Jump to content
World's Largest Herpes Support Group
Sign in to follow this  
Bronkus

Negative for HSV 1 and HSV 2, Positive for IGM

Recommended Posts

Bronkus

Hello everyone,

I had a blood test that tested negative for HSV 1 and HSV 2 and I tested positive for IGM. My doctor told me that I must have been exposed within the last 4-12 weeks. He also said that the IGM indicates that I would definitely eventually within a few months have HSV 1 or HSV 2. This didn't really sound right because I read somewhere that 9/10 people have the antibodies in them so can someone clarify this? Could it have been before 4-12 weeks, could IGM evolve into HSV 1 or HSV 2? Please someone help I am really worried. Thank You.

Bronkus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
derk

I too tested positive for IGM but negative for hsv1 and negative for hsv2. They doctor had said i could have recently been exposed and there arent many antibodies built up yet but i haven't had sex in about 7 or 8 months. Yes, its been too long. But i am still concerned because i have had these red itchy bumps for about 3 weeks now, though, they have decrased from around 10 to 3 at the base of the shaft. I am going to get tested again in 3 months. Oh and by the way i was diagnosed with mono about 7 months ago also. Could this affect the results of the IGM? I am stressing myself out severley here and am in need of advice. Thanks in advance guys.

-Derek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RememberToSmile

I have ALWAYS tested positive for IGM (even before I had herpes). The first time I tested positive for IGM was at 18, even at 25 I still tested negative for both HSV 1 and HSV 2. My doctor at first told me the same thing as you all, but then after testing negative for HSV 1 and 2 for years upon years, she did some more research and realized she as wrong (and I was right!)-my IGM was picking up th fact that I had chickenpox and mono as a kid-both from the herpes family but NOT HSV 1 or 2. So, there ya go :-) Hopefully that brings some peace of mind to you both!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • The Hive is Thriving!

    • Total Topics
      69,741
    • Total Posts
      470,272
  • Posts

    • BioHacker
      Meds and condoms is really all you need. Statistically, HSV2 is so widespread because 80-90% of  people who have it are unaware that they have it, and so they don't take all recommended precautions (including using condoms). Oddly enough, if you were to replace your HSV2+ girlfriend (aware of HSV status, using condoms, using suppressive meds) with the average American woman (unaware of HSV status, but 25% risk, which is average - and using condoms at all times, since presumably you could insist on it), you would actually NOT reduce your risk of HSV2. The statistical risk would be approximately the same for both theoretical girlfriends (about 0.7% per year assuming sex 2x per week). That is a bit simplistic, because maybe you could decide to date only women who are verified virgins (essentially no risk), or maybe "below average risk" in some way (younger than average, fewer prior partners than average, etc.), or you could have all prospective girlfriends IgG blood tested for HSV as a condition to dating them (or having sex with them), which would reduce the risk significantly (especially if you confirmed the paperwork), but not completely (since antibodies take some time to develop). At some point, beyond-standard precautions become inconvenient and not worth the hassle (or risk of being perceived as paranoid). The risk isn't zero, and probably would never be zero, short of taking extreme measures. Efforts to reduce risk beyond standard practices, which already reduce risk to relatively low levels, are naturally subject to the law of diminishing returns. Accepting some level of risk is (unfortunately) part of the deal in most reasonable endeavors. Also, there is statistically a greater likelihood of two people passing HPV between them one way or the other, than HSV2 (assuming all recommended precautions are being taken). Of course, you could get the HPV vaccine (everyone should!). But the vaccine only covers 10-15% of the types of HPV that are out there. And tests for HPV are imperfect, and generally not available for males. And HPV (some types) can cause cancer (cervical, penile, and throat - maybe others). So, keep that in mind as well. And then, of course, there are all the other risks . . . Best not to be paranoid though . . .
    • WilsoInAus
      That’s correct. HIV is a distinct virus. No virus morphs into another one.
    • WilsoInAus
      Hey @thebrightsidegirl I hope you’re going ok, I’ve read your posts and will see if I can draw some threads. I see that you have genital HSV-1 and your partner has oral HSV-1. I’m not sure if he has tested but given it’s somcommon there’s no reason to disbelieve that’s what he has. This is the best concirdant scenario you can hope for in a sexual relationship. You both already have the virus and your immune systems are established and your experience with herpes is your own. You cannot induce an outbreak in each other by virtue your own HSV-1 and transmission to a new location on your partner is too small to worry about. If HSV-2 is present, then it needs to be brought to the relationship. It’s not at all likely you have it given you were infected genitally with HSV-1.  I suggest these symptoms are very unlikely to be related to herpes at all. If they are, then it’s far more likely to be a recurrent outbreak issue with your HSV-1 as opposed to an initial infection with HSV-2. 
    • hopeing
      Ozone is basically toxic to humans at high levels. Its probably as likely to kill your cells as the virus. Add to that the virus is not in the blood and I'd say this 'treatment' is probably totally ineffective and if it does include high levels of real ozone likely dangerous. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_therapy
    • thebrightsidegirl
      Hey Wilson , do you kids answering this , i was kind of worried too ? 
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.