Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
ronsmith

Can your cold sore become genital herpes?

5 posts in this topic

Is there anyway that your cold sore outbreak can become genital herpes (like if you touched your cold sore and then touched your penis).

Also more importantly, HOW LIKELY is this to happen?

I've tried to not touch the sore and then other parts of my body, but I can't be 100% sure that I never touched the cold sore and then my genitals so I'm worried about my HSV1 becoming HSV2.

Thanks for the answers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HSV1 cannot become HSV2. You can have genital HSV1. If you have had the virus for a while, like a year, the chances of you transferring it from your mouth to your genitals is very small. That being said, if you are having an OB, it is still not good practice to touch your face and then touch your genitals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure how accurate his reply is.

My Dr did tell me that if someone with a cold sore were to perform oral sex on a partner they could develop genital herpes?

But most likely since you have cold sores your body is already immune to developing genital herpes from the same virus you already have, know what I mean?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes, your cold sore can become genital herpes but the type does not change. so if the cold sore is hsv 1 then the genital herpes would be hsv 1 as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but, if u have had the virus for awhile it provides significant protection against getting the same virus in another location.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Latest Buzz

    • K_Sock
      @OhFuckMyDickHurts All sounds good - albeit the science is a bit over my head. From what I've experienced in crowdfunding for DRACO, you would have to offer a shot at a cure....especially now given Halford, Admedus and Genocea all have good stuff in the pipeline on the vaccine front. As i'm a busy man and I don't have HSV-2, I won't get too involved and will just help if needed. Apologies, if that sounds selfish, but I have just invested far too much time and energy as it is into funding DRACO and am a little worn out.. Again, if you need help promoting your poll and website then i'm happy to email my lists. 
    • LillianPanos
      Sounds too good to be true. Try lysene. Oil of oregano cocoNut oil. Ask on this site beter results people that have ICan give you whats workingv for them.
    • LillianPanos
      Me too. Unfortunately we grow thru the storms!  
    • LillianPanos
      OMG WilsoInAus your up to those comments again!!! I think your in the valley of darkness!!!  Bless you my good buddy!!!
    • OhFuckMyDickHurts
      1.  As for credibility where money goes; no one is "running off", fraud is quite serious. I think on that end accounting of funds, updates, etc. in an attorney trust account who would provide an accounting for donors. Promised? again before any campaign the question remains what do people want to do. I prefer using CRISPR in a vector but as a backup a DNA+vector design rather than give up if funding fails for CRISPR.  2.  CRISPR - I already tried to validate in theory a HSV1 and HSV2 targeting the UL30 gene, it did not work; the conserved region same in both was not a good target to knockout and not have off-target effects. The focus is therefore HSV-2 for CRISPR. Further while someone else already has the license for CRISPR HSV-1, as I understand it the patent holders haven't licensed HSV-2 yet. But that is beyond merely using it for human research and for selling.  Otherwise as for experience and expertise I'm proposing commissioning it and using it outside the USA. Thus like a general contractor managing it and sponsoring a trial with donations. I'm not saying trust my experience in making it, no there are already experts who will make it all. For instance I have an intended vector design using one already perfected for neurons (they're willing to license the vector) with CRISPR/Cas9, then I would retain another lab to clone out the markers and toxic genes (for human injection) for the vector to be ready for the CRISPR/Cas9 to be transferred in. Further a lab that makes it will validate the gRNA constructs. Ultimately by the end make an aliquot ready for injection.  As for a DNA vaccine, it's not a cure but intended for HSV2 with possible HSV1 benefit because of cross reactions with proteins. Based on past research and human trials it's already apparent the average reduction rates from combining different glycoproteins (a truncated gD2 is what Genocea and Amadeus are using). Why wait for them when other proteins can improve those results even more? Further there are other enhancements that can now be added in a DNA-vector to avoid side effects in the past that prevented their use. HIV DNA vaccine studies have already started using them and got x3-x4 the number of t-cells and increased antibodies without the unwanted side effects. I'd say it's worth a try to boost HSV vaccines.   
    • Maybe1day
      I personally would rather go for crispr, as I know myself and maybe most others who know about halford's theravax may find that as potentially a better therapeutic than most other vaccines coming out, and so I would much rather put any further efforts into finding an actual cure. 
    • fixme1
      id be happy to see either, unfortunatly im undiagnosed as im sure the igg's keep being negatives and i dont get OB's. I assume in things like this and any trails currently out there people need proof they have it. would you be doing a money raiser after youve got everything together? I assume that will be a little while. You seem to know your stuff, good to see another person wanting to help the suffering
    • OhFuckMyDickHurts
      Thank you, I'm starting to build a website for this as I know people have a lot of questions. Content is what matters so I have a lot to write about. As it stands I have not patented it but know how to leap jump over those with the patents and they're trying right now.  Right now I want to poll what people would actually want. I'm debating trying to get a human CRISPR trial but know people may back out or it's not funded enough to go forward verse using a proprietary DNA mix in a vaccine vector which can be a cheaper back up plan. You could say one is a potentially cure (with unknown long term risk), the other a therapy that either boosts the CD4/CD8 cells or not (little to any safety issues) to lower or eliminate outbreaks/shedding. Something is better than taking daily pills which don't reduce the lesion severity. 
    • OhFuckMyDickHurts
      Yep I understand that. I've been doing this on my own for months and have been debating internally seeking others to help as I know people will want to know my background for credibility but I also like everyone else don't like public disclosure for obvious reasons. I will disclose I'm a doctor, but not a medical one, meaning I have an advanced degree and consider myself a private researcher.   As for "mystery fluid" I've also been debating whether people would actually try a vector-CRISPR-Cas9-gRNA, I'm sure you must feel like me as it is so seductive to try CRISPR to be potentially permanently cured when you're having on OB, but then worry about risk.... further I'm not suggesting I'll make it whatsoever. I'd commission it from 2-3 known labs (because of cloning out AMPr to be FDA human use compliant - at least in that respect) who already have the expertise in testing, validating the gRNA, etc. and delivering an aliquot ready for injection. It would take probably 7 months in total to do that and I'm currently reviewing contracts and licensing options to do this and have a lawyer. I'm not saying we need $4 million to build a bio-lab, it can be jumpstarted for a lot less relying in others who have the capacity. Because of patent reasons I still need to get a license for the vector for any commercial sale, and as for using CRISPR I haven't reached out to Temple University which I believe has not sold a license to use CRISPR for HSV-2. On the other hand I know others may play it safer and may want to just try a DNA-vector vaccine like Frazier's (not intending to infringe his patents) in the Caribbean without waiting a decade for his to come to the USA and wait 10+ years for Temple Uni to valid a CRISPR attacking HSV1 and HSV2 in one (its very hard to do that as I've already been trying with the DNA polymerase gene UL30 and no success.  A DNA vector vaccine can be done with one supplier and is the cheapest and safest method; plus it would be FDA GMP compliant (aka pharmaceutical grade without toxins). It may not cure us totally, but considering the science and 30 years of research I can scientifically point at what to add to boost results from past tries so as to increase the reduction of severity from past results. As for selling it outside the intended country of trials I would need to get a license before the trials for the USA, then patent it after the trial/experiment and apply for FDA testing. Assuming I can make sure legally speaking the trial in the Caribbean would meet a FDA phase 1 standard and allow it to substitute with the FDA.   CRISPR or DNA-Vector?       What would people want to try? 
    • fixme1
  • Featured