dreamergrl Posted May 29, 2008 Posted May 29, 2008 I reposted my original post about the cost.. I was not making factual statements.. reread my post I also posted info later on that backed up my assertion as well as another poster who has experience talking about the cost if uninsured and on a particular medicine and the cost was within what I had asserted.. But you made the assumption that you would NEED the medicine for a life time. Most people don't need it at all, while the rest mainly need it for about a year. Like when your body builds up anti bodies from HSV 1, it continues to build up anti bodies for HSV 2 - so the infections get less.
SouthernT Posted May 29, 2008 Posted May 29, 2008 The bolded is incorrect. If that's the case, then we have Dr's out there that are giving out inconsistent information and inconsistent facts. (which is probably the reason for half of the differing arguments on this particular thread) I was told this by my Dr a couple of months ago during my Pap exam and regulare check up. He told me that it can not be passed unless that person has had an initial outbreak.
lovestruck818 Posted May 29, 2008 Posted May 29, 2008 This is also incorrect because they are two completely different strains Can't the herpes be passed to your partner whether or not you are having an outbreak? Not to say it happens all the time or alot, but it can...right? I mean even with antibiotics and no outbreak, I would assume there would be a slight chance it could be passed along.
blind_otter Posted May 29, 2008 Posted May 29, 2008 If that's the case, then we have Dr's out there that are giving out inconsistent information and inconsistent facts. (which is probably the reason for half of the differing arguments on this particular thread) I was told this by my Dr a couple of months ago during my Pap exam and regulare check up. He told me that it can not be passed unless that person has had an initial outbreak. Hrm. TBH I would trust an MD's opinion over some random, anonymous poster on a message board who cites studies that were conducted 18 years ago. The truth is you can find anything on tha interwebs. But....MDs have access to peer reviewed journals that do not necessarily post their articles and research for free viewing. I'm just-a sayin!
pandagirl Posted May 29, 2008 Posted May 29, 2008 Can't the herpes be passed to your partner whether or not you are having an outbreak? Not to say it happens all the time or alot, but it can...right? I mean even with antibiotics and no outbreak, I would assume there would be a slight chance it could be passed along. I posted this earlier, but I asked my doctor about this yesterday. He said that there have been minimal studies done that have shown it's possibly to pass on the virus without symptoms, but that the studies are so few and far between, that he personally wouldn't take it as fact.
Art_Critic Posted May 29, 2008 Posted May 29, 2008 But you made the assumption that you would NEED the medicine for a life time. Most people don't need it at all, while the rest mainly need it for about a year. Like when your body builds up anti bodies from HSV 1, it continues to build up anti bodies for HSV 2 - so the infections get less. I'm going to ask this one question and then I'm off the thread and need to get work done Can you back up this assertion you just made ?..(the MOST is kinda vague.) That most people don't need any medicine and that people who have herpes don't need medicine a lifetime ?.. You are starting to post your opinion which is okay but don't expect your opinion to be taken as fact.
dreamergrl Posted May 29, 2008 Posted May 29, 2008 If that's the case, then we have Dr's out there that are giving out inconsistent information and inconsistent facts. (which is probably the reason for half of the differing arguments on this particular thread) I was told this by my Dr a couple of months ago during my Pap exam and regulare check up. He told me that it can not be passed unless that person has had an initial outbreak. The thing is, there normally is an outbreak, only it's so mild, it's not even noticed. So while you may think you've never had one, chances are you did. But in the slight chance one doesn't ever get any symptoms, I still think it rises out of your nerve endings enough to be "present". Your body can fight off the infection, but the infection still needs to rise to be fought off. Can't the herpes be passed to your partner whether or not you are having an outbreak? Not to say it happens all the time or alot, but it can...right? I mean even with antibiotics and no outbreak, I would assume there would be a slight chance it could be passed along. Right, this would be called viral shedding - and is actually to be found as a common way of spreading, because many people think they can't spread the virus without an outbreak.
dreamergrl Posted May 29, 2008 Posted May 29, 2008 I'm going to ask this one question and then I'm off the thread and need to get work done Can you back up this assertion you just made ?..(the MOST is kinda vague.) That most people don't need any medicine and that people who have herpes don't need medicine a lifetime ?.. You are starting to post your opinion which is okay but don't expect your opinion to be taken as fact. I myself have to get going as well, back to work, but when I get back on I'll be happy to look up the pages. Just didn't want you to think I was by-passing what your asking. Seriously though, if you look up some stuff on HSV, you'll find it almost any page that two thirds of those with simplex two don't show symptoms or they are very mild, so in which case they wouldn't need meds.
dreamergrl Posted May 29, 2008 Posted May 29, 2008 Hrm. TBH I would trust an MD's opinion over some random, anonymous poster on a message board who cites studies that were conducted 18 years ago. The truth is you can find anything on tha interwebs. But....MDs have access to peer reviewed journals that do not necessarily post their articles and research for free viewing. I'm just-a sayin! If you go over to a site like the health boards though, you'll find that different MD's will give out different opinions on the matter. When I was dating someone with HSV (although I didn't get put at risk) I consulted my doctor on a lot of things, compared with it the guy I was dating, and found a difference in opinions.
Trialbyfire Posted May 29, 2008 Posted May 29, 2008 Here dreamergrl, if you want to cite information, go to a valid source instead of an insignificant study of 135 people (primarily men) in a developing country full of disease, lack of food and poor immune systems, where much of it was probably done in one small region. This is from the World Health Organization. http://www.who.int/vaccine_research/diseases/soa_std/en/index3.html There is now ample evidence that HSV-2 infection is a major cofactor of HIV infection. In developed countries, where acquisition of HSV-1 in childhood has decreased, HSV-2 seroprevalence has increased, suggesting a possible protective effect of HSV-1 against HSV-2 acquisition. Although HSV-1 does not actually seem to modify the risk of HSV-2 acquisition, it appears to increase the proportion of asymptomatic seroconverters. I do recommend that everyone look up the definition of seroconverter.
Art_Critic Posted May 29, 2008 Posted May 29, 2008 I myself have to get going as well, back to work, but when I get back on I'll be happy to look up the pages. Just didn't want you to think I was by-passing what your asking. Seriously though, if you look up some stuff on HSV, you'll find it almost any page that two thirds of those with simplex two don't show symptoms or they are very mild, so in which case they wouldn't need meds. I see where you are coming from about the many.. just simply because most people don't know that they have herpes then they don't use medicine.. But... if they did know..they would need medication.. From what I have googled and come up with medicine is required for life if you want to try and suppress the breakouts.. otherwise the medicine would be considered a CURE... I haven't run across anything that says a patient who has herpes and breakouts doesn't need medication. I don't understand the thought process of that.. if a medication reduces breakouts then wouldn't people use the medication ?
tanbark813 Posted May 29, 2008 Posted May 29, 2008 I think Nutshell already covered this. And A_C, if you're going to require dreamergrl to back up her assertions, you should do no less.
Art_Critic Posted May 29, 2008 Posted May 29, 2008 I think Nutshell already covered this. And A_C, if you're going to require dreamergrl to back up her assertions, you should do no less. Are you talking about the assertions I'm making about her not backing up her assertions ?.. those are self explanatory
macon Posted May 29, 2008 Posted May 29, 2008 "just simply because most people don't know that they have herpes then they don't use medicine.. But... if they did know..they would need medication.." Why? I know you say you've never had a coldsore in your life, but if you had you'd know that, in some cases, it's only as irritating as a pimple. When I get an outbreak, every couple of years, it lasts about 5 days from start to finish, and there is no pain or discomfort, just a very slight itch for 2 of those days! This doesn't seem to tally with your view of a HSV sufferer. You seem to be ignoring everyone here who gives you the facts. The MAJORITY of people with herpes have NO SYMPTOMS - so they wouldn't need medication to control them ..... and of those who do have symptons, the MAJORITY have mild ones, that decrease with time - again, no medication required! There is a small percentage of sufferers who have very bad outbreaks and therefore need medication to control them - but that is a small and unlucky minority. Seriously, you seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that everyone who has this virus is in dire need of medication every second of their lives. You seem to be ignoring every fact laid before you. In most cases medication can be likened to a cold - if you take some medication for your cold it should clear up quicker, and the discomfort may be less - but you don't NEED to take it to clear it up. That's a personal choice. Either way, if you have a normal immune system, your cold will clear up.
Art_Critic Posted May 29, 2008 Posted May 29, 2008 No, I meant the stuff about the medication. I posted that from what I have googled.. everyone has google Tan.. do you want me to post the google links as well ? It stands to reason that since there is no cure for herpes and that medication reduces the chance of a breakout and people get breakouts throughout their life then that would equate to a life time of medication TB.. A+B=C
macon Posted May 29, 2008 Posted May 29, 2008 "I haven't run across anything that says a patient who has herpes and breakouts doesn't need medication." I'm an HSV sufferer and I don't need medication. Just as someone with a headache doesn't need a painkiller - but they can choose to take one if they wish. What about this is so difficult for you to understand?
macon Posted May 29, 2008 Posted May 29, 2008 "It stands to reason that since there is no cure for herpes and that medication reduces the chance of a breakout and people get breakouts throughout their life then that would equate to a life time of medication TB.. A+B=C" No, "people" do not necessarily get outbreaks throughout their life. HSV affects everyone differently - you can't use your hopelessly simple A+B=C formula in this case. Try and take in some of the facts that have been given to you here - is it so impossible for you to accept that you may be every so slightly wrong?
Art_Critic Posted May 29, 2008 Posted May 29, 2008 Seriously, you seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that everyone who has this virus is in dire need of medication every second of their lives. You seem to be ignoring every fact laid before you. In most cases medication can be likened to a cold - if you take some medication for your cold it should clear up quicker, and the discomfort may be less - but you don't NEED to take it to clear it up. That's a personal choice. Either way, if you have a normal immune system, your cold will clear up. I see what you are saying Macon.. and maybe I'm mistaken but if you read up on herpes all the documents talk about medication as a treatment for the symptoms.. I'm basing my info about medication on the medical websites that you get when you type in herpes into google... I'm guessing then that all the herpes medicine and multi millions of dollars of big pharma R&D is out there for only a few people to be using then ? correct ?
Art_Critic Posted May 29, 2008 Posted May 29, 2008 is it so impossible for you to accept that you may be every so slightly wrong? No.. I'm wrong a lot....
macon Posted May 29, 2008 Posted May 29, 2008 I can only speak from my education - from extensive reading and from my doctor when I first contracted this - and from my own personal experience of having this virus. Both these completely contradict your constant assertions that everyone with HSV is locked into a lifetime of expensive dependency on medication. From my exp of living in the US, I certainly noticed that the drug companies promoted a view that medication is necessary. In the UK there are no adverts for this - if you need medication you get it from your doctor. Perhaps that's why most HSV positive Europeans get along quite well without medication? Again I would assert that for the majority of HSV carriers, medication is not essential, but a choice to made in the same way we choose to medicate a cold or not.
macon Posted May 29, 2008 Posted May 29, 2008 "I'm guessing then that all the herpes medicine and multi millions of dollars of big pharma R&D is out there for only a few people to be using then ? correct ?" Of course, drug companies aren't into making money ... are they? Perhaps that should also be factored in to your assertions. A normal immune system will clear up a normal outbreak - you could speed it up with medication if you like, but in most cases it is not essential. Even in extreme cases it is not essential, but preferable certainly, if you are very affected by the virus.
Art_Critic Posted May 29, 2008 Posted May 29, 2008 From my exp of living in the US, I certainly noticed that the drug companies promoted a view that medication is necessary. In the UK there are no adverts for this - if you need medication you get it from your doctor. Perhaps that's why most HSV positive Europeans get along quite well without medication? Again I would assert that for the majority of HSV carriers, medication is not essential, but a choice to made in the same way we choose to medicate a cold or not. I can buy that.. the big pharma have many lobbyists out there and push the advertising galore.. but the reality would still be that people were medicating.. even if it wasn't necessary. Valtrex alone is a multi billion dollar industry Total global sales of Valtrex were around $1.3 billion for 2006. http://www.mmm-online.com/GlaxoSmithKline-Ranbaxy-settle-Valtrex-patent-dispute/article/24645/ In the near future, generic presence is bound to increase significantly with expected US patent expiries of key HSV/VZV products: Valtrex in 2009 and Famvir (famciclovir) in 2010. Valtrex’s US sales are expected to exceed $1.5 billion in 2008. Based on the effect patent expiry had on Zovirax sales, in the US Valtrex might lose as much as 85% of sales to generics over a three-year period, Dr de Lima says. “As a consequence, generic market share in the HSV/VZV market is expected to escalate from 10% in 2004 to over 50% in 2014. Novartis’s HSV/VZV product Famvir is expected to follow a similar fate.” http://www.bioportfolio.com/biotech_news/datamonitor_4.htm Common sense would then say that there are quite a few people out there using valtrex.. valtrex is only one medication there are many out there.. These assertions come with a disclaimer.. I'm using common sense in stating that because the herpes medicine industry is so large then it must be more than a few people being medicated. I have no proof of this.. just putting 2+2 together...
macon Posted May 29, 2008 Posted May 29, 2008 I'm sure a lot of people, especially in the US, are medicating. As I've said, the fact that your drug companies spend millions developing this market may have something to do with that. People spend a lot of money in Europe at the moment on pro-biotics - affects that they could get from a healthy diet, but instead they choose the quick fix. Some of this may have to do with advertising. The fact remains that not everyone who has HSV must spend a lifetime spending chained to expensive medicine. Can you understand the analogy of medicating a cold? If you don't treat your cold you may have more extreme symptons for longer, but they still WILL clear up if you have a normal immune system. However, you could choose to spend some money and get over the cold quicker. This is your choice. But it is a choice, not a necessity in most cases. I just want you to stop making statements here that aren't based on fact or experience. You are contributing to the fear that surrounds this non life-threatening virus that the majority of people carry somewhere in their nerve endings.
Art_Critic Posted May 29, 2008 Posted May 29, 2008 I just want you to stop making statements here that aren't based on fact or experience. You are contributing to the fear that surrounds this non life-threatening virus that the majority of people carry somewhere in their nerve endings. What ???... you want me to stop expressing my opinion and express yours instead ? .. I think not...
Recommended Posts