I'm excited about this vaccine and think it has a great chance to be approved. However, this is not a "curative"vaccine.
The vaccine is not "knocking out" the virus in the ganglia. Rather, it is preventing the virus from reaching the ganglia when the virus newly infects a living thing. Once the virus is in the ganglia, I understand this vaccine does not reach there.
This vaccine is not removing the latent HSV. Rather, it's preventing it getting there in mice that were previously uninfected. That's an important difference with the FHC work which is curative. The work X-Vax has published recently is prophylactic work.
The vaccine may have therapeutic application--X-Vax has said it may. But we will have to see further studies to see how much if any therapeutic user this will have.
I'd keep in mind the fact that AAVs produce an immune response. So if you get this DIY thing, it may later be more difficult to benefit from the actual cure. Dr. Jerome at FHC confirmed that, if you have been exposed to AAV, making it work on you again may require immune suppressants, etc. FHC is using AAVs as well.
Hey @lar26 - well @Surfersparadise didn't read what you or I wrote. The situation is well beyond whether disclosure is an issue so it is not relevant in this context. It is a bit rich I have to say in receiving a lecture from someone with herpes who has not disclosed themselves for the bulk of their life.
This is about making a rational decision on the basis of facts of the risks and what it means in a whole of life context. The odds are not an issue for the true decision your partner needs to make.
If your partner cannot accept you as a person with HSV-1 orally, then sadly they can't and they are hence not the person for you. Unless someone is prepared to accept you for all that you are completely, then they are not partner material. You do not need to accept any compromise.