According to CDC's website 55.7 percent of black women 12 years of age or older have a seroprevealence for genital herpes. cdc.gov ---- Furthermore, "less than 10 percent of people who tested positive with herpes knew they were infected (Fleming, 1997). With or without visible symptoms, the disease can be transmitted between sex partners, from mothers to newborns, and can increase a person's risk of becoming infected with HIV." cdc.gov -----
Of course, I didn't know what the word "seroprevalence" meant. Here is one definition:
"Seroprevalence is the number of persons in a population who test positive for a specific disease based on serology (blood serum) specimens; often presented as a percent of the total specimens tested or as a proportion per 100,000 persons tested. As positively identifying the occurrence of disease is usually based upon the presence of antibodies for that disease (especially with viral infections such as Herpes Simplex and HIV), this number is not significant if the specificity of the antibody is low." en.wikipedia.org
". . . [T]his number is not significant if the specificity of the antibody is low." That means??? IMHO, it means that the percentage of black women who have genital herpes could be much lower than 55.7 percent. (I wonder what the rate is for strippers.) Another observation is if seroprevalence isn't synonymous with having the disease, then why isn't percentage rate of disease provided? IMHO, it is the intention to frighten people.
Maybe there are better explanations? Everytime I've looked at that number it seems absurdly high if it actually meant that was the percentage who indeed had contracted genital herpes.


Further, imo, interesting tid-bits found when researching seroprevalence:
"Elsewhere in the world, a similar chronological association between HIV and AIDS has been noted. . . .
Serologic data have suggested the presence of HIV infection as early as 1959 in Zaire (Nahmias et al., 1986). Other investigators have found evidence of HIV proviral DNA in tissues of a sailor who died in Manchester, England, in 1959 (Corbitt et al., 1990). In the latter case, this finding may have represented a contamination with a virus isolated at a much later date (Zhu and Ho, 1995)."
niaid.nih.gov