Why does the herpes virus take a back seat when it comes to developing a vaccine or cure?

[DarkKnightX]

I would just like to know why is there so little emphasis on herpes but scientists are scrambling to come up with something to combat this new Zika virus? Just like with the Ebola virus, it cased a worldwide panic and know you don't hear anything about it. I just think it's unfair for people like us who want the same attention to go towards our condition as those afflicted with their conditions.

[DarkKnightX]

Sorry about the typos!

[ihaveittoo]

Simple fact of the matter is the world of medicine consders herpes nothing more than a nuisance condition. It doesn't cause cancer, sterility or other long term physical complications. The deaths it can cause are so rare its barely a blip on the radar. The viruses mentioned above are generally deadly or cause other physical long term conditions. HIV even became a hot political issue when it came to funding for research. There was a time when an HIV diagnosis was a death sentance. Now days its not. Hopefully whats learned from that research can be applied to HSV and other viruses.

 

I have long since stopped obsessing over a cure after nearly 3 decades of having herpes. It is after all a nuisance. Its the stigma and general widespread ignorance about herpes thats the real problem.

[DarkKnightX]

Thanks for the insight. That was really a good answer.

[2Legit2Quit]

Because that virus is deadly to babies and the deformities of themm born w only a brain stem, is horrendous. It is rare to pass H to a baby through birth and a C section could always be done. Pregnant women don't have a choice. If they're infected w this virus, it's a wrap. Herpes isn't killing and deforming babies in utero.

[DarkKnightX]

Everyone is so knowledgeable on this site. Now imagine if all people would take time to learn the facts about hsv then I think the stigma would disappear.

[2Legit2Quit]

So in order to get funding for clinical trials, big pharma pays for those. Big pharma makes entirely too much money off management of a disease that won't kill you, so in their mind, they're not doing anything ethically immoral. Why would they want to find a cure? They lose money... So I'm not surprised in the least, that there is a lack of funding in that area. Are you still struggling w your diagnosis hun?

[sanngrior]

You know, I honestly find the idea of big pharmacy ignoring herpes because they make money off treatment, not cure, is kind of silly. You could argue that about any currently uncured condition. The reality is that research and treatment/cure development takes a very long time and a ton of money, and there isn't enough money to go around for every illness. Why spend that money on what is primarily a cosmetic, is sometimes mildly painful skin condition (herpes) when you can focus on a virus or illness that is much more harmful and lethal (zika, HIV, etc). Honestly, while I wish there was less of a stigma around herpes, I'm glad that research money goes to more serious conditions. Progress in medicine is being made - a cure for hepatitis C was developed a few years ago and saved my uncle's (and many other) lives. Also, research is not necessarily linear - a medical treatment developed for another virus could potentially end up cure herpes.

[DarkKnightX]

Great answers and to answer your question 2legit2quit, for the most part I am ok with my diagnosis until I hear jokes and sad stories from the newbies.

[ihaveittoo]

Well said @sanngrior.

[fyrefenyx]

Yes, I was going to say what ihaveittoo said. Its a nuisance. Its fatal to newborns but you cant die from it. Other thing is pharmaceutical companies keep making $ off us for Rx's.

[hippyherpy]

Finding a cure for herpes would also help to greatly reduce HIV transmission rates because having h makes you 3x more likely to get HIV. Even if they found a cue for heroes, I'd still have those cd4 T cells thing hanging out on my dick from first outbreak for the rest of my life. That's the biggest drag of getting herpes for me.

[2Legit2Quit]

Hahaha! That was the cutest and most naive thing I heard all day! Silly that big pharma isn't morally corrupt and capable of such? I highly recommend education on the topic. Please read up on the ex executive for Pfizer who turned into a whistle blower if you need evidence. Also feel free, to watch Dalls fight club or buyers club, based on the real story, where the FDA and big pharma KNEW a drug was killing HIV patients faster and they kept pushing and treating patients for it. I'm not sure your age, but will assume maybe young, due to the naivety about big pharma. I suggest you start w reading about the whistle blower below and then watch that movie and do some of your own research. @sanngrior , if you havent done research on herpes funding, , vaccines, studies, etc; I recommend you do. i really cant expect you to know any better. To each their own! You think what works for you and ill go off my extensive research on the topic and stick w that. Cheers!

 

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2015/07/07/pfizer-vice-president-blows-the-whistle-tells-the-truth-about-the-pharmaceutical-industry/

[2Legit2Quit]

Thank you!!!! @fyrefenyx

[fyrefenyx]

@2Legit2Quit, no prob. Normally, my response would be lengthier but no need to be redundant after everyone's stated the facts. You can find all kinds of info about how big pharma is just cashing in on sickness...Thx google ;-) and www

[2Legit2Quit]

Hahaha! Exactly!

[sanngrior]

I never argued "big pharma" wasn't corrupt or that research can't be skewed. I simply stated that its unlikely scientists are holding back cures and research because they make more profit off of treatment. There are several, very tragic historical cases of pharmaceutical companies and government agencies doing terrible things in the name of research. Nothing will ever make that okay, or make it better. But these cases are the extreme rarity, not the norm.

 

Many of the statements Pfizer makes about problematic scientific methods are true - and true for all scientific disciplines, not just medicine. Unfortunately most scientific journals publish big, positive results. Its anticlimactic to public an article stating "we spent thousands of dollars and years looking for an effect, but statistically couldn't find one." In a world of publish or perish for scientists, this creates a pressure to both pursue only research that will likely show large effect (aka, things we already know) and skew our statistics towards an effect. This focus on "positive results" is wrong, and something that most scientific communities recognize and attempt to address.

 

Additionally the inherit issue with human trials is that it is almost impossible to have any control over other factors - a person's diet, exercise level, genetic make up, environment, and other health issues can also greatly impact the effectiveness (or not) of any given drug. This leads to smaller sample size. Have you smoked before? Can't participate in study. Do you have any other medical conditions? Can't participate . . . etc.

 

Furthermore, the idea that there is NO research being done on herpes simply isn't true. A Google Scholar search (academic, research level articles) for the past 5 years pulls up over 26,000 research papers, editorials, and books covering herpes simplex from a variety of journals. Hell, a couple days ago NASA committed $80,000 to studying increased herpes simplex outbreaks and in space! HERPES. IN. SPACE.

 

Additionally, the vast majority of ground breaking research is not done by private pharmaceutical companies - its done by universities and government agencies. In these situations there is no incentive to hide breakthroughs, because large results equate to more funding and tenured positions. Most research projects have multiple scientist working on them at a time, making it unlikely a pharmaceutical company could scare all parties out of sharing results. Furthermore prestige is a much larger incentive than money for the vast majority of scientists. Nobody goes into research for money - there are far more lucrative things bright people could be doing. But a Nobel Prize? Being the next Darwin? Every scientist's fantasy.

 

The reality is that whoever came up with a cure or vaccine would make a TON of money off of it. Think about it – many people with herpes avoid antivirals because they don’t have frequent outbreaks, their partner also has herpes, or they don’t like the side effects. If a vaccine was created, EVERYONE would take it, including people who don’t have herpes! It would become standard with all the other vaccines you get as a kid.

 

How do I know all this? Because I'm a biologist. I study fish and wildlife, not people, but regardless, scientific research is how I make a living. I have dedicated the past 7 years of my life to biology, and will probably dedicate the rest of my life to it. If you want to buy into conspiracy theories and stop trusting the scientific community, go for it. But maybe think about where science has gotten us so far as a species. I sure like not worrying about polio, having two living parents that have beaten cancer, and learning more about the beautiful world around me in way as objective as I can.

[chikitta13]

As someone who deals with health research funding, albeit for different issues, there's a lot of validity to what @sanngrior is saying regarding researchers at universities. I whole heartedly believe that big pharma does a lot of crappy things. And no, they are not likely targeting their resources torward a cure or vaccine. And they certainly aren't putting their lobbying dollars toward it either. But there are many other avenues to accessing research funds. Take a look at the NIH budget sometime. Herpes just isn't that high on the list. We won't likely see anything for herpes before HIV. A lot more prestige in that. And that's what academic researchers often crave.

[2Legit2Quit]

@sanngoir I've been following him for a yr n half now. Also bill is trying to get funded, he has to be PC. A Whistler blower who was ACTUALLY RUNNING BIG PHARMA, knows more about the deals going on in big pharma, than a researcher, who is TRYING to get big pharma to fund him. I never said researchers are holding back. I said BIG PHARMA was holding back the funds, The researchers rely on big pharma for these vaccine trials. There are no drug trials, w out big pharma funding. Big pharma WILL NOT fund something they don't see money in .

 

W that said, this is a support forum, not a debate forum on who thinks they know more than the other. We must keep thing a positive environment like we have and we do what we can to stop stand offs. Appreciate the input.

[2Legit2Quit]

@chikkita13 dis you read about the whistle blower article?

[ihaveittoo]

@sanngrior, once again, a well stated and sensible response.

[2Legit2Quit]

@wcadancer2010 think you may need to step in, to halt any further antagonistic comments.

[ihaveittoo]

Hahaha! That was the cutest and most naive thing I heard all day! Silly that big pharma isn't morally corrupt and capable of sghly recommend education on the topic. Please read up on the ex executive for Pfizer who turned into a whistle blower if you need evidence. Also feel free, to watch Dalls fight club or buyers club, based on the real story, where the FDA and big pharma KNEW a drug was killing HIV patients faster and they kept pushing and treating patients for it. I'm not sure your age, but will assume maybe young, due to the naivety about big pharma. I suggest you start w reading about the whistle blower below and then watch that movie and do some of your own research. @sanngrior , if you havent done research on herpes funding, , vaccines, studies, etc; I recommend you do. i really cant expect you to know any better. To each their own! You think what works for you and ill go off my extensive research on the topic and stick w that. Cheers!

 

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2015/07/07/pfizer-vice-president-blows-the-whistle-tells-the-truth-about-the-pharmaceutical-industry/

 

@2Legit2Quit,

 

Please reread your post from earlier in the thread. Your tone in this thread comes across as very condescending. I was actually offended by this, and I'm not very easy to offend.

 

"Hahaha! That was the cutest and most naive thing I heard all day!"

 

"I can't really expect you to know any better."

 

WTH?

 

@sanngrior made some very valid points in both posts. I for one don't believe the big pharma issue is as cut and dried as you do. Yes, there are some rotten no good evil bastards in big pharma. You'll find them in any industry you care to look into. There is some great research going on. If an effective vaccine or cure is discovered it will find its way to the marketplace. Money will be made, that is ultimately what they are in business to do.

 

You are more than welcome to message me again and tell me how immature I am being. As things stand right now you and I are never going to agree on this issue. Lets just let it stand right there. Please, be a little more tactful in your responses on this subject in the future. You do a great job here. I do appreciate your point of view.

[2Legit2Quit]

@ihaveittoo I think someone who comes on, dismisses someone's comment and calls them silly, is condescending and unfortunately as I'm human and not perfect, I reacted to that condescending tone and dismissiveness. I think as a grown adult, it doesn't help to add to a situation, where things were said by both parties that should not have been said. At the same time, you're also projecting what you think I meant and putting it into your own context. You adding gasoline to a fire is not conducive , nor mature and I'll leave it at that. I also stated it WAS immature of you to do so and did not actually call you immature, but if the shoe fits, wear it. Look at what you're doing now? I tried to end the debate and you want to continue it. Then I give you a chance to say what you need to say privately, instead of things turning into what they have and what is your solution? To post publicly. Seriously, those who live in glass houses should not throw stones.

 

Just the mere fact that I tried to take things off line to you as a mature adult and you felt the need as a man old enough to be my father, to continue this on a public forum, really speaks volumes

 

You're making the assumption that I think it's that cut and dry off of a few words I said. A better approach would have been to ask why I feel such, in stead of being told I'm silly and the like, as goes for you. I love how all who disagreed w me, failed to read the article from the whistle blower himself, whom was behind some of the corruption in big pharma. It's called being objective, not dismissing what someone's opinion is, even after they provided evidence to support such. That's the difference. We're not talking about other area's though, so that's a red herring.. We are discussing big pharma.

 

Please take a dose of your own medicine you dish out and take things offline and not on the public forum w me, which I tried to do w you.

 

W that said, @sanngoir I apologize to being reactive to your comment dismissing me and calling it silly. I have feelings. I spend countless hrs on here helping people and have stepped up w adrial and dancer being out, as they notified me in a group msg they would be out. I do this, because i care and I don't want people to feel the way I did the first 6 months I had it. Sometimes it can be taxing, especially when you feel people can be ungrateful, but I do it for the ones who are. I'm a flawed human and a very emotional one and sometimes, do not always have the best reactions to a slight i feel was made. W that said, I can apologize sincerely for not making a better choice in my words w you and I hope you can accept that apology.

[ihaveittoo]

I apologise to you @2Legit2Quit for going overboard earlier. I let my emotion get the better of me. I'm as flawed a person as you'd ever want to meet (or not).

 

I for one am done with the subject and won't speak of it again.