 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Herpes / October 2006Infect yourself with Herpes?
If someone's partner has Herpes, and there is thus a likely chance that one may contract the virus, would it make sense to purposefully infect oneself in a small place on the arm, so that one would develop antibodies, and not end up with a bigger infection? Also, further down the road, one would not have herpes on their genitals or mouth, and would thus be unable to further infect someone else. ------------- http://www.herpes.com/hsv1-2.html > If someone's partner has Herpes, and there is thus a likely chance > that one may contract the virus, would it make sense to purposefully > infect oneself in a small place on the arm, so that one would develop > antibodies, and not end up with a bigger infection? No. If you infect your arm then you will likely develop sores on your arm which you would be able to also spread to other areas, for instance to your mouth, or to other people. If you just live life, chances are you'll get HSV-1 orally sooner or later. Until that time, just use common sense protective measures to protect yourself and your partners. > Also, further down the road, one would not have herpes on their > genitals or mouth, and would thus be unable to further infect someone > else. Not true. If you have an HSV-1 infection, this does NOT protect against an HSV-2 infection and vice-versa > > If someone's partner has Herpes, and there is thus a likely chance > > that one may contract the virus, would it make sense to purposefully [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > No. If you infect your arm then you will likely develop sores on your > arm which you would be able to also spread to other areas, The point is to infect one small little place such as on the back of the forearm. Keep it covered when it breaks out, maybe even all the time until you have anti-bodies and can't infect yourself any longer. > for instance to your mouth, or to other people. How would it spread to your mouth or other people!? Only if you or they were sucking on your arm! > If you just live life, chances are > you'll get HSV-1 orally sooner or later. Until that time, just use [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Not true. If you have an HSV-1 infection, this does NOT protect against > an HSV-2 infection and vice-versa That wasn't my suggestion. After first testing yourself for both HSV-1 and HSV-2 antibodies, you would have to infect yourself with both viruses. One on each arm. Then you would not be able to sexually contract or transmit these diseases. ------------- http://www.herpes.com/hsv1-2.html > The point is to infect one small little place such as on the back of > the forearm. > > Keep it covered when it breaks out, maybe even all the time until you > have anti-bodies and can't infect yourself any longer. No, that's not how it would work out. The herpes simplex virus resides in the ganglia at the top or base of the spine depending on which type you have. It's not going to somehow hang out at the location of the outbreak. So no, it wouldn't work out that way. Angela http://yoshi2me.com > The point is to infect one small little place such as on the back of > the forearm. You are out of your depth. Ever heard of the circulatory system? -jcr If you were to infect yourself on the arm, you would still have herpes, still have to tell your partner, still have outbreaks--which could be just as bad as oral or genital outbreaks. You'd have to figure out how to keep from infecting people you come in contact with as you probably touch more people with your hands in a day than you do with your lips or genitals. The virus is unpredictable and you would not necessarily have your outbreaks just on your arm; it could be either arm, or any other location where those nerves go--hands, fingers, shoulder, neck, who knows where else? ar > If someone's partner has Herpes, and there is thus a likely chance > that one may contract the virus, would it make sense to purposefully [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > ------------- > http://www.herpes.com/hsv1-2.html > If you were to infect yourself on the arm, you would still have herpes, > still have to tell your partner, still have outbreaks--which could be just > as bad as oral or genital outbreaks. But the outbreaks would only be on your arm, and only in one little place. They would not be on your mouth or genitals, nor would you risked having an extensive infection. For instance, a mouth or genital infection may be small or large. In this case you would be able to ensure a tiny infection, and not one that covered a large area. You'd have to figure out how to keep > from infecting people you come in contact with as you probably touch more > people with your hands in a day than you do with your lips or genitals. HSV only spreads to mucous membranes such as mouth, genitals, eyes, and broken skin. If you had a tiny infection on the back of each forearm, you would run much less of a risk of infecting someone. The > virus is unpredictable and you would not necessarily have your outbreaks > just on your arm; it could be either arm, or any other location where those > nerves go--hands, fingers, shoulder, neck, who knows where else? This would be a cause for concern. However I am not sure this is accurate. Generally the virus appears only where the infection occured. ------------- http://www.herpes.com/hsv1-2.html > ar > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > ------------- > > http://www.herpes.com/hsv1-2.html You didn't read the article that you sent the URL to, did you? >> If you were to infect yourself on the arm, you would still have herpes, >> still have to tell your partner, still have outbreaks--which could be [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] >> > ------------- >> > http://www.herpes.com/hsv1-2.html > You didn't read the article that you sent the URL to, did you? No, I did. What are you refering to? ------------- http://www.herpes.com/hsv1-2.html Haven't you been here before asking this same question? Your understanding of the virus is really not very good; as evidenced by this statement: > This would be a cause for concern. However I am not sure this is > accurate. Generally the virus appears only where the infection > occured. Oh not so. The virus can hit any location serviced by the nerve bundle it resides in. Genital herpes outbreaks are on the genitals, thights, butt, sometimes near the waist, some people have outbreaks around their knees. I get prodrome all the way on the bottom of my foot. Oral herpes can hit anywhere on the face. Anywhere that nerve bundle goes, the virus goes. You assumptions is very incorrect. You should talk to some people with herpes whitlow to truly understand how complicated it can be having herpes on your extremeties. You can still autoinoculate yourself and spread the virus to other parts of your body. If something goes wrong with your immune system, you could still have a pretty darn awful outbreak. ar >> If you were to infect yourself on the arm, you would still have herpes, >> still have to tell your partner, still have outbreaks--which could be [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] >> > ------------- >> > http://www.herpes.com/hsv1-2.html > Haven't you been here before asking this same question? Your understanding > of the virus is really not very good; as evidenced by this statement: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > sometimes near the waist, some people have outbreaks around their knees. I > get prodrome all the way on the bottom of my foot. Hmm... isn't it also true that the virus mostly occurs where the infection occurs? For instance if you wear a condom, chances are better the infection won't appear in the area covered by the condom, but will only appear where the thin skin of your genitals rubbed your partners? > Oral herpes can hit anywhere on the face. But normally only hits mucous membranes where the virus entered... > Anywhere that nerve bundle goes, the virus goes. You assumptions is very > incorrect. So perhaps it would be possible to find a small nerve bundle on the body and infect that? Your below comments are irrelevant to the discussion at hand yet I will address them to show why. > You should talk to some people with herpes whitlow to truly > understand how complicated it can be having herpes on your extremeties. But I suggested infecting neither cuticles nor extremities. Unless you care to elaborate on complications relevant to my suggestion. > You can still autoinoculate yourself and spread the virus to other parts of > your body. Only until you develop antibodies. > If something goes wrong with your immune system, you could still have a > pretty darn awful outbreak. True, but if your significant other already has the virus and chances are high you are going to contract it anyway... > ar > [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > >> > ------------- > >> > http://www.herpes.com/hsv1-2.html >> If something goes wrong with your immune system, you could still have a >> pretty darn awful outbreak. > > True, but if your significant other already has the virus and chances > are high you are going to contract it anyway... If your significant other is a responsible human being, she'd avoid sex with you when she knows she has an outbreak or knows one is imminent. I had a girlfriend for over a year who had herpes and she never passed it to me because she acted responsibly. >>> If something goes wrong with your immune system, you could still have a >>> pretty darn awful outbreak. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > to > me because she acted responsibly. LOL! "Not tonight, dear; I have a blister."  Signature--Rich Recommended websites: http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles http://www.acahf.org.au http://www.quackwatch.org/ http://www.skeptic.com/ http://www.csicop.org/ >>>> If something goes wrong with your immune system, you could still have a >>>> pretty darn awful outbreak. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > LOL! "Not tonight, dear; I have a blister." Actually, she had genital herpes so there were other things we could do on those nights. >> True, but if your significant other already has the virus and chances >> are high you are going to contract it anyway... [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > I had a girlfriend for over a year who had herpes Alex has to settle for that type of risk. SignatureMoney is not "game." Looks are not "game." Social status or value is not "game." Those are the things that game makes unnecessary. A seduction guru who teaches you that looks, money or status is game is not teaching you "game," but how to be an AFC. He uses his students' money to get women and laughs that "loser AFCs pay my rent." >>> True, but if your significant other already has the virus and chances >>> are high you are going to contract it anyway... [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Alex has to settle for that type of risk. \ You may not believe this but you can have sex with a girl and not get it....I don't advise it, but. BN >>>> True, but if your significant other already has the virus and chances >>>> are high you are going to contract it anyway... [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> >> Alex has to settle for that type of risk. After your comments the other day about a GM in chess, I'm not surprised at that comment. It's typical of one of low class, questionable breeding, and low intelligence IMHO. The fact is you have no idea what Alex even looks like. Half the population is divorced. Of course you can't ever hit a home run if you are never at bat can you? > You may not believe this but you can have sex with a girl and not get > it....I don't advise it, but. Some people are a.sholes enough to continue to spread this even after they know that they have it. Condoms are not effective against it, as it's spread by skin contact, not intercourse. It's possible to have sex with someone that has it and not get it, however you are playing Russian Roulette, and I would strongly advise against it. In the average club, one out of 4 people has it. Gives one pause...... >>>> True, but if your significant other already has the virus and chances >>>> are high you are going to contract it anyway... [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > BN It is my understanding that some STDs are more difficult for a man to contract from a woman than it is a woman contracting it from a man (i.e., HIV/AIDs). In terms of male homosexuality, it is generally through anal sex that the virus is contract. Anyways, this is way out of my area of knowledge or experience. Jena >>> True, but if your significant other already has the virus and chances >>> are high you are going to contract it anyway... [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Alex has to settle for that type of risk. Wasn't much of a risk since she acted responsibly. Unlike the slag who gave it to you. So who's settling for that type of risk again? > Hmm... isn't it also true that the virus mostly occurs where the > infection occurs? For instance if you wear a condom, chances are > better the infection won't appear in the area covered by the condom, > but will only appear where the thin skin of your genitals rubbed your > partners? No, that isn't necessarily true. There is no all or nothing with herpes. That's all we want you to see. You could assume you are going to help yourself and end up really hurting yourself. The virus will take the path of least resistance to the surface of the skin. There are people who have outbreaks all over the possible area and others who always have their outbreak in the same spot. >> Oral herpes can hit anywhere on the face. > > But normally only hits mucous membranes where the virus entered... Normally, yes. But you can't count on it. There are people who have very extreme cases and you never know how your body is going to react. > So perhaps it would be possible to find a small nerve bundle on the > body and infect that? How would you do that? > Your below comments are irrelevant to the discussion at hand yet I will > address them to show why. They aren't irrelevant at all. >> You should talk to some people with herpes whitlow to truly >> understand how complicated it can be having herpes on your extremeties. > > But I suggested infecting neither cuticles nor extremities. Unless you > care to elaborate on complications relevant to my suggestion. But you are talking about infecting a part of the body that is not usually infected. So talk to people who have gone through that to find out what to expect. Nothing irrelevant in that. It's just common sense. >> You can still autoinoculate yourself and spread the virus to other parts >> of >> your body. > > Only until you develop antibodies. Or, unless you get the flu. Or some other thing happens to you that lowers your immune system. And it takes a year to two years to build up enough antibodies to keep yourself from reinfecting yourself. >> If something goes wrong with your immune system, you could still have a >> pretty darn awful outbreak. > > True, but if your significant other already has the virus and chances > are high you are going to contract it anyway... No, not really. My husband of 17 years didn't get herpes. And if your significant other uses Valtrex on a daily basis, then your chances are even more slim. ar >> ar >> [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] >> >> > ------------- >> >> > http://www.herpes.com/hsv1-2.html > But the outbreaks would only be on your arm, and only in one little > place. Dude, just SHUT YOUR STUPID HOLE. You have NO IDEA what you're talking about. Go talk to a qualified medical professional before you make a mistake that will seriously f.ck up your life. -jcr It would only make sense if you were a total idiot. So why don't you take your herpes somewhere besides alt.seduction.fast You have access to the internet, obviously. You still don't understand the mechanism of this virus besides being so comfortable with discussing the theory behind immunising yourself. Troll somewhere else > If someone's partner has Herpes, and there is thus a likely chance > that one may contract the virus, would it make sense to purposefully [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > ------------- > http://www.herpes.com/hsv1-2.html > If someone's partner has Herpes, and there is thus a likely chance > that one may contract the virus, would it make sense to purposefully > infect oneself in a small place on the arm, so that one would develop > antibodies, and not end up with a bigger infection? No, that wouldn't make sense at all. Angela http://yoshi2me.com > would it make sense to purposefully > infect oneself in a small place on the arm, so that one would develop > antibodies, and not end up with a bigger infection? Dude, You are talking about DELIBERATELY infecting yourself with a pathogen that causes a chronic disease. Don't be stupid. Immunization is not a do-it-yourself project. -jcr |
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.