--seems to be a good idea, if there is any possibility of tick-borne disease.

What serological serum marker for gluten came up positive? And, if you are "negative" for celiac, was that negative for serological testing of by dint of small intestinal biopsy (the gold standard for diagnosing celiac)? I ask as there are up to 20% of celiacs negative on serological markers who are found to have intestinal damage consistent with celiac on biopsy, AND too many gastroenterologists, when doing the biopsy, do not take enough samples from enough places to effectively rule celiac out or in (this is quite the topic of discussion among the gastroenterological newsletters/journals).