Doctor,
I just want to thank you so much for your advice. I have seen that most people who come to you are like me - scared and frightened from making one mistake. Unlike other sources on the web, or even telephone hotlines that are impersonal and robotic, your words are always truthful, realistic and compassionate. I just wish all doctors could be trained by you.
Thanks so much again.
Doc Thanks so much!
Is C Pneumoniae dangerous in any way or is it a normal infection like a cold?
Like almost every cause of respiratory infections, most cases of C. pneumoniae cases are asymptomatic, some cause minor colds or bronchitis, and a few cause pneumonia--almost never of dangerous severity.
HHH, MD
As an infectious diseases and public health specialist, I have the expertise--but it's off topic for the STD Forum.
Very briefly: yes indeed, almost the entire population is at risk for atherosclerosis; that's not exactly news. C. pneumoniae may or may not have a causative role. If it does, the contribution to overall risk isn't known but certainly is small compared with standard risks (genetics, smoking, cholesteral, exercise). Treatment of C pneumo antibody-positive persons at risk for heart attacks (e.g., azithromycin) has no benefit in preventing heart attacks or strokes.
In other words, forget it. You don't know you have had C. pneumo. (If your chlamydia antibody test was positive, it could be C pneumo or a prior undiagnosed sexually acquired chlamydial infection.) And if you have, it isn't a signficant health risk.
HHH, MD
Doctor,
If you can answer this it would be great. If not, I'll just drop it. I did an internet search on C pneumoniae and articles linking it to artherosclerosis keep popping up. Also, I keep reading that "virtually everyone is infected at some point in their life and that 50% have serological evidence of c pneumoniae by age 20 and rises to 75-80 percent by age 60-70."
I am a bit confused in that if everyone is infected at some point, wouldn't that mean everyone is at risk for artherosclerosis? Is this a case where most people don't need to worry?
Again, I know this is going a bit away from your expertise, but would really appreciate your opinion if you have one.
Thanks so much for your wonderful service!
The main thing is that your risk for any STD for the exposure you describe was zero, for practical purposes. Chlamydia is not acquired at all by receving or sex--or at so rare it has never been documented, not once. Gonorrhea of the urethra almost always causes symptoms, so that is out. Candida isn't an STD and isn't acquired by oral sex. Syphilis is rarely acquired that way, and when it is causes a visible penile sore. HIV is possible but vanishingly rare; there has never been a proved case of acquiring HIV by receiving a BJ.
So your first mistake was the sexual exposure. (Well, maybe not a mistake--except to the extent that you consider it one.) The second was being tested for STDs. Your third mistake was being tested in a setting with a language barrier, by a provider who may not know a whole lot about STD diagnosis.
1) Chlamydia blood tests are useless, for exactly the reason your Japanese doc apparently tried to explain: the test cross-reacts with a different and very common chlamydia species called C. pneumoniae--which, as the name implies, causes respiratory infections. So a postive result means nothing with respect to genital infection. (Which is why my clinic never does the test.)
2) We all carry candida normally on our skin, in the rectum, in the genital tract. We're all positive from time to time, means nothing, so there is no point in testing at all. Chlamydia and gonorrhea are tested by urine--but as I said above, there is no chance you acquired either one from the exposure you describe.
3) Doesn't matter; see above.
4) Doesn't matter; see above. But the syphilis test is valid any time 6 weeks or more after exposure, so you can rely on the negative result.
I hope this helps. Best wishes-- HHH, MD