Herpes Vaccine & Disclosure

[hippyherpy]

Instead of starting threads for topics that don't really need it, we can use this one as a place to have general discussions on any subject related to herpes.

 

Kicking it off..

 

I was thinking about what it would mean for disclosure if a vaccine became available to the non-infected. Wouldn't the responsibility be with them at that point?

 

Also, would a vaccine essential eradicate herpes after a couple generations? If everyone got vaccinated, it wouldn't get passed on anymore.

 

 

 

[2Legit2Quit]

It would still be in the person who has H, unless you ask them if they've been vaccinated for it. Once can't make assumptions that they have been IMHO.

 

The other part I've given no thought too, because we're looking at 20yrs or more for a vaccine like that, so I wont even entertain my hopes.

 

I'd imagine a resistant strain of some sort will always exist. Viruses are always changing, mutatuing to adapt to their environment. That's how I look at it.

[NothingGoodGetsAway]

We might see a decrease in herpes until some parents decide that it's poisoning their kids and you suddenly see a resurgence (see- measles today!)

[WCSDancer2010]

First off, the reason we have a new topic for each subject is so that people can actually click on the topics that sound like something that pertains to them. If we just have an ongoing thread about lots of different things, that makes it near impossible for people to find anything. Noone wants to read through 20 pages of stuff to find their answers. For everyone who is active on this forum, there are thousands who lurk, find their answers, and leave. So if you want to have this thread to keep track of YOUR inquiries, that's fine, but odds are few will read the whole thing because most don't have time to read about things that are not pertinent to them and their current experience/questions.

 

As for your question. The "vaccines" that are currently in the works are actually for the ones who HAVE herpes already, to help our bodies to keep it under control. So your theoretical vaccine isn't happening any time soon. But to answer your question: IF/when such a vaccine comes along, our (Herpeslife) point of view would STILL be that those with it would need to have a conversation with anyone we were going to be intimate with to make sure they had had the vaccine, because if they didn't then we would want to do the responsible thing and insist on condoms and possibly use the anti-virals.

 

Would it eradicate Herpes? It would all depend on how many people chose to use it. HPV has a vaccine out there and to my knowledge it hasn't slowed down the virus at all... in fact, I read one OBGYN who feels that more young people have got HSV because they didn't know that the vaccine didn't protect them from "everything" ... (ie, really poor sex education yet again :( ) So I doubt it would eradicate herpes. ESPECIALLY if people like yourself then chose to "assume" that everyone had had/should have had the vaccine and used that as an excuse to not disclose.

 

No matter what angle you try friend, the stance of HerpesLife is that disclosure is the right and proper thing do to. Period. If you want someone to tell you otherwise, you are in the wrong forum.

[2Legit2Quit]

Applause @wcsdancer2010

[hippyherpy]

My thoughts on having herpes are that it's very surprising that I didn't get it sooner considering how many partners I've had- probably around 250, and considering that a lot of them were situations where we didn't use condoms.

 

But, what does that say about the prevalence of this virus? In my case it means I would have been sleeping something like 70 people who probably had it based on the statistics.

 

Something doesn't make sense. Unless I was "lucky" to not have gotten it sooner? It seems like I was on an inevitable crash course to get it. One of the reasons why I was shocked to find out I had it was because the more people I slept with and the more I would get tested and not come back positive for any STDs, the more I thought that the prevalence of STDs in general were a myth. I was living proof it would seem- it took hundreds of girls for me to catch HSV.

[hippyherpy]

And I say lucky in quotes because my actual experience with herpes has been almost a non-issue as far as the physical effects.

 

It's the mental adjustments that have and are taking some extra energy to get used to- being cool with telling partners about it etc. - essentially taking on the entire weight of the social stigma.

[WCSDancer2010]

1) I got Herpes on my FIRST sexual experience. I am FAR from alone in that experience. We just plain don't know why you can have someone like @ihaveittoo who has been married many, many years and not passed it to his wife, yet someone like myself gets it with my first experience, and another will get it in spite of using a condom. I've even coached VIRGINS who got it on their first ever experience with oral sex. Just because YOU "got lucky" for so long doesn't mean that it's "hard to get". Many, MANY on here have got it on their first tryst after separation/divorce, or while "having a break" from a relationship. So you need to stop using YOUR "stats" to justify/assume that it's "really hard" to pass it on so that you can downplay the risk around disclosure.

 

2) YOUR experience with your first OB was likely milder than most (though 80% never get an OB, but I'm talking about those that have full on OB's). For one thing women tend to get it MUCH worse because if we get in in the Labia those folks are VERY sensitive and if you get it near the urethra, lets just say it feels like you are pissing fire when you go to the bathroom. It is HELL. We can't sit, pee, or walk without pain. The fear of a second OB can almost be paralyzing. And of course the fear of putting someone else through that pain makes many (understandably) want to just give up sex all together. If you have been through that kind of pain, you wouldn't want to put anyone you care for through that.

 

So - really - consider yourself just plain LUCKY all around. Lucky that you had that much fun before you got it and lucky that you didn't have to go through the pain that *some* do. And realize that your experience (minimal issues with your first OB and how long it took you to catch H) are coloring your assumptions/replies. So your stance that it's "nearly impossible" to pass it on is NOT reality ... it's just that YOU.... "got lucky"....

 

 

 

 

[hippyherpy]

Most people who have herpes aren't taking daily Valtrex and using condoms to prevent transmission, so unlike them, my potential to pass it on is closer to impossible than possible. 98-99% is a very significant probability. To me it translates into "we can't say impossible because there are some cery very rare instances where it does get passed on, but it's extremely low possibility."

 

I don't say impossible when I disclose, but it I don't see any problem telling people it's almost impossible.

[2Legit2Quit]

@wcsdancer201 I saw @ihaveittoo post the other week that his wife has it too. That or I'm mixing it up w someone else .

 

@hippyherpy I went two yrs w no sex, had it once after all that time and got it.

 

It ain't "rare to pass it" as you say w it being such an epidemic. I'm not sure why after months, that you keep circling back to this and trying to find ways to absolve the need to disclose, because it's "so rare" to pass it? You've had no qualms and rejection w disclosure (except maybe once I think), so why so hard up in this? You've posted on others threads stating you think it's even helped you to get laid and has not been an issue to continue having casual sex frequently;. So w that said, why do we always end up back on this topic w you?

[hippyherpy]

It is rare to pass if you are taking meds and using condoms. It's an epidemic because most people don't know they have it and aren't taking all the precautions. We would probably see the rate of transmission in the world drop tremendously if everyone who had either type of herpes was taking preventative meds.

 

I've had some successes but I've also butted up against some rejections due to herpes disclosure where I've had girls tell me things like "arghh why did you tell me that" etc. right before sex.

 

The risk to them would have been the same, but I get cockblocked by the stigma.

[2Legit2Quit]

You said before that you were only rejected once, you still get laid frequently w disclosure. So what you're saying is, you don't want to disclose because it can be a road block from getting a piece that night right? That sounds selfish, don't you think?

[ihaveittoo]

You are correct @2Legit2Quit. My wife and I both had h before we met. It is easy to get people mixed up around here

[hippyherpy]

I don't care if you think it sounds selfish. A lot of people would agree with me. If they didn't have to add this one thing on top of the situation, they wouldn't.

 

Look at it this way, if almost everyone in the world had herpes, There wouldn't be any laws about disclosure and nobody would feel the need to disclose. Guess what- we are getting to a point where almost everybody in the world actually does have herpes.

 

Would you care about disclosing if say 90% of people in the world had HSV 2 as opposed to the 25% that do now?

[2Legit2Quit]

NONE OF US WOULD HAVE THIS IF WE DIDNT HAVE TO HAVE IT, THAT'S NOT A SPECIAL PERSPECTIVE THAT YOU HAVE ALONE.

 

I'm asking you if you feel your fighting so hard not to disclose, all in the name to get your rocks off is selfish. I didn't tell you I think you're selfish, I'm asking you in those terms if you deem that to be a selfish action. Is that a question you ever asked yourself or do you not care if it is?

 

16-20% of the population in America is hardly EVERYBODY having genital Herpes. I don't think the way to approach killing off the stigma, is passing it around so more and more have it and so they can't stigmatize it. Disclosing is de-stigmatizing the virus, not deceit. People gain confidence about the virus and manageability, by being w someone who disclosed and never getting it. It makes them open and more receptive to others w it. Then they have friends or family who come to them saying they got it and/or are dating someone who told them they have it and then they can share their story that they've been w soneone who had it and never got it. That's how you destigmatize, not by further spreading it around.

 

Even if 90% in the world had it, I would disclose still, because it should even be less of a deal to disclose. It should be a normal topic to bring up in sexual health before getting involved w new partners, especially since having herpes ups your risk of contracting HIV 3xs. So yes, it's a discussion that would still need to be had, it just wouldn't carry the same shame it has today.

[hippyherpy]

In some areas it's 25% of people. That's a lot.

 

There are lots of things that people don't talk about before they have sex with each other. Family mental health or other problems that an accidental pregnancy might pass on.

 

There are people out there doing the hook-up life style, they aren't asking about all that stuff.

 

--

 

On that note- saying blanket things like having herpes ups your risk of catching HIV x3 is not really helpful and fear mongering.

 

From what I know, it only ups that risk if you have outbreaks and are having sex with high risk HIV population people without condoms. It's open sores that it makes a higher probability. You are overstating the general risk.

 

That's a big difference from having sex without breakouts, using condoms, and not sleeping around with high risk populations or doing high risk sexual act or sharing needles etc.

[2Legit2Quit]

Stating a FACT that comes from the CDC site is not fear mongering, it's the cold hard truth and reality if our situation for those of us w H. Do you even understand the mechanics behind why H makes us more susceptible to getting HIV? So you're saying knowledge is not power? That sexual education on facts of STDs should not be discussed and the risks associated w them?

 

Based on your response as to why you think is the ONLY reason it ups the risks, is proof you actually don't understand the science behind it. Obs actually have nothing to do w the risk, although it uos the risk even higher than 3xa w an OB. It is because the immune T cells that our body uses to fight herpes, are CDR 4 & 8 T cells. Aka .. White blood T cells. What kind of cell does HIV invade? T cells, which we'd normally bit have those cells on our genital tract, if it weren't for the herpes infection. (We have these on our genital tract once we've been infected now, OB or not, they stay there after infection) so essentially due to our immune systems response to the virus and the build up of T cells in that region, we now have a super highway for the HIV virus having herpes.

 

Please learn and understand the facts and mechanisms behind it and not make assumptions. The majority of those w HIV, have dual infections of gHSV as well and that's for the reasons I stated above.

 

Overall US population w genital HSV 2 is 16%... I'm sorry, that's not even close to half of the population. She. You get into half of the population, then I might be able to agree w you. W that said, according to you on your other posts, the statistics have to be wrong, because you've slept w almost 250 people until you got herpes, so it can't be that contagious. So you only support the statistics when it serves your argument in one area and not the other?

[hippyherpy]

In some areas of the country it's 25%- like cities like NYC.

 

3xmore likely to catch HIV if you are sleeping with high risk populations but you shouldn't be doing that anyway if you are worried about HIV.

 

[2Legit2Quit]

No, it is 3xs more likely to catch HIV w herpes period. They do not add the caveat you just did on there, at the end of their statistics .

 

25% of those in NYC, hardly accounts for half of the population there, let alone the rest of the world. I've never seen herpes broken down by numbers per state. Is that something you found that does that? Can you share please, I'd be interested in seeing what my state has to say on those numbers.

[hippyherpy]

Dr. Larry Corey says here that those T cells stick around for 20 weeks after an outbreak but he doesn't say they are there permanently.

 

Where do you find the stat the said they stay around forever?

[2Legit2Quit]

Just because he said they stick around for for 20 weeks and didn't say they disappear completely, doesn't reaffirm they're not there. The number of them rise and fall, but they don't ever completely go away.

 

Rather than looking for information to dispute the mechanics behind the T cells, perhaps you should invest your time in understanding why it does up our risk. I highly suggest you invest ilsome energy into that, rather than ways to refute everyone's argument w you.

 

You're barking up the wrong tree over here. Go argue w the CDC in this. You are disputing years if research from experts, which you are not and think your couple Google searches, allow your arguments to be valid.

[hippyherpy]

Where did you find that it says they stay around for ever?

[2Legit2Quit]

Here you go. Here in great detail they explain the prior myths of thinking only during an OB that it upped your risk, down to today, recognizing that is not the case, it happens regardless if you have an OB or not. You don't know when you're shedding. Shedding means active. Active doesn't just constitute as genital sores.

 

 

New research helps explain why infection with herpes simplex virus-2 (HSV-2), which causes genital herpes, increases the risk for HIV infection even after successful treatment heals the genital skin sores and breaks that often result from HSV-2.

 

Scientists have uncovered details of an immune-cell environment conducive to HIV infection that persists at the location of HSV-2 genital skin lesions long after they have been treated with oral doses of the drug acyclovir and have healed and the skin appears normal. These findings are published in the advance online edition of Nature Medicine on Aug. 2.

 

Led by Lawrence Corey, M.D., and Jia Zhu, Ph.D., of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center and Anna Wald, M.D., M.P.H., of the University of Washington, both in Seattle, the study was funded mainly by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) with support from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, both part of the National Institutes of Health.

 

"The findings of this study mark an important step toward understanding why HSV-2 infection increases the risk of acquiring HIV and why acyclovir treatment does not reduce that risk," says NIAID Director Anthony S. Fauci, M.D. "Understanding that even treated HSV-2 infections provide a cellular environment conducive to HIV infection suggests new directions for HIV prevention research, including more powerful anti-HSV therapies and ideally an HSV-2 vaccine."

 

One of the most common sexually transmitted infections worldwide, HSV-2 is associated with a two- to three-fold increased risk for HIV infection. Some HSV-2-infected people have recurring sores and breaks in genital skin, and it has been hypothesized that these lesions account for the higher risk of HIV acquisition. However, recent clinical trials, including an NIAID-funded study completed last year, demonstrated that successful treatment of such genital herpes lesions with the drug acyclovir does not reduce the risk of HIV infection posed by HSV-2 . The current study sought to understand why this is so and to test an alternative theory.

 

"We hypothesized that sores and breaks in the skin from HSV-2 are associated with a long-lasting immune response at those locations, and that the response consists of an influx of cells that are a perfect storm for HIV infection," says Dr. Corey, co-director of the Vaccine and Infectious Diseases Institute at The Hutchinson Center and head of the Virology Division in the Department of Laboratory Medicine at the University of Washington. "We believe HIV gains access to these cells mainly through microscopic breaks in the skin that occur during sex."

 

The research team took biopsies of genital skin tissue from eight HIV-negative men and women who were infected with HSV-2. These biopsies were taken at multiple time points: when the patients had genital herpes sores and breaks in the skin, when these lesions had healed, and at two, four and eight weeks after healing. The researchers also took biopsies from four of the patients when herpes lesions reappeared and the patients underwent treatment with oral acyclovir. The scientists continued to take biopsies at regular intervals for 20 weeks after the lesions had healed. For comparison, the investigators also took biopsies from genital tissue that did not have herpes lesions from the same patients.

 

Previous research has demonstrated that immune cells involved in the body's response to infection remain at the site of genital herpes lesions even after they have healed. The scientists conducting the current study made several important findings about the nature of these immune cells. First, they found that CD4+ T cells—the cells that HIV primarily infects—populate tissue at the sites of healed genital HSV-2 lesions at concentrations 2 to 37 times greater than in unaffected genital skin. Treatment with acyclovir did not reduce this long-lasting, high concentration of HSV-2-specific CD4+ T cells at the sites of healed herpes lesions.

 

Second, the scientists discovered that a significant proportion of these CD4+ T cells carried CCR5 or CXCR4, the cell-surface proteins that HIV uses (in addition to CD4) to enter cells. The percentage of CD4+ T cells expressing CCR5 during acute HSV-2 infection and after healing of genital sores was twice as high in biopsies from the sites of these sores as from unaffected control skin. Moreover, the level of CCR5 expression in CD4+ T cells at the sites of healed genital herpes lesions was similar for patients who had been treated with acyclovir as for those who had not.

 

Third, the scientists found a significantly higher concentration of immune cells called dendritic cells with the surface protein called DC-SIGN at the sites of healed genital herpes lesions than in control tissue, whether or not the patient was treated with acyclovir. Dendritic cells with DC-SIGN ferry HIV particles to CD4+ T cells, which the virus infects. The DC-SIGN cells often were near CD4+ T cells at the sites of healed lesions—an ideal scenario for the rapid spread of HIV infection.

 

Finally, using biopsies from two study participants, the scientists found laboratory evidence that HIV replicates three to five times as quickly in cultured tissue from the sites of healed HSV-2 lesions than in cultured tissue from control sites.

 

All four of these findings help explain why people infected with HSV-2 are at greater risk of acquiring HIV than people who are not infected with HSV-2, even after successful acyclovir treatment of genital lesions.

 

"HSV-2 infection provides a wide surface area and long duration of time for allowing HIV access to more target cells, providing a greater chance for the initial 'spark' of infection," the authors write. This spark likely ignites once HIV penetrates tiny breaks in genital skin that commonly occur during sex. "Additionally," the authors continue, "the close proximity to DC-SIGN-expressing DCs [dendritic cells] is likely to fuel these embers and provide a mechanism for more efficient localized spread of initial infection." The investigators conclude that reducing the HSV-2-associated risk of HIV infection will require diminishing or eliminating the long-lived immune-cell environment created by HSV-2 infection in the genital tract, ideally through an HSV vaccine. Further, they hypothesize that other sexually transmitted infections (STIs) may create similar cellular environments conducive to HIV infection, explaining why STIs in general are a risk factor for acquiring HIV.

[WCSDancer2010]

@hippyherpy

 

The Bottom Line:

 

Our Policy HERE on Herpes Life is we ALWAYS disclose and we will give the statistics as we know them from the most recent studies.... period.

 

Continuing to try to convince us that 1-2% is close enough to "impossible" is a reason to either not disclose or downplay the risk is wasting a LOT of our time here.... time that @2legit2quit, @Adrial, and I need to devote to supporting the newly diagnosed (who are often suicidal and/or in deep depression and confusion about facts) and those who are SUFFERING (unlike you) with the physical manifestations of the virus.

 

A forum like this DOES tend to attract a higher percentage of the population who are having atypical/more severe symptoms .... but the fact of the matter is that probably about 5% (guessing from my observations) of people have bad to severe/ongoing/atypical symptoms.

 

YOU happen to have been LUCKY - lucky that you had so much sex with so many partners before you got it, and lucky that your symptoms were relatively mild. Your perspective seems to be HIGHLY colored from your personal experience. You make a LOT of assumptions that the stats are off because of YOUR experience.

 

But the fact of the matter is, *some* DO have those OB's that you see on Google Images. Some *DO* have ongoing severe neuropathy. Some DO plummet into severe depression. *Many* do get Herpes on their first sexual experience, or their first tryst outside of a LTR, or the ONE time they didn't use a condom.

 

It is for THOSE people that we are here.... for that 5% (or whatever) of the people who lost the STD Crap Shoot and got herpes. And our disclosure policy comes from our belief that if we can help people to make a PROPERLY informed CHOICE about their sexual lives, if they *happen* to get H and they *happen* to be one of the unlucky ones who has the severe symptoms, they at least won't have the added upset of feeling BETRAYED.....

 

You see, what I observe on here is that the ones who often emotionally suffer the most are those who feel they were, in some way, betrayed by their giver. Not told the truth (if the person knew they had it), or not supported afterwards, or used in some way. That betrayal colors their experience SOOOOO heavily that I see many spiral into a very scary depression that can be VERY hard to coach them out of.

 

BUT

 

When we have someone who comes on here, KNOWING they were at risk who got unlucky anyway, their experience is likely to be FAR more "positive". They are usually just here to get FACTS and SUPPORT while they navigate their experience and symptoms and adjust to their "new normal". It TRULY does make a BIG difference to how quickly they adapt. Not saying they may not be upset/confused/etc.... but they generally just plain do seem to go through the grieving/education/adjustment period a LOT faster than someone who feels that their partner was not totally up front with them.

 

Think of it this way:

 

Acceptance of personal responsibility and acknowledgement of risk is one of the reasons (beyond insurance issues) you will be asked to sign a waiver if you bungee jump/parachute/etc .... I mean, EVERYONE knows that there is a *small* risk of something going wrong (FAR smaller than your risk of passing H on btw - The risks of having an accident while bungee jumping is 1:500,000) , so why bother to have people sign a waiver?

 

One *could* assume that if you take part in those activities, that you *could* say that there is a "nearly impossible" chance (thanks to the extensive safety measures that are put in place... the bungee/'chuting equivalent of Valtrex and Condoms) that something *could* go wrong. But the organizers of those activities have you sign the waiver so that they can say that they at least tried to make sure you were aware of the risks (no matter how small) of the activity you are about to partake in ... *just in case* you are that one person in 500,000 who is the unlucky one.

 

So - AGAIN, you need to understand that just because YOU were lucky, because YOU had so much risky sex before getting H, that this is NOT an excuse to not disclose nor is it a valid argument for discounting the statistics and scientific facts. If you continue to start threads or contribute to threads that continue to argue against these stats/facts and our policies, then we may have to remove your posts because we need to keep the integrity and values that we are supporting here and we need to focus on those who are truly SUFFERING and STRUGGLING with their H experience. We can't keep telling you the same thing over and over and we can't have the forum flooded with these repetitive discussions. We have to think of the needs of the majority.

 

Bottom line: If you want validation and support and agreement for your arguments and stance around disclosure and the stats and facts, there are plenty of other forums out there that will give you what you want. Perhaps this is not the forum for you.

 

IF you want to stay here and be SUPPORTIVE of others (ie, NOT telling them to basically "get over it" as you did on another thread when someone is having a rant/bad day), we would love to have you stay with us. We can certainly use the POV from more men with H. But if you are going to continue to try to push your stance that because Valtrex and condoms reduces the risk to "almost impossible" (in your opinion) and thus why should you disclose, then perhaps this is not the forum for you, and we wish you the best of luck in your future.

[WCSDancer2010]

Just as a FYI about our mission and stance here:

 

We’re about shamelessness, openness and disclosing, NO MATTER WHAT THE RISK.

 

We're about sexual health and promoting an open, HONEST dialogue.

 

We're about supporting everyone, EVEN THOSE who are actively trying to combat our perspective because of denial and fear.

 

We're about providing a SAFE place for people to land while they are dealing with their "new normal" with Herpes, however they got here.

 

HOWEVER, if we have a member who CONTINUES to promote anything other than that isn’t in support of the Opportunity mission, then sometimes we have to ask them to leave or even take the measure to remove them.

 

It is VERY, VERY rare that we remove a member. We'd FAR rather have them stay and hopefully come to understand our POV and our stance. We'd FAR rather continue to support them in their H journey.

 

But - if they continue to be combative/judgemental/unsupportive/whatever, then sometimes we have to do what we feel is in the best interests of THIS community.

 

Running a Forum like this is not easy. @Adrial supports this out of his own pocket and I personally have put MANY, MANY hours into this place every week and I know many others like @2legit2quit do too. I take pride in the fact that, by comparison to most Forums I've seen, we have almost no drama, and minimal confrontation (beyond people's personal confrontations with their fears and their baggage, which we completely support them in working through here!). We have one of THE most SUPPORTIVE and LOVING groups out there. And we will continue to do what we have to to KEEP our integrity around our mission here, however that looks.

 

(((HUGS) and Peace Out :)