Jump to content
World's Largest Herpes Support Group
Sign in to follow this  
motorcyclemaintainance

CJ9-gD

Recommended Posts

motorcyclemaintainance

This is a modified HSV-1 virus developed by a scientist at Harvard Medical School.

It's been found to be effective in preventing HSV skin lesions in most mice and guinea pigs tested who were infected with "regular, wild-type" HSV-1. The research was (and hopefully still is) funded by NIH/NIAID.

This is the upgraded version of a previous virus design CJ83193

No information on when / if CJ9-gD is going to be tested on humans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
curecomingverysoon

Sounds interesting. Again with the replication defective though... the only effective chickenpox vaccine was made from replication competent live strain virus. Bill Halford believes that the replication negative stuff will be flushed out of the system in a matter of weeks, which would mean constant boosters. I believe that the worry is that using live replication competent virus will actually cause someone to catch the virus but come on, what about those of us who already have it?

*end of rant*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
motorcyclemaintainance

The delivery system is certainly a big question with replication defective viruses. Anything more regular than an annual IV booster isn't very practical...

In my opinion, Bill Halford is right, and a replication competent live strain is our best hope for a vaccine. It's intensely frustrating that one was made for chickenpox, but there is none for HSV. In theory, the HSV live vaccine would be a strain of HSV you'd actually *want* to catch, because it would not manifest symptoms, and would defend against the wild strain. You could actually save money on vaccination by partnering up with someone who already had the live vaccine type virus, and then "catch" it from them.

Hilarious possibilities. Imagine how popular you'd be if you were first in successful clinical trials for a live attenuated HSV vaccine.

A while ago this thread discussed a posting on craigslist where an individual was looking to fund a research project. Maybe (s)he should fund Bill Halford.

In the meantime, bring on the helicase-primase inhibitors, or something a bit more post-1970s than the usual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
curecomingverysoon

Well, I suppose it could be worse than monthly shots (could become sort of like diabetes?).

Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think that the vaccination would be contagious, particularly when administered therapeutically? That's just not how they work, I don't think. The way the successful vaccine would work is that the virus would lie utterly dormant in your system, not producing anything "new", just fighting what's already there into submission (in the case of therapeutic) or defending against new invaders (in the case of preventive). No outbreaks, no shedding - it would be inert.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
motorcyclemaintainance
Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think that the vaccination would be contagious

Since it doesn't manifest symptoms, then you may be right to assume it doesn't shed virus either. An actively shedding virus, even if inert, might be a hard sell to the FDA or similar.

It is an interesting concept, anyway, the idea of a cure for a condition that is itself a benign contagious infection. You could do away with vaccines for lots of stuff in the future by engineering contagious cures. Probably 500 years in the future though!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Herpes Awareness

Let's not get confused here. This piece of research has effectively created a de-activated vaccine to protect against future exposure to a live wild virus. It works like any vaccine, to stimulate the body to produce antibodies against a future attack. The presence of these antibodies will then work against a future skin infection, hopefully preventing the virus from creeping down the nerves and into the spine by disabling it at or near the site of infection.

In the same way, people who have HSV-1, even an oral infection, are somewhat protected against catching HSV-2, as the antibodies for 1 can act against 2, or else mutate very quickly on the first sign of invasion by 2.

Don't confuse this vaccine idea with the GM HSV virus approach of U Fl which drops a 'live' virus which does not cause outbreaks into your system, which then invades your actual nerve cells and produces hammerhead ribozymes to continually neutralise other wild strains of HSV you may have.

This is the low-tech version, which may have some positive results, and works by stimulating the immune system. Although, like Gardasil, probably ineffective if you already have say HSV-1. The high-tech version is the U Fl idea which is also potentially more dangerous to the subject and would need much more testing and development on a range of fronts before human trials could commence. Other solutions like helicase-primase inhibitors represent an interim solution that is more effective than current antivirals and would still be very useful in preventing transmission once a proper screening effort was put in place in the community.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
motorcyclemaintainance

Thanks for clarifying, Herpes Awareness.

Also, something you wrote got me thinking:

people who have HSV-1, even an oral infection, are somewhat protected against catching HSV-2, as the antibodies for 1 can act against 2, or else mutate very quickly on the first sign of invasion by 2.

I also assumed that HSV-1 protects against HSV-2 to some degree. But this study says all it does is reduce / eliminate symtoms. It doesn't reduce the likelyhood of catching it:

"Previous HSV-1 infection did not reduce the rate of HSV-2 infection, but it did increase the likelihood of asymptomatic seroconversion, as compared with symptomatic seroconversion."

And this extensive study found no evidence to support any relationship, suggesting that:

"Hypothetically, previous infection with one type could lead to cross protection against the other. Less likely, but also possible would be a facilitation of infection with one type by the other. Also likely is there being no direct mechanism for one infection influencing the other. HSV-2 is likely to have evolved so that it is not influenced by previous HSV-1 infection."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • The Hive is Thriving!

    • Total Topics
      69,741
    • Total Posts
      470,272
  • Posts

    • BioHacker
      Meds and condoms is really all you need. Statistically, HSV2 is so widespread because 80-90% of  people who have it are unaware that they have it, and so they don't take all recommended precautions (including using condoms). Oddly enough, if you were to replace your HSV2+ girlfriend (aware of HSV status, using condoms, using suppressive meds) with the average American woman (unaware of HSV status, but 25% risk, which is average - and using condoms at all times, since presumably you could insist on it), you would actually NOT reduce your risk of HSV2. The statistical risk would be approximately the same for both theoretical girlfriends (about 0.7% per year assuming sex 2x per week). That is a bit simplistic, because maybe you could decide to date only women who are verified virgins (essentially no risk), or maybe "below average risk" in some way (younger than average, fewer prior partners than average, etc.), or you could have all prospective girlfriends IgG blood tested for HSV as a condition to dating them (or having sex with them), which would reduce the risk significantly (especially if you confirmed the paperwork), but not completely (since antibodies take some time to develop). At some point, beyond-standard precautions become inconvenient and not worth the hassle (or risk of being perceived as paranoid). The risk isn't zero, and probably would never be zero, short of taking extreme measures. Efforts to reduce risk beyond standard practices, which already reduce risk to relatively low levels, are naturally subject to the law of diminishing returns. Accepting some level of risk is (unfortunately) part of the deal in most reasonable endeavors. Also, there is statistically a greater likelihood of two people passing HPV between them one way or the other, than HSV2 (assuming all recommended precautions are being taken). Of course, you could get the HPV vaccine (everyone should!). But the vaccine only covers 10-15% of the types of HPV that are out there. And tests for HPV are imperfect, and generally not available for males. And HPV (some types) can cause cancer (cervical, penile, and throat - maybe others). So, keep that in mind as well. And then, of course, there are all the other risks . . . Best not to be paranoid though . . .
    • WilsoInAus
      That’s correct. HIV is a distinct virus. No virus morphs into another one.
    • WilsoInAus
      Hey @thebrightsidegirl I hope you’re going ok, I’ve read your posts and will see if I can draw some threads. I see that you have genital HSV-1 and your partner has oral HSV-1. I’m not sure if he has tested but given it’s somcommon there’s no reason to disbelieve that’s what he has. This is the best concirdant scenario you can hope for in a sexual relationship. You both already have the virus and your immune systems are established and your experience with herpes is your own. You cannot induce an outbreak in each other by virtue your own HSV-1 and transmission to a new location on your partner is too small to worry about. If HSV-2 is present, then it needs to be brought to the relationship. It’s not at all likely you have it given you were infected genitally with HSV-1.  I suggest these symptoms are very unlikely to be related to herpes at all. If they are, then it’s far more likely to be a recurrent outbreak issue with your HSV-1 as opposed to an initial infection with HSV-2. 
    • hopeing
      Ozone is basically toxic to humans at high levels. Its probably as likely to kill your cells as the virus. Add to that the virus is not in the blood and I'd say this 'treatment' is probably totally ineffective and if it does include high levels of real ozone likely dangerous. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_therapy
    • thebrightsidegirl
      Hey Wilson , do you kids answering this , i was kind of worried too ? 
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.