PMBC - Shown not to be viral reservoirs

[Mr Liver]

http://natap.org/2008/HCV/030508_01.htm

[Trish77]

DD:  I don't think that I am the one engaging in 'tirades' and personal attacks.  I think you are reading way, way more into my comments than what was intended.  And, I have a right to respond to your criticisms and 'rants' just as well as you do. Believe me, no one is 'maligning you!  You seem to be screeching the insults and accusations,judging  from your post above.  Let's move on!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Back atcha.

[DoubleDose]

I also just went back ane rer-ead all your posts to me, and my replies, and for the life of me I can find NO personal attacks at all from my end.  But I do find you saying some pretty inflammatory things directed toward me, early on in the conversation.  (which I let roll right off my back).  I am concerned that you give yourself the latitude to make all sorts of comments to me, and misinterpret what I am trying to say, and then act as if my responses, detailing my position on this subject, are in some way insulting!  I really am offended myself right now, and do not appreciate your interpretation of my intentions.  If you want to get into a debate on a subject, then at least have a thick enough skin to deal with the replies to what you have said.  Look at the things you said to ME!  I should be very offended.

I am not amused by your attitude and do not agree one bit with your characterization.

DoubleDose

[DoubleDose]

I am not quite sure how to respond to your long diatribe at me.  I think you are greatly over-reacting to my comments, and reading a lot of personal stuff into them.  Please, let's get back to the facts in the research.  I have become weary of trying to answer you in a sensible manner.  I don't think that I am the one engaging in 'tirades' and personal attacks.  I think you are reading way, way more into my comments than what was intended.  And, I have a right to respond to your criticisms and 'rants' just as well as you do. Believe me, no one is 'maligning you!  You seem to be screeching the insults and accusations,judging  from your post above.  Let's move on!

DoubleDose

[Trish77]

Continued and concluding......

THEN.. you don't stop there.  You go on to say THIS...

"I regret that you are offended by my comments about why I believe this subject may create emotional responses, or why I believe that the studies listed are the most valid information currently at our disposal, or if my reaction to your "characterization of what I am saying" did not resonate with you, etc.  But I am just answering your comments that were directed toward me."

Uh....no.....I was clearly offended by your personal attacks on ME and SAID SO.  Yet you ignore that completely and instead make the unfounded and baseless comment that I am offended by your comments on your beliefs on this subject. That has no resemblance whatsoever to what I said.  That is not ethical on your part and you sidestep the responsibility for your comments by further maligning me with misrepresentation of my words.  If anyone is choosing to ignore the truth, you are choosing to ignore my clearly stated issues with your personal attacks on me!!!

Incredulously, in conclusion you state:  

"Now,  I may have some 'other' theories, that I sometimes submit as possible scenarios, etc. and when I do I always state them as my opinion.  But this thread is a different one, and the information is all based on scientific studies, the only ones available on the subject, and are NOT MY opinion in any way, but stand on their own, as research studies and conclusions drawn by those teams of medical professionals.  I may form some opinions as a result of studying these papers, but they were not MY original opinions.   "

Yes, this thread is based on a scientific study.  Yet....our interpretation of those studies, in your own words.. are our own individual opinions.  It seems you are free to have yours but anyone who differs from you is not accorded the same privilege without being subjected to tirades and personal insults and attacks from you.

Frankly, I was looking forward to taking some time this weekend to read up on some of the studies posted here.. and become better acquainted with the subject matter and participate in ongoing discussions and having my horizons expanded by having the benefit of having further discussion in this thread.  

Your responses are hypocritical of a person who claims that, and I quote you again:

"Free and open rational discussion is the name of the game. "  

In the immortal words of Inigo Montoya...." I do not tink that means what you tink that means" ... perhaps paraphrased, but that's the basic gist of it.

Trish

[Trish77]

For starters.....I quote you:  DD:  "Free and open rational discussion is the name of the game. "

I posted what I thought was a reasonable comment that started "Consider tuberculosis".  I was knocked on my A$$ by the vehemence of your response.  For a person who claims to want to encourage truth-seeking and open discussion and participation by all, you have a funny way of showing it.  

I wouldn't have minded a bit if you had respectfully disagreed and pointed out, with references, where my conjectures didn't add up.  I don't post in forums to be right.  I post in forums to learn by participating in discussions and to have my own as-of-today opinions tested by the knowledge of others so that I can learn more.

Instead, you reverted to what amounts to "discussion thread rage" and engaged in personally attacking me and casting aspersions on my character.  How is this supposed to encourage the search for truth and encourage others to want to participate in forums like this and to venture an opinion for others to respond to so that they too can learn, watching how you attacked me?  Should we have read a certain number of studies before we are allowed to post a thought or an opinion?  Should we only be allowed to post if we agree with YOU? It certainly seems that way.

You say this to me:  
"Why do you choose not to hear what is being said, and read what has been posted?  Its hard to reason with someone who ignores what they want to, and then labels everything as 'conjecture' that they do not wish to understand.  I really can't discuss anything on this level.  The 'proof' regarding 'persistent virus' has been posted, published, disseminated widely, and discussed thoroughly on the forum over the past few years.  Its your choice to ignore it, but please stop calling scientific data and results 'conjecture'."  

I tell you that I am angered and insulted by your accusations (particularly because you keep repeating the same accusations and any time on these forums would tell you they are baseless), you have the utter audacity to respond as follows:

"I am not in any way trying to insult you or accuse you of anything, but am trying to point out why I hold a particular viewpoint"

Huh?  How about you re-read what you wrote to me.  You accuse me of quite a bit and frankly your comments are an INCREDIBLE insult. If you were not TRYING to insult me, well you managed to insult me WITHOUT trying.

In response to your attacking post, I responded calmly explaining why I used the "conjecture" approach and perspective.  I posted very specific questions inviting a response as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trish:  From the bit I've read, it seemed to me that the only scientifically proven conclusion so far... is that existence of strains of HCV RNA in some form exist in body compartments and fluids other than the brain.  Nothing scientifically proven about how it got there nor what the implications are .. just that it has been found.  

If I missed that part ... I'm open to being pointed to it.  I just haven't had time to delve into it more than what I have to date.  

So..
HAS it been scientifically PROVEN how these strains got to these other body compartments and fluids?
HAS it been scientifically proven what the implications of this are?
IS there concrete data to support the two questions I have just asked?

If not... we are still at the conjecture stage on those two questions.  

If yes...then I am open to correcting my viewpoint once I've read the data that makes enough sense to me to do that. "
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the post that followed this one of mine, with this very painstaking clear explanation of my position and posing these very clearly posited questions, YOU TOTALLY COMPLETELY IGNORE THESE QUESTIONS.  

You say this:  "How to INTERPRET this or what it all means is, of course open to further research, discussion, etc.  I don't think any of us have tried to say exactly what these findings might imply, or what the impact might be.  I do not see anything above that implies that.  "

Well......isn't that what CONJECTURE is?????   The INTERPRETATION of these studies, and what they mean?  And isn't that pretty much what I said only different?  

If, to quote you again, ""How to INTERPRET this or what it all means is, of course open to further research, discussion, etc."  I submit that IS conjecture, to venture an opinion on the interpretation, and that is ALL I was doing in my "Consider tuberculosis" post and by saying that we are ALL conjecturing because we are ALL interpreting and deciding what these studies mean.  

[willing]

tn: EXCELLENT WORK! there is something endearing and therapeutic about the endless repetition and rediscovery that goes on around here, but, ultimately, it's both tiresome and conterproductive. Thisi is the perfect remedy and I hope it will serve as a model for gathering research findings on other ever-popular topics like anti-fibrotics, mj/alcohol consumption, extended tx etc.

LadyL : maybe try using tn's links to go to the study you want and compare that with the URL in the cut/paste text?

Desrt/DD:
In that truncated genomes paper :
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17935188
only one of the three patients was hiv con-infected. This was a very rare set of patients indeed : no antibodies and plenty  of serum VL ( in the millions) unlike Castillo's group where "occult" was defined as no serum and no abs, but hcv rna in hepatocytes. I read through the paper in more detail and from their references it seems that truncated/defective genomes of this sort are common in other contexts but have not been reported previously in HCV. Though this is very much a corner case, it represents a dramatic example of the virus evading basic immunological mechanism.

Their PCRs strategy divided the genome in half, 5K being apparently a practical upper bound on length of a PCR extension.  By assembly, they were able to extract full sequences which are deposited with genbank accession numbers DQ430811-DQ430820.

The practical question in all this, at least from my point of view, is determinants of relapse. If it's not absence of virus that separates SVRs from relapsers it seems important to understand whether   host or viral factors play the major role in outcome. I may be jumping to conclusions a bit here, but I tend to see this as supporting a re-tx approach that relies on using SOC in the earlier part of therapy and the hcv-targeted, precision ammo like r-1626 and vx/bocepravir later. Why count on long-term stimulation of  an immune response that can be so blatantly evaded?

Also, that spinal disk paper, had no bearing whatsoever on spinal fluid; different tissue type, my mistake.