hippyherpy

https://bgr.com/2016/05/12/ibm-drug-zika-ebola-herpes/ "IBM isn’t just a computer company anymore. The IBM Research arm partnered up with the Institute of Bioengineering and Nanotechnology (IBN) in Singapore to create a chemical macromolecule that acts as a “magic bullet” capable of killing all sorts of viral infections. The substance could be used in the future to stave off a wide range of diseases, including Ebola, Zika, herpes, influenza and other viral threats. This new chemical may be used to create medications that target virus cells and stop them from reproducing. The compound can seemingly also kill viruses on contact when used in soaps and other cleaning products. “It’s almost a daunting task to design any kind of therapeutic for a virus,” James Hedrick, one of the lead researchers, told FastCompany. That’s because these viruses are varied and they constantly mutate. But IBM and IBN worked on creating a chemical that targets the one thing that doesn’t change when a virus mutates. “We began to think, how can we move forward and kind of attack the virus in a very different way,” Hedrick said. “Instead of going after its RNA or DNA, we looked at the glycoproteins that surround…the virus.” The macromolecule can attach to the substances on the exterior of the virus. That way, it blocks the virus from hooking onto a cell in the body and prevents infection. The macromolecule also has receptors that can bind to immune cells such as macrophages, blocking the spot where a virus would attach itself. That’s another way it fights viral infections. Finally, if the virus somehow bypasses the first two hurdles, the macromolecule has one more trick up its sleeve: it’s basic rather than acidic. That means it can neutralize the acidity in a human cell, diminishing a virus’s ability to replicate. “If you went to, say, Southeast Asia where dengue runs amok…you could basically get a temporary kind of vaccine,” Hedrick said about the medicine, which can be used both to prevent infection and to cure existing illnesses. Soap based on the macromolecule might be released soon, while a true antiviral might take up to five years to develop. IBM’s role is pretty obvious. The macromolecule was designed using a computer, and it was tested successfully in lab tests against Ebola, dengue, Marburg, influenza, chikungunya, Enterovirus 71 and herpes simplex, representing all major viruses. Zika is next, and Hedrick is optimistic that the macromolecule will beat it since Zika is similar to a form of dengue. IBM computers were able to create a model of the molecule that would attach to all types of viruses, which is the essential component of this promising new treatment."

2 in the mouth is the least active. Do people with oral 2 have to disclose? It's not genital and less active than 1 oral.. is two oral considered "cold sores"?

I'd rather have hsv2 oral than hsv1 oral, so 1 isn't always preferable to 2.

I'm actually waiting for the nasty reaction because I think it would be pretty funny. Haven't had that yet hehe Anyone of us can easily just not tell the other person. But there are a lot of carrots and sticks that say it is the thing to do. The sticks are obvious, but the carrots often get obscured by fear of rejection. I'll say this about the carrot or silver lining of disclosing- for the people that are ok with it, it can actually make more of a bond, because as WCS said, it's an opportunity to display your honesty. This can create a great feeling of comfort for the other person.. it's a massive trust builder. For casual sex, it's not that neccessary to have that extra level of trust, but if you decide to go further into a relationship with someone, I can see how the display of honesty can work in your favor. Anyway, just for purely selfish reasons, I think it is good to disclose just as an excuse to have a talk about STDs in general because as a herpes carrier, you are at more risk for HIV and the CDC recently released a study that showed that STDs are on a big rise (as I predicted) thanks to the dating apps.

I'm glad that you can take something positive from this thread. I had another recent success with a girl who I had talked about herpes with a while ago who hit me up out of the blue after I thought it was a rejection. That makes about eleven new girls since the start of this year and I been with several towards the end of last year. Casual sex is definitely doable with herpes disclosure. You might have to put some more effort in, but it's doable for sure. Also I disclosed to another girl over text who is interested in fucking me. She was impressed with my honesty and it looks like it's a "go" maybe for this weekend. By the way, there was a recent report I think by the CDC that said There's a massive increase in STDs due dating apps like Tinder. I've had several girls tell me they got HPV recently after I disclosed to them. Imagine how many girls out there have HPV and don't disclose (the only reason they did was because I did). Also, it's important to disclose for your own health as herpes puts you a greater risk of getting HIV. If you have an STD talk then you get to find out a little more about their experience.

Had a rejection today. The first in a while. Over text with someone I've never met. Next!

There isn't much to grieve. You will come to realize that you are still you, and that having herpes might not have much an effect on your sex life at all.

I think that people don't care about herpes as much as the hype tells us. I consider having herpes a personal thing that I wouldn't share on the dating websites just like a lot of other things I don't share on the websites. I don't feel a need to "wear it on my sleeve" because it isn't at all part of the core defining aspects of who I am. It is cool that you are doing that though because the more people fell normal about the herp the better.

I've heard that the Danish men have had their "umph" knocked out of them due to Jende Law or whatever it is that turns once fierce viking men into wimpy personalities hahah American guys know how to get the job done.

You don't know if you want to engage them sexually until you meet sometimes- correct?

Never said there is a "right" way as in the only way, but there's a lot of personal stuff that people broadcast on online dating websites. Considering that herpes isn't a big deal, I don't see the point in putting it up there. Let's say you had ringworm on your elbow. Would you put that in your profile? Or what if you had genitalia that was slightly different than what most people consider to be normal, or were super rich or any number of personal things.. would you put that stuff on your online profile? The purpose of a profile is just to help get to meet the person in real life.

Flawsandall, I'm curious- what is it about American men that you like a lot?

Why should herpes be different from any other thing that gets you blocked? People can block people on dating websites for all sorts of reasons. Also, it's just one dude out of millions and millions. In the early stages of dating, you got to just think of it as like an arcade game. You lose, so what.. just pop another quarter in and keep going. You will get better at dealing with herpes related rejections- they are just like any other rejection. And, you will probably find that there are many more people out there who are ok with it. My advice is to not list in on your profile. It's a bit of personal information that can be shared after you've met the person and looks like things are getting hot and heavy. The freedom and confidence is all in you- it's in your head. It's there. You can tell yourself it isn't, but that's a lie.

The thing is that herpes is just one thing on a long list of tests that are given in life, and potential "setbacks" to sex. Think about other obstacles you might have overcome to improve your love life. Herpes, despite the stigma is actually a minor issue for the vast majority of people. I'm talkin about the actual experience of having it. Actually, the stigma is bigger than the virus. It's just cold sores on your genitals. Then there is great strength in having this thing that everyone is so scared of and you have this secret that it's not a big deal. It's almost like having a leg up on everyone else in a way. Like part of being in a special club hundreds of years ago that knows that the world is round and not flat and you aren't going to fall off of it. Assuming your symptoms aren't so bad, the rest of dealing with herpes is mental. You can make a choice to let it take over or not. It is your choice. My thing with herpes now is getting more info about how it relates to HIV as I am very sexually active. Nobody has commented on my HIV and herpes thread and can't find the info I'm looking for elsewhere so that's a drag..

Nope she gets her own tests and I still hook up with her occasionally.

After my first breakout.. like a as the wounds were healing- that week.. I had sex with a girl. We used condoms, but at one point she was grinding her clit on my shaft when we were having sex. She didn't get it from me.

I also found this blog entry which makes it seem like a three times greater likelihood due to herpes is still barely even a drop in the bucket of risk: http://www.aliveandwell.org/html/risk_realities/whatever_happened.html "Health officials have known these things for years. A growing pile of federally funded reports on HIV transmission, published over the past decade and available to anyone who has the time to read them, shows that men almost never get HIV from women. In fact, according to a 1998 study in the Journal of the American Medical Association, a disease-free man who has an unprotected one-nighter with a drug-free woman stands a one in 5 million chance of getting HIV. If he wears a condom, it’s one in 50 million. He’s more likely to be struck by lightning (one in 7000,000). "

I couldn't find a thread on this topic, and I think it's an important one about which I have a few questions. We've talked about it before, but I'm still confused about several things. I want to better understand the realistic risks of me catching HIV due to having genital herpes. I'm a white male, and I pretty much have sex with only White, Asian, and Latin women. I sleep around more often than the average guy. Since I got diagnosed with herpes, I've been much more careful about using condoms. Having herpes increases your risk of getting HIV by three times if you come into contact with HIV. I came across an article (posted below) on HIV and Herpes, and I'm trying to make sense of it. The gist is that thanks to herpes, HIV transmission is now becoming most prevalent amongst straight, non-intravenus drug users. The article says that female to male transmission rates of HIV are 4 out of 10,000 risk events. To me, this is somewhat low odds. Even if you add herpes to the equation, that would be 3x more likely, so then it becomes 12 10,000 risk events, or 1 in 1000. First of all, is my math right here? Secondly, it is still much less than anal sex (138/10,000) or needle sharing (63/10,000), so how could it be that that herpes is making heterosexual sex HIV's "Biggest mover"? Here are some more questions that I have: If this is the case, how come we don't see great masses of heterosexuals catching HIV? Especially considering that so many people have herpes and don't know, and that 90% of people in the USA have HSV1? Wouldn't we be seeing an epidemic of oral sex induced HIV due to so many people catching it through their CD4 cells left over from cold sores? Also, what role does race play in this? If you are a white heterosexual man having sex with white women, does that change your risk of catching or coming into contact with HIV compared to being, for example, A heterosexual man who is having sex with black women (whom 50% of which have herpes)? To further that question- does it matter if you have herpes or not if you are not having sex with high risk populations of HIV? Here's a technical question: Herpes leaves CD4 cells at the site of a breakout which make HIV transmission three times more likely. Let's say you had your breakout on the tip of your penis. Does that mean that if you cover the tip of your penis with a condom that three times higher risk of getting HIV is still present, or is it cancelled out? What about if HIV comes into contact with any other area in the boxer shorts region that didn't have a breakout- is it still three times more likely to transmit? Is this article confused? Is it a scare piece? Here is the article: https://motherboard.vice.com/read/hivs-biggest-moves-are-hetero-and-needle-free "Among diseases, HIV has a unique relationship with its risk factors. While pretty much any illness has a set of circumstances that make it more likely for a given individual to contract it—some diseases and individuals much more than others—HIV spent much of its named existence as something "of" certain populations. Inevitably then, risk factors comingled with identity, and stigma bloomed. No doubt there are those remaining, even in 2014, whose whole fucked-up worldview gets a boost from HIV remaining the scourge of gay African-American men and intravenous drug users; for typical far-right narratives, those are two highly-encodable demographics. HIV's relationship to the world is changing, however, and quickly. Years of intensive outreach within high-risk populations is paying off, and the relative silence about HIV outside of those groups is having quite the opposite effect, while, at the same time, HIV itself is finding hetero-transmission help from its pal herpes. In a study released on Friday, researchers at New York University's Center for Drug Use and HIV Research describe HIV infection rates among IV drug users in New York City falling to an epidemic-low of 10 percent, down from '90s highs approaching 50 percent. In the same time period, HIV rates among heterosexual, non-IV drug users, historically considered to be one of lowest risk pools (but still above not-at-all drug users, for a number of reasons), doubled, from 7 to 14 percent. According to researchers, what's behind the increase, in part, is the spread of HIV's viral ally, human herpesvirus 2 (genital herpes, HSV-2). HIV transmission from heterosexual (vaginal) sex is, generally, less likely than other, more-discussed vectors. In fact, the likelihood of transmission from a positive male to a negative female partner is just eight in 10,000, while female to male transmission should occur in four out of 10,000 risk events. For receptive anal intercourse, that jumps to 138 transmissions out of 10,000, and needle sharing should yield 63 infections per 10,000 positive-to-negative shares. The thing about herpes, however, is that it makes transmission much, much more likely, and infection rates for HSV-2 in the United States sit at around one fifth of all adults, with the hardest-hit demographic being African-American women, with a near 50 percent infection rate. "Heterosexual intercourse is usually not very efficient for transmitting HIV, but the efficiency of heterosexual transmission nearly triples in the presence of herpes simplex virus type 2," said Don Des Jarlais, the study's lead author, in a statement from NYU. There are a couple of reasons for the boost, according to the NIH. For one, genital herpes in outbreak mode causes lesions, open sores through which an HIV virus might find easy passge into a new recruit. Second, even if those lesions are healed and the herpes infection is considered latent, the CD4+ T cells that HIV needs to bind with and infect are known to hang around the sites of healed lesions, offering an alternative passage into the host. Part of the answer, according to Jarlais and a growing chorus of public health experts, is what's known as "treatment as prevention." That is, we know well enough that antiretroviral therapy and the corresponding drop in viral load can torpedo the likelihood of HIV transmission. So if more HIV patients are getting proper treatment, then they're far less likely to spread the disease. What's more, administering antiretroviral therapy to uninfected individuals boosts those individuals' resistance to infection as well. Obviously that's not the most general solution, but it makes sense in known high-risk populations. Jarlais concludes optimistically: "If we can implement these programs on a large scale, we should be able to control sexual transmission of HIV in the city, and achieve the goal of an "End to the AIDS Epidemic."

Here's a new nano cream that deals with herpes in mice: http://www.chicagomag.com/city-life/April-2016/UIC-Research-Herpes-Vaccine-Mice-Study/ The virus that causes genital herpes is incredibly common—about 15 percent of Americans ages 14 to 49 carry it—and an effective vaccine has been hard to find. That’s because the herpes simplex virus-2—which also causes serious eye infections in babies and people with weak immune systems—spends so little time in our bloodstream, where most vaccines get to work. But researchers at University of Illinois at Chicago have seen a breakthrough (at least in mice studies) with a new approach that comes in the form of a topical cream. Right now, people with genital herpes are limited to medications that will suppress the symptoms and decrease the number of flare-ups. The new study, published in the Journal of Immunology by UIC researchers and German scientists, shows that nanoparticles called ZOTEN are able to keep the virus from infecting cells and stimulate the immune system to fight the virus long-term. “It possesses both microbicidal and vaccine-like properties," says Deepak Shukla, one of the researchers on the study. “It is a totally novel approach to developing a vaccine against herpes, and it could potentially also work for HIV and other viruses.” Shukla, a professor at the UIC College of Medicine, expects human studies of the vaccine to come in the future, but in the meantime, he and other researchers will continue testing on non-human subjects to improve the way ZOTEN works. (The nanoparticles were synthesized by material scientists in Germany.) In the recent study, female mice swabbed with the virus and the ZOTEN cream had significantly fewer lesions and less central nervous system inflammation than mice that were swabbed with the virus and placebo cream. By watching the nanoparticles interact with the virus and immune system cells, Shukla says they were able to see how it helps facilitate immunity, too. Traditional preventative approaches “have failed against genital herpes and HIV,” Shukla says, which makes the success of this two-sided approach even more exciting for researchers. Though it’s still in early research stages, if the cream can proceed to clinical studies and be proven effective on humans as well, it could change the way we look at a virus that affects millions of Americans.

Actually the stats are something like 1/4 people in some cities have genital h.

From what I know, this much less likely or impossible if you've had the virus for a while. There are people on this forum who probably know better than I do about the precise risk.

Nice. I think a lot of people without herpes would benefit from the mindset. I also bet there a more people on dating and hook up apps that have herpes but don't say. Plenty of Herps.

I believe Chocolate and coffee are known to cause outbreaks.

Sometimes, and I've have a a few rejections that way, but usually I disclose when sex seems immenent.

You forgot 5) Tinder. Last two girls I had sex came straight from Tinder to my house for sex.