Quagmire: Hey Peter, uhh you have a card for if you transferred V.D. to somebody.
Peter: Uhh lets see here...uhh yep, "Sorry I accidentally gave you V.D."
Quagmire: Huh, that's all you have is accidental huh? Alright, I'll take it.

/oblig

Avoid the clap, Jimmy Dugan.

/Hey, that's good advice!
//Also oblig.

This isn't very surprising if the absolute number of true positives has been decreasing, but the test is still in widespread use. It's pretty hard to test a huge population for a few true positives without getting a fairly high false positive rate. Just statistically, if the test is wrong on some small percentage of the people who don't really have syphilis, that number (the number of false positives) will be bigger if most people who are tested don't really have it. So sometimes an increase in false positive rate just indicates that a public health effort has met with success.

I find that hard to believe.

/that's what she said!!1!

its a good day to be in america

You hear that ladies?! Line forms to the left...

When I was younger, I watched an episode of Law and Order where some guy contracted syphilis, and he slowly went crazy, and then killed or kidnapped someone, or something like that, because his brain was being eaten away. Some doctor or another knew about it too, but they didn't say anything because his insurance didn't cover something. Or something like that.

Since that day, I have been terrified that I will contract syphilis, no one will tell me, and I will slowly go crazy.

Rule #564 of the Internet states that if an article is posted in hypertext, it cannot under any circumstances create a hyperlink to the CDC press report (new window) which it cites for fear that people will go read the original article and conclude the reporting is terrible.

And that's how it should be. No test is perfect; we'll always get some false results. But depending on how cautious we are, we'll either get primarily false-negatives or false-positives. I for one would rather be told I have syphilis, get a second test and be told the first test was wrong; then to have syphilis and think I was fine. (Until it's too late)

Once in college I found a nursing text book. After a couple of weeks, it still hadn't been claimed, so, it was returned to me. While reading it during my leisure time, I began to have severe lower back pain and burning when I went to the restroom. I took the book with me when I went to the doctor and informed him I had syphilis. I had a urinary tract infection. He told me I wasn't qualified to read the nursing text and took it away from me. His nurse was leaning on a stool laughing through the whole encounter.

I've tried looking, but I couldn't find which test they're talking aboot. Makes a big difference if they're talking about the screening tests vs. the confirmatory

Klasik: And that's how it should be. No test is perfect; we'll always get some false results. But depending on how cautious we are, we'll either get primarily false-negatives or false-positives. I for one would rather be told I have syphilis, get a second test and be told the first test was wrong; then to have syphilis and think I was fine. (Until it's too late)

Exactly. My father had a big problem with this *LONG* ago, though. The second test was expensive and thus normally not used, if the first one came back positive they simply treated you. He took an employment physical and it came back a false positive. The only treatment was penicillin--but he was allergic to penicillin.

Lunaville: Once in college I found a nursing text book. After a couple of weeks, it still hadn't been claimed, so, it was returned to me. While reading it during my leisure time, I began to have severe lower back pain and burning when I went to the restroom. I took the book with me when I went to the doctor and informed him I had syphilis. I had a urinary tract infection. He told me I wasn't qualified to read the nursing text and took it away from me. His nurse was leaning on a stool laughing through the whole encounter.

Almost. You got the basic diagnosis right, just the wrong pathogen.

Loren: Exactly. My father had a big problem with this *LONG* ago, though. The second test was expensive and thus normally not used, if the first one came back positive they simply treated you. He took an employment physical and it came back a false positive. The only treatment was penicillin--but he was allergic to penicillin.

Well obviously in that case the second test would be warranted, regardless of expense. The problem there is a faulty cost-benefit analysis, not the fact that the test errs on the side of false positives.

I'm getting a kick...

Happened to me on the blood test for my marriage. Turns out a false positive RPR can be an indicator of some autoimmune disorders, including lupus (but as most of us know, "it's never lupus!"). So when they tested me for that and it came back negative they said, "Meh, it's just a fluke; don't give blood". Turns out that while I don't have lupus, I do have a blood clotting disorder often associated with lupus.

I'd be more worried about false negatives - folks carrying and sharing spirochetes they don't know about.

"Mr. Sheen, all your tests are positive."

Well shiat, that's a relief. I guess it's time for therapy then.

After reading TFA i'd just have to say "oops". Lol


/Yall know i haven't even touched a boobie anyways.