Aa
LDN
Is anyone familiar with treatment using LDN? Is this stuff for real?
My labs came back and my viral load is higher at 219,000 IU/mL up from 58,000 4.5 months ago, but still in the very low range. I was 1.6 million when I started LDN and I have been at 7 million and above for a couple years in the last four, so I'll take it.
Also my AST/ALT is up 109/111, up from 54/68 last time. but still better than pre LDN of 109/172.
My LFT's are good>
I used to have high unbound iron, but not anymore. My mother had hemochromotosis too.
My alk phos is 80 (ref rg.: 39-160)
My GGT is 29 (ref rg.: 5-80)
fibrinogen 204 (ref fg.: 200-400)
bilirubin 0.5 (ref rg.: 0.2-1.3)
Not even doing the iron this time, but it was way normal last time.
That was the good stuff. The bad stuff:
AST/ALT 109/111
HEP C RNA PCR QNT: 219,000
DHEA sulfate 44 (ref. rg.: 70-310)
Still hypothyroid, but T3 and T4 are normal.
So, still a lot to be happy about, but the main problems are damage from the meds, not particularly the virus. I'll post my next labs.
Thanks again,
Mike H
Also my AST/ALT is up 109/111, up from 54/68 last time. but still better than pre LDN of 109/172.
My LFT's are good>
I used to have high unbound iron, but not anymore. My mother had hemochromotosis too.
My alk phos is 80 (ref rg.: 39-160)
My GGT is 29 (ref rg.: 5-80)
fibrinogen 204 (ref fg.: 200-400)
bilirubin 0.5 (ref rg.: 0.2-1.3)
Not even doing the iron this time, but it was way normal last time.
That was the good stuff. The bad stuff:
AST/ALT 109/111
HEP C RNA PCR QNT: 219,000
DHEA sulfate 44 (ref. rg.: 70-310)
Still hypothyroid, but T3 and T4 are normal.
So, still a lot to be happy about, but the main problems are damage from the meds, not particularly the virus. I'll post my next labs.
Thanks again,
Mike H
I apologize for our misunderstanding earlier. I appreciate that you believe in your choices.
I also believe in my choices. My perspective is based on both sides of the issue. I am a health care professional, but also a patient.
I am also a scientist. I know that there are many remedies that have been proven in the field and in well-documented studies to help. Lipoic acid, phosphatidylcholine, megadose vitamin IVs and scores of other substance and techniques have all been studied and reported to produce good results. That's science, not opinion.
My question to you is: if these things are out there that have been proven scientifically to be effective, why does the conventional doctor not advise his patients to use them - even orally? Why no supplement and dietary advice that could make a huge difference, based on scientific well-published observations? Why the negativity and uncertainty when the drug program fails, the complete absence of any type of advice or suggestions about how to proceed? Being closed-minded and having a one-track mind is less scientific, not more scientific. Giving up is not scientific, it is unscientific.
The reason that the proven nutritional and herbal substances are not adopted mainstream is that your doctor does not know about them, and does not care to find out. He doesn't have the time to research stuff he doesn't know about. Even if it works.
A little-realized truth is that the medical system has written efficacy out of the medical logic system. Whether a substance or a therapy works or not is irrelevant to the system. The way this is done is that in the system there is no relevant science except FDA drug approval clinical trials. All other science, valid, well-reasoned studies, experience in the field, therapies that have been proven to work are all invisible to the system.
An example is chemo for cancer. It has a success rate of like 3%, but it is still the first option and no one is looking for another one. The fact that it doesn't work very well is irrelevant. Or interferon with a 50% success rate, but which leaves 50% with worse health and apparently extremely limited options despite the fact that there are plenty of options out there that acould help them; that have been proven to work. But the fact that these alternative therapies actually have been proven to improve health is also invisible to the system.
The truth is that interferon is mass medicine. It is our country's epidemiological policy that interferon, or whatever the new drugs are now, is THE treatment for everyone with this disease. It is the best method for the population as a whole. So, you are not going to get the best care from conventional medicine. You are going to get statistically average care. If you want the best care you have to find doctors that have specialized in searching out and putting into practice the newest options.
Unfortunately those kinds of doctors are expensive - although their treatment are usually only a fraction of the cost of conventional medicine, they are still not covered by insurance. They can charge a lot because healing people is good business. But some of the methods are cheap and if someone was so inclined, he or she could in rare cases actually take control of their life and make a huge difference in their own health.
Anyway, good luck to you. I hope you achieve your goal of SVR! Personally, I would rather have my health and the virus as opposed to bad health and no virus. That's not a recommendation, though, that's just me.
Mike H
I also believe in my choices. My perspective is based on both sides of the issue. I am a health care professional, but also a patient.
I am also a scientist. I know that there are many remedies that have been proven in the field and in well-documented studies to help. Lipoic acid, phosphatidylcholine, megadose vitamin IVs and scores of other substance and techniques have all been studied and reported to produce good results. That's science, not opinion.
My question to you is: if these things are out there that have been proven scientifically to be effective, why does the conventional doctor not advise his patients to use them - even orally? Why no supplement and dietary advice that could make a huge difference, based on scientific well-published observations? Why the negativity and uncertainty when the drug program fails, the complete absence of any type of advice or suggestions about how to proceed? Being closed-minded and having a one-track mind is less scientific, not more scientific. Giving up is not scientific, it is unscientific.
The reason that the proven nutritional and herbal substances are not adopted mainstream is that your doctor does not know about them, and does not care to find out. He doesn't have the time to research stuff he doesn't know about. Even if it works.
A little-realized truth is that the medical system has written efficacy out of the medical logic system. Whether a substance or a therapy works or not is irrelevant to the system. The way this is done is that in the system there is no relevant science except FDA drug approval clinical trials. All other science, valid, well-reasoned studies, experience in the field, therapies that have been proven to work are all invisible to the system.
An example is chemo for cancer. It has a success rate of like 3%, but it is still the first option and no one is looking for another one. The fact that it doesn't work very well is irrelevant. Or interferon with a 50% success rate, but which leaves 50% with worse health and apparently extremely limited options despite the fact that there are plenty of options out there that acould help them; that have been proven to work. But the fact that these alternative therapies actually have been proven to improve health is also invisible to the system.
The truth is that interferon is mass medicine. It is our country's epidemiological policy that interferon, or whatever the new drugs are now, is THE treatment for everyone with this disease. It is the best method for the population as a whole. So, you are not going to get the best care from conventional medicine. You are going to get statistically average care. If you want the best care you have to find doctors that have specialized in searching out and putting into practice the newest options.
Unfortunately those kinds of doctors are expensive - although their treatment are usually only a fraction of the cost of conventional medicine, they are still not covered by insurance. They can charge a lot because healing people is good business. But some of the methods are cheap and if someone was so inclined, he or she could in rare cases actually take control of their life and make a huge difference in their own health.
Anyway, good luck to you. I hope you achieve your goal of SVR! Personally, I would rather have my health and the virus as opposed to bad health and no virus. That's not a recommendation, though, that's just me.
Mike H
I agree, lots of unpredictable things can happen on treatment. I was a complete mess after treatment, and it took a year to gather enough energy to move forward. Kind of inexplicable about your histology degrading; I don't know what to think about it. I think its possible that things could be different using different treatments, but that's a good faith guess more than anything.
Another point is that a strong immune system can cause inflammation and oxidation (and possibly fibrosis) without autoimmune involvement. White cells use pro oxidants and reactive oxygen species to do their jobs. So it is possible that the immune system could do a good job on the virus, while also causing liver inflammation and fibrosis.
I think a multi-prong approach is good to address all the issues using different but complementary techniques. The issues that I have identified are inflammation, viral load, and fibrosis. There are many techniques that could be effective for all of these issues.
Best regards and good night!
Mike H
Another point is that a strong immune system can cause inflammation and oxidation (and possibly fibrosis) without autoimmune involvement. White cells use pro oxidants and reactive oxygen species to do their jobs. So it is possible that the immune system could do a good job on the virus, while also causing liver inflammation and fibrosis.
I think a multi-prong approach is good to address all the issues using different but complementary techniques. The issues that I have identified are inflammation, viral load, and fibrosis. There are many techniques that could be effective for all of these issues.
Best regards and good night!
Mike H
Besides the virus mutating and becoming stronger from a strong immune system, could the immune system be also attacking the body itself, such as the liver?
I have been thinking that people also need to be tested for autoimmune hep along with hcv.
Mike, again, i say that my liver histology became far worse from tx. Biopsies showed this. No improvements,worsened, even though viral loads did go way down and liver enzymes went into the teens.
There are other indicators that things were not going right upon looking at my medical reports but not necessary to post that mess.
Reversal does not happen for everyone. It can go the to other end of the spectrum on tx.
there is still a lot to be know about hcv and treatment now and for the future.
I have been thinking that people also need to be tested for autoimmune hep along with hcv.
Mike, again, i say that my liver histology became far worse from tx. Biopsies showed this. No improvements,worsened, even though viral loads did go way down and liver enzymes went into the teens.
There are other indicators that things were not going right upon looking at my medical reports but not necessary to post that mess.
Reversal does not happen for everyone. It can go the to other end of the spectrum on tx.
there is still a lot to be know about hcv and treatment now and for the future.
Actually, here a a couple studies on antifibrotic therapies but not the one that I was thinking of.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17414134?ordinalpos=2&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15704042?ordinalpos=6&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17414134?ordinalpos=2&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15704042?ordinalpos=6&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
No, there was a study that showed by pre and post treatment biopsy, fibrosis decreased over the time span of interferon treatment due to the fact that the viral load was lowered or non-detected over that period of time and inflammation was reduced. I think it is also established that fibrosis can decrease significantly by itself after successful treatment. This is due to the lack of inflammation and normalizing of the tissues. I think I saw that on this site on the home page today. The poster claimed up to two stage decrease in fibrosis after SVR.
The study that I was thinking about indicated that during interferon treatment and before SVR was achieved, fibrosis was reversed due to the lowered viral load and the decrease in inflammation. The point is, if the viral load can be lowered and the inflammation is eliminated, then why would that not be a situation conducive to reversing fibrosis, as it is during interferon treatment? Especially using fibrinolytic nutrient building blocks like phosphatidylcholine?
By the way that study first alerted a lot of GEs that fibrosis could be reversed. They have denied that forever.
I can look up that study if you want, but you might have already heard of it. Let me know if you want it.
Mike H
The study that I was thinking about indicated that during interferon treatment and before SVR was achieved, fibrosis was reversed due to the lowered viral load and the decrease in inflammation. The point is, if the viral load can be lowered and the inflammation is eliminated, then why would that not be a situation conducive to reversing fibrosis, as it is during interferon treatment? Especially using fibrinolytic nutrient building blocks like phosphatidylcholine?
By the way that study first alerted a lot of GEs that fibrosis could be reversed. They have denied that forever.
I can look up that study if you want, but you might have already heard of it. Let me know if you want it.
Mike H
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.
