Aa
Intentionally giving yourself oral HSV-2?
My understanding is that oral HSV-2 is highly unlikely to cause any symptoms at all, or at least no recurrences after an initial outbreak. Would it make sense for one H- partner with an H+ partner to intentionally give themselves oral HSV-2 in order to force his or her body to develop antibodies to protect against GHSV-2? Is this not done because it wouldn't work or because it is somehow too risky?
with daily suppressive therapy , avoiding sex during genital symptoms and using condoms, you can get the risk of infection to a female partner down to 2-3% a year. this is lower than the real use odds of pregnancy while on the pill ( 8%). You are not going to automatically contract hsv2 from a partner the longer you are together ,especially if the infected partner is aware of their infection and also taking even the most minimal of precautions ( avoiding sex during any genital symptoms ).
What little info we have on oral hsv2 shows that it is not 100% protection against contracting hsv2 genitally. This info is limited and if I am recalling properly, in hiv+ males that the research was done so otherwise healthy folks might have better protection from having hsv2 orally. Why purposefully infect yourself on the mouth when odds are you will go a lifetime without contracting your partner's hsv2?
grace
What little info we have on oral hsv2 shows that it is not 100% protection against contracting hsv2 genitally. This info is limited and if I am recalling properly, in hiv+ males that the research was done so otherwise healthy folks might have better protection from having hsv2 orally. Why purposefully infect yourself on the mouth when odds are you will go a lifetime without contracting your partner's hsv2?
grace
The toe theory has also been explored: http://www.medhelp.org/posts/STDs/Strange-question/show/248197
The doctor certainly didn't recommend it but it would probably be hard for any medical doctor to recommend something untested like that without losing his license.
As for the vaccine attempts, I understand that there is a very strong reluctance to use any active form of the virus to produce a vaccine. However, inactive strands of the virus have not produced a sufficient immune response to be effective. I can understand the scientific community's reluctance to use active virus vaccines. Even a 1 in 1000 chance of a severe complication may be too high a risk for practical widespread use. On the other hand, a 1 in 1000 risk might be very reasonable for somebody married to an H+ person who stands a 50% chance or so of getting genital herpes in their lifetime
The doctor certainly didn't recommend it but it would probably be hard for any medical doctor to recommend something untested like that without losing his license.
As for the vaccine attempts, I understand that there is a very strong reluctance to use any active form of the virus to produce a vaccine. However, inactive strands of the virus have not produced a sufficient immune response to be effective. I can understand the scientific community's reluctance to use active virus vaccines. Even a 1 in 1000 chance of a severe complication may be too high a risk for practical widespread use. On the other hand, a 1 in 1000 risk might be very reasonable for somebody married to an H+ person who stands a 50% chance or so of getting genital herpes in their lifetime
I agree it's a thought, but a risky one at that.
And I'm not sure about infecting your toe...
Keep in mind, there would be a chance for spreading. Suppose you picked a random spot and it turned into a violent infection. I'm never going to tell anyone to do, but you would think something like this would have been thought of by the people attempting effective vaccines.
And I'm not sure about infecting your toe...
Keep in mind, there would be a chance for spreading. Suppose you picked a random spot and it turned into a violent infection. I'm never going to tell anyone to do, but you would think something like this would have been thought of by the people attempting effective vaccines.
It looks like this has already been discussed on the expert forum. http://www.medhelp.org/posts/STDs/Theoretical-herpes-question/show/245682. The doctor's only comment was "In theory, intentional infection with oral HSV-2 likely would protect against future HSV-2 genital infection." Hmmm.
Although some reports seem to indicate that the chances of an HSV-2 oral recurrence are very low (one report I read said 0.1%), there are some pretty scary reports from people with constant painful oral HSV-2 recurrences. So, I don't know what to think.
Another option would be to intentionally infect some other part of the body (like a toe or finger?). Basically anywhere where the virus isn't likely to be too effective, and would force the body to produce antibodies.
Another option would be to intentionally infect some other part of the body (like a toe or finger?). Basically anywhere where the virus isn't likely to be too effective, and would force the body to produce antibodies.
I have read that the protection would be there, but still seems like you're giving up on the risk of not getting it just by being careful.
Well, whether it is radical is a matter of opinion. Suppose you are married to someone that is GHSV2+ and want to have regular unprotected sex with them. The chances of you getting GHSV2 after 5 or 10 years is relatively high, even if they take antivirals.
On the flip side, it's unclear to me how significant an oral HSV2 infection is likely to be. We seem to know it sheds only 1% of the time. And Dr. HHH has said "Initial oral infections with HSV-2 aren't all that rare...However, for reasons that are not well understood, recurrent oral herpes due to HSV-2 is very rare." I wish I could quantify this risk a little better, but I'm not sure research exists.
Also, I'm not entirely clear how much protection from GHSV-2 would be provided by having oral HSV-2.
On the flip side, it's unclear to me how significant an oral HSV2 infection is likely to be. We seem to know it sheds only 1% of the time. And Dr. HHH has said "Initial oral infections with HSV-2 aren't all that rare...However, for reasons that are not well understood, recurrent oral herpes due to HSV-2 is very rare." I wish I could quantify this risk a little better, but I'm not sure research exists.
Also, I'm not entirely clear how much protection from GHSV-2 would be provided by having oral HSV-2.
I would not say this is any type of solution...
If HSV2 oral is not severe as you mentioned, and you were in a lifelong partnership with a verified case of genital HSV2 then it would be a thought, but why not just take antivirals?
What made you think of such a radical course of action?
If HSV2 oral is not severe as you mentioned, and you were in a lifelong partnership with a verified case of genital HSV2 then it would be a thought, but why not just take antivirals?
What made you think of such a radical course of action?
Have an Answer?
You are reading content posted in the Herpes Community
Herpes spreads by oral, vaginal and anal sex.
Herpes sores blister, then burst, scab and heal.
STIs are the most common cause of genital sores.
Millions of people are diagnosed with STDs in the U.S. each year.
STDs can't be transmitted by casual contact, like hugging or touching.
Syphilis is an STD that is transmitted by oral, genital and anal sex.
