Jump to content
World's Largest Herpes Support Group


Star33hcs

Dr Jerome

Recommended Posts

dont quit!17
17 hours ago, MikeHerp said:

In the 2014 presentation, he referred to 50% disruption of HSV as a "functional cure".  He may have been using that term loosely as representing a huge decrease in shedding and outbreaks, rather than a complete elimination.  But considering that explanation, I think there's hope that 90%+ removal would lead to elimination of symptoms and make shedding so rare, that it might be inconsequential or below transmissible levels. 

I recall reading somewhere that a 50%, should be enough to eliminate transmission. Whether or not that is true, I'm unsure but that would be awesome if achievable. Hopefully, they can get something for us where at the minimum, most people can become asymptomatic which will in turn help preserve the immune system of those affected. Hopefully they do well with the guinea pigs. If successful will primates likely be next year or in two? 

Share this post


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

My understanding is the AAV would be short acting and probably a one shot deal, so leaving 50% would leave you still infected. They need 90%+. 

They haven't got to the final AAV and payload yet, so they might be close to 70% already, which is amazing for a new technology.

Edited by hopeing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just a human being

It s not really possible to ban anyone from this forum. Some people would just get back on and create a reign of terror in their wrath. I’ve seen it before. In the end everyone has to accept them and it teaches the group tolerance. Trust me I’ve been through the same feelings and I don’t want to act like I’m always Mr positive or anything cos I am Just a human being!And honestly we need to consider others welfare. They would be lost without this forum. I think if you took it away they would suffer serious trauma. It just takes a small amount of time to work around it!

I have deep respect for @MikeHerp it takes a lot of work to get something like this off the ground! I think genetic research is very valuable and important! 

I have duel interests human systems and health and agriculture. In the agriculture realm I’m not a big fan of say Monsanto’s brand of genetic research in application. I am a big fan of genetic research to inform plant breeding! 

I think this is good work that will be insightful for humans in the future!

Don’t take a few difficult people to heart! Trust me I do know it’s difficult.  I didn’t even read a single comment of theirs! Wow that’s big for me!

Back to Fred Hutch....

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MikeHerp

Not directly on HSV, but this general overview of where gene editing is, is a very good read. Recommend at least skimming it.

A lot of excitement is building around gene editing. 

https://67c5cfaa-bdc0-42a5-95c4-a822adc972c7.filesusr.com/ugd/80a6fd_a53ed12021a54292bb50ed1255e31118.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ohsotired

@MikeHerp

I read this the other day. I was surprised to see all the companies trying gene editing. I did not realize there were many. It got me wondering. Who will add. Jerome use? My mind always works like that. 
 

I will pm you because I don’t want to clog up this thread. 
 

Thanks! 🏆

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cas9
4 minutes ago, Ohsotired said:

@MikeHerp

I read this the other day. I was surprised to see all the companies trying gene editing. I did not realize there were many. It got me wondering. Who will add. Jerome use? My mind always works like that. 
 

I will pm you because I don’t want to clog up this thread. 
 

Thanks! 🏆

Your question is certainly on topic, but I didn't understand your question:

"Who will add. Jerome use?"

Did you mean to ask, "What gene editor will Dr. Jerome use?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ohsotired
8 minutes ago, Cas9 said:

Your question is certainly on topic, but I didn't understand your question:

"Who will add. Jerome use?"

Did you mean to ask, "What gene editor will Dr. Jerome use?"

I do apologize. My phone edited my text, but it’s incorrect. 
 

My question was in regards to the company that Dr. Jerome would use? I see that Editas, Intellias, & Sanofi Are a few companies. Would he found his own?

It was just a fleeing thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MikeHerp

It's too early to speculate about which company might take the cure to clinical trials.  But I imagine, if Dr. Jerome and his team continue to refine efficacy and continue to prove safety, some companies would line up to fund that kind of treatment.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just a human being
23 hours ago, MikeHerp said:

Not directly on HSV, but this general overview of where gene editing is, is a very good read. Recommend at least skimming it.

A lot of excitement is building around gene editing. 

https://67c5cfaa-bdc0-42a5-95c4-a822adc972c7.filesusr.com/ugd/80a6fd_a53ed12021a54292bb50ed1255e31118.pdf

Thank u I ll scan it this week end I think it’s research that is very valuable in supporting. 

I have bit of an arty streak and I love to use my imagination and once I imagined in the future (far away) say with GM technology you could grow a house from a seed! 

Genetic research is ver y valuable information!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just a human being
On 5/31/2020 at 10:51 AM, Just a human being said:

It s not really possible to ban anyone from this forum. Some people would just get back on and create a reign of terror in their wrath. I’ve seen it before. In the end everyone has to accept them and it teaches the group tolerance. Trust me I’ve been through the same feelings and I don’t want to act like I’m always Mr positive or anything cos I am Just a human being!And honestly we need to consider others welfare. They would be lost without this forum. I think if you took it away they would suffer serious trauma. It just takes a small amount of time to work around it!

I have deep respect for @MikeHerp it takes a lot of work to get something like this off the ground! I think genetic research is very valuable and important! 

I have duel interests human systems and health and agriculture. In the agriculture realm I’m not a big fan of say Monsanto’s brand of genetic research in application. I am a big fan of genetic research to inform plant breeding! 

I think this is good work that will be insightful for humans in the future!

Don’t take a few difficult people to heart! Trust me I do know it’s difficult.  I didn’t even read a single comment of theirs! Wow that’s big for me!

Back to Fred Hutch....

 

 

Sorry this is on the wrong thread I think somehow!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ohsotired

@MikeHerp

Thanks for the info. I know Dr. Jerome isn’t using CRISPR but a meganuclease vector. He’s about to start testing in guinea pigs. I have a question regarding that.

It is to my understanding that the funds raised by this community has propelled his HSV research without delay because he didn’t have to wait for more NIH funding. 

However, his grant is due to end in 2023 and that funding was specifically for studies in mice. Will he have to apply for another grant to start testing in monkeys in 2023? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Runner278
4 hours ago, Ohsotired said:

@MikeHerp

Thanks for the info. I know Dr. Jerome isn’t using CRISPR but a meganuclease vector. He’s about to start testing in guinea pigs. I have a question regarding that.

It is to my understanding that the funds raised by this community has propelled his HSV research without delay because he didn’t have to wait for more NIH funding. 

However, his grant is due to end in 2023 and that funding was specifically for studies in mice. Will he have to apply for another grant to start testing in monkeys in 2023? 

That’s such a great question. I’d be great to know what he needs and see how we can support his efforts. I’ve donated twice in the last two weeks. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ohsotired

@Runner278

I agree! I know everyone says 8-10 years, but if he’s still working with animals it will be longer. If we can help speed things up, I’m game. I donate monthly. After I pay some more debt, I’m going to try to increase my donations more

Share this post


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

As I recall, the grant info talks about “murines”not just mice, which includes Guinean pigs 

Also, based on whatDr Jerome states in the November video, the NIH funding for guinea pig studies would be available this year. Our donations helped his team to start that earlier before the NIH funding was available. 

Min summary, his team will be doing the guinea pig studies while they are under the NIH grant which runs through 2023. 

Edited by MikeHerp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cas9
Posted (edited)
On 6/4/2020 at 4:37 PM, Ohsotired said:

@Runner278

I agree! I know everyone says 8-10 years, but if he’s still working with animals it will be longer. If we can help speed things up, I’m game. I donate monthly. After I pay some more debt, I’m going to try to increase my donations more

I don't think everyone thinks it will be 8 - 10 years. I've seen other peoples predictions and many believe it will be over 10 years. And that includes myself. I could easily see it being 10 - 15 years for example; hopefully closer to 10.

Dr. Jerome has to do guinea pig and then primate studies. Then how long will clinical studies take? Hell, clinical could take 8 years easy. At least that's true for vaccines. Perhaps a better model would be how long clinical studies take for CRISPR. For example Editas Medicine and Crispr Therapeutics are both in clinical for their respective applications.

How long it takes is not something I concentrate on; it's simply impossible to predict.

Edited by Cas9

Share this post


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

My main contention with the commonly assumed time figure at this point is that it doesn't permit for any 'breakthrough'. 

We haven't tested an editing 'cure' before. The method of this medicine should be nearly instant in some of the trial participants, if the vector is right they may be 'cured' in a matter of hours. 

How long will it take to confirm this data doesn't seem like it will take as long as the time for a traditional drug trial. That is unless we force it to take as long, just for a few safety measures. 

I expect otherwise that a bulk of the information about the treatment will be provided relatively shortly by comparison to the trial of drugs and vaccines.


Thats all just my 2 cents, though. 

Edited by iFdUp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Zebra007
1 hour ago, iFdUp said:

My main contention with the commonly assumed time figure at this point is that it doesn't permit for any 'breakthrough'. 

We haven't tested an editing 'cure' before. The method of this medicine should be nearly instant in some of the trial participants, if the vector is right they may be 'cured' in a matter of hours. 

How long will it take to confirm this data doesn't seem like it will take as long as the time for a traditional drug trial. That is unless we force it to take as long, just for a few safety measures. 

I expect otherwise that a bulk of the information about the treatment will be provided relatively shortly by comparison to the trial of drugs and vaccines.


Thats all just my 2 cents, though. 

Good point. Certainly a negative immune response would be quickly observed as well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shubhherpe

I believe if in phase 1 human clinical trial this treatment proves to be effective then in a few months their antibody test will get negative from positive pointing towards a cure. And that is where when it might receive breakthrough therapy designation by FDA (just like pritelivir got) because of the urgency of unmet medical needs of billions of people worldwide.

Share this post


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

My main contention with the commonly assumed time figure at this point is that it doesn't permit for any 'breakthrough'. 

We haven't tested an editing 'cure' before. The method of this medicine should be nearly instant in some of the trial participants, if the vector is right they may be 'cured' in a matter of hours. 

How long will it take to confirm this data doesn't seem like it will take as long as the time for a traditional drug trial. That is unless we force it to take as long, just for a few safety measures. 

I expect otherwise that a bulk of the information about the treatment will be provided relatively shortly by comparison to the trial of drugs and vaccines.


Thats all just my 2 cents, though. 

@iFdUp

I agree! It should be a quick observation. However, more evaluation may be needed in regards to other ailments or concerns that may crop up as a result of using gene therapy. Hopefully not. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
themotion
On 5/3/2020 at 10:23 AM, Star33hcs said:

Mike do you think that is a real cure for herpes ?

It's in the works.

 

IT IS VERY REAL. I know first hand what it's like to have the condition we share to cross your mind even when you have no present symptoms. You think of the past. Think of memories before you were diagnosed. Some days might go by without you going through "the motion" and some days you get down on yourself.

The best way to push this through is to help donate. DONATE DONATE DONATE. You are a part of history by doing so. I'm sure you already have but I want to stress that the progress now is remarkable. Every cent counts.

Gene editing is very real and the target is within reach!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hopeful22

I am quite frustrated that if what Fred Hutch is doing has a very real chance of a cure, but is limited in advancing because of funds.  WHY aren't they courting wealthy donors. I am SURE there are millionaires and even billionaires who have herpes. If what Fred Hutch is doing will actually cure herpes and it is something that is ground breaking why can't they attract wealthy donors? If I had millions I would give it to them but I don't.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cas9
1 hour ago, hopeful22 said:

I am quite frustrated that if what Fred Hutch is doing has a very real chance of a cure, but is limited in advancing because of funds.  WHY aren't they courting wealthy donors. I am SURE there are millionaires and even billionaires who have herpes. If what Fred Hutch is doing will actually cure herpes and it is something that is ground breaking why can't they attract wealthy donors? If I had millions I would give it to them but I don't.  

What funding issues are you talking about? He HAS been getting funding. We are simply helping it along; i.e our donations have allowed him to start guinea pig testing NOW, as opposed to a year or two from now, which is how long it would have taken had he had to apply for the money and wait to receive it. The time it takes to do his work also has a lot to do with figuring how to make it work. I guess I don't understand what you are frustrated about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WilsoInAus
2 hours ago, hopeful22 said:

I am quite frustrated that if what Fred Hutch is doing has a very real chance of a cure, but is limited in advancing because of funds.  WHY aren't they courting wealthy donors. I am SURE there are millionaires and even billionaires who have herpes. If what Fred Hutch is doing will actually cure herpes and it is something that is ground breaking why can't they attract wealthy donors? If I had millions I would give it to them but I don't.  

It is as @Cas9 suggests more about the problems to solve rather than the money.

There are multiple issues that Dr Jerome is attempting to solve. These include:
- how do we get our viral transporter into every infected cell when they need to be found and need to beat the body’s immune response?
- why doesn’t the HSV DNA get snipped in every cell where the cutting agent gets there?

I’d agree that scientific bandwidth may be an issue, we need more scientists looking at these questions, multiple labs worldwide with a diverse range of minds applied to the problem. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cas9
Posted (edited)

" why doesn’t the HSV DNA get snipped in every cell where the cutting agent gets there?"
Whether there are a couple of latent HSV that don't get snipped where the cutting enzyme is present, or get repaired by the cell (without mutation) after snipping, doesn't appear to be the case. It appears the virus was either eliminated or mutated in the neurons. But I can't rule out that a virus here and there was repaired by the cell. Further experimentation will check for that going forward, and whether it's significant.  Anyway, the trick is to use an scAAV not an ssAAV AND to use a cutting enzyme small enough to fit into that scAAV. which is the meganuclease created by Dr. Jerome. Also, it's necessary to make two cuts on the viral DNA, not one.

" how do we get our viral transporter into every infected cell when they need to be found and need to beat the body’s immune response?"
That's the main reason why latent virus elimination isn't close to 100%; i.e. The targeted ganglion is comprised of multiple neuron types, so using one scAAV type (e.g. scAAV1) does not bind to all the neuron types in that ganglion, therefore, the gene editor does not get into every infected neuron. Dr. Jerome is now using complementary scAAVs to the targeted ganglion to achieve better results. Some experimentation in mice using multiple scAAVs showed that it made a significant difference in efficacy.  But the testing with multiple scAAV types will now mainly take place in the forthcoming guinea pig studies, not mice.

Dr. Jerome expressed a great deal of confidence in what he's doing going forward.

Edited by Cas9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
shadowgirl88
On 6/10/2020 at 9:04 PM, hopeful22 said:

I am quite frustrated that if what Fred Hutch is doing has a very real chance of a cure, but is limited in advancing because of funds.  WHY aren't they courting wealthy donors. I am SURE there are millionaires and even billionaires who have herpes. If what Fred Hutch is doing will actually cure herpes and it is something that is ground breaking why can't they attract wealthy donors? If I had millions I would give it to them but I don't.  

Usher has Ghsv2 and Robin Williams did as well. So you have a valid point.

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.


×
×
  • 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.