[ ARC forum 2 ]
Written by Paul B. at 21 Sep 2002 23:25:11: A more general question
As an answer to: Re: A question about BXO written by Jim at 21 Sep 2002 19:55:15:
> While there may be legitimate concern within the medical community to question the term "cured", it would seen logical to conclude from such a situation that a cure was realized.
That would seem good enough, wouldn't it?
Let's face it - living has a 100% mortality rate associated with it over a 105 year span, so if something goes away and doesn't bother you for a very long time (and five years is a common rule-of-thumb), whether it's "cured" or not is of little concern. Sure, it may come back, but many other things may (probably will) happen also.
> I personally know of a person who, on her honeymoon, contracted herpes, a social disease considered incurable.
In fact, it is incurable, if you define that in terms of persistence of the virus. But I presume you refer to genital herpes, whose behaviour from a medical viewpoint is virtually indistinguishable from oro-facial herpes (and the two may fairly readily be interchanged), which causes much less embarrassment, even if it does the same things. That is, some people experience one only acute episode.
> Miraculously, after a month of treatment, the symptons have not returned for twenty years. She considers herself cured. What do you think?
Well, she's still got the virus, could still pass it on if she had a partner other than her husband (from whom you imply that she caught it in the first place, even if he never had symptoms), though in the absence of any acute vesicular (blistering, but quite possibly asymptomatic - unnoticed) episodes, not too easily. And she's in very good company - the carriage rate amongst "sexually active" people is estimated at around 35%. So, what do you think?