Re: [UUPoly-L] STDs and Poly

["Michael Rios" <earthfather@cfnc.us>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Ullman
> 
> Michael Rios wrote:           (On 08:52 PM 9/16/2008)
> >Unlike HPV, herpes has not been linked to any other illness 
> or disease 
> >process, nor is any suspected.  And in a very high 
> percentage of cases 
> >that are recurrent, the outbreaks can be minimized or eliminated by 
> >following an appropriate diet.  There are also highly effective 
> >medicines as well.
> 
> There is some danger to newborns if the mother has her first 
> outbreak of herpes late in pregnancy. This is because the 
> fetus doesn't get the benefit of maternal antibodies against 
> herpes that are developed after the first outbreak. The 
> consequences of herpes infection to newborns is more severe 
> than to adults, as I understand it.

That is generally correct, John.  The risk to the infant is not from the
mother having her first *outbreak* during the third trimester, but from her
*contracting* it in the third trimester.  There is a significant difference
here, because many people contract herpes without *any* outbreak ever, and
some people could contract it, then have their first outbreak months or
years later.  In general, if herpes is a concern, the risk can be eliminated
by delivering the baby by Caesarian section.  The infection risk is strictly
during the infant's passage through the birth canal.

I tend to forget about that issue, since so few of the people I deal with
are likely to wind up pregnant.  Most of the people I deal with are done
with childbearing, or have chosen to be child-free.  I need to be more
conscious of this issue, though, since I do talk to a variety of audiences
about it.

By the way, the article has a critical, even alarming, typo:  the headline
says "Cesarean does not prevent transmission", and the body of the text says
"Cesarean does prevent transmission".  The correct information, from what I
can determine, is the body of the text-- Caesarin *does* prevent
transmission.

> I would certainly rather have a herpes outbreak than a cold, 
> but for some, particularly woman, I think, for the first year 
> or so, herpes outbreaks can be very painful.

It is *extremely* variable.  Lots of people, women and men, have virtually
painless outbreaks once, and then never again.  Some people have a very bad
outbreak once, then never again.  And there are a few folks who have ongoing
outbreaks-- and some of those are painful, and some are virtually painless.
The fortunate thing is that for the vast majority of people, its direct
effects are *very* limited.
 
> Also, the emotional impact of having herpes is not trivial.

*That* is the real issue, to my mind.  The reason that there is an emotional
impact is because most people don't understand how prevalent herpes is, nor
how minimal the significance is in the vast majority of cases.  If people
responded to it the same way they do to cold sores, or any other comparable
illness, it would be a "no big deal" item, and the emotional impact would be
hardly worth mentioning.

How many people here ask someone if they have ever had cold sores before
being willing to kiss them?  How many people here would then refuse to kiss
someone if you did know that they had ever had cold sores?  This is the
exact same issue as genital herpes (except for the pregnancy issue).

Anything we can do to rationalize people's reactions to herpes would be a
huge benefit to many people, and to all of us from the perspective of
encouraging a positive, fact-based approach to sexuality in the culture at
large.

Michael Rios