Joe Clemens <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>A doctor discovered celiac disease and isolated the cause in the Fourth
>Century and we are no further along with an effective treatment than we
>were then.  In fact, doctors are insisting on biopsies, which are
>invasive and potentially life-threatening and, I ask you, for what?
>Money!

I was not aware of this 4th century discovery, but as the founder of the Celiac
List at St Johns I can agree that no one has found an effective treatment
besides strictly avoiding all gluten.

I have to disagree with your statement about intestinal biopsies, however.
There are several disorders which have symptoms similiar to Celiac and the new
blood screening tests do not have sufficient accuracy to substitute for
biopsies.  I know of quite a few cases of false negatives on the blood tests
(especially for IgA deficient individuals) who would have missed the Celiac
diagnosis were it not for the biopsy.

My personal philosophy is to use minimal invasive tests, drugs, etc.
Nevertheless after studying the literature I was comfortable with the biopsy
for my child.  The most invasive part is for children, when they use heavier
drugs to sedate the child.  Even these have extremely low rates for
complications.

I would invite any of you to check out our discussion group, or our web site.
We have a long reference file on the issue of testing for Celiac, and another
on the difference between allergic and toxic responses to wheat.  The URL is
http://www.fastlane.net/homepages/thodge/archive.htm  ...and also (mirror
sites)....
http://rdz.stjohns.edu/library/medic/celiac/index.html

Bill Elkus
Los Angeles