"One just cannot draw a conclusion from just a limited, mixed
experience, with a possible reaction somewhat removed in time from the
variables.  My thoughts in warning about the conclusion were that we will
wind up ineffective if we start drawing unwarranted conclusions from
failure to apply any scientific method."

Thanks, Arly, of course that's true. And it's a  general caution that
applies to much that's written on Lactnet re breastfeeding problems and
solutions, not just allergies. ("I did x to the baby; the baby got better;
x worked" is not QED.) But while I mentioned immediate difficulties to make
the point crystal clear that some people react hypersensitively to doses
others don't notice, it's not true that symptoms such as "generalized edema
in the extremities without affecting breathing, apparently removed in time
from the event" are not readily discovered to be due to hypersensitivity
reactions. David Hill's work with children makes it clear that while IgE
mediated responses tend to be immediate and easily diagnosed, there are
groups of intermediate and late responders who can reliably develop
symptoms 24, 48, 72 hours or even longer after exposure; and symptoms can
involve multiple systems. Joint pain and swelling is well accepted as a
reaction to foods ingested (except by some behind the times rheumatologists
perhaps). The 1984 Report put out by the Royal College of Physicians and
British Nutrition Foundation stated that it can take up to three weeks to
clear symptoms from one exposure and up to three weeks to develop symptoms
after exposure; a cumulative effect is often obvious. The one thing all
allergists would probably agree on is that you can't predict how allergy
(loosely defined) will affect an individual. I was taking it for granted
that the Lactnetter who posted re dong quai's effect on her (his?)joints
had done as most rational people do, confirmed this reaction by testing the
reponse on more than one occasion. Not that reactions a re always
reproducible, just to make things more complicated: an interaction with
other things may be needed for severe responses, or a depressed immune
state, or an immune state overloaded with responding to e.g., a virus...or
another dietary or inhalant intake. (Thus the peanut sensitive person who
had had only very minor symptoms until taking peanuts with asprin which
enhanced uptake and provoked anaphylaxis.) The interactions of current
antigen load and current tolerance level are multifarious.That's why
mothers are in the best position to diagnose their child's allergies, and
why it can take so long to be certain. My general point remains: I don't
doubt for a moment that a herbal drug powerful enough to be effective for
many people is powerful enough to damage others. In my view of all
medication, herbal or otherwise, we can't have it both ways: either it is
potent and can affect people for both good and ill, or it is not potent and
is a waste of time and money. In my mind "natural" and "synthetic" drugs
are as much under suspicion, and the natural ones need to be more so
because many are marketed without the full trial protocol that turns up
problems with the synthetics. A millenium of use in the traditional Chinese
population is still not sufficient to indicate how the medication affect
Americans on western diet with multiple stressors and allergens to cope
with. Thus our severe reactor to dong quai might do fine on it if s/he
lowered saturated fatty acid intake and took high doses of LCPUFA's, so
improving the arachidonic acid cycle by better nutrition.

I don't think we're disagreeing here: just reflecting a different
experience with allergic breastfeeding families, which was after all how I
got into this work. I want to emphasize that the individuality of reactions
is exquisite, and anything is possible.