Beachdude1984

Just as reality check of what a "Cure" may cost you when it comes: http://www.alternet.org/drugs/pharma-drug-bankrupting-america In the first year of marketing, Sovaldi and Harvoni are already blockbusters, reaping a remarkable $12.4 billion of market sales in 2014, more in just one year than the $11.2 billion price that Gilead paid in January 2012 to buy sofosbuvir from a biotech start-up named Pharmasett. The standard defense by the drug companies of these astronomical prices is that drug discovery is costly and their high profits reimburse the R&D costs. Here is where the story of Sovaldi gets even more interesting. The total private-sector outlays on R&D were perhaps $300 million, and almost surely under $500 million, meaning that the decade-long R&D outlays were likely recouped in a few weeks of drug sales. As far as company costs go, R&D is just one part of the equation. The required three phase trial process for FDA approval requires thousands of paid volunteers, doctors, nurses, lab technicians, etc. And then if the drug gets approved, it has to be mass-produced in a sterile environment to very stringent standards. This is why smaller biotech firms almost always sell their drug patents to large pharma companies, or at the least partner with them. The small guys just simply do not have the money and/or facilities. And then let's not forget that for every one drug that is approved and becomes profitable, dozens (hundreds?) of others fail in animal or human trials. The money spent on those drugs is a total loss. I'm not exactly defending large pharma companies, because I know they are some of the largest and wealthiest corporations in the world, but I am just pointing out that there is much more to it than what is indicated in Dancer's excerpt.

@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 Seeker, I had a long reply typed out on my phone but it froze and I lost it. I'll try again later on a PC.

Normal suppressive dosing for HSV with valacyclovir is 500mg/ day and 800mg/day with acyclovir. 2000mg/ day of Valtrex is a very high dose, and if you are still having constant outbreaks after 6 weeks, I would say it's a very real possibility that you are infected with an acyclovir-resistant strain of the virus. You won't lose anything by stopping the Valtrex and starting Famvir. If the Famvir is less effective, you can always go back to the Valtrex.

What does it mean "bringing to the clinic"...meaning ready for trials? So h is 4 years away from going to trials and it will be another 5 years likely after that? Ordinarily, when the words "clinically available" are used in this context, it means the drug is commercially available and accessible by the public. However, in this situation, since there is no mention of ongoing human trials, I'm assuming the words "bringing to the clinic" mean that is when the human trials will begin. I could be wrong, and I intend to do more research. Typically all 3 three phases take 5-6 years to complete, then another year for FDA approval and mass production before it is readily available. The fact that they have secured full funding and partnered with a large pharma company is great news and ensures the process will go as smoothly and quickly as possible.

I'm interested in learning more about this: http://medcitynews.com/2014/10/startup-using-gates-funded-research-develop-herpes-hiv-vaccines-raising-12m/

As for myself, I have used both name-brand Valtrex and the generic, and had issues with neither.

By law, generic drugs must contain the same active ingredient in the same quantities as their name- brand counterparts. So, a 500mg Valtrex tablet will contain 500mg of valacyclovir, and an approved generic alternative will also contain 500mg of valacyclovir. From a strictly therapeutic standpoint, there is no difference between the two, and each will have an equal effect in relation to suppressing HSV. Now, where the two tablets may differ, is the quantity and type of inert, inactive ingredients ("fillers") in the tablets. This is why people often complain of side effects felt with name brand drugs but not with the generic equivalent, or vice versa. They are having a reaction to the inactive ingredients found in one, but not the other.

The only OTC treatment that brought me any relief was gold bond powder. Diflucan is doctor prescribed, and will knock it out quickly if it is yeast. I can not diagnosed you, which is why you need to see a MD. Your doctor was correct in stating that a positive IgG result indicates an established infection. Your symptoms do not sound at all like HSV, and it is unlikely you contracted HSV-1 from your most recent encounter. You could have contracted something else from her, though. Or it could be eczema. Or contact dermatitis. Or yeast. Or something else. So once again, if I were you, my next appointment would be to see a dermatologist. If that is unhelpful, my next step would be a different dermatologist or and infectious disease specialist. Good luck.

Whitedaisies is correct. PCR swab is the same method used during clinical trials for potential HSV therapies to determine the effect of the medication on viral shedding rates. I still maintain that what you are experiencing is most likely not related to HSV. I had the exact symptoms you are describing once- red, itchy rash on scrotum and underside of penis, and white flaking skin in the area. It lasted for weeks and I went to a doctor. Turned out to be yeast. Go to a dermatologist.

I remember when this story initially made news. I know celebrities often get sued for transmitting herpes, because they can afford to settle out of court for large sums of money and sweep it under the rug. I am not defending the man, he clearly had a lapse of judgement and made a morally incorrect decision, but these types of cases serve to perpetuate and strengthen the fear and stigma surrounding HSV. Almost a million dollars and a criminal battery charge for transmitting freakin' cold sores? Wow...

Aren't you the fella who was feeling guilty, because you believe you contracted genital HSV-1 from one act of infidelity? You might have already been told this, so I apologize for possibly repeating something, but if you wife has a history of cold sores, then the odds are far greater that you actually contracted genital HSV-1 from her via oral sex. At any rate, as the others mentioned, with an established oral infection, she is basically immune to contracting the virus elsewhere on her body. Avoid sex during outbreaks, and enjoy.

To add to what fitgirl said concerning stats, the other high risk demographic is all unmarried women over age 40, with infection rates of at least 50% for this group. Point being, you are far from alone.

Bslydell, I would advise you to see a dermatologist as soon as possible. The symptoms you are describing sound more like a bacterial or fungal infection than HSV.

I understand the confusion now. Yes, I suppose it's entirely possible for saliva or vaginal fluid to pass over a shedding skin surface and "carry" the virus elsewhere. But it's very important to note that, unlike other viruses such as HIV, the herpes virus is not inherently contained in bodily fluids. This is a big misconception about HSV that I have read on numerous occasions.

I use daily medication if I am in a relationship and having sex. Anti-virals greatly reduce the chance of transmission, and I feel this is only fair to the negative partner. If I am not dating, then I only use anti-virals for episodic treatment. This approach reduces the length and severity of outbreaks, while still giving your immune system the opportunity to be exposed to the virus and produce antibodies.

@fitgirl Yes. I honestly would. It would be nice to get some male perspective on this. I know that we are all human and have feelings, but as a woman, I know that we express ourselves differently. I know that no one is alone in this, we are all friends here. I'm just ready to start developing the right friendships. I still have so many questions to address and I want to better understand my new (lifelong) partner(s). I still can't stand my "yuck", yet I want to better deal with it. What exactly is your question? I'm not trying to be a smartass, I just want to be able to give you a thorough answer.

Anyway, if you google it, most (reputable) sites state that it can be present in saliva for oral hsv, and in semen and vaginal fluids for genital hsv. I don't want to cause anyone to panic… just to be aware. This is not true. When herpes "reawakens" from latency in your spinal cord, it travels via neurons (usually the same neurons it used to establish latency during primary infection- this is why we get our outbreaks in the same area every time) to the skin surface where it replicates and either sheds asympomatically or presents as symptomatic sores. The only way for one to be infected is for someone's vulnerable skin surface to come into contact with someone else's skin surface that is actively shedding or has active sores. The herpes virus is not present in blood, saliva, urine, semen, or any other bodily fluid.

Yes the healing process begins on day 1. I wouldn't exactly call a herpes diagnosis a "dreadful sentence," though. Maybe you were just being facetious, but if that is how you truly feel, then those negative thoughts will manifest into your reality, and herpes truly will be a literal dreadful sentence for you.

I've got to agree with Dancer here, 100%. Well said. If he can't accept you now, what makes you think that he would have accepted you 8 months from now? You saved 8 months of your life by disclosing now, the way I see it. I know you are heart-broken now, but you will get through this. You will be smitten again, and disclose again. Probably several more times, at least, until you find "the one." I'm almost 31, single, never married, and have been through the process numerous times myself. 5 years from now you probably won't even be able to remember his name. It stinks today, but you will pull through. By the way, I'm not sure how old you are, and maybe this was a good lesson, but I can tell you from experience that dating someone whom is married/separated/newly divorced is an extremely unpredictable and possibly volatile situation, and I would advise you to proceed with extreme precaution in the future if you find yourself becoming involved with someone of that marital status again.

10 days. In order to maximize the effectiveness of the medication, try to take the medication about 12 hours apart and at the same time every day, with that time being whatever is most convenient for your daily routine (I.e. 7am and 7pm, or 9am and 9 pm, etc ).

You could always say something a long the lines of ,"So I have a friend who has herpes, and I overheard a couple people talking about her today and they were saying some nasty things. She's a great person and it's not fair that people judge her on something they know nothing about." Maybe not verbatim, but something a long those lines. Bring it up during the natural course of a conversation and be somewhat nonchalant about it. Use his reaction to gauge what his reaction would be to your disclosure.

Yes being HSV-1 positive gives you some protection, but because there's so many other factors that contribute to transmission, the degree of protection is unquantifiable. According to the statistics, if she is on suppressive meds, you have about a 2-3% chance of contracting the virus for every 100 acts of intercourse. If you use condoms and no meds, the numbers are about the same. If you use condoms and meds, the chance is reduced to 1-2% per 100. I personally feel if someone is religious about using condoms and/or meds (meaning taking the meds every day at the same time, or using a condom every time), then the percentages may be a bit lower than that. That is my opinion based on A. my personal experience B. the stats are derived from studies that involved hundreds of discordant (one positive, one negative) couples, and the chances that every person in the studies used condoms/meds properly and consistently are slim (in other words, transmission is more likely when someone forgets to take the meds, or when someone uses condoms "some times," thus skewing the numbers). I think if you really like the girl, you shouldn't let HSV get in the way. Have her take the meds and use condoms for a while, until you have a better feel for the direction of the relationship. There are tons of examples of discordant couples who have been married for decades, in which the negative partner remained negative.

Yea funding is a big issue, probably the biggest. On a world-wide scale HSV is so insignificant compared to HIV, malaria, influenza, cancer, etc, that those diseases will rightfully get the lions share of the funding. Many of us forget or don't realize that outside the US, Canada, UK, and Australia, herpes stigma is pretty much nonexistent. As far as the FDA, their de facto #1 goal is to make sure new drugs are safe. That is why the trial process is so rigorous and time consuming. You can thank our overly litigious society for that. And as far as conspiracy theories about drug companies and the FDA go, it's all bull. GSK's patent on Valtrex expired years ago. Remember the Herpevac herpes vaccine that failed miserably in a huge phase 3 trial in 2009? GSK invested a BILLION dollars into that vaccine via R&D and the trial process. It just isn't logical that they would invest that much money into a potential HSV treatment while simultaneously conspiring to keep other treatments from market. Nonetheless, that potential market is huge and I believe we're at a point with medical technology that something better is not only possible, but currently working it's way through the pipeline. It's a matter of when, not if... But hopefully it comes sooner rather than later! :)

Enlight, the treatment you are referencing is called DRACO. Yes it is showing great promise in animal studies but is still years away from human testing, and a long, long, long time from being available commercially, if ever.

Dancer I've seen that study before. The results are vague, and it is unscientific because there is no placebo arm in the trial. Here is a 30+ page thread where dozens of people have tried it and posted their experiences. A few good, mostly negative. http://www.herpes-coldsores.com/messageforum/threads/vzv-varivax-vaccine-results.51799/page-33