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

Rebecca Filardo wrote:

>What is the value of the biopsy.  If the diet works, what further important
> information could the biopsy reveal?  If there any _danger_in_not_
> having the biopsy?

I had this exact argument with my son's gastroenterologist.  His reply was,
roughly, this:

MD> Maintaining a strict gluten free diet is extremely difficult.  It
MD> requires hours of study and special effort, constantly calling food
MD> manufacturers.  Gluten can sneak into the diet in so many ways.  Even
MD> if you are on a strict GF diet, it can take several months for the
MD> intestines to heal and health changes to appear.  The risk of not having
MD> a biopsy is that you will try a GF diet and not find health or behavior
MD> improvements, then give up on the GF diet when actually ...either (1)
MD> you **think **you are GF but you are not ** really ** GF, and/or (2) you
MD> did not stay GF long enough.  If you have a positive biopsy then you
MD> will know for sure that gluten is the problem and you will be motivated
MD> to remain strictly GF for life.

Our son already had an extremely limited diet, and wheat pasta was his
favorite food.  We knew it would be hell trying to get him to change his
whole diet.  So we opted for the biopsy first in order to be 100% sure that
it was really necessary to go through the effort.

I can appreciate how others might have a different view based on their own
situations.  I hope the blood tests can be refined so that a biopsy is no
longer required.

Bill