Beachdude1984

@ wcsdancer and fitgirl remember fen-fen? they really got that one wrong didn't they! Yep, sure do. I can't remember who manufactured fen-fen, but I do know that a judgement was found against GSK in 2010 or 2011 that was the largest judgement ever rewarded against a pharmaceutical company (neighborhood of ten billion if memory serves correctly). I can't remember the class of drugs concerned, but falsifying clinical trial data and under-reporting side effects were listed among the charges. This is what I try to tell conspiracy theorists who believe big pharma withholds HSV drugs from market- pharmaceutical companies make money by bringing drugs TO market, not by keeping drugs off the market. The FDA is tediously slow, but if a drug is effective AND safe, it will make it's way to market somehow.

@ beachdude, ive seen terri warrens quotes on hsv1/2. its more observational over the course of @ 30 years of dealing with herpes in one of the top sexual health clinics in the world. they are working on 2 different vaccines for H among other things. while I believe she never states its 100% its that they have never had a verifiable case where someone with established hsv2 has gone on to get hsv1. you alluded to something in one of your post that would make sense. looking at it evolutionarily ( thank god for spell check) H1 can and often does get transmitted earlier in life whereas H2 is in general sexually transmitted and therefore needs a sexually " mature" vector. so H1 runs into less individuals with H2 than the opposite, therefore H2 had an evolutionary need to overcome H1 but the opposite isn't necessarily true. its been shown that people who have established H1 when exposed to H2 tend to have a lessened initial OB and less subsequent OBs also. not 100% of course. however, IF lets say one partner has H2 and then performs oral sex on a partner with GH1 during an OB and the H2 partner has an open cut/canker sore or such, then who knows. I have seen in multiple threads on medhelp, on westovers forums, etc where terri states its believes to be damned near 100% immunity to H1 for H2 carriers. I believe ive also read that H2 tends to be a more virulent virus than its sibling and elicits a greater immune response. to add further, our support group just started back up and it used to be run by a long time nurse in the sexual health field and someone had her info from a couple years ago and it was in her notes the observation about H1/2 immunity. she left our area a couple of years ago but was really big in the herpes field from my understanding, went all over the country pushing for research, gathering resources etc. whether there are people actually researching this im not sure, I know ive seen research on autoinoculation with rats but cant remember for this. not sure if its a good candidate for research, maybe a PHDs dissertation, if their university would even accept it. I shall have to look it up. I do not doubt Terri Warren for one second. She is recognized as one of the national leaders in the HSV field and she undoubtedly knows more than anyone on this forum. When I asked for peer-reviewed research (which I still haven't had time to look for yet), I was not questioning her expertise or observations, but wanted to see more comprehensive studies where the specific mechanics of the HSV-2 to HSV-1 immunity are examined in detail and the conclusions derived from such studies. When you say HSV-2 has had an evolutionary need to "overcome" HSV-1, I'll assume you mean that HSV-2 has had to evolve to overcome human HSV-1 specific antibodies. That is a perfectly logical conclusion given the near unviseral human infection rates of HSV-1. I would still like to read any published research regarding the subject, if any exists.

Yes a prophylactic vaccine for HSV will definately be available long before a sterilizing cure. An effective vaccine would largely negate the need for a cure, if the vaccine was supplemented with widespread vaccination programs. Transmission rates would spiral downward, and infection rates would steadily trend downward as older, infected adults die off. However, as we saw with Gardisil, tabooism surrounding STD vaccines ("*MY* daughter is neither sexually active nor will she be, therefore vaccination is not necessary"....yea, right...) may hinder efforts to slow disease spread. Your ability to overcome the emotional trauma of herpes is admirable and something everyone should strive for, but some people just do not have the mental fortitude to just "get over it," just do not have to courage to disclose and face possible rejection, or are part of the unfortunate group of sufferers who experience constant physical symptoms regardless of any treatment attempts. The driving force of these peoples' daily existence is the hope of a vaccine and/or better treatments, and their personal situations should not be trivialized, in my opinion.

Any HSV vaccine that produces a sufficient immune response to defeat subsequent natural infection by wild type virus would produce the same robust immune response in an already-infected individual and should, in theory, work effectively to reduce or eliminate any HSV symptoms. In other works, an effective prophylactic vaccine should also double as an effective therapeutic vaccine. Halford and other scientists are very hesitant to speculate and comment on this hypothesis because the premise has not been clinically tested, yet.

Any HSV vaccine that produces a sufficient immune response to defeat subsequent natural infection by wild type virus would produce the same robust immune response in an already-infected individual and should, in theory, work effectively to reduce or eliminate any HSV symptoms.

It is also important to note that HSV-1 is primarily contracted during childhood, whereas HSV-2 is primarily contracted during adulthood. This fact alone creates a statistical probability for a HSV-1 then HSV-2 order of infection. Again, I'm not disputing the cross-reactivity of HSV-1/2 antibodies- I just believe it is not the basis for sound advice at this point. Well I am only passing on what Terri Warren RN, one of the top Herpes specialists in the country, advises/teaches when she is asked to speak ... as per screen 13 on her slideshare presentation here: ... Where she states that "HSV2 largely protects against getting HSV1 ... HSV1 does not protect against HSV2" That is a new one on me, thanks for the heads up. I don't have the time at the immediate moment to search, but do you happen to have any links to peer-reviewed research regarding the cross-protection of HSV-2 to HSV-1? I am interested in reading more about this topic. As to the rest of your post, I totally understand and agree. The HSV genome has not even been completely mapped yet, and scientists have yet to understand the function of most proteins in the genetic material that has been identified. That is in addition to the fact that 20-something strains of HSV-2 and 50-something strains of HSV-1 have been discovered, but the differences and intricacies of each are largely unknown. It is important to remember that modern medical understanding of human physiology and pathogens (and viruses in particular) is a relatively new field of study. The most frustrating part of the whole situation to me is that we have had the technology to create an effective HSV-vaccine for 15 or 20 years, using the proven method of live vaccination, which only requires a basic understanding of the viral life cycle. But due to ambivalence from the scientific community, we are still years away from the possibility of an effective HSV vaccine. I do whole-heartedly agree that a lack of education by government, ambivalence/indifference by the scientific/medical community, and a propagation of the stigma by drug companies and the public, have all combined to create the tragic story of herpes.

Dancer said- "Yup! " In recent news, Obama vetoed the Keystone pipeline, and gave the FCC full authoritative control over the internet by signing the Net-Neutrality Act. Coincidence that Warren Buffet, one of the largest contributors to the Democratic National Convention, owns a near monopoly on railcar transport of oil from Canada to the US? After 15 years of abysmal policy from the White House, the snowball continues to roll.

Dancer said- "As for the phone issue ... Adrial does this out of his own pocket ... I tried to get people to donate to help to upgrade the site last year but got very little response ... as it is, the H Opp weekends and Home Courses that he's offering help to offset the cost but by no means cover anything near the time and money he has put in here. He recently upgraded the server (the traffic was making it crash a LOT!) and as he gets the funds, the site will be upgraded" It is also important to note that HSV-1 is primarily contracted during childhood, whereas HSV-2 is primarily contracted during adulthood. This fact alone creates a statistical probability for a HSV-1 then HSV-2 order of infection. Again, I'm not disputing the cross-reactivity of HSV-1/2 antibodies- I just believe it is not the basis for sound advice at this point. Sorry to hear about the funding issues. This is a great site that has obviously helped tons of people. Sorry, I tried to quote your entire post, but I can not use quote tags on this site with this phone.

Erring on the side of caution is fine BUT...... the intent of our input in many cases is to provide an opportunity for people to stop obsessing about herpes traveling to every part of their body and shutting down their sexual an physical lives completely. @WCSDancer2010 was making the point (I believe) that yes, there may be a remote chance of transfer but if we all lived our lives on the 1% chance of shit happening, we would never get out of bed. The pros and cons of the forum are often in direct contrast to the point of support. Information and statistics are great, but living your life and don't stressing about ever hang nail is FAR more important in my opinion. There are always exceptions to every rule. That's life. After many years with herpes, I masturbate, I fuck, I make love, I kiss, I give blow jobs, my man goes down on me and I also run with scissors from time to time. Safety and caution is important yes, but don't let it stifle you, life does go on. The truth is.... NONE of us are experts on this virus (even the "experts" aren't experts) so sharing what we have experienced and learned is all we can do to help the people newly diagnosed and show them that herpes should not consume them. I agree with everything you are saying, but I must admit that I am a bit confused. My reply to Dancer was in relation to cross-reactivity of HSV-1/2 antibodies, not transmission. In fact, in my original quote I clearly stated "It is possible for you to shed virus from your butt and lower back, but a transmission from this area of your body would be highly improbable if not impossible," although I should have qualified my statement with the word "asymptomatic" before the word "transmission." What I meant when I said it was better to "err on the side of caution" in my reply to Dancer is that I believe that people who are infected with either HSV-1 only or HSV-2 only should not act carelessly under the assumption they are immune to the specie for which they remain uninfected due to cross-reactivty of antibodies for the specie that is responsible for infection. The fact is, acquired immunity for HSV-1 does not fully convey to HSV-2, and vice versa.

Actually @Beachdude, my ex husband (who never got colds/flu) got the flu symptoms with his outbreaks for years ... so it's not just primary OB's that people get continued flu symptoms.... it was a number of years before that symptoms started to subside ... today he doesn't get them at all but this is about 25 yrs later.... Dancer, I'm sure you probably know some or all of what follows because you are obviously a smart lady, so I apologize in advance if I mistakenly insult your intelligence. I am posting because frankly I am intrigued by the topic and like talking about it, and for the benefit of others who possibly stand to learn something. Understanding the relationship between HSV and "flu-like" symptoms requires a basic understanding of human immunology. The immune system is divided into two main, distinct components. The first component is referred to as the "innate immune system." It is the first internal line of defense against pathogenic invasion. The response of the innate immune system is very broad spectrum, and responds to any foreign object in the human body, ranging from biological pathogens such as viruses, bacteria, and fungi, all the way to a splinter in the finger. The flu-like symptoms (fatigue, fever, inflammation, etc) associated with HSV are actually a side effect of the innate immune system in action, and not a result of the virus itself. Another key funtion of the innate immune system, while simultaneously working to stifle infection, is to initiate response by the second component of the immune system, which is referred to as the "adaptive immune response." Unlike the first component, the "adaptive immune response" is highly specific, and is only effective against specific antigens. B and T cells are well known examples of antibodies that are produced by the adaptive immune response. Every human is born with HSV-specific antibodies, and these are used as a template for antibody replication upon natural HSV infection by the wild-type virus. Antibodies continue to replicate until the innate immune system and adaptive immune response work together until every HSV particle is either destroyed or escapes into latency. Upon defeat of the active viral challenge, the innate system stops working, antibody production slows down, and all physical (including flu-like) symptoms subside. Another key, distinguishing feature of the adaptive immune response is that, unlike the innate immune system which is immediate and temporary, it possesses a characteristic known as "immunological memory." Basically, the leftover antigen-specific antibody production after an unprecedented viral challenge never "goes away." Instead, it remains active in the body, ready to react in case of future presence of active viral particles (such as during outbreaks, shedding, or subsequent outside contact with the virus). Every time the adaptive immune response is exposed to HSV during these periods of viral activity, antibody replication resumes and the resulting immunological memory becomes more efficient and effective against future activity. Eventually, for most people, the adaptive immune system becomes capable of entirely containing the viral threat with no action necessary by the innate immune system. The net end result of the adaptive immunological memory is a cessation of any flu-like symptoms, and a gradual reduction (or cessation) of any physical symptoms. I can not speculate as to exactly why your ex-husband suffered persistent flu-like symptoms for decades as a result of HSV, but I can definitely say that it is not at all common. Like many other things in nature, human biological processes (such as the cell->antigen->immunity relationship) are neither perfect nor fully understood. Therefore, there will always be exceptions, rare cases, and unexplainable outcomes in every scenario. Someone may be be wondering why, if immunological memory is permanent, people often are diseased repeatedly with the same virus, such as seen with influenza and rhinovirus (common cold). The answer is because these viruses mutate extremely fast (yearly), whereas HSV mutates very slowly. In fact, the modus operandi of HSV, and the main reason is has been so successful and persistent, precludes it from being a rapidly-mutating virus. Ultimately, rapid mutagenesis is just another evolutionary trait (just like HSV's ability to go dormant, or HIV's ability to mimic cellular DNA) that viruses use to gain an advantage over the immune system and ensure continuation of the species. Another interesting thing in relation to HSV immunity is the fact that, due to the combined effect of the innate immune system and adaptive immune response, the viral challenge is often completely defeated during initial infection before latency can occur. The believed threshold for a normally-functioning immune system to prevent latency from occurring is 10,000 copies of viral DNA. In other words, if <10,000 copies of HSV DNA are transmitted, viral replication can not exceed the immune response and permanent, latent infection does not occur. These are the people that are often referred to as "exposed, but not infected," and the elevated HSV-specific antibody level of these exposed, uninfected people is the purported explanation for many of the false positives on antigen-specific blood tests. Personally, I find it somewhat ironic that due to a person's sexual habits, he/she is more likely to gain a natural acquired immunity to HSV, in contrast to someone who is more celibate and more vulnerable to permanent infection. I believe that concludes my diatribe about immunology for the day. I hope no one died from boredom or confusion.

Dancer, I am well aware of the observed cross-reactivity of HSV-1 or 2 antibodies to either species of the virus. However, the exact level of conferred cross-reactive immunity is unknown, definitely is not anywhere approaching 100%, and most probably varies between individuals. Therefore, I stand by my original comment, for the sake of erring on the side of caution if nothing else. I will reply to your first paragraph when I can get on a PC and talk about immunology. (This site is very phone unfriendly for me. Anyone else notice this?)

1. Technically, the only skin surfaces on your body where shedding is impossible is the palms of your hands and soles of your feet. It is possible for you to shed virus from your butt and lower back, but a transmission from this area of your body would be highly improbable if not impossible. It is also important to note that people infected with genital HSV commonly shed asymptomatically anywhere neurons are located that originate from the sacral ganglia (I've seen it described here as the "boxer shorts area"). 2. Yes, when someone is infected, the virus travels via neurons to the base of the spinal cord (specifically, the sacral ganglia) where it hides and establishes latency in neural cells, successfully evading the immune system. Flu-like systems are due to the immune response that is usually a result of a recent and primary infection. I have never read a scientific reason as to why some people experience a serious primary outbreak, while others are infected without symptoms and carry the virus asymptomatically for years. My guess is it has something to do with number of viral copies transferred and the state of one's immune system pre- and post infection. 3. No. While they may be in the same family, the relationship between mono and HSV-1 and 2 would best be described as "distant cousins." Consider that despite the fact HSV-1 and 2 are very nearly identical, antibodies specific for one do not convey to the other.

If it is filled with clear or yellowish fluid, it certainly fits the textbook example of a herpetic lesion. There is a chance it could be a simple razor bump as well. There is really no way for you to know for sure without a clinical test. I'd advise you to not worry about it much, and just abstain from sex until it goes away.

Hey guys- so my first herpes outbreak is over and I sort of forgot about the herpes for a little while but today I'm having a rough time again.. I'm in college and our campus gynecologist has next to no idea what she's talking about when it comes to herpes. She told me that if you have it orally you automatically also have it genitally.. SO here I am with a question for you guys, because this forum has helped me through the hardest of this- I have HSV1 genitally. Should I be wearing gloves to masturbate in case of passing the virus to my fingers? Also with my partner (also HSV1 genitally) is it okay to use our hands with each other? The thought of wearing gloves to masturbate or touch each other is sort of depressing honestly. Maybe after the 4-6 months of building up antibodies we won't have to worry about it? Thanks for any responses!!! Research indicates that about 20% of people with genital HSV-1 shed asymptomatically less than 5% of the time, and about 80% of people with genital HSV-1 never shed asymptomatically. In the absence of physical symptoms, precautions are probably not necessary, especially considering the fact your partner is also infected genitally with HSV-1.

Yea I watch him from time to time. Despite the fact his personal ideals usually contradict my own, I enjoy his humorous spin on politics. No doubt he is funny, intelligent guy. I know his main intent was simply humor, but I wouldn't make an analogy between herpes and congress. The Federal government has had a far more negative impact on my life than herpes.

I understand that concern, Dancer. Private insurance often offered extended child coverage under more comprehensive plans prior to the government mandate. Some Blue Cross/Blue Shield plans offered this service (I think the age cutoff was 25), and I benefited from it under my parent's BS/BC coverage until I was able to secure my own insurance in my early 20's. My point is that it should be an optional service that individuals can freely opt in or out of based on their own needs. It should NOT be universally applied to everyone by government mandate, thus increasing everyone's premiums. Another thing to consider: prior to the ACA, roughly 80% of Americans had some sort of medical coverage (Medicare, Medicaid, or private coverage), with 20% having no coverage at all. The ACA was passed in 2010, and although I understand it did not go into complete effect until 2014, insurance coverage among the populace has only increased 3.5%. So now we have roughly 83.5% of the population covered, and 16.5% uncovered (not sure if this number includes those receiving federal vouchers) and paying tax penalties. So, for a landmark bill that comes at a cost of billions to tax payers, that has completely destabilized the insurance market, that has forced millions of people to either change plans, get dropped completely, or forced into paying much higher premiums, we have a 3.5% increase in enrollment. Personally, that does not sound like a good investment and favorable trade-off. The American public (who still highly disapprove of the ACA in its current form) has the capability to change this in 2016 with the power of the vote. I encourage everyone to do their part in the democratic process. Frankly, with voter turnout hovering around 50% during major election years, it makes me angry at my fellow Americans for their complacency and apathy. Does everyone not understand that tens of thousands of patriots have died in the last ~250 years to preserve this unique liberty that very few people worldwide enjoy? /end rant

Good points Dancer, appreciate your insight. I'll keep this short, because I am about to go to bed. I am fairly certain that pre-ACA, gastric bypass surgery was usually considered cosmetic unless the patient was at risk for severe and fatal complications such as blood clots and heart attack. Anyway, the whole intent of privatized insurance was it is designed such that the patient can pick and choose what kind of coverage he/she desired. A la carte, if you will. Catastrophic coverage with a high deductible and very low premiums? Fine. Individual comprehensive coverage? Fine, but the premiums are based on risk factors such as age, weight, smoking habits, drinking habits, etc. High risk patients pay more than low risk patients- only fair. A young, healthy person who rarely has issues and does not want insurance? Fine, pay out of pocket. Prescription drug coverage or no? Patient's choice. Point being, anyone can tailor a plan to his or her specific needs. Under the ACA, each citizen is required is carry a certain minimum amount of coverage. So you are now required by law to carry more insurance than may be necessary, and you suffer higher premiums for it. Anyone enrolled in the government insurance pays the same premium, regardless of the state of one's health, and is automatically accepted due to the pre -existing condition clause. The risk is shared, and the 25 fit male pays the same premium as a 50 year old obese, smoking, alcoholic. Can't even afford the premiums? No problem, the federal government will give you vouchers to cover it, courtesy of the tax-payers. Where is the fairness in any of that? There is no personal accountability, as you stated. Another big issue I have with the ACA is the clause that allows children to remain covered under their parent's insurance until age 26. What?! I was raised to understand that someone became an adult at age 18, and was required to make his/her own way in life from that point onward. So now we all pay higher premiums to cover the 25 year old deadbeat who lives with his parents and won't work. Fantastic. The whole system obstructs free market enterprise, invites federal intrusion into citizen's lives, and interferes with personal liberty. The Supreme Court ruled against the argument that the ACA is unconstitutional, stating that it is technically a tax, therefore making it constitutional. Tax= a synonym for redistribution of wealth, if in relation to a social program such as the ACA. The law can be repealed, changed or replaced if Congress approves. This change would required a republican majority house and senate, and a republican president. With a democratic president, the house and senate would required a 2/3 's super majority to override the guaranteed presidential veto. Don't hold your breath. The ACA flies in face of American ideology of a small federal government with a limited scope of power (except during wartime). States were originally intended to have the most power regarding issues within their own respective borders, with little intervention from the federal government. My, how have things changed.

Yes, I have heard that acyclovir can cause some side effects if taken on an empty stomach. Try eating something first before taking the medication. Your side effects could have at least been partially due to your stress at the time, as well. Nausea and emotional distress ("crazy" in your words) are very common side effects of stress. Genital sweating, though? That's a new one on me. Try incrementally increasing your dose and taking the medication with food and a full glass of water. I'm guessing you will be fine; acyclovir and valacyclovir are generally very safe and well-tolerated drugs for most people. And yes, if your boyfriend has never been tested for HSV or he hasn't been tested since his last partner, he absolutely needs to be tested. He actually needs a full STD screen if he hasn't had one since his last partner, and that goes for you as well.

It is possible that she is telling the truth. Do you know what kind of test she had? Herpes tests commonly produce false negatives, for a variety of reasons. She may have been living for years under a false assumption she was HSV-negative due a false test, but I do find it suspicious that she would be carrying HSV medication for one questionable genital outbreak and false test that happened "years ago." The important thing for you to do right now is to get tested. You need swabs taken of your lesions asap, as well as an IgG specific blood test for HSV-1 and HSV-2. It is important you receive this exact kind of test, because other HSV blood tests such as PCR and IgM are extremely inaccurate. Your girlfriend needs to get this same IgG test as well. One, both, or neither of you may have herpes. How long ago was the last time you had sex with her prior to your outbreak? Try to withold judgement on her until both you and her have been properly tested. Keep this post updated and either myself or someone else will help you with guidance or advice.

I am not female, but it sounds like you may be having a minor outbreak. Prodromes generally refer to internal symptoms (itching, tingling, stinging sensations are common) that indicate the virus may be active and often precede a physical outbreak. As for suppressive therapy, 500g/day of Valtrex or 800mg/day of acyclovir are the optimized standard dosing regimens. Taking any less than that will not convey full suppression, and I would advise you not to take a smaller dose and have sex under the pretense that you are "protected." What you read was probably referring to the process of building tolerance to a drug by gradually increasing the dose. In other words, if you had a negative reaction to taking a full dose, try taking a 1/4 dose per day for a week or two, then upping it to a half dose per day when you feel comfortable, ultimately leading to your body being able to tolerate a full daily dose. Although for most people acyclovir causes no side effects, it is possible that your body just can not tolerate the drug. In that case, I suggest you try Famvir, which is the other anti-viral drug commonly used for herpes suppression. On a different note, has your boyfriend been tested? There is a chance he may already be infected, thus making the transmission issue moot.

As seeker pointed out, there have been government-subsidized programs (Medicare and Medicaid namely, although both need major overhauling) in place for a while for qualified people. Those who are not qualified should be able to pay out of pocket or pay for private insurance coverage, or at least that was the theory (and let's not forget about all the young people who don't want/need health care or the tax burden of universal health care). I understand there are people who may slip through the cracks, but there are also quite a few private charitable health programs that provide care for the less fortunate. The Affordable Care Act (which was forced upon the American public against popular opinion, by the way) changed everything, and was a big step toward a system more resembling that of Canada or the UK. Some people, like you apparently, may believe health care is a God given right, but other people, such as myself, believe government-mandated health care violates the basic tenants of founding American ideology, in the form of government overreach, violation of personal liberties, and redistribution of wealth. If anything, it needs to be made a state issue, just like the myriad of other controversial topics (abortion, gay marriage, etc ad nauseum). The federal government should stick to it's original intended purpose, which is enforcing the constitution, settling disputes between states, and protecting the country against foreign threat. It has no business sticking it's nose in the business of health care. I could go on and on about the federal government; the ACA is just one of many examples of federal overreach. P.S. I speak strictly in terms of American policy, I have no business or concern in domestic policy in foreign countries.

Good points about government overreach, seeker. I agree that Medicare is one of the most diseased, abused, and absurd entities in our bloated Federal government that is becoming increasingly more socialized every year. I'm not saying that the traditional U.S. model of privatized health care was perfect- it was far from it. But so far the federal government has done a grand job of botching the whole situation, instead of making the improvements that were necessary. The root of the problem is corrupt politicians, from both sides of the party isle. Without a corrupt government, corporate corruption will largely cease to exist. Exile lobbyists from D.C., institute limitations on "campaign contributions," and clean house in Congress, including the institution of term limits. The federal government lost touch with its citizens long ago and has been and playing with tax revenue like it was Monopoly money for decades, but the American constituency is either too apathetic or too brainwashed to take action. 15% approval rating for Congress, yet a 85% incumbent re-election rate. Wait, what? #mindblown It's a very real possibility we will have another Bush vs. Clinton ticket in 2016- your state's Jeb Bush against Billary. Good old-fashioned D.C. blueblood corruption at its finest. I'm tired of voting for the lesser evil of only two viable candidates. Makes me sick to my stomach, to be honest. Sorry for derailing the original intent of this thread, but politics gets me pretty fired up.

I mean R&D and quality of care. The top physicians and surgeons in the world practice in the U.S. No one travels from the U.S. to other countries to have surgical procedures done, except a small handful who desire cosmetic surgery at a smaller price. No one goes without critical care here either; by law hospitals must treat any patient, and 911 medical responders answer every call, regardless of the patient's financial status. You do pay for your health care via taxes, whether you realize it or not. Nothing is free. Socialized health care versus privatized health care is largely an idealogical argument, and not the intent of this thread. I'm not sure if this forum is the appropriate place for such a debate, anyway. So we will have to agree to disagree.

Dancer said "Sorry - but I always suspected this was the case for most drugs (given that you can buy the same drug in most other countries for far, far less) but this article just proved what I have always suspected... Drug companies are screwing us (and not even bothering to use lube) and they WILL bankrupt the healthcare system one day....Cost to produce... $300 ... cost to the consumer $84,0000 ... That makes highway robbery look like child's play" Dancer, I agree that in the instance of this specific drug, the profit margin may appear to be a bit excessive at first glance. Fortunately, this is probably an exception and not the rule. Such are the woes of a free market economy, I suppose. Simple economics dictate that if enough people can not afford the drug (i.e., it ceases to become profitable), then the price will have to be lowered until it is affordable and enough people buy it to make it profitable. A simple and easily recognizable example of this is the price of gasoline. As consumption diminishes, the price falls. Would you prefer a government-sponsored health care system, such as that in the UK? Where someone can not even obtain suppressive valacyclovir treatment in the absence of constant symptoms? There is a reason that the U.S. health care system is far and away #1 in the world, and government intervention is not the reason.

@beachdude you seem to be fairly knowledgeable in this field so I want to propose a question ( I wish we still had cityofangels around for this sort of discussion), I had one of those " be careful what you wish for" moments while looking @ at vaccine info. lets say a really good therapeutic comes along, reduces shedding 90%, OBs by 95%, lowers load to almost non transmittable. Then a few years later an actual cure comes along, however, lo and behold, whatever mechanism the therapeutic uses makes the cure non viable for those who have taken it! is that even possible??? I know one of the key avenues being looked at for a herpes specific cure is trying to turn off its ability to fool the body into leaving it be in the nerve. seems like if its forced into a state of dormancy by another avenue that could be blocked. Seeker, I've seen this question answered by researchers and experts, and the short answer is that no one knows. Everything in development is so new that thorough testing has not been conducted to identify potential drug interactions. However, the general concensus is that two therapies taken simultaneously should have an additive effect, and should not "cancel each other out." In the case of a vaccine, consider what a vaccine is actually doing. A vaccine, whether it be for HSV or anything else, simpy exposes your immune system to a specific antigen, thereby eliciting an immune response to that antigen. This immune response response is not anything unnatural beyond what your immune would ordinarily do, only the response would be many magnitudes (hundreds, if the vaccine is effective) greater than what your immune system would naturally conduct against natural infection of a wild-type virus. An elevated level of HSV-specific antibodies due to vaccine treatment should not, in theory, reduce the efficacy of any future therapy or cure. One potential avenue of possible HSV cure research is exploring a way to "trick" the entire latent viral reservoir into activating all at once, thereby making it vulnerable to the immune system and existing anti-virals. I can only assume that a vaccine-induced super immunity would only aid, and not hinder, such a therapy. Speaking of potential HSV cures, only one has actually been formulated, patented, and tested on animals. That one would be DRACO, and it works by killing every viral-infected cell in your body. I can not imagine any scenario where any therapy taken previously would inhibit this drug's mechanism of action. But like I said, at this point, no one knows for sure. Another thing to keep in mind is that any systemic suppression drug (acyclovir, famvir, currently unavailabe pritelivir) is only going to remain in the body as long as someone continues to take the medication. If a concern arises for the potential of these type drugs to interfere with a future therapy, one simply has to stop taking the suppressive drug and it will be metabolized and excreted in a matter of days. I hope that long-winded response sonewhat answers your question and is not as clear as mud.