Aa
is the western blot ever wrong for hsv 2?
i have tested negative the last two years for hsv 2 through quest herpeselect igg. then this year i was surprisingly positive with very low score of 1.13 and have had no symptoms. i then had a western blot done and it was also positive for type 2. i asked my partners within that time frame to get tested and they were negative and plenty time had gone by for them to show if it was the case.
then last week i tested negative on a herpeselect igg hsv 2 test that i had done just to see if my number went up at all since it had been months. what gives? could my western blot be wrong? have you ever heard of such a thing? my doctor says to go with that result, but i don't know what to think anymore as this is all so confusing.
please help!
then last week i tested negative on a herpeselect igg hsv 2 test that i had done just to see if my number went up at all since it had been months. what gives? could my western blot be wrong? have you ever heard of such a thing? my doctor says to go with that result, but i don't know what to think anymore as this is all so confusing.
please help!
So did you have a 2nd western blot ? I myself would go with the 3 negatives from herpes select igg ....how could 3 be negative and wb be positive ..and then the doctor says go with wb ??? I believe wb could have false positive ...
comparing the WB to the other blood tests is pretty much the proverbial comparing apples to oranges. yes , they are both fruit but other than that, not a whole heck of a lot they have in common. Same goes with the WB vs other igg blood tests - they all look at different parts of the igg response to being infected with herpes and they all have their pluses and their minuses. they can't be directly compared though. ( hope that makes sense ? )
Even though we consider the WB the "gold standard" of herpes blood testing, there are false positives that can occur with it. I encourage anyone who's had one and doubts it, to contact the U of washington, talk to them and they will advise what to do next.
I also encourage posters to utilize the journal function on medhelp too. You can journal your own thoughts about being infected with herpes and learning to deal with the idea of that and then others can see your posts and comment to help support you :) I think it's an under used function on medhelp for many folks! I use mine mostly to journal with educational posts but use it as an open diary that others can comment on too :)
grace
Even though we consider the WB the "gold standard" of herpes blood testing, there are false positives that can occur with it. I encourage anyone who's had one and doubts it, to contact the U of washington, talk to them and they will advise what to do next.
I also encourage posters to utilize the journal function on medhelp too. You can journal your own thoughts about being infected with herpes and learning to deal with the idea of that and then others can see your posts and comment to help support you :) I think it's an under used function on medhelp for many folks! I use mine mostly to journal with educational posts but use it as an open diary that others can comment on too :)
grace
@ petal: i understand science is science, but i think its ok for people to be skeptic, sorry if you were offended.
@ confusedgirl: I am just in awe bout your third test being negative, after the WB was positive... thats absolutely crazy! I dont think you have it. did you ever touch base with the Univ. of Washington to ask questions? I know its a reputable medical school, but something is very weird. Maybe Im just very cynical.
I dont think herpes testing should even be done at all. What really is the purpose of it? Okay so now that we "have it" we have to live with the stigma and disclosure of the virus to a partner. This might sound messed up, but if i were to enter into another serious relationship, I'd have to think long and hard if I were to disclose this to a partner.. I mean looking back, if the person who infected me knew, I would want to know..but I think it causes more harm than good. I wish I was never tested. I wish I never knew. Its a pink elephant in my mind more than anything else. My bf tries to make jokes about it, whenever the subject gets brought up (usually it gets brought up on TV or in a movie)..and we laugh about it..so its not really an issue..its just something i do think about everyday and right before I have sex...and I dont like how i think about it so much. ughh... its just so stupid!
@ confusedgirl: I am just in awe bout your third test being negative, after the WB was positive... thats absolutely crazy! I dont think you have it. did you ever touch base with the Univ. of Washington to ask questions? I know its a reputable medical school, but something is very weird. Maybe Im just very cynical.
I dont think herpes testing should even be done at all. What really is the purpose of it? Okay so now that we "have it" we have to live with the stigma and disclosure of the virus to a partner. This might sound messed up, but if i were to enter into another serious relationship, I'd have to think long and hard if I were to disclose this to a partner.. I mean looking back, if the person who infected me knew, I would want to know..but I think it causes more harm than good. I wish I was never tested. I wish I never knew. Its a pink elephant in my mind more than anything else. My bf tries to make jokes about it, whenever the subject gets brought up (usually it gets brought up on TV or in a movie)..and we laugh about it..so its not really an issue..its just something i do think about everyday and right before I have sex...and I dont like how i think about it so much. ughh... its just so stupid!
Yes, I do realize there is a lot of science in the testing. And I don't have some advanced degree in the sciences/medical field. But I also understand how many people are confused about it all...as several on here including the originial poster has expressed. My analysis was not an analysis of how exactly the tests work (because I obviously don't know exactly as evidenced by all the questions I expressed) but rather my own analysis of why it seems so confusing based on the questions it raises at least in my own mind. I'm sure the science of these tests makes perfect sense...to those lab technicians who interpret them.
But I'm sorry if you were offended by my post and the thoughts and questions I expressed. I felt they were legitimate questions based around what the tests results and the sometimes confusing impression they give to the average laymen like me and apparently a few others here on this thread. I don't necessarily expect any exact answers to those question perse. Maybe my questions don't reflect exactly someone else's questions, but that's why it was "just my 2¢"
I'll refrain form posting anymore about it. Thanks.
But I'm sorry if you were offended by my post and the thoughts and questions I expressed. I felt they were legitimate questions based around what the tests results and the sometimes confusing impression they give to the average laymen like me and apparently a few others here on this thread. I don't necessarily expect any exact answers to those question perse. Maybe my questions don't reflect exactly someone else's questions, but that's why it was "just my 2¢"
I'll refrain form posting anymore about it. Thanks.
No offense IDTB, but do you realize the tremendous amount of science behind blood testing, not just for herpes but for a myriad of other diagnostic testing? Unless you have some advanced degree in the sciences/medical field, why on earth would you try to analyze it like you have?
Feel free to post on the doctor's forum, perhaps they can answer in a very basic level (although again, it's just too complicated, no doubt).
For the VAST majority of people, IgG testing works very well at diagnosing herpes - as does the WB. But most certainly any diagnostic testing is imperfect to a certain extent.
As to having a "little" of the virus, that's straight hooey. One either has HSV or they don't. Your dermatologist is quite misinformed about the herpes virus.
Feel free to post on the doctor's forum, perhaps they can answer in a very basic level (although again, it's just too complicated, no doubt).
For the VAST majority of people, IgG testing works very well at diagnosing herpes - as does the WB. But most certainly any diagnostic testing is imperfect to a certain extent.
As to having a "little" of the virus, that's straight hooey. One either has HSV or they don't. Your dermatologist is quite misinformed about the herpes virus.
I want to throw my 2 cents in as well. The antibody test are terribly frustrating. I tested @ the lowest of the low. 1.1. Just over equivocal but confirmed by western blot. 80% chance I wouldn't with that low of a ratio but still did. Oh well. I had some symptoms but they showed up a month after infection & nothing since. Oh well again. No meds taken. No nothing. Positive but not showing symptoms. But disclosure is necessary & I'm still contagious even without blisters. Really hard. Almost makes me wish I was more symptomatic so I'd have an idea what I'm dealing with. Chins up girls. And it is stupid. So very stupid.
In the back of my mind I kind of feel the way you do. These tests are just numbers. And granted the number of antibodies can fluxuate I guess from one time to another. The interesting thing about these antibody blood tests, is even if you theoretically have no herpes simplex virus at all, there is always going to be some kind of number. There is no zero number for these tests. I've read that and it actually makes sense. Otherwise, what would be the need for a range if it were either no virus = 0 number, or present virus = x.x number? So, logically, you start to wonder, "then where do the numbers come?" "just what exactly are these numbers measuring?? Especially if it's a type specific IGG blood test. It's supposedly measuring type specific antibodies. Antibodies that supposedly are even there at all only because there is that particular virus type prsesent. And yet, because we're dealing with numbers here and there is not going to be an absence of numbers, they establish a range. Then a number below that specified range will indicate that you are negative for the antibody, and yet, where's the number coming from?
I've even read somewhere that the range had been or was being considered at some point of being changed at because of the accuracy issues with some of those tests. I don't know if that was true, but you know the range had to have been established on some kind of basis in the first place. So, what's up with that? Who establishes the range and based on what? That's like saying, well, we thought that numbers for fully developed antibodies in this range would mean positive or negative, but we're not so sure now so we may consider changing. The virus is either there or it isn't. So theoretically, numbers would either be present or absent if you think about it in an absolute sense. It's all so friggin' abstract the way some of these tests work.
My dermatologist once suggested (before I was finally tested negative) that I could possibly have a low level of the virus that could be causing very minor to non-existent symptoms. Well how exactly does that work? I've never heard of having a little bit of the virus so it acts accordingly. Does that mean that a little bit of the virus only causes a little bit of antibodies to develop? And let's suppose that's the case, that's still not going to make any difference in the contagiousness of a little OB vs a larger more extreme OB I would think. The virus being active is the virus being active no matter how large or small the area of skin the OB is ocurring in. Hence the reason some sources say an asymptomatis person is as contagious as a symptomatic person. But then they'll tell you, the risk is less with no symptoms than with symptoms. All that is very contradictory imo. There doesn't seem to be any exact science to this virus and the way it's measured or diagnose when you really look at it.
Just my 2¢
I've even read somewhere that the range had been or was being considered at some point of being changed at because of the accuracy issues with some of those tests. I don't know if that was true, but you know the range had to have been established on some kind of basis in the first place. So, what's up with that? Who establishes the range and based on what? That's like saying, well, we thought that numbers for fully developed antibodies in this range would mean positive or negative, but we're not so sure now so we may consider changing. The virus is either there or it isn't. So theoretically, numbers would either be present or absent if you think about it in an absolute sense. It's all so friggin' abstract the way some of these tests work.
My dermatologist once suggested (before I was finally tested negative) that I could possibly have a low level of the virus that could be causing very minor to non-existent symptoms. Well how exactly does that work? I've never heard of having a little bit of the virus so it acts accordingly. Does that mean that a little bit of the virus only causes a little bit of antibodies to develop? And let's suppose that's the case, that's still not going to make any difference in the contagiousness of a little OB vs a larger more extreme OB I would think. The virus being active is the virus being active no matter how large or small the area of skin the OB is ocurring in. Hence the reason some sources say an asymptomatis person is as contagious as a symptomatic person. But then they'll tell you, the risk is less with no symptoms than with symptoms. All that is very contradictory imo. There doesn't seem to be any exact science to this virus and the way it's measured or diagnose when you really look at it.
Just my 2¢
This bothers me so much. I know WB apparently has shown excellent accuracy through extensive research, but something is just not right to me. I know that no diagnostic test is perfect, and according to research this doesnt happen often. I just think instances like this happen more than we know for sure.
I am doing much better with the accepting my diagnosis of HSV 2...but seeing this post really makes me want to start from stratch, especially considering non existant symptoms and negative partners.. There really is nothing i can do, herpes itself almost seems like a topic that shouldnt even be discussed at all. it is all so stupid.
I just wanted to throw my 2 cents in.. any additional thoughts on this?
I am doing much better with the accepting my diagnosis of HSV 2...but seeing this post really makes me want to start from stratch, especially considering non existant symptoms and negative partners.. There really is nothing i can do, herpes itself almost seems like a topic that shouldnt even be discussed at all. it is all so stupid.
I just wanted to throw my 2 cents in.. any additional thoughts on this?
standard yearly std testing was the reason. i have never had any symptoms and either have my partners. i have always tested negative for type 1 by the way.
yes you can have a false positive even with the WB but it doesn't happen a lot. If you want, give the U of washington lab a call to discuss this with the folks who do the herpes WB. They are very helpful with questions if you have them :)
grace
grace
Have an Answer?
You are reading content posted in the Herpes Community
Herpes spreads by oral, vaginal and anal sex.
Herpes sores blister, then burst, scab and heal.
STIs are the most common cause of genital sores.
Millions of people are diagnosed with STDs in the U.S. each year.
STDs can't be transmitted by casual contact, like hugging or touching.
Syphilis is an STD that is transmitted by oral, genital and anal sex.
