 |
 | 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 2004Transmission Question
I am going to be blunt, but I need your answers, so I'm gonna put in some spoiler space, just to be safe... What about being "fingered" when you're not having an outbreak? What are the transmission possibilities there? Are you obligated to tell the other person about your herpes with that act as well? I mean, most people don't go wiping their hands on their genitals or their mouths after engaging in this act, but what is my obligation here? Yes, Queen. No matter how you phrase it or try to get around it...you have to tell your partner that you have herpes before there is any kind of sexual contact. Please try to stop looking for ways around this. If you didn't read my other post to you: Herpes Whitlow is herpes on the hand. ar > I am going to be blunt, but I need your answers, so I'm gonna put in > some spoiler space, just to be safe... [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > most people don't go wiping their hands on their genitals or their > mouths after engaging in this act, but what is my obligation here? > Yes, Queen. No matter how you phrase it or try to get around it...you have > to tell your partner that you have herpes before there is any kind of sexual > contact. Please try to stop looking for ways around this. Actually, this is not true. I spoke to the people at the American Social Health Association via the National Herpes Hotline (1-888-411-4377), and they said that "mutual masturbation" carries almost no threat to the partner, and is actually recommended as a safe way for couples to interact sexually, especially in the beginning of relationships where sex has not yet become an issue. >American >Social Health Association via the National Herpes Hotline >(1-888-411-4377), and they said that "mutual masturbation" carries >almost no threat to the partner, So far, so good, and confirms what we've said here ("almost" being keyword here). >and is actually recommended as a safe >way for couples to interact sexually, especially in the beginning of >relationships where sex has not yet become an issue. Even so, did they specifically tell you not to bother with telling the guy your status? (or for that matter, inquiring about his?) If they did, seems to me there's plenty of room for disagreement on that opinion because, at that stage, you're obviously well on your way to the next one. And how are you going to explain to the guy in the heat of passion, why you're slamming the door (so to speak) at that point? More importantly, will you have the will power to slam it? There's quite a bit of discussion especially on less technical groups about how and when to give "the talk". The opinions vary but the majority opinion is to get it out in the open before sex is imminent. The discussion is likely to slip both parties minds once the heat's turned up. M2 > Even so, did they specifically tell you not to bother with telling the > guy your status? No, of course they did not say that. > at that stage, you're obviously well on your way to > the next one. Not necessarily. I realize that sex is a completely different ballgame, and I am not ready to discuss this issue with anyone. > And how are you going to explain to the guy in the heat > of passion, why you're slamming the door (so to speak) at that point? > More importantly, will you have the will power to slam it? I can't let it get that far. > The opinions vary but the > majority opinion is to get it out in the open before sex is imminent. > The discussion is likely to slip both parties minds once the heat's > turned up. We aren't going to have sex. End of story. Because I'm not ready to have "the talk," it just can't happen. If I told him, it'd get all over this town. I'd never live it down. I can't sacrifice my reputation just for sex. >> Yes, Queen. No matter how you phrase it or try to get around it...you have >> to tell your partner that you have herpes before there is any kind of sexual >> contact. Please try to stop looking for ways around this. >Actually, this is not true. I spoke to the people at the American >Social Health Association via the National Herpes Hotline >(1-888-411-4377), and they said that "mutual masturbation" carries >almost no threat to the partner, and is actually recommended as a safe >way for couples to interact sexually, especially in the beginning of >relationships where sex has not yet become an issue. Well, I just lost a load of respect for ASHA. That's the same sort of muddle that has confused a whole generation of kids and taught them nothing about morality or ethics. The whole issue becomes simple if you hew to the ethical path. If you tell the truth, are completely open, and fully inform your partner, even in low risk situations, you'll have no guilt, no inner turmoil, no wondering whether you did the right thing, and no secretly wondering whether you beat the odds against the small amount of risk. Also, I'm of the firm opinion that failing to tell at the early sexual stages makes it harder to tell later, when emotions are higher, and when there's been more investment in the relationship. I know it's not easy, especially when all this is new to you, and I know a lot of people will do as ASHA suggests and that nothing bad will come of it, but I hope you'll think about the larger implications, and consider whether you would want to be told if the situations were reversed. In fact, you might wonder whether your partner talked to the same people you did at ASHA and is waiting to tell *you* something. ;-) Take care, Mike > Well, I just lost a load of respect for ASHA. That's the same sort > of muddle that has confused a whole generation of kids and taught > them nothing about morality or ethics. I don't think that was the motive. It's just delineating what is a physical risk to your partner and what isn't. > The whole issue becomes simple if you hew to the ethical path. If > you tell the truth, are completely open, and fully inform your > partner, even in low risk situations, you'll have no guilt, no inner > turmoil, no wondering whether you did the right thing, and no > secretly wondering whether you beat the odds against the small > amount of risk. Knowing that I'm not putting him at risk, I am not worrying any longer. > Also, I'm of the firm opinion that failing to tell > at the early sexual stages makes it harder to tell later, when > emotions are higher, and when there's been more investment in the > relationship. Our "relationship" won't go farther than this. I don't intend to have things develop further. And I don't plan on having sex with him, because I am not in love with him, and I don't believe I could trust him with this secret. > I hope you'll think about the larger > implications When I know it's not going to put him at risk, I think the larger implications are what would happen to *me* if I would tell him. I'm from a small town, word would spread so incredibly fast, I would never be able to show my face. > and consider whether you would want to be told if the > situations were reversed. If the situation was reversed, I foresee myself being able to handle the situation as is as long as he does not involve me in any actions that would put me at risk, or tell me before that sort of action *does* happen. > In fact, you might wonder whether your > partner talked to the same people you did at ASHA and is waiting to > tell *you* something. ;-) You might. But not where I live. I only say that because most people around here either 1) don't have STDs (I'm from a small town, if it happened, we'd all know about it, unless it was a well-guarded secret like mine) or 2) don't get tested for STDs (which is bad, of course). "Queen Burger" <innoutburger48@hotmail.com> wrote in message > You might. But not where I live. I only say that because most people > around here either 1) don't have STDs (I'm from a small town, if it > happened, we'd all know about it, unless it was a well-guarded secret > like mine) or 2) don't get tested for STDs (which is bad, of course). Queen, you are living in a fantasy world. <snip> > > In fact, you might wonder whether your > > partner talked to the same people you did at ASHA and is waiting to [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > happened, we'd all know about it, unless it was a well-guarded secret > like mine) or 2) don't get tested for STDs (which is bad, of course). I'm sure it might seem like that, but I bet it's not really. I'm not from a small town, but I'm sure no-one I mix with has any STDs, we're just not the type. Oh hold on a sec... why am I posting here again? ;-) It's easy to feel isolated in this situation, but you only have to think about the statistics to realise there's a lot more people out there in the same boat - no matter where you come from. GiGi Well, I think the part about us not being isolated isn't exactly correct. The stats everyone likes to quote say that %20 of the US population has Type2... Well, that's all fine and dandy... but we're not just in that one group! We KNOW we have it. Only 10% of people that have it KNOW they have it. Guess what that means, we fall into a group comprising only 2% of the US adult population. We can at least say that we all were either intelligent enough to recognise symptoms and do research, OR just plain had really bad symptoms. It's rather ironic that ignorance truely is bliss. Were I a much stupider person, I would be sooooo much happier. > Well, I think the part about us not being isolated isn't exactly correct. > The stats everyone likes to quote say that %20 of the US population has [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > symptoms. It's rather ironic that ignorance truely is bliss. Were I a much > stupider person, I would be sooooo much happier. Point taken. I'm isolated in the sense that I have no-one to talk to face to face that's in the same boat (that I know of), but statistically I know I'm not alone. It helps to remember that. I thought approximately 25% of people know they have it, the other 75% either having had no symptoms or so minor as to not pay it much attention. Mind you I'm talking UK stats, maybe we're different over here ;-) -- GiGi > Point taken. I'm isolated in the sense that I have no-one to talk to face > to face that's in the same boat (that I know of), but statistically I know [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Mind you I'm talking UK stats, maybe we're different over here ;-) Our overall infection rate seems to lag a bit behind the US, though we may catch up since the last I heard they were reaching equilibrium. The basic split of who knows and who doesnt is much the same. Note in any study you will find the exact number bounces round the actual average number. Tim -- When playing rugby, its not the winning that counts, but the taking apart ICQ: 5178568 Tim Fitzmaurice wrote : > > I thought approximately 25% of people know they have it, the other 75% > > either having had no symptoms or so minor as to not pay it much attention. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Note in any study you will find the exact number bounces round the actual > average number. Thanks Tim. I guess we'll never get a truly accurate number - if people don't know they've got it themselves, how will anybody else know?! -- GiGi >if people don't know >they've got it themselves, how will anybody else know?! Nothing like good ol' random sampling to reveal all sorts of interesting data such as that. M2 > >if people don't know > >they've got it themselves, how will anybody else know?! > > Nothing like good ol' random sampling to reveal all sorts of > interesting data such as that. ah, but how do you get a truly random sample? You could talk to me face to face... but you live around 3000 miles away from me... hehehe so it would be a REALLY expensive chat. And my ferret might bite your toes while we're chatting. > > Well, I think the part about us not being isolated isn't exactly correct. > > The stats everyone likes to quote say that %20 of the US population has [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > -- > GiGi > You could talk to me face to face... but you live around 3000 miles away > from me... hehehe so it would be a REALLY expensive chat. And my ferret > might bite your toes while we're chatting. Actually its possible to be extremely cheap. Download Roger Wilco from resounding.com and bingo one internet telephone. Or Teamspeak if you are prepared to set up a server Then its going to be a local call or in the cost of the ISP service. Ive used it to contact US based friends before ;) Can't come up with any anti ferret ideas though..... Tim -- When playing rugby, its not the winning that counts, but the taking apart ICQ: 5178568 > > You could talk to me face to face... but you live around 3000 miles away > > from me... hehehe so it would be a REALLY expensive chat. And my ferret [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Can't come up with any anti ferret ideas though..... Nice idea in theory, but it would mean me spending time to figure out why no sound comes out of my speakers (it's a good job I post here under an assumed name, I'd never live that down if it got out!) -- GiGi > Nice idea in theory, but it would mean me spending time to figure out why no > sound comes out of my speakers (it's a good job I post here under an assumed > name, I'd never live that down if it got out!) If you are techy use a voice text bridge and be really geeky (says the man who helped set up an 18 station clan LAN in a friends house one time for the Quake match of doom) :) If not shoot the old speakers and buy new ones :) Tim -- When playing rugby, its not the winning that counts, but the taking apart ICQ: 5178568 > > Nice idea in theory, but it would mean me spending time to figure out why no > > sound comes out of my speakers (it's a good job I post here under an assumed [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > If not shoot the old speakers and buy new ones :) shooting the speakers wouldn't help, they're the part that actually works! > > If not shoot the old speakers and buy new ones :) > > > shooting the speakers wouldn't help, they're the part that actually works! OK tell the sound card you'll maim its diodes if it doesnt cooperate - rig up a few electircal items and make them scream nearby. Rule your computer with an iron fist and MAKE it cooperate. Never forget your towel OR your screwdriver ;) Tim -- When playing rugby, its not the winning that counts, but the taking apart ICQ: 5178568 > > > If not shoot the old speakers and buy new ones :) > > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > with an iron fist and MAKE it cooperate. Never forget your towel OR your > screwdriver ;) and if that doesn't work I'll threaten it with the soldering iron! > > with an iron fist and MAKE it cooperate. Never forget your towel OR your > > screwdriver ;) > > > and if that doesn't work I'll threaten it with the soldering iron! You fiend - you go too far :) Tim -- When playing rugby, its not the winning that counts, but the taking apart ICQ: 5178568 I'd come fix em for you... but I think buying new ones would be cheaper than my plane tickets ;-) > I'd come fix em for you... but I think buying new ones would be cheaper than > my plane tickets ;-) Well it's nice to know the thought was there... > You could talk to me face to face... but you live around 3000 miles away > from me... hehehe so it would be a REALLY expensive chat. And my ferret > might bite your toes while we're chatting. Ferret? Sir, you could be a Yorkshireman! Is that a good thing? I hope Yorkshire are handsome! > > You could talk to me face to face... but you live around 3000 miles away > > from me... hehehe so it would be a REALLY expensive chat. And my ferret > > might bite your toes while we're chatting. > > > Ferret? Sir, you could be a Yorkshireman! High Arginine content Foods wich are not recommended to eat eat whilst you have an outbreak as it might worsten the outbreak include, Im hardcore I never eat them. Chickenm oats, Chocolate, Corn, Popcorn, Rice, Dairy Products, Nuts, Seeds and whole-wheat producs Other Side of the Spectrum, the ones I eat all the time : Egss, Fish, Lima Beans (Portuguese Snack), Potatoes, Red Meat, Soy Products and Yeast..... Regards Mike > Well, I think the part about us not being isolated isn't exactly correct. > The stats everyone likes to quote say that %20 of the US population has [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > symptoms. It's rather ironic that ignorance truely is bliss. Were I a much > stupider person, I would be sooooo much happier. Well - being on a special diet NEVER kept my flare up away when I first contracted herpes. What works for you doesn't work for me. Angela  Signaturewww.yoshi2me.com www.herpesonline.org www.wartsonline.org STD Message Board: www.yoshi2me.com/ipw-web/bulletin/bb/index.php > High Arginine content Foods wich are not recommended to eat eat whilst you > have an outbreak as it might worsten the outbreak include, Im hardcore I [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Regards Mike Aromatherapy Oils Amoils.com NeverAnOutbreak.com B-Complex Vitamins, C.E Betacarotene and zinc Supplements Dr Auers Immuno Boost (T-Cell Cytokine Gene Stimulator) Cell Food (Nobel Price) Peace, Love prosperity through Unity and Diversity Regards Mike Sorry, Queen. No dice here. If you pulled that crap on me, I would be so pissed off at you. And, not only that, but what if I did contract Herpes Whitlow? What would you say then? I've got 18 years of herpes experience and you've got pretty much none. Not to mention the amount of experience this group has as a whole. I strongly suggest you listen to the people who have been living with herpes for years. "Almost" no threat? Doesn't cut it. You still need to tell. Did you mention to them that you were planning on NOT telling? And they said that was okay? I doubt it strongly. ar > > Yes, Queen. No matter how you phrase it or try to get around it...you have > > to tell your partner that you have herpes before there is any kind of sexual [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > way for couples to interact sexually, especially in the beginning of > relationships where sex has not yet become an issue. >I am going to be blunt, but I need your answers, so I'm gonna put in >some spoiler space, just to be safe... Pardon me for editing out your space .... to save space ;-) >What about being "fingered" when you're not having an outbreak? What >are the transmission possibilities there? The canned answer is: It's extremely low. That may or may not all you want to know. But if you're concerned about your partner at all, you need to understand the risk factors so you can apply them to your own circumstance. Warning: if splitting hairs irritates you, read no further. Each individual's risk is different given the fact that it depends on so many variables, including *both* people involved. For your part, it would depend on if you happened to be sub clinically shedding or not, and by how much. Studies with data obtained by daily swabs and culture type testing indicate that the days an average herpster sheds asymptomatically is somewhere in the range of 3%-6%. But there are always quite a few people in the studies that don't fall into that "average" range. Some much higher, some much lower. What that means is, although we can tell you what the "average" is, unless you've been part of a scientific study and have access to your personal data, there's no way for anyone to tell what you're personal individual shedding rate happens to be. In other words, there's a chance you might fall outside the "average" range. Further, even if you knew your rate this month, it could change next month. In addition, even though we have good data for frequency as well as volume per each shedding event, we don't have enough data on how much volume is required to allow transmission. So even though we know how much (light vs heavy) and how often (frequency) an average herpster sheds, we don't know how often a herpster is actually "contagious". Basically, we have a long way to go in that research area. So to be on the safe side and for transmission risk sake, we just assume that you're contagious whenever you're shedding at all. For your partners part of the risk equation, it would depend on how "vulnerable" his finger is. A cut or scrape could allow the virus through the skin and result in Herpes Whitlow. But as you point out, as long as he doesn't immediately grab his own privates or poke his finger in his mouth or his eye, the risk of transfer to him in those areas is practically zilch. >Are you obligated to tell >the other person about your herpes with that act as well? I mean, >most people don't go wiping their hands on their genitals or their >mouths after engaging in this act, but what is my obligation here? Which obligation? If you mean "legal" obligation, there are as many answers to that as there are lawyers in the world. Depends on everything from which state you're in, to which judge happens to hear your case. I doubt you'll find legislation that specifically mentions Herpes but there is enough on personal damage to make a case against you for knowingly transferring herp. You should be able to find case law that shows good arguments both pro and con. As far as moral and ethical obligations though, imho, yes, anyone you're in intimate contact with should be aware of any risk to their health, miniscule though it may be. For the sake of maintaining your privacy, have you considered dating people outside your law school community (in other words, people who aren't blabber mouths)? M2 >I am going to be blunt, but I need your answers, so I'm gonna put in >some spoiler space, just to be safe... [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >most people don't go wiping their hands on their genitals or their >mouths after engaging in this act, but what is my obligation here? Yes, you are morally obligated. Basically, if you don't tell, you are in effect saying that you don't respect your partner enough to allow him to make his own decision regarding his own health. Morally, unless you're a doctor and the other person has come to you seeking health advice, you don't get to make such decisions for other people. Would you like someone else deciding for you that some risk you're about to face isn't important enough to warn you about? Mike Listen, casual sex is gone for you. Simple as that. You can only "Get it on" with someone you've had "The talk" with. And you're only going to put yourself through having that talk with someone you care about. So, you stuck doing what your mother always told you to do... only have sex with people you're in love with, or preferably married to. Life's a God damned ironic piece of sh.t ain't it? aint that the truth > Listen, casual sex is gone for you. Simple as that. You can only "Get it on" > with someone you've had "The talk" with. And you're only going to put > yourself through having that talk with someone you care about. So, you stuck > doing what your mother always told you to do... only have sex with people > you're in love with, or preferably married to. Life's a God damned ironic > piece of sh.t ain't it? I wouldn't go so far, really. Maybe for 2-3 years from the moment you were first infected with the virus. Time will diminish the problem, to a point and as fast as you are willing to put the effort into it. To make a long story short, try to see what seems to be the main triggers for your OB's and then you have 2 choices: First is, to try to avoid the triggers, that is the way most people do. Some they need prescriptions for that matter. Second, after you will identify the triggers, try to cope with each trigger individually, that meaning, exposing yourself to that trigger and dealing with the symptoms until the trigger will be no more a trigger. That is what I personally do and I do not know if there are other folks out there doing this, as well. Perl Molson No one cares about the symptoms. The symptoms aren't the problem. The problem is having to tell people you're dating that you have the disease. Not telling the person would mean I didn't really care abou them all that much. Sleeping with people that I didn't really care about all that much is what got me into this predicament in the first place. Perl, getting the disease is something you should learn from. If you don't learn from this experience, what's the next disease you're going to catch? Warts? HIV? > > Listen, casual sex is gone for you. Simple as that. You can only "Get it on" > > with someone you've had "The talk" with. And you're only going to put [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Perl Molson >No one cares about the symptoms. The symptoms aren't the problem. The >problem is having to tell people you're dating that you have the disease. >Not telling the person would mean I didn't really care abou them all that >much. Sleeping with people that I didn't really care about all that much is >what got me into this predicament in the first place. Good points, though let's not forget that HSV can be a real physical challenge for some people. It isn't always just a periodic nuisance, and there's no way to predict exactly how the disease is going to manifest itself in its next victim. If one could predict that one's partner would fall securely into the group of people who will never experience any of the more overt herpes-related symptoms, having the disease would become much more of a non-issue, but, unfortunately, while the odds lean that direction, a substantial number of people will experience unignorable symptoms, some relatively severe. So, yes, what you say is mostly true, but for some people, the social aspects of the disease are the minor issue, and there is no way to predict how the disease will affect any individual. Take care, Mike >Perl, getting the disease is something you should learn from. If you don't >learn from this experience, what's the next disease you're going to catch? >Warts? HIV? You're right about the lerning lesson. Very true. The symptoms, actually, can be a major problem. That's actually the main inconvenience about the herpes virus. The fact that when under a prodrome, folks feel fatigued, sometimes with feverlike states, even nerve pain, head aches, lack of energy, nervousness, agitation, stress, physical and psychological problems, and many other problems. The fact that the disease can be transmitted, is of course, another major inconvenient. When I say about dealing with the symptoms, I am refering to dealing with each particular disease that those symptoms are originating from. Of course, the dissapearance of certain of these symptoms, does not eliminate all the potential others that are related to herpes virus. The process of identifying those symptoms/diseases, are part of my idea in dealing with herpes. Folks that take prescription drugs, they do not care to identify these symptoms, since they deal with the herpes prodromes in the same way no matter what the disease that caused it was: by taking a certain pill such as acyclovir or valtrex. I hope I didn't confuse you too much, Mike, but like I've said this before, I am not trying to impose my ideeas to anyone, this is the way I personally deal with herpes; if it can help anyone, too, that's great. Other folks, in here, that they talk about prescription drugs, they are actually salesmen and they have different reasons to try to help you or others in dealing with herpes. I came here all this time, because this is a support group, where I can discuss my opinions with people like yourself, Mike. I am not saying that all the people that take prescription drugs or those that only try selling them online, are not trying to contribute into helping others, I am just saying that my approach to treating the herpes is different. That's all. P.S. I answer from www.dejanews.com site and your posting did not appear yet at this moment when I am answering to it. Perl Molson @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ No one cares about the symptoms. The symptoms aren't the problem. The problem is having to tell people you're dating that you have the disease. Not telling the person would mean I didn't really care abou them all that much. Sleeping with people that I didn't really care about all that much is what got me into this predicament in the first place. Perl, getting the disease is something you should learn from. If you don't learn from this experience, what's the next disease you're going to catch? Warts? HIV? > "Pain Devine" <noway@jose.com> wrote in message news:<10bq4f36mkt7i22@corp.supernews.com>... > > Listen, casual sex is gone for you. Simple as that. You can only "Get it on" > > with someone you've had "The talk" with. And you're only going to put > > yourself through having that talk with someone you care about. So, you stuck > > doing what your mother always told you to do... only have sex with people > > you're in love with, or preferably married to. Life's a God damned ironic > > piece of sh.t ain't it? > > I wouldn't go so far, really. > > Maybe for 2-3 years from the moment you were first infected with the virus. > Time will diminish the problem, to a point and as fast > as you are willing to put the effort into it. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Perl Molson >You're right about the lerning lesson. Very true. >The symptoms, actually, can be a major problem. Yaaaaay, Perl made a valid point about something. ;-) >That's actually the main inconvenience about the herpes virus. >The fact that when under a prodrome, folks feel fatigued, >sometimes with feverlike states, even >nerve pain, head aches, lack of energy, nervousness, >agitation, stress, physical and psychological problems, and many other >problems. >The fact that the disease can be transmitted, is of course, >another major inconvenient. >When I say about dealing with the symptoms, I am refering to >dealing with each particular disease that >those symptoms are originating from. >Of course, the dissapearance of certain of these symptoms, does not >eliminate all the potential others that are related to herpes virus. >The process of identifying those symptoms/diseases, >are part of my idea in dealing with herpes. That's hardly original with you, Perl. Up through sometime in the mid-1800s, almost everyone had the "idea" that the "sniffles" caused by one disease were the same as the "sniffles" caused by another disease. Now we KNOW that there are tiny microscopic (and submicroscopic) agents that are responsible for the symptoms we experience, and that focussing on simply treating the "sniffles" no matter what the underlying cause may be, is ignorant, in some cases, and downright barbaric, in others. >Folks that take prescription drugs, they do not care to identify these >symptoms, Several diseases share many of the symptoms that we know are associated with herpes. Thanks to the discoveries of the last two centuries we now know that treating, for example, the swollen glands caused by tonsillitis and herpes the same way is misquided, at best, and, in the realm of professional health care, probably grounds for a lawsuit. Focussing on the "symptoms" while denying what is widely known as the truth about the underlying causes of disease is, in this day and age, laughable. >since they deal with the herpes prodromes in the same way >no matter what the disease that caused it was: by taking a certain pill >such as acyclovir or valtrex. Thanks to modern cultures and blood tests, Perl, we, who have herpes, *know* what causes the symptoms we exerience. We *know* that our swollen glands aren't likely caused by the agents that cause tuberculosis or that cause tonsillitis, but are caused by the agents known as the Herpes simplex viruses. Therefore, we don't treat our disease with the same medications with which people with tuberculosis or tonsillitis or gonorrhea or syphilis or HPV or HIV treat their diseases. We take acyclovir or valtrex, because scientific studies and years of medical research have shown that acyclovir and valtrex are more effective (for logical and understandable reasons) in disrupting the infectious cycles of the Herpes simplex virus than anything else currently known. Of course, I didn't need to write any of that to prove, Perl, that your statement there falls on the short side of intelligence. Most people who take pills *do* care which agent is causing their symptoms, and do not take acyclovir and valtrex "no matter what the disease", as you so blithely claim. The only people I have ever heard of taking acyclovir or valtrex are those who think they play host (or may be exposed to someone who plays host) to one of the herpes viruses. For you to assert otherwise is part and parcel of your underlying dishonesty mixed with your pathetic demonstration of 13th century medical thinking. >I hope I didn't confuse you too much, Mike, but like I've said this before, >I am not trying to impose my ideeas to anyone, this is the way I personally >deal with herpes; if it can help anyone, too, that's great. >Other folks, in here, that they talk about prescription drugs, they >are actually salesmen and they have different reasons to try to >help you or others in dealing with herpes. Well, Perl, I don't know of ANY prescription drug "salesmen" in "here", so once again, I have to assume the worst of you and your abilities. >I came here all this time, because this is a support group, where >I can discuss my opinions with people like yourself, Mike. I hope you don't mind if I point out that your opinions are based on things other than intelligence and learning. >I am not saying that all the people that take prescription drugs or >those that only try selling them online, are not trying to contribute into >helping others, I am just saying that my approach to treating the herpes >is different. That's all. It's not clear that you understand that "different" does not equal "valid". While you routinely demonstrate the differentness to your approach, you consistently fail to demonstrate any validity to it. >P.S. I answer from www.dejanews.com site and your posting did not >appear yet at this moment when I am answering to it. Mike > You're right about the lerning lesson. Very true. > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > dealing with each particular disease that > those symptoms are originating from. <snip> Perl, I don't understand this. Dealing with the symptoms of herpes, yes. Dealing with each particular disease that those symptoms are originating from, no. Surely the disease is herpes? Or are we not talking about herpes any more? -- G. > > You're right about the lerning lesson. Very true. > > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > from, no. Surely the disease is herpes? Or are we not talking about herpes > any more? Well, consider these: you have a herpes trigger, let's say, sitting in a windy weather outdoor, right? Why do you think that you've got that problem in the first place? Is it because there is some sort of herpes relationship with the windy weather of that sort? No, of course not. It is because on a windy weather, your skin, that is lacking of moisture, for an obvious reason, when there is windy outside your skin will become even more dry and stressed. Once you take care of your skin, through using creams to mosturize and keep the skin healthy (I am talking here about the areas of the skin such as facial area, in the case of oral herpes), after this, most likely the windy weather as a trigger for your herpes will dissapear. Thus, you have had the symptoms of dry skin and a disease of dry and unhealthy skin. This is an example of the things I was talking about. Thanks for asking and I hope my answer was good enough for you. Perl Molson I disagree. The root cause of the herpes outbreak isn't dry skin...it's the herpes virus. However, yes, you may be correct that treating your trigger may help in decreased outbreaks. ar "Perl Molson" <beatadje@email.com> wrote in message > Well, consider these: you have a herpes trigger, let's say, > sitting in a windy weather outdoor, right? [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Perl Molson > I disagree. The root cause of the herpes outbreak isn't dry skin...it's the > herpes virus. However, yes, you may be correct that treating your trigger > may help in decreased outbreaks. > > ar and when all the triggers will be treated individually, then there will be no more OB's. It is like a chain of reinforcing processes. Perl Molson > "Perl Molson" <beatadje@email.com> wrote in message > > Well, consider these: you have a herpes trigger, let's say, [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > > > Perl Molson "Perl Molson" <beatadje@email.com> wrote in message > and when all the triggers will be treated individually, then there > will be no more OB's. It is like a chain of reinforcing processes. > > Perl Molson No, not really. You don't need a trigger to have an outbreak. And you don't need a trigger to have asymptomatic shedding. ar > "Perl Molson" <beatadje@email.com> wrote in message > > and when all the triggers will be treated individually, then there [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > ar Ar, how have you figured these out? You sound a bit like Angela, with her "there is no cure for herpes", line. Perl Molson Perl, You figure these things out by listening to the people in here for...what has it been...8 years? Maybe less than that..I can't remember. Also, I have no known triggers. Not food. Not sunlight. Etc. ar > > "Perl Molson" <beatadje@email.com> wrote in message > > > and when all the triggers will be treated individually, then there [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Perl Molson > > > You're right about the lerning lesson. Very true. > > > [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > dry and unhealthy skin. This is an example of the things I was talking about. > Thanks for asking and I hope my answer was good enough for you. Thanks for your reply Perl, I guess my interpretation of 'disease' might differ to yours. In your example I wouldn't describe dry and unhealthy skin a disease, but then I don't claim to have any specialist medical knowledge, so I'm not saying I'm right. To me, though, dry skin is just dry skin! -- G. |
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.