 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Herpes / September 2006Asymptomatic HSV-2
I'm tired of hearing people say that the asymptomatic rate of genital HSV-2 is 90%. This is just plain not true. "It is estimated that about 20% of patients with HSV-2 antibodies are truly asymptomatic or have lesions only in locations, such as the cervix, that are impossible to observe". The remaining 60-70% of "underdiagnosed" people have symptoms that they either don't recognize as herpes, don't want to recognize as herpes, or simply ignore. More importantly, "the majority of patients with atypical, unrecognized symptoms can learn to recognize their own unique manifestations of recurrent episodes". So the amount of asymptomatic people are 20%, NOT 90%. The article that this information came from can be read at: http://cmr.asm.org/cgi/reprint/12/1/1 ~Eric > I'm tired of hearing people say that the asymptomatic rate of genital > HSV-2 is 90%. This is just plain not true. You're tired of it....hmmm, OK better trip to the International Herpesvirus Workshop and tell 'em. You've read one paper and the experts obviously no nothing. OK a harsh response on my part but hopefully I've got your attention...so back to reality and a slightly more sensible discussion of your comment. Your statements are over-reaching. You are ignoring a lot of context and a lot of the information in that paper - or rather not in that paper as is relies entirely on citing previous work for the statment you produce. Also as one paper your defining of another figure falls flat on its face. Also most comments on the newsgroup actually are of the ilk of 80-90% of people don't know and then they reference to asymptomatic shedding. The work you cite comes back to Larry Corey's work in the 80s and subsequently (the review you cite doesnt actually include the data, you need to go back further). The issue of defining asymptomatic is complex and not the simple plain one way or another you are pulling out of the bag of 'hey if they can be trained its not asymptomatic so its only 20%'. What you have pulled up is the 'unrecognised fraction' - the paper you cite actually doesnt present data but cites back to a paper from Corey's group - Langenberg et al, 1989, Ann Intern Med, vol 110, 882-887. Most people will lump them into the asymptomatic group - for the simple reason that if they havent had symptoms sufficient to identify a problem then its not exactly a symptom from a clinical perspective....Its well recognised but the meaning and quantity is whats still under discussion. If you look at Langenberg and Coreys own work later than the cite above where they describe a 63% asymptomatic rate at first transmission despite looking for it (therefore not including those who miss mild first symptoms and become asymptomatic thereafter and so would fall into the seropositive but reporting no symptoms). Langenberg AG, Corey L, Ashley RL, Leong WP, Straus SE. A prospective study of new infections with herpes simplex virus type 1 and type 2. Chiron HSV Vaccine Study Group. N Engl J Med. 1999 Nov 4;341(19):1432-8. Same main authors, well aware of the unrecognised issues, in fact the proponents f it - and suddenly in a high examined population are getting 63% asymptomatics. Opening sentence in another paper of Corey's "Most persons who have serologic evidence of infection with herpes simplex virus (HSV) type 2 (HSV-2) are asymptomatic" (Wald A, Zeh J, Selke S, Warren T, Ryncarz AJ, Ashley R, Krieger JN, Corey L. Reactivation of genital herpes simplex virus type 2 infection in asymptomatic seropositive persons. N Engl J Med. 2000 Mar 23;342(12):844-50) and from the same paper 'There has been controversy regarding the biologic and clinical meaning of asymptomatic HSV-2 infection' - indicating that what the term means varies from person to person. Its also probably the most important line in the paper to be honest....what does it mean is the question it raises. By the way, thats also going to include differences in stringency between say a clinician of the view that 'No dis-ease therefore no disease', a biologist of the opinion that 'shedding is a symptom hence no asymptomatics' and those wondering what no earth to do with the 'trainables'. All the above exist.... So your 'Its wrong plain and simple' followed by an absolute statment that its 20% is Im afraid by its own standards wrong. You need to take a wider look at the field. People still routinely use the idea of 80-90% for a reason, and its not simply ignoring Corey's work - you simply can't do that with Larry Corey, he's far too big and far too important a name and body of work in the field. So its time to examine why people say this, and also why Corey himself is NOT routinely citing 20% as the figure... Fundamentally its because these unrecognised cases are grouped in with asymptomatics - at least until the point that they can reliably detect clinically. Why, because that defines whats going on out there inthe population. If someone cant differentiate a random itch in the genital region from one caused by a reactivation then it essentially isnt a symptom becuase it tells you nothing, beyond the need to scratch. There is no disease there is it doesnt cause problems. "But" I hear you say "if there is something there that might be detectable it cant be asymptomatic". OK is my reply - but that includes any biological activity including the shedding and you should place yourself into the category that suggests that shedding is a symptom itself whether its detected by an individual or not. Medicine however as a rule tends to work on a separatino of infection status and actual clinically evident disease (ie symptoms) - yes that will include perception issues. This separates biologial activity and symptomology (yes I sit in that camp myself - hopefully that should be obvious). A number of conditions fit this sort of description and issue and more often you will find the terms clinical and subclinical being used, Larry Corey uses the term in relation to shedding in a 2003 review he co-authored (Koelle DM, Corey L. Recent progress in herpes simplex virus immunobiology and vaccine research. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2003 Jan;16(1):96-113. [Actually well worth reading as its freely available in PubmedCentral on the web and has a lot of discussion on HSV1 vs HSV2). I could certainly see an argument that these are better terms and possibly its reasonable to suggest that thats really what people are describing when saying symptomatic/asymptomatic. Historical attachment to the terms mean its more likely that such issues get included in the old terminology definition rather than change terminology. So yes, you raise a relevant issue with the unrecognised. You are just exceptionally over-reaching by deciding what it means, without (it appears) being aware of the long standing discussion on he matter and th simple issue of perspectice when it comes to a clinical description - perspective that is rather important. Even were the 20% a solid reproducible figure it still begs the question of the other 20% - are they missing something that more training would spot and what does that mean In other words its not the simple, throw away issue you somewhat airily dismiss and the 80-90% fdigure has a place. Tim -- When playing rugby, its not the winning that counts, but the taking apart ICQ: 5178568 Tim, I know you're going to argue who said what in which paper and that the 20% of truely asymptomatic people is just an estimate. But you miss the larger point. People have a tendency to run and hide behind the term asymptomatic. Any major researcher or physician will tell you that it is nowhere near 90% of people who have truly asymptomatic outbreaks, i.e. no symptoms at all or no clinically discernible symptoms. Instead, most people have symptoms associated with HSV-2, oftentimes they present with things other than the classic textbooks cases. The others in the "asymptomatic" category either ignore their symptoms out of fear, don't want to know what could be causing their atypical symptoms, or don't care. Clearly, probably the biggest contender of all is fear. People are highly resistant to a disease with a stigma attached to it, as with HSV-2, so unless they have pretty clear cut outbreaks or are pretty severe, they bullshit themselves. So my point is, people bulshitting themselves out of thinking that they have HSV-2 is NOT being asymptomatic. Being truly asymptomatic means actually not having any symptoms. So again, I reiterate, people who are asymptomatic are in the clear minority, people who don't want to know, don't care, know something is up but won't tell their doctors, or are too busy bulshitting themselves definitely have the majority. > > I'm tired of hearing people say that the asymptomatic rate of genital > > HSV-2 is 90%. This is just plain not true. [quoted text clipped - 110 lines] > When playing rugby, its not the winning that counts, but the taking apart > ICQ: 5178568 > Tim, > > I know you're going to argue who said what in which paper and that > the 20% of truely asymptomatic people is just an estimate. But you miss > the larger point. No, I disagree with at least one and you've missed mine...several of them in fact. > term asymptomatic. Any major researcher or physician will tell you that Sorry that simply isnt true - several have said just that to me...others argue the point, some more so than that idea that only a fraction are completely asymptomatic. This is what Im trying to bring out. THe issue is there is more to the phrase than simply this is an itch, or they havent reported genital herpes etc. There is a working definition for a reason. I have no doubt you will as usual introduce a bunch of qualifier about 'what you meant' - stop making simple absolute statements if you dont want people to take them as such - introduce the qualifiers at the start - it makes discussion more productive. If you had raised the data you did and said 'What does this mean about asymptomatics, and should it be redfined, this is what I think...' then this discussion would probably have been a lot easier to get into some serious gritty details - but you didnt - you said clearly this, and obviosuly that and X or Y is absolutely so and so on. I included a bunch of facets on this in my reply but you seem to have either ignored them or failed to read far enough into my post to reach 'em. > it is nowhere near 90% of people who have truly asymptomatic outbreaks, Some will say what you say, some won't. My point is what 'asymptomatic' means is a) variable depending on who you talk to, b) still discussed on an ongoing fashion as the biology of the virus and the precise nature of the biological effects are described better and c) going to change over time (remembr it used to not be considered an option at all - OK a long time ago but its a point). Larry Corey, who defined the whole 'train and they can see it' made that point inthe discussion of one paper I cited...you also just added the word 'truely'. That might seem minor to you - it is in fact a major point of discussion in this area - I did raise that issue by questioning how should the remaining 20% from the Corey paper be viewed - ie really no symptoms, not trained enough etc (focus on the how do you define and not the 20% - because the question is relevant whatever the percentage). > i.e. no symptoms at all or no clinically discernible symptoms. Instead, > most people have symptoms associated with HSV-2, oftentimes they Part of symptomology is not just spotting an effect, but differentially using it. Part of the problem with the whole training issue, and one of the major counters to separating these people before the training is that there is no detailing of a differential that can be used prior to the diagnosis - at that point you dont have adetectable symptomology. I have no doubt it may change. > Clearly, probably the biggest contender of all is fear. People are Clearly??? No sorry I have to disagree - Id put knowledge or rather lack of it in there. The training of identification experiments didnt really seem to be heavily confounded by false reporting, but did change counting with knowledge. > So my point is, people bulshitting themselves out of thinking that they > have HSV-2 is NOT being asymptomatic. Oh that I can agree with and there are undoubtedly people who do this - both with and without a diagnosis. I just dont think there is evidence that it is the major feature. Lack of knowledge rings truer to me- particularly from Corey's work. > actually not having any symptoms. So again, I reiterate, people who are > asymptomatic are in the clear minority, people who don't want to know, > don't care, know something is up but won't tell their doctors, or are > too busy bulshitting themselves definitely have the majority. To fit your model you have to a) redefine asymptomatic to what it not defined as at the moment and also add a bunch of qualifier and b) put a lot of human intent into the model which you have zero evidence for in contrast to, for instance, not noticing or not knowing. Asymptomatic as a word has a definition. Its possible it might not be the best word or the best definition, but its there for a reason. It may well change. You qualified at one point using the word 'truely' which represents an extreme of the current definition. I discussed the idea of clinical and subclinical as better descriptors. Corey points to the development of the idea fromt he 80s when it has its genesis and to the knowledge we have now. There is a lot to discuss in there - I made that point in my last post, but you seem to have missed that entirely - but if you want to discuss it you have to be aware of what the current definitions are, why and what it contains and your initial post came over to me as not knowing this, but just falling into a common trap of grabing paper X and saying 'but this is obvious that this is all wrong' without the context, variables and the discussions that go around with it. Tim -- When playing rugby, its not the winning that counts, but the taking apart ICQ: 5178568 > > Tim, > > [quoted text clipped - 97 lines] > When playing rugby, its not the winning that counts, but the taking apart > ICQ: 5178568 Gentlemen, Please be gentle, as you know, this is coming from a complete, newbie. I have to agree with Tim or is it Eric on his point that most of the public's denial or ingnorance of their symptoms of HSV2 is due more to total lack of knowledge and not outright denial. I always thought that the symptoms of HSV2 were blatant, hidious sores, pain, foaming at the mouth ect... .when in actuality they can be very subtle. > No, I disagree with at least one and you've missed mine...several of them > in fact. That because you need to learn to write concisely and coherently. Gosh I get a headache everytime I read a reply of yours, and there is no malice in this statement. Try not to be so darn verbose! > Sorry that simply isnt true - several have said just that to me...others > argue the point, some more so than that idea that only a fraction are > completely asymptomatic. This is what Im trying to bring out. THe issue is > there is more to the phrase than simply this is an itch, or they havent > reported genital herpes etc. There is a working definition for a reason. Give "Underdiagnosis of genital herpes by current clinical and viral-isolation procedures" by LA Koutsky, CE Stevens, KK Holmes, RL Ashley, NB Kiviat, CW Critchlow, and L Corey a read. The article "Psychosocial Implications When Treating the Patient With Genital Herpes" surveyed people with HSV-2 and found that less than 69% of them even told their doctors anything about it! So how can one say that there is up to a 90% asymptomatic rate when 31% of people are too fearful to even tell there own doctor! > I have no doubt you will as usual introduce a bunch of qualifier about > 'what you meant' - stop making simple absolute statements if you dont want > people to take them as such - introduce the qualifiers at the start - it > makes discussion more productive. No qualifers here, just literature cited. > If you had raised the data you did and said 'What does this mean about > asymptomatics, and should it be redfined, this is what I think...' then [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > of facets on this in my reply but you seem to have either ignored them or > failed to read far enough into my post to reach 'em. Look, I'm not getting philosophical about the definition of asymptomatic. The dictionary says that asymptomatic means "not exhibiting any symptoms". I'm not arguing that it should be redefined, I'm saying that only about 20% of people with HSV-2 are truely asymptomatic, got it? The rest either have symptoms which are not classic textbook cases and are not recognized (subclinical) or the person is too afraid to even go to the doctor and just bullshits themselves, or better yet, the person knows but doesn't say anything to anybody. > Some will say what you say, some won't. My point is what 'asymptomatic' > means is a) variable depending on who you talk to, b) still discussed on > an ongoing fashion as the biology of the virus and the precise nature of > the biological effects are described better and c) going to change over > time (remembr it used to not be considered an option at all - OK a long > time ago but its a point). No, you are conflating "asymptomatic" and "subclinical". In asymptomatic people, they TOTALLY lack any symptoms of herpes, by definition. The subclinical diagnoses are changing due to technology, improved diagnostic methods and training, etc. > Larry Corey, who defined the whole 'train and they can see it' made that > point inthe discussion of one paper I cited...you also just added the word [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > not trained enough etc (focus on the how do you define and not the 20% - > because the question is relevant whatever the percentage). > Part of symptomology is not just spotting an effect, but differentially > using it. Part of the problem with the whole training issue, and one of > the major counters to separating these people before the training is that > there is no detailing of a differential that can be used prior to the > diagnosis - at that point you dont have adetectable symptomology. I have > no doubt it may change. Read what I wrote above about the difference between aymptomatic and subclinical. > Clearly??? No sorry I have to disagree - Id put knowledge or rather lack > of it in there. The training of identification experiments didnt really > seem to be heavily confounded by false reporting, but did change counting > with knowledge. One word, bullshit. When only 69% of people can tell their DOCTOR that they think they might have HSV-2, clearly psychosocial implications impart a major problem. Of course there is always going to be misdiagnoses and underdiagnoses. But even more frequently, there's always going to be people who stick their heads in the sand and won't even tell their doctors. > Oh that I can agree with and there are undoubtedly people who do this - > both with and without a diagnosis. I just dont think there is evidence > that it is the major feature. Lack of knowledge rings truer to me- > particularly from Corey's work. I gave you the evidence above from "Psychosocial..." go read it yourself. > To fit your model you have to a) redefine asymptomatic to what it not > defined as at the moment and also add a bunch of qualifier and b) put a > lot of human intent into the model which you have zero evidence for in > contrast to, for instance, not noticing or not knowing. Again, read above where I point out how you are conflating asymptomatic and subclinical. See what I mean about being verbose? This is like the 2nd time I've said "see above where I..." I'm going to record Bill O'Reilly telling his audience to be pithy and not bloviate and add to it "be CONCISE" and mail it to you! LOL ~Eric >> No, I disagree with at least one and you've missed mine...several of them >> in fact. > > That because you need to learn to write concisely and coherently. Gosh > I get a headache everytime I read a reply of yours, and there is no > malice in this statement. Try not to be so darn verbose! Yes I know I can get wordy, Im trying to get everything over in one go and I tend to fall the side of wordiness as bald statements have all to often turned round and bit me on the a.s in the lab...OTOH in the same spirit Ill return with the opinion that you need to stop making absolute statements and expecting not to get picked up on the precise details, because you then dont write enough. Conciseness is good, cutting out context from the short statement is bad as it puts over an apparently different view to what you might be thinking in what are actually very complicated concepts with hairsbreadth differences that one owrd can make large differences. Yes I know...wordy. Im not gonna argue that I am not wordy. Actually while Ive written a lot here I think there are two questions I ask you towards the end that might actually roll us forward a lot in what you are trying to say... >> Sorry that simply isnt true - several have said just that to me...others >> argue the point, some more so than that idea that only a fraction are [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > viral-isolation procedures" by LA Koutsky, CE Stevens, KK Holmes, RL > Ashley, NB Kiviat, CW Critchlow, and L Corey a read. Yes this still has the majority of infected people not exhibiting symptoms. It lists 22% as being symptomatic - thats 78% asymptomatics. > The article "Psychosocial Implications When Treating the Patient With > Genital Herpes" surveyed people with HSV-2 and found that less than 69% > of them even told their doctors anything about it! So how can one say > that there is up to a 90% asymptomatic rate when 31% of people are too > fearful to even tell there own doctor! Full cite please - no authors means thats not coming up in Pubmed. Umm also sounds like a percentage of the people who know they have lesions not telling their doctor - this isnt the same as a population sample in a research study who are not going to be able to hide it and also have the benefit of anonymity. >> I have no doubt you will as usual introduce a bunch of qualifier about >> 'what you meant' - stop making simple absolute statements if you dont want >> people to take them as such - introduce the qualifiers at the start - it >> makes discussion more productive. > > No qualifers here, just literature cited. Yes Ive cited papers fromt he same authors that contradict it though. Suggesting there is more to the information than what you are suggesting. > Look, I'm not getting philosophical about the definition of > asymptomatic. The dictionary says that asymptomatic means "not > exhibiting any symptoms". > I'm not arguing that it should be redefined, > I'm saying that only about 20% of people with HSV-2 are truely > asymptomatic, got it? Yes Im citing later literature byt he same authors that contradicts it, plus data by other authors eg Sizemore et al, 2006 J Inf Dis vol 193, p905-911. There is makes a statement that 82.2% had ONLY antibody evidence of infection - that despite listing a number of symptomatic people also shedding virus. Your cited literature had a bunch of people found to be HSV2 positive - and then having it shoved in their faces a numberof them start reporting symptoms. One problem with this is that it did NOT control for the stress of the diagnosis and subsequent self examination. Another is that it requires hindsight and does not deal with the 'blind' population, who both the authors of the data you cited and others continue to find infected but non-symptomatic in the 80+ region. My point here is that the data you are citing isnt (in my opinion, of course and this is where we differ) sying what you say is it saying. I think the authors themselves agree, because they make statements to that effect in later papers (again I have cited them). As a side note - you introduce the word 'truely' as a qualifier - you have done this before - its potentially a massively significant qualifier - since it steps away from conventional definition but adds a lot of extra connotation, particularly the way its used in conversation by people in the field...don't answer here yet there's a bit later on in the post where its relevant. > The rest either have symptoms which are not > classic textbook cases and are not recognized (subclinical) For subclinial read asymptomatic, for symptoms they mean the same thing. The difference with subclinical is that it recognises biological activity much more. Which kind of fits herpes. > No, you are conflating "asymptomatic" and "subclinical". Erm why not - at the point of defining symptomology they cover exactly the same area. Both require no detected clinical signs (ie symptoms). A symptoms is by definition a clinical event. > In asymptomatic people, they TOTALLY lack any symptoms of herpes, by > definition. Yes and Im citing papers which state that in their dataset, these conflict with and argue against. > The subclinical diagnoses are changing due to technology, > improved diagnostic methods and training, etc. Diagnostic tests such a PCR and antibody tests do NOT pick up clinical symptoms, they do not make a person symptomatic. How you are defining these two terms does raise one significant question, I have to ask (and here is the point to reintorduce the term truely asymptomatic). There is one view out there that viral shedding should itself be considered a symptom. Its a minority view, not because people think shedding doesnt mean anything but because there is a long standing separation of biological activity and clinical activity for the purposes of pratising medicine that controls the mental boxes used in the attached research. People in this camp view asymptomatics as a very very tiny number (Ive had comments of 'Well basically asymptomatic doesnt exist' to 'well there'll be a few true carriers out there but very few, in most its active'). It strikes me that this is the viewpoint closest to what you are espousing. So in my typical wordy fashion the questions I ask are... Would you consider shedding a symptom personally? If you are looking for true asymptomatics why not include shedding - because if thats remotely similar to the point you are trying to make then you havent gone far enough and you ought to be using the phrase 'truely asymptomatic' more. >> of it in there. The training of identification experiments didnt really >> seem to be heavily confounded by false reporting, but did change counting [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > they think they might have HSV-2, clearly psychosocial implications > impart a major problem. Thats 69% who get symtoms only interacting with the healthcare system. Thats underreporting of disease incidence NOT cutting chunks out of the random populations in research studies. You are mixing apples and oranges. The paper you cite is a social issue, and a problem in getting people treated and while it raises massively significant issue for the handling of HSV disease is not revealing some flaw in blind research study figures. Tim -- When playing rugby, its not the winning that counts, but the taking apart ICQ: 5178568 > Yes I know I can get wordy, Im trying to get everything over in one > go and I tend to fall the side of wordiness as bald statements have [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Yes I know...wordy. Im not gonna argue that I am not wordy. First, I'm glad to see that you realize that you tend to be verbose. While I understand the danger in making absolute statements, I don't believe I ever said that nobody at all is ever asymptomatic or simply mistakes their symptoms due to lack of knowledge. Rather, I said many less than 90% of people with HSV-2 actually totally lack symptoms of HSV-2. As I pointed out, 31% of people are afraid to even disclose their symptoms to a physician. > Yes this still has the majority of infected people not exhibiting > symptoms. It lists 22% as being symptomatic - thats 78% asymptomatics. Huh? LOL. About 22% of the population has HSV-2. That doesn't mean that the other 78% of the population is necessarily asymptomatic, rather they don't have the virus at all. > Full cite please - no authors means thats not coming up in Pubmed. Umm > also sounds like a percentage of the people who know they have lesions not > telling their doctor - this isnt the same as a population sample in a > research study who are not going to be able to hide it and also have the > benefit of anonymity. Here it is: http://www.herpes-foundation.org/download/AHF%20On-Line%20Oct%202002%20.pdf#sear ch=%22Psychosocial%20Implications%20Genital%20Herpes%2069%25%22 > Yes Ive cited papers fromt he same authors that contradict it though. > Suggesting there is more to the information than what you are suggesting. No, it just shows that you need to be more careful in reading what the authors have to say. Since Corey, Wald and others wrote the article above, I don't think these authors are contradicting themselves. > Yes Im citing later literature byt he same authors that contradicts it, > plus data by other authors eg Sizemore et al, 2006 J Inf Dis vol 193, > p905-911. There is makes a statement that 82.2% had ONLY antibody evidence > of infection - that despite listing a number of symptomatic people also > shedding virus. Sizemore always says "Of the 516 men enrolled, 465 (90%) were African American." not to mention the conclusion of merely "Genital HSV infections are common and largely unrecognized among this segment of the population". I'm going with Corey on this one. > Your cited literature had a bunch of people found to be HSV2 positive - > and then having it shoved in their faces a numberof them start reporting [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > both the authors of the data you cited and others continue to find > infected but non-symptomatic in the 80+ region. Just simply look at the article that Corey and Wald wrote I have above. Read the fact that 31% won't even tell their doctors and then don't ever utter "HSV-2 is 90% asymptomatic" in your life...LOL > As a side note - you introduce the word 'truely' as a qualifier - you have > done this before - its potentially a massively significant qualifier - > since it steps away from conventional definition but adds a lot of extra > connotation, particularly the way its used in conversation by > people in the field...don't answer here yet there's a bit later on in the > post where its relevant. I use truely because your definition of asymptomatic is false. A person who is asymptomatic is a person who is, by definition, without symptoms. NOT a person who is too embarrassed to tell or someone who recognizes less than textbook symptoms and bullshits themself. > For subclinial read asymptomatic, for symptoms they mean the same thing. > The difference with subclinical is that it recognises biological activity > much more. Which kind of fits herpes. Wrong. Subclinical = "Not manifesting characteristic clinical symptoms". I just told you what asymptomatic means. > Erm why not - at the point of defining symptomology they cover exactly the > same area. Both require no detected clinical signs (ie symptoms). A > symptoms is by definition a clinical event. Wrong again. Subclinical involves no CHARACTERISTIC symptoms. Many people with HSV-2 are subclinical, few are asymptomatic. > Yes and Im citing papers which state that in their dataset, these > conflict with and argue against. No, all due respect, you're not because you are thoroughly confused on what asymptomatic even means. > There is one view out there that viral shedding should itself be > considered a symptom. Its a minority view, not because people think [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > 'well there'll be a few true carriers out there but very few, in most its > active'). Again, many more people are subclinical than asymptomatic. > Would you consider shedding a symptom personally? If you are looking for > true asymptomatics why not include shedding - because if thats remotely > similar to the point you are trying to make then you havent gone far > enough and you ought to be using the phrase 'truely asymptomatic' more. Of course shedding is not a symptom. Why do you think we call it "asymptomatic shedding", just because it sounds good? LOL > Thats 69% who get symtoms only interacting with the healthcare system. > Thats underreporting of disease incidence NOT cutting chunks out of the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > handling of HSV disease is not revealing some flaw in blind research > study figures. Finally! You said it! It's underreporting of disease! Too many people circulate the talking point "well up to 90% of people are asymptomatic for HSV-2". Bullshit! The girl who gave me my oral herpes didn't admit to getting cold sores. I am supposed to then say she's "asymptomatic" because she doesn't know or care that what she has is HSV-1? Hell no! LOL. She knew there was something wrong with her lip, she just said it was a "cracked lip". Likewise, should the 31% of people too ashamed to go to their own doctors get a free pass under the guise of being "asymptomatic"? I bet you can't answer that question! ~Eric |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.