As someone who gets cold sores this worries me. I know when I am super stressed because a cold sore will begin to appear on my lip. It's always there but stress allows it to replicate, all parts of my immune system are not able to cope during stressful events. I hope this doesn't mean I'm at risk for Alzheimer's disease.
At least it's now known when people sleep it clears out beta-amyloid proteins in their brains. Not a cure but at least it's good to know sleep helps flush out the bad stuff.
My doctor told me to take Lysine 500mg per day to prevent them. You have to take it everyday forever, but it works really really well. Surprised it's not a more well known treatment. I only found out about it a couple years ago. Good luck!
Note that these results describe the presence of HHV-6 and HHV-7, which cause roseola. Herpes simplex is HSV-1 and HSV-2, which cause cold sores and genital herpes, respectively.
I don't know your situation, but if you don't already, you should get an RX for Valtrex or some other anti-viral. You can usually take it _before_ the cold sore appears if you can tell it's about to (swelling, stress, etc...) – and it can and often entirely suppresses the external appearance for most people.
Are we thinking of the same drug? Because Valtrex is pretty safe as long as your kidneys are normal and you drink enough water every day. I take 500 mg daily to prevent 5 to 10 (at least!) cold sores per year. My quality of life is so much higher with this drug (imagine not being able to be intimate on like half of all your dates...) For people like me who get cold sores at the drop of a hat (or shaving or even a sharp cold breeze), it’s a fine risk, and I’d even be willing to risk more.
The more disturbing side effects are rare, but very very serious. I would consider the drug for, say, shingles. But not a chance for a cold sore that’s nothing but a minor nuisance for a few days:
Virtually any drug looks scary when viewing its side effects in totality like that. The throwaway you're replying to is correct in saying it's a pretty safe drug.
>But not a chance for a cold sore that’s nothing but a minor nuisance for a few days
Except the virus regularly sheds asymptomatically, and Valacyclovir reduces that risk significantly, thus affording far more protection to one's partners.
I otherwise agree with you, but for sexually active adults who are positive, taking it is virtually an obligation unless their partner(s) already have the virus as well.
Exactly! It’s also way more than a “minor nuisance”. Try two weeks of painful, disgusting scabbing, washing your hands constantly (God help you if you self-infect your eye, which is totally a thing), and a decent amount of pain and self-esteem problems. Oh, and forget about using your mouth for pretty much anything besides eating, and even that can be difficult. It’s totallt a quality of life thing. I have so many outbreaks, which can be caused by something as benign as shaving or kissing someone with a beard (and I happen to be into dudes), that there really is no other option. I guess I could spend my life breaking out in gross herpes sores, or... I could take a pill every day like I have been for years with no ill effects, and enjoy the things that everyone else does.
You actually buy and take some kind of man-made chemical every single day to avoid getting a cold sore every month or two?
Here is the list of known side-effects here (sorry about the formatting but i guess carriage returns don't translate well):
Along with its needed effects, valacyclovir (the active ingredient contained in Valtrex) may cause some unwanted effects. Although not all of these side effects may occur, if they do occur they may need medical attention.
Check with your doctor immediately if any of the following side effects occur while taking valacyclovir:
More common
Discouragement
feeling sad or empty
irritability
lack of appetite
loss of interest or pleasure
tiredness
trouble concentrating
trouble sleeping
Rare
Black, tarry stools
chest pain
chills
cough
decreased frequency or output of urine
fever
flu-like symptoms
headache
lower back or side pain
reduced mental alertness
shortness of breath
yellow eyes or skin
Incidence not known
Actions that are out of control
agitation
anxiety
back, leg, or stomach pains
bleeding gums
blood in urine or stools
blurred vision
change in consciousness
change in mental status
changes in behavior, especially in interactions with other people
changes in patterns and rhythms of speech
dark or bloody urine
difficult or labored breathing
difficulty speaking
difficulty swallowing
dizziness
drowsiness
dry mouth
fast, pounding, or irregular heartbeat or pulse
feeling that others are watching you or controlling your behavior
feeling that others can hear your thoughts
feeling, seeing, or hearing things that are not there
general tiredness and weakness
hyperventilation
increased thirst
itching
lightheadedness when getting up from a lying or sitting position
light-colored stools
loss of consciousness
mood or mental changes
nausea and vomiting
nervousness
pale color of skin
pinpoint red spots on the skin
pounding in the ears
puffiness or swelling of the eyelids or around the eyes, face, lips, or tongue
redness of the skin
restlessness
seeing, hearing, or feeling things that are not there
seizures
severe mood or mental changes
shakiness and unsteady walk
shakiness in the legs, arms, hands, or feet
skin rash
slurred speech
sores, ulcers, or white spots on the lips or in the mouth
stiff neck
swelling of the face, fingers, or lower legs
swollen or painful glands
talking, feeling, and acting with excitement
tightness in the chest
trembling or shaking of the hands or feet
trouble in speaking
troubled breathing
unsteadiness, trembling, or other problems with muscle control or coordination
unusual behavior
unusual bleeding or bruising
unusual tiredness or weakness
upper right abdominal pain
vomiting
weight gain
wheezing
Some side effects of valacyclovir may occur that usually do not need medical attention. These side effects may go away during treatment as your body adjusts to the medicine. Also, your health care professional may be able to tell you about ways to prevent or reduce some of these side effects. Check with your health care professional if any of the following side effects continue or are bothersome or if you have any questions about them:
More common
Body aches or pain
cramps
difficulty in moving
ear congestion
heavy bleeding
loss of voice
muscle aches
muscle pain or stiffness
nasal congestion
pain
pain in joints
sneezing
sore throat
stuffy or runny nose
Less common
Constipation
diarrhea
Incidence not known
Blistering, peeling, or loosening of the skin
hair loss or thinning of the hair
hives or welts
increased sensitivity of skin to sunlight
red, irritated eyes
redness or other discoloration of the skin
severe sunburn
For Healthcare Professionals
Applies to valacyclovir: oral tablet
Gastrointestinal
Very common (10% or more): Nausea (up to 16%)
Common (1% to 10%): Vomiting, constipation, anorexia, dyspepsia, dry mouth, flatulence
Frequency not reported: Tooth disorder
Postmarketing reports: Diarrhea[Ref]
Nervous system
Very common (10% or more): Headache (up to 16%)
Common (1% to 10%): Dizziness, somnolence
Frequency not reported: Migraine
Postmarketing reports: Seizures, tremors, ataxia, coma, dysarthria, encephalopathy[Ref]
Neurologic/psychiatric events, sometimes severe, have included confusion, agitation, convulsions, hallucinations, and coma have generally been reversible with discontinuation. These events have mostly been seen in patients with renal impairment or in patients receiving higher doses.[Ref]
Psychiatric
Neurologic/psychiatric events, sometimes severe, have included confusion, agitation, convulsions, hallucinations, and coma have generally been reversible with discontinuation. These events have mostly been seen in patients with renal impairment or in patients receiving higher doses.[Ref]
Common (1% to 10%): Depression, insomnia
Postmarketing reports: Aggressive behavior, agitation, confusion, mania, psychosis, auditory and visual hallucinations[Ref]
Renal
Uncommon (0.1% to 1%): Increased serum creatinine
Frequency not reported: Acute renal failure
Postmarketing reports: Renal failure, renal pain[Ref]
Hematologic
TTP/HUS, including some fatalities, has been reported during clinical trials in patients with advanced HIV disease and in allogeneic bone marrow transplant and renal transplant recipients, who were receiving 8 g per day.[Ref]
Common (1% to 10%): Decreased neutrophil counts, decreased platelet counts
Uncommon (0.1% to 1%): Decreased hemoglobin
Frequency not reported: Thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura/hemolytic uremic syndrome
Postmarketing reports: Thrombocytopenia, aplastic anemia, leukocytoclastic vasculitis[Ref]
Hepatic
Common (1% to 10%): Abnormal ALT, elevated alkaline phosphatase, elevated AST
Postmarketing reports: Hepatitis[Ref]
Dermatologic
Common (1% to 10%): Rash
Frequency not reported: Acne, pruritus
Postmarketing reports: Facial edema, erythema multiforme, photosensitivity, alopecia[Ref]
Respiratory
Common (1% to 10%): Nasopharyngitis, upper respiratory tract infection, rhinitis, pharyngitis
Uncommon (0.1% to 1%): Dyspnea
Frequency not reported: Sinusitis, bronchitis[Ref]
Musculoskeletal
Common (1% to 10%): Arthralgia
Uncommon (0.1% to 1%): Back pain[Ref]
Genitourinary
Frequency not reported: Dysmenorrhea, urinary tract infection[Ref]
Other
Common (1% to 10%): Fatigue, asthenia, fever, chills[Ref]
General
The most commonly reported adverse reactions have been headache, nausea, and abdominal pain.[Ref]
References
1. "Product Information. Valtrex (valacyclovir)." Glaxo Wellcome, Research Triangle Park, NC.
2. Cerner Multum, Inc. "UK Summary of Product Characteristics." O 0
3. Cerner Multum, Inc. "Australian Product Information." O 0
> You actually buy and take some kind of man-made chemical every single day to avoid getting a cold sore every month or two?
Yes? I don’t understand why you’re being so judgemental considering this is between me and my doctor and Valtrex is an incredibly safe drug. Unless you’ve gotten cold sores like I have (try four at a time), I’m really not interested in what you have to say, which seems to just be a regurgitation of side effects, which I will remind you have to be reported from the experimental group REGARDLESS of whether or not they’re actually caused by the medication (because you really have no way of knowing). Furthermore, I don’t actually experience any of those side effects. The main concern is that Valtrex may cause reversible kidney damage, but they do labs every so often and my kidneys are totally fine.
>Thats's interesting but I'm referring to a cold sore not the genital or other types.
"Cold sores" is just another word for oral HSV-1 or more rarely oral HSV-2. While HSV-2 is commonly referred to as genital herpes due to its historical preference for that site, the truth is that both viruses can readily infect both oral and genital sites. Genital HSV-1 for example is very prevalent:
"With respect to genital HSV-1 infection, 140 million people aged 15-49-years were estimated to have genital HSV-1 infection worldwide in 2012, but prevalence varied substantially by region. Most genital HSV-1 infections are estimated to occur in the Americas, Europe and Western Pacific, where HSV-1 continues to be acquired well into adulthood" [0]
In other words, the dichotomy between cold sores and genital herpes is largely pointless; it's the same virus. Oral can transmit to genital and vice/versa. Why one is heavily stigmatized and the other not is simply puzzling.
The study referenced in the article says they found HHV-6 in normal brains but there was "increased HHV-6A and HHV-7 in brains of subjects with Alzheimer’s disease" [1]. So I would say that is surprising and worth noting.
It may be worth noting but it also could very easily be a mistake of identifying an effect as a cause. Once the body is unhealthy all kinds of organisms use that opportunity to stake a claim.
Great point. Healthy people (or any other life form) do not suddenly get sick and die. I think this is a major issue with the entire system of Western medicine. Instead of focussing on healthy diet, lifestyle, exercise, managing stress, the system just wants to identify certain 'germs' and give pills that are supposed to kill those 'germs'...
As I understand it, licensed physicians in the US, even after like 12 years of higher education, never even study nutrition...what could possibly be more fundamental to human health than the food you eat??
Refreshing to see a comment like jacquesm made here.
> I think this is a major issue with the entire system of Western medicine
As opposed to magic like Chinese medicine? Animal Spirits? Shaman? What exactly are you comparing to?
Western medicine, for all its serious flaws, has done more to increase life expectancy and save lives than any other system. By many orders of magnitude.
> Healthy people (or any other life form) do not suddenly get sick and die
Demonstrably false, all throughout human history. In some societies people simply reused children's names and didn't mourn the way we do because it was an absolute certainty that at least a few of your children would die young.
People have been suddenly dropping dead from cancer, flu, random infections, et al for all of human history. In my mother's youth every summer random kids came down with polio. They woke up one morning saying "momma I can't move my legs" and that was the end of their dreams.
Animals also drop dead. Why do you think there are so many animal rituals designed to avoid actual combat? Why do you think males of species that fight each other chest pound, yell, stomp, leap, or otherwise put on these displays? Because one injury can mean death. Even a scrape can easily get infected. Such displays are designed to avoid this scenario as often as possible.
> Instead of focussing on healthy diet, lifestyle, exercise, managing stress,
Western medicine does focus on these things. They aren't magic cures any more than pills are... but peddlers of woo and unscientific nonsense often like to pretend diet can cure every disease, so I'd urge caution lest someone think you're one of those people.
Hey there, you needn't be so belligerent on this topic; it's a topic where everyone cares about the right things - i.e., keeping people alive and well for longer.
Through my own health challenges that have extended back 10+ years, I've avidly used both conventional medicine and natural/complementary treatments (acupuncture, naturopathy, emotion-based therapies, therapeutic breathing exercises), and through extensive experience I know better than most that both have their place and both serve very different functions.
Nobody doubts that modern medical innovations like antibiotics, complex surgery and many other western medical approaches have done tremendous good in terms of curing previously incurable illnesses and extending lives.
But on the matter of "people have been suddenly dropping dead from cancer, flu, random infections, et al for all of human history", it's uncontroversial that people's propensity to contract these illnesses and die from them is heavily influenced by their underlying state of health, i.e., factors like organ function, immune system fortitude, inflammation, hormone and neurotransmitter levels, nutrient intake/absorption and emotional state - all of which interact in vastly complex ways.
It's not a damning dismissal of Western medicine to say that it doesn't do so much to focus on these factors that are further upstream; it's too busy dealing with people who are acutely unwell or at risk of mortality.
Of course when you visit a general physician for a checkup they'll tell you to avoid smoking, to not consume too much alcohol or junk food and to eat plenty of vegetables.
But if you really want to go deep into understanding and optimising your underlying health - which I needed to do, due to having impairments that conventional medicine couldn't help with - less conventional approaches can be highly beneficial.
And for what it's worth, I do know a lot about the placebo effect!
Your understanding is incorrect in that Nutrition is included in medical education, although you are right in that it isn't much.
There is a saying in medical education that med profs often like to quote: "Half of what we teach you will be wrong in four years, the problem is we don't know which half"
When I was in medical school we were just emerging from the 'fat is bad', towards what I see now as a more 'carbs are bad' (this is a dumb oversimplification but I think sums up the trends). Thumbing through my 2001 copy of 'Harrison's Internal Medicine' there is just a 40 page section on nutrition (out of 2600 pages), and most of that is on various forms of malnourishment (rickets, scurvy, etc...)
The biggest problem with studying what is good nutrition is that it is really hard to control what people eat in a randomized study and there are so many confounders when you try to look at retrospective studies on healthy populations (for example, 7th Day Adventists live longer, is it because of the diet, or because of community, etc...?)
>> "We mapped out the social network, if you will, of which genes the viruses are friends with and who they're talking to inside the brain," Dudley says. In essence, he says, they wanted to know: "If the viruses are tweeting, who's tweeting back?"
Finally, a relatable metaphor for millennials like me!
> They also found that these Alzheimer's risk genes seem to make a person's brain more vulnerable to infection with the two herpes viruses.
If that is the case, people predisposed for Alzheimer will naturally have more herpes virus in the brain - does not seem like viruses are anywhere near the root cause of Alzheimer's.
Reading these studies makes me think an ineffective blood-brain barrier or a brain-specific defence might trigger common viruses to present a wider family of brain-related diseases.
We also know there is literature on encephalitis caused by both HHV-6 and measles. I'm speculating that even in a micro, benign form, this condition is enough the shake brain structure.
We should probably investigate a more complex but more generic model of brain diseases.
Potentially topical oddball thing I learned while looking up something on measles. About 1 in 10000 people[1] that contact measles go on to develop subacute sclerosing panencephalitis[2] 6 to 15 years later. While results in brain deterioration and death.
It always struck me as odd how accepting everyone was of the inevitability and benign-ness of chickenpox. Even though we know the virus is still present after the rash, it seemed strange to me how it was assumed no less visible effects were occurring.
HPV is another which I found odd how little importance was placed on preventing its spread growing up. Even today we're still selective about the immunization of people against this virus, knowing it's responsible for most occurrences of cervical cancer.
I suspect we'll almost certainly learn something less obvious about herpes of comparable importance to HPVs role in cervical cancer.
>It always struck me as odd how accepting everyone was of the inevitability and benign-ness of chickenpox.
Funny enough, genital Varicella Zoster (chicken pox) is a thing. Somewhat rare since most people already contract the virus at a different site during childhood, but it happens. It even presents very similar to a normal HSV-1/2 genital infection since it is also a herpesvirus.
This is not surprising. At least one study [1] showed 85% of people's brains are PCR-positive for at least HHV-6. It is also important to keep in mind that herpesviruses have evolved with us (and many other species) and in some ways are considered part of our normal flora. They may also play an important role in the proper development of our immune system.
The data in this paper is suggestive (and complicated!!), but there is no convincing mechanism for the virus having anything to do with the development of Alzheimers. The real virology here will be very hard.
Likewise, detectable RNA/DNA does not mean there's virus (virions).
An unusual example, but it's common to have Ebola virus RNA in semen (a fluid from another immuno-privileged site) with no detectable virus for months after primary infection. (https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa1511410 among others.) Similar patterns exist for lots of other viruses.
It is a normal part of all herpesviruses to be quiescent. They have the capacity to reactivate from nothing but their genome into a fully functional virus.
Ebola is a negative-stranded RNA virus, and it is unlikely to find naked RNA in any body site. Rather, it is a mix of infectious virions and noninfectioius virus-like particles. The NEJM study you site was a qRTPCR only study. There was no attempt to actually culture the virus from the semen. Previous studies have tried culturing, and it difficult to culture semen-derived virus at the qRTPCR titers identified here.
This is more difficult than is sounds. Herpesviruses are quiescent (latent) for much of their lives and exist only as DNA, with no virions being produced. There are different latency "programs"--during some of these, there may be a handful of virus genes produced, and some there are no genes produced. Circumstances may cause these virus genomes to reactivate--transcribing genes and making virions.
Maybe confusingly, herpesviruses may still contribute to the biology of the cell even in the latent state.
DNA/RNA sequencing is also more sensitive in some ways (which can be both good and bad). It is also a very broad tool. You can go back to large datasets and try to squeeze more information out--even things you werent looking for originally, like herpesviruses. NCBI also hosts a very large repository of raw sequence data (SRA--the sequence read archive). Much of this data has decent metadata, so you could conceivably even do a new study on somebody else's old data.
Realistically, probably because they're not virologists. Looking for nucleic acids is easy/commonplace. Virus culture, electron microscopy and immunoassays are more specialized techniques.
If they aren't virologists, maybe they should leave this kind of research to those that are? The headline says "Researchers Find Herpes Viruses" ...but they didn't (or cannot?) find them? Then, umm...why does it say that?
Acyclovir improves outcomes in HSV encephalitis [0], but does not completely cure it or prevent long-term damage in all patients.
The worst side effect of encephalitis is memory impairment:
> The most common and most disabling complication of herpes simplex encephalitis in our patients, and in other studies,9 10 20-24 was memory impairment, which especially affected short term memory. Occasionally remote memory is more severely affected than anterograde memory.
Don't forget Cytomegalovirus (CMV, or HHV-5)! (Also, the zoster/chickenpox virus is calle Varicella-zoster virus (VZV or HHV-3).
Since there is no proposed mechanism for how the virus may be involved, there is no way to know if acyclovir, cidofovir, or any nucleoside analog might help. These drugs only really help to stop actively replicating viruses (lytic viruses). Most of the herpesvirus life cycle is spent in "latency" where it only exists as a piece of DNA (some, like HHV6/7 may integrate into the host chromosome, others like HSV-1/HHV-1 and EBV/HHV-4 maintain their genome as a separate molecule). During this period, there are few, if any, genes made, but in some cases, those genes may be important to disease pathogenesis. The role of herpesviruses in latency-associated diseases is very complicated, and is also dependent on host genetics.
People with Alzheimer's seem to have more things in their brain that shouldn't be there than normal. Past findings include types of immune cells that shouldn't be there, various yeast, other types of virus etc. It's not clear if all those are there due to the blood-brain barrier loosing structural integrity, or those cause Alzheimer's in the first place.
> In other news, Alzheimer's patients breathe oxygen and drink water. Beware!
This very remark undermines your snark. We clearly would not look at 'breathes air" or 'drinks water,' precisely because these are factors that are common in the population between those who do and those who do not develop Alzheimer's. It is, in fact, the very fact that the factors that the grandparent mentioned "don't belong in the brain" that is interesting, and suggestive of models other than, for example, "Alzheimer's is an isolated, simple condition that is relatively unaffected by confounds."
It is these very same correlations that can lead us to the likely rocks to turn over, and that is where the newsworthiness and interest derives. Everybody knows about correlation and causation. It's possibly not causative, for example, but seems to be correlative that people who snark about correlation and causation tend to shoot themselves in the feet with their sarcasm. I sure know where I'll look for a deeper explanation, though!
> The team found that levels of two human herpes viruses, HHV-6 and HHV-7, were up to twice as high in brain tissue from people with Alzheimer's.
Yes, HHV-6 is common throughout the population, including in the brain. It's an endogenous retrovirus, so is inherited via DNA, or is easily transmitted from person to person, particularly in childhood.
The issue is severity, not presence.
By the way, the variants of herpes in question are HHV-6/7, which are different to the herpes simplex viruses (HSV1/2) that cause cold sores and skin breakouts.
craftyguy truncated the comment. "...common in the population between..." those who do and those who do not. I was talking about the water and breathing comment, clearly meaning that both the diseased and the unaffected have the behaviors of drinking water and breathing air in common. It's not absolute frequency that matters, but a difference in frequency between the diseased and the disease-free that is potentially explanatory.
In the article, tbey only mention that HHV-6 and HHV-7 virus levels are increased. Don’t really see where causation is implied at all. It’s the same with elevated levels amyloid beta, only one piece of the puzzle.
Oh, my god. Is there a browser extension or a third party website or anything out there that does this for all websites? I haven't had much luck, but that's partially because some sites have chosen to make themselves unusable without javascript enabled.
You have no idea how helpful this is to me right now. I am in Chile on the most abominably slow pre-paid cell phone connection. I'm reading this from the mountains as we speak
You can also automatically enable "Reader Mode" for a single domain or all domains by pressing the reader mode button for like 2 seconds. Which is something I just recently discovered. I like this feature a lot on my iPhone. It can also be automatically enabled on macOS in the same way.
This site is for substantive, intellectually interesting discussion. The guidelines aren't rules (or else that's what they'd be called), they're there to help guide us in that direction. When commenters repeatedly post unsubstantive comments from which we don't stand to learn anything, that's not using the site as intended. If there isn't any insight in your comment, don't post it.
Not arguing with this, albeit subjective, logic, just trying to understand what's going on in this instance. How should I have expressed the insight that, "Even prior to Alzheimers, getting mentally limited as we age might be a result of an accumulation of viruses in the brain, some of which might be obtained through sexual exposure?" -- except more succinctly?
I am still not sure what is objectionable in this comment. I post in good faith, and I expect especially the mods will uphold the guideline to read a comment in the strongest plausible interpretation.
At least it's now known when people sleep it clears out beta-amyloid proteins in their brains. Not a cure but at least it's good to know sleep helps flush out the bad stuff.
https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/brain-may-flus...