<<Disclaimer: Verify this information before applying it to your situation.>> Nora Veldman wrote: > My questions to all of you are: > -do you agree that biopsy would be the best choice for me now? Yes! Since you've been eating a regular, gluten-laden diet, a biopsy should be conclusive. According to Dr. WIlliam O. Dobbins, in a talk given at the 1994 CSA/USA conference, if you detect damaged villi and also find a dramatic increase in the number of epithelial lymphocytes, then that is almost always related to celiac disease and nothing else. (This comes from the Sprue-nik Press, May, 1995, which is available from the CELIAC list. See the Welcome message for details on how to get a copy of it.) > -how nasty exactly is that biopsy? Is it, just like with the dentist > when you don't like to take a sedative, it hurts a little, but it > saves you lots of trouble (feeling sedated all day) afterwards???? I can only speak for myself and my family. I have two celiac children. My daughter had a biopsy at age 4, and my son at age 3. Also, I had the biopsy two years ago. In all three cases, there was absolutely no difficulty at all. There was no discomfort during the procedure, and no ill effects afterwards. I don't recall the three of us even having a sore throat! The only issue that I can think of regarding this procedure is the cost of it. If you can afford it, or if it is covered by insurance; and IF you've been on a regular diet, then a biopsy is the way to go if you want to determine whether or not you have celiac disease. Remember that I am not a medical professional, so you should not take this as medical advice. --- Jim Lyles, [log in to unmask] --- --------- Holly, Michigan, USA --------