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

Hello,

Some people seem to have misunderstand my understanding of the abstract that
I read.  Gluten sensitivity is the same thing as Celiac's , except there has
not been damage to the intestine . . . yet.  It means that you are having the
reaction, but not the damage.  This still meens GF, so that you don't enter
into Celiac's.  In the most practical sense, it is the same -- except that
you don't need a biopsy to diagnose it, unless the bloodtests are
inconclusive or negative.

It just makes more sense to me . . . if you're haveing the reaction, you're
having the reaction and gluten should be stopped.  Who cares if there is
damage to the intestines or if there will be . . . the problem is the same.
The only advantage to knowing the intestine is damaged is to know if there is
other treatment required for malabsorption and such.

The problem is that if I had only good positive blood tests, I still need a
biopsy to be officially diagnosed.   It seems to me unecessary.  I do
understand the need for caution . . . too many people diagnose themselves
with too many things.  But if you have the clinical symptoms and the blood
tests are clearly positive (which are 95% sensitive), than I don't see any
question.

lance