I reckon my mother gave it to me when I was a toddler. Should I sue?

Nah. We want names, dates and lots and lots of finger pointing.

Then you can sue.

Concerning the so called Herpes blood test. This doesn't actually test for Herpes. It test for herpes antibodies produced in response to a Herpes infection.

So if someone has very rare or never had an outbreak of herpes then it is unlikely it would come up positive on a herpes antibody test even if they are infected with herpes...

I've always been surprised at how many people from back home (U.S.) have no idea that cold sores are caused by Herpes I (or II). Here in the French speaking part it's kind of hard to feign ignorance as they simply call it- herpes.

It technically isn't in your blood stream but rather in nerve roots

http://www.hopkinsbayview.org/infect...ti/herpes.html

An excellent FAQ on herpes which answers anything anyone would ever want to know about it.

I had atletes foot once and hemorr------- ahhhh nevermind

I doubt that very much. Once you got infected, you have it. There's no way to get rid of it. Having gotten it means there also are are antibodies, hence positive testing.

I'm not exactly an expert concerning the serological / virological details, I'm just one of those who have to deal with the practical consequences of the problem on a daily basis, so maybe not all the details mentioned above are 100% bullet-proof, but we have people who know more. Angela?

Actually this is true to an extent. please if a doctor read this, correct me if I am wrong.

AFAIK, the virus enters your body through an unprotected area, so usually mucous tissue ( like lips, genitals, eyes, nose ) or a wound ( healthy skin is a good protector ) . it could at that point produce an outbreak or simply not and go through your nerves to place itself on a safe place ( ganglions on the lower back for HSV2 or on the neck for HSV1 ) , from there it could lie inactive or outbreak, usually on the same area where it came in. just like as if the virus had some memory of the way to get out and reproduce.

Also it seems to be very unlikely to self infect you. so If you have them on the lips for example, to bring it into your eyes would not be that easy, as there has to be a direct tissue to tissue contact, if the virus leaves the body it will die very quickly, so to self infect you or to infect you by touching someone infected and then touching yourself. there has to be for example a wound on the finger tips or maybe that you were rubbing the infected area and then immediately go quickly rub the other area.

Also the HSV1 or HSV2 are basically the same virus, it is just the place where they entered the body and where does they reside when inactive that diferentiates them on the medical sense. The distinction is the one made by people attributing it as "clean" for HSV1 and "dirty" for HSV2, in fact both act the same way and produce the same kind of sores, just on different mucous tissue areas and so the HSV1 one is easier to catch than the other.

If you have infrequent infections your antibody levels will decrease

http://www.stdservices.on.net/std/herpes/serology.htm

Edit: http://ukpmc.ac.uk/abstract/MED/1661...260CBC9A7.jvm1 A link to a peer reviewed study concerning this too.

Someone said train wreck?

Reporting for duty .

Thanks porsch. That's just the problem you have with so many tests -- the possibility of false positive and false negative results. But that does not necessarily mean that no or rare outbreaks may cause false negatives, as you wrote in your previous post. The frequency of ourbreaks is influenced by many factors. Antibody levels are only one of them.

By the way, one of my former assistants got a cold sore each and every time she saw a patient with a cold sore. There were no exceptions. It worked even with photos in medical journals. Triggering a bout was a purely mental thing. When I feel a sore coming up, which is very rare, Zovirax stops it within just a few hours, always, whereas it didn't do a diddlydoo for my assitant.

As for warning other people, I suggest signs in the front yards, comparable to those for sex offenders in certain places of this world: "WARNING: A serologically confirmed HSV carriert lives here!" One might also consider new signs on roads and highways leading into settlements: "Welcome to ZÜRICH, home of approx. 289,000 HSV carriers." The digits could be of the exchangeable kind, as on gas station billboards. Now, is that a market niche or what?

__________________

"This is AMAZING! I have the exact amount of money Joe Biden has cost us playing golf in my sweatpants pocket!" — Kona Lowell

If you have less outbreaks you have less antibodies so there is more chance of it not appearing on a blood test.

I'm not saying the frequency of outbreaks is influenced by antibody levels. I'm saying antibody levels are influenced by the frequency of outbreaks.

That's exactly what I contest. Antibody level depends on the reaction of your immune system to the antigen. That again is affected by many factors. The immune system may be strong, weak or anything in between. On the other hand, frequent outbreaks may be caused by a poor immune response, read: low antobody level. It's the same with many other infections too.

Okay so the antigen here is herpes. If there is less viral shedding then less antibodies will be produced. Over time the antibodies which exist will decrease. If there is less viral shedding, antibody population is decreasing then there is more chance of seroprevalence.

How can you contest that

Again I'm not contesting that low antibody levels will give more frequent outbreaks. But if there are low antibodies because of less frequent outbreaks then that's a different case situation.

I see your point, but my questions are,

1. Is antibody production stimulated only or at least mainly by outbreaks? If so, wouldn't that mean that a period of less frequent outbreaks ought to result in an increase of outbreaks because of the decreasing antibodies? Is there any evidence of such a periodicity? I don't think so. Outbreaks occur mainly when the immune system is struggling anyway. That's why it is called a cold sore.

2. Immunosuppressants can trigger viral shedding. What are the possible conclusions?

3. In many cases, the frequency and severity of visible outbreaks (not asymptomatic shedding) decrease some time after the initial infection. Is that correlated with a lower antibody level?

__________________

"This is AMAZING! I have the exact amount of money Joe Biden has cost us playing golf in my sweatpants pocket!" — Kona Lowell

I wouldn't say so. Just wait till you have a little one, wee newborn and some good natured old aunt with a nasty outbreak of cold sore is about to slober over your newborn lips. You will jump and instruct her to please not kiss a newborn, since the consequences of some nasty virus and having an immune system old just a few days can be grave. You won't shrug your shoulders thinking so what, the little one can get it anytime, why not now.

Because violent viral infections can be a lot more serious, if they come in the wrong time. Ie. tiny babies (in our culture we do not pass a newborn to all family members to be kissed, forexample), older people with compromised health, ladies who are about to conceive or early preggo or just lost a baby, just given birth, those going through infertility treatments, etc. Math has nothing to do with this.

The lax attitude can be fine if one is not risking anything, but virus is lot easier gotten from an open sore, than a door handle. So, people who are obviously in the most contageous stage, should behave accordingly. We can be careful in normal life, wash hands, not lick subway handles, without going overboard, but there are situations when one should be more. I don't blame Peg nor JLP for being pissed, since some situations - when infections can be somewhat preventable (ie not letting somebody with an open sore rub in on your skin), it's no use being nonchallant and ignorant. It's like smearing the juices of one's own cold sores all over one's face saying, oops, I am infected, anyways.

My kiddo got it when she was a few mo old from a friend who kissed her on her lips, while she had a cold sore. The infection was brutal, she was in horrific pain for 2wks. Of course I would have welcomed to postpone the infection to a few mo later, a year, whenever. Sure she could have gotten it from creche later on, but, ther is no excuse for being stupid and pass on infection to people without thinking "oops, no kissing anyone, no bottle sharing, no cup sharing, I have a yucky thing on my lips".

I had zoster on my back when I was a teen, it's hell. The consequences of eye inf with herpes are well known, and it certainly is not a benign situation.

It's baffling that there are people who actually do not know that cold sores, afts (canker sores, as well), etc could be symptoms of the said virus.

__________________
"L'homme ne peut pas remplacer son coeur avec sa tete, ni sa tete avec ses mains." J.H. Pestalozzi

“The only difference between a rut and a grave is a matter of depth.” S.P. Cadman

"Imagination is more important than knowledge." A. Einstein

Same as the flu then.

And how are people supposed to know they are in the most contagious stage if they aren't exhibiting any symptoms but are shedding anyway?

(If they are exhibiting symptoms, of course, then anyone who is dozy enough to snog them anyway deserves what they get...)