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

There seems to be so many questions on this list concerning tests for
celiac that I thought I'd offer what "Consumer Reports On Health" has to
say about it. For what it's worth to you: In an article this month called
"False Alarms About Food," (Feb 99, pp. 6-8, the author says this:

"(Specialized antibogy tests can indicate the liklihood of celiac disease,
but only an intestinal biopsy can diagnose it definitively.)

        "Skin tests should be done only to evaluate specific foods that you
already suspect are causing some kind of allergic reaction [as opposed to
an intolerance]. A positive result should be confirmed by a controlled oral
"challenge" with the suspect food -- provided the possible reaction won't
be life threatening -- under a doctor's supervision.

        "The radioallergosorbent test (RAST), a blood test for allergy, is
slightly less sensitive than the standard skin tests. Two other blood
tests, the food-immune-complex and IgG tests , assess aspects of the immune
response to food, which lends them an aura of scientific plausibility. But
just about everyone generates those response[sic] to foods, whether or not
they're actually allergic -- so just about everyone is likely to receive a
postive diagnosis from those tests."

The article also goes on to talk about skin testing and symptom-provocation
testing (sometimes called sublingual or subcutaneous provocation testing),
which they say are dangerous. Then they finish with this:

"Avoid the food-immune-complex and IgG blood tests as well as
symptom-provocation testing. Avoid dubious treatments, too, including
food-allergy shots -- which are not only unproven but also dangerous -- and
neutralization therapy." -vance