Comments on recent study results on latent HSV by Keith Jerome

[Trace67 65]

23 hours ago, MikeHerp said:

I wonder if you find any irony in rambling on about how people only have themselves to blame for getting herpes in one thread, while whining in another thread that the RvX vaccine caused harm to people who decided to take it.

I guess herpes sufferers can only blame themselves, but we should feel some kind of sympathy for ppl who decided to take shots of a crack pot "vaccine" developed through "clinical trials" in hotel rooms and offshore islands by a dude who laughed at peer reviews.

 

Oh, and you're correct about Halford being a crackpot.

[Dutchy 59]

On 12/18/2018 at 11:25 PM, Sean123 said:

I havent had an OB in about 3 months although I did have a questionable bumb recently that vanished the next day. Keep in mind I was getting 2-3 a month. 

Also keep in mind that safety was the biggest concern in this trial;dose was considered very small. 

I think if a different vector /delivery method is used such as CPF1 and tyrosine capsid, it should be much more powerful. 

This sounds really hopefull

[Dutchy 59]

On 12/18/2018 at 11:25 PM, Sean123 said:

I havent had an OB in about 3 months although I did have a questionable bumb recently that vanished the next day. Keep in mind I was getting 2-3 a month. 

Also keep in mind that safety was the biggest concern in this trial;dose was considered very small. 

I think if a different vector /delivery method is used such as CPF1 and tyrosine capsid, it should be much more powerful. 

This sounds really hopefull

[Trace67 65]

16 hours ago, Dutchy said:

This sounds really hopefull

I doubt he can do another injection without taking powerful Immunosuppressants, but that could be dangerous. I'm still waiting to hear how it worked out for the others that received the  injection. I'm assuming not so well since they haven't posted anything.

[Eradicatethefuckouttahsv 42]

Where did you see that about the 20% rate

On 12/11/2018 at 9:51 PM, LetsDoSomething said:

Trump just approved a $750b military budget after lamenting about exorbitant expenditure. 

Imagine if $1b of that was put into research and grants to solve problems like Herpes and other STDs. 

But the Pentagon needs to spend $300k  on coffee mugs. Don’t forget guys. Oh and trump just stopped movement for HIV research related to embryonic cells. 

Let us not forget our government is wholly incompetent and couldn’t care less about these issues that many of us face. 

Money talks. Great write-up Mike. You should send this to their research team, it may help them connect some dots. You never know. 

 

Where did you read about the 20%? 

[Sean123 496]

On 1/1/2019 at 9:48 PM, Trace67 said:

I doubt he can do another injection without taking powerful Immunosuppressants, but that could be dangerous. I'm still waiting to hear how it worked out for the others that received the  injection. I'm assuming not so well since they haven't posted anything.

 

Aav1 causes a very little immune reaction. I believe I ended up with the best results but that could be because of the injection site I chose (beneath the head) vs where they chose (base/pubic bone) or maybe it was because I was the only one negative for aav1 (if it makes a difference). 

The others who took part in the trial didnt have typical symptoms prior to trial, they had nerve issues and maybe one OB a year. 

I on the other hand did have typical symptoms which was 2-3 OBs per month. 

I can say with certain that its helped me significantly. 

Edited January 3 by Sean123

[MikeHerp 433]

1 hour ago, Sean123 said:

Aav1 causes a very little immune reaction. I believe I ended up with the best results but that could be because of the injection site I chose (beneath the head) vs where they chose (base/pubic bone) or maybe it was because I was the only one negative for aav1 (if it makes a difference). 

The others who took part in the trial didnt have typical symptoms prior to trial, they had nerve issues and maybe one OB a year. 

I on the other hand did have typical symptoms which was 2-3 OBs per month. 

I can say with certain that its helped me significantly. 

Can you elaborate?  You mean you were injected with CRISPR to edit herpes?  

Edited January 3 by MikeHerp

[moialbalushi 542]

5 hours ago, Sean123 said:

Aav1 causes a very little immune reaction. I believe I ended up with the best results but that could be because of the injection site I chose (beneath the head) vs where they chose (base/pubic bone) or maybe it was because I was the only one negative for aav1 (if it makes a difference). 

The others who took part in the trial didnt have typical symptoms prior to trial, they had nerve issues and maybe one OB a year. 

I on the other hand did have typical symptoms which was 2-3 OBs per month. 

I can say with certain that its helped me significantly. 

Which trial bro ? The one that ofmdh is doing ? 

[Cas9 1,435]

On 12/18/2018 at 5:25 PM, Sean123 said:

I havent had an OB in about 3 months although I did have a questionable bumb recently that vanished the next day. Keep in mind I was getting 2-3 a month. 

Also keep in mind that safety was the biggest concern in this trial;dose was considered very small. 

I think if a different vector /delivery method is used such as CPF1 and tyrosine capsid, it should be much more powerful. 

I think CPF1 is synonymous with Cas9; i.e. it's some sort of cutting enzyme found in certain bacteria and has advantages over Cas9.  It's not  a delivery system.

[Cas9 1,435]

1 hour ago, moialbalushi said:

Which trial bro ? The one that ofmdh is doing ? 

I asked Sean a while back; he did not answer. You an Mike have now asked the same question; I think Sean is uncomfortable answering the question but I think  OMFDH is likely the one.

[moialbalushi 542]

2 hours ago, Cas9 said:

I asked Sean a while back; he did not answer. You an Mike have now asked the same question; I think Sean is uncomfortable answering the question but I think  OMFDH is likely the one.

Apparently yes. 

[blurneworder 37]

Everyone!

The Fred Hutch Cancer Research Center has heard the call from HSV sufferers and they are soliciting donations specifically for HSV research.

The link below was sent to me from Andre McPherson Larson, who is the Annual Giving Manager for Fred Hutch Research Center. Some of the people on this board recently contacted her asking if HSV could be added to their research agenda.

$5,000 is their goal.

http://engage.fredhutch.org/goto/hsvresearch

[hsv2fighter 3]

47 minutes ago, blurneworder said:

Everyone!

The Fred Hutch Cancer Research Center has heard the call from HSV sufferers and they are soliciting donations specifically for HSV research.

The link below was sent to me from Andre McPherson Larson, who is the Annual Giving Manager for Fred Hutch Research Center. Some of the people on this board recently contacted her asking if HSV could be added to their research agenda.

$5,000 is their goal.

http://engage.fredhutch.org/goto/hsvresearch

First, how do you know that $5000 is their goal? I think this amount might not be enough for such a huge project.

Second, I think we'd better donate together. $100 each only requires 50 people to reach this goal. We need to let Jerome know that herpes cure is in desperate need. @MikeHerp

[blurneworder 37]

38 minutes ago, hsv2fighter said:

First, how do you know that $5000 is their goal? I think this amount might not be enough for such a huge project.

Second, I think we'd better donate together. $100 each only requires 50 people to reach this goal. We need to let Jerome know that herpes cure is in desperate need. @MikeHerp

$5,000 is the goal shown when you click the link.

[MikeHerp 433]

52 minutes ago, hsv2fighter said:

First, how do you know that $5000 is their goal? I think this amount might not be enough for such a huge project.

Second, I think we'd better donate together. $100 each only requires 50 people to reach this goal. We need to let Jerome know that herpes cure is in desperate need. @MikeHerp

Hi Hsv2figther!

I don't know why they set the goal at $5000.  But I think it's just an initial goal. 

I'm sure they will continue to receive funds for the research even after that goal is exceeded. 

I will e-mail them about that and let you know the reply. 

[MikeHerp 433]

1 hour ago, blurneworder said:

Everyone!

The Fred Hutch Cancer Research Center has heard the call from HSV sufferers and they are soliciting donations specifically for HSV research.

The link below was sent to me from Andre McPherson Larson, who is the Annual Giving Manager for Fred Hutch Research Center. Some of the people on this board recently contacted her asking if HSV could be added to their research agenda.

$5,000 is their goal.

http://engage.fredhutch.org/goto/hsvresearch

excellent blurnerwarner!

[JeffH 71]

If we’re sure this is real I will personally donate $1000. I assume this is tax deductible?

A $5000 goal seems REAL LOW.

edit: f*** it I gave the $1000

Edited January 4 by JeffH

[LovedAnyway 45]

32 minutes ago, JeffH said:

If we’re sure this is real I will personally donate $1000. I assume this is tax deductible?

A $5000 goal seems REAL LOW.

edit: f*** it I gave the $1000

It’s definitely tax deductible.

[blurneworder 37]

On 12/10/2018 at 10:54 PM, MikeHerp said:

I'm just thinking out loud here, but the recent study results which were posted, were quite encouraging.  This will hopefully be followed up with a research paper or extensive writeup so that we can read the details.  But in a nut shell, it appears that Keith Jerome's team at the Hutch Center, was able to edit almost 20 to 30% of latent HSV in mice using endonucleases, if I understood the limited blurb about his recent research correctly.

What I like about this is the following:  

1.  In the space of around 2 years, their lab has been able to improve editing efficiency, from 2%-4% to almost 20% to 30%  of latent virus, if I understood the recent blurb about his work correctly.  So editing efficiency has been improved by more than 5 to 10 times in the space of 2 years.  I wouldn't necessarily extrapolate those numbers going forward, but the point is that, this technology appears to have been significantly improved in a relatively short time.  That's intriguing, because even at 2-4% editing, there seemed to be a hint of disruption of replicating HSV virus.  It's unclear whether Keith Jerome did a replication study post editing this time as well.  If he did, I'd imagine that this level of editing would result in a tangible and measurable disruption in replication.

2.  In the past, it has been noted that CRISPR Cas9 has been unable to edit latent virus in non-dividing neurons.  But the reasons that were given, were that HSV in its quiescent state in such neurons is a lot harder to access for CRISPR.  In the blurb regarding Jerome's recent work, it was also noted that his effort with CRISPR Cas9 was unable to edit latent HSV, which certainly mirrored the previous understanding (though by saying that editing was "less than 1%", it seems to suggest that maybe there was some very very minor editing).  That's also consistent with EDITAS recent rabbit corneal HSV study using CRISPR Cas9, which showed that Cas9 couldn't reach the latent HSV (even if it produced significant reduction of symptoms on the cornea).  It's pretty clear that CRISPR Cas9, as is, can't touch latent HSV.

But I noticed that the reason why Jerome speculated that CRISPR couldn't edit latent HSV well, was that the size of Cas9 was too large to allow for much optimization.  I.e., it wasn't necessarily related to the location, but rather size of the editor.  If you have been following my comments on here and on my blog, you'll know that I've taken a bit of a glass half empty view of ExcisionBio's efforts regarding HSV.  Simply put, while their approach was intriguing and could theoretically stop HSV replication, I had understood from their previous work that their efforts were concentrated around the notion that, they'd seed our body with CRISPRs that would have to continuously edit newly replicating virus while being unable to touch latent virus.  Even considering the continuous improvements in CRISPR safety, it just seemed kind of far fetched that the FDA would approve a gene editing treatment any time soon that was centered around CRISPR making endless and continuous DNA edits in our bodies indefinitely.  That's understandable.  Even very minor off target edits, when piled up over years and decades, might presumably make us very sick or worse.  That was my thinking then.  But if the issue is more about the size of the editor, as suggested by Jerome, than maybe ExcisionBio's efforts might be on the right track after all.  As people who have been following their work know, their intent is to use CasY not Cas9 for HSV2 (though the info provided by ExcisionBio seems a bit scant and sketchy and their website leaves tons to be desired).  CasY is smaller than Cas9, so perhaps it could have a chance to edit latent HSV if Jerome's comment is correct.  Cas9 which Jerome used in his experiments, seems almost like old tech now, compared to the newly discovered Cas types.  That's intriguing because, Jerome did note that Cas9 editing of HSV in vitro, was very high (around 50%), even while it did next to nothing against latent HSV.

So that's all very interesting to me. 

But there are various caveats.  Jerome's latest research hasn't been published yet, as far as I know.  It's unclear what stumbling blocks might arise in humans relative to mice.  One important question is, whether partial editing of some latent HSV would allow for a partial cure, and whether this would remain so going forward.  Could the "cured" neurons, be reseeded by active replicating HSV virions again? Would the gene editors need to remain in the cells indefinitely (that, in my view, would make the treatment more questionable from a safety perspective). In his previous work, Jerome noted that the endonucleases persisted in the cells for a prolonged period, which makes me wonder. From the safety perspective, it seems it would be best, if they didn't persist in our bodies and dissipated after editing the latent virus.   

So some pretty major questions still remain.  But this stuff is interesting.  

 

@MikeIke

[Sean123 496]

17 hours ago, MikeHerp said:

Can you elaborate?  You mean you were injected with CRISPR to edit herpes?  

Yes I posted about this before and you reacted to it. I assumed you already knew. 

[Sean123 496]

12 hours ago, Cas9 said:

I asked Sean a while back; he did not answer. You an Mike have now asked the same question; I think Sean is uncomfortable answering the question but I think  OMFDH is likely the one.

It was someone I met off research gate. Im not at liberty to answer who I dealt with.

Im sure you understand. 

Edited January 4 by Sean123

[Sean123 496]

12 hours ago, Cas9 said:

I think CPF1 is synonymous with Cas9; i.e. it's some sort of cutting enzyme found in certain bacteria and has advantages over Cas9.  It's not  a delivery system.

Youre right my mistake. 

[Sean123 496]

On 12/18/2018 at 5:15 PM, Trace67 said:

Could be placebo but it sucks that it didn't cure you. However, I didn't really figure it would; You better be sure to get a complete physical every year and be on guard for possible cancer. Just saying because you did this in a DIY type thing without proper guidance and follow-ups with unknown risks. Not saying that I blame you for trying. Herpes suck ass.

 

The virus does try to copy human protein functions to replicate but it's evolved its own protein to copy the function.And some proteins are only used in certain cell types like the way it replicates in the neurons different from the way it replicates in the skin cells.

The odds of off-target from virus the human DNA is very remote just based on evolution. Online predictors are more about trying to edit the same organism and hitting the wrong area. Like in human DNA there are multiple copies of stuff.

[fixme1 1,517]

23 hours ago, Sean123 said:

Aav1 causes a very little immune reaction. I believe I ended up with the best results but that could be because of the injection site I chose (beneath the head) vs where they chose (base/pubic bone) or maybe it was because I was the only one negative for aav1 (if it makes a difference). 

The others who took part in the trial didnt have typical symptoms prior to trial, they had nerve issues and maybe one OB a year. 

I on the other hand did have typical symptoms which was 2-3 OBs per month. 

I can say with certain that its helped me significantly. 

good to see something good on the horizon , glad theres more people out there trying to help others. all the best.

[LovedAnyway 45]

Please don't laugh at me, because I don't understand anything about this stuff, but can someone say whether Crisper would be able to remove the virus from csf?  Also, even if it can't reach neurons, would it still get rid of it everywhere that it has erupted before on skin and it would just be left in the neurons?