![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
So I went to Elisa's, came home, felt sick the whole time. Mom and I decided it was time to get to the bottom of this rash thing. So we went to the hospital.
Three and a half hours later (or so, I lost track of time), we still have no idea. You see, the doctor said "It looks like strep rash" (you know, scarlett fever). We tried explaining the Lamitcal side effect rash. Well, he took a throat culture - one for a rapid strep test and one for the regular strep test. They also took some blood.
Now, it should be noted at this point that if my mother knows that a Lamictal allergic reaction doesn't show up on a blood workup, a doctor should know a Lamictal allergic reaction doesn't show up on a blood workup.
So a little while later, the doctor comes back and says "You have strep. I give you antibiotic." And goes away again. Then he comes back a while later. "Blood test normal. You have strep."
A bit later, the nurse comes in and tells us the truth: the rapid strep test actually came back negative. I have to call tomorrow to get the normal results, but I can pretty much tell you right here and now that it will also be negative.
Yes, strep can cause scarlett fever, which causes a rash. However, my rash is not progressing in the same way a scarlett fever rash does. (Also, the rash has spread to my face so now I look like one of those freaks from the circus episode of "The X-Files"). And I've also had strep enough times to know how it feels.
Nobody but the checkin nurse seemed to agree with my 'allergic reaction' theory.
So now we are even more lost than we started.
My theory is: I don't really have the rash.
Three and a half hours later (or so, I lost track of time), we still have no idea. You see, the doctor said "It looks like strep rash" (you know, scarlett fever). We tried explaining the Lamitcal side effect rash. Well, he took a throat culture - one for a rapid strep test and one for the regular strep test. They also took some blood.
Now, it should be noted at this point that if my mother knows that a Lamictal allergic reaction doesn't show up on a blood workup, a doctor should know a Lamictal allergic reaction doesn't show up on a blood workup.
So a little while later, the doctor comes back and says "You have strep. I give you antibiotic." And goes away again. Then he comes back a while later. "Blood test normal. You have strep."
A bit later, the nurse comes in and tells us the truth: the rapid strep test actually came back negative. I have to call tomorrow to get the normal results, but I can pretty much tell you right here and now that it will also be negative.
Yes, strep can cause scarlett fever, which causes a rash. However, my rash is not progressing in the same way a scarlett fever rash does. (Also, the rash has spread to my face so now I look like one of those freaks from the circus episode of "The X-Files"). And I've also had strep enough times to know how it feels.
Nobody but the checkin nurse seemed to agree with my 'allergic reaction' theory.
So now we are even more lost than we started.
My theory is: I don't really have the rash.
