Newlook2013

I would be a bad doctor then. cheers...;-)

@ Ladyf123, sounds like hpv to me( the tag + the dull ache....). I'm not a doctor though. I would go back too or seek second opinion elsewhere.

hmm.....@ bowersn84, so you can't find him or his mom anywhere anymore....? SMH.....TTFW.

@ Cecibuendia, as Dancer say in some other words, herpes rarely change our lives, its our attitude that often changes after herpes and we have the potential to direct our attitudes towards a positive course....and so an approved herpes vaccine will fail to change our lives if we could not hold/direct it now.

sorry to anyone if I sounded "a bit arrogant" by that statement. but, I had more of "Well, we DO have the potential for COMPLETE power over it right now" kind of thought when I actually said that. I truly understand its not personal...and I genuinely appreciate that perspective. infact I don't even think there is anything good in taking things personal as I learnt after getting H.( my lesson?....well a girl I really loved and trusted dissapointed me and left me without explanation and did not even want me to talk about that, when I disclosed my job loss to her and I took things personal by "hitting on the road"-and met herpes :-* ) its also amazing how the things we say sometimes or most times have different perspectives with individuals...that's a wonderful thing I think bcos it kind of acts as an opportunity to double- check ones statements, not necessarily ones ideas. For instance, one might feel that, the fact that many promising herpes research have failed over the years does not mean all will fail in the years to come. So one might "bite fingernails" when they hear a good friend say somethin along the lines...." I for one have heard of many promised "cures" for the last 35+ years and so far none have come to pass".....when in fact, all he/she is trying to tell me is not to hold my breath for a promised herpes "cure" and that I should move on with my life. But its all beautiful....

Humans are intelligent creatures (or are supposed to be) and we should have power over everything around us, including hsv. Thanks to this forum and everyone here as your support and encouragements greatly empower almost everyone to control their lives rather than letting a virus control/ define them. Genuine Scientists also being humans, can not continue to fail in their efforts to effectively halt h. A number of hurdles have been overcome over the years through a number of failures...... It does not really help when we get soo obsessed with high hopes or promises of a cure in a specific time frame especially when things dont go as expected. However, as it happens in solving any crossword puzzle, you can feel it and you can see it when you are getting closer to the solution...( infact at times, you could get very close to it but it could take much longer time than you expected). So much to talk about until we get there.

tmi lol received and being processed...... advice on obsession aknowledged as well.... Oh what a world and a feeling....

Well iv tried doing some research on this but seems as still early to prove it. im not sure whether anyone has any further proof or information to show otherwise. The question is how would a future licensed hsv2 vaccine perform against hsv1? or would there be the need for an hsv1 vaccine after an effective hsv2 vaccine? my current thoughts are based on the current existing facts I state below as: 1. almost all existing medications eg: acv and valtrex developed for hsv2 seems to work for hsv1 as well. ( though there are reports of not working for either types, like I seem to have experienced with acyclovir and my hsv1 ) 2. it seems all tested but failed hsv2 vaccines so far had some significant efficacy against hsv1 both theraputic and prophylactic wise. A good eg is the GSK's herpevac for hsv2 which failed for hsv2 but had approx 58% hsv1 theraputic efficacy and approx 73-74% hsv1 prophylactic efficacy( in negetive women) as per below link. http://bvsalud.org/portal/resource/en/mdl-22216840 Thus, I am thinking that though hsv1 vaccine would not be difficult to make after an effective hsv2 vaccine, there might not be the need for it.

yea, I agree with Dancer. If that happens( which is more possible than autoinoculation which lessens with increasing antibodies), you may or may not see the effect. Also, my thoughts in the event of seeing the effect are: gh1 person would likely see the effect more than would a gh2 person on their genitals. The reverse scenario could likely also occur orally.

deleted.

@whitedaisies, "maybe" its bcos the chickenpox virus is known to go dormant for a loooong time after initial outbreak unlike hsv. hence, maybe the antibodies to the chickenpox might want to go to sleep for a while...but a chickenpox vaccine might not allow the antibodies to sleep.....just maybe. I just pasted below qstn and answer from Bill Hayford's( a microbiology prof) scienceblog which is quite relative to the discussion...... "http://herpesvaccine.scienceblog.com/2013/06/15/purpose-of-the-herpes-vaccine-blog/" Peter: September 8, 2013 at 2:07 pm # Hi Bill Perhaps you could clarify a few points on the differences between EBV, HSV1 and Shingles etc. Reason for query…I have suffered from HSV1 since childhood and it is affecting pain in my eyes, ears and scalp. Four years ago I received the shingles vaccine and like magic my outbreaks ceased. They have just started again, this time with underarm swelling and am wondering whether my response to the shingles vaccine is anecdotal? Also, would a second dose of shingles vaccine have any harmful effects? Merck does not have research data to support top-up.  REPLY Bill Halford: September 15, 2013 at 10:57 am# Hi Peter, Please forgive the delayed response. I have been up to my eyeballs with medical school teaching responsibilities. At the bottom of this post, I will cut-and- paste and a paragraph from a book chapter I wrote two years ago that clarifies the relationship between EBV, HSV-1, and shingles…..the bottom line you need to know for now is that these are 3 of the 8 known human herpesviruses. The next thing you need to know is that Epstein-Barr Virus,cytomegalovirus, and HHV-6, HHV-7, and HHV-8 live in blood cells (macrophage, B cells, or T cells), and thus really don’t have much to do with herpes simplex virus 1 and 2 beyond sharing a common evolutionary ancestry….dinosaurs would have had herpesviruses…..they have been around for eons…..today they are found in fish, crocodiles, seals, kangaroos, oysters. Collectively, there are more than 130 known herpesviruses, and 8 of them infect humans. So, now having addressed all of the irrelevant viruses above that bear the word “herpesvirus” in their name, we come to three human viruses that are close relatives: HSV-1, HSV-2, and VZV. HSV-1 and HSV-2 are, as you know, incredibly similar viruses. Varicella-zoster virus(VZV) is also a very similar virus, and shares at least 50 (if not 60) genes in common with HSV-1 and HSV-2. To put a ballpark number on it, VZV is 25–50% similar to HSV-1, whereas HSV-2 is ~98% similar to HSV-1. Elsewhere in this blog, I refer to a French study that reported something comparable to what you describe above: http://www.dovepress.com/efficacy-of-the-anti-vzv-anti-hsv3-vaccine-in-hsv1- and-hsv2-recurrent–peer-reviewed- article-OAJCT-MVP The short answer to your question is that, “No it would not hurt you to get another shingles vaccine.” The difference between the “chickenpox vaccine” and the “shingles vaccine” is that the shingles vaccine contains a 13- fold higher concentration of live-attenuated VZV Oka strain virus in each shot. So, if this approach is going to work, it would make sense that the shingles vaccine would be better than the chickenpox vacccine (because there is 13x more virus available to engage your immune system). Regarding why it might work is that VZV and HSV-2 share a lot of viral proteins in common. The reality is that this is how we stopped the spread of the human disease smallpox……we immunized people with a similar,but distinct virus, originally isolated from the cowpox lesions that cows get on their udders. This “cowpox virus” was not identical to the “smallpox virus,” but they had enough in common that the cowpox vaccination elicited an immune response that CROSS-PROTECTED against its close cousin the smallpox virus. The cowpox virus was first isolated by Edward Jenner in the 1790s, and he published a paper in 1798 reporting the cross- protection against the deadly smallpox virus (which killed 25% of Europe’s population on more than one occasion). After 1798, the virus was passed from vaccine recipient to vaccine recipient who developed a pock lesion at the site of vaccination that was loaded with the vaccine virus. Eventually, the virus came to be known as the “vaccinia virus,” and this is precisely the origination of the term “vaccination.” Originally, the term was introduced in contrast to the term “variolation.” Variolation meant to deliberately inoculate people with the virus that caused smallpox (i.e., the variola virus). Variolation did protect people against smallpox, but 1-2% of people variolated developed smallpox disease and died. In contrast “vaccination” was a much safer alternative and yet still elicited protection against smallpox. Louis Pasteur developed a “rabies vaccine” in the late 1800s,and so named the procedure in honor of Jenner’s discovery of the “vaccination” procedure to prevent smallpox. Hence, Louis Pasteur (nearly 100 years later) gave us the modern meaning of vaccination, which means “injecting someone with a benign substance that is antigenically related to a disease-causing microbe in order to elicit an immune response that is CROSS-PROTECTIVE against the disease-causing microbe.” I digress. The relevant point is that we cured smallpox with a SIMILAR, BUT DISTINCT vaccinia virus that was derived from cowpox. Likewise, many countries use the BCG vaccine to reduce the incidence of tuberculosis caused by Mycobacterium. tuberculosis. The active ingredient in the BCG vaccine is a related bacterium known as Mycobacterium bovis…..SIMILAR, BUT DISTINCT from the agent of tuberculosis. So Peter, yes, there is a historical precedent for the phenomenon you describe of using VZV which is SIMILAR, BUT DISTINCT from HSV-1 in order to elicit an immune response that is CROSS- PROTECTIVE. against diseases caused by HSV-1. If this is true, I note that a live- attenuated HSV-1 vaccine would be more effective as a therapeutic vaccine, as there would be 99.9% similarity to your HSV-1 virus as opposed to the 25-50% similarity of the. VZV vaccine. However, the difference is that you can get a shingles vaccine today, whereas a live- attenuated HSV-1 vaccine is still far off on the horizon. I would not necessarily predict that VZV vaccination would be CROSS- PROTECTIVE against HSV-1 or HSV-2, but if it works, then who am I to knock success? Thanks for the interesting query. – Bill H. ———————————————

@ Dancer, positivelyBeautiful and inka: Soo powerful and true..... @CityofAngels: you tried to be honest with ur view from the other side of life. its really a delicate issue but I believe its ok if u approach things with honesty( not the lies that tries to make someone feel good) while u make vary sure that the other person finally understand ur decision without getting hurt. life is indeed complex and full of uncertainties and there is risk in everything we do.

"@ dancer, ok this is something ive been curious about since learning my status. so, if a cure were ever to be found, a person would eventually test with an igg test as negative cause the antibodies would be gone? I thought our bodies keep a "blueprint" around for similar diseases?" would depend on the type of "cure". if its a tamed live virus or DNA type( which are both not expected to clear everything and would also remain in the body while continuing to stimulate immunity as hypothesized ), then we would still show the " blueprint". however, anything that can enter them camp and kick em all in e ass, then itself enter that hot boiling soup as in the terminator 2, could just result in a clean sheet with time.

Ok, a delicate correction in my earlier statement, " I read that it has a lot to do with healing times of OBs." I should rather have put it, "I presume that it has a lot to do with healing times of OBs" But the point on blood types and antigens/immune responds to infections are real scientific findings. I personally find that a bit abstract as I really don't get sick too( well, I usually make lifestyle changes immediately I find somthn wrong with my health even before I got herpes- though herpes has added a lot more and a great value to that ) On the whole, I think that finding holds true esp when we don't maintain a healthy lifestyle (and/or diet for our body) for sometime..there, our blood (AB) type though in a class of its own could be doing just what has been theorized.

thanks Dancer....