Chronic Pancreatitis vs. Damage

[solisspirit]

It's been a little while since I've been on here, and since then I've gained four pounds staying off of gluten and eating more calories. After dealing with even more insurance red tape, I finally have a appointment with my GI to have my tests done to figure out what's going on. However, I'd like to get some advice on something I've been thinking about lately that I thought we covered before but I can't seem to find it in the forums.

How many of your doctors initially thought you had chronic pancreatitis?

How many of you had fat malabsorption before or after diagnosis?

I'm asking mainly because the biggest thing doctors look for in chronic pancreatitis is fat malabsorption, but what if you have it because of damage to your villi instead? How do they check know it's one and not the other? My first GI was under the impression I think that I had chronic pancreatitis because my fat malabsorption rate was high. However, my new GI hasn't said anything about it, and my colonoscopy and endoscopy tests are scheduled next month.
I don't drink, smoke, or do drugs, and the first two are main causes of chronic pancreatitis. I don't even have pain anywhere, which is a another typical sign for it. So, I'm just confused why a doctor wouldn't think damage versus chronic pancreatitis.

I just find this strange since there are so many people with fat malabsorption and don't mention anything about chronic pancreatitis. So, I'm trying to understand why my doctor thought it was more significant for me, rather than just thinking it was celiac damage, or microscopic colitis, or something else.

Thanks again in advance.