Aa
syphilis symptoms vs. positive test
Thanks for your time and work on this forum--your responses have been of huge value to me and others, especially as they come from a physician who is double-threat, both as an experienced and well-regarded pratictioner and researcher.
In getting myself tested after some very stupid behavior (all negatives so far, thankfully), I'm still confused and troubled on one aspect of syphilis, and haven't been able to get a clear answer from my doctor or elsewhere.
Basically, while I've read about the typical timescales for incubation and appearance of primary syphilis symptoms--highly variable timescales, clearly---and also about the statistical post-exposure detection times when a blood test may show positive for syphilis (e.g., something like 90% detection after 6 weeks, etc.), I don't know the relationship between these two related timelines.
Specifically, once the symptoms (chancre) of primary syphilis appear, and thus one becomes highly infectious, is it generally true that a blood test (done at that time) would show positive? Or does a positive result instead tend to precede the appearance of primary symptoms, or follow, or have no relation to the time of symptom onset? I ask because, as mentioned in some write-ups on syphilis, people can sometimes fail to notice the primary chancre, yet thereby be infectious, so I wanted to know if a negative blood test result gives one any sense of how unlikely it is that one might have had an unnoticed chancre at the time of testing?
I'd welcome your thoughts, please.
Thanks again,
Foolishgeezer
In getting myself tested after some very stupid behavior (all negatives so far, thankfully), I'm still confused and troubled on one aspect of syphilis, and haven't been able to get a clear answer from my doctor or elsewhere.
Basically, while I've read about the typical timescales for incubation and appearance of primary syphilis symptoms--highly variable timescales, clearly---and also about the statistical post-exposure detection times when a blood test may show positive for syphilis (e.g., something like 90% detection after 6 weeks, etc.), I don't know the relationship between these two related timelines.
Specifically, once the symptoms (chancre) of primary syphilis appear, and thus one becomes highly infectious, is it generally true that a blood test (done at that time) would show positive? Or does a positive result instead tend to precede the appearance of primary symptoms, or follow, or have no relation to the time of symptom onset? I ask because, as mentioned in some write-ups on syphilis, people can sometimes fail to notice the primary chancre, yet thereby be infectious, so I wanted to know if a negative blood test result gives one any sense of how unlikely it is that one might have had an unnoticed chancre at the time of testing?
I'd welcome your thoughts, please.
Thanks again,
Foolishgeezer
Thanks, that answers my question.
--foolishgeezer
--foolishgeezer
MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL
The average time from exposure to development of a chancre is 21 days. Like any human illness there is variability and at the extreme chancre appearance can take up to 60 days but the is extraordinarily rare. Typically the chancre appears shortly before the blood test becomes positive but blood test positivity almost never lags more than five days behind appearance of the chancre. EWH
You are reading content posted in the STDs Forum
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.
