iPumpkin
07-14-2006, 12:07 PM
I was diagnosed with chlamydia about three weeks ago. I took the anti-biotics and went back for a re-testing yesterday... but my doctor just informed me that the system they use for testing is not always 100% accurate, meaning I may not have had it to begin with but came back positive anyway!
Point in case, it would be too expensive to run a fully accurate and thourough test from the swab. However, when a test comes back positive, they treat for the disease anyway, and run the second swab under more accurate circumstances....
I'd rather be safe than sorry, but this ticks me off a little. I mean, a) I'm pumping my body full of antibiotics that I may or may not need. b) I paid for them despite not being able to afford them w/o health insurance... c) how accurate are these tests really? and what does that say about the accuracy of other STD tests?
I really just don't know how to feel. :mad: :confused: :rolleyes:
Point in case, it would be too expensive to run a fully accurate and thourough test from the swab. However, when a test comes back positive, they treat for the disease anyway, and run the second swab under more accurate circumstances....
I'd rather be safe than sorry, but this ticks me off a little. I mean, a) I'm pumping my body full of antibiotics that I may or may not need. b) I paid for them despite not being able to afford them w/o health insurance... c) how accurate are these tests really? and what does that say about the accuracy of other STD tests?
I really just don't know how to feel. :mad: :confused: :rolleyes:
Sponsor
Thisby
07-14-2006, 02:11 PM
In the grand scheme of things, you should be thankful.
This is standard operating procedure based on the principle that it is better to treat a non-infected person than to not treat an infected person. This practice allowes for the treatment of the greatest possible number of people. Statistics show that enough people don't come back for treatment if they have to wait for a definitive diagnosis.
Yes, you may have been taking antibiotics you don't need, but the alternative is a population with a much higher STD rate.
This is standard operating procedure based on the principle that it is better to treat a non-infected person than to not treat an infected person. This practice allowes for the treatment of the greatest possible number of people. Statistics show that enough people don't come back for treatment if they have to wait for a definitive diagnosis.
Yes, you may have been taking antibiotics you don't need, but the alternative is a population with a much higher STD rate.
guyw1thquestion
07-15-2006, 02:10 AM
be thankful. I may have herpes which has no cure. be safe and protect yourself in the future. learn from this and move on with your life.