<<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 --------