Nuts to allergy tests..

[Penalt]

Interesting article:

http://www.cbc.ca/story/science/nati...nge050107.html

The salient point is this: "...skin and blood tests to diagnose food allergies are inaccurate up to half of the time..."

Never would have guessed

[Meiri]

Just because a child outgrows a food allergy does not mean that that child was never allergic to it, which seems to me on a quick reading to be what that article is implying.

I used to react, get a rash right There, to the snaps on my jeans. In the last couple of years when I've gotten new(to me) jeans and have not covered the button back as I used to, I have not reacted. Does this mean my previous quite definite reactions were a figment of my imagination? Or does it mean something in my body has changed and I no longer have that particular allergy?

Time was I could wear latex gloves while doing my EMS volunteering. To do so now could concievably kill me. Does this mean I can't be allergic now?

Our chemistry changes over time. That doesn't make the tests inaccurate. It just means that one test is not good for a lifetime, and that as things change one adjusts.

[LaLa]

I had previously read that article.

It is hard that allergey testing is not conclusive by any means, but for desperate families trying to get a grasp on sick children and recover health, it can be such a blessing to get any guidance!

Of course it can be misleading when you get false negatives or even false positives...which can cause set backs.

UGH!
It can really be frustrating!

[Pilgrim]

Didn't read the article yet, but wanted to mention that we did two separate RAST tests, with some repeating indivitual items. We had false positives and negatives on both tests, rendering them useless to us!