See no value to it. Reducing the viral load doesn't stop the virus from attacking the liver but good luck with that anyway.
I'm sorry but 500k is really the same thing as 11k.
There is no cure for this disease without interferon and ribavirin and viral load has absolutely nothing at all to do with liver damage. Plus, it goes up and down all of the time.
Have you had a biopsy to determine how much liver damage you have? What stage of the disease you have progressed to? Please do not assume because the VL is down that you dont need to monitor and follow up on these things, you do.
Help people do what ? You have hepc and you still have hepc. The goal is to get rid of the virus which you have not done.
Unfortunately, some people still equate viral load numbers with how much harm Hep C is causing and that's simply not the case.
Thanks for the sentiment but the fact is there is no relationship between viral load and the amount of liver damage that may be taking place. It's sort of like having a little bit of feces in a brownie vs. just a little - I don't want any of it!
Bwah that was the best anology I've ever heard about this disease.
You really are good that was great!
If the viral load doesn't matter one bit, why does Joe's P.A. order a viral load for every appt. now? They used to only want to know the viral load during TX but they have changed this practice. I assume they have a good reason because this is St. Louis university and they conduct many trials and are very in touch with the latest.. It must matter to some extent or what would be the point?
I still like to have information and weigh it's value for myself. I totally understand the need to keep people that need to TX from getting bad information but I still maintain that the gigantic pool of non responders should be aloud to freely exchange information that might prove helpful to them. Some of us will still be unsuccessful even with the P.I.'s. Others might not even be able to get a chance with a P.I. because of finances or other health problems. I would like to see these posts handled in a more fair and balanced manner so that people that may have something of value to share won't be too intimidated to bring it up. For true non responders, improvement might be your only realistic goal in the foreseeable future. I'm not saying to let the snake oil salesman run rampant, just don't shoot down everyone that breathes the word "alternative." If plan A is impossible we best be searching for a plan B. (Some of us need a C,D,E and F too)
No one was shooting down alternatives evangelin. Our comments pertained to the relationship between viral load and liver damage and the fact remains there is none. Viral load has no bearing on the progression of fibrosis. That is true fact stated many times in peer reviewed studies.
Why don't you ask your husband's medical team why they regularly track Joe's viral load?
Maybe then you can tell share their view with us.
Perhaps his doctors just aren't that up to date on the whole viral load issue because this is not a subjective thing and it has been proven to be true. Like liver enzymes not always being indicative of the inflammation going on. I had a low low viral load and yet I was stage 3 when diagnosed......there has to be validity to it as this is quite common.
One of the smart guys will know the links I am sure.
VL tracking is done to measure effectiveness of tx. As I am sure you know. But to say you survived Hep C as the op did and still have a VL of 11k unfortunately isn't true.
Alternative treatments for Hep C simply don't exist. Alternative treatments to help liver function yes, to kill all the little SOBs no.
I've read posts by people who claim to be in the medical profession who've tried herbs, veterinary treatments, only to beat Hep C with SOC.
Why people think they can fool around with "alternative" treatments for Hep C I do not know. I wonder if people with Ebola Virus, or Yellow fever, are as gullible as heppers.
I would rather start tx with 11k than 500k
My inquiring mind would still like to know what this person is using. I have pm'd them and hopefully I will hear back . It may be nothing but I still want the information.
Several people have contacted me off line to tell me they have been using Hepatitis Technologies products and are having the same good results that Joe has. It doesn't change your viral load but it has a really good chance of giving you a more functional liver and protects from more damage. They don't want to deal with any scorn or persecution so they won't tell about it on Medhelp...what a shame. I don't enjoy the conflict either but my heart hurts for the non-responders.
The problem with some of the natural products that can lower viral load is that they can also increase inflammation which could lead to more fibrosis/scarring.. For those who respond marginally, starting with a lower viral load could have some benefit. I too would prefer for Joe to start with the lower number but not at the cost of more damage.
I know someone who has had a similar drop by using the blueberry leaf extract purchased from a person that most of us don't trust...me included. He is the only one that carries the variety described in the study showing a viral reduction. This person knows there is some risk to using this but they relapsed after Tx and are hoping to start with a lower starting number next time. I didn't decide to buy the blueberry product ,as of yet,but I'm still glad to know about it and will watch this persons progress.
I wouldn't want this to go on and on like some of the threads debating this issue have, because I am needing to spend my time elsewhere right now. I won't argue for the freedom of discussion every time I see a post I don't like. I just revisit it from time to time because it still bothers me.
Back to work,
Bali...you have a point that I totally agree with. Getting the viral load to a lower point before starting treatment would be a good thing.
Well said Evangelin. This is a forum for Hep C which should include discussion about living with it as well as curing it. As long as that distinction is made where is the harm? Many people believe 'religiously' that SOC is the only solution. It is a belief based on research of other people's research and publications, and their own experience. At best, all that can be said is that INF/Riba sometimes works, about 50% of the time. That is not exactly a text book 'cure'. What if Juices/Supplements/Positive thinking/ Eskimo pee, also sometimes work. Even if it is only 1% of the time it would help thousands get cured.
I agree it is correct to point out that still having the virus means you are not 'cured', but I don't agree that without annihilating every last virion you can't have a happy healthy life, and as mikesimon brought to light, a little poop in the cookie may not be all bad. Understandably anyone who has slogged through weeks and weeks of tx, or is going through it now doesn't want to hear that it's not necessary and that the right diet solves everything, but the responses to anyone making significant progress coping with the disease outside of SOC are pretty muted. I wouldn't be bold enough to post my improvement anywhere but my journal, and I have received only kind words here.
It is just a gut feeling I have, that perhaps those who have reached, or are well on the way to SVR miss.
Sheesh medhelp, I fail to see the point of censorship.
Even if someone brings in an idea we don't agree with, since when are we such children that we cannot correct, instruct, debunk, or even, gasp, explore a new idea.
The verdict on alternatives curing is in, they don't, but the verdict at least for HIV people is that viral reduction equals longer life. 30 years is the average time from HIV to full blown AIDS now, whereas it used to be less than 5 years from being diagnosed. This is all due to keeping the VL very low.
Obviously adjuncts have so far proved incapable of cure, but which of you who have not been able to REACH a cure using SOC would not gladly trade a viral load of 2 million for 10 thousand??
It's not JUST about inflammation, although that's somewhat true, but the virus also changes the way we metabolize, the whole lipid process is thrown off, as is the whole endocrine process, and God only knows what else.
I've been saying 50% of us have endocrine dysfunction, many have metabolic syndrome, thanks to this virus and provided the studies...and lately the stuff I've been reading on lipids is equally frightening...not just what happens to your belly fat and the hump on the back of your neck, but all the other parts of the body that are starved for enough lipids because this virus somehow reroutes them to storage. It goes on and on.
I just wish sometimes we could carry on conversations without the brain police deciding for us what is worthy of discussion.
LAst time I looked the average age in here was 60, not 6!!!
One reason I don't come in here as much anymore is because of the censorship.
I suppose this post will be censored for me saying this.
"I just wish sometimes we could carry on conversations without the brain police deciding for us what is worthy of discussion.:
Good luck with that one, it ain't never gonna happen. :)
Just to caveat on what has been said. The thread is not about using Hepatitis Technologies, juices, co-existing with the virus, positive thinking for good karma and a happy and healthy life. The OP distinctly said he lowered his viral load from 500k to 11k in a short period of time so what's his point? He's got a low viral load, big whoop. No mention of not wanting to treat or not being able to treat. Fact remains he still has hepc but I guess it's whatever blows your boxers up. The only defensiveness I see are from those who have gotten the impression this thread is about something else other than a low viral load.
I think the name "hepcsurvivor" is a little presumptuous for someone who has hepc.
Hi Trinity, glad you are back.
Surely at some level the viral load is relevant. Maybe not 11k, but 1k? 100? 10?
If the liver becomes damaged due to the virus why is a lower viral load irrelevant?
Does it mean that damage done by a viral load of say 5,000 is already maximum damage, and anything higher than that is overkill?
And if there is a proven formula for reducing the viral load, apart from SOC, why does it stop short of total genocide of all the little boogers?
With much respect,
The relevance applies when treating or starting treatment with a low viral load which is <400,000 IU/mL. I would love to see any study you can provide that shows the correlation between viral load and liver health. I've yet to see anything from the AALSD, Clinical Care Options, Medscape or the likes that showed any correlation between viral load and liver damage. We would know by now if there was a true connection. The virus replicates and is going to attack the liver in the same manner whether there are millions, thousands or hundreds. Reducing the viral load is not going to stop the attack on the liver because that it what it is designed to do and it's existance depends on it.
I'd much rather have 10 virons attacking my liver over time rather than 10 million , if I had a choice ...
And much rather at the time of starting Tx ,
Start Tx with a low VL , as this factor has been "proven" to be one of the "best" indicators of achieving SVR ..
Obviously, this is not true for all folks ... like NYgirl ,who continually says "low VL at the start of Tx is not import , that " 500k is really the same thing as 11k " , 500k = 5.69 log , 11K = 4.4 log ... that was unfortunately her experience ... but, definitely this is not true for the majority of us infected .
For the majority of patients , a low VL load < 400K at the start of Tx is a very very important predictor in achieving SVR , that has been continually proven over time with patients and CT's.
I'm not sure how anybody at this stage of research and trying to figure out what really is going on with HCV , can discount damage caused by this virus , by saying things such as
"We would know by now if there was a true connection... The virus replicates and is going to attack the liver in the same manner whether there are millions, thousands or hundreds"
Where is the data to support this statement ? ? ? None of these correlations have been proven or disproved at this time . The reality is the scientist and doctors just don't know..... yet
The only "thing" we know at this stage of research of this virus ... for 1a - is that there is maybe a 50% chance of attaining SVR , maybe .... & that this virus damages our liver over time.
New info is being discovered every day ... not like several years ago .. thank the powers that be ! ! !
Any other presumption or conclusion at this time is only to assume ...... break down the word assume into 3 sections and what do you have ***/u/me ....
" The lower the pre-treatment viral load, the more likely it is that a person will respond to current HCV therapies. "
" A correlation between HCV viral load and disease progression has not been shown. "
"With HCV, viral burden in hepatitis C does not necessarily predict the natural history of clinical disease. And therefore, patients need to understand that we use that measurement to help us guide therapy and response to therapy. We use it in conjunction with other types of laboratory data -- liver enzymes, liver biopsies sometimes, and viral genotype. Taken all together, these tests give us a snapshot of what is going on. But viral load numbers do not predict disease."
"Unlike HIV, HCV viral copies do not directly affect a patient's prognosis and how fast disease is progressing in the liver. Remember, we are measuring blood levels, not what is happening in liver cells. HIV viral load does have a lot to do with quicker progression to AIDS. But HCV viral load does not tell you how fast hepatitis is progressing."