Re: NIDS

[Guest guest]

> I keep asking questions only to get this clearer in my head. Valtrex (for

genital herpes-HSV2) apparently can be prescribed for once a day dosing.

Presumably that does something to stop the virus from replicating.

Yes. I'm not sure how. That was one of the things that I mentioned before

(some treatments only require 1x a day dosing)- how this works, I just don't

know. It is used in once a day dosing, I think, even in chicken pox, and this

*may* come from the difference between treating a *stealth* virus vs. a latent

or active virus. I've often wondered if it's possible that because the dosages

are higher (they're usually taking up to 3 grams) in those using it once a day,

that maybe the half-life is different? But that doesn't really seem sound to

me, it seems like the half-life would be the half-life not matter what. So I

don't know and it is something I've been trying to figure out.

> It is also my understanding that valtrex doesn't work (as in stopping the

replication of virus) unless the virus is active (but that sort of thinking is

sort of contrary to the once a day dosing).

Not true. Well, it is and it isn't. I've heard the argument before and I don't

buy it because we don't know enough about *stealth* virus activity. I can't

provide a really strong argument because I don't have that kind of scientific

knowledge, I can only use my own observations on why I think it's not true.

Latent just means it's there, you're a carrier - so this is where you get the

idea that it's not doing anything unless it's active. It is used

prophylactically in this case, meaning it's going to prevent reactivation

because it stops replication, thereby preventing reactivation.

For example, take this situation in person A: Herpes is latent. It decides to

become active again. It can't because there is an antiviral blocking it's

replication process. No active herpes. So phooey on the idea that it's not

doing anything unless there is an active infection - it's being used as a

prophylactic.

But it doesn't take into account person B: Herpes is stealth. It's doing

little things, the immune system is doing what it can to suppress it so it's not

actively causing genital warts or whatever strain the herpes virus is. But it's

wreaking havoc elsewhere. Pockets of it are in the brain causing neuro issues,

etc. Antivirals work to suppress *stealth* activity.

I'm not a doctor, I have no idea if this is verifiable fact. But what is

verifiable is that people like my son, who don't have an " active " infection are

being helped because they are treating the " stealth " virus. The virus *is*

doing something and the antivirals *are* helping - otherwise we wouldn't see

regression every time he stops taking them.

So the idea that it's not doing anything is simply not true. This idea of

antivirals is not simply an autism thing, it's used CFS (which is where it

originated, I think) and fibromyalgia and many other areas. If it didn't do

anything unless it was active, AIDS patients wouldn't be taking antivirals

daily.

Now, because I don't have the background, I can't tell you I'm right. I could

be waaay off the mark. I look at it like this, though: If you can't apply the

actual medical logic (because you don't have it, like me), you have to apply the

only logic you have available and right now. My logic tells me that that any

argument that says antivirals isn't doing anything unless it's an active

infection is just poop in a toilet. Flush that sucker away.

> My understanding also is that valtrex and/or acyclovir work for HSV1 and HSV2

but not for HHV6 and maybe or maybe not for other herpes viruses.

Also not true. Only sort of true. Valtrex works best against the STD strains,

yes. But it does work for HHV6 - just not as effectively as other drugs, we

have to take safety into consideration.

> I wonder if herpes viruses in our kids are different or respond differently

than how valtrex and acyclovir work for HSV1 and HSV2 in typical people. My

son's HSV1 and HSV2 are negative but his HHV6 is high.

I don't think so. I think it's mostly that we don't understand *stealth* virus

enough.

> We haven't had gains, only worse behavior on 3x/day dosing for 40 days.

Maybe switch antivirals?