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

Tim & Kay Meadows wrote:

> A doctor at Rileys Childrens Hospital (Indianapolis, IN) told us that
> the blood test was much more reliable now and that a biopsy would
> probably not be needed.
>
> Well, we have the test results back and they indicate he does NOT have
> CD.  Every time we give him gluten products (usually by accident) he
> gets many of the symptoms we have read about here...

I'm not a doctor, so take what I say with a grain of salt.  The blood
tests are not 100% accurate.  It is possible to get false positives and
false negatives.  So I would say celiac disease is still possible.

On the other hand, there are many other conditions which have celiac-like
symptoms.  So it is also possible that it is not celiac disease.

A gluten-free diet may help, or improvement may be coincidental.  I think
I'd push for a definite diagnosis, including a biopsy (assuming the
gluten-free diet has been started recently).  I believe the small
intestine biopsy is still considered the "gold" standard for diagnosing
celiac disease.  If the biopsy comes back negative, and the patient has
not been on a gluten-free diet, then I'd say celiac disease is highly
unlikely.  In that case, you need to continue looking for the cause of
the symptoms.  Once you find the real cause of the symptoms, you can
begin proper treatment.  A gluten-free diet may be part of that treatment
or may be totally irrelevant.

Without a definite diagnosis, you can't be certain as to what the proper
treatment is.

Again, this is the opinion of a layman.

--- Jim Lyles ---