I'm a 22 year old woman in her 5 year of university. Here is my problem:
I was diagnosed at 20 with celiac's disease. I had been sick with diarrhea and cramps, bloating, constant running to the bathroom, no relief with evacuation and sever gas for over 2 years at that point. A GI specialist sent me to get the blood test where i came out half "positive" and half negative. I was then biopsied and told that there is "mild" damage to the villi. I changed all my eating habits..cut out all wheat and was supremely stict with my diet to find out that my symptoms only got worse. I had never benefited from the diet. I went to doctors and asked them why am I not getting better? They all just said maybe you just need to be on it longer. They wouldn't even give me consideration that something else might be wrong with me. At this point..I was home bound becasue my symptoms were so painful and uncontrollable. Two years go buy on the stict diet..and I run back to my doctor begging that he listen to me and that the diet isn't working. He finally concedes that I might have had a misdiagnosis, so he puts me back on wheat for 6 weeks for another biopsy. I had taken the celiac blood test a few months before that and came out really really negative. So negative it was a 1.6 when four and under is negative. So I go back on wheat and enjoy a sandwich for the first time in two year!! It was quite gratifying. I was expecting to be terribly ill. I thought that it would knock me out of commission for quite some time, but the contrary happened. Iwas fine. There was absolutely no chang in my symptoms, the number of times i had to go to the bathroom, the out of controlable bowels. Nothing changes so at this point I"m almost positive that I don't have celiac's disease. I go in for the biopsies which included a sigmoidoscopy and a gastroscapy. He biopsies me in 6 places and finds that I am swollen through out. I'm labeled something like "mild duodenitis and mild colitis." I'm told that swelling can be a sign of celiac's but I don't know. The villi wern't damaged..but my duodenum had "chronic innflamation." I go back to the doctor about the results and he wants to do the blood test on me one more time. I wait 2 weeks for the simple results to find out that the test is now positive. BUT my symptoms have not changed.
My questions are... I've seen documents from doctors saying that the real proof that you have celiac's disease is not in the biopsy and blood test but weather or not you improve on the diet. Since I have not improved even remotely....doesn't that mean I still have it? And can you just go off being inflamed as physical proof that you have the disease when the villi are not laying down..but are stull up?
Can you have A-sumptomatic celiacs disease? Can you have the disease even though the diet doesn't help it? has this happened to anyone else????
Please, let me know. Iwould much appreciate it.
Thank you
