Should I See A Gi Doctor?

[Rebecca92]

I was diagnosed last year with celiacs but ignored the diet up until about 3 weeks ago. When they called with the test results (I had a blood test) she didn't say anything about going to a GI doctor, but I see that a lot of you on here have seen one. Should I still go and see one? Would I really need a biopsy even though I already know I have it?

[JoshB]

Pros:

*Make the doctors happy???

*Possibly confirm what you already know.

*Maybe give you a good idea of just how damaged your gut is, though I've never figured out what we're supposed to do with that info.

Cons:

*Expensive. > $2000

*Dangerous. Anesthesia is not safe. That's why they have always have a separate anesthesiologist and he gets payed big bucks. It's not because this is a hard job; he's the guy they are going to sacrifice to your family in the wrongful death lawsuit. It's also possible to puncture your stomach with the scope.

*Low test sensitivity means that the endoscopy is significantly likely to confuse the issue.

------------------------

The blood test is really pretty good, and a clear positive is supposed to be more that 95% specific. What's more, I was reading a recent study --that I can't be bothered to find right now-- where they went back and re-endoscoped the 5% negatives a year later and magically found that 95% of them were now positive. This would indicate to me that either: A -- even the best GI doc taking 6 samples under supervised conditions can miss something 5% of the time, or B -- the blood test flags developing celiacs disease that hasn't yet manifested in Marsh changes.

[ravenwoodglass]

If you had positive blood work you are celiac. You say you started the diet 3 weeks ago. If you do want to get a biopsy you need to go back on gluten immediately for a few weeks before you go. However no matter what the test results you need to do the diet strictly to heal. We are here to help in any way that we can.