We decided to try and get a jump on allergies this time and get tested before they kicked in full force this year. Unfortunately by the time we found a doctor and made appointments L.'s allergies had hit full force. Getting your arm stuck with 80 odd needles all attached to each other is always fun. So is getting to sit there for 20 minutes without scratching. By the end of the twenty minutes both my ams had red dots up and down them. It turns out I have allergies for most trees, all grass, and some animals. (I guess I am well rounded allergy wise.) I have no allergies for any molds or dust though. I guess they say that you develop allergies for what you are not exposed to as a child. Living in California in the house that I did I guess the kind of upbringing is obvious.
L.'s allergy test was much less definitive. She was allergic to something but the only thing that reddened her arm was dust mites. It did not make sense since she suffered seasonally so she went back a few days later for another test. Again, everything came up negative. Admittedly, it seems like a pretty crude test. Stick you with a bunch of things that most people are allergic to and see if your skin reacts. In L.'s case the results just showed she must be allergic to something most people aren't. I understand how they can get a liquid form from the pollen of trees and grass and even molds, but I want to know how they distill essence of gerbil, or tobacco smoke. It seems like if they can create the liquids to find if someone has a problem with what is left over after dust mites then they should be able to break it down further and find the actual chemicals that triggering the attack to test for. Maybe they are and just have the names of the items to help everyday people like me know instead of saying someone is allergic to tripepto-hygylicoride or something. But if that were the case why were they not able to find the problem for L.?