Herpes support - Fear of taking medication

Author

Fear of taking medication

jeanniemay

2005-07-20, 1:58 pm

I've noticed a lot more people lately expressing fears about taking
medications for herpes, and to be honest, I really don't
get it.

The drug co's do a lot of research and have to meet stringent
regulations before they can put these drugs on the market. Yes, as with
all medications, there is a possibility of side affects, but they are
clearly listed on the accompanying pamphlet and should only be a cause
for concern IF you actually experience them.

I understand that they are quite expensive in some countries (it's
subsidised here so I only have to pay $28.00 max), but even so I only
take them when I need to - and for me that's whenever herpes is a
problem. If I have a mild outbreak, or just experience prodromal
symptoms without an actual outbreak, I don't bother; but if the
outbreak is a fullblown one and is not clearing up within a couple of
days, I take Valtrex and I don't feel guilty about it.

Seriously, what's with all the negativity towards taking drugs which
have been specifically developed for, and proven to aid in the
treatment of, herpes?

And, please don't go getting yourself all hot and bothered over my
comments... I'm not referring to anyone specifically in this group, or
any group in particular... I honestly want to know why people are so
against them and why they try to convert others to their way of
thinking.

Regards

Jeannie

Grant

2005-07-20, 1:58 pm

Hi Jeannie,

You are only looking at one aspect of taking the medication and that's why you
don't understand those of us that choose not to.

Drugs are not all harmless to all people. For instance, there are the fillers
in the medications. Take thyroid medication, specifically. I actually must
take that medication in order to live. And it is nothing but the hormone, won't
cause any trouble in the body, right? However, most of the brands of thyroid
pills contain lactose so people who are lactose intollerant have problems.
Also, each brand uses a different filler and some people react so strongly to
the filler it makes them horribly ill. I have spoken to one person who becomes
so ill with even the smallest dose of thyroid med that she can't take it at all
and what's she supposed to do? And for those of us who are vegan or vegetarian,
there are animal products in many of those pills. Heck, gel caps aren't even
vegetarian. And once, I took a harmless antibiotic for bronchitis that kicked
off such a terrible systemic reaction in my body that I suffered for many years
until I detoxed my body and got healthy.

That brings up my next subject. Masking what the outbreaks really mean. I feel
that if you're having a terrible time with outbreaks or you are trying to
protect your partner from getting herpes, then fine. It is a decision that is
up to you. However, it is my opinion that these outbreaks indicate a problem
with the immune system. By taking the pills you may be overlooking your body's
early warning signs. You may continue to harm yourself because you've turned
off the "internal alarm."

I would much rather be in tune with my body.

Now, some of us have livers that really can't handle these medications as well.
My liver is rather precarious. When it gets out of balance, it keeps my thyroid
hormone from getting to my organs. The last time that happened, I developed a
severe illness and could have easily ended up in the hospital. Thankfully,
accupuncture works wonders for me.

But I don't feel the need to take a
medication just to make me feel better and run the risk of hurting myself.

And that leads us to my next point. Herpes meds are not medically necessary.
They just make you feel better. Why should I risk my health for something that
I really don't need. Whereas I really do need my thyroid med. I suppose it is
the difference between WANT and NEED. So in the meantime, I eat right, I
exercise, and I work hard to get plenty of rest. I'm healthier because of it
and I rarely have an outbreak.

And, what exactly IS long-term? Long-term tests show there is no risk to taking
the meds. But, is that for everyone? Is that 20 years, 40 years, 50 years, 60
years? Taking a "feel good" med now that might end up harming me in 30 years is
not my idea of a good time. Weighing the risk...coming up with "not worth it."

I hope that sums up at least some thoughts on the matter.

ar

In article <1121416654.734737.275250@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, jeanniemay
says...
>
>I've noticed a lot more people lately expressing fears about taking
>medications for herpes, and to be honest, I really don't
>get it.
>
>The drug co's do a lot of research and have to meet stringent
>regulations before they can put these drugs on the market. Yes, as with
>all medications, there is a possibility of side affects, but they are
>clearly listed on the accompanying pamphlet and should only be a cause
>for concern IF you actually experience them.
>
>I understand that they are quite expensive in some countries (it's
>subsidised here so I only have to pay $28.00 max), but even so I only
>take them when I need to - and for me that's whenever herpes is a
>problem. If I have a mild outbreak, or just experience prodromal
>symptoms without an actual outbreak, I don't bother; but if the
>outbreak is a fullblown one and is not clearing up within a couple of
>days, I take Valtrex and I don't feel guilty about it.
>
>Seriously, what's with all the negativity towards taking drugs which
>have been specifically developed for, and proven to aid in the
>treatment of, herpes?
>
>And, please don't go getting yourself all hot and bothered over my
>comments... I'm not referring to anyone specifically in this group, or
>any group in particular... I honestly want to know why people are so
>against them and why they try to convert others to their way of
>thinking.
>
>Regards
>
>Jeannie
>

Angela S.

2005-07-20, 1:58 pm

Hi Jeannie

> I've noticed a lot more people lately expressing fears about taking
> medications for herpes, and to be honest, I really don't
> get it.

I myself don't understand it either Jeannie. I can understand people finding
ways to keep themselves healthy but there are so many factors involved that
people forget have a lot to do with their outbreaks and frequency of.. like
which type of herpes they have, where it's it's located, and how long they
have actually had the virus in their body.

> The drug co's do a lot of research and have to meet stringent
> regulations before they can put these drugs on the market. Yes, as with
> all medications, there is a possibility of side affects, but they are
> clearly listed on the accompanying pamphlet and should only be a cause
> for concern IF you actually experience them.

Exactly.. and there are going to be people that experience some of the side
effects listed. I personally have never had any real side effect issues
taking Valtrex. One thing that I think its interesting are the people that
believe once you start suppressive therapy you won't be able to stop which
is utterly ridiculous.

I've had herpes for ten years and two out of those ten years I was on
suppression taking Valtrex 500 mg daily. The first reason I went on
suppressive therapy was because my outbreaks were too much to handle. I had
them every two to three weeks and if I wasn't having an outbreak I was
having a menstual cycle or vice versa. It was never ending and horrible for
me.. I was open minded enough in the beginning to try those "special diets"
everybody raves about and was thoroughly dissapointed when NONE of it worked
for me. I even tried those "natural better for you supplements L-Lysine"
that everybody raves about and cried when it did absolutely nothing for me.
I ate right, excercised, and even quit smoking for the cause and THAT did
NOTHING for me. At that point I threw my hands up in the air and kept track
of my outbreaks for one year treating them only when they happened. I
discovered between Famvir and Valtrex that Valtrex worked my better and
faster. Two years of suppressive therapy was the best thing that I could
have ever done for myself.

The other factor that instigated my staying on suppressive therapy was my
relationship with my boyfriend at the time (he's my husband today). Keeping
transmission to a non-infected partner at bay by 50% was important to me so
I stayed on suppression. So for those people that poo poo it ~ it's kinda
shameful because there are other reasons to consider it that do not have to
be selfish in nature. It could be merely trying to protect the one you love
from contracting the virus.

Then there are those that say "Gosh I you stop suppression you'll start
getting flare ups all over again and all the time." That's hogwash because
when I stopped suppressive therapy (before Don and I got married) I didn't
get a single solitary flare up for nine months. I only treated that one for
three days of Valtrex and didn't get another flare up for a year. So that
right there blows THAT theory right out the window.

> I understand that they are quite expensive in some countries (it's
> subsidised here so I only have to pay $28.00 max), but even so I only
> take them when I need to - and for me that's whenever herpes is a
> problem. If I have a mild outbreak, or just experience prodromal
> symptoms without an actual outbreak, I don't bother; but if the
> outbreak is a fullblown one and is not clearing up within a couple of
> days, I take Valtrex and I don't feel guilty about it.

I don't feel guilty about it either Jeannie.. and see your situation is
probably very different from mine and you are doing what seems to be working
for you and nobody can mock you for it.

> Seriously, what's with all the negativity towards taking drugs which
> have been specifically developed for, and proven to aid in the
> treatment of, herpes?

I don't understand the negativity either.. each person is entitled to do
what they feel works best for them without putting the other methods people
are using that work for them down. I get irritated when people say to stay
away from proven herpes antivirals when they #1 don't know what the person
is going through, #2 don't understand their unique circumstances, #3 refuse
to understand that particular situation and realize that they can not own
it.

I'm not negative towards anybody that chooses to do things "naturally"
because it's what works for them. But, when those people start saying that
it's "better" and "safer" and that others should never try anything that
been proven to treat herpes in the form of a medication then I have a
problem with that..

> And, please don't go getting yourself all hot and bothered over my
> comments... I'm not referring to anyone specifically in this group, or
> any group in particular... I honestly want to know why people are so
> against them and why they try to convert others to their way of
> thinking.

I understand what you are saying Jeannie.. those same people are probably
going to say that we are doing the same thing. I can honestly say that I
believe people need to do what they feel is best and to base their decisions
on facts and not on feelings.

I appreciate what you've posted here Jeannie and felt compelled to give you
the honor of a response that is based on my own personal experiences as well
as "the facts" surrounding herpes, treatment, and moving on in life.

((( hugs )))

Angela

--
The STD Resource Network -
by Those Who Live It!
www.yoshi2me.com
www.herpes-help.org
www.herpesonline.org
www.std-for-dummies.org

Anonymous

2005-07-20, 1:58 pm

jeanniemay wrote:
> I've noticed a lot more people lately expressing fears about taking
> medications for herpes, and to be honest, I really don't
> get it.
>
> The drug co's do a lot of research and have to meet stringent
> regulations before they can put these drugs on the market. Yes, as with
> all medications, there is a possibility of side affects, but they are
> clearly listed on the accompanying pamphlet and should only be a cause
> for concern IF you actually experience them.

Like the great research with Vioxx? Celebrex? The recent findings with
Viagra? Do I need to mention Seldane?

>
> I understand that they are quite expensive in some countries (it's
> subsidised here so I only have to pay $28.00 max), but even so I only
> take them when I need to - and for me that's whenever herpes is a
> problem. If I have a mild outbreak, or just experience prodromal
> symptoms without an actual outbreak, I don't bother; but if the
> outbreak is a fullblown one and is not clearing up within a couple of
> days, I take Valtrex and I don't feel guilty about it.
>
> Seriously, what's with all the negativity towards taking drugs which
> have been specifically developed for, and proven to aid in the
> treatment of, herpes?

acyclovir is a chromosomal mutagen. I've already got one such mutagen,
the virus itself; adding another isn't really welcome.

While it's true that it works pretty well, the truly long-term effects
of acyclovir aren't known past 20 years (potential cancers take a long
time to show up).

I myself am holding out for a vaccine which uses the body's natural
defenses: antigenics.com, stressgen.com, cytogenix.com, etc.

To be honest, I have no fear of taking it short-term for each individual
breakout, but I would never be in the camp that just trusts the drug (or
any drug for that matter) and put it into my body daily for 20 years or
more.

>
> And, please don't go getting yourself all hot and bothered over my
> comments... I'm not referring to anyone specifically in this group, or
> any group in particular... I honestly want to know why people are so
> against them and why they try to convert others to their way of
> thinking.

No problem, no offense taken. As I've already said, there are those of
us who will continue to take it for the most dire breakouts, but
hopefully in the future we can rely on vaccines (therapeutic) which will
help our body actually fight it instead of simply terminating the virus'
RNA chain.

> Regards
>
> Jeannie
>

Angela S.

2005-07-20, 1:58 pm

> You are only looking at one aspect of taking the medication and that's why
> you
> don't understand those of us that choose not to.

I could say the same thing AR.. you are only looking at the aspects that
make sense to you therefore you don't truly understand thos of us that
choose to use medications.

> Drugs are not all harmless to all people. For instance, there are the
> fillers
> in the medications. Take thyroid medication, specifically. I actually
> must
> take that medication in order to live. And it is nothing but the hormone,
> won't
> cause any trouble in the body, right? However, most of the brands of
> thyroid
> pills contain lactose so people who are lactose intollerant have problems.
> Also, each brand uses a different filler and some people react so strongly
> to
> the filler it makes them horribly ill. I have spoken to one person who
> becomes
> so ill with even the smallest dose of thyroid med that she can't take it
> at all
> and what's she supposed to do?

Those are special circumstances AR.. don't you think? There are people that
have allergic reactions to certain meds and certain ingrediants that can be
found in these "fillers" just as they do with certain ingrediants that are
hidden in certain types of foods. Take celiac disease as an example.. it's
been a fight for those folks to get companies to properly label their foods
that are by the way "all natural."

> And for those of us who are vegan or vegetarian,
> there are animal products in many of those pills. Heck, gel caps aren't
> even
> vegetarian. And once, I took a harmless antibiotic for bronchitis that
> kicked
> off such a terrible systemic reaction in my body that I suffered for many
> years
> until I detoxed my body and got healthy.

Ar, why are you vegetarian? Is it a choice that you made for yourself
because it makes you feel better over all? If so, what do you so about
people that are not vegatarian? (I'm curious and those are honest questions)

> That brings up my next subject. Masking what the outbreaks really mean.
> I feel
> that if you're having a terrible time with outbreaks or you are trying to
> protect your partner from getting herpes, then fine.

"Masking what the outbreaks really mean." That's interesting AR.. do you
actually get intense and frequent outbreaks that last for days if not
treated quickly? Is there some sort of underlying message that an outbreaks
is supposed to really mean when all you feel is pain? In other words.. what
are we supposed to do with pain in general? What is a cancer paitent that
has been diagnosed terminal supposed to do with their pain? How do you
suggest we channel pain when we are experiencing an outbreak that is quite
painful?

> It is a decision that is
> up to you. However, it is my opinion that these outbreaks indicate a
> problem
> with the immune system. By taking the pills you may be overlooking your
> body's
> early warning signs. You may continue to harm yourself because you've
> turned
> off the "internal alarm."

Herpes doesn't cause the immune system to go down.. when activated the virus
travels the nerve pathways to the surface of the skin and is active to the
point that you can see and feel it in the form of an outbreak OR active to
the point that you can't see or feel it which is also known as Asymptomatic
Shedding. Stress can be a factor in this instance and the immune system
being down can be a factor in this instance but it's not the other way
around.

For the record.. unless you do daily PCR swabs you have no idea if you are
shedding the virus so just because you don't have any outbreaks that you can
see or feel doesn't mean that somehow you are healthier and doing all the
things that you feel will keep the virus down. It's not possible. If it were
possible we would all have that secret method to go by and we would all be
"healthy" and we would never have any herpes activity on the surface of the
skin - ever.

Why is it that 90% of those that have genital herpes don't know it and why
are they passing the virus on to unsuspecting partners? I'm sure many of
them are healthy and their immune systems are fabulous and they probably eat
right and excercise but yet they are still shedding the virus and have no
idea that they have herpes.

No two bodies are alike and it has nothing to do with how healthy you eat or
what meds you take..

> I would much rather be in tune with my body.

See... I feel as though I am in tune with my body. It's great when people
know exactly what is best for their bodies. Nobody can side step that no
matter the individual belief systems that are out there..

> Now, some of us have livers that really can't handle these medications as
> well.
> My liver is rather precarious. When it gets out of balance, it keeps my
> thyroid
> hormone from getting to my organs. The last time that happened, I
> developed a
> severe illness and could have easily ended up in the hospital.
> Thankfully,
> accupuncture works wonders for me.

But I don't feel the need to take
> a
> medication just to make me feel better and run the risk of hurting myself.

I don't take medication just to make myself "feel better" Ar... for the
record... I don't have your liver problems and I don't develop severe
illnesses like you do. Does that make my lifestyle "better" or "healthier"?
I would never presume to tell people that works for me can only work for
them OR to have them feel as though the only reason they are taking meds is
so they can "feel better." Some people take medications because they have to
and not because they want to. Taking meds and not taking meds is a choice
and each person has to decide for themselves what is going to work best and
realize that everybody is different.

> And that leads us to my next point. Herpes meds are not medically
> necessary.
> They just make you feel better.

Oh? Sometimes herpes meds are medically necessary Ar. You don't think so
because herpes is not a problem for you. For example ~ I baby that is born
with neonatal herpes ~ the meds are medically necessary and that baby's life
depends on it. I am going back on suppressive therapy the last six weeks of
my pregnancy ~ taking suppressive therapy is medically necessary in order to
make sure that my baby has the best chance possible of having a normal birth
without outbreaks or asymptomactic shedding available to he/she in the birth
canal. Herpes meds are medically necessary for those that are suffering from
AIDS that happen to have herpes in addition to all the other cocktails they
have to have in order to prolong their life. Herpes meds are medically
necessarily if you are a person who is trying to decrease your partners
chances of contracting this virus. Define medically necessary and I can
honestly say it's going to be in the eye of the beholder Ar.

> Why should I risk my health for something that
> I really don't need.

You should do anything to your body that you don't feel comfortable doing...
but to imply that others are risking their health doing what is necessary
for their situation is selfish on your part... don't you think?

> Whereas I really do need my thyroid med. I suppose it is
> the difference between WANT and NEED. So in the meantime, I eat right, I
> exercise, and I work hard to get plenty of rest. I'm healthier because of
> it
> and I rarely have an outbreak.

Those are probably not the only reasons why you rarely have an outbreak.
Why? Because there are people out there that are doing the exact opposite of
what you are doing that rarely get outbreaks too. Didn't you say that you
had genital herpes type-1? If I remember correctly I could have swore that
is what you had. Well for starters genital herpes type-1 outbreaks are far
and few between anyway.

> And, what exactly IS long-term? Long-term tests show there is no risk to
> taking
> the meds. But, is that for everyone? Is that 20 years, 40 years, 50
> years, 60
> years?

You don't have the answer to that AR. Acyclovir has been around for more
than 20 and so far there have been no problems. All natural illegal drugs
have been around for centuries and there are all sorts of long term issues
with those... but I guess it won't fit since they are natural and from the
earth before being processed?

> Taking a "feel good" med now that might end up harming me in 30 years is
> not my idea of a good time.

Valtrex is not a "feel good" med. That's the part you don't seem to
understand. Herpes is a "disease" and that's something people would rather
forget than to admit. It's a "disease" that isn't going to go away and there
are times when it is medically necessary to take Valtrex to control our
"disease."

>Weighing the risk...coming up with "not worth it."

I refuse to tell anybody that it's "not worth it." To me.. whatever you can
do for your situation is "always worth it."

> I hope that sums up at least some thoughts on the matter.

It's cleared up a lot ~ thanks for sharing.

Angela

--
The STD Resource Network -
by Those Who Live It!
www.yoshi2me.com
www.herpes-help.org
www.herpesonline.org
www.std-for-dummies.org

Grant

2005-07-20, 1:58 pm

Angela,

I'm stunned by your response to me. I think it was out of line, quite frankly.

For all the thousands of posts that you respond to in which you encourage
someone to take medication, do I contradict you? No. And, you seem to be
forgetting about the all the thousands of times that I have also suggested to
people that they try the meds. However, I support someone who doesn't want to
take meds and then honestly answer someone's questions about how I feel about it
and you take offense at it.

I honestly don't know why you are so defensive about this. You keep restating
things that I had already stated. But I really don't have the time to rehash
things with you.

ar

Angela S.

2005-07-20, 1:58 pm

I was pretty stunned when you stated that "Herpes meds are not medically
necessary. They just make you feel better."

Ar you are a very nice person and I have always enjoyed corresponding with
you but today left me a tad bit shocked and stunned.

Angela

--
The STD Resource Network -
by Those Who Live It!
www.yoshi2me.com
www.herpes-help.org
www.herpesonline.org
www.std-for-dummies.org

"Grant" <Grant_member@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:db9gfh01tvt@drn.newsguy.com...
> Angela,
>
> I'm stunned by your response to me. I think it was out of line, quite
> frankly.
>
> For all the thousands of posts that you respond to in which you encourage
> someone to take medication, do I contradict you? No. And, you seem to be
> forgetting about the all the thousands of times that I have also suggested
> to
> people that they try the meds. However, I support someone who doesn't
> want to
> take meds and then honestly answer someone's questions about how I feel
> about it
> and you take offense at it.
>
> I honestly don't know why you are so defensive about this. You keep
> restating
> things that I had already stated. But I really don't have the time to
> rehash
> things with you.
>
> ar

jeanniemay

2005-07-20, 1:58 pm

I knew my post would get a strong reaction, but was hoping the personal
stuff could be left out of it!

The number one thing I want to comment on is that I do not believe that
Valtrex is a 'feel good' medication! I take it for medical reasons! Not
to feel good - it's certainly no 'happy pill' for me.

I have had herpes for about 5 years now, my first year was similar to
Angela's -one outbreak after the other (2-3 per month!!). My doctor
prescribed Acyclovir supressively, I took it for 12 months and honestly
believe that it did nothing to shorten the duration of outbreaks or
their frequency.

I suffered horribly in that year both emotionally and physically. I
took a twelve month break from medication because they were not
working, and over the next year my outbreaks did reduce (only about 1
per month), but I don't think that had anything to do with the
medication or my lifestyle or state of health, it's just simply the
nature of the virus.

I think for a year or two then that I only had occasional prodrome and
about 1 OB per year and I thought that was great. But, then they came
back - about once every month or so. When I saw a new doctor he told me
that there was better medication available so I tried Valtrex
symptomatically - and it worked!!!!

At last there was something that would clear up my OB and allow me to
get on with my life without having to limp around in agony! So since
then I have taken it symptomatically when necessary, as I stated
previously.

My problem is with people on groups (again I say not anyone in
particular or any group specifically) who warn people against the
medications. It scares me to think that someone new to a group, new to
herpes, can think that these people must know something they don't. It
worries me that this can impact negatively on their relationship with
their own doctor.

I understand that for some people there are medical reasons why they
should not take particular medications, (lactose and liver issues,
etc), I just wish that people would consider the impact their broad
statements could have on others.

It was certainly interesting to hear your own reasons for choosing to
take medications or not and I appreciate you all taking the time to
respond.

But I admit you lost me with the stuff about what the outbreaks really
mean - they mean, IMHO, that the herpes virus is reacting periodically
as is its nature. And no I certainly don't expect to be taking
antivirals everyday for twenty years - I think it would be a very rare
case of herpes that would require that kind of treatment.

Regards

Jeannie

Grant

2005-07-20, 1:58 pm

Hi Jeannie,

You can, of course, believe however you wish to believe. If you need the meds,
then take them. I really don't care. But for those of us who wish not to, then
our opinion is just as valid.

People will not die if they don't take the meds. There are other medications
that are medically necessary, such as my thyroid medication. So, in my opinion,
herpes medications are not medically necessary. Other types of meds are.
Simple as that.

ar

In article <1121498084.236112.246520@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, jeanniemay
says...
>
>I knew my post would get a strong reaction, but was hoping the personal
>stuff could be left out of it!
>
>The number one thing I want to comment on is that I do not believe that
>Valtrex is a 'feel good' medication! I take it for medical reasons! Not
>to feel good - it's certainly no 'happy pill' for me.
>
>I have had herpes for about 5 years now, my first year was similar to
>Angela's -one outbreak after the other (2-3 per month!!). My doctor
>prescribed Acyclovir supressively, I took it for 12 months and honestly
>believe that it did nothing to shorten the duration of outbreaks or
>their frequency.
>
>I suffered horribly in that year both emotionally and physically. I
>took a twelve month break from medication because they were not
>working, and over the next year my outbreaks did reduce (only about 1
>per month), but I don't think that had anything to do with the
>medication or my lifestyle or state of health, it's just simply the
>nature of the virus.
>
>I think for a year or two then that I only had occasional prodrome and
>about 1 OB per year and I thought that was great. But, then they came
>back - about once every month or so. When I saw a new doctor he told me
>that there was better medication available so I tried Valtrex
>symptomatically - and it worked!!!!
>
>At last there was something that would clear up my OB and allow me to
>get on with my life without having to limp around in agony! So since
>then I have taken it symptomatically when necessary, as I stated
>previously.
>
>My problem is with people on groups (again I say not anyone in
>particular or any group specifically) who warn people against the
>medications. It scares me to think that someone new to a group, new to
>herpes, can think that these people must know something they don't. It
>worries me that this can impact negatively on their relationship with
>their own doctor.
>
>I understand that for some people there are medical reasons why they
>should not take particular medications, (lactose and liver issues,
>etc), I just wish that people would consider the impact their broad
>statements could have on others.
>
>It was certainly interesting to hear your own reasons for choosing to
>take medications or not and I appreciate you all taking the time to
>respond.
>
>But I admit you lost me with the stuff about what the outbreaks really
>mean - they mean, IMHO, that the herpes virus is reacting periodically
>as is its nature. And no I certainly don't expect to be taking
>antivirals everyday for twenty years - I think it would be a very rare
>case of herpes that would require that kind of treatment.
>
>Regards
>
>Jeannie
>

Grant

2005-07-20, 1:58 pm

In article <iY_Be.116669$yV4.74667@okepread03>, Angela S. says...
>
>I was pretty stunned when you stated that "Herpes meds are not medically
>necessary. They just make you feel better."
>
>Ar you are a very nice person and I have always enjoyed corresponding with
>you but today left me a tad bit shocked and stunned.
>
>Angela

The poster asked for the reasons why those of us choose not to use the meds.
And I told her. These are my reasons and I have never pushed them in this
group. I would expect some respect for my opinions as I have respected yours.

ar

Angela S.

2005-07-20, 1:58 pm

Yes, but I would never presume to tell anybody that the meds they are taking
are not medically necessary. You don't know all the scenarios that require a
medical antidote. It's perfectly acceptable to say that herpes medications
are not medically necessary for YOU but to insinuate that they are not
medically necessary for others OR to make it seem as though people can pop
pills to "feel good" is not right. I don't take Valtrex (when I need to)
because it makes me "feel good." I take it (when I need to) because it's
medically necessary for me as it might be medically necessary for others.

You are entitled to your belief system as I am entitled to mine but you and
I are NOT entitled to say one way or the other what is going to work for
somebody else's body. Proven medications Vs. all natural both have their
pros and cons and for you to poo poo taking a herpes antiviral as a
statement for all who have herpes OR for me to poo poo an alternative
approach for all that have herpes is asinine.

Yes, you gave the poster your reasons but you didn't make it clear that what
works for you is certainly not proof of what will work for others.. you
didn't offer up any facts that have been proven.. you only stated that
herpes meds are not medically necessary and that they just make you feel
better. That right there tells me you do not understand the nature of the
virus OR the situations that absolutely warrant taking the meds.

All is not lost ~ Yes, I'm disappointed in how you worded it but then again
I'm not an English Lit major either. I can only continue to share the
information I am aware of and share what I know *based on my own
experiences* with herpes ensuring others that herpes varies from person to
person and each person will find a way to make things work for them.

Have a nice Saturday you guys..

Angela ;)

--
The STD Resource Network -
by Those Who Live It!
www.yoshi2me.com
www.herpes-help.org
www.herpesonline.org
www.std-for-dummies.org

"Grant" <Grant_member@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:dbap81022dv@drn.newsguy.com...
> In article <iY_Be.116669$yV4.74667@okepread03>, Angela S. says...
>
> The poster asked for the reasons why those of us choose not to use the
> meds.
> And I told her. These are my reasons and I have never pushed them in this
> group. I would expect some respect for my opinions as I have respected
> yours.
>
> ar
>

Grant

2005-07-20, 1:58 pm

Angela,

I will not continue this. As far as I'm concerned not only did you not read
what I wrote correctly, nor did you bother to understand that the original
poster wanted to know why those of us don't take the meds felt the way we did.
I answered the question. Now get off my back for sticking my neck out and
saying what I believe. She asked for reasons why and that is what I gave her.
I have never attacked your personal views and yet you keep going at me. Welcome
to the world of free speech and an open forum. As far as I'm concerned, it is
wrong for you to continue to tell people that they CAN take the meds without
addressing the potential dangers for that person.

I will not say anymore on this subject. My opinion is that you personally
attacked me and I don't like it. Go ahead and respond so you can have the last
word. But don't be surprised if I suddenly become more verbal about my dislike
for the meds. You've encouraged me to speak my truth a lot louder.

ar

In article <TX9Ce.116692$yV4.83984@okepread03>, Angela S. says...
>
>Yes, but I would never presume to tell anybody that the meds they are taking
>are not medically necessary. You don't know all the scenarios that require a
>medical antidote. It's perfectly acceptable to say that herpes medications
>are not medically necessary for YOU but to insinuate that they are not
>medically necessary for others OR to make it seem as though people can pop
>pills to "feel good" is not right. I don't take Valtrex (when I need to)
>because it makes me "feel good." I take it (when I need to) because it's
>medically necessary for me as it might be medically necessary for others.
>
>You are entitled to your belief system as I am entitled to mine but you and
>I are NOT entitled to say one way or the other what is going to work for
>somebody else's body. Proven medications Vs. all natural both have their
>pros and cons and for you to poo poo taking a herpes antiviral as a
>statement for all who have herpes OR for me to poo poo an alternative
>approach for all that have herpes is asinine.
>
>Yes, you gave the poster your reasons but you didn't make it clear that what
>works for you is certainly not proof of what will work for others.. you
>didn't offer up any facts that have been proven.. you only stated that
>herpes meds are not medically necessary and that they just make you feel
>better. That right there tells me you do not understand the nature of the
>virus OR the situations that absolutely warrant taking the meds.
>
>All is not lost ~ Yes, I'm disappointed in how you worded it but then again
>I'm not an English Lit major either. I can only continue to share the
>information I am aware of and share what I know *based on my own
>experiences* with herpes ensuring others that herpes varies from person to
>person and each person will find a way to make things work for them.
>
>Have a nice Saturday you guys..
>
>Angela ;)
>
>--
>The STD Resource Network -
> by Those Who Live It!
>www.yoshi2me.com
>www.herpes-help.org
>www.herpesonline.org
>www.std-for-dummies.org
>
>
>"Grant" <Grant_member@newsguy.com> wrote in message
>news:dbap81022dv@drn.newsguy.com...
>
>

Grant

2005-07-20, 1:58 pm

You know what, Angela? I have one more thing to say.

If you really read my post carefully, then you would see that everything was
based on ME. Not YOU. I talked about me and my opinions and my feelings. If
you decided that it was about you, then you've got a whole lot more trouble
going on than herpes. At no time did I say anything against people who take the
meds. This is NOT a safe place to explore, apparently. Unless everyone
believes as you do, I guess they aren't supposed to post. And that's the one
thing that perl has right about this place.

ar

jeanniemay

2005-07-20, 1:58 pm

You are right, I am probably not going to die if I do not take the
meds, but my quality of life will certainly be impacted if I don't take
them at times. So if you like, it is my personal choice to take a
medication which allows me to get on with my life with a lesser degree
of pain and discomfort. Life's too short to suffer through it, IMHO.

I don't think my choice to take meds has anything to do with 'belief',
and I think statements like 'herpes medications are not medically
necessary' are particularly irresponsible. You do not know what other
people's health or situations are like and that kind of statement could
give newbies an unnessarily negative opinion of herpes medications.
Consider someone who is newly diagnosed and sufferring badly - they see
comments like that and think they must be pathetic if they feel they
need medications. I've seen it happen!

*Herpes medications may not be medically necessary for you, in your
opinion* but for many many others that is simply not true.

Grant

2005-07-20, 1:58 pm

Jeannie,

If you are not really interested in hearing my opinion, then don't ask for it.
You asked why some choose not to take meds and I told you why.

I don't care why you take the meds.

I don't care what you believe.

If you ask someone for their opinion it is really bad form to then argue with
them. You will not change my opinion. I will continue to say how I feel about
a subject when I am asked.

I have never told a newbie what you have accused me of telling them. You are
also out of line.

It is just as bad to tell newbies that meds are safe and harmless when they
might not be.

ar

In article <1121586946.292747.226570@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>, jeanniemay
says...
>
>You are right, I am probably not going to die if I do not take the
>meds, but my quality of life will certainly be impacted if I don't take
>them at times. So if you like, it is my personal choice to take a
>medication which allows me to get on with my life with a lesser degree
>of pain and discomfort. Life's too short to suffer through it, IMHO.
>
>I don't think my choice to take meds has anything to do with 'belief',
>and I think statements like 'herpes medications are not medically
>necessary' are particularly irresponsible. You do not know what other
>people's health or situations are like and that kind of statement could
>give newbies an unnessarily negative opinion of herpes medications.
>Consider someone who is newly diagnosed and sufferring badly - they see
>comments like that and think they must be pathetic if they feel they
>need medications. I've seen it happen!
>
>*Herpes medications may not be medically necessary for you, in your
>opinion* but for many many others that is simply not true.
>

Angela S.

2005-07-20, 1:58 pm

Ar,

I have always maintained that everybody has a right to their opinion. You of
course, have a right to share your viewpoint and base it on your own
experiences and things that you are factually aware of. I also have those
same rights. If you believe the herpes medications are not medically
necessary for you and that it would only be a way to "feel good" if you
personally took them then that is fine. I'm glad to FINALLY understand that
you in no way insinuated that taking herpes medications were not medically
necessary because I can think of a handful of situations that would warrant
that they are.. So if you were only speaking for yourself based on your own
personal experiences and not speaking for hundreds if not thousands of
people that take the meds because they are medically necessary then I do
apologize to you profusely.

For the record -- none of this has anything to do with Perl.

Take Care,

Angela

--
The STD Resource Network -
by Those Who Live It!
www.yoshi2me.com
www.herpes-help.org
www.herpesonline.org
www.std-for-dummies.org

"Grant" <Grant_member@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:dbc4r30f1l@drn.newsguy.com...
> You know what, Angela? I have one more thing to say.
>
> If you really read my post carefully, then you would see that everything
> was
> based on ME. Not YOU. I talked about me and my opinions and my feelings.
> If
> you decided that it was about you, then you've got a whole lot more
> trouble
> going on than herpes. At no time did I say anything against people who
> take the
> meds. This is NOT a safe place to explore, apparently. Unless everyone
> believes as you do, I guess they aren't supposed to post. And that's the
> one
> thing that perl has right about this place.
>
> ar
>

jeanniemay

2005-07-20, 1:58 pm

AR

Let me try to make it clear to you:

1) I was not rying to change your opinion
2) I did not accuse you of doing anything
3) I was not arguing with you

Further discussion is pointless if you are going to read things into my
posts which are not there.