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

I wasn't going to post this to the list, however as you aren't replying on
the Australian lists either and I believe your obvious frustration in
realtion to diagnosis can mis-inform others...

Firstly, I am not in denial, nor am I newly diagnosed, there are two of us
>with coeliac disease in the house, plus I  have another daughter with her
>own household who has also been diagnosed - so I am totally conversant with
>the the coeliac condition and the dietary restrictions which it places on
>those of us who are afflicted.

If, as you state in your next paragraph, you are 'fed up with people saying
you can only be diagnosed by biopsey', how have you and your family been
diagnosed then?


>I posed the question because I for one am fed up with people who are
>pedantic and who state you can only have CD if you have been biopsy
>diagnosed and that there is a difference between them and people who have

I would point to this article which, incidentally, is authorised by the UK
Coeliac Society: http://www.nutrition.org.uk/information/factfiles/wheat.htm

In part, this and other pages, state:

<quote>
Diagnosis of coeliac disease
The gold standard for diagnosis remains a biopsy in which a small piece of
the small intestine is removed and examined. However, a number of blood
screening tests are now available.
<end quote>

(I have only pasted the first part as this is a engthy, but very good,
article which covers diagnosis, family relationships, diet etc.

>had a diagnosis of gluten (which really should be gliaden)  sensitivity.  To
>me, and my attending physicians, it is one and the same thing and it is
>totally confusing for those new to the list and condition.

Your original question posed the theory that because you have healed villi
- which, incidentally, have healed because they have not been affected by
the substance they are reacting to ie gluten - that you have moved from
being a CD sufferer to a gluten insensitive person.

So - if this is the case, why do those diagnosed with CD, if in your
scenario, ingest gluten and react to it by damaging their villi, react
again?  Are you trying to say they no longer have CD?  Isn't this confusing
the issue just as much as you say it is already confusing?

Isn't this just trying to play with words?  It sounds similar to an
alcoholics cry of 'I was an alcoholic, I no longer drink alcohol, therefore
I am no longer an alcoholic'.

I would be extremely surprised if your 'attending physicians' are saying
that once you villi have healed that you are no longer a coeliac but only
gluten intolerent.


Stephen Rowe
http://au.groups.yahoo.com/group/aus-coeliac/
Melbourne, Oz

*Support summarization of posts, reply to the SENDER not the CELIAC List*