Jump to content
World's Largest Herpes Support Group
farnsworth

Realistically how far away is a cure?

Recommended Posts

Cas9

@Freefalling87

There are no special FDA issues associated with trying to cure a virus; The issue is related to gene editing because it's new and can be dangerous. So my point is the hep c cure is irrelevant to the discussion since it wasn't cured using gene editing.

Gene editing has huge potential. It's not going away. There will be standards for safety both prior to human trials and during the trials. Any technology requires a leap of faith at some point, to one degree or another.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MikeHerp
Posted (edited)

 

Quote

This means that like the cure for balding it may not come anytime within our lives.

On the bright side this disease is mostly non morbid if you ignore the tentative links towards Alzheimer or the rare occurrence of herpes encephalitis.

On the worse side this will probably fuck over a lot of relationships that could of otherwise went well which means unless your good enough to consistently have one night stands expect to deal with a lot of mental turmoil.

They are already partially curing mice, so this is coming along quite well.  Further, this is the only treatment that is targeting the latent HSV.  That's different than other stuff before, because partial effectiveness with this will still mean a partial cure, while with, for example a therapeutic vaccine, partial effectiveness, generally meant a temporary boost in dealing with symptoms or shedding or simply a partial increase in antibody titers, without even any effect on symptoms or shedding.  

Further, most scientists who have studied HSV extensively, no longer hold the opinion that it's "mostly non morbid".  Pretty much all studies emphasize these days that HSV causes significant morbidity and is associated with an overall heavy disease burden.  I was just reading a 2018 study, which explained that incidence of neanatal herpes alone in the US is around 5 in 10,000, meaning that 1 in 2000 babies is affected by it.  The study also emphasizes that "Only toward the end of the 20th century was there a ballooning of knowledge regarding the epidemiology, pathogenesis, virulence, and fundamentals of latent infection."  I.e., serious knowledge about herpes and what it does, has really only started to accumulate very recently.  

Meanwhile, as you mentioned, it can throw a monkey wrench into relationships and intimacy.  That alone is a good enough reason to find a better treatment or cure.  Companies have spent gazillions of $ on finding treatments to erectile dysfunction, and that the products of that effort are considered helpful and valuable. I don't see any reason why companies would necessarily shy away from curing herpes.  

Edited by MikeHerp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Freefalling87
5 hours ago, Cas9 said:

@Freefalling87

There are no special FDA issues associated with trying to cure a virus; The issue is related to gene editing because it's new and can be dangerous. So my point is the hep c cure is irrelevant to the discussion since it wasn't cured using gene editing.

Gene editing has huge potential. It's not going away. There will be standards for safety both prior to human trials and during the trials. Any technology requires a leap of faith at some point, to one degree or another.

The Hep C cure was referring to someone else's comment that big pharma has no motivation to cure diseases. Gene editing was also mentioned that FDA will not allow a cure; someone said that earlier too. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WilsoInAus
35 minutes ago, Freefalling87 said:

The Hep C cure was referring to someone else's comment that big pharma has no motivation to cure diseases. Gene editing was also mentioned that FDA will not allow a cure; someone said that earlier too. 

I'm not sure on what basis, see the following: https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/statement-fda-commissioner-scott-gottlieb-md-and-peter-marks-md-phd-director-center-biologics

As you can see the FDA are gearing up their resources to evaluate the burgeoning number of cell and gene therapy applications with an expectation of assessing up to 200 a year and approving the successful ones estimated at 10-20 per year based on emerging success rates.

Many countries are similar. Here in Australia we have had the regulatory framework for biologicals in place since 2011 designed to facilitate gene therapies including answering what is ethical or otherwise in the development and implementation of gene therapy.

A therapy that neutralises HSV DNA strands only would be well and truly down the list of presenting complications once safety and efficacy is established.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
caliprep
On 4/26/2019 at 10:36 AM, Yodda said:

Dear friends i'm happy that you have all this Hope's, and I really want like perhaps millions a cure.

But this is not the reality. Reasons that there still some research are the implications that exists for the future control of these new technologies. 

Read about HIV, and the fact that they will be no more research on it, because only that the medicines are now available as generics (and we can control the transmission by treating the person, after a good screening of the population..)..for a virus that kills 70 millions of persons, they are stoping the research for a cure. Crazy no?.

You think that a virus like herpes, is a priority target, if studies shows that u reduce the infection by 98% if u use condoms and acyclovir ?.  It will be not. 

For the moment lot of genetic research are for the cancers,  I hope that it will be a solution (by luck perhaps to target the virus...). 

I'm not pessimist just realist. 

For the moment it is funny to say ok in 10 years, but like you sayed because also of all the failures and the difficulties of curing this virus that I say, there will not be a cure for this in 30 years...

Even the vaccines that reduces 50% to 70% of  shedding are not launched, all are stopped, why? Why not associated it? Why stopping it if it can help millions in reducing symptoms?, or in associated with anti viral therapy (acyclovir, pritilevir, with 2 vaccines,  perhaps  we reduce the transmission to 0.5%.......??? (Too expensive?)...

Why? I think we have to accept that there will not be any cure

Accepting this you will live better...they will be no cure yet not even in 10 years if you want.

Just forget it live your live..

Best

To be honest, you sound exactly like the posters before you who claimed there would be no way to cure herpes. It was just impossible, and our best bet was a therapeutic vaccine. I've read this years ago, in 2014 and now in 2019, breakthrough technologies like gene editing have come into view out of absolutely nowhere. None of this was being talked about 5 years ago, 

Also, I've read posters saying that we would never have access to drugs similar to priteliver, now we do. How have times changed, I wouldn't be surprised if we get a cure within the next 3-5 years...Seriously. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yodda
37 minutes ago, caliprep said:

To be honest, you sound exactly like the posters before you who claimed there would be no way to cure herpes. It was just impossible, and our best bet was a therapeutic vaccine. I've read this years ago, in 2014 and now in 2019, breakthrough technologies like gene editing have come into view out of absolutely nowhere. None of this was being talked about 5 years ago, 

Also, I've read posters saying that we would never have access to drugs similar to priteliver, now we do. How have times changed, I wouldn't be surprised if we get a cure within the next 3-5 years...Seriously. 

Hope you right...seriously...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cas9
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, caliprep said:

To be honest, you sound exactly like the posters before you who claimed there would be no way to cure herpes. It was just impossible, and our best bet was a therapeutic vaccine. I've read this years ago, in 2014 and now in 2019, breakthrough technologies like gene editing have come into view out of absolutely nowhere. None of this was being talked about 5 years ago, 

Also, I've read posters saying that we would never have access to drugs similar to priteliver, now we do. How have times changed, I wouldn't be surprised if we get a cure within the next 3-5 years...Seriously. 

There's no chance of a cure that's available to the public in the next 3 - 5 years. Whatever is presently being worked on that has the potential for a cure, is not in the 3rd phase of a human trial. That's where you would have to be to have a chance for a cure that's available to the public in 3 - 5 years.

For example, the research by Keith Jerome is getting fairly close to having the potential as a cure, but it is not there yet AND he is only in preclincal. If everything goes well, he could have a cure in animals, in about 5 years. Then he has to apply and get funding for human clinical trials, and if that happens, he then has to go through 3 phases, each taking perhaps a few years.

Edited by Cas9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kurdt01

Short of something none of us knows about that comes completely out of left field (which is entirely possible), our best bet on something anytime soon is Pritelivir....hopefully it works as well as we all hope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Voyager2

It sure looks like our best hope for now. Pritlivir has been studied for years and has to emerge at some point.

At the same time we have to keep pulling for the vaccines and gene editing. A big breakthrough will be headline news that benefits us all. Every woman I've ever told has dropped me in the belief that nothing could ever protect them, despite my pathetic babbling about upcoming vaccines. We need a breakthrough.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
oneday

Sorry @Voyager2 it's such a garbage thing and you don't deserve that sort of treatment. I am hoping something comes out of the woodwork in the near future. I want that party in time square and I am sure @Sillybrain2 would be there too, We'd probably party all year, we've been waiting too long for this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kurdt01

25 years+ via traditional FDA approved methods...possible 5-10 via back alley black market kind of ways....

 

I know people currently experimenting with CRISPR and it's expensive and the results are mixed to say the least. You could easily be out $10k with no improvement whatsoever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BioHacker

"Back alley black market" ways of doing things are always expensive. It wouldn't surprise me if anyone sufficiently resourceful could relatively easily cook up a simple therapeutic vaccine, or pursue a gene editing approach, or order up a custom DNA vaccine, that would be effective for most people (say 60-80% symptom reduction, probably similar shedding reduction). There are ways to try and control the risk involved, but everything comes at a price. To go down any of those routes, you'd have to make a determination about how much side-effect risk you would want to take (and how to measure it), and then you'd likely have to spend between $2,500 and $10,000+ (simple vaccine lower end, DNA vaccine middle, CRISPR higher end). Even for someone with a science background, it wouldn't be easy to understand all the potential things that might go wrong, and to evaluate the risk properly, and avoid making mistakes. Then, if you did it, you wouldn't really know how long any benefit would last (if there was a benefit), and you wouldn't know if some adverse long-term side effect might develop later on (rare for most vaccine approaches, but it happens - unknown with CRISPR, but it's a safety issue). And without a way to test anything on a larger group of test subjects, you wouldn't be able to prove anything about effectiveness or safety, or properly evaluate different tweaks to a given approach. It would just be an expensive(ish) one-off experiment (or series of experiments, but likely cumulative, so interpretation and comparison of different approaches would be difficult). Animal testing could be useful, but it wouldn't solve the basic issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jmherped

Well, screw the fda, maybe China will come up with something.  They are already doing crispr babies so who knows what is going on there. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Focri
Posted (edited)

I don’t think we have any idea.  The only factors set in stone is the approval process (if you’re considering only a US FDA approved option). With consideration of all factors/tools discussed, there are New technologies developed ever day with novel approaches and others which build on previous. Artificial intelligence is being used throughout the process, both understanding the virus, and strategies to attack it.  Cost is obviously an issue as well, but these tools and research methods are becoming extremely inexpensive, while also becoming more accurate, precise, powerful, fast. Also keep in mind that research in other areas, beyond HSV, and even viruses, will also carry over into this research.

Edited by Focri

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MiLoBeng

In my opinion. I think with the help of recent tech (AI, CRISPR, gene editing, etc.) I'd say within 5-10 yrs if we're lucky. Otherwise, another 10-20yrs 😐

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MikeHerp
On 5/30/2019 at 1:32 PM, Focri said:
Recent, From Legitimate source. 
Baltimore Sun:
From the Community: Is there a cure for herpes? We may be closer than you think!
 
 

This is garbage, just so you know. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tired of waiting
On 5/29/2019 at 9:32 PM, Focri said:
Recent, From Legitimate source. 
Baltimore Sun:
From the Community: Is there a cure for herpes? We may be closer than you think!
 
 

While the Baltimore Sun may be considered a reputable source of news. Their community contributor is not a known source.  This allege article ( more like advertisement) is almost verbatim from other reputable news source scattered the world.

Synergy is working all of the angles to get personal testimonials and duping press outlets to giving them free advertising and credibility.  If only synergy would put this level of effort into actually providing test results and studies for their products?  Oh that's wright they can't because herbal supplements WILL NOT remove the virus from your system and WILL NOT cure you, but it will lighten your wallet as they are expensive supplements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Joel7

I don't think a "cure" will come any time soon. But something just a bit better than acyclovir could be effectively a cure. Getting the shedding rate down to near zero, so that there are no outbreaks and the chance of spreading the virus is nil, would solve the issue for most patients, because then disclosure would not be necessary. Well, Americans with their puritanical attitudes toward sex might have their own ideas about that, but from a logical point of view, if there's effectively no chance of spreading it, then the main problem is solved.

Pritelivir looks promising, but FDA approval would appear to be quite a few years away.

If I'm not mistaken, there's been no case in a research study of genital herpes spreading when condoms are used 100 percent and acyclovir is being used as suppressive therapy. But the sample size is minuscule, since few people use condoms consistently. If that trend were to hold up at a large scale, then we're farther along than people think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Inevitablecur3

Just look at how fast crispr has grown since it’s conception as well as the advancements made with other gene editor’s. The progress being made right now is substantially faster than prior decades. I’m willing to bet, within 5 years or so, scientists will have the groundwork for how to fully eradicate it in the body and by 10-15 years an approved cure

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Focri
20 hours ago, MikeHerp said:

This is garbage, just so you know. 

Thank you. I’ll be more cautious with what I share. 

14 hours ago, Tired of waiting said:

While the Baltimore Sun may be considered a reputable source of news. Their community contributor is not a known source.  This allege article ( more like advertisement) is almost verbatim from other reputable news source scattered the world.

Synergy is working all of the angles to get personal testimonials and duping press outlets to giving them free advertising and credibility.  If only synergy would put this level of effort into actually providing test results and studies for their products?  Oh that's wright they can't because herbal supplements WILL NOT remove the virus from your system and WILL NOT cure you, but it will lighten your wallet as they are expensive supplements.

Thank you, I’ll be more cautious with what I share. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MikeHerp
19 minutes ago, Focri said:

Thank you. I’ll be more cautious with what I share. 

Thank you, I’ll be more cautious with what I share. 

No problems.  But yes, that's fake news.  The real news is that Synergy Pharma recently filed for bankruptcy.  

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/synergy-pharmaceuticals-bankruptcy-sgyp-stock-173614921.html

They didn't invent any herpes cure.  Unfortunately.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quest

Interesting, thought they were very small!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tired of waiting
Posted (edited)

No worries, we are all out searching for any piece of new information from the corners of web that may offer some kind of path forward and or hope. Based on your profile you are new to this and are probably spending a lot of time chasing leads.

After a while you will be able to spot the bogus cures Vs  real research. The bogus cures generally have the same repeating patterns, of being  based loosely on science, pseudo science and will pile on emotionally gut wrenching testimonials of people being cured and with out fail will quote the word health organization or CDC in a statement of impact of the disease.  What you will not find is anything resembling or meeting the standards of scientific or medical studies and in the reporting of test results.

Don't give up looking there could be an obscure research lab or college out there that is working on things that may be helpful for our situation.

 

Thanks

 

Edited by Tired of waiting

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.


  • The Hive is Thriving!

    • Total Topics
      69,950
    • Total Posts
      472,310
  • Posts

    • BioHacker
      Morality aside, it could be that your "disclosure" talk is not as reassuring as it could be. With awareness of diagnosis, suppressive meds, and condoms every time, the risk of male-to-female transmission is very low. How low? If you and a female partner were having sex twice a week, it would be a 1-in-600 year event. Assuming precautions are taken, your female partner would be likely to die of old age without ever getting HSV, even of you had sex with her multiple times every day without a single day off for the rest of your life.
    • sadangel22
      For those of you with GHSV 1 or 2 how did you know you were having a second outbreak? I was diagnosed with GHSV-1 a month ago and have had no symptoms till now. For the past two days I've been super itchy but there are no bumps/ulcers like last time. I read somewhere that some people experience periodic itchiness and no other symptoms so I'm wondering, is this super common and is what is happening to me? Or do I need to prepare myself that this is most likely a second outbreak in it's initial stages? 
    • hunger4more
      We havent cured things not because we can't its because profits are a bigger priority. Trust me when I say I know it sounds like conspiracy talk but look at where and what they throw money at.... sickness is lucrative. So is death (War) The military budget is criminal to say the least, as is Nasa's budget That's just simple math, then look at all the obscene hurdles set in place to help deter anyone from going the distance. They only cry ethics when it comes to anything that could potentially benefit the greater good.
    • WilsoInAus
      I think it is very important for you to find out whether you carry HSV-1 or not. If you do, then any concerns you may have about HSV-1 are negligible. Many people carry an oral HSV-1, like your partner. This will be the only region of her body infected, that is the mouth in a practical sense. No contact with the mouth means no chance of infection for you. Hence there are zero issues with vaginal sex and you giving her oral. Kissing and you receiving oral sex are the feasible transmission possibilities. Perhaps the second is of minor concern, but your choice. If you decide you're never going to kiss a girl because she has HSV-1 orally then that will be your loss. Most girls have HSV-1 and all the cute ones!
    • WilsoInAus
      I disagree, we have made a significant contribution to keeping it on track and ensuring the OP has the correct information to cogitate upon. Let's keep the good work up!
×
×
  • 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.