to not do a patch test before dying my hair?

[pisspants]

just that. Have bought a different brand to my usual. Have never bothered before. Its saying to do it then check in 48 hours but I want to do it today as not got a lot going on. How risky is it to not do the test? Do most people honestly do it or are the manufacturers just covering their areas? would love to know, will leave mn to.decide for me....

Ages 13 to 21 I dyed my hair every few weeks no problem. Then I did it, had an allergic reaction, my scalp was covered in red itchy lumps, along with tops of my ears, hair line, name of my necks. Basically anywhere the dye and rinsing water had touched.

Had to get a steroid lotion from the Dr and use anti histamines.

Since then I am allergic to any box dye with PPDs in, which is most of them.

For about 10 years I just put up with it. Was really careful on the skin around my ears, neck, face to use lots of barrier cream and too anti histamines as soon as the dye went on and for the next 5 days.

Then I moved on to just bleach and crazy colours which don't have PPDs.

But that knackered my hair, so now I don't bother.

No it's not me..Google's full of photos of dye reactions.

I am puzzled about this . . . I have a DC with bad allergies so I have learned about allergies over the years.

You NEVER have an allergic reaction to something the first time you have encountered it. Your immune system must have come across the substance at some point in order for it to [erroneously] think "well this substance is trouble, better make sure I have lots of defences in place in case I encounter it again."

So, for someone who keeps bees (this happened to someone I know) they can be stung on and off for years, perhaps stung 50 or 60 times, then suddenly one day BAM they collapse with anaphylactic shock from bee stings because, quietly and inexplicably, at some point between Sting 59 and Sting 60 their immune system randomly decided to deploy the "this substance is an enemy" protocol. They now can't look after their beloved bees in case they get stung and die.

I also know someone who suddenly collapsed with anaphylaxis when eating an apple, having eaten them with no issues all their life.

So . . . what's to stop the immune system reaction developing between the patch test (fine) and the dye being applied to the whole head?

So . . . what's to stop the immune system reaction developing between the patch test (fine) and the dye being applied to the whole head?

Nothing, sensitivity could occur in between the two, but again, does that mean that patch tests are pointless so nobody should do them or should people just not dye their hair? Nobody seems to be answering. It's a really strange argument to use against a safety feature.

What I’m saying is it isn’t really a safety feature at all, and there’s still a risk of having an allergic reaction whether or not you do a test.

I’m also wondering whether the more frequent exposure (test plus whole head treatment vs just whole head treatment) actually increases the risk of developing an allergy.

Balloonslayer is saying the same as me.

I’ve not seen any scientific rationale for doing a patch test, and as yet we have not been visited by an allergy expert.

I’d be glad to be wrong.

YABU

It’s a tiny inconvenience to do the patch test, compared to potentially life threatening consequences if you have a bad reaction. Why risk it?

So . . . what's to stop the immune system reaction developing between the patch test (fine) and the dye being applied to the whole head?

Well nothing I suppose but it’d would catch all the reactions that developed since the last use. It’s a safety net which means it’s not going to cover everyone.

Contraception isn’t 100% effective but most women choose not to play the odds and go without and just cross their fingers. I’ve only ever been in one car crash, I still use a seatbelt.

It’s personal choice and comprehension of the stakes. It’s not compulsory to patch test hair dye but it seems daft not to when it’s been reviewed by experts who’ve agreed that using these particular chemicals on your head should probably be treated with a degree of caution - enough to print the advice on every package.

I'd patch test. I changed hair dyes once...woke up the next morning with my scalp one fire, my eyes and whole face swollen. My hair was soaking wet from the liquid and puss that was coming out the scabs on my scalp. I've never been able to dye my hair since and I needed steroids.

It’s not just about allergic reactions or anaphylaxis though.

It’s also about skin reactions such as burns. As I put in my earlier post, hair colourants can cause chemical burns.

I don't dye my hair but all the hairdressers I have been to have clear notices saying they require a patch test. I thought that was standard practice.

What I’m saying is it isn’t really a safety feature at all, and there’s still a risk of having an allergic reaction whether or not you do a test

I’ve not seen any scientific rationale for doing a patch test, and as yet we have not been visited by an allergy expert

Reet, take the powers of deduction instead. I can't find a recorded case of someone developing an allergy inbetween the patch test and the actual dye job but I've found plenty of an allergic reaction due to not doing the patch test.

If you can find one I'm all ears.

I would say that's a safety feature.

However, I'm not that arsed if you do or not. Fill your boots

Anecdotes are not data. That’s my point. There is no data.

I’m not trying to stop you or anyone else from doing the patch tests. I’m suggesting that doing patch tests isn’t providing you with the protection that you think it is, and may actually increase the risk.

But if you want to believe it is, fair enough. Fill your boots, as you say.

Heh, you're one of those who believe you can change blood group aren't you?

I’ve never done one . The odd time that my scalp felt itchy , I’ve just taken an antihistamine tablet . Having said that , I’ve seen some horrific photos in the tabloids of people who had a reaction to hair dye

WiseUpJanetWeiss what do you mean there is no evidence? There is plenty of evidence,

journals.lww.com/dermatitis/FullText/2018/09000/Allergy_Alert_Test_for_p_Phenylenediamine_Allergic.4.aspx

www.medicaljournals.se/forum/articles/12/Supplement%2013/Suppl13.pdf

And the NHS recommends patch testing

www.nhs.uk/conditions/hair-dye-reactions/

Heh, you're one of those who believe you can change blood group aren't you?

Of course not. What a bizarre thing to say.

Booboostwo

The first paper is about developing a test and does not address the question that Balloonslayer and I have raised.

The second paper is about accurately diagnosing allergy to hair dye using dermatologist-led patch tests and doesn’t deal with consumer tests at all. It also concludes that there is poor data and further research is needed.

The NHS recommendation does not reference its evidence.

As I said, I’d be happy to accept that consumer skin testing reduces overall risk of allergic reaction to hair dye, but I haven’t found any.