Jump to content
  • Want to be a part of a supportive community? Join the H Opp community for free.

    Welcome to the Herpes Opportunity Support Forum! We are a supportive and positive group to help you discover and live your Opportunity. Together, we can shed the shame and embrace vulnerability and true connection. Because who you are is more important than what you have. Get your free e-book and handouts here: https://www.herpesopportunity.com/lp/ebook

Would partner taking Lysine lessen the risk of them getting herpes?

Recommended Posts

This may be completely false but I gave h2 and I take valtrex and Lysine for mine. Hypothetically speaking of course if you were having sex with someone who is H- do you think them taking a lysine prior to intercourse would some what protect them from transmission? It acts like a natural antiviral so I was just wondering if that could add as another form of protection to them along with condoms and me taking antivirals. I would like to do everything possible to protect a partner from this so I was just curious.

Link to comment

I am a Dr and no, I can't see how it would provide any protection based on the studies or how it functions in the body. Lysine interferes with Arginine metabolism which is required for reproduction of the virus. That doesn't mean it can prevent the cells from being infected to start out with.


To date, I've not seen any studies that show infectivity levels (how many viral particles it takes under what condition to induce infection) or what biochemical profile occurs within the body that promotes infection.


With any and every disorder (viral, bacterial, or genetic/autoimmune) staying healthy is the best defense. Good diet, sleep, low stress, and overall low inflammation would go a lot farther to preventing your partner from getting infected (and even better if YOU are the one following these recommendations because less stress on the body = less recurrence of outbreaks/reduced infectivity) than preventive Lysine dosage.


Just my .02

Link to comment

(I've read several articles stating similar and also widely varying stats).


The article quoted the NIH link as well..


As a scientist, the language in that reads: "We don't know. We just used some math models to guess. We THINK it's this - but we can't say for sure. We want to give you guys hope because we know this sucks and you're tired of dealing with this - plus somebody paid us a bunch of money to do some research so we have to report something - even though it's likely not entirely factual. We're really sorry - this is our best guess. With all viruses, keeping the viral load low is probably a good idea. So - you should do that. Since we know so little about the pattern of infectivity in HSV and why/how numbers of viral particles reproduce so rapidly at random periods of time, we're doing our best (which we know isn't good enough) to try to learn something. But - we admit we know nothing. Sorry."


We're no closer than we were to finding a cure. I find it more reassuring that they've discovered CD8 alpha-alpha T cells - and that they suppress outbreaks (supposedly) than that they THINK the viral load needs to be 10e4 to cause infection.


Here's an interesting NIH publish on viral latency. It's full of jargon - so fair warning.



Given that the virus camps out in the ganglia - including the sympathetic ganglia, any stressor that activates that ganglia can activate the virus. As a researcher, I would be looking more towards binding sites on the cell that activate the virus and increase replication (regarding flares) and binding sites that could be blocked - which would prevent infection in the first place (or just shoring up the immune system such that cells can' be infected at all - the purpose of an immunization). While Lysine (original question) COULD decrease the risk of replication, it wouldn't have anything to do with cell susceptibility. The immune system (natural or acquired immunity) is the only thing that can prevent that.


Another important thing to point out is....

Even if we can "prove" that 10e4 viral particles are required for infectivity - that number would only be accurate in whatever type of system it was tested in. Most of these tests are done on animal models (not humans) - so the accuracy is already altered. They're not done on models with similar physical or emotional stress levels as humans/people that become infected.

One thing you'll see over and over in STD research is HIV and how the rate of HIV infection increases (last study I read said 3x) in HSV patients. One could argue that that's due to open wounds. Others could argue that it's due to alteration of the immune system from constantly fighting off HSV. Regardless, the immune system is altered - leading to a lower resistance to concomitant infections.


In English - it takes fewer viral particles to cause infection.


For most of us, our lifestyles are high stress. This increases susceptibility (lower number of viral particles lead to infection) and increases outbreaks (altered immune system fighting off replicating particles/activation of replicating particles due to altered immune system).


Thanks for letting me geek out for a bit... :)

Link to comment

Hey - I love the geek part of this sometimes ... and I totally agree with the whole thing that there are too many variables to be able to say what exactly causes one person to get H and not another in a similar situation and the holes in the testing (ie, using animals).


And loved the translation from the article ... FINALLY someone who is being HONEST about the research out there. I've been saying that for YEARS and some get upset and say I'm being negative .. when I'm just being honest that we just need to get on with our lives because a cure is not likely to happen any time soon ...vaccine, maybe .... meds to reduce viral loads (better than what is available now) ... maybe. Cure? Sadly not likely any time in the next 10 years unless they manage to find a cure for HIV and then figure out how to use the technology and knowledge gained in general to translate it to how the Herpes virus works. IMO HIV research will open the door for us far faster than anything else. I know the virus's work differently, but *perhaps* figuring out how to break through the way the AIDS virus hides out will help us to figure out how to attack the Herpes virus...


My bet is on genetic DNA studies ... one of the biggest breakthroughs in HIV science (as I understand it) was when they found a man who was completely immune to HIV ... turns out he's one of the 1% who has a gene that helps his body to fight the virus. I'm willing to bet we have the same thing with the HSV virus ... but because H isn't life threatening, it's not been "discovered". That guy actually went to the Dr's and told them he knew he was sexually exposed to multiple people who had died from AIDS and that he should be dead... so they started to test him out and found the gene that protected him, so they started to look at that, and I believe that one of the best medications that they use to keep the HIV patient's viral loads down now came from that discovery. ;)


I may not be a Dr, but I DO have a bit of the geek in me too...LOL

Link to comment

I gotta throw this in here.. LOL (thanks again!)

The gene is CCR5 and there's actually a high incidence of it among Northern European peoples. Depending on the expression of the gene (how it all plays out), it can lead to total resistance, partial resistance, etc - to HIV.

I'm not an HIV researcher... (<-- disclaimer) BUT... based on what research I've done, I believe this plays a factor in the spread of HIV among Northern European heritage persons. Not so ironically, it also plays a part in plague resistance...


I'm 10,000% convinced that the ONLY way to prevent outbreaks/prodrome/etc is by shoring up the immune system. And for someone who is as much of a geek as I am to say that if someone tells me I need to lower my stress level one more time I'm going to punch them in the face, I read.. daily what it does to the body.. not just for HSV infections, but for pretty much everything else.

Link to comment

It's a little bit more complicated than that.. and I'm not disagreeing with you that it's not a possibility.

The CCR5 is a gene that controls the expression of CD8 T cells.. CD8 T cells aren't specific to specific viruses, they're nonspecific immune system.

So, even if we didn't have the (proposed) anti-HSV gene, we could theoretically mimic that effect by doing all of those things we are supposed to do - like eating right, exercising (but not too much), and reducing our stress levels.


This will probably become a pet project of mine.. and I promise I'll report back what I learn.

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Create New...