>My son just got tested on his arms.  I asked for the prescription for the
>cream that numbs the arm... insurance did not pay, but I felt it was worth it.
>They tested both arms with little pin pricks, and told me after he sat for a
>while what the results were.  As the allergist predicted, he was negative on
>everything.  Yet he cannot have any form of milk, or his head/face/lips swell
>up like a balloon, he gets a full body rash, he switches between hyper,
>aggressive and then lethargic, and more.  So if your child is tested and it is
>negative, don't feel you can go out and have an icecream sunday... be careful,
>and good luck!
>

My son tested negative on a Friday, had a glass of milk on a Sunday, and
had to go to the ER as a result.

Tests on the young and the very young are more for "approximate input" than
for real, solid and reliable answers. You take the information as intput
into a more complex job of detective work. Positive reactions are noted as
strong possible allergens, negative reactions are noted as "not currently
skin-reactive". Later tests will likely be different, and clear,
indisputable observation is the most solid evidence of a reaction.

If the allergist does not believe that the child is indeed reacting to a
particular food, based solely on a negative skin test, suggest that s/he
observe an oral challenge. Better yet, get an allergist who believes what
you have reported.

Mark

------------------
Mark Feblowitz