Follwup2 to Blood Tests

[t1234]

Thanks, Makes sense

For example I have been vacinated for Hepititas A&B.  I think
that means I'm titers positive(not sure if that's true) for Hepititas A&B but can never get the disease??????

In the case of HSV2 if anyone can get the antigens from
a blood transfusion it would seem they should be tested
before they get it so that if they are titers positive after the
tansfusion and later test positive they know it doesn't
mean they have the disease.

I undestand that 30 per cent of the U.S. population is
titers positive for HSV2 and possibly its as high as 65
per cent of African American females in spite of the fact they have less sexual partners than caucasians (the last number just from the net so who knows if its true).   Therefore sounds like
this needs to be put to the test as with the above numbers its highly probable if you have a blood transfusion you may end up titers positive?????

[Alan Rockoff, MD]

If you're vaccinated and have antibodies, then you're probably at least a little protected, possibly more.  You would need to talk to the doctor familiar with the particular vaccine to know how good the protection is.  Getting antibodies from a transfusion does not, however, provide any protection.  The antibodies go away, because your body hasn't produced them.

I'm not sure why you're so concerned about blood transfusions, but they really aren't relevant to your basic questions, namely catching herpes virus or transmitting it.

Best.

Dr. Rockoff

[CRAZY BRAIN]

I agree totally with you that the "BLOOD TEST ONLY" Diagnosis is a NO WAY to diagnose people with a skin condition that can appear anywhere on your body. And we do not know for sure that HSV 2 will not skip to the lips on some people, we just know "it does not like too." So what if you have HSV 2 on your lips from performing cunnilingous or fellatio and you go through your whole life having this fear about HSV 2 on your penis. I mean this is one reason of many why this whole scare thing and HSV studies they are doing has been stupid. It is irresponsible for Medical Professionals to prove "possibilities" in a lab and not look for a "consistent diagnosis tool" for diseases. The way these people are making HSV 2 seem so Amorphous you would think everyone would have it. Live your life and don't buy into this, it will all come out in about 5 years that this is not accurate just watch. I bet anyone on it!

[t1234]

Thanks Doctor.

My concern was related to the use of blood serum positives to
diagnos herpes without symptoms.

I have been single since 1982 and have had std profiles taken
every six months and have asked my sexual partners to take same.
So far I've remained negative to all stds.

However in the last several years the labs have started pushing
herpes antibodies tests.  A number of protential partners
have came back positive but claim no symbols and the ones who
have followed up with their family doctors have been told
these tests are "bunk."

I know first hand the trama it causes them and have been through several confessions from potential sexual partners that they have herpes.  One was almost suicidal.  It definitely changed their lives forever.

This would not have happened to them had not I requested they get the test before becoming involved with me.

In the past you have been opposed to the idea that these tests in themselves were determinitive of herpes, however apparently you changed your position after a post from Terri Warren.

I'm just trying to make sure I'm doing the right thing.  There seems to be opposition amoung front line M.D.'s to these tests.

I was trying to model the numbers to see if the infection
rates can be achieved through sexual transmission.  I mean we know from studies that f/m tranmission is 4 per cent and m/f is
10 per cent and these studies seem solid.  Also we know these
seropositive rates are true from fairly extensive studies.

If the model can't get to the infection rate based on the above then their has got to be other ways people become sero positive.
(Don't know that it can't, but...)

In the syphlis epidemic of the 1920's the infection was estimated to be 10 per cent.  These hsv2 numbers of 30 -50 per cent are remarkable.

Also there a few studies that are on point as to asymtomtic transmission from people who "physically don't and never have had any symtoms" but they don't do a very good job of verifing their subjects are indeed without symtoms and the number of people they look at are very small.  Also they use a test to detect the virus from a swab but no determination appears to be made as to the viral load needed for transmission.

The other studies that are used are really not on point and
were intended to investigate an unrelated matter.

So I'm just trying to get enough professional advice from persons like yourself so I can understand it well to develope the computer model to proof it up for my own use. (if its within my ability to do so).

I'll post this as a comment and again as a question as I have
one more medical question that arose from a study I was looking at last night regarding antibody transmission at birth from
an infected mother.

So that's where I'm coming from.