Lymph node pain on acyclovir

[Who Me?]

Can you post the source? I am not being antagonistic, I cannot find a source that says antivirals increase ROS.

Why not start a thread about it? This one is seriously derailed from the OP's original question.

 

[Tammy7]

A virus is not a toxin, it is a virus. Its' simplicity is misleading. The process of killing a virus and removing heavy metals has no similarity so using the same term is just lazy.

Medical Definition of toxin

• : a colloidal proteinaceous poisonous substance that is a specific product of the metabolic activities of a living organism and is usually very unstable, notably toxic when introduced into the tissues, and typically capable of inducing antibody formation

OK..............so a virus can produce a toxin.................geesh. There are other definitions of toxins. The term "toxin" means the toxic material or product of plants, animals, microorganisms....including but not limited to bacteria, viruses, fungi, protozoa. End result remains the same...........the body trying to rid itself of viral toxins.

Apologies to the OP for getting sidetracked. Please let us know what your Dr. says.

 

[Who Me?]

@Tammy7 ready to slam your head against the wall yet?

 

[RuthAnn]

It appears that acyclovir inhibits oxidative stress.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15969948
Aciclovir protects against quinolinic-acid-induced oxidative neurotoxicity.

 

[RuthAnn]

It appears that acyclovir inhibits oxidative stress.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15969948
Aciclovir protects against quinolinic-acid-induced oxidative neurotoxicity.

@Remy maybe I missed something in my google search, but if you have something that shows that it does induce oxidative stress, it would be good to see it so that it would help the original poster decide.

 

[Who Me?]

This is a forum for people who are sick. Many are not scientific geniuses and don't understand things like that They don't have the energy for post after post about the definition of toxin when it may not even be relevent and is in fact too much info.


Nobody should compare posting in a forum with writing a scientific paper. Answering someone's question based on personal experience is as relevent as studies and is not bringing anyone down to what level is that? Being human?

All because you find oxidative stress the be all of everything does not mean Others do. Cramming it down our throats doesn't serve anyone but you.

My comment was to @Tammy7 over her obvious frustration over "toxin". Since I said it to her, it's up to her to decide if it its snide or hurtful vs a joke as intended

As for this being like PR, not agreeing with you gets people Insulted. Trying to get a thread back on track is insulting. When you insult a person by naming them in your signature because you don't agree that's ok?

If its like PR its because prople who were bullies there brought the same mentality here. some people were banned for legititate reasons.

Two people have asked you to Start a thread in oxidative stress for people who want to read since this is off topic. And yet it continues.

If I ask is the sky blue the answer is yes, not four studies on why oxidase stress makes the sky blue. Sometimes a question just needs a simple answer

 

[RuthAnn]

So sorry, but I was the one who brought up oxidative stress by asking if that could possibly be why the antiviral was causing pain in the glands. If we were looking for a negative reason why the antiviral was causing pain in order for the original poster to make a decision whether to quit the antiviral, I thought that could be a possible thing going on but was in the middle of a couple of things before going out last night.

As you can see if you look back the person who you are addressing only chimed in about the oxidative stress after someone said yes, antivirals cause oxidative stress.

Threads do go in different directions as people chime in with what they think is going on. That's not necessarily derailing.

If you think that my correction to Remy's post about antivirals causing oxidative stress is a further derailment, feel free to think that

And let me edit in that the person who you are trying to say thinks that oxidative stress causes everything never in this thread said that oxidative stress was the cause, quite the opposite!

 

[RuthAnn]

@Tammy7 ready to slam your head against the wall yet?

No, this is insulting, and I notice you removed the headslam.

 

[Remy]

@Remy maybe I missed something in my google search, but if you have something that shows that it does induce oxidative stress, it would be good to see it so that it would help the original poster decide.

I do have comments and cites that call into question the study you posted but I'm waiting to put them in a new thread so as not to continue to take this one off topic.

 

[RuthAnn]

I do have comments and cites that call into question the study you posted but I'm waiting to put them in a new thread so as not to continue to take this one off topic.

Actually, what we are looking for is something that says that antivirals cause oxidative stress.

 

[Remy]

Actually, what we are looking for is something that says that antivirals cause oxidative stress.

I understand.

 

[Tammy7]

But I do not even think it is a sidetrack because the advice you gave the OP was wrong.

The advice I gave to the OP was not to increase dosage at this time...........the same advice that her Dr. gave her.

 

[Remy]

The truth is you cannot find one study because your were incorrect saying it increased ROS.

Acyclovir is a prodrug...it is converted to the active, toxic drug by viral thymidine kinase through a process called oxidative phosphorylation. Oxidative phosphorylation by definition creates ROS, and thus oxidative stress.

This is why earlier drugs like AZT were so very toxic...because they were not so selective for viral TK and created mass havoc all through human cells as well as viral ones. But the ROS produced by the phosphorylation of viral TK still has to be cleaned up somehow...it doesn't just go away.

The study you posted regarding quinolinic acid may be a bit out of date. Later studies, like this one from 2013, suggest that quinolinic acid is not actually toxic in normal concentrations. So I don't think it is possible to extrapolate that something that happens to rat brains under artificially created conditions not likely to ever be experienced in the human brain in real life is actually applicable to much of anything.

Our study confirms that QUIN toxicity may be caused by ROS generation via the Fenton reaction. This, however, applies only for unnaturally high concentrations that were used in attempts to provide support for the neurotoxic effect. In lower concentrations, we show that by liganding iron, QUIN affects the Fe(II)/Fe(III) ratios that are beneficial to homeostasis. Our results support the notion that redox chemistry can contribute to explaining the hormetic dose-response effects.

But acyclovir most certainly causes oxidative stress in the kidney.

So does it have differing actions at differing locations? Possibly? Probably? I'd be interested to see more research along those lines for sure. But oxidative stress isn't everything. It's (not-so) simply a byproduct of the most common chemical reactions in the human body, which is why we have a redox balance. And I think acyclovir and other antivirals are generally pretty safe drugs comparatively.

And save the lectures and assumptions, please.

 

[Who Me?]

No, this is insulting, and I notice you removed the headslam.

I was empathizing with Tammy's frustration at the nit picking of the definition of toxin. And I have not changed one thing about that comment. If I did it would show that it was edited. Not edited. People have a habit of rewriting the way things are to suit their purposes. The same thing happened to @Remy

Once again, everyone off track playing quienes mas macho and ignoring the OP who asked about acyclovir and lymph nodes.

@RuthAnn I don't mean you.

 

[Cort]

@Tammy7 ready to slam your head against the wall yet?

 

[Croatoan]

Acyclovir is a prodrug...it is converted to the active, toxic drug by viral thymidine kinase through a process called oxidative phosphorylation. Oation by definition cHR for a whileates ROS, and thus oxidative stress.

This is why earlier drugs like AZT were so very toxic...because they were not so selective for viral TK and created mass havoc all through human cells as well as viral ones. But the ROS produced by the phosphorylation of viral TK still has to be cleaned up somehow...it doesn't just go away.

The study you posted regarding quinolinic acid may be a bit out of date. Later studies, like this one from 2013, suggest that quinolinic acid is not actually toxic in normal concentrations. So I don't think it is possible to extrapolate that something that happens to rat brains under artificially created conditions not likely to ever be experienced in the human brain in real life is actually applicable to much of anything.



But acyclovir most certainly causes oxidative stress in the kidney.

So does it have differing actions at differing locations? Possibly? Probably? I'd be interested to see more research along those lines for sure. But oxidative stress isn't everything. It's (not-so) simply a byproduct of the most common chemical reactions in the human body, which is why we have a redox balance. And I think acyclovir and other antivirals are generally pretty safe drugs comparatively.

And save the lectures and assumptions, please.

If you just posted this to begin with, or said that ypu did not have the time right now, instead of just replying "Google" you could have saved us all a bunch of time. Note that I never said you were wrong, I just wanted the source.

as far as ROS being the cause of all diseae, you just proved it again with this response. The ROS produced by the metabolism of ACV inxreades oxidative stress in the kidney and damages it.

This will be my last public posing on HR for a while.

 

[RuthAnn]

This is so weird. I was the one who first brought up ROS. Remy was the second person to talk about ROS. If she thought it was derailing the thread she could have said so then.

Then Remy wouldn't post her findings, which led to Croatoan asking her to post her findings. He was immediately considered rude, and then anything else he said was considered rude. Remy comes back with her message backing up what she said, and is allowed to continue the conversation about ROS.

 

[Remy]

Then Remy wouldn't post her findings, which led to Croatoan asking her to post her findings. He was immediately considered rude, and then anything else he said was considered rude. Remy comes back with her message backing up what she said, and is allowed to continue the conversation about ROS.

This isn't exactly correct.

Strike said Google, because it is a "water is wet" sort of statement.

I said I had sources and comments but I wanted to wait to post them until we got a new thread.

Then rather than wait a hot second, I got accused of being a liar and unable to prove my statements.

So I went ahead and posted in the hopes that @Cort would soon move the whole darn thing.

 

[RuthAnn]

No, you posted about ROS after I did when you answered the question about it. If it was going off track you could have stopped it right there and then.

 

[Remy]

No, you posted about ROS after I did when you answered the question about it. If it was going off track you could have stopped it right there and then.

You're right, all the posts from that point on should have been moved to a new thread. I think it's OK for a post or two to go off topic but when it's clear it's taken on a life of it's own, that's when the whole thing needs a new thread and a new title. It's only fair to the OP.

And it isn't up to me to stop anything. I'm not in charge here.