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

In response to Marion's post:

>If anyone else had trouble searching for the article that Megan sent, try

going to www.seattletimes.com, then search archives for August 2, 2001.
I found the article very interesting - but I'm not sure why it wouldn't
help us.  I am aware that they surely couldn't perform a biopsy with this
procedure, but why couldn't they tell if the villi look healthy or dead
as a doornail.  Maybe it wouldn't help in borderline cases, but  full
blown Celiac villi I would think would pictured.  No, I have no medical
knowledge other than from these great Celiac groups.  Just wondering why
we couldn't benefit from the 3D pictures.  Could lymphomas of the small
intestine be viewed with this camera?  I have been wondering about this
since I first heard of the 3D camera.  Plan to discuss this with my
doctor in September.  Anyone have further ammunition to prepare me for
this discussion?

************************************************************

I didn't mean to say the camera would be of no help to celiacs, just that it
would not provide the same information as a biopsy. I made the "not
necessarily beneficial" comment because another member wrote me regarding
the disadvantage of these cameras. To paraphrase, (correctly, I hope),
internal photos can indicate a negative diagnosis in a celiac because they
dont provide the microscopic view that a biopsy allows. Basically, they
shouldn't be relied on as absolutely conclusive.

Not necassarily beneficial does not mean NOT beneficial. Just means there's
room for error. Perhaps I should have said it may not be of help in certain
situations, to certain individuals.

Thanks for providing search information.

Megan