Dude, you keep throwing around molecular biology techniques like they give you any intellectual weight.  
   
 From your gazillion inane posts, I can only surmise you've been tested for herpes like it's going out of style and LOOOVVEEEE to talk about it. You mentioned your herpes screens were via Western blot and ELISA. There is no essential information in these two terms, as they simply describe techniques for any type of protein (antigen) or antibody detection and quantification using the exact same biochemistry (of antigen-antibody specific interaction).  
   
 As almost every other poster has been trying so hard to get you to understand is that these tests have a strong temporal dependence!!! If taken too early (before complete seroconversion, upon which the immune defense has produced antibodies and they are in circulation), you will get a negative result no matter how sensitive your assay is because there are not yet ANY antibodies to detect. And even the most sensitive detector cannot make something out of nothing, that is give a reading that is not equal to zero when there are zero antibodies present. *Please note! The appearance of lesions and gross sores actually occurs before full seroconversion, making it almost completely moot to apply antibody tests to any herpes screen. If there are suspicious lesions, its much more practical (and expedient) to directly scrape active lesions and then perform the tzank smear Alexandra mentioned...  
   
 Meaning your precious ELISA is usually employed AFTER the tzank smear! Your negative results are in essence useless, unless you're telling us you HAVE seen suspicious sores in places I don't want to talk about, and THIS is what prompted your antibody screen... And a ridiculous obsession with the science of "False Sense of Security".  
   
 To complete my note of the temporal importance of really ANY STD testing, as many others have mentioned and you have failed to address to any satisfaction, is STD screening is just not accurate or at all meaningful as a single time-point event. As a few other more informed posters have mentioned, for any meaningful "increased margin of safety" each round of tests must be taken as such:  
 1) Initial STD screening via blood test, urinalysis, lesion scrape, etc. - I'm assuming this is as far as you've gone.  
 2) Wait six months with NO SEX, NADA, NILCH, NOOOOOO! NO NAKED TOUCHING! BAD!  
 3) Second STD screening via blood test, urinalysis, lesion scrape, etc.  
   
 To wrap things up, I'll refer to your completely statistically inaccurate statement in an earlier post - "If a girl hasn't had herpes in the last 10 years, there's little chance she'll have caught it in the past week (paraphrased)".  
   
 I hope you see now how faulty your logic is. The probability distributions of the two arguments in the above statement are essentially Markovian (with the necessary condition that "the past week" is not included in "the last 10 years" time continuum), but I say this as an afterthought.  
   
 Just saying. My advise? Abstinence and a course or five in virology and statistics.  
   
 Stay safe!!!