gfb1

[snip]

A weak positive on the tTG test is still positive. If you had a weak positive on a pregnancy test, would you doubt whether you were pregnant or not? You either are or aren't, same with celiac.

right on.

positive is positive and negative is negative. there are no inbetweens.

it is not unusual to be overwhelmed by the voluminous, and sometimes confliciting, information available (not to mention all the scams, hoaxes and greedy sob's out there). mostly, no matter how smart you are, evaluating all the information is a matter of 'context'. and most folks do not have the experience and/or training to evaluate/synthesize all the information.

it is one of the huge values of this board -- lots of folks with years of experience dealing with what are,, sometimes, very individualized problems.

it is certainly a daunting task when starting, but does, as noted before, get easier.

hang in.

Hello Tiff,

Here's something I found a few weeks ago at acu-cell.com

[snip]

again, sorry to be the harbinger of skepticism...

but,

acu-cell is a scam. while there are certainly examples of asymmetry in the body (and related physiology/biochemistry) -- their discussion of 'handedness' of receptors (as with their so-called 'cellular analysis') is hooey...

Here is the exact info from the report

Duodenal biopsy

Benign Duodenal Mucosa with MODERATE villous blunting and increased chronic inflammation of the Lamina propria.

Comment:

The villous architecture is moderately blunted and the lamina propria expanded by an increased compliment of mononuclear cells, to include plasma cells. Acute cryptitis or neutrophils are not noted. Eosiophils are not a significant component of the infiltrate. While few, scattered intraepithelial lymphocytes are present, they are not substantially increaseed. This finding is nonspecific, could be obsrved in treated malabsorption syndromes. Clinical correlation will be required.

*** I was on a gluten free diet three weeks prior to the biopsy and continue a gluten free diet.

i'm sure you'll get other replies; but, since i'm here...

since you are on a gluten-free diet, it will be very difficult to get 'clinical correlation'. that means blood tests to determine the cause of the 'villous blunting'. lots of threads around here that talk about eating gluten until AFTER all testing. otherwise all tests (blood/biopsy/etc) are suspect for celiac diagnosis.

as another thread somewhere over the last week or so has discussed, there are other disease states (besides celiac disease) that can cause villous blunting -- note the text in your report regarding 'malabsorption syndromes'.

in the absence of any other information (e.g., what other diseases can be ruled out or what other blood tests you have had) it is impossible to diagnose any disease from a single biopsy/blood test.

How in the world did my initial lab work come back negative????

[snip]

I CLEARLY HAVE celiac (as per the biopsy and follow up lab work and I HAVE DH (on head, arms and back).... ) How could I get a false negative when my numbers above are soooo high?!?

as others have said, your case is (sadly) not unusual.

being a diedinthewoolwordparsingacademic, imho, i do disagree that you had a 'false negative'.

blood tests just measure stuff in the blood, and there is a lower limit of detection.

your body, health and wellbeing are much more sensitive to changes in 'state' than any blood test. however, it is exceedingly difficult to trust yourself to know you are, indeed, sick; when you get a printout saying that you are 'negative' or 'normal' (whatever that is...).

in fact, most people feel lousy BEFORE blood tests actually become 'positive'. this is why you feel sick, THEN go to the doctor -- not blood test yourself every month to see if you are BECOMING sick....

Hi

This may seem like a silly question, but can someone with celiac disease absorb iron in tablet form?

The reason I am asking is that I have loads of symptoms which would point to celiac, but I remember that a few years ago when my iron was at its lowest point, I was able to get my iron level back up again with a couple of month supply of iron tablets. Is it possible for this to happen with a person who has celiac?

I am getting my biopsy done on Friday to test for celiac.

Thanks

my wife has had to have parenteral iron (i.e., iron infusions) for the last 6.5 yrs to keep fe, ferritin, & hb levels up to normal. for some unknown reason, although she has been diagnosed as being celiac for ~10 yrs and her gi tract is apparently 'healed' - she has been unable to absorb iron normally.

this may have had something to do with her having manganese poisoning due to intake of herbal supplements and vitamins around the same time (a very long story, i'm afraid), but has lasted well beyond the resolution of that issue. we have gotten the timing of her infusions to approx once every 6-8 wks.

curiously, after moving out of state, it has been 9 wks since her last iron infusion, her blood levels are well within normal ranges, and our 'new' doc is suggesting waiting a few more weeks, then do a blood test to determine if the malabsorption issues have resolved themselves.

i do NOT recommend this for everyone/anyone, as regular infusions carry significant risk (even in the doctors office). but we exhausted all other possibilities and infusions remained as 'the answer' (for her). as to whether this is celiac related, nutritional issue -- or something completely different -- i haven't a clue.

A visit to a nutritionist might not be a bad idea. Many of them are not great at knowing a lot about the celiac diet but for info on a balanced diet they can be good. [snip]

just an aside,

go to a REAL nutritionist. as in, a registered dietician (american dietetic association) or some other professional.

there are a lot of scams out there (because there is little certification of who can call them a nutritionist...)

if you see degrees/certificates/etc from these organizations -- run away.

# American Health Sciences University, CO

# National Institute for Nutritional Education, CO

#The Upledger Institute, FL

# The National Association of Nutritional Professionals

# American Association of Nutritional Consultants

I should begin by saying that I do believe it is beneficial to have the results of genetic testing. However, it is not true that one cannot develop celiac disease without having at least one of the known (in the US) genetic markers. European doctors recognize a few additional markers and from what I've read, Asian celiacs have different markers as well.

My granddaughter Carly has celiac disease, diagnosed via biopsy. She has NONE of the known markers.

i am not, as some have surmised, opposed to genetic testing. both as a human being AND as a geneticist, i think genetic testing will be extremely important.

however, i AM opposed to HLA testing for the purposes of diagnosing diseases.

HLA haplotypes are directly relevant to a variety of medical issues (tissue typing, being one). but, are of no more value than knowing your blood type, hair color or any of a myriad of other genetic markers. further, they draw attention (and, more importantly, money) away from the task of identifying the gene or sets of genes that directly influence diseases.

You may also consider genetic testing because that can be done whether you're eating gluten or not, and would also indicate your being at risk (or not) for celiac disease. Here is a link to the article "Ten Facts About Celiac Disease Genetic Testing"

MY COMMENTS IN CAPS:

Here are ten facts you should know and remember about Celiac genetic testing.

1.Genetic testing can help determine your risk as well as your children's risk.

NONSENSE. AT THIS POINT THE ONLY GENETIC TESTING THAT CAN BE DONE TAKES INTO ACCOUNT HLA HAPLOTYPES. YOU HAVE MORE GENETIC INFORMATION ABOUT RISK, IF YOU HAVE A PRIMARY RELATIVE WHO HAS BEEN DIAGNOSED WITH CELIAC DISEASE.

2.Celiac genetic tests can be done on blood or a mouth swab sample but your doctor may be unaware of the tests, not know how to order them, or know how to interpret the results.

TRUE. ALTHOUGH, AT THIS POINT, I WOULD ARGUE YOU NEED TO GO TO A TRAINED GENETICIST OR GENETIC COUNSELOR TO GET A DECENT INTERPRETATION. THERE'S A LOT OF MISINFORMATION OUT THERE.

3.Genetic testing is not affected by diet. You can be eating gluten or on a gluten free diet. Blood tests for celiac disease antibodies, however, need to be done while eating gluten. They can become negative within a few weeks of restricting gluten so if you are going to get the diagnostic antibody blood tests don't begin a gluten free or restricted diet before being tested.

TRUE, BUT IRRELEVANT. IF THERE WAS A 'GENE' FOR CELIAC DISEASE, THIS WOULD BE MEANINGFUL. SINCE THERE IS NOT, THE ONLY WAY TO OBTAIN AN ACCURATE DIAGNOSIS IS TO CONTINUE EATING GLUTEN AND HAVE THE CELIAC BLOOD PANEL PERFORMED.

4.Some insurance companies do not pay for the Celiac genetic test and almost all who do require pre-authorization first. The following diagnostic codes are helpful when requesting insurance coverage: 579.0 (Celiac disease); V18.59 (family history of GI disease); and/or V84.89 (genetic susceptibility to disease).

TRUE. AND THERE IS GOOD REASON FOR THIS. THERE IS NO DIAGNOSTIC GENETIC TEST FOR CELIAC DISEASE THAT IS MORE ACCURATE THAN THE STANDARD CELIAC BLOOD PANEL.

5.Some laboratories do not perform the all of the necessary components of the test to completely exclude the possible genetic risk of Celiac disease and most don't test for or report the other gluten sensitive DQ patterns. Before you accept that have a negative test you need to know if your test included both the alpha and beta subunits of HLA DQ or did they just perform the beta typing.

KIND OF TRUE, BUT SINCE THE 'NECESSARY COMPONENTS' ARE NOT DEFINITIVE, THERE IS CONSIDERABLE DEBATE ABOUT THEIR RELEVANCE.

6.In some rare individuals, especially some men, a negative genetic test may not exclude the possibility of celiac disease anymore than a negative blood test. Men more commonly have negative genetic tests and blood tests, especially older men with long-standing severe disease.

WHO KNOWS WHAT THIS MEANS? I SUPPOSE IT MAY CONTAIN FACTUAL INFORMATION, BUT SINCE THE HLA-HAPLOTYPES ARE OF QUESTIONABLE VALUE

sometimes humor can help make a point....

My 12 year old daughter is being monitored for celiac disease. She had blood work and an endoscopy in June 2008; both were negative. She had blood work done again in January but we weren't able to compare the numbers because the lab was using new reference ranges. She just had blood work done again and these were the results:

IGA antigliadin - 44.9 (was 35.9); reference range - <45 neg.; 45-55 equivocal; >55 positive

IGG antigliadin - 314 (was 194); same reference range as above

TTG - 5.40 (was 4.12); reference range - <15 negative; >15 positive

Her numbers obviously are going up. She deals with other issues also (diabetes, epilepsy, autism) and to go gluten-free will be extremely difficult for her, including major stress for me in dealing with emotional meltdowns. I know what symptoms to be on the lookout for and we are monitoring every 6 months. Am I being stupid in waiting to go gluten-free? Or are we monitoring closely enough that we should be able to avoid major problems? I feel a bit guilty in waiting, but I know just how difficult this transition will be and dread it.

Thanks.

another day of only one post... very busy (which means business is good!!)

do not feel stupid or guilty. here's my (nonMD, though experienced in clinical labs) view of your post.

#1 assuming that your reference ranges are correct; your IgG antigliadin is POSITIVE and was on the previous test as well. this should NOT HAPPEN. gliadin (a digestive product of gluten) should NOT be in anyone's blood stream. it gets there by eating gluten, having incomplete digestion of the gluten (non-celiacs break gliadin down into shorter or single amino acids), then having it cross the intestinal mucosa and into the blood.

TTG is probably negative, as there hasn't been sufficient damage to the intestinal mucosa to release the TTG and then for your daughters body to react to it (by creating antibodies)

#2 be careful about reading nuance into test values 'increasing' or 'decreasing'. while you are provided a 'number', that 'number' is not a TRUE value (even if it were, it would be a value at a given moment in time -- and blood levels fluctuate for lots of reasons). hence, you are provided a 'range' that it either high, normal or low. there is no way to interpret 'increasing' or 'decreasing'.

suffice it to say, i would be very concerned about 2 positive IgG gliadin tests. enough to seriously consider going on a gluten free diet (unless, of course, if you and your doctor want to find positive TTG or EMA blood tests and then do an endoscopy -- all of which presuppose a certain level of intestinal damage and require consumption of gluten)

another short day for posts... however, this one might actually be important...

23andMe -- one of the new 'personal' genomics companies -- is beginning to build a large-scale database of major human diseases for research. they are trying to incorporate a 'social network'-flavor to identifying important genetic diseases (obviously, one's where they can make $$$) and are (in their words) 'democratizing' that process.

given the vast number of celiacs out there; this might be an opportunity to steer a bit of research our way.

i've already written a brief email to their board noting the expected frequencies of celiac disease in the US (and the potential profits ....), the differing expectations based on race and geography and, most importantly, the inadequacy of the current MHC-haplotype testing. based on large scale interest and the probability of a small number of genes with large effect that are involved in the disease -- i also suggested that they should be able to reduce the current cost ($99) of participation dramatically.

as they say in chicago, "vote early. vote often."

Open Original Shared Link

at bare minimum for $99 you can find out your HLA-DQ2.5 type.

Traditionally, HLA-DQ proteins have been detected using blood tests that look at proteins, not genes . (emphasis mine, gfb) These tests can pick up all subtypes of HLA-DQ proteins associated with Celiac Disease. 23andMe is not able to provide data about all subtypes of HLA-DQ2 and HLA-DQ8. We only report data on one subtype of HLA-DQ2. Of all the risky HLA-DQ subtypes, this subtype, called HLA-DQ2.5, is most often associated with Celiac Disease.

further, they have been able to identify 3 fairly large 'blocks' of chromosomes that may contain the non-HLA genes that influence celiac. with more patient participation, they may be able to 'narrow' those blocks to identify the actual genes involved...

Hi everyone,

I am pretty certain that I am going to order the Enterolab genetic celiac panel for my dd. But, I'd love feedback on whether you think it would be a waste of time or not.

Here's her story:

[snip]

So, even though dd's had 5 negative celiac biopsies, I've stilled wondered about celiac. Do you think that there's any chance that she could have it after the GI work ups that she's had. I don't mind doing the cheek swab - it's fast & easy.

Would love any feedback.

Thanks!

whew. you (all) have been through a lot.

not sure what your expectation of the 'genetic' test is?? also, are you paying for it out of pocket??

the genetic panel cannot diagnose celiac; and, as noted in the previous post, sometimes folks that lack the 'risky' MHC genes -- actually have celiac (or, at least, some form of gluten intolerance).

btw -- all of your symptoms in the post are NOT primary symptoms of celiac disease. they certainly could be secondary symptoms -- but, in the absence of primary symptomology and all the previous negative testing for celiac, i'd be a bit skeptical.

otoh -- going gluten free doesn't require additional tests or hospitalization and is cheap and easy.

I suspect that eating gluten when your body is producing an immune response to it, just makes your body more susceptible to an invader like Candida. I am just reading a book about Candida right now and am contemplating doing the Candida diet for a couple months as I am sure I have that too. Fascinating stuff.

a bit busy this week; not much time to post...

but, always enough time to get a link out there, especially for scams/quacks/pseudoscience.

Open Original Shared Link

The American Academy of Allergists and other reputable medical organizations have pointed out, candida can cause an occasional infection or allergy. But no one has shown it causes depression, mood swings or headaches. Further, no one has shown that any diet (inc. yeast- and sugar-free diets) relieve these symptoms.

save your money.

Yeah, that's why I'm doing the gene test for myself. I feel like it's just another part of the puzzle. I refuse to go back on gluten (I've been gluten free now for a year) so I can have an endoscopy. I wish the gene tests weren't so hard to read. Good luck on Monday!

imho, 'puzzle' is the correct word.

buried on p2 of the u.chicago celiac disease center publication:

In fact, up to one third of the U.S. population has the genes for celiac disease, but it is thought that only 1-4% of them will actually develop the disease at some point in their lifetimes.

it certainly puzzles me.

My doctor ordered the test for me, but he does not know for how long I need to go back on to a gluten diet. I have been off for just over a week. Does anyone know how long I need to eat gluten before I go in to get tested?

it depends on the test and your personal biology.

your topic post says something about "anti tissue transglutaminase tests" -- is this the ONLY test or is it the entire celiac panel??

it is entirely possible, based on your diet (i.e., how much gluten you usually consume prior to being gluten-free), how long you've been having celiac-like symptoms, and the degree of intestinal damage -- for some blood tests that might have been positive, to be negative.

This week I learned that it also pays to know which tests can be a little abnormal and still "no big deal" and which ones are a big deal when they go out of range. For example... if your liver enzymes are elevated a few points, no big deal. Once creatinine and BUN go out of range it means your kidneys are functioning at less than 40% capacity... stage 3 kidney disease (stage 5 means you need dialysis or a transplant). The reason the ranges are so wide is because mild kidney disease is pretty common in this country, thanks to the the high rates of diabetes, high blood pressure, and autoimmune disorders. Just being one or two standard deviations away from the norm doesn't always mean you're safe! Not everything fits into a neat little statistical bell curve where 90% of people are "normal" and the other 10% are not.

yes indeed. the biology is certainly the fun part!

based on my (very loose) plan for these little posts, i hope to discuss your last 2 statements in post #3. clinical labs and diagnosis have a very cozy, yet (imho) uncomfortable relationship. on the one hand, doctors make diagnoses based on the normal curve. yet for the individual being tested they are either sick or not. and, as we've all learned on the 'celiac bus', being sick and misdiagnosed stinks.

i certainly hope your 'learning' experience was not too painful and that you are well.

There is a ton of QC done in the lab, and there is not as much variability as one might think. Proficiency tests are frequently done in which samples of unknown concentrations are sent to the lab and the results the lab gets must be within a certain range of the absolute value of the samples. QC is done with each new reagent lot and also with each instrument run. Certain reagents like UA test strips, antibodies, and enzymes have QC performed at the beginning of each shift. Labs are very careful to complete these practices, as they will have many problems with the joint commission, CAP, etc if they fail to comply and they would be at risk of losing their certification/accreditation. There are also defined criteria for tests (like what constitutes a 4+ white blood cell count on a specimen site slide), so they leave very little up for interpretation. Labs work very hard to ensure that their results are accurate and precise.

absolutely.

way back; when i was helping to develop an analytical/clinical lab for hoffman-laroche (to assay dinosaur blood samples.... ) the linear portion of the standard curve had to have an R^2 value of 0.9999 (as in 99.99%). techniques have gotten better since the abacus, and using modern QC, the PRECISION of the assays might be 10-100 times better than that. the big 'BUT' in the room (ok, another bad joke i'll leave for another time) is that while the chemistry works, it is the biology that provides the variation.

there is no getting around statistical distributions.

[snip]

My teenage children have had a multitude of health concerns that could be celiac related, so with them we are going gluten-free first and if their health improves we'll have genetic testing done to confirm they have the genes.

if your insurance will pay for the genetic testing and it will make you feel better... go ahead and do it.

however, if it will cost you out-of-pocket $$$, save your cash. you really won't get helpful diagnostic information.

the HLA-gene typing is not based on a causal relationship with celiac disease and will not provide additional information or risk components than those you already know (i.e., if you, or a primary relative have celiac disease...).

good luck!!

Everybody gets their blood test results back in a haze of unreadable numbers and words. For all the cost, you'd think that the labs would invest in some decent printers, a legible font and maybe even a decently designed graphic (or two) -- [more on this to follow]. There is no reason that any person who can successfully navigate a newspaper or website should have trouble reading the results of a blood test panel.

To begin: what the hell is 'normal'??

as a good friend always reminds me:

there is no such thing as normal

Hello,

My journey started in May 2008 when my GI doctor gave me a transglutamine blood test as an afterthought to rule out gluten issues (he thought I have plain and simple IBS). He was shocked, as my blood test came out VERY positive. He said it was an unusually high number.

by your description you did not have the entire celiac panel. if that is the case your high TTG is suspicious. if your doc didn't 'believe' the test -- he should have redone the test.

He scheduled an endoscopy and told me to eat normal and get used to the idea that I will probably be on a gluten-free diet for life once I got the endoscopy results. In July 2008 I had the endoscopy and found out that it was inconclusive. He advised me to eat normal and enjoy all foods and get another blood test in a year. This past month, I had another transglutamine blood test, and it was normal (he said the numbers were getting close to the "borderline" range). Needless to say I'm so confused!!! He told me to just keep eating normal food, and not go gluten-free.

imho, not very good advice. endoscopies "can" be inconclusive -- but, i also note that you did not say it was perfectly normal. again, suspicious.

with the diagnostics at hand, one year is entirely too long to eat 'normally' and wait. there is also no such thing as 'borderline' range. it is either positive or negative.

I went to my allergist to get my annual allergy testing, and on top of the usual seasonal suspects (ragweed, grass, etc), he found an allergy to oats, barley and rye, and highly allergic to flaxseed. His advice was to get off gluten completely. He also does a full-range of blood tests and everything is normal, but he found an autoimmune reaction of some sort, which he suspects is arthritis.

I really don't know what to do. My GI doctor said not to go off gluten, my allergist does, and my mom worries going off gluten will be "bad" for me.

I'm 27 years old, female, with an aunt who is positively diagnosed as celiac. My GI symptoms have gotten less severe over the last year, but have included, diaherria, constipation, bloating, and big weight fluctuations (up and down). I also have skin rashes of unknown origin, and am usually exhausted. My allergist said my skin pallor is pale and the dark circles under my eyes tell him my body isn't as healthy as it should be.

Anyhow, I have an appointment with my family doctor next week for a nutritionist referral if I decide I want to go gluten-free. Just looking for some opinions from people who have "been there before." The negative AND positive blood test, and inconclusive biopsy is what has really confused me.

Thank you, it is greatly appreciated it.

K

if you are showing allergies to gluten, along with your previous tests, i would take it as a positive diagnosis. go gluten free. if your problems begin to resolve within a few months, then you will know conclusively.

btw -- gluten free is not 'bad for you', in fact, being gluten free can help you to avoid lots of preprepared/process foods that contain gluten and eat a bit more healthily. there are lots of food choices -- and if you miss the occasional BigMac or Whopper or fried 'anything', it won't be a tragedy!!

good luck!

Sorry, meant Preventive Medicine Dr. The results:

Transgluteminase IgA Autoantibodies, result < 4.0 (<4.0 indicates negative)

Reticulin IgA autoantibodies, result <1:10, ref range <1:10

Endomyaial IgA, result <1:10, ref range <1:10

Gliadin IgG, result <10, ref range <10.0

Gliadin IgA, result <5.0, ref range <6.0

since all the ab's indicative of intestinal damage were of the 'IgA' variety and you had been off gluten for several weeks -- i might not expect the gliadin IgA/IgG to be positive. you MIGHT have tested positive for the others .... but, impossible to say.

further, while only a small percentage of the population are IgA low/deficient -- you MIGHT be, therefore your results are not definitive.

from a previous post:

approx 1:700 caucasians in the US are IgA deficient, there is a family history/heritable component... but, its inheritance pattern is unclear.

among celiacs, the literature is highly variable depending on country of origin and sample size; but around 1:70 celiacs present as IgA deficient.

there is also a 3rd subcategory of marginally-deficient IgA patients (low... but, not deficient) for which there is little to no evidence that it is associated with celiac disease; and may have more to do with age-bias in those surveys.

take this pic to your doc, it might help.

Open Original Shared Link

Well, we're all different, but I'd have to guess that a lesser outward reaction could mean a lesser immune response. Thus it might make the test results even more unreliable than they already are, if you were to eat spelt instead of wheat.

not necessarily.

However, if the blood test is like the biopsy in terms of how long you need to be eating gluten, you're looking at at least six weeks of misery. And if you've already been gluten-free for awhile, the reaction may be worse. IMHO, you already know you cannot eat wheat, and if other gluten grains also effect you, then whether or not it is Celiac doesn't seem to make much difference in terms of diet. But, if it helps you to stick with it, then by all means get tested. Just keep in mind that the test results may be negative for Celiac, even if you do have it. Especially since you've apparently been gluten-free. In addition, if you decide to go for the biopsy (which many doctors insist upon before giving a firm diagnosis of Celiac), you would have to intentionally damage your small intestine by ingesting gluten for a sufficient period of time. How long that is seems to vary from person to person, but the two weeks which doctors often suggest has been repeatedly shown to be inadequate. Six weeks is usually suggested here on the board, as a minimum.

it really depends on which test. more than likely gliadin antibodies will be present in your blood as long as you are consuming gluten (whether wheat/rye/barley/spelt). there does, however, need to be sufficient intestinal damage to result in the breakdown of the endomysium (hence, endomysial antibodies) or TTG (tissue transglutaminase).

the intestine repairs itself very quickly; remember that the intestinal tissue (just like your skin) grows quickly and replaces itself by sloughing off older cells. this means that even with a week off of gluten, you will have much less endomysial protein or TTG in your blood to stimulate the production of antibodies. it is also why you need to be consistently consuming gluten if you intend on having an endoscopy.

Thank you... My friend (a pediatrician) thinks I may have additional food allergies, so I'm trying-- bless it, it's hard!!-- an elimination diet to see what ALL I may be allergic too.

Celiac's to the best of my knowledge doesn't prevent continuing service; many conditions which preclude accessions are not disqualifying if you're already in... although I just checked the reg and don't see it listed as preventing accessions. You would think, though, that it would be disqualifying because I've heard several people who went gluten free who had even a little gluten send them into terrible distress. Something about your body not having any more tolerance for the stuff once you are gluten free.

Thanks, Jennifer

good luck; just a few thoughts.

1) you are indeed low in IgA; however being "IgA deficien" has very specific clinical meaning. with only that info, there is not telling if you are clinically deficient... or just low.

2) msg (monosodium glutamate) is NOT gluten and should not present a problem for most celiacs (due to gluten issues)... however some folks are sensitive to msg and can have reactions.

be careful out there.

Ok I did a little searching around and now understand that this apparently isn't a full celiac panel since it only tests for IgA antibodies, for which I'm in the lowish range to begin with.

Is there anything at all that can be concluded -- or is at least strongly suggested -- one way or the other based on these results?

Also, is it possible for dermatitis herpetiformis to manifest without a rash?

I'm desparately searching for the cause of polyneuropathy and widespread rashless itching. So many possibilities, both terrible and benign, have been ruled out already and was really hoping I had an answer with celiac sprue / dermatitis herpetiformis, but it seems that I've struck out yet again. Do you all agree?

Thanks for any input at all.

your tests indicate that you PROBABLY don't have celiac disease. that word 'probably' is the stickler. there are plenty of folks in the forums (and probably one of the big reasons that they are here) that were told they PROBABLY didn't have celiac disease... yet they did.

if you, or your doctor, have reason to believe that you are having reactions of any sort to gluten in your diet; you should be tested for the IgG- EMA/TTG tests. i don't have the links handy ... but, they are poking around the forum... there's a good reference at columbia.u's site and another that i posted elsewhere.

now for my usual digression...

the ranges of values in blood tests are based on a confidence interval. depending on the lab and/or test being conducted, each combination has a precise confidence interval (usually, but not always, 95%), meaning if your test value falls WITHIN that range, there is approx. 95% chance that your value is not significantly different from the average. probably because of how our brains are wired, we all look at a value of serum IgA of 140 and think, its on the low side of the reference range (80-450). statistically, in this example there is no difference among values of 85, 150, 265, or 440 -- with regard to a comparison to the standardized average of the test.

this is part of what makes diagnosis so difficult, and a real art -- not just a science.

So, I took one of these the other night. I thought they were gluten free but when I looked, it said "Barley Grass and Oat Grass". The next morning was rough in the bathroom and my belly hurt all day. It still isn't back to normal. Would this be enough to mess me up or is it from something completely different?

without commenting on the use of probiotics... for which it is really difficult to restrain myself.

yes,

there is gluten in barley grass; probably not oat grass. but, of course, it depends on whether they were classified correctly

imho, nutraceuticals are insufficiently regulated.