Relying on herpes pictures that are found on the Internet and in books found at the library cannot be discounted, but proper examination from a medical professional is always the most conclusive way of diagnosing any unexplainable condition that may be taking up existence in your life.Yahoo Images (Absolutely the WORST CASE Scenarios – Do NOT rely on these photos to show exactly what herpes looks like – every case varies).They also need to plan out what (and how) to test on the next “The overall prevalence of genital herpes is likely higher than 16.2%, because an increasing number of genital herpes infections are caused by HSV-1. For example, the University of Wisconsin did a 9-year study which ended in 2003 that showed that during those 9 years, 78% of the new genital herpes infections which came through their clinic were HSV-1, not HSV-2.Increases in genital HSV-1 infections have been found in patient populations worldwide.” HSV-1 numbers are actually available. So, their HSV-2 and genital herpes statistics still match, when it’s impossible for them to actually do so. It’s also worth mentioning that Oral HSV and HSV-1 are all but nonexistent on the CDC site. Another research project in Nova Scotia, Canada revealed that, of women under age 30 who had genital herpes, 73.7% were due to HSV-1.BACKGROUND ON HSV-2 INFECTIONS AND GENITAL HERPES Genital herpes caused by herpes simplex virus type 2 (HSV-2) remains a huge medical and public health problem.About 540 million people between the ages of 14 and 49 are life-long carriers of the HSV-2 virus.They keep attempting to apply other people’s statistics to their own of what “herpes” is.Statistics can be pretty confusing – especially herpes statistics. Mainly because they all include the term “have herpes”, while they’re all talking about completely different things. So, you simply cannot measure “Genital Herpes” prevalence via blood testing; such a test can only determine that the Herpes Simplex Virus is present, in some nerve, somewhere in your body. the determination was made and explain the limitations: that most, but not all HSV-2 infections are genital and that exact location can’t be determined by such testing.
Not because the science is faulty, but because the people communicating the statistics are not communicating them properly.According to the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, the early clinical trials look very promising.Mary Engel just published another excellent article in the field of new advances in finding a treatment/cure for herpes. Here is her article that has some really great information. My name is Bill Halford and I am an Associate Professor of Microbiology and Immunology at Southern Illinois University School of Medicine in Springfield, Illinois.I have studied herpes simplex virus (HSV) biology since 1991, and I became interested in trying to develop a safe and effective HSV-2 vaccine in 2006.One of the most common mistakes that anyone with herpes can do is to begin a search of self-diagnosis based on herpes pictures they find on the Internet.Some of the most gruesome herpes pictures are on display on the sites you will explore when seeking out descriptive herpes pictures.There are at least 100 individuals in the world who are actively pursuing a HSV-2 vaccine, and I am one of these many researchers.In this blog, I will try to cut through the nomenclature and statistics and explain in relatively straightforward terms what we know about HSV-2 vaccines and what we need to do next to advance a safe and effective HSV-2 vaccine to human clinical trials.A little over 2 years ago, we wrote about Genocea's GEN-003 therapeutic vaccination.The good news is the study is still going on and Genocea has updated their website with some promising information.Even prior to that, if you really dug into the fine print, the CDC did explain how the numbers were derived, but they didn’t explain that HSV-1 causes genital herpes, too, or that not all HSV-2 is genital. The public doesn’t dig that deep, though; they just read the main statistic and run around repeating it without understanding or supplying the parameters.It’s more accurate to say that the CDC didn’t , which renders the CDC’s original 16.2% (1 in 6) statistic pretty much useless. They’re just trying to figure out what, exactly, to do about it.Yet, whoever cites them remains utterly convinced that they are armed with the truth, that they know what they’re talking about and that communicating the finer details doesn’t matter. So, they were making an assumption by transferring the number for HSV-2 to “Genital Herpes”.