Talk:Genital herpes

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Genital herpes article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Viruses High‑importance

	Viruses portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Viruses, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of viruses on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirusesWikipedia:WikiProject VirusesTemplate:WikiProject Virusesvirus articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Medicine: Dermatology High‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Dermatology task force.

Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Genital herpes.

PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles)
The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine.
Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

Clarity: HSV, genital HSV

Regarding: "Medical research has not been able to find a way to halt the spread of herpes and the number of infected people keeps growing. In the United States alone, 45 million people are infected" ...

The first part of that quote from the wiki page is referring to herpes in general (genital and oral/labial), whereas the second part is referring to only genital herpes; so it should be made clear by stating as follows:

"Medical research has not been able to find a way to halt the spread of herpes and the number of infected people keeps growing. In the United States alone, 45 million people are infected with genital herpes".

Epidemiology???

I came to this Wikipedia topic to find out the rate of occurence of this disease, but there is nothing. Does anybody know anything of the rates of occurence? Maybe by country, maybe by state in the US, maybe by race in the US, maybe by gender, by various groups (gays, etc). Nothing here at the moment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.141.105 (talk) 20:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw an article on this on Reuters and came here to look it up. Might be useful. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN0923528620100309 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.236.208.22 (talk) 09:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The CDC report lists the prevalence of HSV-2 seroprevalence in people aged 14-49 as roughly 16% (1). Note that HSV-1 is a significant and increasingly common cause of genital herpes (2) yet it does not factor into this statistic. Also note that HSV-2 may cause oral herpes, so seroprevalence does not necessarily equate to infection with genital herpes. Because of the above two points, listing the percentage of HSV-2 seroprevalence as the overall prevalence of genital herpes infection is incorrect. The article should be changed to more accurately describe the available data. The CDC or a more authoratitive source should be referenced instead of a Reuters article. 1. http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats13/other.htm 2. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2564733/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haygd0340 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Treatment

Is this sentence correct? "Genital herpes cannot be cured, once the individual gets the virus it will always stay in their body" because then there's no point in doing research if you already know it's not possible to cure. Luisdanielmesa (talk) 02:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should probably state: Although researchers seek a cure, to date, no known cure exists for genital herpes. Once an individual is infected with the virus, it is expected that the virus will remain in the body.

This sentence is correct. There is no known cure. However, there is treatment which can prevent the outbreak of the very painful and ugly blisters. This treatment need to be taken regularly, as prescribed, on a long-term basis. Carol Gene Eden (talk) 16:15, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are two types of natural, antivirals which are designed to ensure the virus remains in its' latent phase and does not cause outbreaks. The product is called Gene-Eden Vir/ Novirin <Polansky H, Itzkovitz E, Javaherian A. Clinical study of Gene-Eden-VIR/Novirin in genital herpes: suppressive treatment safely decreases the duration of outbreaks in both severe and mild cases. Clinical Translational Medicine. 2016 Dec; 5(1):40.>. It is a safe and effective treatment, without side-effects. For further information go to https://www.gene-eden-vir.com

Vaccine

Vitaherpavac — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.175.85.112 (talk) 00:38, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Picture

The picture is an extreme depiction of the infection. This page would be more accurate with a more mild image. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.65.129.121 (talk) 23:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you provide one we can discuss it.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:16, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the pictures aren't great. Both of them need more context -- I mean, I *think* the female one shows the top of the vulva, and the labia majora are probably being held spread by a hand (if not, the shape of the hairless area is unusual) -- but without seeing the rest of the vulva for comparison or scale, it's difficult to judge exactly what we're looking at. Similarly on the male photo, it's a drastically different depiction of a penis from, say, the one on Human Penis. It's obviously the tip of a penis, but it takes a little imagination to really picture it because again, no context to anchor it to. (And why is there out-of-focus white skin in the distance behind it?) Unfortunately, however, I do not have access to anyone with herpes, so I cannot offer replacements either. 24.69.163.102 (talk) 15:13, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added some context while we wait for replacement. BennyHartmen (talk) 17:12, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edits 15 January 2014

There was a series of edits today, diff is: [1]. The edits introduced many problems, largely the reliance on unacceptable sourcing for medical information, see WP:MEDMOS. Specifically some isssue were:

Using non-MEDRS website www.chastity.com for the definition
Using non-MEDRS website www.hsvoutbreak.com
Use of popular press NY Times to source biomedical information
Use of popular press npr.org to source biomedical information
Use of popular press cnn.com to source biomedical information
Use of non-MEDRS website www.genitalherpessymptoms.org
Change in layout away from WP:MEDMOS

While there may be a few good things in there, like content sourced to the CDC, overall the edit was problematic so it was undone. Ohnohedinnit could you please fix the issues before restoring? Thanks. Zad68 17:10, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. If you are concerned about properly sourced information, why are you deleting those sources? You removed a link to a Lancet article and a CDC article. Could you please be more precise in your edits? Also, have you carefully readWP:MEDMOS? Please show where it says references from popular sources are not allowed. Based on my reading, it says that they "should always be used with caution, never used to support surprising claims, and carefully identified in the text as preliminary work." I have accompanied these sources with medical and scientific sources. Ohnohedinnit (talk) 00:21, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, today's edits deleted what has been consensus for the last month and a half. Ohnohedinnit (talk) 00:23, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned, a few sources were OK, many were not. Please don't make extra work for other editors by mixing a few decent changes in to a largely problematic edit. The guideline for biomedical sourcing is WP:MEDRS, not WP:MEDMOS, sorry about that. WP:MEDRS says: "The popular press is generally not a reliable source for scientific and medical information in articles." Anonymous self-published websites like chastity.com are unacceptable per WP:RS, this is at least the third time you have re-added that. Zad68 03:21, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, stop reverting to that version without achieving WP:Consensus for it, Ohnohedinnit. Wikipedia has a WP:Edit warring policy, and you should especially be wary of its WP:3RR aspect that editors are more readily WP:Blocked for violating. Flyer22 (talk) 03:59, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see that you were alerted on your talk page to the WP:Edit warring policy. Flyer22 (talk) 04:02, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please read your edits. Do you see that the version you put up yesterday has an entirely unsourced quotation? It currently reads: "Herpes genitalis (or genital herpes) is a genital infection by Herpes simplex virus. Following the classification HSV into two distinct categories of HSV-1 and HSV-2 in the 1960s,[1][2] it was established that "HSV-2 was below the waist, HSV-1 was above the waist"" There is no source for "HSV-2 was below the waist, HSV-1 was above the waist" Where does that text come from? Why are you not concerned about the source of your own edits, especially when set in quotations, which have an even greater need for a reference?

The version that I am going to restore has well-sourced material. Every sentence has multiple sources - from both popular references and scholarly journals. If you think that the popular references do not belong, then remove them. The text is supported by journal citations. Do you think the citations are factually incorrect? I can't tell exactly what your issue is. It appears to me that you are misreading WP:MEDRS as it says nothing about the automatic exclusion of these sources. Again, you are welcome to take them out if you feel strongly, but the text is accurate and additionally referenced by medical journals.

Again, the text I am restoring has important information that has been the consensus for the past month, before edits yesterday. It is a much more thorough and readable article. If you want to edit, please go ahead, but do not make a wholesale reversion on spurious grounds. There are ample journal references and adequate sourcing. Ohnohedinnit (talk) 06:20, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please respond? I have highlighted other instances of unsourced material in the text. I hope you will address those points instead of making a hasty reversion. Ohnohedinnit (talk) 14:41, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Responses have been provided but as you haven't been reading them for content, it didn't seem productive to simply repeat them. But again: The guideline for sourcing biomedical information on Wikipedia is WP:MEDRS. Popular press is unacceptable. Popular press includes things like CNN and the Village Voice. Do not use CNN and Village Voice (or other things like it) to source information about things like epidemiology and effectiveness of screening. Also, with a topic as well-studied as this one, you should be sure to use up-to-date secondary sources. Generally this means things like review articles from the past 5 years or up to date statements from major medical organizations. Also this article is organized per WP:MEDMOS. A guideline like WP:MEDMOS is used unless there's a really good reason not to, and consensus is gained for that reason. That hasn't happened here. Zad68 21:26, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'll work off the current section headings. I plan to add a section on society and culture, I don't know how that can be written with content exclusively from journal articles. Ohnohedinnit (talk) 21:49, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, most sincerely! You don't have to use medical journals to source history and culture. Zad68 21:54, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Ohnohedinnit, it was unwise to revert again. Nice to see that you have ceased reverting all of that material back in without WP:Consensus and are discussing the matter here.

Zad, I'm sure that the reason that Ohnohedinnit doesn't think that using popular press sources is wrong in this case is because of this section of WP:MEDRS; as you can see, it strongly advises against using popular press for medical/health content, but makes exceptions. Flyer22 (talk) 00:04, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vaccine section

The vaccine section should be updated, because except Ian Frazers Vaccine (Australian-based company Admedus) there are several genital herpes vaccines of which the main candidates already in trials are:

HSV-529 (by Sanofi Pasteur), GEN-003 (by Genocea Biosciences), VCL (by Vical).

and there is also ongoing research by Prof. Halford from SIU on his very safe and effective (tested on animals) vaccine - who currently searches for sponsors and support on the matter.

More information here: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Herpes_simplex_research — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.24.154.201 (talk) 16:11, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Diagnosis and pathogenesis

Review doi:10.1128/CMR.00043-15 JFW | T@lk 15:48, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moved

I have moved "herpes genitalis" to "genital herpes" as the latter is a more common name. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:48, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Asked for help fixing the images here [2] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:49, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Research Chart: GEN-003

I have sources that further outline the development of this vaccine.

Kenneth Fife, is the author of the study on this vaccine

https://www.stdtestexpress.com/std-news/herpes-vaccine-may-reduce-outbreaks/?tp8954=B

dfzrdi76oevf6d6z5ezitdfgftu8of66fr68tginhtguzktr5cv85rrrrrrrrrrrrrre7tk tk tk tk tk gmiiiiiicdgcde74id 76ki8o8bhjzgzbjgtzztgzhguifd46aq42wwsedrftgzlk,mjnhgfdswdfghjkgfdsasdfuivdsfxmkl78rey<xsze5ewtzztdtzcdbn8 xb bvtr ysb xsbdsyes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.199.86.78 (talk) 13:12, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 5 September 2017

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change:

Recurrence

After approximately 80% of first episodes of herpes genitalis caused by HSV-2, there will be at least one recurrence,

To:

Recurrence

After a first episode of herpes genitalis caused by HSV-2, there will be at least one recurrence in approximately 80% of people, 68.6.208.194 (talk) 15:59, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done SparklingPessimist ^{Scream at me!} 20:33, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

HSV

It is caused by both HSV1 and 2 per the second paragraph. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:19, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: UCSF SOM Inquiry In Action-- Wikipedia Editing 2022

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 August 2022 and 20 September 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sfmedstudent, Asikaroudi, JMOclaman (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by JMOclaman (talk) 02:41, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a vital article rated as C-Class. I have chosen this article to edit as I have an interest in sexual health. The WP editing team consists of Sfmedstudent and Asikaroudi. Upon initial review, the article is missing sections for Diagnosis, Prevention, and Genital herpes and Pregnancy. We plan to focus on adding Diagnosis, Prevention, and Genital herpes and Pregnancy sections as well as adding to the Screening section and combining the Screening and Diagnosis sections. I added an OTC and Non-drug Treatment subsection under Treatments.

Sfmedstudent (talk) 01:21, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic work adding a great and detailed amount of information. Overall, it's well written, but to note on the writing's tone, it caters more to healthcare providers than the general public. E.g. include the addition of dosing regimens and use of terms like false-positivity rate. I will suggest using links on more complicated terms for the general reader on Prevention, Screening and Diagnosis, and Pregnancy sections. E.g. false-positivity rate, antibodies, blisters, acyclovir etc. to help address this. JMOclaman (talk) 03:11, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]