Aa
PMBC - Shown not to be viral reservoirs
http://natap.org/2008/HCV/030508_01.htm
Thank you TnHepGuy and all others participating in putting the Health Page "OCCULT HEPATITIS C" together. http://www.medhelp.org/health_pages/Hepatitis/Occult-Hepatitis-C/show/54?cid=64
As mentioned yesterday, after giving my eyes a well needed/deserved rest, I would return to examine thoroughly each link (Studies/Conclusions - Occult HCV) on the HEALTH PAGE. I noticed as I read through a link, to the right there would be 'links of interest'... wow - but reading further, I would see that too would be listed - so this is an extensive AND APPRECIATED list!!! This is very interesting research going back to 2004, as well as presently ongoing research. I find it fascinating and have appreciated everyone's input on this. Again... keep this info and discussion going! We are all in a learning stage... even researchers themselves! Although there's room to debate speculation, we certainly cannot refute what's been evidenced. Thank you for gathering all the studies all into one easy area to access!!
As mentioned yesterday, after giving my eyes a well needed/deserved rest, I would return to examine thoroughly each link (Studies/Conclusions - Occult HCV) on the HEALTH PAGE. I noticed as I read through a link, to the right there would be 'links of interest'... wow - but reading further, I would see that too would be listed - so this is an extensive AND APPRECIATED list!!! This is very interesting research going back to 2004, as well as presently ongoing research. I find it fascinating and have appreciated everyone's input on this. Again... keep this info and discussion going! We are all in a learning stage... even researchers themselves! Although there's room to debate speculation, we certainly cannot refute what's been evidenced. Thank you for gathering all the studies all into one easy area to access!!
I sometimes wonder, and I'm sure this is unpopular, but I wonder if there aren't a small percentage of people, who continue to abuse substances after or during treatment - thus causing risk of reinfection.
Due to the fact that I was a social worker prior to going into sales, I realize that the first place some people find out they have HCV is in jail. Others find out while selling their blood - or is it plasma? I can''t remember which - but at any rate, it's frequently done to help support a drug habit.
So these people just out jail and people with substance abuse issues are at higher risk of using again either during or after their treatment. And I don't know that they would necessarily tell researchers. I suppose there is some monitoring of the blood to test for other substances during studies, but I'm equally certain it could be fooled if someone wanted to badly enough.
Anyway, it would explain viral loads after tx.
Due to the fact that I was a social worker prior to going into sales, I realize that the first place some people find out they have HCV is in jail. Others find out while selling their blood - or is it plasma? I can''t remember which - but at any rate, it's frequently done to help support a drug habit.
So these people just out jail and people with substance abuse issues are at higher risk of using again either during or after their treatment. And I don't know that they would necessarily tell researchers. I suppose there is some monitoring of the blood to test for other substances during studies, but I'm equally certain it could be fooled if someone wanted to badly enough.
Anyway, it would explain viral loads after tx.
I didn't know how you arrived at that description: "voice of moderation".
I was going to post then but I figured I'd let it go. Well, I did but as it tuned out it's clear that it wasn't even close to being accurate.
Mike
I was going to post then but I figured I'd let it go. Well, I did but as it tuned out it's clear that it wasn't even close to being accurate.
Mike
If you follow the premise of shingles virus being the reememergence of chicken pox left hiding in the spine, then it follows anything is possible. If you read of the demylinization of former polio victims in later life, you can readily conclude that things that weaken us at any time of life can also predispose us to later injury. There's even research linking the Hep A and B vaccines with a greater risk of diebetes....nice to know after they forced vaccinations of every child....the research not withstanding.
The thing is, you can be cured of cancer, defined as 5 years free of any sign of the disease and yet still get a reemergence of that same cancer 10 years later.
Why the same cancer becomes the question then.
that's not to say we know the reasons or will soon. Does that cancer have a genetic origin or a trigger such as a virus, or something even smaller we do not yet know of.
Something we may need more than an electron microscope t even see....it's still a possibility. One we can hpe is not true, but yet we know there are flks who will explore it...because they want to find AND kill it...i.e. cure us.....for which we all should be greatful...grateful even if, and while, it may scare us.
I'm not saying any of this to scare anyone, or defend anyone's position, just saying....
it wasn't long ago doctors thought is was an insane idea that there were even germs, or that thye should wash their hands...
we've come a long way since then, and have further to go.
Meanwhile, we are all effected with being brn into a world where we will be coated with billions of bacteria on our skin, in our throats, and thrughout our systems from birth to death...and none get by without being host to billions of critters.......we are covered in them...to the same extent our planet is covered with trees and people.....and sooner or later.....we will return to the dust we came from....irregardless.
My concern is not...will something come back in years, my cancer may, it been gone 14 years and I lose no sleep but hey, and my HCV could, assuming I ever get to SVR which I haven't...but meanwhile I try t comfort myself that those who are around me are relatively safe, and not sick from years of my saliva etc...because otherwise I'd go bonkers...and because lives lived in fear are full of torment...because each day is a present, our only present, we just need to focus on how to best live each one out.
maryB
The thing is, you can be cured of cancer, defined as 5 years free of any sign of the disease and yet still get a reemergence of that same cancer 10 years later.
Why the same cancer becomes the question then.
that's not to say we know the reasons or will soon. Does that cancer have a genetic origin or a trigger such as a virus, or something even smaller we do not yet know of.
Something we may need more than an electron microscope t even see....it's still a possibility. One we can hpe is not true, but yet we know there are flks who will explore it...because they want to find AND kill it...i.e. cure us.....for which we all should be greatful...grateful even if, and while, it may scare us.
I'm not saying any of this to scare anyone, or defend anyone's position, just saying....
it wasn't long ago doctors thought is was an insane idea that there were even germs, or that thye should wash their hands...
we've come a long way since then, and have further to go.
Meanwhile, we are all effected with being brn into a world where we will be coated with billions of bacteria on our skin, in our throats, and thrughout our systems from birth to death...and none get by without being host to billions of critters.......we are covered in them...to the same extent our planet is covered with trees and people.....and sooner or later.....we will return to the dust we came from....irregardless.
My concern is not...will something come back in years, my cancer may, it been gone 14 years and I lose no sleep but hey, and my HCV could, assuming I ever get to SVR which I haven't...but meanwhile I try t comfort myself that those who are around me are relatively safe, and not sick from years of my saliva etc...because otherwise I'd go bonkers...and because lives lived in fear are full of torment...because each day is a present, our only present, we just need to focus on how to best live each one out.
maryB
Gee, thanks for the nice and supportive comments. Maybe next time you respond to a thread you could actually read it first, as you state that you did not do. I remember you were the one who always jumped all over me when I discussed the studies on persistent virus, and like some others, reacted angrily when I asked questions that you didn't like.
Your comments above show exactly what you are all about. We were discussing the validity of various research studies having to do with occult HCV, early in the thread, before you barged in and started slinging mud. No need to actually read anything though, because that has always been your style. Willing, and TnHepGuy listed a long array of studies regarding finding persistent replicating virus after SVR. If you want to attack that premise, go right ahead. It just reveals your scientific approach to the subject.
Would you like to contact the research doctors in the various studies to tell them what you think? In the meantime, instead of recklessly attacking someone without even think about the context, or without reading the posts, why not just go back to whatever...Oh never mind!
,
You don't want to see studies, or discuss science, you just want to slam people who do not share your point of view, or who pose difficult questions. Yes, I remember you very well.
DoubleDose
Your comments above show exactly what you are all about. We were discussing the validity of various research studies having to do with occult HCV, early in the thread, before you barged in and started slinging mud. No need to actually read anything though, because that has always been your style. Willing, and TnHepGuy listed a long array of studies regarding finding persistent replicating virus after SVR. If you want to attack that premise, go right ahead. It just reveals your scientific approach to the subject.
Would you like to contact the research doctors in the various studies to tell them what you think? In the meantime, instead of recklessly attacking someone without even think about the context, or without reading the posts, why not just go back to whatever...Oh never mind!
,
You don't want to see studies, or discuss science, you just want to slam people who do not share your point of view, or who pose difficult questions. Yes, I remember you very well.
DoubleDose
Hey trish, don't let him get to ya. He did the same thing to me back when I was treating. I spent from 05 thru 07 on this forum ( I didn't read all of the 100 posts above, but I hope someone has explained to you that this is a pattern with DD) treating and spent lots of time on this forum while I was on tx since I was in bed 90% of the time! Im SVR now (HOORAY) and don't visit often now that I feel good again! My POV:
In a nutshell, he thinks in spite of the fact he cleared the virus, that somehow it is responsible for his ( and his families' believe it or not!?) current ills. He has blamed almost every common human ailment under the sun on HCV and he uses these " persistent/occult" studies to try to shore up his theory. Needless to say, this current study isn't helping his argument.
Honestly, I came to the conclusion after reading his exhaustive posts for years that he and his family might be suffering from some enviormental pollution or allergies given the symptoms he described but he was not receptive to the idea it was anything other than HCV had come to attack he AND his family in some hidden way in spite of being SVR and in spite of his family never having had HCV.
I say this so you don't waste your energy trying to have a discussion with him on this subject. First, all the info on both sides of the aisle are theory at this point, there is no defined "truth" but thousands and thousands of SVR patients showing not one scintilla of evidence of illness from HCV speaks volumes to me. My doc is on the YOU ARE CURED WHEN YOU SVR team, and that is good enough for me. There are docs in the maybe you aren't cured camp yet they can't offer up documentation for that position, I think they say that to cover liabilities, personally.
A perponderence of evidence shows that SVR after treatment with Interferon/Riba = CURED.
You can't rationalize with irrational people, so don't waste your breath. You need it for your treatment!
I do try to read some here and try to contribute as feeble as those attempts have been lately. I am full tilt back into getting my business off the ground and busy and thanks to SVR have the energy to do so!
There are many new people here that seem like wonderful additions to the crowd including you.
I hope tx isn't being too hard on you. Someone taught me a trick here long ago that really worked for me well and it was to look BACK and be proud of all the days you have done rather than focusing on all the days ahead that can seem to stretch on forever. It helps in those discouraging moments!
Hang in there and don't forget to drink that water!
In a nutshell, he thinks in spite of the fact he cleared the virus, that somehow it is responsible for his ( and his families' believe it or not!?) current ills. He has blamed almost every common human ailment under the sun on HCV and he uses these " persistent/occult" studies to try to shore up his theory. Needless to say, this current study isn't helping his argument.
Honestly, I came to the conclusion after reading his exhaustive posts for years that he and his family might be suffering from some enviormental pollution or allergies given the symptoms he described but he was not receptive to the idea it was anything other than HCV had come to attack he AND his family in some hidden way in spite of being SVR and in spite of his family never having had HCV.
I say this so you don't waste your energy trying to have a discussion with him on this subject. First, all the info on both sides of the aisle are theory at this point, there is no defined "truth" but thousands and thousands of SVR patients showing not one scintilla of evidence of illness from HCV speaks volumes to me. My doc is on the YOU ARE CURED WHEN YOU SVR team, and that is good enough for me. There are docs in the maybe you aren't cured camp yet they can't offer up documentation for that position, I think they say that to cover liabilities, personally.
A perponderence of evidence shows that SVR after treatment with Interferon/Riba = CURED.
You can't rationalize with irrational people, so don't waste your breath. You need it for your treatment!
I do try to read some here and try to contribute as feeble as those attempts have been lately. I am full tilt back into getting my business off the ground and busy and thanks to SVR have the energy to do so!
There are many new people here that seem like wonderful additions to the crowd including you.
I hope tx isn't being too hard on you. Someone taught me a trick here long ago that really worked for me well and it was to look BACK and be proud of all the days you have done rather than focusing on all the days ahead that can seem to stretch on forever. It helps in those discouraging moments!
Hang in there and don't forget to drink that water!
You've gotta be kidding, right?
I am done responding to you, so read and research and enjoy. Bud do not engage me any further, in any way. Thanks you.
DD
I am done responding to you, so read and research and enjoy. Bud do not engage me any further, in any way. Thanks you.
DD
DD: or all the twisted misinterpretations she has been spewing out,
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Qualify that, for you are surely speaking of me. Quote my twisted misinterpretations. I have surely quoted yours. Quote mine.
You insinuate that I am purposely twisting and misinterpreting. I am doing nothing of the sort. I am asking questions, conjecturing, forming opinions.....and you attack me each time. You have consistently twisted MY words and I have been forced to come back to you each time and correct what you have said so that nobody will think that what I meant is how YOU have interpreted it. It is beyond me how you can read into my posts each and every time I post them something that has nothing to do with what I was intending to convey. All I can conclude is that the glasses you are wearing are so tainted that you are not capable of clear thinking any longer.
On that note....and with constant evidence to support that thought....I will read the studies posted as I said I was interested in doing, I will then read the comments posted here including your own because I am interested in various takes on those studies and I will continue to seek and learn. What I will NOT do .. .is discuss it further with you. I have been part of discussions on this topic with you before and they all devolve to the same point. As they say.. the definition of insanity is to do the same thing expecting different results. It is clear that it is insanity expecting to have a fair and open discussion with you on THIS topic. Perhaps other topics it would be possible. But not THIS one. Whatever your personal investment in this topic is....you are too threatened by other points of view to engage in rational discussion.
Regards.
Trish
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Qualify that, for you are surely speaking of me. Quote my twisted misinterpretations. I have surely quoted yours. Quote mine.
You insinuate that I am purposely twisting and misinterpreting. I am doing nothing of the sort. I am asking questions, conjecturing, forming opinions.....and you attack me each time. You have consistently twisted MY words and I have been forced to come back to you each time and correct what you have said so that nobody will think that what I meant is how YOU have interpreted it. It is beyond me how you can read into my posts each and every time I post them something that has nothing to do with what I was intending to convey. All I can conclude is that the glasses you are wearing are so tainted that you are not capable of clear thinking any longer.
On that note....and with constant evidence to support that thought....I will read the studies posted as I said I was interested in doing, I will then read the comments posted here including your own because I am interested in various takes on those studies and I will continue to seek and learn. What I will NOT do .. .is discuss it further with you. I have been part of discussions on this topic with you before and they all devolve to the same point. As they say.. the definition of insanity is to do the same thing expecting different results. It is clear that it is insanity expecting to have a fair and open discussion with you on THIS topic. Perhaps other topics it would be possible. But not THIS one. Whatever your personal investment in this topic is....you are too threatened by other points of view to engage in rational discussion.
Regards.
Trish
Jim, I am sorry you feel that I 'mocked you', but a little bit of light hearted humor should not get anyone that bent out of shape. For someone who comes on as the resident 'know it all' ,and has been called to task on that behavior by other members in the past, you least of all should be calling the kettle black! I am disappointed that you take my disagreement with your interpretation of this viral persistence issue so personally. And I do think there may be more going on than many doctors realize, but I am not mocking them or you! I am just saying that research may be ahead of their current views.
And for you to give a 'free pass' to the person you addressed above, for all the twisted misinterpretations she has been spewing out, I am really disappointed in you. I thought you were more rational and objective than to do that. You sound like someone who's ego has been offended, and you are lashing out to feel better. I mean really! Read all of her responses.
I always gave you credit for trying to look a both sides of an issue, and 'trying' to remain above the garbage, but today you just took a big swan dive right into it. People can disagree with me all they want to, and they do frequently, but it does not bother me in the slightest, contrary to what you seem to think about my attitudes and behaviors.
You strike me as the guy who can't handle it when someone contradicts your 'authoritative pronouncements', and today you just made it perfectly clear.
So if you feel entitled to define me in your above post, then here is my synopsis for you. It goes both ways Jim.
DoubleDose
And for you to give a 'free pass' to the person you addressed above, for all the twisted misinterpretations she has been spewing out, I am really disappointed in you. I thought you were more rational and objective than to do that. You sound like someone who's ego has been offended, and you are lashing out to feel better. I mean really! Read all of her responses.
I always gave you credit for trying to look a both sides of an issue, and 'trying' to remain above the garbage, but today you just took a big swan dive right into it. People can disagree with me all they want to, and they do frequently, but it does not bother me in the slightest, contrary to what you seem to think about my attitudes and behaviors.
You strike me as the guy who can't handle it when someone contradicts your 'authoritative pronouncements', and today you just made it perfectly clear.
So if you feel entitled to define me in your above post, then here is my synopsis for you. It goes both ways Jim.
DoubleDose
I was hoping to leave this thread for good, but you being a new member here, who just started treatment – I wanted to add that while these threads no longer raise my hair as they did when I treating – I do share your frustration at how DD mischarterizes and personally attacks those who disagree.
He often insinuates that this topic gets people emotional and defensive, but it’s obvious to anyone reading this thread that he’s the one who gets emotional and defensive, as soon as anyone disagrees or calls him to task.
This is not a topic I’ve researched thoroughly, so have limited my comments mostly to what I consider DD’s incorrect conclusions (or however many ways he qualifies his statements)`from the study data he himself presents. And I do mention on occasion – thought it pertinent this time since we got into this whole “prevailing view” nonsense -- what some of my doctors have said.
Instead of DD simply saying that that in his opinion the study data doesn’t support my doctor’s opinions – he chooses to attack and mock both me and the doctors. This is par for the course.
Trish, you’re on treatment now, the drugs can be rough, and really should garner your energy to that end. My only suggestion is to eiher ignore threads like these, or simply post your opinions and ignore what invariably will be a personally directed, ad hominem response.
Speaking of ad hominem, I'm of course doing the same right now (talking about the person and not the topic) and for that I’m not at all happy, but felt it should be said, at least for your sake as someone both new here, and obviously someone very bright who has picked up many of these topics quite well in a relatively short period of time.
And taking my advice, I’m leaving this thread and going to enjoy the weekend. No need to respond.
All the best,
-- Jim
He often insinuates that this topic gets people emotional and defensive, but it’s obvious to anyone reading this thread that he’s the one who gets emotional and defensive, as soon as anyone disagrees or calls him to task.
This is not a topic I’ve researched thoroughly, so have limited my comments mostly to what I consider DD’s incorrect conclusions (or however many ways he qualifies his statements)`from the study data he himself presents. And I do mention on occasion – thought it pertinent this time since we got into this whole “prevailing view” nonsense -- what some of my doctors have said.
Instead of DD simply saying that that in his opinion the study data doesn’t support my doctor’s opinions – he chooses to attack and mock both me and the doctors. This is par for the course.
Trish, you’re on treatment now, the drugs can be rough, and really should garner your energy to that end. My only suggestion is to eiher ignore threads like these, or simply post your opinions and ignore what invariably will be a personally directed, ad hominem response.
Speaking of ad hominem, I'm of course doing the same right now (talking about the person and not the topic) and for that I’m not at all happy, but felt it should be said, at least for your sake as someone both new here, and obviously someone very bright who has picked up many of these topics quite well in a relatively short period of time.
And taking my advice, I’m leaving this thread and going to enjoy the weekend. No need to respond.
All the best,
-- Jim
EspritLibre: Whoops... didn't mention 'entertaining', but actually I didn't see that as much as I found part of the thread annoying and sad that interested parties such as ourselves have to wade through such opposition when 'studies' and 'papers relating to occult hep c' are being discussed in a reasonable manner - with DIRECT LINKS to same, I might add. If a person feels uncomfortable reading such discussion or do not want to see what research is out there, why must they attack the messengers and those having open minds wanting to discuss same? I mean.. for chripes-sakes... if opposing parties have STUDIES, PAPERS, LINKS from RESEARCHERS (DUH) showing that what is attempting to be discussed here then by all means I wish they would show it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps you could use some independent thought of your own, or wait until your eyeballs have recovered and read what I actually posted, rather than only DD's tirades and incorrect assumptions about my posts that I CONSTANTLY have to go back and correct because he has quite the knack for reading into everything I say.
I thought it was a discussion about strains of HCV RNA getting into various other compartments of the body besides blood and what the implications are.
In DD's own words: "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. "
IS it? IS it open to interpretation? Further research? Further discussion?
Then why am I being attacked for choosing to read the studies, then ask questions about my own interpretations to date, posting my opinions on same?
Despite DD's comments, it seems that the interpretation has already been decided, the research to date is already conclusive and no further discussion is required other than for everyone to simply agree with the conclusions of those who feel they are right.
There is nothing wrong with feeling secure in what you have come to believe. But do not state something like "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. " if you are not willing to allow others the same right to do the same investigation, ask the same questions and come to their own personal conclusions.
I am not a sheep. Have never been a sheep. Last time I looked this is not a cult and any who are not true followers and don't toe the party line get ex-communicated..however, I am beginning to wonder on the "cult" thing because this discussion has taken on overtones of that sort of thing.
How about...instead of you continuing false accusations against me..... you actually answer my earnestly posted questions as I would REALLY like answers to those.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps you could use some independent thought of your own, or wait until your eyeballs have recovered and read what I actually posted, rather than only DD's tirades and incorrect assumptions about my posts that I CONSTANTLY have to go back and correct because he has quite the knack for reading into everything I say.
I thought it was a discussion about strains of HCV RNA getting into various other compartments of the body besides blood and what the implications are.
In DD's own words: "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. "
IS it? IS it open to interpretation? Further research? Further discussion?
Then why am I being attacked for choosing to read the studies, then ask questions about my own interpretations to date, posting my opinions on same?
Despite DD's comments, it seems that the interpretation has already been decided, the research to date is already conclusive and no further discussion is required other than for everyone to simply agree with the conclusions of those who feel they are right.
There is nothing wrong with feeling secure in what you have come to believe. But do not state something like "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. " if you are not willing to allow others the same right to do the same investigation, ask the same questions and come to their own personal conclusions.
I am not a sheep. Have never been a sheep. Last time I looked this is not a cult and any who are not true followers and don't toe the party line get ex-communicated..however, I am beginning to wonder on the "cult" thing because this discussion has taken on overtones of that sort of thing.
How about...instead of you continuing false accusations against me..... you actually answer my earnestly posted questions as I would REALLY like answers to those.
Sheesh!!!! Well, now I guess you can see how I feel. I am just not responding to the stuff above anymore! Its a waste ot time and energy. Glad to have you on the Forum. I hope you continue to enjoy the discussions!
DoubleDose
DoubleDose
To: DD
Hm. Out of the few studies I have had time, to read .. I didn't think I'd read anything about HOW the HCV mutants got to where they got to and definitive proof on that.. only that they exist. Did I miss something? And I'm not being facetious when I ask that question.
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.
Frankly, I'm getting a little tired of all your accusations.
I'm not "choosing" to ignore what has been read.
I'm not ignoring what I wish to and choosing to label it as conjecture.
I'm not making active choices about what I choose to understand and what I don't.
This is simply as far as I've gotten on what I have read already. It would be reckless for me to call my own viewpoint anything BUT conjecture and unless I see that there is definitive data supporting the two questions I've asked above....it all remains conjecture to me on THOSE questions - A) how it gets there (does it mutate off? Is it independent from the HCV RNA in the blood? etc etc) .. and B) what the implications are. I accept that it exists.
Your ongoing accusations anger and insult me. I would appreciate it if you would quit painting me as a close-minded fearful ignorant person who is not interested in the truth and would prefer to hide her head in the sand. I would appreciate it .. but I'm not holding my breath that you will stop.
*Footnote. I think it is a very good thing that I did not hold my breath, especially since it appears that the pack is growing.
Hm. Out of the few studies I have had time, to read .. I didn't think I'd read anything about HOW the HCV mutants got to where they got to and definitive proof on that.. only that they exist. Did I miss something? And I'm not being facetious when I ask that question.
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.
Frankly, I'm getting a little tired of all your accusations.
I'm not "choosing" to ignore what has been read.
I'm not ignoring what I wish to and choosing to label it as conjecture.
I'm not making active choices about what I choose to understand and what I don't.
This is simply as far as I've gotten on what I have read already. It would be reckless for me to call my own viewpoint anything BUT conjecture and unless I see that there is definitive data supporting the two questions I've asked above....it all remains conjecture to me on THOSE questions - A) how it gets there (does it mutate off? Is it independent from the HCV RNA in the blood? etc etc) .. and B) what the implications are. I accept that it exists.
Your ongoing accusations anger and insult me. I would appreciate it if you would quit painting me as a close-minded fearful ignorant person who is not interested in the truth and would prefer to hide her head in the sand. I would appreciate it .. but I'm not holding my breath that you will stop.
*Footnote. I think it is a very good thing that I did not hold my breath, especially since it appears that the pack is growing.
Here we go again. I don't oppose this. I'm learning about this. I posted what I thought was a reasonable thought on this. I asked what I thought were reasonable questions. And I got no direct answers, instead I got told what kind of person I was thought to be. If you go back and read, despite my first "cough" post, every post of mine to DD was reasonable and calm. He attacked me anyway. Now YOU are attacking me using the same sort of reasoning.
I do not oppose this. Neither do I support this. I am simply learning about it. I have even said that my position is based on what I personally have read to date, that I have not had time to read further studies, that I am open to changing my position once I read those further studies. That does not mean that I will AGREE with DD, Willing, MS, or whomever, once I DO read those studies. IS that allowed in this forum? Disagreement? It does not appear so.
If you go back up and read... the very FIRST attack in this thread was by DD himself. I suppose if it's a crony, that is allowed?
I even posted calmly back to DD and stated why I used the word conjecture. And he uses the same frame of reference as me and I asked him very direct questions about that, that he did not answer. And the attacks continue.
I am learning here. And it appears you are only allowed to learn if you follow like a sheep and follow the crowd with no independent thought allowed. As a point of reference, to calm DD down, I used the global warming situation to illustrate a situation where there are very credible people with the same data yet who interpret that data very differently.....really as a plea to allow differing points of view into this discussion without it devolving into attacking people who have different points of view so that discussion can be had. Instead... I got the accusation thrown at me that I am suggesting that the scientists who are responsible for the studies that Willing posted and DD references are simply trying to score political points.
Frankly ...every time I've posted what I thought was a reasonable post .. I've had it twisted and I've been attacked for what it was interpreted to be. THEN the attacks became on me as a person....saying that basically I choose to be ignorant, I choose to be biased, I choose not to learn and that I choose to believe whatever is convenient.
ANYONE who truly knows ME ... would fall on their a$$e$ laughing...and I suppose, knowing the nugget of who I am .. I find such accusations incredibly hurtful and offensive.
This has all started from the assumption that I am here to oppose and attack.
I resent your subtle accusations, EspritLibre. I tried to set things aside .. and I tried to get back to the discussion at hand by posting the comment that started.. "Consider Tuberculosis" .. .and yet the attacks continued. The response to that post was incredible. And it only got worse.
And now... here you are. Continuing this. And yet .. I still do not have the answers to my questions.. that I felt were fair, reasonable, open-minded, demonstrated the desire to seek knowledge and truth .. and yet the only response.. is sidestepping and more attacks. So ... I will post them yet again....and if I do not get a fair and reasonable response to those questions.. without attacks.. I will know that it is not ME who is the one with blinders on. Why would someone.. who isn't interested in seeking knowledge.. ask such questions. I shake my head at your comments. I truly do.
I do not oppose this. Neither do I support this. I am simply learning about it. I have even said that my position is based on what I personally have read to date, that I have not had time to read further studies, that I am open to changing my position once I read those further studies. That does not mean that I will AGREE with DD, Willing, MS, or whomever, once I DO read those studies. IS that allowed in this forum? Disagreement? It does not appear so.
If you go back up and read... the very FIRST attack in this thread was by DD himself. I suppose if it's a crony, that is allowed?
I even posted calmly back to DD and stated why I used the word conjecture. And he uses the same frame of reference as me and I asked him very direct questions about that, that he did not answer. And the attacks continue.
I am learning here. And it appears you are only allowed to learn if you follow like a sheep and follow the crowd with no independent thought allowed. As a point of reference, to calm DD down, I used the global warming situation to illustrate a situation where there are very credible people with the same data yet who interpret that data very differently.....really as a plea to allow differing points of view into this discussion without it devolving into attacking people who have different points of view so that discussion can be had. Instead... I got the accusation thrown at me that I am suggesting that the scientists who are responsible for the studies that Willing posted and DD references are simply trying to score political points.
Frankly ...every time I've posted what I thought was a reasonable post .. I've had it twisted and I've been attacked for what it was interpreted to be. THEN the attacks became on me as a person....saying that basically I choose to be ignorant, I choose to be biased, I choose not to learn and that I choose to believe whatever is convenient.
ANYONE who truly knows ME ... would fall on their a$$e$ laughing...and I suppose, knowing the nugget of who I am .. I find such accusations incredibly hurtful and offensive.
This has all started from the assumption that I am here to oppose and attack.
I resent your subtle accusations, EspritLibre. I tried to set things aside .. and I tried to get back to the discussion at hand by posting the comment that started.. "Consider Tuberculosis" .. .and yet the attacks continued. The response to that post was incredible. And it only got worse.
And now... here you are. Continuing this. And yet .. I still do not have the answers to my questions.. that I felt were fair, reasonable, open-minded, demonstrated the desire to seek knowledge and truth .. and yet the only response.. is sidestepping and more attacks. So ... I will post them yet again....and if I do not get a fair and reasonable response to those questions.. without attacks.. I will know that it is not ME who is the one with blinders on. Why would someone.. who isn't interested in seeking knowledge.. ask such questions. I shake my head at your comments. I truly do.
Whoops... didn't mention 'entertaining', but actually I didn't see that as much as I found part of the thread annoying and sad that interested parties such as ourselves have to wade through such opposition when 'studies' and 'papers relating to occult hep c' are being discussed in a reasonable manner - with DIRECT LINKS to same, I might add. If a person feels uncomfortable reading such discussion or do not want to see what research is out there, why must they attack the messengers and those having open minds wanting to discuss same? I mean.. for chripes-sakes... if opposing parties have STUDIES, PAPERS, LINKS from RESEARCHERS (DUH) showing that what is attempting to be discussed here then by all means I wish they would show it. I'm tired and sick and really have discovered with this thread what members I can skip, and not miss, since my eyeballs feel like their turning inside out - just my take.... lol Yeah.. I'm just one hoping for continued discussions in this very interesting subject. Sheesh... just my humble opinion!
Again, thanks MrLiver, DD, Jmjm, Willing, TnhepGuy and others parties discussing this in a mature manner. THIS IS SO INTERESTING. Sure it be a lot easier to put my head in sand (lol) or hands over ears.. lol ... just hoping this has not stopped anyone from these interesting discussion - - Please don't let nonsense bother you -doesn't take a course in rocket science to see what is going on here and none of the personal attacks are reflected on those sincere in these discussion... just my humble opinionn.. and take for what its worth Be well
Again, thanks MrLiver, DD, Jmjm, Willing, TnhepGuy and others parties discussing this in a mature manner. THIS IS SO INTERESTING. Sure it be a lot easier to put my head in sand (lol) or hands over ears.. lol ... just hoping this has not stopped anyone from these interesting discussion - - Please don't let nonsense bother you -doesn't take a course in rocket science to see what is going on here and none of the personal attacks are reflected on those sincere in these discussion... just my humble opinionn.. and take for what its worth Be well
Not only are you educating, but also entertaining me at the same time. Such a wonderful group of creative people you are!!!!! THANKS Leah
Tho at the end of tx and barely a brain left... and with my eyeballs hurting, taking close to 3 hrs to read this thread- you all done good! very, very interesting!!! bookmarked it, as well as when feeling better (lol) will read the TnHepGuy Healthpage w/links. just too much to take in now. anyone saying this scares newbies or people tx'g is full of malarky (sorry but that's my humble opnion). this is interesting, fascinating reading and hoping more and more research is done, and hopefully find a 'real' cure someday.. but until then this is the best we've got. frankly I'm one of the ones liking to know ... 'cause don't think all stones have been turned and really when feeling better will be watching this!!! I WANT to know and really interested in this research!! ah... DD- I imagine your inbox is full of many commending your 'patience' ...God Bless You! All-in-all just a fricken great thread!! THANKS... to all providing links!!!!!!! Libby
DD: 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). ........ Look at the things you said to ME! I should be very offended.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I recall nothing of the sort in this thread, however, quote them like I quoted you. THEN I will make my apologies if required.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I recall nothing of the sort in this thread, however, quote them like I quoted you. THEN I will make my apologies if required.
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Back atcha.
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
I am not amused by your attitude and do not agree one bit with your characterization.
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
DoubleDose
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
