Low Dose Valtrex to Reduce Liver Damage

[hippyherpy]

Unlike you ladies, herpes doesn't wear me down. I take my vitamin V every day, so that probably helps. I'm thinking about weening off of it because of possible liver related problems. You can't die from herpes, but you can die from cirrhosis.

 

We will see. I might cut my does in half or stop taking it on the reg and instead take it like once or twice a week.

 

Truth is that when you disclose, the detail of the pill you take can make it more dramatic seeming than it needs to be. When you start talking about numbers and stats, you start framing herpes in a way similar to HIV.

 

What I've learned so far is that disclosure pretty much boils down to letting them know that you don't have sex on outbreaks and using condoms.

 

 

[WCSDancer2010]

I take it for suppression to protect my partners. Maybe I'm going to chill on it for a while.

 

Given your lifestyle, I'd say that it's not fair to wean off it so YOU don't get liver disease. You never know how someone *may* react to Herpes *if* they get it. You have seen many on here who, while being anomalies, really do suffer from the virus. Just because *YOU* don't have bad symptoms doesn't mean that you give it to someone that they won't have a bad reaction to it.

 

If you are *THAT* concerned about the liver issue, just get your liver enzymes checked a couple times a year. That will help you to keep your worries at bay AND it would be fair to the women who you may see once and never see again, who you may never know *if* you passed something on.

 

As I have said many times to you, it seems that you are more concerned about down playing the virus... and while I agree with you that it's really not a "big" deal for 99% of us who get it in the long run, there ARE the few who have bad reactions to it and it's up to us to make sure that our partners are aware of the risks. On top of that, I don't care how relaxed/accepting the women are when you disclose, *most* people will at least go through *some* stages of depression/anxiety/etc if they are diagnosed with H.

 

It's one thing to get H from a long term partner. It's a whole 'nuther thing to get it from a one night stand.... it fucks with your head a LOT more even if you accepted the risk. It's not fair to put someone at risk of that potential if you can take the medication and reduce their risk by 50% that way....

 

I hope you won't wean off and you will just use the liver testing to put your concerns to rest.... as I have said many times, I've had this 35 yrs and done a lot of research, and the odds of your liver being affected are VERY VERY low if you don't have a pre-existing liver issue. You are not taking *high* doses which is the only other issue that might be taken into consideration, so your risks are truly FAR higher of getting liver damage from your drinking than your use of Valtrex.

[WCSDancer2010]

@WCSDancer2010 do you know anything about switching from valtrex to acyclovir as far as any ill effects ie bringing on ob's due to changing up?

 

It's possible. Why would you want to switch?

 

If I were to switch and I was concerned about the potential for OB's I'd slowly wean off the Valtrex and add in the Acyclovir until you are completely off one and on the other.

[hippyherpy]

I have been taking lysine pills every day for the last half year, and that might have something to do with discomfort around my liver. Doctor said I don't need to if I'm taking Valtrex every day, so I quit lysine last week and, it might too early to tell, but my liver area does seem to be doing a little better.

 

She is the one who suggested that I maybe get off Valtrex and instead use lysine but not both. I'd rather stay in Valtrex if it isn't messing up my liver.

 

I did get my enzymes checked and they are fine but I had a sonogram recently that showed me liver grew recently.

 

Hopefully Valrex isn't messing my liver up. Looking forward to the once a year herpes vaccine.

[LondonCalling03]

A lot of talk on here about Valtrex, but is acyclovir the same? I take acyclovir (it's the cheapest, my insurance won't even cover Valtrex). I take two 400mg pills a day as a suppressant to protect my partners. I saw my doctor in May and she said I should only take one since I'm using it for suppression. I just started dating someone new and I've never had problems in the past with OBs. I get them when I'm stressed, which isn't too often. I've kind of been on and off with the pills the past few months, honestly from laziness and forgetting to take them, but now that I'm in a new relationship, he understands that I am taking these pills to protect him. Any thoughts on me dropping my dosage?

[WCSDancer2010]

@LondonCalling03

 

If you are in a new relationship I wouldn't drop the dosage just yet. I generally do full dose for the first 6 months ... if we make it that far and they seem cool with the risk I may talk to them about cutting back... but only if they are ok with the risk and realize that I'd rather not be on meds...

 

@HippyHerpy

 

Well, again, your lifestyle is one where the you may "care" for the women you are with in the moment, but odds are you won't be there for them if they get unlucky and get H. And AGAIN, you got lucky and had minimal symptoms... women are more likely to get a bad ride from H. So like it or not it's on you to do what you can to keep them from getting it IMO .... and if your liver is that important to you, then perhaps you need to look at your lifestyle. I really don't think you want to have to deal with someone coming to you telling you you gave it to them even though you disclosed.

 

I personally couldn't consider having casual sex and not be on the meds because I don't want that responsibility for someone I don't want to be responsible for.... if the person is my partner, we work through whether I take the meds or not over time.... it's a joint decision. Your partners don't get that luxury and to be honest, I'm willing to bet that even with your "disclosure" most really don't understand how the virus works. I don't "blame" you for that, it's just reality. So knowing that, I'm still advising that you use the meds as long as you are in the lifestyle...

[hippyherpy]

You might think that being in a relationship makes it better, but the chances of transmitting are the same, if not more, in a continuous relationship.

 

Let's talk about ownership and herpes.

 

Who really knows who is giving who herpes in a casual sex world?

 

I disclose, but maybe it doesn't matter if you disclose during casual sex.

 

 

 

The "dark" thing nobody here seems to want to recognize is that if more people had genital herpes, then there would most likely be less stigma (like cold sores). If anything, that's an incentive to just spread it and not disclose.

 

As far as stigma goes, either way, disclose or not disclose, you might think you can change the general public opinion. I err on the side of disclosure for personal reasons as well as thinking about the other person, but I'm also very OCD.

 

So far, this forum seems to attract threads from the small number of people who are having a really hard time with herpes, as well as people like me who want general info about it and are interested in the opportunity.

 

 

Also, people have had herpes and didn't disclose or do any of the stuff we talk about here for thousands of years. It's just a part of being human. Animals get herpes and it doesn't stop them from doing what they do. It's older than civilization and I wouldn't be surprised if the dinosaurs had herpes. No animals disclose herpes and they happen just fine.

 

Yet we make such a big deal about it because most people are living a perfect bubble of non-adversity. Yes, the rare few that get bad symptoms should be taken into account, but why should millions more suffer stigma for something that only really affects a minority of people in an uncomfortable way.

 

Even paternity is more easy to prove than herpes.

 

 

[MMissouri]

Just for the sake of debate, if herpes was a part of standardized testing more people would be aware of their status and that would knock the stigma down also. There is no need to spread it about because if you're a statistics person, most people already have it. Then, since everyone would be aware of their status, we possibly would not have to worry about disclosure/condom use because it would be either expected that the majority already has it or discussed more openly because the risk is known.

[hippyherpy]

True. Many more people have than are aware already.

 

More testing will lead to more acceptance which could mean less profits for pharmaceuticals.

 

That could be the real reason why doctors don't test for it often: systematized dis-incentives planted by big pharma. The makers of herpes pills probably get more money from keeping the stigma going instead of normalizing herpes.

 

Follow the money.

 

 

I can't think of any other reason why it wouldn't get tested more often.

 

The only real reason to disclose is to consider the tiny percent of people who might have a bad reaction to getting herpes. Add that to people having casual sex, and that really shows how much communication about herpes is very much the responsibility of not just the person who has it but the person who doesn't as well. I think that if you are having casual sex you shouldn't expect the other person to disclose and its up you to be cool with whatever happens.

[MMissouri]

This tells you why they don't test for it:

 

http://www.cdc.gov/std/herpes/screening.htm

 

 

[MMissouri]

Just wanted to add: if we wanted to consider the profits: Additional testing on the STD panel is profit, repeat testing (we all know that time matters for diagnosis) more profit.

 

Diagnosing many more people is likely going to increase valtrex (or the like) sales. Think about it, feeding into the stigma is a way they could sell that stuff like tylenol. We have seen how an herpes diagnosis has most people very conscientious about any odd twinge, bump, symptom. They are aware of that, and it's a reason they don't test. But if it were looked at from a business perspective- that fear would be more money.

 

So testing, diagnosing and treating herpes would be more profitable than ignoring it. Unless of course it becomes a free for all, and no one cares anymore.