By "true allergy," they're talking about a Type I
Immediate Hypersensitivity Reaction. You eat something,
and within 20 minutes you get noticeable symptoms. To
the rest of us, other types of allergy or intolerance
are just as "real," and just as alarming.

Skin tests are approximate, not absolute. Did he talk
about the statistics on skin testing the very young? My
understanding is that it's not 100% predictive. To
declare a very young child to be free of allergy, merely
based on negative skin tests, is somewhat irresponsible.

My son, now 15-1/2, tested negative to milk for ten
years. The first time he was declared free of milk
allergy, we took him home, and on the following Sunday
morning, we gave him a small glass of milk. Fortunately,
traffic is light on Sunday mornings, so we made it to
the emergency room in good time :-S

It was very irresponsible for our pediatric allergist to
declare our son to be free of dairy allergy, based
solely on skin and RAST tests. There was no questioning
the anaphylaxis that our son suffered, nor the trigger.
In retrospect, he should have listened to our
observations, and at least gone through the mostions of
an oral challenge in his presence, just in case the
tests weren't valid.

I've always wondered whether our son's lack of positive
tests was because he had never directly consumed dairy
(only in utero). That was enough te sensitize him, but
perhaps not enough to elicit a positive reaction.

After several false negatives, our son finally tested
positive to dairy allergy. And, during that time, we
developed a different relationship to allergy testing
(and an excellent relationship with a *new* allergist).

We came to regard the tests as "data to be considered."
We learned that the best gauge of true reactivity was
our son. If he repeatedly reacted to something, in spite
of negative tests, we disregarded the test results.

To placate one of his doctors, we did submit our son to
double-blind food challenges, to prove a point. It was
ever-so frustrating when the symptoms came later than
the 20 minute window, and the allergist discounted those
symptoms as not being related. Fortunately, that
allergist left and his replacement regarded the delayed
symptoms as being significant and related.

After tests to rule out other illnesses (e.g., Celiac
disease), we finally got our son symptom-free (he had a
very bad case of food-induced severe eczema) by reducing
his diet to a minimal, symptom-free "clear" diet
(sometimes called a "nothing" diet), under the
supervision of an allergist and a nutritionist, and then
very carefully added back single ingredients. (We had
also cleaned up his environment - no pets, no dust or
mites, filtered pollen, ...).

Save for the occasional slip-ups and contaminations and
the unavoidable non-food triggers, he's had few symptoms
since age 5 (when we did the dietary experimentation).

Do get the screening tests. And if no disease shows up,
find an allergist who will support you in finding a
clear diet (and environment).

G'Luck!

Mark