CONFUSED

My understanding is that the blood test can sometimes be unreliable but that the biopsy is almost 100% reliable. A positive blood test is ALWAYS followed by a biopsy for confirmation. In my case, I had the biopsy first,  which was positive and they never bothered with the blood test at all, saying it was not necessary. Many people don't even get to have a biopsy, because their blood test is negative and the NHS does not often follow up on a negative result, so in one way, you are ironically lucky to have received a dignosis.  Lots of people go on to suffer because they haven't been given a biopsy.  Just to recap - my understanding is that the biopsy is the definitive way to find out if Coeliac disease is present.

Yes, I know what you mean I was the same. Negative blood test but positive biopsy. It is the biopsy one you have to take notice of as with the blood tests you can get a lot of 'false negative' results. Mine was pursued because I was extremely ill. Incidentally, acid reflux can be the only symptom some people get.

The other thing I forgot to add, was that if Coeliac disease is allowed to progress, it can have quite serious effects on health in the long term. I'd give a gluten-free diet a good go, for at least 6 months, and see if it works for you.  It's just a way of life for me now, and I feel so much better, that, honestly, it's not hard to follow. The flip side -  not going gluten free, is just not worth it.