>Not "truer", but different. In a child whose skin is highly reactive (even
>to foods that s/he is not necessarily allergic to, the RAST tests may give
>you a more reliable result. On the other hand, the RAST tests miss some
>things, too - especially foods.
>
>Our son is anaphylactically allergic to milk. But he tested negative to
>milk in both skin and RAST tests. His allergist blythely said he wasn't
>allergic. We foolishly went ahead with an oral challenge; on a Sunday; when
>the allergist's office was closed; we had a quick trip to the ER on that
>one. They told us we shouldn't have believed the negative results.


Thanks for the reply and warning.  So, does that mean that *positive*
results can also be false?

I'm asking  because my son was positive on his RAST test for almost
everything he was tested for, including foods that I could see no reaction
from.  So we've just been rotating his diet (within the lower scoring
foods) so he doesn't get too much of any one food.

He tested positive to lobster, something he had never eaten.  We wondered
about that.

--Sally

----------------
Sally Strasser
[log in to unmask]