Allergy testing

[cjsmith]

I went in today to be tested for allergies to 1) serotonin and 2) lots of common foods.

I'm apparently allergic to every substance they tested. This includes about 80% of what's legal for me to eat, on this diet that's already so restrictive I can barely have a social life.

The woman who did the testing tried to tell me to eliminate these foods for six weeks, or at least make the portions of them smaller. I told her I was already down nine pounds and I wasn't going to eliminate a damn thing.

She said maybe I could substitute. I pointed to where the substitutions sheet suggested other things I was either allergic to or couldn't have on the current diet. She suggested things I hadn't been tested for. I said looking at the sample set, it's reasonable to infer that I'm allergic to many of those too, and since we don't know which ones, it's kind of pointless.

I told her I felt fine other than the joint pain. She said chronic food allergy can cause inflammation that could explain the joint pain. I said my pain had never responded to anti-inflams of any kind, including some pretty strong ones, so it was reasonable to conclude my pain is not inflammatory in nature.

So I'm ignoring it.

There's nothing else to do really.

I want my $625 back.

I am seriously considering never going to another doctor again. All they've done for me is take my money, make my life miserable with "noninvasive" approaches, and fail to get results. I HAVE HAD IT.

Comments

[ken_r]

Wow, that's bad. (And really, really sucks if they're actually right, as well as stupid.)

Was the woman doing the testing actually a doctor or nurse? Sounds like kind of a dumb suggestion from a supposedly trained professional.

[cjsmith.livejournal.com]

I don't know her title. I know she's not a doctor. I'm supposed to go over my results with my doctor at the next appointment -- if I bother to make one, given how annoyed I'm feeling. :-)

[racerxmachina.livejournal.com]

Um, wait for your doctor before you really conclude that she's right. To use a vet's office as an example, my friend got her few months old kitten xrayed for some breathing difficulties. The radiologist took one look at the picture and said, "enlarged heart. gloom. doom." My friend went WTF, and brought the film to the doctor, and the doctor said, "Duh. Maine Coon kitten. Enlarged heart. Enlarged lungs. Enlarged eyes. Enlarged tail. Enlarged ears." Kitty has teh asthma, kitty on inhaler, otherwise he's a happy and HUGE cat as we speak.
Techs want to help and all, but something sounds not quite right with this diagnosis. Wait for the doctor, I say.

[cjsmith.livejournal.com]

"Duh. Maine Coon kitten. Enlarged heart. Enlarged lungs. Enlarged eyes. Enlarged tail. Enlarged ears."

Ahh hahahahaha!! I love it. :)

And yeah, given how counterintuitive this all is, I'm totally not believing it unless the doc says "here is why it makes sense". Of course, right this instant I'm not feeling too keen on the medical profession, so I'm telling myself happy stories about it being a long time until I ever see a doc. ;-)

[datagoddess.livejournal.com]

I thought a doctor had to be the one to actually check and record the reactions. Maybe there's a different requirement in Indiana.

[cjsmith.livejournal.com]

Oh interesting. I doubt this clinic is doing something illegal, because honestly people get in enough trouble just for treating Lyme, so they'd probably be careful. So yeah, probably different in CA vs IN.