Jump to content
World's Largest Herpes Support Group


  • 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
      71,276
    • Total Posts
      482,152
  • 0_unsure-if-it-is-herpes.png

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

  • Posts

    • Cas9
      @Ohsotired It took 10 years for mouse studies? Not sure if that's true, but anyway, it takes a while when starting out because you're kind of starting from scratch. That also involves in vitro work. Then you need to go to mice. So the in vitro and mice work is where a lot of the figuring out has taken place. It involved a lot of painstaking work. In fact Dr. Jerome started with an old style editor (CRISPR hadn't been invented yet). When he wasn't getting the results with whatever editor he was using, and CRISPR was invented, he then switched to CRISPR. He got worse results with that. His team then figured out what the issues were, step by step. And finally we are where we are; i.e. 90% and 50% cleavage in SCG and TG. And he knows what the issue is regarding improving those percentages to 90%+ in the DRG and TG. So a lot of the figuring out took a while and now we just need to see that it works in guinea pigs and then primates. Unless something goes wrong, and there's no reason to believe that it will, we are not going to take 10 years for each animal of course. If things go smoothly I would say 3 or 4 years. Then on to clinical. But we'll see. " Most researchers spend 3-6 years in the preclinical stage of research, 3-7 years in the clinical phase, and 2-5 years afterwards to launch the drug for public use. That’s Titans about 18 years in all for a drug to make it to mainstream. " So you chose the high end for each range. If I choose the low end for each it's 8 years. It's really impossible to predict. But I think the majority of us think that if it's successful it's at least 10 years away. Before your research, how long did you think the process would take? If it takes 10 years, how old will you be?
    • hk81
      The funding from NIH for the lab tests on mice will end in 2023, so this can give an idea on the timeline. https://grantome.com/grant/NIH/R01-AI132599-01A1 When the tests are moved to bigger animals (guinea pig and monkey), the possibility of experimentation is lower due to higher costs. The tests on monkeys are done only when the research has reached some solid results and only a few combinations are tested (see for example the tests done by ExcisionBio on monkeys for their CRISPR therapy for HIV). So I don't expect that (if everything works as expected) there will be bigger delays at that point. Usually when the funding from NIH ends, the research should have managed to run extensive tests on animals to gather further funding (often private) to move toward clinical trials. This period is called "the valley of death"; if there is not enough evidence that the therapy is effective, it will be more difficult to gather the attention of private investors and the research will run on lower funds and it will slow down or it will be stopped. Also: since it is a therapeutic application, the clinical trials might be faster than a prophylactic vaccine, unless side effects arise. There is no need to check that the therapy is protective on the long time, waiting for the participants to expose themselves to a pathogen (I also would not expect that they will check the condition of a participant for too long, because he might have exposed himself to another strain of herpes or the same one, if immunity will decrease after the therapy).  Hopefully once the first successful clinical trial, they will be able to get a fast-track and early-access as it happened with pritelivir.
    • asdfz
      Any CRISPR updates for HSV?
    • Ohsotired
      I don’t know why, but I decided to research the drug/medicine implementation process this morning. In my quest of knowledge, I found some disheartening information. Most researchers spend 3-6 years in the preclinical stage of research, 3-7 years in the clinical phase, and 2-5 years afterwards to launch the drug for public use. That’s Titans about 18 years in all for a drug to make it to mainstream.  Dr. Jerome has been working for nearly 10 years & has not finished the preliminary preclinical data. He’s only completed work with mice: no guinea pigs or monkeys. The reality set in that there’s so much more time needed. Hopefully, he doesn’t take nearly 10 more years to complete the next studies.    Afterwards, he’ll need to conduct a Phase I trial on humans, followed by a Phase IIa trial, proof of concept trial, Phase IIb trial,   Phase III trial, & regulatory review.  I was cautiously optimistic, but I’m starting to become cynical. This could take upwards to 20 years.   
    • Just a human being
      Try google T cells gut flora encephalitis. Can try to find it if u can’t.  I know Wilso could crack it but it common knowledge and educated on in groups by well respected HSV advocates from organisations that the virus can travel via other nerve routes. Whether this has any baring or truth in your case at all no idea. 
Sign in to follow this  
Before and After

Creating a stigma for profit

Recommended Posts

IcantThinkofaName
2 hours ago, Worst Luck said:

just because it's rare doesn't mean it doesn't happen so having all the knowledge I can is the best defense.  

They are not rare, its  just that no one is talking about it or no one knows they caught it.

HSV, EBV and CMV are very common I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beachlovr88

I'm sorry but, how will this not affect the rest of your life? Your health, relationships, pregnancy, dealing with breakouts, discomfort, illness, antiviral meds not working, stress induced breakouts, increased risk of other STD's. How is this STIGMA? And NOT a big deal?

Edited by Beachlovr88

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
K_Sock

@Beachlovr88 lots of things can affect the rest of your life and so will this. That said, how it affects the rest of your life is up to you. A life with love and happiness is still very much an option but you'll have to go out and make it happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35hope

its a big deal anything that is life altering is a big deal

the way people try to cope with this disease is to much sometimes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beachlovr88
7 hours ago, K_Sock said:

@Beachlovr88 lots of things can affect the rest of your life and so will this. That said, how it affects the rest of your life is up to you. A life with love and happiness is still very much an option but you'll have to go out and make it happen.

Just reading that, makes me feel worse. Especially when you tell me to "go out and make it happen." I'm dating someone already, but the physical toll this has taken on me, has made my life miserable. It's not about "attitude". You can't run around with a big effing smile on your face when you're fighting extreme fatigue and the 12th respiratory infection you had in a two month time frame. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Theremustbeaway

This virus does nothing to me physically , but it has lowered my self esteem , made me feel contagious and reduced my sexuality . Physically it does nothing to me , mentally it has turned my world upside down .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
blurneworder
1 hour ago, Theremustbeaway said:

This virus does nothing to me physically , but it has lowered my self esteem , made me feel contagious and reduced my sexuality . Physically it does nothing to me , mentally it has turned my world upside down .

Same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MikeHerp
On 2/13/2015 at 1:29 PM, Before and After said:

As late as the 1975, nursing textbooks did not include herpes as it was considered no worse than a common cold. After the development of acyclovir in the 1970s, the drug company Burroughs Wellcomelaunched an extensive marketing campaign that publicized the illness, including creating victim's support groups.

 

Source:

http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/11041#.VN19gubF-So

Knowledge about herpes viruses in 1975 was nearly non-existent.  So to say that it was considered no worse than a common cold, is basically just admitting that people were completely ignorant. Nursing textbooks of the 1970s are pretty much full of information that would today be widely considered as nonsensical.  

That was the decade when mothers would hold "chicken pox parties" to make sure their children get varicellar virus so that they can be "forever over and done with it".  

We now know that those mothers irreparably hurt their childrens' health.  Fortunately, an effective therapeutic vaccine was developed for that one to partially undo the damage, but shingles affects many people in the world today.

That was also a time when people didn't connect HSV with HIV or understood that HSV was a driver of the HIV epidemic.  In fact, nothing was really known about HIV at all either at that time.  

I don't know about drug companies intentions.  But to the extent that suppression medication with valtrex lessens the risk of HSV transmission, such measures undoubtedly saved many lives.  A lot of people died in the 1980s from AIDS, and if the HSV/HIV connection had been known earlier, many would have been saved.   

 

 

Edited by MikeHerp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WilsoInAus

@MikeHerp there you go again with you right unsubstantiated drivel about HIV. This is a herpes website.

There is no evidence to support your views.

And we are all sick of this stuff from someone who doesn’t test positive for herpes.

Let people hear the real story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MikeHerp

Yeah, I'm not even going to bother about this.  Both the WHO and CDC agree about the HSV/HIV link.  Countless studies have supported it.

If this was a forum to discuss astronomy, you'd be our resident flat-earther. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WilsoInAus
1 hour ago, MikeHerp said:

Yeah, I'm not even going to bother about this.  Both the WHO and CDC agree about the HSV/HIV link.  Countless studies have supported it.

If this was a forum to discuss astronomy, you'd be our resident flat-earther. 

No, they concluded further studies were necessary.

Those further studies show that HHV-6 is a stronger link if there is a link to be found.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4785766/

1 hour ago, MikeHerp said:

Yeah, I'm not even going to bother about this.  Both the WHO and CDC agree about the HSV/HIV link.  Countless studies have supported it.

If this was a forum to discuss astronomy, you'd be our resident flat-earther. 

No, they concluded further studies were necessary.

Those further studies show that HHV-6 is a stronger link if there is a link to be found.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4785766/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MikeHerp

"Over the last 33 years, epidemiologic and molecular studies have indicated a strong and synergistic relationship between the dual epidemics of HSV-2 and HIV-1 infection.[34] The synergy between these two STIs goes beyond similar risk factors for acquisition; they interact both in their epidemiologic niche and at a pathogenesis level driving HIV replication.[35]"

That's from your study dude.  :joy:

Share this post


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

"Over the last 33 years, epidemiologic and molecular studies have indicated a strong and synergistic relationship between the dual epidemics of HSV-2 and HIV-1 infection.[34] The synergy between these two STIs goes beyond similar risk factors for acquisition; they interact both in their epidemiologic niche and at a pathogenesis level driving HIV replication.[35]"

That's from your study dude.  :joy:

Yes we know all that, this goes back to your argument that if HSV-2 was cured that HIV incidence would reduce. 

This paper shows, to the extent that you believe in correlations, that  ANY and ALL of the HHV “might” promote HIV infection.

Hence it can’t be suggested any one of them is causal since it only takes one type to create a myriad of risks.

If you believe in the HHV link then you’d go after HHV-6 first. But you’d  need them all gone for any impact on HIV incidence.

And then that can be overridden by behaviours...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MikeHerp

That's really awesome that you have these disagreements.  Here's a thought: why don't you write to the study authors.  Suggest some edits.  

Or demand to J Lab Physicians to retract the paper.  :joy:  You obviously strongly disagree with its basic statements.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MikeHerp

Here's the suggested edit that you can demand: 

"Over the last 33 years, epidemiologic and molecular studies have indicated a strong and synergistic relationship between the dual epidemics of HSV-2 and HIV-1 infection.[34] The synergy between these two STIs goes beyond similar risk factors for acquisition; they interact both in their epidemiologic niche and at a pathogenesis level driving HIV replication have no link.[35]"

But you;'d have to replace the citation [35]--maybe you can cite your own study. You're a renowned scholar in this field, after all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WilsoInAus

@MikeHerp there is no need to edit anything. Merely read the whole paper and the conclusion...

Just as the author intended...

CONCLUSIONS

The clinical management of HHVs in individuals with HIV infection has lagged seriously behind the large body of medical literature on the importance of the interaction between these pathogens. However, the recent data shows that screening and treating subclinical HHV infection may offer benefits to individuals with HIV infection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MikeHerp

 There are various illnesses that can complicate HIV infections.  That has nothing to do with the well documented increased risk of HIV infection from having genital HSV-2.

It doesn't disprove it, or is even relevant to it. 

 

 

 

Share this post


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

 There are various illnesses that can complicate HIV infections.  That has nothing to do with the well documented increased risk of HIV infection from having genital HSV-2.

It doesn't disprove it, or is even relevant to it. 

 

 

 

Yes it does, please link to a study that shows an increased infection rate for people with HSV-2 and no other form of HHV and “corrected” for sexual behaviours.

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  

×
×
  • 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.