Mister Hyder

asymptomatic shedding

40 posts in this topic

hey I've read and testimonies of people who have had genital herpes for more than 40 years and they haven't passed it to anyone.. all they do is take precautions before an ob and they abstain before they get the tingling feeling.. is asymptomatic shedding just a fear instilled by the pharmaceutical companies or people have actually give it to their partners with taking appropriate precautions? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I got it from an asymptomatic shedder. Wish the pharmaceutical companies had indeed instilled a healthy dose of fear and knowledge in me before this happened. 

KeepThriving likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Mister Hyder said:

hey I've read and testimonies of people who have had genital herpes for more than 40 years and they haven't passed it to anyone.. all they do is take precautions before an ob and they abstain before they get the tingling feeling.. is asymptomatic shedding just a fear instilled by the pharmaceutical companies or people have actually give it to their partners with taking appropriate precautions? 

It seems like you are wanting to find an answer that will tell you you are not contagious.   Viral shedding occurs most in first 6 to 12 months.  When you have an ob you are likely to shed.

Just posted on another sg site.. a girl got ghsv1 from her bf who has had hsv1 oral 40 yrs. You cant assume or predict with this virus

There are studies done on viral shedding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Lisajd said:

It seems like you are wanting to find an answer that will tell you you are not contagious.   Viral shedding occurs most in first 6 to 12 months.  When you have an ob you are likely to shed.

Just posted on another sg site.. a girl got ghsv1 from her bf who has had hsv1 oral 40 yrs. You cant assume or predict with this virus

There are studies done on viral shedding.

Maybe I'm misinterpreting something but when you have an outbreak, you are absolutely shedding. It is symptomatic shedding.
Asymptomatic shedding is when the virus emerges but there are no visible signs; i.e. no sores.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes you are right. Likely to be shedding i said. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Hansje said:

Well I got it from an asymptomatic shedder. Wish the pharmaceutical companies had indeed instilled a healthy dose of fear and knowledge in me before this happened. 

Hanjse, the pharma loves it when you feel fear and shame. It equals profit. Education, realism... it is what it is, nothing more. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Education wont come from pharma companies.  Do you ever see tobacco companies advertising quit smoking.  Try drs who think hsv is no big desl ir schools not doing sex ed these days

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Unrequited said:

Hanjse, the pharma loves it when you feel fear and shame. It equals profit. Education, realism... it is what it is, nothing more. 

Oh but I don't feel shame at all. This is not my fault.

If I had had a bit more "fear" I would have asked my donor for an STD test with HSV included. Pharma did a bad job if they indeed are fear mongerers. 

Unrequited likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Um, I think a good number of us on here can attest to the fact that our givers were asymptomatic shedders.  That is what happened to me.

Edited by KeepThriving
Renegadow likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

maybe they were but they must have not recognised the prodormal symptoms and maybe they didn't even know they had herpes in the first place 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I too have had my doubts about asymptomattic shedding. I don't understand the methadology they use to prove that it exists. I mean, are they surveying couples where one person has hsv and one does not, and when it finally gets trasnmitted, asking the couple if they ever had intercourse with visible symptoms? And then the couple says no, we only had sex when there were no symptoms present? Thuse there must be assymptomattic shedding where you can basically be contagious at any time and there is no way to tell (which is insane for it to be 2017)

The truth could be somewhere in the middle. Perhaps that person had an extremely mild OB where the change on the skin was so slight that it was nearly impossible for the average person to recognize it as a symptom of hsv

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/17/2017 at 6:40 AM, KeepThriving said:

Um, I think a good number of us on here can attest to the fact that our givers were asymptomatic shedders.  That is what happened to me.

+1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/16/2017 at 9:58 PM, Mister Hyder said:

maybe they were but they must have not recognised the prodormal symptoms and maybe they didn't even know they had herpes in the first place 

That's my point.  My giver did not know.  I guess I'm one of the lucky ones who wasn't with some sociopath who knew and didn't disclose

Share this post


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

I too have had my doubts about asymptomattic shedding. I don't understand the methadology they use to prove that it exists. I mean, are they surveying couples where one person has hsv and one does not, and when it finally gets trasnmitted, asking the couple if they ever had intercourse with visible symptoms? And then the couple says no, we only had sex when there were no symptoms present? Thuse there must be assymptomattic shedding where you can basically be contagious at any time and there is no way to tell (which is insane for it to be 2017)

The truth could be somewhere in the middle. Perhaps that person had an extremely mild OB where the change on the skin was so slight that it was nearly impossible for the average person to recognize it as a symptom of hsv

I've never heard there being any doubt that asymptomatic exists, so I'm not sure why you have your doubts. Don't you think that if the medical community wasn't sure about asymptomatic shedding that they would say so? They probably have swabbed hsv positive people, in some study perhaps, when there were no sores and it showed that virus was present.
Asymptomatic shedding is probably due to the fact that not much virus is on the skin. This results in a mild immune response and consequently, no visible sores.
It's possible there's are microscopic sores or some microscopic inflammation, but nothing that the person would see or feel, therefore, we refer to it as asymptomatic.

Edited by Cas9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

completely asymptomatic shedding exists.  what that means, is that even with a very close examination, nothing is visible to the eye, (and likely even the microscope).  nevertheless, the HSV particles capable of xmitting are on the skin, (they are beyond tiny!).  this has been proven via PCR swabbing.  thats how people who never have OBs can nevertheless pass it on.  its the prime reason the virus is so successful.  in fact, the virus would prefer never causing any symptoms at all, b/c if it did that, it could be even more widespread.

from what i have read, the hope is that Theravax might in some people, if not completely eliminate it 100%, try to make it such that the amount of asymptomatic shedding is so miniscule, that its not enough to infect someone else.  in other words, u might actually detect some infectious particles via a PCR swab post vax, but the amount detected will not be enough to infect someone else.  so even though its not a cure in the sense that the virus is still inside you, and still perhaps shedding to whatever degree, it might in fact be a so called "functional cure" or as close as one can get to that goal at the present time, in that shedding levels are so low, that even tho they might still exist, its not enough to actually infect someone else, or it greatly, vastly reduces that chance.

in kind of a related idea, its important to note that the old idea of active vs inactive, or latent, really doesn't apply.  HSV is always active, the question is how active, to what degree, and likewise, how active or to what degree does the immune system suppress it?

Never Surrender, Second_chance, Cantwinthemall and 3 others like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there has to be a threshold of 10raisedto 7 copies of hsv dna for the  transmission to occur .. I think most people transmit it when they don't know they have herpes which the research shows 90 percent of the folks don't know they have it in the first place 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On Fri Feb 17 2017 at 6:06 AM, Hansje said:

Oh but I don't feel shame at all. This is not my fault.

If I had had a bit more "fear" I would have asked my donor for an STD test with HSV included. Pharma did a bad job if they indeed are fear mongerers. 

You shed approx 18% of the time. Reducing the viral load, say by 10% when there is a 10% transmission = 0

Crap maths

Ermm dont know why i quotes hansje then

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, RVX Patient and Investor said:

completely asymptomatic shedding exists.  what that means, is that even with a very close examination, nothing is visible to the eye, (and likely even the microscope).  nevertheless, the HSV particles capable of xmitting are on the skin, (they are beyond tiny!).  this has been proven via PCR swabbing.  thats how people who never have OBs can nevertheless pass it on.  its the prime reason the virus is so successful.  in fact, the virus would prefer never causing any symptoms at all, b/c if it did that, it could be even more widespread.

from what i have read, the hope is that Theravax might in some people, if not completely eliminate it 100%, try to make it such that the amount of asymptomatic shedding is so miniscule, that its not enough to infect someone else.  in other words, u might actually detect some infectious particles via a PCR swab post vax, but the amount detected will not be enough to infect someone else.  so even though its not a cure in the sense that the virus is still inside you, and still perhaps shedding to whatever degree, it might in fact be a so called "functional cure" or as close as one can get to that goal at the present time, in that shedding levels are so low, that even tho they might still exist, its not enough to actually infect someone else, or it greatly, vastly reduces that chance.

in kind of a related idea, its important to note that the old idea of active vs inactive, or latent, really doesn't apply.  HSV is always active, the question is how active, to what degree, and likewise, how active or to what degree does the immune system suppress it?

Hallelujah 

RVX Patient and Investor likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it's just a big lie to instill fear in people so that they take generic drugs lifelong 

Share this post


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

That's my point.  My giver did not know.  I guess I'm one of the lucky ones who wasn't with some sociopath who knew and didn't disclose

Love that.  Selfish to know and not disclose.  Ignorant to not know and spread.  Ignorant to not take precautions.  I was much more ignorant prior to divorce.  Much more....

Untouchable1 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cas9 said:

I've never heard there being any doubt that asymptomatic exists, so I'm not sure why you have your doubts. Don't you think that if the medical community wasn't sure about asymptomatic shedding that they would say so? They probably have swabbed hsv positive people, in some study perhaps, when there were no sores and it showed that virus was present.
Asymptomatic shedding is probably due to the fact that not much virus is on the skin. This results in a mild immune response and consequently, no visible sores.
It's possible there's are microscopic sores or some microscopic inflammation, but nothing that the person would see or feel, therefore, we refer to it as asymptomatic.

To be fair, the medical community as a whole poorly understands hsv and they have not come up with a way for a person to tell if they are shedding at all. If they are so certain about asymptomatic (and I don't doubt that it does exist - just skeptical on methadology), then why has there been nothing developed to let alert a person if they are in fact shedding?

If they have impirically proven shedding with no present symptoms, they then therefore should be able to monitor detect shedding at all times. Why can't I as an average person be able to know when I am shedding and when I am not if the medical community supposedly understands this so well?

They don't. Maybe they did swabs where no symptoms showed and it came back positive for HSV - but they clearly do not understand it well enough to provide peace of mind. Someone would have come up with a personal device to alert the individual

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RVX Patient and Investor said:

from what i have read, the hope is that Theravax might in some people, if not completely eliminate it 100%, try to make it such that the amount of asymptomatic shedding is so miniscule, that its not enough to infect someone else.  in other words, u might actually detect some infectious particles via a PCR swab post vax, but the amount detected will not be enough to infect someone else.  so even though its not a cure in the sense that the virus is still inside you, and still perhaps shedding to whatever degree, it might in fact be a so called "functional cure" or as close as one can get to that goal at the present time, in that shedding levels are so low, that even tho they might still exist, its not enough to actually infect someone else, or it greatly, vastly reduces that chance.

 

If that turns out to be the case, I would certainly refer to it as a functional cure. The issue lies with what you pointed out - there wouldn't be a way to discern between the people who theravax worked well enough to do that, and the people that theravax didn't work well enough on. The amount of infectious particles would, I suppose, have to be continously tested for throughout the duration of theravax. 

Maybe they could do this in a long-term study with several people and show that for some they are non-contagious while on theravax and for how long. But then what happens to the people that are still too infectious....

Perhaps it works better than anyone expects and they find that this makes everyone non-contagious (for the period of time the vaccine lasts). That would be a god-send

As for it "vastly reducing that chance" - I look at it like this. You're talking minute differences in the percentage rate of infection - in other words 1% or 5% or 10% are all essentially the same thing since they demand discloure. I understand that any progress is still progress but ideally this thing surprises

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, jreemi said:

To be fair, the medical community as a whole poorly understands hsv and they have not come up with a way for a person to tell if they are shedding at all. If they are so certain about asymptomatic (and I don't doubt that it does exist - just skeptical on methadology), then why has there been nothing developed to let alert a person if they are in fact shedding?

If they have impirically proven shedding with no present symptoms, they then therefore should be able to monitor detect shedding at all times. Why can't I as an average person be able to know when I am shedding and when I am not if the medical community supposedly understands this so well?

They don't. Maybe they did swabs where no symptoms showed and it came back positive for HSV - but they clearly do not understand it well enough to provide peace of mind. Someone would have come up with a personal device to alert the individual

You can't test on yourself simply because they haven't come up with a home version of the testing process, whether it's asymptomatic (i.e. viral shedding), or symptomatic (i.e. actual sores). In the latter case, does that mean they don't know about, or are not certain about, herpes sores? There are lots of diseases that we don't have home kits for and can only be resolved in lab testing. In other words, the testing that is required, requires equipment and procedures that are not available to the average person. It's simply to sophisticated. For example, do we have a way of testing, at home, for how much vitamin K is in our blood?
At one time, there was no diabetes meter for at home testing of blood sugar levels, but the medical community was certain and knowledgeable about diabetes.

Edited by Cas9
RVX Patient and Investor likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Cas9 said:

In the latter case, does that mean they don't know about, or are not certain about, herpes sores? 

This is a bit of a strawman - of course they would know about the sores.

Maybe they understand HSV, maybe they lack in it. But you can't deny their blasé attitude towards herpes - it's just a skin condition, we aren't going to include it in normal std tests, there are higher priorities. This is how the medical community has decided to deal with this and it's why we haven't had anything new in 30 years.

So, maybe they COULD develop something to detect it on-the-spot but they have swept this under the rug and expect us to just "deal with it"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jreemi said:

This is a bit of a strawman - of course they would know about the sores.

Maybe they understand HSV, maybe they lack in it. But you can't deny their blasé attitude towards herpes - it's just a skin condition, we aren't going to include it in normal std tests, there are higher priorities. This is how the medical community has decided to deal with this and it's why we haven't had anything new in 30 years.

So, maybe they COULD develop something to detect it on-the-spot but they have swept this under the rug and expect us to just "deal with it"

My point was simply a disagreement with your earlier comment, that not having a home kit is an indication that they are not certain about viral shedding.

RVX Patient and Investor likes this

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

  • Herpes Dating Web Site

    Guest, would you like to try dating another Herpster in your area?

    Search Now