The leading researchers on the HHV-6b hypothesis are Cliff and Prusty. There aren't too many. They are all important.Perhaps you could share which papers you think are the most interesting? There might be some threads already.
Last edited:
The leading researchers on the HHV-6b hypothesis are Cliff and Prusty. There aren't too many. They are all important.Perhaps you could share which papers you think are the most interesting? There might be some threads already.
I am really glad I bumped into that textbook. I am aware of HHV-6b having a somewhat different shape and therefore doesn't seem to be a match with aciclovir because that was explained there too.You may need to get a new textbook, or perhaps there is a new mechanism you can elaborate? HHV-6b does not have the same kinase as HSV-1 & HSV-2. Acyclovir only targets this specific kinase to HSV-1 and HSV-2. It is ineffective for HHV-6. An hour response time is quite interesting as people with full HSV-1 & HSV-2 outbreaks the acyclovir takes many days to clear their outbreaks and fully stop viral replication. This is in the perfect kinase match scenario too.
Here in continental Europe I haven't heard of anyone in the last years who was put on aciclovir with an ME/CFS diagnosis. It was done by some doctors back in the days I understand. That's the reason why several studies have been done.MECFS clinics who do antivirals already start off with a high dosis right away, and for long enough that IF it actually worked we would know by now. If I had to venture a guess I would say at least thousands of MECFS patients would have tried vala / acy by now (at the hypothetically required dosis)
The fact that more ppl say they had a positive effect from LDN or whatever supplement, than from antivirals says everything there is to say rly.
Can you elaborate on what textbook this is and what claims they make on this? Or any research that shows this?I am really glad I bumped into that textbook. I am aware of HHV-6b having a somewhat different shape and therefore doesn't seem to be a match with aciclovir because that was explained there too.
However, there was also claimed that even when aciclovir was not used clinically to fight HHV-6b because of this perveived mismatch and there being other herpes drugs like ganciclovir that fight HHV-6 really well it was still known from in vitro studies that aciclovir had good activity against HHV-6.
It is this information that I build my theory upon that I have HHV-6b reactivation that I can fight with aciclovir.
I have chatted online or in person to five patients who have tried aciclovir. Four of them had the same positive effect as I had. Three of them told me that they went immediately back to work or planned to go back to uni.I personally agree that if we theoretically assumed anti-virals worked on a subset of MECFS patients then the effect should occur fairly quickly.
But I wonder. How do you square your theory with the fact that so many patients have tried Acy / Vala (at the required dose) and not had any effect?
If we accepted the idea that a HHV subgroup existed, then surely said subgroup would have to be tiny?
I hope you don't see our replies as needlessly arrogant. It's just that many consider the discussion as one that ended over a decade(s) ago when no one could replicate results in larger studies.
When aciclovir is used for several days, yes it would work by inhibiting viral replication. I'm saying you can't apply the same logic to the first hour.Do you want to claim that aciclovir does not work as pharmacologists have figured out by directly stopping the virus to replicate but fights reactivation by side effects. You have funny ideas!
I don't have the energy to find it again now. But I will get back to you to let you know. It was in one of the two German medical school text books on infectiology. But I don't remember which number or publisher.Can you elaborate on what textbook this is and what claims they make on this? Or any research that shows this?
Here in continental Europe I haven't heard of anyone in the last years who was put on aciclovir with an ME/CFS diagnosis. It was done by some doctors back in the days I understand. That's the reason why several studies have been done.
This is a thread on aciclovir and other herpes drugs with activity against HHV-6b. That's a specific question.
As I explained several times aciclovir develops its full potential within one hour and patients can feel this immediately. Whatever is done at these clinics – I doubt that it is done by well informed doctors.
Here in Switzerland it's almost impossible to get a prescription for a herpes drug without a proof of reactivation. And none of the ME/CFS specialists prescribe it.
On a personal note: Do you believe that you had a three months placebo effect that then faded away over another six m
Maybe you could tell me the names of these mysterious clinics in a personal message. Because I am still searching urgently for a doctor who prescribes aciclovir to me in continental Europe.I live in continental Europe and I know of at least two MECFS clinics who have treated patients with Aca / Vala (I won't mention them). How many patients at these clinics have tried in total I can not say. But if I had to guess I would say at least 50 patients just at these two clinics, and that's a conservative estimate! And yes, at the theoretically required dose.
Gun to my head. I would say that something did happen as a result of Vala. However I just can't exclude placebo / random fluctuations, given what I know about the illness and the failed Rituximab studies.
When aciclovir is used for several days, yes it would work by inhibiting viral replication. I'm saying you can't apply the same logic to the first hour.
You're right that the drug concentration peaks in the blood in one hour. What you're missing from the pharmacodynamic perspective is that this does not mean that viral load starts declining rapidly within one hour. A full cycle of HSV replication takes closer to 12 hours to complete, similar to other viruses in that family. The drug does not kill or clear the virus, just prevents further replication. So within the first hour, viral load will only be reduced by a small fraction at most (see this paper, figure 7). And that's assuming that the drug immediately gets to all the infected cells and binds to the right proteins to cease all viral replication immediately--which, if you know anything about pharmacodynamics, is a fantasy.
The vast majority of fully formed viral particles and immunogenic viral fragments are going to be sticking around and still triggering an infection response until they are all cleared out by the immune system (which takes hours/days). Basically all the symptoms that you feel from an infection, whether that is local inflammation of a cold sore or malaise/brain fog, are caused by immune signaling responding to that virus, not the virus itself. So even if there was a meaningful reduction in viral replication in the first hour--let's be generous and say something like 5%--the immune system would still be reacting to the leftover fragments and still causing symptoms as if there was no change in viral replication.
However, there is a possible explanation for why aciclovir could possibly cause a symptom reduction within an hour besides placebo effect--in addition to inhibiting viral DNA polymerase, it also directly targets proteins in immune cells. Very simple experiments show that this is likely true (example). It's also possible it targets something directly in the nervous system that would alter the feelings of pain or brain fog or malaise. [Edit: what would need to be established in a clinical trial is whether this actually happens and contributes to symptom relief more than random fluctuation.]
It seems like this is a theory you find really personally important, so I don't think further discussion will get anywhere. Though if you think people are disagreeing because they simply don't understand pharmacological or viral dynamics, I hope this might prompt you to reassess that assumption. If infectious disease experts are telling you differently, I think that is an indication that they don't understand those dynamics.
I was referring to the work of Fluge. I am judging like this from the documentary about him that's online.I'm not sure that anyone here is doing that?
Most, if not all, private LC doctors in the UK have been offering aciclovir or valaciclovir to patients, including those with COVID-triggered ME/CFS. Some private ME/CFS doctors have been prescribing it, too. It's possible to get aciclovir from at least some pharmacies for herpes without any proof of the diagnosis and some patients have tried it that way.Here in continental Europe I haven't heard of anyone in the last years who was put on aciclovir with an ME/CFS diagnosis. It was done by some doctors back in the days I understand. That's the reason why several studies have been done.
...
Here in Switzerland it's almost impossible to get a prescription for a herpes drug without a proof of reactivation. And none of the ME/CFS specialists prescribe it.
Without subjective experience there wouldn't be any knowledge at all. Without anecdotal evidence we wouldn't know about ME. So I think it's gotten us far already.And since anecdotal evidence in ME/CFS is worthless, where does that get us?
If there was even a small subgroup that had useful responses, trials should pick up a signal.
I am also not very impressed by the 'clinical seat of the pants' of 'infectiologists' to be honest. That sounds way outside the sphere of reliable evidence.
I don't think you are going to convince anyone, and saying that people's 'ideas are wrong' alongside anecdotes is likely to ensure it.
Here again: It's okay that certain papers you find more convincing than others. But just to deny any scientific value of all those papers that present a conclusion that go against your ideas of what ME is about will not advance the ME research.