 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Herpes / June 2004How the hell do you guys date?
I rarely find girls to date as it is. If I test positive for this I have no idea how the hell I'd ever date again. I mean, "wait for marrige" would almost be a given I guess. Do you have dating groups and whatnot? I haven't been on a date in 3 years so this really isn't going to help. lol I dated a girl once and on the 3rd date she told me she had it. I was suprised but said "ok, no bigg deal." but I told her I wouldn't sleep with her until I knew we had a pretty serious relationship going. I didn't want to take the risk unless I really thought our relationship was going somewhere. Basically, she dumped me for not putting out... HA! I should add that "you guys" will most likely be changed to "us guys" fairly soon... lol > I rarely find girls to date as it is. If I test positive for this I have no > idea how the hell I'd ever date again. I mean, "wait for marrige" would [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > to take the risk unless I really thought our relationship was going > somewhere. Basically, she dumped me for not putting out... HA! >I rarely find girls to date as it is. If I test positive for this I have no >idea how the hell I'd ever date again. I mean, "wait for marrige" would >almost be a given I guess. Do you have dating groups and whatnot? I haven't >been on a date in 3 years so this really isn't going to help. lol Yeah, dating groups are good. There's a couple or three good ones that let you pick your disease! Neat, huh? But the truth is, I've gotten more come-ons from women since I put myself "off limits" than before I knew for sure I had this thing. It seems that the old truism works: when you stop looking for it (or decide you can't have it even if you find it) then the ladies start lining up. So to speak. Everyone I've met in real life (as opposed to the dating sites) has been very receptive to being told. It seems that honesty is a highly prized commodity. It shows you care, that you're responsible, that it's not all about you. Even if you're dying inside. ;-) But seriously, it really works as a way to find out who has a brain, what their level of interest really is, and how they react to things that maybe aren't quite kewl. It's better to find out some of these things sooner, rather than twenty years down the road when your eye droops and the hair pops out of your nose. The one dating site I know about from personal experience is: http://www.mpwh.net/ It's commercial, so you need to invest to be able to write people, but it's a large community, and growing all the time. Other people will probably provide links to other sites here shortly. >I dated a girl once and on the 3rd date she told me she had it. I was >suprised but said "ok, no bigg deal." but I told her I wouldn't sleep with >her until I knew we had a pretty serious relationship going. I didn't want >to take the risk unless I really thought our relationship was going >somewhere. Basically, she dumped me for not putting out... HA! I believe it. Now you can look her up again and tell her you're ready. Good luck, and take care, Mike Ya well, my problem is I attract 'ditzy' girls. I have no idea why, that's just what I get. It never bothered me too much... I couldn't discuss my love of partical physics with them, but they're fun to take to a movie and always show plenty of effection. But I'm going to have to find a pretty brainy girl if she's going to actually put up with this. All this is assuming I have HSV which I very well may not. I'm a republican, but for once I'm wishing that national healthcare thing had been passed! lol Have you ever been tested specifically for herpes simplex virus? Angela :) www.yoshi2me.com > I rarely find girls to date as it is. If I test positive for this I have no > idea how the hell I'd ever date again. I mean, "wait for marrige" would [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > to take the risk unless I really thought our relationship was going > somewhere. Basically, she dumped me for not putting out... HA! Not yet, I gotta find a new job so I have insurance. I was layed off about 3 weeks ago. Don't worry, I haven't been on a date in nearly 3 years so I'll not be infecting anyone else even if I do have it. I've had very mild symptoms on and off for about 5 years (4 - 8 pimple like bumps, maybe itching) and have gone to the doctor 4x but always got the "You'd know if you had it" line. Now that I know there's a blood test I'll just go get one of those. The thing that really convinced me this time was flue like symptoms the day before. I NEVER get the flue. I'm imune or something... so it was really strange to have the symptoms. > Have you ever been tested specifically for herpes simplex virus? > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > to take the risk unless I really thought our relationship was going > > somewhere. Basically, she dumped me for not putting out... HA! Tell your doctor that you want a herpes type-1 and herpes type-2 antibody testing using type specific serology. That should help - Angela : ) www.yoshi2me.com I already know I have type 1, I've had it since I was a little kid. I get a single blister on my lip about once a year. That shnazy new anti-viral cream they sell at the drugstore works wonders. A lot of people are embarressed about type-1 and I just don't understand why. I mean, with type-2 at least you can generally say sex was involved... which is still kind of a taboo subject... but type-1? I mean really! It's a damned coldsore for gods sakes! anyways, I'm just concerned about type-2 right now, it's not the fact that I might have that's so bad. Or the fact I'll have to tell any prospective girlfriends. In fact, it's almost a good thing. It would effectively eliminate casual sex from my life, one less temptation. The problem is the inevitable question that comes after I tell them about it... "How did you get it?" I'm a different person than I was 5 years ago. Vastly different. I was an imoral, self centered, alchaholic, drug addict and womanizer. Through shear will I tore myself away from that horse sh.t of a life and re-made myself into a new and better person. I quit Drugs, alchahol and cigarettes all on the same day and stayed off. The attitude I had about women took a little longer, but I came around. The calliber of people I'd be willing to date now is quite different than the people that I dated then. The type of person I'd date now would consider the "Old me" a horrible person. My past is not something I like to re-live, and something I really would rather not explain to someone whos respect I value. My ideal mate would be a woman that had gone through a similar period in her life. Unfortunately, women don't really like to tell you about such things. I'm 28 years old and I feel like I was just born, but my viability as a life partner is quickly waining. After 35 your chances of getting married are almost nill. I worry. But such is life... ya? > I already know I have type 1, I've had it since I was a little kid. I get a > single blister on my lip about once a year. Well then . . . that means that you have oral herpes. You already knew that though . . . right? > That shnazy new anti-viral cream > they sell at the drugstore works wonders. A lot of people are embarressed > about type-1 and I just don't understand why. I mean, with type-2 at least > you can generally say sex was involved... which is still kind of a taboo > subject... but type-1? I mean really! It's a damned coldsore for gods sakes! Yes, but type-1 can be oral herpes or genital herpes depending on the location. You knew that though . . . right? > anyways, I'm just concerned about type-2 right now, it's not the fact that I > might have that's so bad. Or the fact I'll have to tell any prospective > girlfriends. In fact, it's almost a good thing. It would effectively > eliminate casual sex from my life, one less temptation. The problem is the > inevitable question that comes after I tell them about it... "How did you > get it?" You obviously didn't know that genital herpes can be type-1 and not always type-2. Best Wishes - Angela : ) www.yoshi2me.com > I rarely find girls to date as it is. If I test positive for this I have no > idea how the hell I'd ever date again. I mean, "wait for marrige" would [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > to take the risk unless I really thought our relationship was going > somewhere. Basically, she dumped me for not putting out... HA! I am dating, as do folks that are not aware of them having herpes, are dating. Since at least 80% of people have been infected, there are waaaay more chances for me to get reinfected, than myself to reinfect someone else. Not talking about other diseases that exist out there. Gee, that's scary... Perl Molson. > Since at least 80% of people have been infected, > there are waaaay more chances for me to get reinfected, than myself to > reinfect someone else. What on Earth are you talking about? Once you get herpes - you keep it. You don't keep getting herpes over and over again. Angela : ) www.yoshi2me.com > > Since at least 80% of people have been infected, > > there are waaaay more chances for me to get reinfected, than myself to [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Angela : ) > www.yoshi2me.com Sure you can be reinfected. Why do you think it is recommended to get rid of your toothbrush (or keep it in alcohol solutions)? Exactly for that very reason: of getting reinfected. On top of that, not all folks have the same viruses; some can be different by even a little bit. Some viruses can outsmart the prescription drugs. So that means those viruses have a different constitution. Its obvious, once you get in contact with those viruses you will become "reinfected". Once you have herpes, you have it. You can't get it again in the same location. The herpes virus can't survive on your toothbrush, by the way. The reason you are supposed to get change your toothbrush frequently is more concern for bacteria. ar > > > Since at least 80% of people have been infected, > > > there are waaaay more chances for me to get reinfected, than myself to [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > contact with > those viruses you will become "reinfected". > Once you have herpes, you have it. You can't get it again in the same > location. The herpes virus can't survive on your toothbrush, by the way. > The reason you are supposed to get change your toothbrush frequently is more > concern for bacteria. > > ar No, you don't seem to get it; the herpes virus can live on a toothbrush. Nothing to do with the bacteria. It's about the herpes virus I will try to bring some proof from a lab research or smth. Perl Molson > > "Angela S." <yoshi2me@zippety-doo-dah.com> wrote in message > news:<6kCpc.29348$5a.4411@okepread03>... [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > contact with > > those viruses you will become "reinfected". No Perl, you don't get it. The "study" you showed (was it selling the sanitizer?) is not proof that herpes viruses live on toothbrushes. It was showing that the sanitizer killed the virus. These are two very different things. The herpes virus is very delicate once it is outside the body. It needs a very controlled environment in order to survive. Damp and warm. And still, it will only survive for a short time. Therefore, you can not get herpes from a toothbrush unless you take that toothbrush immediately from someone who is contagious for oral herpes and immediately use it. Which, quite frankly, is gross. You also can't get herpes from toilet seats or from using someone else's towel. ar > > Once you have herpes, you have it. You can't get it again in the same > > location. The herpes virus can't survive on your toothbrush, by the way. [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > > contact with > > > those viruses you will become "reinfected". The study tells, that, (I will quote): "Both viruses were consistently retained on non-treated toothbrushes for at least 24 hours." What do you understand by "consistently retained"? Perl Molson > No Perl, you don't get it. The "study" you showed (was it selling the > sanitizer?) is not proof that herpes viruses live on toothbrushes. It was [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > > > > contact with > > > > those viruses you will become "reinfected". Ok - now I'm laughing at your post! Tell me Perl - as I continue to sit here and chuckle . . . How were they possibly able to "consistently" keep the herpes alive on an object for 24 hours. Ha - Ha - Ha - Ha - THAT is the funniest thing I have ever heard of in the entire seven years that I have been on the internet reading troll-crapola. Angela :) www.yoshi2me.com > The study tells, that, (I will quote): > "Both viruses were consistently retained on non-treated [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Perl Molson The herpes virus does not survive on objects for very long. You can't get herpes from a toothbrush. You need to go over your transmission facts by reading the updated herpes handbook over on www.westoverheights.com. Angela www.yoshi2me.com > Once you have herpes, you have it. You can't get it again in the same > location. The herpes virus can't survive on your toothbrush, by the way. > The reason you are supposed to get change your toothbrush frequently is more > concern for bacteria. > > ar OK, here: 1: J Okla Dent Assoc. 1994 Spring;84(4):24-8. Related Articles, Links The effectiveness of a u-v toothbrush sanitizing device in reducing the number of bacteria, yeasts and viruses on toothbrushes. Glass RT, Jensen HG. Department of Oral Pathology, University of Oklahoma College of Dentistry. Sixty-six sterile toothbrushes were exposed to one of the following microorganisms: Staphylococcus aureus, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Escherichia coli, Bacillis subtilis, Serratia marcescens and Baker's yeast. The Pollenex DS60 Daily Dental Sanitizer was found to be effective in substantially reducing the number of retained bacteria and yeasts as compared to contaminated toothbrushes not treated with such a device. Different toothbrush types had different response rates. Seventy-two sterile toothbrushes were exposed to Herpes Simplex Virus, Type I and seventy-two sterile toothbrushes were exposed to Parainfluenza Virus, Type III. The Pollenex DS60 Daily Dental Sanitizer consistently killed both viruses on all of the toothbrushes treated. Both viruses were consistently retained on non-treated toothbrushes for at least 24 hours. PMID: 7931767 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstra ct&list_uids=7931767 > > "Angela S." <yoshi2me@zippety-doo-dah.com> wrote in message > news:<6kCpc.29348$5a.4411@okepread03>... [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > contact with > > those viruses you will become "reinfected". Perk, The article said: "Seventy-two sterile toothbrushes were exposed to Herpes Simplex Virus, Type I" Perl - what does that mean when the article says that the toothbrushes were "exposed" to Herpes Simplex Virus, Type I?" Does it mean that they took 72 sterile toothbrushes and gave them to 72 people or 1 person that has oral herpes type-1 so they could expose the toothbrush to herpes? Does that mean that the person(s) had an active outbreak of oral herpes at the time? Is that what happened? As you know - just because you might be "exposed" to something doesn't mean you are going to get it. Furthermore - you can not contract herpes from an object. That's not how transmission works. Also - this article that you are sharing is trying to get people to use their sanitizing device. Are you planning on purchasing it? Since you believe that is how you can contract herpes you might want to pick it up. OR don't even bother at all. I don't understand why you blindly post articles if you don't even understand what you are reading. AND trying to compare apples and oranges will not convince anybody of what you want us all to believe. Angela www.yoshi2me.com HIV is different in each person that has it... Infected men are generaly not supposed to have sex with infected women because the Virus is (for some reason unknown to me) worse in women and can speed up the advance of the virus in men. It wouldn't suprise me at all if Herpes worked ina similar way. It would explain the lack of a cure. Herpes and HIV are two completely different viruses. The herpes virus should not even be compared with HIV or AIDS. It doesn't work in a similar way at all. Just my two cents - Angela :) www.yoshi2me.com > HIV is different in each person that has it... Infected men are generaly not > supposed to have sex with infected women because the Virus is (for some > reason unknown to me) worse in women and can speed up the advance of the > virus in men. It wouldn't suprise me at all if Herpes worked ina similar > way. It would explain the lack of a cure. > Herpes and HIV are two completely different viruses. The herpes virus should > not even be compared with HIV or AIDS. > It doesn't work in a similar way at all. HIV and Herpes ARE similar in many respects. I've even read comparisons of HIV and cancer... and cancer isn't even a friggen virus!!! They are obviously not the same however... HIV is obviously much worse. My point was simply, if one virus were capeable of doing something, it wouldn't be unrealistic to believe that another virus could as well. She wasn't suggesting the virus was capable of something unrealistic. Many people in this forum seem to think there are "Herpes Rules" or something. "you can't get herpes off a toothbrush" etc... Total bullshit. There are no rules. We are talking about a virus with several billion individual cells in each infected person. There are probably more copies of the Herpes virus on earth than there are insects. Each individual is slightly different than another. You can not make rules for a species that outnumbers humanity itself! 1 person may be able to hold their breath under water for 60 seconds while another could for 6 minutes. The best rule you could make would be to say "Usually humans can hold their breath for around 2 minutes." or... "It's unlikely that you'll get herpes from a toothbrush, most of the virus would die." If 1 person with the virus were living with someone that did not have it... I would say that sharing toothbrushes wouldn't be something they should bother risking. Toothbrushes are cheap. So screw it, buy another one. Buying a new toothbrush every time you get a cold sore? A tad extremist... but hell, if it makes you feel better. I mean, one of the best cures is Relaxation right? So if it gives you a little peace of mind to buy a new toothbrush every 3 weeks, buy a friggen toothbrush. >HIV and Herpes ARE similar in many respects. None of significance though. They're both viruses They can both be transmitted sexually. They both come with a social stigma attached although even the stigmas are different (aids, unbelievably, still has a "gay" element). After that, the differences start to really pile up. One causes a rash in about 10%-20% of the people infected. The other destroys immune systems resulting in death in many cases. Saying they're "similar in many respects" is like saying a mouse and an elephant are similar because they're both mammals. >My point was >simply, if one virus were capeable of doing something, it wouldn't be >unrealistic to believe that another virus could as well. That's as unrealistic as saying a mouse and an elephant have the same capabilities. >She wasn't >suggesting the virus was capable of something unrealistic. Pardon me for changing the subject, but is Perl is a "she"? I haven't seen Perl say one way or the other. M2 > >HIV and Herpes ARE similar in many respects. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Saying they're "similar in many respects" is like saying a mouse and > an elephant are similar because they're both mammals. That's right, probably a good comparison to say the minimal. I heared of someone with AIDS having access to the best treatment in the world (over 500,000 US $ a year), and having cronic diareea for 4 years on a daily basis. I hope this example is good enough to understand there is a huge difference between the 2 viruses. > >My point was > >simply, if one virus were capeable of doing something, it wouldn't be > >unrealistic to believe that another virus could as well. Such a mutation required for one virus to be capable of doing the job of another virus is, as you can imagine, impossible. I would guess the 2 viruses differ by zillions of genes. Only one gene or RNA or what-not different would already make huge diffence. It's something like, if you would have a rock, put some dynamite in it and after the explossion to expect to see a sculpture of Mona Lisa coming out of it. > That's as unrealistic as saying a mouse and an elephant have the same > capabilities. > > >She wasn't > >suggesting the virus was capable of something unrealistic. > Pardon me for changing the subject, but is Perl is a "she"? I haven't > seen Perl say one way or the other. > > M2 I am a guy and Perl Molson is not my real name. ... Perl Molson > > Herpes and HIV are two completely different viruses. The herpes virus > should [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > Relaxation right? So if it gives you a little peace of mind to buy a new > toothbrush every 3 weeks, buy a friggen toothbrush. Toothbrushes, lipbalms, towels, etc, that is not so important to me. I would like to find out whether the virus can live in such environment and if so, implicitly it can be extended to more. Even the role of asymptomatic shedding (and much more) will diminish, considering that each virus can give "birth" to 10,000 new viruses. Perl Molson Lets put it this way... your nit-picking. Most people don't contract the virus in this way. You're very very unlikely to contract anything from a toothbrush or lipbalm or whatever. BUT, if you're obsesive compulsive and can afford lots of extra toothbrushs and towels then have at it. Buy all the toothbrushes you want. I think everyones problem in this group is they are dead set on diminishing the social stigma assosiated with this disease. Which is obviously the worst part about it. So they don't like it when people suggest things that could make people fear the disease any more than they already do. The quickest way to reduce the stigma would be to tell people "You probably already have it!" 80% of the population has type 1 and 20% has type 2. If they made testing part of your standard physical, the stigma would go away really friggen quick. > > > Herpes and HIV are two completely different viruses. The herpes virus > > should [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > Perl Molson >I think everyones problem in this group is they are dead set on diminishing >the social stigma assosiated with this disease. You see that as a problem? How can you justify the perpetuation of a stigma based on misinformation, urban myth, and phobia? >So they don't like it when people suggest things that could >make people fear the disease any more than they already do. It's not a question of liking it or not. Most of us just call 'em as we see 'em. If Chicken Little were to run in here shouting about the sky falling, we'd just point out the obvious. Get a grip! Look up! It ain't fallin'! And since Herpes phobia ranks right up there with the "Boogie Man", we get a lot of "Chicken Littles" in here. Most times it's a matter of simply explaining the facts and putting them in perspective. Why would you be opposed to that? M2 My point was simply that everyone is calling poor Perl an "Idiot" for saying something. And the thing he's saying may very well be possible. Improbable, but still possible. You shouldn't be calling him an "Idiot" It isn't cool. Especially when you're in the wrong. We all to often call the "Improbable" impossible. That's not true at all. The fact is, there is very little information on this disease out there. Doctors simply don't care about it and there's no funding. I bet they'd even have a cure within a few years if they put forth even a little effort. But they don't. So all we have is a bunch of half-assed studies done on people that were probably not all that honest with the questionnaires anyway... and a bunch of "Herbal" remedies cooked up by witch doctors. Trust me, none of us know enough about the disease to ridicule other people for providing information that we consider inaccurate. The fact of the matter is they could find out tomorrow the friggen disease is airborne... improbable... but not impossible. No comment on name calling, but the reason most of us are here is to learn and then share what we've learned with others. In the process, different interpretations of the facts are ironed out and that sometimes results in a skirmish here and there. But eventually, those of us who've been here for years can figure out who's done their homework and who's groping in the dark. So for the benefit of not only the groper but also anyone lurking who's trying to make sense of it all, we point out the holes in theories and the reasons why some ideas just won't fly. Hopefully we'll all learn something in the process. >The fact is, there is very little >information on this disease out there. The fact is, there is quite a bit of information out there. Technology hasn't reached the point of being able to do anything about some of what we know, but most of the virus life cycle is now more than just theory. >I bet they'd even have a cure within a few years if >they put forth even a little effort. But they don't. I would gladly take that bet. I don't know how you came by the idea that nobody's working on it because there's quite a bit of research being done all the time. To do it right though takes time and money. And as laymen, the more you learn about it, the more you can understand that it's not a simple thing and a cure can't happen over night no matter how much money and effort you throw at it. >So all we have is a >bunch of half-assed studies done on people that were probably not all that >honest with the questionnaires anyway... You apparently haven't read some of the abstracts. Otherwise you're opinion would be quite different. And you'd know that the most convincing data is generated from many different types of double blind studies as well as a myriad of tests. Not just a few questionnaires. >Trust me, none of us know enough about the >disease You'll have to speak for yourself as to how much you know about it. But I've come to trust a few experts in the field after learning over the years how their research is conducted and comparing the data they've generated with the end results. I've watched with interest and I can assure you, they don't pull this stuff out of thin air. Granted, there's a lot still to be learned but many facts have been established with good solid scientific research. Facts that fit together like pieces of a puzzle. >The fact of the matter is they could find out tomorrow the >friggen disease is airborne... improbable... but not impossible. Trust me, the knowledge base is established well enough now to dispel many theories that just don't fit. M2 >My point was simply that everyone is calling poor Perl an "Idiot" for saying >something. And the thing he's saying may very well be possible. Improbable, >but still possible. You shouldn't be calling him an "Idiot" It isn't cool. You may not think it's cool, but it's accurate, and that's cool in my book. >Especially when you're in the wrong. We all to often call the "Improbable" >impossible. Perl isn't concerned with the improbable or impossible. He actually thinks (or purports to think) that he's going to find a cure for Herpes via his own homeopathic purchases and his Internet research. That calls for a wry LOL. >That's not true at all. The fact is, there is very little >information on this disease out there. Doctors simply don't care about it >and there's no funding. I bet they'd even have a cure within a few years if >they put forth even a little effort. But they don't. If you're so smart, why don't YOU find the cure? I know why. And so does every other regular here. It's like stomping your foot in 1880 and saying, "How come nobody knows how to fly an airplane?!?" It's ridiculous. Hundreds, if not thousands, of the most intelligent people on the planet are investigating viruses at this moment, many of them looking specifically at the herpes viruses, and it *is* only a matter of time and effort until a vaccine or cure is found, but there is nothing automatic or simple about the process. >So all we have is a >bunch of half-assed studies done on people that were probably not all that >honest with the questionnaires anyway... and a bunch of "Herbal" remedies >cooked up by witch doctors. Trust me, none of us know enough about the >disease to ridicule other people for providing information that we consider >inaccurate. Speak for yourself, tonto. There is plenty of knowledge on viruses and HSV, and just because much of it is technical, that doesn't give Perl the right to exploit the difference between support and science as a means to disrupt the group, especially when his "science" resembles nothing so much as a fake interpretation of a rain dance. >The fact of the matter is they could find out tomorrow the >friggen disease is airborne... improbable... but not impossible. HSV is NOT airborne. We already know that. Chicken pox is airborne. HSV is not. Good grief. Mike > impossible. That's not true at all. The fact is, there is very little > information on this disease out there. Pardon? There is a LOT around....just not everything we need to generate the answers people want. Its an incredibly humanocentric view to assume as you have done that these answers would be quick to find if only we tried. > and there's no funding. Grossly inaccurate > I bet they'd even have a cure within a few years if > they put forth even a little effort. But they don't. Im sorry, thats pretty damn insulting to myself and colleagues who have or do work on the virus and treatments for it, some of whom have done so for decades. Even more so because it casually dismisses their efforts from a position that appears to be one of relative ignorance of what people do and have done in the field. (Thats the polite version by the way after I came down off the ceiling) Tim -- When playing rugby, its not the winning that counts, but the taking apart ICQ: 5178568 >Thats the polite version by the way after I >came down off the ceiling LMAO! I was wondering when you'd run across that one LoL! Glad you made it down safely ;-) M2 >Toothbrushes, lipbalms, towels, etc, that is not so important to me. >I would like to find out whether the virus can live in such >environment >and if so, implicitly it can be extended to more. Science isn't extended implicitly, Perl. You can't infer things and be credible, especially at your level. The supposition that because a few viruses occasionally remain intact under ideal conditions means that there are undiscovered (and hypothetically disruptable) means of transference is ridiculous. Utterly ridiculous. But that's where you are. >Even the role of asymptomatic shedding (and much more) will diminish, >considering that >each virus can give "birth" to 10,000 new viruses. No, Perl, the science is clear: the role of asymptomatic shedding is paramount, and all your inanity won't change it. Mike > > Herpes and HIV are two completely different viruses. The herpes virus > should [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > Relaxation right? So if it gives you a little peace of mind to buy a new > toothbrush every 3 weeks, buy a friggen toothbrush. There is no need, really, to buy toothbrushes the way you say it. Buy one of those head-removable toothbrushes with a few heads and keep them in an mouthwash alcohol small container or smth. As simple as that. Not only that mouthwash solution will kill viruses, it will kill microbes, as well. Perl Molson This leaves out quite a few ifs ands & buts, some of which might be explained by the actual study data, or more in depth report of the study. A couple of points though, soap and water and many other things can kill HSV just as easily and just as dead as the Pollenex DS60. Even exposure to sunlight and air. They don't mention that here. Another thing, even if HSV were to somehow remain intact on a toothbrush for a period of time, that's a far cry from being able to infect someone. Even just being on someone's skin won't do it. It needs help. Heat, friction, and the right circumstances that skin to skin contact can provide. Lastly, there has never been a documented case of a herpes infection being caused by anything other than skin to skin contact. Frankly, the question of whether it can remain on a toothbrush, dead or alive, has no practical significance that I can see. M2 Perl writes: >OK, here: >1: J Okla Dent Assoc. 1994 Spring;84(4):24-8. Related Articles, Links [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > >PMID: 7931767 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] M2, Perl's little rendition of toothbrush herpes reminds me of the old South Park episode: the Chicken Pox one... LOL Too funny - Angela :) www.yoshi2me.com > This leaves out quite a few ifs ands & buts, some of which might be > explained by the actual study data, or more in depth report of the [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > see. > M2 > This leaves out quite a few ifs ands & buts, some of which might be > explained by the actual study data, or more in depth report of the [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > see. > M2 I am surprised you say that "the question of whether it can remain on a > toothbrush, dead or alive, has no practical significance that I can > see." Think about, if someone would use a lip balm when having herpes. After a month, when the cold sores are gone, would use the same lip balm on their lips, and it (the lip balm) would reinfect the lips with herpes found in the lip balm itself. Hours after such use of the infected lip balm you would be having another OB. After all, the herpes is just a buch of proteins with some DNA or RNA information put togher with some other things, right? It seams almost a non living form. Once it reaches the skin and the proper environment, it will start to become active again. Well, something like that, anyway. Perl Molson > Perl writes: > >OK, here: [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > > >PMID: 7931767 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] Perl, "Perl Molson" <beatadje@email.com> wrote in message > Think about, if someone would use a lip balm when having herpes. > After a month, when the cold sores are gone, would use the same lip [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > environment, it > will start to become active again. Well, something like that, anyway. First of all.... 1) The herpes virus can NOT survive for a month on a stick of lip balm. 2) You can NOT reinfect yourself....once you have herpes, you have it. Using a lip balm that you used when you had an outbreak can NOT and will NOT give you herpes again. ar Ar, I don't think Perl will ever get it - Perl would actually be the one to form a brand new phrase in our vocabulary: "recontraction of herpes" ha - ha - ha - ha Angela ;-) www.yoshi2me.com > First of all.... > 1) The herpes virus can NOT survive for a month on a stick of lip balm. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > ar >Think about, if someone would use a lip balm when having >herpes. After a month, when the cold sores are gone, would >use the same lip balm on their lips, and it (the lip balm) >would reinfect the lips with herpes found in the lip balm >itself. >Hours after such use of the infected lip balm you would be >having another OB. After all, the herpes is just a buch of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >start to become active again. Well, something like that, >anyway. Hey, Perl! It's difficult to be sure, between your usual poor spelling and grammar, leaps of imagination, and half-witted command of the fundamentals, but perhaps the specific problem here is a failure on your part to make a distinction between "re-infect" and "trigger an outbreak". There is a difference between the two, though you seem to be trying real hard to use one for the other. One cannot be "re-infected" with something with which one is already infected. In order to be "re-infected" with herpes one would first have to be cured of the original infection, and we all know, despite your ongoing wishes otherwise, that there is to date no cure for herpes. However, many things can trigger outbreaks in people already infected with HSV. Stress, sunlight, cold, damp, sex, and maybe even encountering doses of externally delivered HSV viruses. I threw that last one in just as a possibility, despite having great doubts as to the likelihood of another of your hare-brained hypotheses. HSV would unlikely live more than a few moments on the lip balm, never mind the month you suppose. BUT, even IF herpes did live on your lip balm for A HUNDRED YEARS, and you got an outbreak when you used your lip balm, you STILL would NOT have RE-INFECTED yourself. You just would have TRIGGERED AN OUTBREAK. If you mean "trigger an outbreak" try saying "trigger an outbreak" instead of "re-infect", which means something altogether different. Mike > >Think about, if someone would use a lip balm when having > >herpes. After a month, when the cold sores are gone, would [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > your ongoing wishes otherwise, that there is to date no cure for > herpes. As you probably know it, the virus can mutate in a more adapted form. If you will get infected with the mutated virus it can be considered to be reinfected. > However, many things can trigger outbreaks in people already > infected with HSV. Stress, sunlight, cold, damp, sex, and maybe > even encountering doses of externally delivered HSV viruses. I > threw that last one in just as a possibility, despite having great > doubts as to the likelihood of another of your hare-brained > hypotheses. It's amazing how, after so many billions of people have been infected with herpes, we still don't know for sure if it can be transmitted through the reuse of an infected lip balm. Perl Molson HSV would unlikely live more than a few moments on the > lip balm, never mind the month you suppose. BUT, even IF herpes did > live on your lip balm for A HUNDRED YEARS, and you got an outbreak [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Mike > we still don't know for sure if it can be transmitted >through the reuse of an infected lip balm. Yes, we do know. And no, the reuse of lip balm isn't the way it's done. Skin to skin contact is the only transmission method you need to worry about. In that area (skin to skin) there are quite a few knowns and not so knowns as well as ifs ands & buts, but you can eliminate the lip balm to skin idea. M2 Perl, How can the lip balm be infested with herpes if herpes can't even survive outside of the human body? Angela www.yoshi2me.com See, Angela..you got tricked into responding too. :) I only respond once in awhile because I don't want such bad info being spread around the internet. ar > Perl, > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Angela > www.yoshi2me.com > Perl, > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Angela > www.yoshi2me.com That's what I am trying to find out the answer for. If the herpes can and in what conditions, survive outside body. It is pretty obvious most sales people out there of prescription herpes drugs don't want their customers to find out the truth. It is much easier for them, to let people believe in things like "asymptomatic shedding" are the only things that happen during and after herpes infection, so they will spend their money on prescription drugs that, "will diminish the asymptomatic shedding of herpes virus". There is much more to it then "asymtomatic shedding". Perl Molson >That's what I am trying to find out the answer for. >If the herpes can and in what conditions, survive outside body. Well ooooooooookie doke then. The answer is no it can't except under artificially controlled conditions. And even then it's not easy to keep it alive. Glad we finally put that one to rest. M2 >That's what I am trying to find out the answer for. >If the herpes can and in what conditions, survive outside body. The herpes virus is not viable outside the body. Get over it. >It is pretty obvious most sales people out there of prescription >herpes drugs don't want their customers to find out the truth. What's pretty obvious is that you are a paranoid nutcase. >It is much easier for them, to let people believe in things like >"asymptomatic shedding" are the only things that happen during and >after herpes infection, so they will spend their money on prescription >drugs that, "will diminish the asymptomatic shedding of herpes virus". >There is much more to it then "asymtomatic shedding". Yeah, there is symptomatic shedding, too. Shedding, of course, is merely the result of viral replication, and it is the replication that the anti-virals, like Valtrex and Acyclovir, reduce or eliminate. You can spin it whichever way you want, Perl, but most people here know you really don't have a clue. Mike > >That's what I am trying to find out the answer for. > >If the herpes can and in what conditions, survive outside body. > > The herpes virus is not viable outside the body. Just because you and others want to believe this? Not only that, eventually, herpes can live outside body but depending upon the conditions it might live longer then anyone of us would want to believe. Get over it. This is probably the most important thing related to herpes. If you want to get over it, you will know nothing about herpes. Just your own guesses, influenced by the prescription drugs multimillion (if not billion) dollars, market. > >It is pretty obvious most sales people out there of prescription > >herpes drugs don't want their customers to find out the truth. > > What's pretty obvious is that you are a paranoid nutcase. It is too obvious, that you are either clueless or ignorant regarding my above point. (or maybe you are just a simple salesman or such drugs, rather? I don't know and I don't care; all I care for is to find out how things works so I'll know the best treatment.) > >It is much easier for them, to let people believe in things like > >"asymptomatic shedding" are the only things that happen during and [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > that the anti-virals, like Valtrex and Acyclovir, reduce or > eliminate. Ok, are you able to provide a logical explanation of how you see the symptomatic shedding as manifested in technical terms? Where the viruses remain during the asymptomatic shedding? What ammount? Are they further replicating and travelling back to ganglia? How often and under what conditions? I can bring another 100 questions in here for you as you wish. > You can spin it whichever way you want, Perl, but most people here > know you really don't have a clue. > > Mike There are too many of those "experts" out there, that deny the outstanding healing potential of the remedies outside the FDA regulated stuff and such. Perl Molson >> >That's what I am trying to find out the answer for. >> >If the herpes can and in what conditions, survive outside body. >> The herpes virus is not viable outside the body. >Just because you and others want to believe this? No, doofus, because to believe otherwise would require a conspiracy so vast as to be unworkable. The word ludicrous comes to mind. The history of medical research is not some deep unfathomable mystery, Perl, nor is it an exercise in brainwashing. If you had the brain power to fathom a quarter of the volumes you post you wouldn't be wasting people's time with your moronic crap. But that's the way it is with stupid people, they just don't know how stupid they are. >Not only that, eventually, herpes can live outside body >but depending upon the conditions it might live >longer then anyone of us would want to believe. >>Get over it. >This is probably the most important thing related to herpes. If >you want to get over it, you will know nothing about herpes. >Just your own guesses, influenced by the prescription drugs multimillion >(if not billion) dollars, market. It's science, Perl, not the mumbo jumbo that you believe in. >> >It is pretty obvious most sales people out there of prescription >> >herpes drugs don't want their customers to find out the truth. >> What's pretty obvious is that you are a paranoid nutcase. >It is too obvious, that you are either clueless or ignorant >regarding my above point. (or maybe you are just a simple salesman or such >drugs, rather? I don't know and I don't care; all I care for is to find out >how things works so I'll know the best treatment.) The best treatment around today is either Valtrex or Acyclovir. If there were anything better we would all know about it. That you *wish* to believe in a world wide conspiracy to keep the truth about herpes a secret from the lowly masses is *your* problem, and I would classify it as a *mental* problem. It is illogical. It is ignorant. *It*, itself, is part of the herpes "problem". If people like you dropped their faith in hocus pocus and snake oil, and regarded things like HSV with informed understanding, we'd all be better off. And I wouldn't have to waste my time debunking the notions of morons. Mike >> >It is much easier for them, to let people believe in things like >> >"asymptomatic shedding" are the only things that happen during and >> >after herpes infection, so they will spend their money on prescription >> >drugs that, "will diminish the asymptomatic shedding of herpes virus". >> >There is much more to it then "asymtomatic shedding". >> Yeah, there is symptomatic shedding, too. Shedding, of course, is >> merely the result of viral replication, and it is the replication >> that the anti-virals, like Valtrex and Acyclovir, reduce or >> eliminate. >Ok, are you able to provide a logical explanation >of how you see the symptomatic shedding as manifested >in technical terms? >Where the viruses remain during the asymptomatic shedding? >What ammount? Are they further replicating and travelling back to ganglia? >How often and under what conditions? >I can bring another 100 questions in here for you as you wish. >> You can spin it whichever way you want, Perl, but most people here >> know you really don't have a clue. >> Mike >There are too many of those "experts" out there, that deny the >outstanding healing potential >of the remedies outside the FDA regulated stuff and such. >Perl Molson >Think about, if someone would use a lip balm when having herpes. >After a month, when the cold sores are gone, would use the same lip >balm on their lips, and it (the lip balm) would reinfect the lips with >herpes found in the lip balm itself. Doesn't work like that. Once you're infected, you won't infect yourself again with the same virus in the same location. Why? Because HSV doesn't vacate the trigeminal ganglia just because your outbreak has healed. Just like you can't refill a glass of water that's already full. Secondly, HSV is a very fragile virus. Practically anything, even soap and water, will destroy its outer coating thus killing it once it's on the skin's surface and exposed. And once it's off the skin and onto an alien environment, it disintegrates on its own unless it's given a perfect artificial environment in which to live. Inanimate objects like a toothbrush just aren't hsv friendly. That's the reason culture type tests result in so many false negatives. Even under controlled lab conditions, a doc can't get it onto a swab and into a dish to reproduce and grow half the time. >Hours after such use of the infected lip balm you would be having >another OB. If that happened, it would be due only to reactivation of the original infection. Not to re infection. >After all, the herpes is just a buch of proteins with some DNA or RNA >information put togher with some other things, right? It seams almost >a non living form. Not quite that simple but not to terribly off track ... so far. >Once it reaches the skin and the proper >environment, it will start to become active again. Nope. This is where you went terribly off track. Some viruses can survive the cold cruel world on their own and remain viable indefinitely. But HSV cannot. M2 > >Think about, if someone would use a lip balm when having herpes. > >After a month, when the cold sores are gone, would use the same lip [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > M2 As Mike said in his post, the correct name would be probably "triggered an OB". A lip balm, as you know it, can be sealed with the cover, right, which isolates the balm from free air. Even though, the balm can have viruses deep a few milimeters, not only on its surface. As you know, herpes has some type of "legs". As far as it being "alive" I cannot comment on that. Would the herpes, as it is in its form outside the body (on a lip balm, on a towel, on a toothbrush, toothpaste etc) be able to be assimilated by the skin layer and become a functional virus? Or maybe just because a "dead" herpes virus will reach the skin, it will be like a "signal" for the viral "fragments" located in the trigerminal ganglia to become active? I don't know. If anyone has a better explanation feel free to post it. Cheers, Perl Molson Perl, I don't mind your musings, really. But stop speaking as if your ideas are fact. They are not. You are, once again, spreading false information and scare-mongering. If you want to discuss "what-ifs" then that's fine. But this current garbage that you are spewing on this newsgroup is not fact. It's not even close to fact. ar >Would the herpes, as it is in its form outside the body (on a lip >balm, on a towel, on a toothbrush, toothpaste etc) be able to be >assimilated by the skin layer and become a functional virus? Nope. >Or maybe just because a "dead" herpes virus will reach the skin, it >will be like a "signal" for the viral "fragments" located in the >trigerminal ganglia to become active? "Dead" virus as a trigger? Its not on any trigger list I've ever seen. And I've seen some pretty long ones. M2 |
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.