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?
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.
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.
