Jump to content
World's Largest Herpes Support Group
Sol

Vitaherpavac- Russian Vaccine?

Recommended Posts

BioHacker

So, I do currently know of one researcher who apparently did something like this and survived. BUT there were supposedly some side effects (mainly transient fever and flu-like symptoms, but serious enough to warrant monitoring, and apparently nothing to take lightly at the full dose level). The researcher in question had access to a lab, and was able to test materials for purity. Even so, the cost was high (probably something like $2-3k per dose, not to mention the cost of research, animal tests, subject micro-doses, and purity testing). The downside of this information that the side-effects were likely too severe for the FDA or anyone else to take it seriously as a vaccine approach for a mild / not life-threatening condition (which is how HSV is still viewed, for the most part). The adjuvant used was apparently an analogue of SD-101, but the flu-like side effects are potentially likely to be common across most variants in that entire adjuvant class, due to the interferon induction (similar to results of cancer trials with SD-101). I will not be posting a “recipe” or notes on efficacy or anything like that because I don’t have all the details, and I do not want to encourage anyone to act irresponsibly (or to waste a lot of time and money on a foolish speculation). A one-subject test proves relatively little (except for highlighting the potential for bad things that might be common), and it wouldn’t be hard to imagine someone having complications from flu-like symptoms that could be serious (not to mention all the previously discussed “other” things that could go wrong). In any case, since someone did pursue something roughly akin to what was discussed here generally (and survived), I wanted to note that for the record.  It’s not a safe thing to do, and I wouldn’t begin to try to evaluate the risk reduction measures and safety tests that were done in this particular case (other than noting that some time-consuming and costly measures were apparently taken). In some ways it is not unexpected to have significant flu-like side effects (especially considering interferon induction), but it is disappointing to some degree all the same, since it likely rules out something like this ever becoming a widely available option. It would be nice to have something like this fully tested to rule out "other" risks, FDA approved, and available to people as a last resort, with a big warning label, but the cost to do that wouldn’t really be worth the market opportunity (most likely).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JB1

Interesting can you find out how this person is doing after they did this? I wouldn't be opposed to spending 5-10k on making a vaccine with FI inactactivated virus with and appropriate adjuvant that has been tested in humans and proven safe. Hey what are your thoughts about using drugs or adjuvants that are listed for research purposes only. Let's say the purity is 99.5% and meets the standards for human use but still says for research use only. You seem like a very informed, intelligent but also very cautious person. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BioHacker

Technically, even if 2 or 3 (or more) ingredients are "proven safe" in human testing (to whatever extent you deem acceptable), that doesn't mean a combination of those ingredients would necessarily also be "safe." So, in reality, any "first in human" testing of any new formulation of anything is, by definition, "not safe." Researchers can start with microdoses (like 1/100th of an estimated dose, then 1/50th, then 1/10th and so on) to see if anything bad happens - but the reason they do that is only to reduce risk (it doesn't make it anywhere near "safe"). The biggest thing they do to ensure safety is to advance formulations incrementally, and to know what they are doing.

Personally, I feel that most vaccines of this nature will require powerful SD-101 or equivalent type adjuvants to be most effective. SD-101 has only been tested in cancer patients, and only a small number of them at that (though it has shown promise). That's risky, and less powerful adjuvants would certainly be less risky - but to get the T Cell response, you really probably need the stronger adjuvants (risky as it may be for the more experimental ones). Hopefully C-Class ODNs like SD-101 and others get tested in humans more and more, and essentially de-risk themselves and become more widely used over time, for various purposes. If that happens, the risk would be reduced a bit.

The main reason a lab is needed is for safety / purity testing and sterile conditions (to avoid contamination). Anyone who outsources production of a material (even if using a well respected external lab) sometimes gets a faulty batch (this applies to any material really, though at different rates). It's not a big deal, if you are going to test it yourself anyway and verify potency and purity (which most would when using for research purposes) - you'd just ask for a refund or replacement if it was faulty or contaminated. Maybe it's only 1/100 or 1/1000 or 1/10,000 samples that have any problem. Not a big deal usually. But if you were wanting something for human use (or purified to that grade of purity, tested to prove it, and "guaranteed" as such), you are going to have to pay a lot more, possibly hire an outside lab for additional testing, and it can get really expensive really fast. The risk associated with using a less purified material without proper testing is really not worth it - in reality most less tested batches from reliable suppliers are probably OK, but it's like playing Russian Roulette, and you don't know when a random bad batch might be in the chamber.

The best advice is that if you don't understand exactly what the risk is, then it's probably way too risky. The only way to mitigate risk is to understand it - and that means studying the topic to the point that you essentially become a researcher capable of deciding which risk to take and which not to take. If you are fully informed, after thousands of hours of research, then the decision is up to you.

In theory, you could make a powerful vaccine for under $10k if you knew what you were doing - and you could if you studied up on it. But it would definitely not be "safe." And there would be no guarantee of anything. Most medical professionals would say anything like that would be a VERY BAD IDEA. Typically, only people with terminal illnesses make their own vaccines (or attempt it) - unless they are researchers themselves, in which case they may feel more comfortable taking risks in self-administering their own work product. And like in Russian Roulette, just because one person did it and survived, that does not mean it's necessarily a good bet for the next person to try it. And to be direct, the risks of anything new would typically include death, coma, sepsis, limb amputations, autoimmune disorders, organ failure, and so on - all to varying degrees.

It's an interesting data point though. I made comments before on what the efficacy could possibly be for this type of approach, and what the risks might be, and so far I have no reason to change those opinions one way or the other. The one thing we do know is that the risk involved in testing something like this is nothing to take lightly, even for a researcher who may have some level of experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JB1

Thanks again for your response. I am open to creating a vaccine in a lab with these available materials. With that said take a look at this information. There are actually two patent applications using aminoglycosides to treat HSV. The particular aminoglycoside in the attached patent I can purchase online but for research purposes only. It is a medicine that has a good safety profile but was discontinued in the U.S. in 2005. The only way to get it would be research grade which says 99% purity which is actually pharmaceutical grade and for human use but not being sold that way. I can mix it with I injectable water and test this research and patents first hand. I have researched it thoroughly and would not seem to be all that risky. If it doesn't work so what at least I tried. If it works it could help a lot of people. 

Interesting study done on Aminoglycosides and HSV done by a top researcher in HSV. Also a patent that was filed in the 80s on another similar Aminoglycoside for the treatment of HSV in patients. The patent and patient results are not well written but might be worth looking into. Interesting this form of antibioticworked in mice in a recent study and then this patent was written in the 80s based on human results. 

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41564-018-0138-2

https://patents.google.com/patent/US4312884A/en

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BioHacker

I don't know much about Aminoglycosides, aside from the fact that they are a class of antibiotics most often used against gram-negative pathogens. There are a number of Aminoglycosides that are approved for human use as antibiotics in the US (and more approved for use overseas). I would be skeptical of their potential utility against HSV (even if some formulation of them were able to trigger the immune system in an antiviral manner). It shouldn't be too hard to obtain some types of such antibiotics (for human use) from an online pharmacy or other source. The main issue with older (and some recent) HSV studies in humans is the difficulty of controlling for placebo effect, and the natural variation in symptoms over time (which can make the true effects, or supposed duration of effect, of a given treatment hard to quantify). Indeed, the duration of a therapeutic vaccine would also be a question - as some beneficial immune effects can last for decades, but others can fade more rapidly (a consideration in determining what cost is "worthwhile"). With older studies or under-studied compounds in general, skepticism is typically warranted - often times there is no "announcement" of a research failure in a published format (and, as we know, a good number of "positive results" fail to hold up under scrutiny).

A relatively "safe" type of vaccine would be GEN-003 (which a sufficiently skilled / motivated person could attempt to re-create). The risk of miss-dosing something would be significant without appropriate lab skills, but the ingredients (if sufficiently pure), should be about as safe as GEN-003 - if it was made to the same specifications, without contamination or any other issues. Unfortunately, GEN-003 wasn't all that "great," but there are numerous potential incremental ways to make it stronger and better, or to make something different and potentially more effective (just with the commensurate risk involved).

As a side note: nothing is "risk-free" and research chemicals are not always what they claim to be. Indeed, the availability of research chemicals is widespread because they are not closely regulated, which cuts both ways. A reliable supplier might actually be verifying 99% purity (or testing every batch, multiple ways - expensive!), but an unreliable one might advertise 99% purity, but not actually test every batch, or guarantee it, or even really supervise the employees (or subcontractors) manufacturing the compound. "Buyer beware" is a good policy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JB1

Based on the recent study on aminoglycosides vs hsv in the mouse model prompted my searches on it which then uncovered the two patents with patient data. Interesting nonetheless and easy enough to obtain and try out to at least rule out its efficacy. Let me know what your thoughts are on this company and purity? https://www.grainger.com/product/RPI-Spectinomycin-30UA48

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BioHacker

I would be skeptical. In any case aminoglycosides (even if effective) would maybe be more like Valtrex than a vaccine - meaning that it might suppress symptom temporarily, but not once a person stopped taking it. Taking aminoglycosides over a long-term would not be advisable no matter where it came from, because you would run the risk of developing nasty complications associated with long-term antibiotic use. Short-term, maybe the risk is low enough to try it (but I'd recommend human approved sources in that case), long-term it would definitely not be a good idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JB1

According to my research the aminoglycoside might actually work on viral RNA and possibly even reduce the latent viral load in the ganglia. Certainly not fact but definitely a possibility. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BioHacker

It's probably a long shot but who knows. I'd make a real effort to stick to human approved formulations though. And I'd be very careful with any research materials or veterinary formulations (which do not have much of any rules governing quality). As always, proceed at your own risk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JB1

I sent you the link for the one I was planning to use showing 99% purity which for pharmaceuticals means it's pure enough for human use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BioHacker

I won't offer an opinion on that one because I am not familiar with it, but you could research it more yourself. Lots of things are 99% pure and NOT fit for human use. What really matters is the testing they do for contaminants (some disclose the tests they do, and whether each batch is tested, others you may have to ask). There would be plenty of 99% pure tap water in Mexico that you would definitely NOT want to drink . . .

This is a larger point, but things not labelled for human use are often not regulated much - so a claim of 99% purity is only a claim, and it doesn't mean that they don't have a bad batch every now and then (even reputable companies, because everyone wants to keep casts low to compete). If one out of 100 batches is toxic, that could still be labelled "99% pure" and it might be a successful commercial product. They might assume that in the intended industrial or lab (or animal) use, a buyer would simply notice the toxic (or contaminated) batch and request a refund or a new batch - simple remedy. But if someone diverts the material to human use, the remedy might not be so simple  .. . Buyer beware, in any case . . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BioHacker

You could use imiquimod as a mild adjuvant (topical pre/post intradermal or subcutaneous injection, at injection site), and/or as part of a prime-pull approach. Availability and safety (for typical topical use) are a plus, but imiquimod is probably not strong enough to be very effective against against HSV at advisable dosages (it can cause skin irritation at higher doses, and the effects, such as they are, may not be very long lasting). It likely wouldn't work too well in practice, but the risk in trying it would probably be relatively minor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MikeHerp
On 9/5/2019 at 2:41 PM, BioHacker said:

The researcher in question had access to a lab, and was able to test materials for purity. Even so, the cost was high (probably something like $2-3k per dose, not to mention the cost of research, animal tests, subject micro-doses, and purity testing). The downside of this information that the side-effects were likely too severe for the FDA or anyone else to take it seriously as a vaccine approach for a mild / not life-threatening condition (which is how HSV is still viewed, for the most part)

 

That's not really true.  It's now widely known that HSV is a major driver of the HIV epidemic, which alone, makes it a legitimate concern.  Many studies have gone over this and the link is now well accepted (in fact, both WHO and CDC also emphasize that, the causal link is based on HSV seropositive status alone regardless of symptoms, because of subclinical inflammation in reaction to shedding, not just when somebody does something crazy like having sex while having an HSV lesion).  In various communities, including various countries, around half the people with HIV, have it only because they got HSV first.  HSV is definitely on the radar of health authorities.  

What you said, that HSV is considered harmless or inconsequential, represents an knowledge level from the 1970s or early 1980s.  It's no longer accepted, thankfully.  

This is also reflected in research activity.  For many years, there was barely anything after acyclovir, just valtrex and famcyclovir, which are simply  more of the same thing.  In the last decade, activity and funding aimed at treating or curing herpes, picked up exponentially.  There were multiple experimental new treatments and vaccines that have gone into human testing in recent years.  GSK blew over half a billion dollars on its prophylactic.  Most of the trials failed--that's just the reality of science.  But pritelivir looks promising in phase 2 and, it should be emphasized, the supposedly indifferent to HSV FDA fast tracked it. Dr. Jerome at FHC stated that it was impossible to get funding for HSV cure research in the past--today's he's got a nifty 5 year grant from the NIH for it. 

Even on the vaccine front, despite past failures, College of Einstein School of Medicine recently got $64 million of mostly private funds to test its HSV vaccine, which is probably enough to take them through phase 2.  Friedman's UPenn vaccine is also likely to get the funding, at least for phase 1.  Sanofi has continued to tinker with its HSV529, which has finished phase 1.

That's a LOT that has happened and is continuing to happen in the past several years.  It's no longer the case that there's no interest in HSV or that it's considered inconsequential.  The confirmation of the HIV link alone changed the game--in fact, the only reason why FHC is doing their HSV cure research is because HSV is in the causal pathway for HIV and HIV increases risks of various cancers exponentially.  That's how the Fred Hutch Cancer Research Center got interested in researching an HSV cure. 

Edited by MikeHerp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WilsoInAus

@MikeHerp you have written several untruths worthy of Goebbels himself.

There is no link between HSV and HIV. To suggest so is simply being sensationalist. Do you have some published evidence to this effect?

HIV is HIV and you get HIV by having unprotected sex with someone with HIV.

Curing HSV will not cure HIV. You have been told this multiple times yet continue with ineffectual statements to this effect. It is even feasible that a cure for HSV May increase the incidence of HIV for physical and social reasons. 

People might actually take you seriously when you cut out the nonsense.

Its pretty simple really. To attempt to hijack the HIV agenda with herpes is highly disrespectful and quite immature.

The FHC has been researching viruses long before it was even called FHC, including HSV.

This ‘only reason’ is highly offensive to Corey. This has been pointed out to you before.

I suggest you do some more research instead of doing a cursory internet regurgitation and rewriting history the way you fantasise about it. Please correct your errors.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MikeHerp
29 minutes ago, WilsoInAus said:

@MikeHerp you have written several untruths worthy of Goebbels himself.

There is no link between HSV and HIV. To suggest so is simply being sensationalist. Do you have some published evidence to this effect?

HIV is HIV and you get HIV by having unprotected sex with someone with HIV.

Curing HSV will not cure HIV. You have been told this multiple times yet continue with ineffectual statements to this effect. It is even feasible that a cure for HSV May increase the incidence of HIV for physical and social reasons. 

People might actually take you seriously when you cut out the nonsense.

Its pretty simple really. To attempt to hijack the HIV agenda with herpes is highly disrespectful and quite immature.

The FHC has been researching viruses long before it was even called FHC, including HSV.

This ‘only reason’ is highly offensive to Corey. This has been pointed out to you before.

I suggest you do some more research instead of doing a cursory internet regurgitation and rewriting history the way you fantasise about it. Please correct your errors.

 

 

Lol, We've gone over this many times.  

Here's from the CDC website: 

"

"What is the link between genital herpes and HIV?

Herpes infection can cause sores or breaks in the skin or lining of the mouth, vagina, and rectum. This provides a way for HIV to enter the body. Even without visible sores, having genital herpes increases the number of CD4 cells (the cells that HIV targets for entry into the body) found in the lining of the genitals. "

If you have a problem with it, you can contact the CDC.  Honestly, sorry, I don't have time for this.  

It's widely acknowledged that curing HSV, would put a serious dent in HIV prevalance.  Sorry, there have been a number of published studies.  

Good bye.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WilsoInAus

@MikeHerp what? That’s the article you put up in response?

Thats fraudulent and we all demand an apology.

You cannot go around saying that half of people with HIV have it because they have HSV?

Jesus Lord man, you need to pull it together, I thought you actually had some evidence. But no you’ve just got paranoia. You simply like to use fear to spread your message.

Also HSV is not the major cofactor in HIV infections. Chlamydia and Gonorrhea are much, much stronger cofactors than HSV, multiple times so. But why let these simple facts get in the way of a bit of propaganda!

Maybe we should all direct our funds to eliminating chlamydia according to your logic?!?

Also you have not corrected your posts around FHC and viral research.

Please do it quickly before you destroy any credibility in the article if it hadn’t already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MikeHerp

That "article" is the statement of the CDC, the U.S. body dedicated to disease prevention.  It's effectively the position of the U.S. government regarding the HSV and HIV link.

Don't be a clown.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WilsoInAus
11 minutes ago, MikeHerp said:

That "article" is the statement of the CDC, the U.S. body dedicated to disease prevention.  It's effectively the position of the U.S. government regarding the HSV and HIV link.

Don't be a clown.  

And here is another article citing the impact of chlamydia and gonorrhea. 

If you were serious about addressing cofactors (and why not aim to cure HIV) then we should invest in cures for chlamydia.

Please correct your article for the inaccuracies.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MikeHerp

You didn't cite any article.  And there's nothing to "correct" in my "article" because this is the official position of the U.S. Department of Health.

Again, this is just a pointless waste of time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WilsoInAus
2 minutes ago, MikeHerp said:

You didn't cite any article.  And there's nothing to "correct" in my "article" because this is the official position of the U.S. Department of Health.

Again, this is just a pointless waste of time.

Evidence is a waste of time?

I challenged you to evidence that half of HIV is due to HSV.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MikeHerp

This is a widely known issue.  The link can't be denied.  

 

 

Many studies have backed this up:

"In addition, HSV-2 seropositivity increases the risk of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) transmission by 2–3-fold [24]. As such, up to 40%–60% of new HIV-1 acquisitions are attributable to genital HSV coinfection [3].

HSV-2 and HIV have been shown to influence each other. HSV-2 infection increases the risk of acquiring a new HIV infection by approximately three-fold. In addition, people with both HIV and HSV-2 infection are more likely to spread HIV to others. HSV-2

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2377333/

(Anna Wald, a noted HSV expert is a study author).

"Genital Herpes Has Played a More Important Role than Any Other Sexually Transmitted Infection in Driving HIV Prevalence in Africa"

 

WHO Funded study:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5700807/

"Findings

We identified 57 longitudinal studies exploring the association between HSV-2 and HIV. HIV acquisition was almost tripled in the presence of prevalent HSV-2 infection among general populations (adjusted RR 2·7, 95% CI 2·2–3·4; number of estimates [Ne]=22) and was roughly doubled among higher-risk populations (1·7, 1·4–2·1; Ne=25). Incident HSV-2 infection in general populations was associated with the highest risk of acquisition of HIV (4·7, 2·2–10·1; Ne=6). Adjustment for confounders at the study level was often incomplete but did not significantly affect the results.

Interpretation

We found evidence that HSV-2 infection increases the risk of HIV acquisition. This finding has important implications for management of individuals diagnosed with HSV-2 infection, particularly for those who are newly infected. Interventions targeting HSV-2, such as new HSV vaccines, have the potential for additional benefit against HIV, which could be particularly powerful in regions with a high incidence of co-infection."

 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0087993

"Results

 The estimated PAR%s indicate that approximately half of HIV acquisition among females was caused by HSV-2 infection and approximately 60% of HIV transmission from females was due to HSV-2 co-infection."

 

WHO/NIAID workshop materials: 

https://www.who.int/immunization/research/meetings_workshops/18_HSV.pdf?ua=1

HSV-2 infection increases HIV risk  HSV-2 infection: 3-fold increased risk of acquiring HIV – HSV recruits CD4+ target cells to genital tract  HSV-2/HIV co-infection: more likely to transmit HIV – Higher viral loads; high levels of HIV in HSV lesions  HIV also increases frequency and severity of HSV recurrences: the infections fuel each other

Why We Need an HSV Vaccine: The Consequences of HSV Genital Infection:

- Increased Likelihood of HIV transmission and acquisition

Why we need an HSV vaccine: Potential benefits

Important tool to interrupt HIV transmission

How can WHO advance HSV vaccine development in the future?

Coordination of updated modeling of the impact of HSV vaccine

Incorporating HIV incidence,

 

Official WHO Statements:

https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/herpes-simplex-virus

HSV-2 and HIV have been shown to influence each other. HSV-2 infection increases the risk of acquiring a new HIV infection by approximately three-fold. In addition, people with both HIV and HSV-2 infection are more likely to spread HIV to others.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BioHacker

LOL at this "argument." HSV is known to make people more susceptible to HIV infection - the correlation is essentially a statistical fact. Even if other STIs also made people more susceptible to HIV, those other things would not likely have the incurable recurring symptoms of HSV, so the "greater susceptibility to HIV" would be short-term (only during the acute stage), which probably helps explain why HSV is correlated to HIV susceptibility more than any of those other things (along with differences in immune response).

In any case, HSV itself is still not considered a life-threatening disease (even though it is correlated with HIV susceptibility). In building the FDA case for a vaccine, 24 hours of moderate flu-like symptoms would likely NOT be acceptable for a therapeutic HSV vaccine. Maybe such side effects SHOULD BE accepted since a vaccine would alleviate human suffering and save lives, but that is not the way the FDA operates. All of the vaccines in development are being designed to avoid side effects like that - otherwise it would be back to the drawing board to "fix it."

SD-101 and similar adjuvants are extremely powerful. Thus far, the FDA has only allowed SD-101 to be used in cancer patients, where it was injected directly into tumors (triggering the immune system to attack the tumors that were injected, as well as distant related tumors elsewhere in the body). The immune response triggered by SD-101 (T Cells, interferon) is exactly what is required for an effective HSV vaccine (in my opinion, and as evidenced in animal studies). But, it is considered too risky to create a HSV vaccine using SD-101, because the FDA would not approve it - only recently have they even allowed the testing on cancer patients who have few other options.

I am aware of no vaccine that is currently in use (preventative or therapeutic) that has any side effects like 24 hours of moderate flu-like symptoms (and that is assuming SD-101 is proven otherwise safe, and there is nothing worse that turns up). It takes a really long time to get anywhere with a new adjuvant - speaking in terms of FDA regulations - the rule they have for vaccines is "cause no harm," not "incrementally benefit mankind."

If you wanted a powerful and "likely to be significantly effective" therapeutic HSV vaccine, you could build one for probably $10K (assuming you had basic lab skills). It just would not be a safe one (the risk would be debatable depending on the skill of the maker, but it would never be "safe").

If we had to speculate on what would be most effective, Freidman's vaccine, HSV529, GEN-003, or generic FI-HSV1/2 + SD-101 + MF59, which would you pick? Safety issues aside, and based on animal models, I'd choose the latter for effectiveness. A DNA vaccine is a possibility too, but riskier. Maybe gene editing will someday be an option, but today it isn't.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WilsoInAus

Hey @MikeHerp I can see where you are going wrong; this is about risk behaviours. These articles focus on HSV-2 so you need to mention this instead of HSV as HSV-1 is not known to be a risk factor). 

The reality is that the presence of ANY STD is a cofactor. Look at the research on chlamydia and gonorrhea that results in up to a 17X uplift in risk. See https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5481158/

"Numerous studies have documented a consistent epidemiologic association between rectal gonorrhea and chlamydial infection and new HIV diagnoses in men who have sex with men (MSM). Among MSM, rectal gonorrhea has been associated with a 2 to 17-fold increase in the risk of HIV acquisiton,(1-4) rectal chlamydia with 3.9-fold increase in risk(3) and either infection with 1.6 to 8.8-fold increase in risk.(5, 6) The causal nature of this association is supported by biologic plausibility – inflammatory sexually transmitted infections (STI) increase target leukocytes at sites of HIV exposure and cause mucosal disruption. However, most epidemiologic studies suffer from important limitations: STIs and HIV share a common causal pathway (i.e. sexual activity)."

None of the studies you mention correct for sexual behaviours. Many of them do not even known in which order people obtained HIV or HSV-2!

All these studies do is show that people who engage in riskier sexual behaviours are likely to obtain HSV-2 and HIV. This is hardly surprising.

This paper goes on:

"Disentangling the potential biological role that rectal STIs may play in promoting HIV acquisition requires adjusting for sexual activity and partner HIV status in regression models that estimate the association between rectal STI and HIV. To date, only two studies have controlled for these covariates.(4, 9) Those studies suggest that STIs do independently increase the risk of HIV acquisition, but they are limited due to their small numbers of HIV seroconversions, 53 and 26 respectively."

It is critical to note:

  • STDs have not been shown to have a biological increase in risk beyond sexual behaviours.
  • The biological impacts of STDs such as HSV-2 on assisting HIV (if they do) is unknown.

Thus a cure for HSV-2 will have negligible impact on the incidence of HIV unless there are behaviour changes. Interestingly if HSV-2 was no longer considered a risk, sexual behaviours may become even riskier!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WilsoInAus

@BioHacker although there is a correlation between people acquiring HSV-2 and HIV, this does not necessarily mean:

  • that there is an additional biological risk created by the presence of HSV-2
  • that the person would not have acquired HIV in any event owing to sexual behaviours.

Also note that things other than HSV-2 make one MORE 'susceptible' to HIV acquisition than HSV-2. See article quoted above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



  • Donate

    If Honeycomb has helped you, please help us by making a donation so we can provide you with even better features and services.

  • The Hive is Thriving!

    • Total Topics
      70,498
    • Total Posts
      476,996
  • 0_unsure-if-it-is-herpes.png

    Nervous about dating with herpes? Skip "the talk" and browse profiles here.

  • Posts

×
×
  • 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.