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

Smallpox vaccinations in the management of recurrent herpes simplex: A controlled eva

Recommended Posts

SuperManFace
I found this online has anyone heard of this before Here is the link http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2005/0053626.html

Step 1. Method of treating disease: this procedure must be done by a certified Medical Doctor, who has access to controlled substances. Doctor is to give patient one normal smallpox vaccination. Do not touch or itch the blister it causes, and when the blister scabs, continue not to touch. Wait until the scab naturally falls off, return to same Doctor as soon as possible to repeat Step 1. within 24 to 48 hours, it is imperative. Repeat process over and over, each time the process is done, the blister and scab gets smaller and smaller until the process is done, and there is no visible blister or scab. This may take 4 to 6 weeks for process to be complete; process longer in severe cases. To save on scaring it is recommended to vaccinate patients on the same site where original childhood smallpox vaccination was administered. This is the total complete cure to the Herpes Virus. Patient becomes immune to the virus. Virus is contagious until the GRACE PROCESS is complete.

http://www.nature.com/jid/journal/v33/n3/pdf/jid195921a.pdf

Reading the first few paragraphs tells may be sufficient***

SMALLPOX VACCINATIONS IN THE MANAGEMENT OF RECURRENT

HERPES SIMPLEX: A CONTROLLED EVALUATION*

ARTHUR B. KERN, M.D.t AND BENCEL L. SCHIFF, M.D.f

The management of herpes simplex usually

offers no problem except in those instances in

which the patient is afflicted with recurrent attacks.

We have observed cases with lesions occurring

as frequently as every two weeks, although

often the intervals are greater. In any event, the

temporary disfigurement produced can be a

source of considerable distress. It is this which

leads the patient to seek aid, aid in the prevention

of further attacks.

What can the physician offer? One form of

treatment dates back to the work of Gildemeister

and Herzberg (1) who, in 1925, produced

a relative immunity of the rabbit cornea to

smallpox vaccine by previous inoculation with

the virus of herpes simplex. On the basis of these

results they suggested that the herpes virus

might be a variant of that of smallpox. The

following year Heymann (2) cited the observations

of Jenner on the inhibition of the smallpox

vaccine pustule in patients with herpes. In

1928, Freund (3) reported favorable results with

cowpox lymph in the maDagement of seven

patients with recurrent herpes simplex. However,

Bedson and Bland (4), in the same year, on the

basis of their studies on guinea pigs concluded

that the virus of herpes simplex and of vaccinia

are unrelated. Despite the experimental results of

Bedson and Bland, clinical investigations by

Minami and Ohmichi (5) and Wise and Sulzberger

(6) supported the concept that smallpox

vaccinations helped to prevent attacks of herpes

simplex.

Foster and Abshier (7), in 1937, reported on

35 patients with regular and frequent attacks of

herpes simplex. Vaccinations were given at two

week intervals, most patients receiving a total of

four. In only five patients (14 per cent) did

recurrence follow this therapy. Ullman (8), in

1939, described beneficial effects in four cases

from a single smallpox vaccination. Davis (9), in

* From the department of Dermatology, Boston

University School of Medicine (Herbert Mescon,

M.D., Professor), Boston, Mass.

t Assistant Clinical Professor of Dermatology.

Presented before the American Academy of

Dermatology, December, 1958.

Received for publication January 22, 1959.

1940, reported good results in his series of 14

cases treated with multiple vaccinations.

In 1941, Woodburne (10) described his results

in 22 cases of herpetic stomatitis treated with two

to fifteen vaccinations. Recurrence occurred in

eight and in each instance cure was induced by

one to seven additional vaccinations. Keddie and

coworkers (11), on the other hand, observed no

decrease in the incidence of herpes simplex in a

series of patients given a single vaccination a few

days to a few weeks prior to artificial fever

therapy. In discussion of this paper, Kile (12)

stated that smallpox vaccinations were of no

value in the management of recurrent herpes

simplex while Schoch (13) and Seale (14) each

stated that they had obtained satisfactory results

with this therapeutic approach.

Arnold (15), in 1944, reported on 14 cases of

recurrent herpetic stomatitis with favorable

response to intradermal injections of smallpox

vaccine. Anderson (16), in 1945, focused attention

on a probable etiologie relationship between

herpes simplex and erythema multiforme. During

the preceding 10 years he had found multiple

vaccinations of value in about 80 per cent of his

cases of recurrent herpes simplex. Accordingly, he

used this same procedure for the prevention of

erythema multiforme associated with herpes

simplex and also in prevention of recurrent

erythema multiforme not associated with herpes.

He found this therapy definitely of value, particularly

in those eases which were preceded by

herpes simplex.

Pepys (17), in 1946, reported on two patients

with recurrent herpes simplex, one with attacks

every two months for 45 years and the other with

attacks every two to three months over a period

of 20 years; no further outbreaks occurred after

three vaccinations.

In 1947 we began treating all our eases of

recurrent herpes simplex with smallpox vaccinations.

In 1954 we reported our results in a total

of 68 patients (18). This was by no means a very

large series, but, nevertheless, it was the largest

thus far reported. Smallpox vaccinations were

administered by the multiple puncture technic at

99

100 THE JOURNAL OF INVESTIGATIVE DERMATOLOGY

two week intervals. The number varied from two

to eight, most patients receiving two or three.

The duration of disease prior to therapy varied

from one month to 20 years, most patients having

had recurrent attacks for four to five months

before the start of treatment. The number of

attacks before treatment varied from two to

approximately fifty. Frequency of attacks prior

to therapy varied from every 2 to every 32

weeks, 41 patients having had their attacks at

two to three months intervals. Of the 68 patients

in the series, in only 9 did recurrence occur

following the course of treatment and in seven

others there was some question as to possible

recurrence. In summary, 52 patients (76.5 per

cent) definitely had no subsequent attacks during

a lengthy follow-up period.

In attempting to explain these results we considered

three possibilities. The first was that the

living virus in cowpox lymph stimulated the

formation of antibody to herpes simplex virus,

this increased titer preventing recurrence. The

validity of this concept has, however, been

questioned by Burnet (19) who maintained that

the high level of neutralizing antibody reached

within a few weeks after primary infection

remains fairly constant for life. Furthermore, with

an already high titer stimulation of antibody

formation would appear to be of little value.

However, Jawetz, Allende and Coleman (20) have

demonstrated that a given individual may show

considerable fluctuation of antibody level.

Wenner (21) observed complete disappearance of

antibody from the blood of a child seven months

after an attack of Kaposi's varicelliform eruption.

Buddingh and co-workers (22) studied the

nentralizing antibody level in 12 children with

primary herpetic gingivostomatitis. Antibodies

were first detected from the fourth to seventh

day following onset of illness, with a rapid increase

thereafter. In the majority of cases the

maximum level was reached three to four weeks

after onset. However, this maximum was not

maintained indefinitely, the titer subsequently

dropping to lower levels. In one of their cases

they noted a significant increase in neutralizing

antibody on two occasions; in each instance the

increase occurred during an episode when virus

was recovered from the patient although no

evidence of infection was discernible. Geller,

Coleman and Jawetz (23) injected viable herpes

simplex virus intravenously into 9 subjects. In 4

of these, this was followed by a significant rise in

antibody level.

These reports suggest that at least in some

individuals there is fluctuation in amount of

antibody and that Burnet's concept of a high

fixed level of antibody may be questioned. Can

one postulate, therefore, that it is a fall in antibody

titer that allows reactivation of virus in

recurrent attacks of herpes simplex? Such a

hypothesis is appealing. However, Scott and

co-workers (24) did neutralizing antibody determinations

in three adults with recurrent herpes

simplex and found that regardless of attacks the

level of antibodies remained approximately constant

in a given individual. Blank and Rake (25)

have expressed doubt that attempts to increase

the titer of serologic antibodies will be of value in

preventing recurrences. They refer to patients

with frequent attacks whose sera when diluted

500 times would still rapidly inactivate herpes

virus; nevertheless, a million or more virulent

virus particles per milliliter of fluid could be observed

within their lesions.

On the basis of the experimental evidence now

available, the role of neutralizing antibody in

recurrent herpes simplex is not clearly established.

In any event, it appears unlikely that any

benefit obtained from the use of vaccination can

be attributed to stimulation of antibody formation.

The second possible explanation we considered

at the time of our original report was that vaccinations

might be beneficial as the result of

"suggestion". Such a concept had been proposed

by Ullman (8) and by Blank and Brady (26). We

were however inclined at the time to discount

the role of "suggestion" and to favor the opinion

expressed by Wise and Sulzberger (27) to the

effect that vaccination might act by changing

tissue response in some unknown way.

INvESTIGATIVE STUDY

During the past three years we have attempted,

by means of a controlled series, to evaluate the

possible role of "suggestion". We divided our

patients with recurrent herpes simplex into two

groups. One was given a course of vaccinations

with active smallpox vaccine. The second received

heat-inactivated vaccine.* The former was

labeled X-0456, the latter X-0457. The person

* Both active and inactive vaccine were supplied

through the courtesy of Parke, Davis &

Company, Detroit, Michigan.

SMALLPOX VACCINATIONS IN RECURRENT HERPES SIMPLEX 101

administering the medication was not aware of

which of the two was the active and which the

inactive vaccine. A total of 57 patients are included

in the series, 34 treated with active

vaccine and 23 with inactive vaccine.

Vaccinations were administered by the multiple

puncture technic and were usually given every

two weeks. The total number received by each

subject in the active group ranged from four to

twelve, with an average of 7.5. The number given

to the inactive group, with one exception, ranged

from five to ten, with an average of 8. One of the

inactive group received only one vaccination;

this patient will be discussed in greater detail

later. All patients were white, with 23 males and

14 females in the active group as compared to 11

males and 12 females in the inactive group. The

age span in the active group was 8 to 60 years,

the average being 27.8, while in the inactive

group it was 7 to 60 years, with an average of 28

years. As can be seen from the table, the duration

Duration of

Disease Before

Number of

Attacks Before

Frequency of

Attacks Before

Therapy

(months)

Therapy

(months)

Therapy

(weeks)

Active 4 to 120

Average: 8

2 to 72

Average: 7

3 to 26

Average: 8

mac- 2 to 108 2 to 48 3 to 52

tive Average: 14 Average: 6 Average: 10

of disease before therapy and the number and

frequency of attacks were approximately the

same for the two groups. Except for a greater

proportion of males in the active group, the two

series of patients were approximately the same.

RESULTS

Of the 34 patients in the active group no recurrence

was observed in 23, or 67 per cent, over

a follow-up period of 6 to 28, months, with an

average follow-up of 20 months. Of the 23

patients in the inactive group no recurrence occurred

in 12, or 52 per cent, over a follow-up

period of 6 to 25 months, with an average of 20

months. It should be mentioned that in both

groups there were patients who although showing

recurrence reported that their subsequent attacks

were less frequent and less severe than those prior

to vaccination. One patient in the inactive group

was a 29 year old female who had had monthly

pre-menstrual attacks for four years. Following a

single vaccination she was free of lesions for five

months before her next outbreak of herpes.

DISCUSSION

We regret that the number of patients in our

series is small and that the validity of our results

may therefore be questioned. Nevertheless, the

fact that 52 per cent of those treated with inactive

vaccine were "cured" as compared to the

only slightly better figure of 67 per cent obtained

with active vaccine suggests that the psychotherapeutic

factor may be the important one. It

might be pointed out that these figures are different

from those which we reported in July 1958

in our discussion (28) of the paper presented by

G. Douglas Baidridge in the Dermatology Section

of the meeting of the American Medical Association.

At that time we concluded that although

"suggestion" was a definite factor in some cases,

in most instances vaccination probably achieved

its beneficial effect by inducing some alteration

within the body tissues so as to make them more

resistant to the virus of herpes simplex. However,

statistical analysis and a longer follow-up period

has led to the change in our results.

There are two points that we would like to

bring up at this time. The first concerns the

occurrence of spontaneous cure. It certainly

cannot be denied that in some of our cases

spontaneous cure may have taken place. However,

the long duration and high frequency of

attacks prior to therapy would not make this too

likely. It is, of course, to be assumed that spontaneous

cure would occur as frequently in one

group as in the other. Secondly, we would like to

make clear the fact that the negligible difference

in results observed in the two series does not

indicate that "suggestion" is necessarily the responsible

factor. It only proves that inoculation

of vaccine containing living cowpox virus is not

appreciably better than inoculation of vaccine

containing heat-inactivated virus. We can only

conclude, therefore, that smallpox vaccinations

are beneficial due 1. to inoculation of a foreign

protein or some other substance within the

vaccine, 2. to "suggestion" or 3. both.

We must confess that when we started this

investigation we were somewhat biased and

expected that our results with the active vaccine

would be superior to those obtained with the

inactive one. Accordingly, we failed to include a

second control, namely inoculation of normal

saline. Had this been done our study would have

102 THE JOURNAL OF INVESTIGATIVE DERMATOLOGY

been more conclusive. We have recently started a

new series of patients with recurrent herpes

simplex on inoculations of normal saline in an

attempt to throw further light on this somewhat

beclouded subject.

SUMMARY

Patients with recurrent herpes simplex were

divided into two groups. The first was treated

with multiple smallpox vaccinations. The second

was treated in similar fashion except that the

vaccine used had been inactivated by heat. Fiftytwo

per cent of those given inactive vaccine remained

free of attacks during the follow-up

period. Sixty-seven per cent of those given the

active vaccine remained free of attacks.

Since the difference in results is negligible one

must conclude that benefit obtained from vaccination

is probably due to inoculation of foreign

protein or other substance within the vaccine, to

"suggestion" or possibly to both. It is hoped

that future studies will help us to arrive at a

more specific conclusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JBnATL

Can you summarize what this is saying? It is quite long to read.

JB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SuperManFace

Long? its only like 2 pages. Read the pdf.

In summary, 52 patients (76.5 per

cent) definitely had no subsequent attacks during

a lengthy follow-up period.

over

a follow-up period of 6 to 28, months, with an

average follow-up of 20 month

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Movingslowly

Interesting

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
struggle83

This patent has already been discussed on this forum. I really don't know what to make of it. It's just some guy who is claiming the smallpox vaccine can kill off hsv. I think there was another one with vaccinia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
soul5821

I'm waiting for the shingles vaccine on a waiting list, now kinda confussed, should i try the smallpox vaccine or the shingles!!!???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SuperManFace
This patent has already been discussed on this forum. I really don't know what to make of it. It's just some guy who is claiming the smallpox vaccine can kill off hsv. I think there was another one with vaccinia.

Yeah but look at the studies. Those studies weren't discussed here before. It obviously had some kind of effect no doubt. That was the main subject of the post, the studies, hence the title.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
soul5821

deffinetely is something that we should keep in mind about this vaccine, now i"m trying to get the providers on long island ny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sweet7

See what you can find out. However, I believe out soldiers get vaccinated against smallpox, maybe not as many time, but I read about a solder who caught the virus from the vaccine and would have died if it hand't have been for CMX001 from Chimerix. Of course, he lost half of his feet by the time they tried it. I also read somewhere that the smallpox vaccine is actually the swine version of smallpox. Anyhow, I know for a fact that there are some soldiers on this forum so if they received that vaccine, they wouldn't be here. Sorry, don't mean to be negative, but I doubt this is a good road to take.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
helpiamconfused2

SMF, I agree it is interesting. Why don't you take the article to the NIH Director and ask them to comment on it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sweet7

According to a Herpes Handbook I read, this is a dangerous approach. But, check it out anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
struggle83
See what you can find out. However, I believe out soldiers get vaccinated against smallpox, maybe not as many time, but I read about a solder who caught the virus from the vaccine and would have died if it hand't have been for CMX001 from Chimerix. Of course, he lost half of his feet by the time they tried it. I also read somewhere that the smallpox vaccine is actually the swine version of smallpox. Anyhow, I know for a fact that there are some soldiers on this forum so if they received that vaccine, they wouldn't be here. Sorry, don't mean to be negative, but I doubt this is a good road to take.

Chimerix rocks. CMX001 may be our best option for many years to come. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SuperManFace
See what you can find out. However, I believe out soldiers get vaccinated against smallpox, maybe not as many time, but I read about a solder who caught the virus from the vaccine and would have died if it hand't have been for CMX001 from Chimerix. Of course, he lost half of his feet by the time they tried it. I also read somewhere that the smallpox vaccine is actually the swine version of smallpox. Anyhow, I know for a fact that there are some soldiers on this forum so if they received that vaccine, they wouldn't be here. Sorry, don't mean to be negative, but I doubt this is a good road to take.

Lets work with data when discussing this...

Based on past experience' date=' it is estimated that 1 or 2 people in 1 million who receive the vaccine may die as a result.[/quote']

Look up the documented deaths from the smallpox vaccine it is not even into 100 deaths for all those years where everyone got vaccinated.

BTW what Handbook are you talking about? It discussed this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RealisticGal

I came very close to dying from the smallpox vax when I was 6, so I have a bit of a grudge against it personally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
helpiamconfused2

peter.jahrling@nih.gov

I sent this email to a director at the NIAID for evaluation. Hopefully, we'll hear something.

Hi, can you look at this article and see if there is any validity to the smallpox vaccine being a cure to herpes, once acquired?

The article can be found at this link:

http://www.nature.com/jid/journal/v3...jid195921a.pdf

If you are the incorrect person, will you please forward this accordingly?

Please get back to me.

Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SuperManFace
I came very close to dying from the smallpox vax when I was 6, so I have a bit of a grudge against it personally.

I can understand that. You weren't supposed to get vaccinated at that age anyways. I think what I read was anyone under 12 or something like that shouldn't get vaccinated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SuperManFace
peter.jahrling@nih.gov

I sent this email to a director at the NIAID for evaluation. Hopefully, we'll hear something.

Hi, can you look at this article and see if there is any validity to the smallpox vaccine being a cure to herpes, once acquired?

The article can be found at this link:

http://www.nature.com/jid/journal/v3...jid195921a.pdf

If you are the incorrect person, will you please forward this accordingly?

Please get back to me.

Thanks.

LOL you shouldn't have used the word cure. He won't really be able to tell you because I don't think it has been tried out the way the patent says.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RealisticGal
I can understand that. You weren't supposed to get vaccinated at that age anyways. I think what I read was anyone under 12 or something like that shouldn't get vaccinated.

We all got jabbed at that age back then. It was done at school.

Maybe they finally learned something and moved the age up. But I'm still leery of vaccines in general. Smallpox was one of two that nearly "done me in."

I just have to wonder if this could be one of those instances where the "cure" could be worse than the disease.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
helpiamconfused2
LOL you shouldn't have used the word cure. He won't really be able to tell you because I don't think it has been tried out the way the patent says.

"Cure"/"Treatment" whatever... My goal is to end the speculation and see if there is anything to it. That's what taxpayers pay these guys for... We weren't getting anywhere on the forum discussing.

I'll post any reply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jadotch

I have lived with cold sores all my life. Normal I get 2-3 outbreaks a year (The change of seasons usually is two, then a random sunburn leads to one.) 2010 was a bad outbreak year for me, I think I had a total of 6 outbreaks. In the beginning of 2011 I deployed with the military to the middle east for 6 months. Small pox vaccines are required for all military personnel that are deployed there. I have not had an outbreak this year. (I just recently had a sun burn on my face which I would expect an outbreak.)

Only 3 things I can think of why:

1) 2010 was such a bad year for me my body could have went into overdrive to protect itself this year.

2) A healthier life style while I was deployed. A lot less junk food and alcohol.

3) The smallpox vaccine.

After the sunburn I was expecting it. So far no outbreak this year. There have been a couple instances where I thought I felt the "tingle", but nothing ever developed. The lack of outbreaks lead me to this site. So take it for what it is worth, it has not even been a complete year yet since I received the vaccine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wwdamron

This has been discussed and investigated since the 1930's. It has been written off aas ineffective.

Your lifestyles, the military regime with its physical conditioning it requires is most likely why you do not have an outbreak or you are like most people who have outbreaks and then build an immunity and never have an outbreak again for years or maybe never.

It is not related to the smallpox vaccine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jay9876

Very Interesting.

I get outbreaks every 4-6 weeks consistently. Keep me updated on your status as I would be the perfect candidate to test this out. I tried to send you a private message but I can't so I sent you a friend request.

Jay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fruitflygirl01

I can't see why the smallpox vaccine would be effective since it is completely unrelated to HSV. It may though in some cases that the body's immune response is ramped up due to the vaccine and thus suppresses the HSV more effectively. But it would be difficult to predict who would have that response and seems too risky. Just my 2 cents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
helpiamconfused2

Weve got a pretty effective vaccine ready for phase2... Agenus. If successful iy would be the first and only vaccine on the market. This should make it a slam dunk for fast track status...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bright Side

Help, do you have any idea of a timeline in regards to Agenus?

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  

Advertisement

Try a Lysine supplement for cold sores

  • The Hive is Thriving!

    • Total Topics
      68,277
    • Total Posts
      455,762
  • Posts

    • Quest
      Him holding my hips, grabbing ass, then grabbing his cock is what I worry about. I also worry about shedding anywhere from the boxer shorts area and that's a mighty big area. It is the unknown. It would be nice to cover the entire area and then I just don't have to worry! Then the part that is exposed which  would be a very small spot. Maybe cover with that liquid glove?!? I just like the idea of doing my best
    • 35hope
    • Hairpees
      I wouldn’t because that would be outing myself as well unfortunately. It just sucks because our mutual friends have no clue why I carry such resentment towards him, and wonder why they can’t even bring up his name around me anymore. Im sure they think I’m a crazy jealous person who is hurt things didn’t work out or that I’m being dramatic for no reason. I can’t explain to or confide in anyone but the users on this forum.
    • Jorjanewnew
      Girl! I am actually on the same exact position. My new bf gave it to me and he put the blame on me! When he was my 2nd partner and I hadn’t had sex in 5 years (last guy was a virgin). I know that alone feeling but know you’re not alone. I just got diagnosed 2 weeks ago too. It’s crazy you see yourself differently but I promise no one around you does.
    • Cas9
      How would that location (upper crack) come in contact with him during doggy style sex? Maybe after the act if he fell on top of you while you're face down. I would suggest simply observing whether there are sores in these areas that are somewhat removed from the genital area. If there are no sores than the odds of you transferring to him such as the lower stomach or leg etc.., are pretty damn low. Obviously, we can come always come up with a scenario where you could transmit. For example, if you were on your stomach and he was sliding his dick up and down your butt crack and you had sores there, then yes, he could get infected. If you were just shedding there it would be less likely but possible. But try doing that with your clothes on. I don't think that would work out very well; Do you?  Wearing clothes during sex like that woman you portrayed in your earlier comment is sexy. But that's all together different.
×

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.