There is no such thing as perfect immunity, that is a myth. Having herpes does not guarantee that you cannot auto-inoculate yourself or be re-inoculated by someone else with the same or a different strain of herpes after antibodies are formed.

Date:   9/23/2007 3:33:09 AM ( 17 y ago)

I believe that it is misleading not to disclose risk even if that risk is considered to be small.

This is why the government requires drug companies disclose side-effects even when they are rare- so that people can have the information and make their own decisions on whether or not they wish to take that risk.

There is no such thing as perfect immunity, that is a myth. Having herpes does not guarantee that you cannot auto-inoculate yourself or be re-inoculated by someone else with the same or a different strain of herpes after antibodies are formed. The consensus is that the risk is small but there is no quantitative proof of just how small. We warn people to be careful of auto-inoculating their eyes and other body parts even though the risk is small. We warn people not to share wet towels or face-cloths even though the risk is small. We warn pregnant mothers about the risk of having an outbreak during delivery even though neo-natal herpes only happens in 1 out of every 5500 births.

I also believe that it is unethical to not warn people of your herpes status before being intimate with them, no matter if it's only for casual sex or sex-for-hire.

I understand the temptation to try and downplay the risks of herpes.

It's easier to stay in the closet and not advise people of the full spectrum of risks associated with herpes but I cannot support that practice. I believe in disclosure and allowing individuals to decide what risks they are willing or not willing to take.

Christopher Scipio
Homeopath/Herbalist
Holistic Viral Specialist

http://www.natropractica.com


http://www.herpesbook.com


 

Popularity:   message viewed 2811 times
URL:   http://www.curezone.org/blogs/fm.asp?i=1004991

<< Return to the standard message view