Aa
If the Hemopurifier being tested by AEMD in India is able to reduce viral loads in blood of HCV ?
If the Hemopurifier being tested by AEMD in India is able to reduce viral loads in blood of HCV infected subjects, then how could this not be anything but helpful?
I am sure that it is not cure because not every copy of the virus is in the blood.
There are likely only a small percentage that in the blood.
But from the virus''s point of view , is it not a numbers game.
Because the reason that a person's own immune system can not rid the body of the virus is because the virus keeps mutating? The only way it can mutate is by making lose copies of it self in high numbers until one copy figures out how to defeat the immune system. Right? And then natural selection will of coarse favor that copy of that virus and it will survive and multiply until the immune system figures out how to defeat it and then the virus will have another mutant copy that natural selection will favor. And the war goes on.
At least that is how I think it works. So if a person could even reduce their viral load in there blood by 1% then
would that not decrease the odds of one of the losely made copies of the virus becoming the new mutant strain?
Of coarse if that is true then Blood letting would likely reduce the viral load in the blood by 1%.
I am not advocating the return to middle evil medicine .
But it makes so much sense to me that if the Hemopurifier does being down the load then it would definately be of great help before starting any treatment.
Unless I got it all wrong and virus's really do their thing though the aide of some sort of divine intelligence for the outside that guides their mutation.
I have no knowledge or training in medicine of any kind, so I can only look at the problem of HCV
in the way a statistic would, or a game theorist.
Can someone please straighten me out and tell me where I am wrong?
I am sure that it is not cure because not every copy of the virus is in the blood.
There are likely only a small percentage that in the blood.
But from the virus''s point of view , is it not a numbers game.
Because the reason that a person's own immune system can not rid the body of the virus is because the virus keeps mutating? The only way it can mutate is by making lose copies of it self in high numbers until one copy figures out how to defeat the immune system. Right? And then natural selection will of coarse favor that copy of that virus and it will survive and multiply until the immune system figures out how to defeat it and then the virus will have another mutant copy that natural selection will favor. And the war goes on.
At least that is how I think it works. So if a person could even reduce their viral load in there blood by 1% then
would that not decrease the odds of one of the losely made copies of the virus becoming the new mutant strain?
Of coarse if that is true then Blood letting would likely reduce the viral load in the blood by 1%.
I am not advocating the return to middle evil medicine .
But it makes so much sense to me that if the Hemopurifier does being down the load then it would definately be of great help before starting any treatment.
Unless I got it all wrong and virus's really do their thing though the aide of some sort of divine intelligence for the outside that guides their mutation.
I have no knowledge or training in medicine of any kind, so I can only look at the problem of HCV
in the way a statistic would, or a game theorist.
Can someone please straighten me out and tell me where I am wrong?
********************************* CLOSED THREAD *******************************
NO NEW POSTS, PLEASE
NO NEW POSTS, PLEASE
If you read the whole thread, you will find I answered the involvement question early and said my involvement is only to the extent that I have owned shares in the company for the last few years and still do.
If you want to think I am somehow actually "involved with the company", that is your choice.
My only goal was to correct some of the terribly uninformed perspectives here about the technology, which is why I said my peace and have not posted as much. I think if some Hep C people come by this board they actually deserve the real information instead of uninformed cries of snake-oil and scam. And I think the discussion that unfolded acheived that.
By the way, while it is technically, maybe possible the Hemopurifier is hyped and not a real potential adjunct therapy, I consider it highly unlikely given the upcoming treatment study at Medanta in India is being registered with the Clinical Trials Registry of India and the Principal Investigator is the Chairman of the Division of Nephrology and Renal Transplant Medicine within Medanta's Institute of Kidney and Urology.
And, by the way, according to the most recent interview with the CEO, we will hear more about clinical studies in the US specifically for Hep C while the India study is ongoing. So I suspect that means we will hear about clinical program for Hep C in the US within the next year.
Time will tell how useful or not useful the Hemopurifier is helping Hep C patients.
If you want to think I am somehow actually "involved with the company", that is your choice.
My only goal was to correct some of the terribly uninformed perspectives here about the technology, which is why I said my peace and have not posted as much. I think if some Hep C people come by this board they actually deserve the real information instead of uninformed cries of snake-oil and scam. And I think the discussion that unfolded acheived that.
By the way, while it is technically, maybe possible the Hemopurifier is hyped and not a real potential adjunct therapy, I consider it highly unlikely given the upcoming treatment study at Medanta in India is being registered with the Clinical Trials Registry of India and the Principal Investigator is the Chairman of the Division of Nephrology and Renal Transplant Medicine within Medanta's Institute of Kidney and Urology.
And, by the way, according to the most recent interview with the CEO, we will hear more about clinical studies in the US specifically for Hep C while the India study is ongoing. So I suspect that means we will hear about clinical program for Hep C in the US within the next year.
Time will tell how useful or not useful the Hemopurifier is helping Hep C patients.
I think Ruffuss & tej109 are involved with the company and are here trying to get investors (suckers) for the almost bankrupt AEMD company.
Just another scam to pray on the sick. Little do they know most people on this forum have seen it all, LDN, ALA, ETC, ETC and will not get any investors here. They are wasting their time.
And just in case I'm wrong......
If they start testing here in the USA with the FDA involved and it looks good with proven data then they will get investors.
Just my opinion of course :)
Just another scam to pray on the sick. Little do they know most people on this forum have seen it all, LDN, ALA, ETC, ETC and will not get any investors here. They are wasting their time.
And just in case I'm wrong......
If they start testing here in the USA with the FDA involved and it looks good with proven data then they will get investors.
Just my opinion of course :)
From what little I can figure out about the genetics, entropy, and kinetics of HCV , drug interactions and RNA mutations, be it as a result of our own bodies genetic responses or the virus's genetic responses to Tx,
The scientific community's assessment and general consensus is, when starting Tx for the first time, or, if a retreater , a low VL increases the chance for SVR.
Ruffuss, Are you able to take part in AEMD's clinical trial ?
From where and how did you get the figure of $120K ?
It seems the folks here don't realize this device is not yet on the market and that it is only being clinically researched .
That IF successful it will be used in conjunction with and at very beginning of SOC Tx ,
and IF successful will aid in viral and possibly cancer eradication in a way that's never been possible before.
For what it is worth , if someone wants to take the time to Wiki , HCV
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hepatitis_C_virus
DFPP & HP are both referenced in the "Current Research" section, just after the PI's ...
The scientific community's assessment and general consensus is, when starting Tx for the first time, or, if a retreater , a low VL increases the chance for SVR.
Ruffuss, Are you able to take part in AEMD's clinical trial ?
From where and how did you get the figure of $120K ?
It seems the folks here don't realize this device is not yet on the market and that it is only being clinically researched .
That IF successful it will be used in conjunction with and at very beginning of SOC Tx ,
and IF successful will aid in viral and possibly cancer eradication in a way that's never been possible before.
For what it is worth , if someone wants to take the time to Wiki , HCV
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hepatitis_C_virus
DFPP & HP are both referenced in the "Current Research" section, just after the PI's ...
Thanks Bruce! A lot of people with advanced disease are waiting for the amazing new drugs. They interrupt the viral replication mechanism rather then boost your immune system the way interferon does. If you really want to use the machine, I think you should do it right before you treat again with one of the drugs.
There is hope,
Dave
There is hope,
Dave
Good luck !
If you are Und then you are over half way there.
I am not much of a church goer, but I'll tell my wife to pray for you.
And I wish you all the best.
Take care
Bruce
If you are Und then you are over half way there.
I am not much of a church goer, but I'll tell my wife to pray for you.
And I wish you all the best.
Take care
Bruce
I really don't have any judgement about what you should do for yourself. I have chosen to be in a boceprevir trial and it seems to be working for me, although I am well aware that svr and und are different animals. I am also just a guy on tx with limited knowledge trying to get well. My guess is that I said that it may be your genetics or chemistry that caused you to not svr, if I acted positive about anything I apologize.
I think everyone has made their arguments on this thread, people have gotten information and can make their own decisions which is good, but it is getting old now. I guess I should just stop reading it.
I really hope you and all of us get well by whatever means it takes, I am sorry that you have treated a couple of times and are still not svr. It must be very difficult to go through that. I know that in my 17 weeks of treatment it has been really tough and that's nothing compared to two complete treatments.
Take care and I wish you the best!
- Dave
I think everyone has made their arguments on this thread, people have gotten information and can make their own decisions which is good, but it is getting old now. I guess I should just stop reading it.
I really hope you and all of us get well by whatever means it takes, I am sorry that you have treated a couple of times and are still not svr. It must be very difficult to go through that. I know that in my 17 weeks of treatment it has been really tough and that's nothing compared to two complete treatments.
Take care and I wish you the best!
- Dave
You told me once that you believed that there is evidence that HCV virisus to NOT become drug resistant and that you think that it is my genetics that are likely the cause of my fail treatments.
do you think it would be better to wait until a Bio-tech company comes out with a treatment that take one Genetic makeup into account?
I do not have health insurance so If I do go through a treatment I have EVERY reason to want it to work. I got some money but not enough to just keep trying every possible treatment until one works.
do you think it would be better to wait until a Bio-tech company comes out with a treatment that take one Genetic makeup into account?
I do not have health insurance so If I do go through a treatment I have EVERY reason to want it to work. I got some money but not enough to just keep trying every possible treatment until one works.
A great advertisement? For what?
I am not advising anybody else to try this thing until I do it first.
Hell, it could be dangerous !
I would NEVER advise a young mother to try this thing with the data as it stands now.
But do YOU think that the AEMD hepapurifier filter has enough current Data backing it up to warrant further research?
Do you think that my logic for why I think it could work in principal is sound?
I want this thread to end if you think that it is somehow turning into
some kind of Advertisemnet for something.
BUT FIRST I WANT YOUR opinion.
If you do not understand my aurguement then ask me what part
you do not understand.
If you understand it, but think that I am WRONG about something please tell me WHY you think that I am wrong.
I am open minded, so you really could change my mind.
But you will not be able to do that by just calling me an idiot.
I already know that I am one.
But please give me your opinion, and the reason you believe what you do.
Bruce
I am not advising anybody else to try this thing until I do it first.
Hell, it could be dangerous !
I would NEVER advise a young mother to try this thing with the data as it stands now.
But do YOU think that the AEMD hepapurifier filter has enough current Data backing it up to warrant further research?
Do you think that my logic for why I think it could work in principal is sound?
I want this thread to end if you think that it is somehow turning into
some kind of Advertisemnet for something.
BUT FIRST I WANT YOUR opinion.
If you do not understand my aurguement then ask me what part
you do not understand.
If you understand it, but think that I am WRONG about something please tell me WHY you think that I am wrong.
I am open minded, so you really could change my mind.
But you will not be able to do that by just calling me an idiot.
I already know that I am one.
But please give me your opinion, and the reason you believe what you do.
Bruce
I will try to explain my thinking. But please do not laugh, I do not claim to understand how this or any other virus does what it does.
"But the Viruses that the Filter removed are physically removed so they would have the same offspring as before."
Can you clarify ? I don't get it , if they are removed physically ... that's it end game.
Think of total number of HCV viruses in our body like 1000 marbles in a jar.
960 of the marbles are red (they are the viruses that are easily killed by Inf + Rib) and
20 of the marbles are blue (they are the viruses resistant to the standard treatment)
8 of the marbles are green (they are resistant to INF+ Rib BUT are killed by the new drug.
2 marbles are black, and drug resistant to everything we got.
If you take Inf + Rib + (new drug) then you got just two black marbles left after a few weeks of treatment. But those 2 black marbles are going to reproduce and fill the design space left (the empty jar). After treatment the jar will likely NOT be fill completely with black marbles because some of the marbles will reproduce red, blue and green marbles.
Just like a couple can have a blond haired child even if 7 of 8 of their of great-grandparents have dark hair. And when then child has a child of his own, his child is more likely to have dark hair than blond. Even though he himself is blond.
However, there is a very good chance that the final percentage of Black marbles in the jar at the end of a failed treatment WILL be much higher than the original.02% that is was before you started treatment.
If a treatment does get SVR then I think it is because the immune system has multiple methods of killing viruses and the immune system got lucky and killed the black marbles. (when the viral load was at its lowest)
Now compare that to using the AEMD filter.
It is like opening the bottem of the jar of marbles and letting out 960 of them.
All colors of marbles will flow out with the same odds.
You could get lucky and the black marbles are let out so they are out of the picture
when you start the drug treatment.
If fact, if HCV were as simple as my Marble scenario then one would not even have to be lucky, because the odds are that the Black marbles WILL be gone using the filter.
I know that it is stupid to think of viruses like reproducing marbles but it does make sense to me.
The other thing that I think plays a role in getting a SVR is entropy. (old age of the virus)
Do they know how long a virus can live in the body before it dies of old age?
Maybe the Inf just prevents the viruses from reproducing and the rest die of old age.
If that is the case then the filter is helping by removing a large % from viruses in the bloodstream (young and old virus alike) and that should make the drug treatment more effective because the more young viruses that are removed, then the shorter time the Inferion has to prevent new ones for being made?
What do you think?
"But the Viruses that the Filter removed are physically removed so they would have the same offspring as before."
Can you clarify ? I don't get it , if they are removed physically ... that's it end game.
Think of total number of HCV viruses in our body like 1000 marbles in a jar.
960 of the marbles are red (they are the viruses that are easily killed by Inf + Rib) and
20 of the marbles are blue (they are the viruses resistant to the standard treatment)
8 of the marbles are green (they are resistant to INF+ Rib BUT are killed by the new drug.
2 marbles are black, and drug resistant to everything we got.
If you take Inf + Rib + (new drug) then you got just two black marbles left after a few weeks of treatment. But those 2 black marbles are going to reproduce and fill the design space left (the empty jar). After treatment the jar will likely NOT be fill completely with black marbles because some of the marbles will reproduce red, blue and green marbles.
Just like a couple can have a blond haired child even if 7 of 8 of their of great-grandparents have dark hair. And when then child has a child of his own, his child is more likely to have dark hair than blond. Even though he himself is blond.
However, there is a very good chance that the final percentage of Black marbles in the jar at the end of a failed treatment WILL be much higher than the original.02% that is was before you started treatment.
If a treatment does get SVR then I think it is because the immune system has multiple methods of killing viruses and the immune system got lucky and killed the black marbles. (when the viral load was at its lowest)
Now compare that to using the AEMD filter.
It is like opening the bottem of the jar of marbles and letting out 960 of them.
All colors of marbles will flow out with the same odds.
You could get lucky and the black marbles are let out so they are out of the picture
when you start the drug treatment.
If fact, if HCV were as simple as my Marble scenario then one would not even have to be lucky, because the odds are that the Black marbles WILL be gone using the filter.
I know that it is stupid to think of viruses like reproducing marbles but it does make sense to me.
The other thing that I think plays a role in getting a SVR is entropy. (old age of the virus)
Do they know how long a virus can live in the body before it dies of old age?
Maybe the Inf just prevents the viruses from reproducing and the rest die of old age.
If that is the case then the filter is helping by removing a large % from viruses in the bloodstream (young and old virus alike) and that should make the drug treatment more effective because the more young viruses that are removed, then the shorter time the Inferion has to prevent new ones for being made?
What do you think?
I would like to thank everyone that replied to my original question.
Even those that just told me that they thought that I was stupid for thinking about it.
IMHO I think that there is at least a 60%- 75% chance that AEMDs filter will end up helping enough HCV infected that it will be worth the expense of the treatment. Of coarse, I am saying that without even knowing the final efficacy of the filter or the added expense of the treatment.
It is still possible that using the filter will have some unknown side effect that would make it a bad idea. (but I think that should have shown up by now)
But I do think that almost everybody would agree that AEMDs research does have enough merit to it, that it is Defiantly worth continuing?
Based solely on the fact that the possible benefit to the device (if it works) is great enough to warrant the little it costs to continue the research to the point where the data is conclusive. (when compared to the cost of the pharmaceutical companies trying to bring a new drug to market). Would everybody agree to that statement? NYgirl ?
My liver is not in bad enough shape to do this yet. (Plus I do not think I am mentally prepared to do this yet)
But I got the kind of money to spend to try this thing in India. At some point, some American with Geno type 1 has got to take the risks and try it. I have no children, so it may as well be me. From what I can tell, AEMD has been trying their best to do real trails, and get real data, with no money. They have used their device on patients that were already on kidney dialysis machines and dieing of kidney problems that were likely NOT 100% related to their HCV infection. That is no way to do real research. They need a bunch of healthy 43 year old Caucasians that have failed treatment twice and have Geno type 1, Like myself.
Maybe I can help see if this thing really can help save some lives of some of our fellow Americans. I will let everybody know when I buy my tickets to India.
I am sure that some of you will think that I am wasting my money.
And I appreciate your concern, but I can NOT take it with it me, and I got nobody that needs it. So I can think of no better way to spend $120K then seeing if this damn filter works in a clinical trial of ONE.
Even those that just told me that they thought that I was stupid for thinking about it.
IMHO I think that there is at least a 60%- 75% chance that AEMDs filter will end up helping enough HCV infected that it will be worth the expense of the treatment. Of coarse, I am saying that without even knowing the final efficacy of the filter or the added expense of the treatment.
It is still possible that using the filter will have some unknown side effect that would make it a bad idea. (but I think that should have shown up by now)
But I do think that almost everybody would agree that AEMDs research does have enough merit to it, that it is Defiantly worth continuing?
Based solely on the fact that the possible benefit to the device (if it works) is great enough to warrant the little it costs to continue the research to the point where the data is conclusive. (when compared to the cost of the pharmaceutical companies trying to bring a new drug to market). Would everybody agree to that statement? NYgirl ?
My liver is not in bad enough shape to do this yet. (Plus I do not think I am mentally prepared to do this yet)
But I got the kind of money to spend to try this thing in India. At some point, some American with Geno type 1 has got to take the risks and try it. I have no children, so it may as well be me. From what I can tell, AEMD has been trying their best to do real trails, and get real data, with no money. They have used their device on patients that were already on kidney dialysis machines and dieing of kidney problems that were likely NOT 100% related to their HCV infection. That is no way to do real research. They need a bunch of healthy 43 year old Caucasians that have failed treatment twice and have Geno type 1, Like myself.
Maybe I can help see if this thing really can help save some lives of some of our fellow Americans. I will let everybody know when I buy my tickets to India.
I am sure that some of you will think that I am wasting my money.
And I appreciate your concern, but I can NOT take it with it me, and I got nobody that needs it. So I can think of no better way to spend $120K then seeing if this damn filter works in a clinical trial of ONE.
Can you post a link please to your 400,000 IU/ml updated info ?
Or a link to any valid 2010 info that shows that starting with a low VL does not help in achieving SVR with SOC Tx ?
Or that VL has no impact on SOC Tx ?
Dang it , I'm still waiting .... darn it ....
Or a link to any valid 2010 info that shows that starting with a low VL does not help in achieving SVR with SOC Tx ?
Or that VL has no impact on SOC Tx ?
Dang it , I'm still waiting .... darn it ....
Anybody here that claims they know 100% conclusively about how this virus works or does not work , effects of the meds used or different treatments for HCV ,,,, are in my opinion,,,,,,,,,
Practicing very risky behavior ,,,,,,,, that could influence someone newly diagnosed, there are plenty on your forum, who have not done his/her homework, or is having trauma and easily influenced ...
into making an ill informed decision that may not necessarily right for them.
We are all entitled to our opinions ... giving an opinion is ok , no problem,,,,,,,,,
However ,those of you who claim to be "experts" and are presenting your selves as giving sound medical advise ,
Should rethink your objectives about being here , or at the very least, the way you phrase your opinions ,,
You could not possibly know what is right or wrong for someone you meet online, give your opinion, make sure the folks know it is only your 2 cents worth.
None of you are professional medical practitioners ,or, research scientists.
Practicing very risky behavior ,,,,,,,, that could influence someone newly diagnosed, there are plenty on your forum, who have not done his/her homework, or is having trauma and easily influenced ...
into making an ill informed decision that may not necessarily right for them.
We are all entitled to our opinions ... giving an opinion is ok , no problem,,,,,,,,,
However ,those of you who claim to be "experts" and are presenting your selves as giving sound medical advise ,
Should rethink your objectives about being here , or at the very least, the way you phrase your opinions ,,
You could not possibly know what is right or wrong for someone you meet online, give your opinion, make sure the folks know it is only your 2 cents worth.
None of you are professional medical practitioners ,or, research scientists.
Not so sure that i missed your point Ruffuss, and i don't think you are missing something any more than the current data available provides.
There is no substantiated or conclusive data on your question as far I know. My thinking is pretty much the same ...
"the Filter reduces the count for All the HCV Viruses. Not just the Viruses that are of the variant that are killed by the new drug.
So I would think that getting a reduced load count after using the filter would be better than getting the same load count after using a new drug."
I agree, for me it makes sense, but I don't understand your following question:
"But the Viruses that the Filter removed are physically removed so they would have the same offspring as before."
Can you clarify ? I don't get it , if they are removed physically ... that's it end game.
We need time , the DFPP seems to be the only clinically trialed and approved filtration device at this time & has only been approved since 2008 in Japan. AEMD is just now supposedly starting their clinical trials.
DFPP is undergoing more clinical trials in Taiwan at 6 facilities right now, as you know it's a different system than AEMD based on the same concept. I like the idea , it makes sense to me.
The data to date on viral mutations of HCV is very far from conclusive, the scientists just don't know much ,,, yet.
Ruffuss , What little data is available : once the virus has mutated , all it's offspring are the same mutation ,,,, or,,,,, possibly in transition to another form of mutation,,,, nice ya ..... nobody really knows yet....
Any left hiding in the liver, which they do so well, the scientists studying this aspect of HCV mutations, can only agree with what the clinical trials say about adding PI's to the regime, thats it's possible ,,,, up to 65% of the mutated virus will react to the new meds.
It's anybody's guess Ruffuss. SOC Tx , mutations, side effects ,,,, all of it at this time, is a guess , speculation , nobody can say 100% conclusively one way or the other.
Mutations are being researched, unfortunately there are no easy answers, as you said & it takes a long time.
I wish you, and everyone, the best results on your battle and quest for attaining SVR.
I have no idea of AEMD's financials, I like the concept, like the DFPP from the first time I read about it & I wish them success on their quest. At least someone is out there trying to find a different approach.
And all the other companies searching for an alternative, drug based or machine based system, to using the only FDA approved drug INF, it is very toxic as the FDA and any doctor will tell you,,,,,
There are many new attempts in the "pipeline" and with time and some luck, maybe one or two will be able to withstand clinical trials and go on to help us all to remove the many strains and the mutations of HCV infections around the globe.
About all we can do right now is keep our fingers crossed that more attention and $$ is focused into finding a real "cure" for HCV. $$ invested and research is being attempted all over the world to find the cure.
Make an informed decision what is personally right for you , not one decided on from this or any other so called "experts forum" ...
There is no substantiated or conclusive data on your question as far I know. My thinking is pretty much the same ...
"the Filter reduces the count for All the HCV Viruses. Not just the Viruses that are of the variant that are killed by the new drug.
So I would think that getting a reduced load count after using the filter would be better than getting the same load count after using a new drug."
I agree, for me it makes sense, but I don't understand your following question:
"But the Viruses that the Filter removed are physically removed so they would have the same offspring as before."
Can you clarify ? I don't get it , if they are removed physically ... that's it end game.
We need time , the DFPP seems to be the only clinically trialed and approved filtration device at this time & has only been approved since 2008 in Japan. AEMD is just now supposedly starting their clinical trials.
DFPP is undergoing more clinical trials in Taiwan at 6 facilities right now, as you know it's a different system than AEMD based on the same concept. I like the idea , it makes sense to me.
The data to date on viral mutations of HCV is very far from conclusive, the scientists just don't know much ,,, yet.
Ruffuss , What little data is available : once the virus has mutated , all it's offspring are the same mutation ,,,, or,,,,, possibly in transition to another form of mutation,,,, nice ya ..... nobody really knows yet....
Any left hiding in the liver, which they do so well, the scientists studying this aspect of HCV mutations, can only agree with what the clinical trials say about adding PI's to the regime, thats it's possible ,,,, up to 65% of the mutated virus will react to the new meds.
It's anybody's guess Ruffuss. SOC Tx , mutations, side effects ,,,, all of it at this time, is a guess , speculation , nobody can say 100% conclusively one way or the other.
Mutations are being researched, unfortunately there are no easy answers, as you said & it takes a long time.
I wish you, and everyone, the best results on your battle and quest for attaining SVR.
I have no idea of AEMD's financials, I like the concept, like the DFPP from the first time I read about it & I wish them success on their quest. At least someone is out there trying to find a different approach.
And all the other companies searching for an alternative, drug based or machine based system, to using the only FDA approved drug INF, it is very toxic as the FDA and any doctor will tell you,,,,,
There are many new attempts in the "pipeline" and with time and some luck, maybe one or two will be able to withstand clinical trials and go on to help us all to remove the many strains and the mutations of HCV infections around the globe.
About all we can do right now is keep our fingers crossed that more attention and $$ is focused into finding a real "cure" for HCV. $$ invested and research is being attempted all over the world to find the cure.
Make an informed decision what is personally right for you , not one decided on from this or any other so called "experts forum" ...
I think you missed my point.
I am sure that there are (or soon will be) drugs that can lower the load count just as much as AEMDs filter can. But the Filter reduces the count for All the HCV Viruses. Not just the Viruses that are of the variant that are killed by the new drug.
So I would think that getting a reduced load count after using the filter would be better than getting the same load count after using a new drug.
Because even though the number is the same. The make up of the viruses in the body are not the same. The ones left in the body after the new drug are the ones that are more immune to the new drug. And when those reproduce their offspring will for the most part be like them.
Get it?
But the Viruses that the Filter removed are physically removed so they would have the same offspring as before.
Right?
Am I missing something?
That was my original question that nobody has answered yet.
Please help me out.
I am sure that there are (or soon will be) drugs that can lower the load count just as much as AEMDs filter can. But the Filter reduces the count for All the HCV Viruses. Not just the Viruses that are of the variant that are killed by the new drug.
So I would think that getting a reduced load count after using the filter would be better than getting the same load count after using a new drug.
Because even though the number is the same. The make up of the viruses in the body are not the same. The ones left in the body after the new drug are the ones that are more immune to the new drug. And when those reproduce their offspring will for the most part be like them.
Get it?
But the Viruses that the Filter removed are physically removed so they would have the same offspring as before.
Right?
Am I missing something?
That was my original question that nobody has answered yet.
Please help me out.
Your forgetting one little thing Aaron. It doesn't matter if the viral load goes to
400,000 IU/mL or below (which is the new low in the hep community) with your crazy cute little machine, the patient still must take those horrible, nasty life altering big pharma drugs to be cured. Dang it. And I'm thinking AEMD must be giving out crystal balls with their hemopurifier because they are certain those nasty life altering big pharma drugs are going to work more effectively with a lower viral load regardless of how the immune system works with those horrible, nasty, life altering big pharma drugs. Right? And then of course geno 1's they will have the option of shortening their treatment time to 24 wks because they will have started out with a low viral load, RVR'd and won't need the full 48 weeks. And there are statistics to back this up correct? And then there are those like myself, clinically low viral load, relapser who should jump on SOC right now because that viral load is LOW so SVR odds are HIGHER regardless, right? Any statistics to back that up?
What you post is nothing more than speculative crap and I think by now you realize this community is hip to you but it makes for amusing conversation. I suppose if I was committed to such a concept like yourself, I would have to continue with my illusions of grandeur so as not to lose face. And perhaps credibility means nothing to you because you're just a die hard hemopurifier kind of guy.
Trinity
400,000 IU/mL or below (which is the new low in the hep community) with your crazy cute little machine, the patient still must take those horrible, nasty life altering big pharma drugs to be cured. Dang it. And I'm thinking AEMD must be giving out crystal balls with their hemopurifier because they are certain those nasty life altering big pharma drugs are going to work more effectively with a lower viral load regardless of how the immune system works with those horrible, nasty, life altering big pharma drugs. Right? And then of course geno 1's they will have the option of shortening their treatment time to 24 wks because they will have started out with a low viral load, RVR'd and won't need the full 48 weeks. And there are statistics to back this up correct? And then there are those like myself, clinically low viral load, relapser who should jump on SOC right now because that viral load is LOW so SVR odds are HIGHER regardless, right? Any statistics to back that up?
What you post is nothing more than speculative crap and I think by now you realize this community is hip to you but it makes for amusing conversation. I suppose if I was committed to such a concept like yourself, I would have to continue with my illusions of grandeur so as not to lose face. And perhaps credibility means nothing to you because you're just a die hard hemopurifier kind of guy.
Trinity
I do not know anything about peroxide infusions?
What was the logic behind that?
Peroxide is an oxidant? How could that help?
AEMDs filter has a logical reason for why it could work.
At least as I understand it.
Are you say that peroxide infusions were some kind of snake oil that some HCV infected put all their faith in?
Like stuff done by a witch doctor?
Do you think AEMD s filter is just like that?
If so, Why?
What was the logic behind that?
Peroxide is an oxidant? How could that help?
AEMDs filter has a logical reason for why it could work.
At least as I understand it.
Are you say that peroxide infusions were some kind of snake oil that some HCV infected put all their faith in?
Like stuff done by a witch doctor?
Do you think AEMD s filter is just like that?
If so, Why?
This is just my opinion as to the answers to your questions, I am just an idiot Factory worker so rember the source of these answers.
1) Are you referring to the 60 patient study that you referenced or the 9 patient study that I posted? Those are your definition of solid reseach and proof?
Answer: AEMD only has 6 employees, it only had $120,000.00 of cash on the books last quarter.
I do not know what it costs to do even one full scale clinical trial on one person but considering their financial resources, I think 9 patient study is the best they could do. and I believe that the tests were done on people that had HCV AND were on kidney dialysis machines because they were in end stage kidney disease. (AEMD could not even afford to rent the dialysis machines to do the tests so they did the what they could afford)
2) Why doesn't AEMD mount full scale independent tests like other new drugs and devices?
Answer: Lack of $$$$
I'm not affiliated with AEMD , I have no idea why not ...
Lack of $$$$
3) Isn't AEMD's plan to combine their device with those toxic drugs? Where is the gain there?
Answer: I think they figure that if a person is going to expose himself to those toxic drugs then they should at least have the best chance of doing what they are supposed to do.
The gain is , if it is a success in trials like DFPP , not layering another drug on top of the SOC to achieve a high SVR ratio. (and maybe they can lower the amount of drugs required for those that just can Not tolerate the Inf + Rib
4) And make big $$$ doing it this way?
If it works and if they do not go broke before they can PROVE that it works then they will make big $$$. (And they deserve to make big $$$ because they took all the risks)
Nothing in this world is free ... more power to them .
1) Are you referring to the 60 patient study that you referenced or the 9 patient study that I posted? Those are your definition of solid reseach and proof?
Answer: AEMD only has 6 employees, it only had $120,000.00 of cash on the books last quarter.
I do not know what it costs to do even one full scale clinical trial on one person but considering their financial resources, I think 9 patient study is the best they could do. and I believe that the tests were done on people that had HCV AND were on kidney dialysis machines because they were in end stage kidney disease. (AEMD could not even afford to rent the dialysis machines to do the tests so they did the what they could afford)
2) Why doesn't AEMD mount full scale independent tests like other new drugs and devices?
Answer: Lack of $$$$
I'm not affiliated with AEMD , I have no idea why not ...
Lack of $$$$
3) Isn't AEMD's plan to combine their device with those toxic drugs? Where is the gain there?
Answer: I think they figure that if a person is going to expose himself to those toxic drugs then they should at least have the best chance of doing what they are supposed to do.
The gain is , if it is a success in trials like DFPP , not layering another drug on top of the SOC to achieve a high SVR ratio. (and maybe they can lower the amount of drugs required for those that just can Not tolerate the Inf + Rib
4) And make big $$$ doing it this way?
If it works and if they do not go broke before they can PROVE that it works then they will make big $$$. (And they deserve to make big $$$ because they took all the risks)
Nothing in this world is free ... more power to them .
I think that the reason the AEMD filter is able to help the viral loads of so many diseases is because the filter has affinity agents that cause the proteins of the viruses to stick to them. All viruses have proteins so it is just a case of trying different affinity agents that stick to different proteins until they find one that sticks to the proteins of what ever virus that you want to filter out.
If you got viruses that are causing your car to run poorly, then AEMD could probably make a filter to get them out. I am not a mechanic so IDNK if proteins in motor oil are a common problem, but if they are, then AEMD should make a filter for Jiffy Lube.
And the reason that they have developed a Monkey pox filter is because it is the closest thing to Smallpox that researchers got to work with.
The only 2 test tubes of Small pox that are SUPPOSED to be on planet earth are in Atlanta, Georgia and in some town about 100 miles south of Moscow, Russia.
If that turns out to be true, then the Monkey pox filter was a waste of time, but if Bin Laden get a hold of a test tube of Small pox that somebody forgot about, then you WILL be happy that AEMD got a filter that just might work. So please do not criticize them for doing a little research on Monkey Pox. Because that **** aint even funny.
Nygirl, are sure that basing your beliefs on quantitative Data is not better than basing it on a handful of examples of people that you know.?
I really know a guy that had Colon cancer and was told that he had less than 1 year to live. He decided to try fasting with a twist.
He ate nothing but Jello and Ex-lax for 12 days and now his cancer is in remission. I told him that I do not think it was the diet the cured him but he is certain that it was. If I get colon cancer should I take the advise of the guy I know that is cured? or look at the Research Data of thousands of people that have had the same problem?
If you got viruses that are causing your car to run poorly, then AEMD could probably make a filter to get them out. I am not a mechanic so IDNK if proteins in motor oil are a common problem, but if they are, then AEMD should make a filter for Jiffy Lube.
And the reason that they have developed a Monkey pox filter is because it is the closest thing to Smallpox that researchers got to work with.
The only 2 test tubes of Small pox that are SUPPOSED to be on planet earth are in Atlanta, Georgia and in some town about 100 miles south of Moscow, Russia.
If that turns out to be true, then the Monkey pox filter was a waste of time, but if Bin Laden get a hold of a test tube of Small pox that somebody forgot about, then you WILL be happy that AEMD got a filter that just might work. So please do not criticize them for doing a little research on Monkey Pox. Because that **** aint even funny.
Nygirl, are sure that basing your beliefs on quantitative Data is not better than basing it on a handful of examples of people that you know.?
I really know a guy that had Colon cancer and was told that he had less than 1 year to live. He decided to try fasting with a twist.
He ate nothing but Jello and Ex-lax for 12 days and now his cancer is in remission. I told him that I do not think it was the diet the cured him but he is certain that it was. If I get colon cancer should I take the advise of the guy I know that is cured? or look at the Research Data of thousands of people that have had the same problem?
nygirl - Where was it you get your data again ?? "
I guess unlike some geek who believes everything they read I found out from real life and real people and real experience. I started with a 568,000 viral load and did not clear until after week 12 and before week 24. I have known many others who have had the same exact situation therefore proving (at least to the real hepc patients if not the old data study makers and authors who just repeat this old information) that really it does not always make any difference in the world. Ask Cuteus or Bill or any one of us what the case is when starting with a low viral load then go reread the study data and wonder if it is always correct or not.
Good to you if you feel this viable option will help you clear - go to India and help out their ecomony all you like, but personally I think you are wasting time and money and should hold out for the REAL medications. Doing daily AEMD doesn't really seem to have any merit from my real life experiences and those of my other friends in here.
Again I don't personally care what you do it is your life and best to you - if that means living in India for a couple of years well I guess to you it is worth it but here in the USA they are working on medications that already are proven to assist curing this disease.
I guess unlike some geek who believes everything they read I found out from real life and real people and real experience. I started with a 568,000 viral load and did not clear until after week 12 and before week 24. I have known many others who have had the same exact situation therefore proving (at least to the real hepc patients if not the old data study makers and authors who just repeat this old information) that really it does not always make any difference in the world. Ask Cuteus or Bill or any one of us what the case is when starting with a low viral load then go reread the study data and wonder if it is always correct or not.
Good to you if you feel this viable option will help you clear - go to India and help out their ecomony all you like, but personally I think you are wasting time and money and should hold out for the REAL medications. Doing daily AEMD doesn't really seem to have any merit from my real life experiences and those of my other friends in here.
Again I don't personally care what you do it is your life and best to you - if that means living in India for a couple of years well I guess to you it is worth it but here in the USA they are working on medications that already are proven to assist curing this disease.
I'm wondering why... if that machine works so well in Japan that the government actually helps with the payments for treatment... why haven't they made it across the ocean to the US in 2 years? That's a long time for something that has been proven to be so effective... if that is truly the case.
Diane
Diane
Have an Answer?
You are reading content posted in the Hepatitis C Community
Learn about this treatable virus.
Getting tested for this viral infection.
3 key steps to getting on treatment.
4 steps to getting on therapy.
What you need to know about Hep C drugs.
How the drugs might affect you.
These tips may up your chances of a cure.
A list of national and international resources and hotlines to help connect you to needed health and medical services.
Herpes sores blister, then burst, scab and heal.
Herpes spreads by oral, vaginal and anal sex.
STIs are the most common cause of genital sores.
Condoms are the most effective way to prevent HIV and STDs.
PrEP is used by people with high risk to prevent HIV infection.
