Valtrex Daily + Condoms = Do I Really Need to Disclose?

[2Legit2Quit]

Asked who? Check the pamphlet, it is there in black and white. I understand you wanting to hold onto the 1%, because it makes disclosure easier for you, but it is not true.. It is 2.5% for male to female. @adrial and @wcsdancer2010 can attest to what is on the handout and those number came from the DR. In the video. We can't pick and choose what works best for us, we have to go off the facts. If the information given to them that's in the hand outs is wrong, then they need to change those. If I could up load it, I would.

[hippyherpy]

I have the handout. My doctor said 1% or less.

[2Legit2Quit]

Well, did he provide any resources to those studies to prove that or are we going completely off word? I mean, we have doctors that still tell people they are only contagious during obs.. So.. Yeah, I take everything at face value, even if it's what I WANT TO HEAR, w out evidence to prove that answer...

[hippyherpy]

I hear what you are saying- my primary care physician said the same thing about not be infectious on outbreaks.

 

The ID person I saw.. He's not just like a PC doctor. He specializes in infectious diseases. He's got many years of experience dealing with this stuff day in and day out. He had 5 interns sit in on our meeting while he was training them. He's an authority on STDs. Mentioned herpes.com as being one of the better sources on the web for info.

 

Don't take this the wrong way because I don't know if you fit this category, but there are some people that would rather "hear" the bad side of everything (just like some people want to hear the good side). A lot of people want to feel like victims and will only accept info that backs up that position.

 

I asked him about the history herpes stigma. He said it was actually worse before HIV, which came in and over-shadowed herpes. Thought that was interesting because I read somewhere that the stigma really started to kick in in the 1980s.

 

[2Legit2Quit]

While I sincerely appreciate you coming from a place of trying to understand, but you couldn't be further from the truth. You only wanted to focus on the small risk and were placing blame on others, to absolve yourself of total responsibility. I didnt say anything diffetent than anyone else, but eventually i became a lot more direct w you, because it was like nobody could get it through to you. If you take a day to go through all the support I provide, it is all positive. I have grieved this virus a yr ago. I provide support to help others get through this and to not take the victim stance. I feel that you may not realize how you come off to others and sometimes when you feel you're not getting through to people w unicorn farts embracing them, then you have to be more direct . it comes off as if you only want to hear what you want to hear. I feel for most people, the statistics apply, for me, they don't, but I know that and like I explain to other's; I am the exception, not the rule. However, I do appreciate you taking what appears to be somewhat more of an open approach, but I still feel some inner reflection is needed. Maybe hearing the doctor give you the 1% made you feel more comfortable, I don't know. Although I was lied to and it violated me, at the same time I take accountability for myself as well. ..

 

I believe in the early 80s, there was this Time Magazine that came out w the front page of a bloody dripping H and it said something like the new Scarlet letter or something. There's a link on this site to this article and it said complete asinine stiff, like basically women that are not married w kids and living as a housewife, would get this.

 

The fact of the matter is, it may be not much for the average person, but they are just now linking herpes viruses to many conditions and disease's, they didn't realize were linked to before. This virus is still misunderstood in many ways, if it weren't and we had all the answers, there'd been a cure by now.

[hippyherpy]

Like what other viruses?

[2Legit2Quit]

Nobody has focused much on HSV for studies as we speak and I believe that is because of the money big pharma makes off antivirals and you know who pays for studies right? You guessed it. They don't want something that for the most part, doesn't kill you or make you gravely ill, to be cured and lose that gravy train. Why would they? Thus far, nothing has proven to be lucrative for them, curing it or coming up w a vaccine or med that provides 99% protection from transmission. I normally don't share about this one drug in particular that has made it to human study w no adverse side effects, significantly lower dose than any other Antivirals and provides I think in over the 90 percentile from transmission, shedding or any recurrent obs. The FDA suddenly halted it 3yrs ago, stating that the chimps who were given 20xa the dose than the humans, had anemia issues. It's complete crap and I I think they don't want to pass it. It would stop the spread much in the course of the way the small pox vaccine would, which means big pharma loses billions of dollars. . nothing further has been heard on it... So yeah, I don't normally share, because too many newbies see that and then they get angry more than they already are. So yeah... Sucks. So w that said, HSV hasn't been studied a lot yet, but HSV triggered chronic fatigue in me. I literally feel like I came out of general anesthesia, if I do vigorous activity for 45mins to an hr and cannot function for days, if I don't take the antivirals. I didn't have chronic fatigue until herpes. Reading these articles though will help give you a better understanding on what they're just now uncovering about life long viral infections. These are mainly the other 6 herpes viruses, but you get the gist. Life time viral infection = can do some damage, especially for those who need an organ transplant one day, get a serious illness or cancer.. Stuff happens, that we have no control over.. So my point was, we should never minimize the odds of what can happen.

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11485745

 

http://www.everydayhealth.com/autoimmune-disorders/understanding/are-autoimmune-diseases-caused-by-infections.aspx

[hippyherpy]

Is herpes the most lucrative virus for the pharmaceutical industries?

[2Legit2Quit]

Don't know the answer to that one... I'd imagine it is, because they also use the same antivirals for genital and oral herpes, to treat those w shingles and EBV recurrences and for CMV. They use it for several out of the 8 herpes viruses.... I'd imagine they make a ton from it.

[hippyherpy]

I'd bet there is a cure that they are paying every year not to have released.

[2Legit2Quit]

Hahaha! Never thought of that, but I could totally believe it!

[WCSDancer2010]

Very quick comment on the stats ... this is what we have been told by Dr Leone who ONLY deals with Herpes ... ID Dr's *may or may not* have completely recent/reliable info... which is why we deal with Dr Peter Leone ... AGAIN, remember the ID Dr doesn't SPECIALIZE in herpes and many are very limited in their info as they see it as an unimportant nuisance virus so they spend their "research" time on "more important" infections:

 

Stats as we know them from Dr Leone

 

No meds:

 

HSV2 - M-F risk 10%

HSV2 - F-M risk 5%

 

Anti-virals cut it in about half... *maybe* more (I would say a LOT depends on how long you have had it and how well your body is fighting it on it's own... ie: more newly infected people are likely to have a lower percentage because the anti-virals are not being aided by antibodies) ... There's a lot of difference of opinion about how much anti-virals help.....

 

Condoms cut about in half ... in part due to the location of the OB ... if your OB is outside the condom, the condom isn't going to do much ... AND you can be shedding outside the condom anyway.

 

Personally I haven't addressed your .4% idea (I think you have the "." in the wrong place) because personally for *me*, it doesn't matter if it's .4%, 4%, or 40%, the issue is the matter of CHOICE.

 

Interview with Dr Leone (Herpes Researcher)

http://www.nytimes.com/ref/health/healthguide/esn-herpes-expert.html?pagewanted=2

 

There has been only one study showing that a drug could reduce transmission. This involved heterosexual couples where one person had herpes and the other didn’t. They had been together, on average, for a couple of years. Daily suppressive therapy with Valtrex reduced the risk of transmission by 48 percent, on top of what our standard has been, which is using condoms, knowing your status and abstaining from sex around the time of an outbreak.

 

It’s the only study that we know has shown a benefit. But we certainly don’t think any of three drugs would make things worse. They should all reduce transmission because they all reduce shredding.

 

And if you want the advice/opinion of another Herpes Expert (ie: someone/someplace that SPECIALIZES in Herpes)

 

https://www.westoverheights.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Updated-Herpes-Book.pdf

 

Pg 18

 

"When both condoms and antiviral therapy are used, transmission

rates can be greatly reduced. Even then, there is a small chance that

transmission can occur. Taking antiviral therapy and using condoms

does not alleviate the need to tell prospective partners about genital

herpes."

[Sil88]

Can I just confirm (because people have started huge debates on here about this and it's still a grey area for me).. that's 10% over 100 times having sex.. even the results quoted earlier were over an 8 month period.

 

So one time unprotected is essentially 0.1%? Yes I know the result is either 100% or 0%, but that's not what I mean. This seems strangely low

[WCSDancer2010]

Nope - incidence does not change on a per act basis

 

Per act risk: Dr Leone http://herpeslife.com/herpes-forum/discussion/5255/from-dr-peter-leone-herpes-transmission-risk-per-sex-act-explained

 

[hippyherpy]

Is anyone here familiar with the work of Lawrence Corey with regards to HSV?

[WCSDancer2010]

Not specifically Dr Corey but I know he and the U of Wash has done a lot of work with Herpes including coming up with the Western Blot test ... and I know he's at the forefront of many studies ... Nurse Terri Warren is another one with Westover Heights, and Dr Anna Wald (U of Wash), and Dr.Hunter Handsfield as well as Dr Peter Leone are my go-to references

[And]

I didn't read all the comments, but I'd have to say overall I agree with Adrial.. However, I've had these exact same thought as hippyherpy as well. When you consider valtrex plus condoms plus no symptoms, the risk of transmission does seem pretty low. And let's be honest, disclosing is really unpleasant (9 years later I still hate doing it). The other point I wanted to make, is it's easy to justify this way of thinking after having a partner who basically lied to you and had no integrity. Taking precautions and not disclosing still makes you a hell of a lot better of a person than them lol.. Just saying hippy is not a bad person for having the thought, although I still think honestly is always the best policy ;)

[2Legit2Quit]

Sorry @and I'll have to disagree. Regardless of being on meds and using condoms and not disclosing, is still as bad as someone not disclosing who isn't. Not disclosing is wrong, period, despite any other caveats anyone tries to attach to it.

[And]

I hardly think trying to protect someone by taking precautions could be considered as bad as pretending you don't have it at all.. But we can agree to disagree I guess..

[2Legit2Quit]

Deceit, no matter how it's twisted. It's no different than someone who thinks it's safe, because they have no symptoms and the risk is low, so it'll be OK to take that risk... The risk is still there, despite precautions taken.

[Bambina3]

I'm trying to catch up(a lot to read here)

But the stats for transmission risk here are very low, if it's so low, then why is it viewed by the medical community (by my area) as no big deal....where did the stat 1 out of 6 people have hsv2 come from (I read it)?? Is that a theoretical or fact stat?

Just wondering....

[2Legit2Quit]

I dunno, I question the stats myself sometimes. It's supposed to be 1 in 4 women have HSV 2 and 1 in 8 men have HSV 2.

[WCSDancer2010]

@Bambina3

 

The medical community doesn't see it as a big deal ... because to them it's not life threatening. To them, it's just a nuisance skin condition in a really inconvenient place. And to the vast majority of us, that's all it is in truth... especially once you get over the initial outbreak(s). And yes, the stat's that you have are about right.

 

However, that doesn't make it ok to not disclose (IMO). I have clients who call me on the morning of their Massage Appt to tell me they likely shouldn't come in because they have a cold/flu. I usually tell them to come in anyway because I rarely get sick...but I appreciate them "disclosing" to me before they came in. And that isn't life or death either. It's just common decency to let someone know that there is a risk ... ***however small*** ... that they might catch something from you...whether it's a cold, Flu, shingles, lice (anyone who has had kids has had this dilemma), or ANY other infectious disease.

 

Say your kid had Chicken Pox, and they were nearly over it and you figured they were *likely* not contagious, but according to the stats there was a "small risk" they could still pass if on. And their friend was going to come and spend the night.... would you tell their parents and give them the choice of whether to keep their child at home or not? I mean, Chicken Pox has no stigma attached to cause you to be embarrassed to tell, right? So likely you would just say something like "Billy had Chicken Pox, but most of the sores have scabbed over and I doubt he's contagious, but I thought you should know". And you wouldn't take it personally if they chose to not let their kid play with yours for a few more days. So why is it suddenly different for HSV (which is the same family)?

 

My *personal* POV is that any relationship started on a lie, even a tiny white lie or a so-called minor omission, already has a crack in it that might never quite allow for a good foundation. I for one have made it VERY clear on my dating profiles that if a guy is lying about his age on his profile he better come clean when he first contacts me. For *me*, it's more about knowing this person will be transparent with me than about the lie itself. For them to "come clean" at a point where, if they are more than 10 yrs older than me, I'll likely choose to not continue the relationship, shows me their integrity is stronger than their fear... and that to me is sexy as hell and I *might* just actually go ahead and explore something with that guy simply based on THAT. But if I catch them a few weeks later and suddenly find out they were not telling me this, especially KNOWING I made it clear that this is important to me, it would make me seriously reconsider whether they are the kind of man I want in my life.

 

Bambina3 ... you are allowing FEAR to run your life (as per all your posts) ... so you can either

 

Forget

Everything

And

Run

 

or

 

Face

Everything

And

Rise...

 

Or as I read somewhere:

 

Your largest fear carries your biggest growth. You can't stop being afraid by pretending that what scares you isn't there. Sure, being honest and transparent can mean some people will choose to walk away (in ANY situation). But you will go to your grave knowing you lived in integrity and you were as fair and honest with people as you could be. One of the top 10 regrets of the Dying is that they didn't have the courage to live Truthfully. At some point, you will realize just how insignificant all these fears that you have about disclosing really are. It would really just suck to figure that out before you have time to do something to make it right... ;)

 

http://thedailypositive.com/top-10-regrets-dying/

 

[Bambina3]

@WCSDancer2010

 

Thank you for the above information and I never looked at the word fear before in those ways but will always remember it now.

 

Living in fear? Maybe....however, I'm in a different situation now, I'm married and dealing with that......if someone close to me needs support in any way (or in my net world) I would disclose my h status if it would help another ....but.....other than that, I don't want bragging rights to this, it's my personal business.

Who would I disclose to? I don't have plans of a new partner anytime soon.

[WCSDancer2010]

@Bambina3

 

Not saying you have to tell everyone, but (at least till your post about your High School friend) you said you couldn't say Herpes. So yes, you are living in fear, because you KNOW that you have beat around the bush with your hubby and "friend" as far as making SURE they know what they are dealing with. Likely fear that they will leave if they know... I could be wrong but that's my gut instinct here.

 

Keep working and digging friend. You've progressed a lot already. It's wonderful that you have that old friend that you were able to talk to who could also talk straight to you. We ALL need a friend like that!