiac is a 'spectrum' disorder and to only use total villi destruction as a diagnostic proof when so many are effected in so many other ways is frankly inhumane. It's too bad they insist that we be almost dead before they will diagnose, many times our lives are severely impacted long before that occurs.

gfp Enthusiast
gfp
Posted
  • Author
Hopefully someday they will realize that celiac is a 'spectrum' disorder and to only use total villi destruction as a diagnostic proof when so many are effected in so many other ways is frankly inhumane. It's too bad they insist that we be almost dead before they will diagnose, many times our lives are severely impacted long before that occurs.

In your case the damage was both severe and not completely repairable...

I just don't see how if every single study uses biopsy as the only positive that we will ever get to that point.

celiac disease seems to be one of a very select group of diseases that is DEFINED by a test.. and because it has such a high false negative rate any suite of tests where the biopsy is positive and EVERY OTHER test is positve (including dietry response and the patient actualy getting better) they seem happy to throw out every other test...

Its impossible to actually prove the false negatives because the test is definitive... catch-22

cruelshoes Enthusiast
cruelshoes
Posted

I agree that it is frustrating that people have to suffer so long to get a diagnosis. It's really hard sometimes to reconcile making oneself sick to get a positive biopsy.

Hypothetically

An executive decree has just passed and we are now the head of the Celiac Consortium of the World. We have to decide the best way to diagnose people. What would be our proposal? What would strike the ideal balance between diagnosing the right people (not misdiagnosing positive or negative) and keeping the suffering to a minimum? Something that could be scientifically validated I mean, not just a "listen to your body" kind of thing.

This is not a challenge, but a serious question. I too was close to death when I got my diagnosis, and would like to make it so others do not have to go through the same.

motif Contributor
motif
Posted

in my opinion biopsy doesn't make sense, if you feel better without gluten you just go gluten free diet and that's it.

Why to do biopsy? to proof what?

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

Celiac.com Sponsor (A8-M):


gfp Enthusiast
gfp
Posted
  • Author
I agree that it is frustrating that people have to suffer so long to get a diagnosis. It's really hard sometimes to reconcile making oneself sick to get a positive biopsy.

Hypothetically

An executive decree has just passed and we are now the head of the Celiac Consortium of the World. We have to decide the best way to diagnose people. What would be our proposal? What would strike the ideal balance between diagnosing the right people (not misdiagnosing positive or negative) and keeping the suffering to a minimum? Something that could be scientifically validated I mean, not just a "listen to your body" kind of thing.

Ok, first thing we need a study BUT that study needs a control.

Italy manages to screen everyone at school.

Scientifically you can't have a perfect test.... you need to have one that has either flase negatives or false positives but screen everyone at school and awareness sky rockets. We need more accurate controls on blood tests, most studies have to presume that celiac disease is so rare in the general population that serology for the general population is used as a control. We need realistic figures for all age groups, not apply a general figure to toddlers...

The next big flaw in most comparitive diagnostic studies is that people actually get gluten-free diets when they say they do. Unfortunately we know this is often not the case.

For a control we ned a set of volunteers who are given only food tested to be 100% gluten-free. Supposing we had the resources we would rent a huge house and gut the kitchens .. make them 100% gluten-free and carry out the tests here. The house would need to be in a area NOT growing wheat...

No food would be allowed in that was not TESTED... (and I mean tested ... full whack GC-MS so the house needs its own lab, sterile of gluten)...

Everyone in the study, controls and not would be fed 100% tested food... we would be tested daily for blood counts .. and the fluctuations mapped.

A second house would house the "eating gluten group". Everyone here would be the "normal test" and also get blood tests daily... anyone who then tests positive would be moved to the gluten-free house and removed from the control group.

JennyC Enthusiast
JennyC
Posted

It frustrates me when people, including doctors, act like the only way to get diagnosed is to have a positive biopsy. More and more it's becoming widely accepted that positive Ttg tests, along with the celiac panel, and positive dietary response are acceptable means of diagnosis. In theory positive Ttg can be associated with other autoimmune disorders, for example some forms of liver failure or autoimmune diabetes, but if you also have the celiac symptoms and they improve on the diet and after time and your Ttg drops, that seems like excellent proof of celiac disease. Sometimes I feel like some people think I sidestepped diagnosis for my son because I did not have him biopsied, but I feel 100% confident in my decision. Can the people who have positive blood work and negative biopsies who go back on gluten say the same?

Jestgar Rising Star
Jestgar
Posted
Scientifically you can't have a perfect test.... you need to have one that has either flase negatives or false positives but screen everyone at school and awareness sky rockets. We need more accurate controls on blood tests, most studies have to presume that celiac disease is so rare in the general population that serology for the general population is used as a control. We need realistic figures for all age groups, not apply a general figure to toddlers...

I have a theoretical test. It would be pricey, if it works at all, but it would be fairly accurate. Unfortunately, it would be difficult to get the money to test it. The medical community accepts only biopsy proven Celiac disease, and I just don't happen to believe that a destroyed intestine is the definition of the disease; it's just one of the symptoms.

Dunno. I've actually been thinking about this for a while. Maybe I'll see if I can get my boss to foot the bill for a few trials (on myself - no biopsy) to see if it would even work.

jerseyangel Proficient
jerseyangel
Posted
The medical community accepts only biopsy proven Celiac disease, and I just don't happen to believe that a destroyed intestine is the definition of the disease; it's just one of the symptoms.

I've never heard it put exactly this way before, but yes--that is a perfect explanation. Perhaps, the villi damage is mearly a symptom, and one that some get later rather than sooner.

I hope you get to do your testing, Jess--I would be most interested in hearing about it.

Fiddle-Faddle Community Regular
Fiddle-Faddle
Posted

Like many things in the medical community, it comes down to $$$$.

The doctors don't earn a penny if you change your diet and your symptoms go away. Neither does the pharmaceutical industry.

But the doctors, pharm industry, and hospitals/surgical centers all get quite rich just from your endoscopy. The doctors and the pharm industry get even richer when you have to buy meds that supposedly "treat" your symptoms while you continue to eat gluten, thereby causing more and more damage.

The insurance industry, of course, supports this 1005, as they are also funded in part by the pharm industry.

The whole thing is shockingly unethical.

Archived

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

Go to topic listing

  • Get Celiac.com Updates:
    Support Celiac.com:
    Join eNewsletter
    Donate
  • Celiac.com Sponsor (A17):
    Celiac.com Sponsor (A17):



    Celiac.com Sponsors (A17-M):



  • Recent Activity

    1. Mmoc
      - Mmoc replied to Mmoc's topic in Celiac Disease Pre-Diagnosis, Testing & Symptoms
      2

      Blood tests low iGA 4 years later digestive issues

      Thank you kindly for your response. I have since gotten the other type of bloods done and am awaiting results.
    2. Aretaeus Cappadocia
      - Aretaeus Cappadocia replied to Clear2me's topic in Gluten-Free Foods, Products, Shopping & Medications
      6

      Gluten free nuts

      I wanted to respond to your post as much for other people who read this later on (I'm not trying to contradict your experience or decisions) > Kirkland Signature Super Extra-Large Peanuts, 2.5 lbs, are labeled "gluten free" in the Calif Costcos I've been in. If they are selling non-gluten-free in your store, I suggest talking to customer service to...
    3. trents
      - trents replied to Larzipan's topic in Related Issues & Disorders
      42

      Has anyone had terrible TMJ/ Jaw Pain from undiagnosed Celiac?

      Thanks for the thoughtful reply and links, Wheatwacked. Definitely some food for thought. However, I would point out that your linked articles refer to gliadin in human breast milk, not cow's milk. And although it might seem reasonable to conclude it would work the same way in cows, that is not necessarily the case. Studies seem to indicate otherwise. Studies...
    4. Scott Adams
      - Scott Adams replied to Larzipan's topic in Related Issues & Disorders
      42

      Has anyone had terrible TMJ/ Jaw Pain from undiagnosed Celiac?

      I'd be very cautious about accepting these claims without robust evidence. The hypothesis requires a chain of biologically unlikely events: Gluten/gliadin survives the cow's rumen and entire digestive system intact. It is then absorbed whole into the cow's bloodstream. It bypasses the cow's immune system and liver. It is then secreted...
    5. Wheatwacked
      - Wheatwacked commented on Scott Adams's article in Latest Research
      6

      Study Estimates the Costs of Delayed Celiac Disease Diagnosis (+Video)

      Have you had your 25(OH)D vitamin D blood level checked? Vitamin D deficiency occurs in 40 - 60% of western societies. It is even more common in Celiac Disease because of malabsorption syndrome. Appropriate intake of vitamin D or skin production from sun, increases the absorbtion rate of Calcium.and phosphorus, two minerals crucial to...
  • Celiac.com Sponsor (A19):


  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      132,387
    • Most Online (within 30 mins)
      7,748
    LizzieE
    Newest Member
    LizzieE
    Joined
  • Celiac.com Sponsor (A20):

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      121.5k
    • Total Posts
      1m
  • Celiac.com Sponsor (A22):



  • Celiac.com Sponsor (A21):


  • Upcoming Events

  • Posts

    • Mmoc
      Blood tests low iGA 4 years later digestive issues

      By Mmoc · Posted

      Thank you kindly for your response. I have since gotten the other type of bloods done and am awaiting results. 
    • Aretaeus Cappadocia
      Gluten free nuts

      By Aretaeus Cappadocia · Posted

      I wanted to respond to your post as much for other people who read this later on (I'm not trying to contradict your experience or decisions) > Kirkland Signature Super Extra-Large Peanuts, 2.5 lbs, are labeled "gluten free" in the Calif Costcos I've been in. If they are selling non-gluten-free in your store, I suggest talking to customer service to see if they can get you the gluten-free version (they are tasty) > This past week I bought "Sliced Raw Almonds, Baking Nuts, 5 lbs Item 1495072 Best if used by Jun-10-26 W-261-6-L1A 12:47" at Costco. The package has the standard warning that it was made on machinery that <may> have processed wheat. Based on that alone, I would not eat these. However, I contacted customer service and asked them "are Costco's Sliced Almonds gluten free?" Within a day I got this response:  "This is [xyz] with the Costco Member Service Resolutions Team. I am happy to let you know we got a reply back from our Kirkland Signature team. Here is their response:  This item does not have a risk of cross contamination with gluten, barley or rye." Based on this, I will eat them. Based on experience, I believe they will be fine. Sometimes, for other products, the answer has been "they really do have cross-contamination risk" (eg, Kirkland Signature Dry Roasted Macadamia Nuts, Salted, 1.5 lbs Item 1195303). When they give me that answer I return them for cash. You might reasonably ask, "Why would Costco use that label if they actually are safe?" I can't speak for Costco but I've worked in Corporate America and I've seen this kind of thing first hand and up close. (1) This kind of regulatory label represents risk/cost to the company. What if they are mistaken? In one direction, the cost is loss of maybe 1% of sales (if celiacs don't buy when they would have). In the other direction, the risk is reputational damage and open-ended litigation (bad reviews and celiacs suing them). Expect them to play it safe. (2) There is a team tasked with getting each product out to market quickly and cheaply, and there is also a committee tasked with reviewing the packaging before it is released. If the team chooses the simplest, safest, pre-approved label, this becomes a quick check box. On the other hand, if they choose something else, it has to be carefully scrutinized through a long process. It's more efficient for the team to say there <could> be risk. (3) There is probably some plug and play in production. Some lots of the very same product could be made in a safe facility while others are made in an unsafe facility. Uniform packaging (saying there is risk) for all packages regardless of gluten risk is easier, cheaper, and safer (for Costco). Everything I wrote here is about my Costco experience, but the principles will be true at other vendors, particularly if they have extensive quality control infrastructure. The first hurdle of gluten-free diet is to remove/replace all the labeled gluten ingredients. The second, more difficult hurdle is to remove/replace all the hidden gluten. Each of us have to assess gray zones and make judgement calls knowing there is a penalty for being wrong. One penalty would be getting glutened but the other penalty could be eating an unnecessarily boring or malnourishing diet.
    • trents
      Has anyone had terrible TMJ/ Jaw Pain from undiagnosed Celiac?

      By trents · Posted

      Thanks for the thoughtful reply and links, Wheatwacked. Definitely some food for thought. However, I would point out that your linked articles refer to gliadin in human breast milk, not cow's milk. And although it might seem reasonable to conclude it would work the same way in cows, that is not necessarily the case. Studies seem to indicate otherwise. Studies also indicate the amount of gliadin in human breast milk is miniscule and unlikely to cause reactions:  https://www.glutenfreewatchdog.org/news/gluten-peptides-in-human-breast-milk-implications-for-cows-milk/ I would also point out that Dr. Peter Osborne's doctorate is in chiropractic medicine, though he also has studied and, I believe, holds some sort of certifications in nutritional science. To put it plainly, he is considered by many qualified medical and nutritional professionals to be on the fringe of quackery. But he has a dedicated and rabid following, nonetheless.
    • Scott Adams
      Has anyone had terrible TMJ/ Jaw Pain from undiagnosed Celiac?

      By Scott Adams · Posted

      I'd be very cautious about accepting these claims without robust evidence. The hypothesis requires a chain of biologically unlikely events: Gluten/gliadin survives the cow's rumen and entire digestive system intact. It is then absorbed whole into the cow's bloodstream. It bypasses the cow's immune system and liver. It is then secreted, still intact and immunogenic, into the milk. The cow's digestive system is designed to break down proteins, not transfer them whole into milk. This is not a recognized pathway in veterinary science. The provided backup shifts from cow's milk to human breastmilk, which is a classic bait-and-switch. While the transfer of food proteins in human breastmilk is a valid area of study, it doesn't validate the initial claim about commercial dairy. The use of a Dr. Osborne video is a major red flag. His entire platform is based on the idea that all grains are toxic, a view that far exceeds the established science on Celiac Disease and non-celiac gluten sensitivity. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and a YouTube video from a known ideological source is not that evidence."  
    • Wheatwacked
      Has anyone had terrible TMJ/ Jaw Pain from undiagnosed Celiac?

      By Wheatwacked · Posted

      Some backup to my statement about gluten and milk. Some background.  When my son was born in 1976 he was colicky from the beginning.  When he transitioned to formula it got really bad.  That's when we found the only pediactric gastroenterologist (in a population of 6 million that dealt with Celiac Disease (and he only had 14 patients with celiac disease), who dianosed by biopsy and started him on Nutramegen.  Recovery was quick. The portion of gluten that passes through to breastmilk is called gliadin. It is the component of gluten that causes celiac disease or gluten intolerance. What are the Effects of Gluten in Breastmilk? Gliaden, a component of gluten which is typically responsible for the intestinal reaction of gluten, DOES pass through breast milk.  This is because gliaden (as one of many food proteins) passes through the lining of your small intestine into your blood. Can gluten transmit through breast milk?  
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

NOTICE: This site places This site places cookies on your device (Cookie settings). on your device. Continued use is acceptance of our Terms of Use, and Privacy Policy.