<<Disclaimer:  Verify this information before applying it to your situation.>>

On April 22nd, John Tisdale posted a note detailing his symptoms and how he
had, on his own, removed wheat from his diet at age 23, and then removed oats
from his diet six years later.  An e-mail note from someone else suggested he
was an undiagnosed celiac.  His posting concluded with this paragraph:

> I know that a formal diagnosis was needed for medication for my ADD.  I
> have read of links between ADD and Celiac.  It probably shows my
> ignorance of the disease, but what are the benefits of receiving an
> official Celiac diagnosis when I already know that gluten is my
> problem?

The main benefit of an "official" diagnosis is that it ensures you have found
the real cause of your problems/symptoms.  There are other medical conditions
that can cause celiac-like symptoms.  It could be coincidental that your
symptoms improved when wheat/oats were removed from your diet.  Or it could be
that you actually have some food allergies, in which case there may be other
foods that you are allergic to and would benefit from removing from your diet.
Food allergies are not the same thing as celiac disease.

Another benefit from an "official" diagnosis is that you can get a doctor's
signed statement that you have the disease.  This is needed if you intend to
claim the extra cost of the celiac diet as a medical deduction on your federal
income taxes.

I'm a firm believer in getting a proper diagnosis first, and then beginning
the appropriate treatment for the diagnosed condition.  Please note that this
is the opinion of a lay person; I am not a medical professional of any sort.

                   --- Jim Lyles ([log in to unmask]) ---