& Treatment Was Worse Than The Actual Virus As I Really Had No Pre-Tx Sx's to speak of... but was it worth it "Heck Yea"... would I do it again... You Betcha!!!! But Definately a break between Round Two & A Possible 3 would be a MUST!
I can't treat so I continue to wait...for now.
Please, upbeat, the 1999 report you speak of--were the Dutch nurses followed more than 20 years? And could you explain the theory of the body being able to "adapt" to the virus?
Just looking for a little hope.
Do A google search for the 1999 report to congress. This report was done by the military. What they did was go back to 1954 and test all the blood they took from the recruits. With all the recruits blood that they found to have hep -c . They followed up on these people and after over 40 years there was no difference in mortality rate than with the rest of the recruits. The Dutch report is amazing because for the first time they knew when they were all infected. Great reading.
my only concern is that everyone waiting keeps touting the newer, better, gentler drugs are coming. There is no proof that they will be gentler as well as effective.
Wait away, anyone that can, but not under the cloud that the next generation of drugs will have none or little side effects. It has not been proven.
ANy new drug will come with their own set of sides.
The argument is that because there is less exposure due to possible shorter tx (not proven for SVR either) that it will mean less long term effects. SOme studies out there present an insignificant statistical difference in AE(adverse events) with 72 wks v 48.
ANd a large majority of treating folks already feel severe sides by wk 12. Can we tell if the person will have less long term effects because they only suffered 12-24 wks of tx and not 72? Nothing supports that.
it is telling people to wait because gentler things are around the corner that does not sit well.
I havn't noticed this board being swayed towards PRO as much as many implicate... I have actually found quit the opposite... but there again I am not in here as much as most!
I guess I am pro TX being as treatment was optional for me BOTH Times... I am a combo 1a&1b... had little to no liver damage.... 2 was a charm (even though round two I still was not able to extend as long as intended)... but even though I am basically PRO... I do NOT discredit anyone for choosing to wait, I believe all we can do is Inform & Not Sway & let the person make their own intelligent decision...(& That's a BIG TIME PERSONAL DECISION) so hearing both sides of the story is a GOOD Thing,,,, & Remebering that we all respond & react differently to the meds is a BIGGY....
Individualization IS The KEY!!!
No I am not promoting fake cures. That stuff is garbage and only works on peoples fears. Cutes the new drugs may or may not be any better than standard care, either way the odds say the vast Majority of people will adapt to the virus and live a normal life span. Sure there are going to be some that will have serious problems. There are several studies that show there is no difference between liver problem with or without the virus. I refer to the 1999 report to congress and the Dutch nurses all infected and the same time and followed for 20 years to name a couple. The odds are much greater that you will develope problem with TX than the odds of problems caused by the virus. The quality of life vs the quanity plays a big part in my decision.