congratulations I had my last baby at 46. She is the joy of my life . I dont know about the supplements but would ask doc or midwife good luck :)
dont take pre natal vitamins as they are high iron. not good for the liver. unless there is one w/out iron.but that is usually the point of pre natal vitamins is to give you a good dose of iron. i never took them. just got iron other ways and had my blood tested-- i was never low. a good way to get iron is chylorphyll or chylorella like you mentioned. and eat higher iron foods. lots of green leafy vegs.
i went thru many pregnancies with hepc in the 70's and 80's as i was not diagnosed yet. my 4 kids did not get it.
you should get very educated on hepc since you have it. there are many good books out there. do a search on AMazon. one is called HepC a Survivors Guide. how long have you had hepc and what is the condition of your liver? low levels of the virus doesnt indicate your liver health.
Hey goof what did you do to the thread below, I couldn't post a comment. Are you sure you're allowed to play on the computer.
Jim, can't help you; I go into riba-rage when my girlfriend ask me what I want for dinner. Can't make any decisions and it's starting to get a little difficult to communicate.
Friole they sell sharps containers at the pharmacy retail. Where I live your doctor or the pharmacy will take the full ones.
Sad to say, but I never had much of an attention span for math. Can anyone help me interpret the following from an abstract on predictors of SVR failures in genos 2 & 3? I know Cougar... I should just settle in for the ride, but where's the anxiety in that? I'm engaged in psychological warfare aagainst the bugs, and I want them scared :) And, I actually want to understand the benefit in going 48 wks vs. 24.
From the abstract.........
Identification of variables associated with treatment failure was done by comparing variables of interest between SVR and non-SVR groups using Wilcoxon test for continuous variables and Chi-Square for categorical variables. Individual logistic regression was done to obtain Odds Ratios (OR). Multivariate modeling was done to identify independent predictors of treatment failure.
...Male gender (p=0.01, OR=6.2, 95% CI 1.5-43.3),.....
Given the above sample result (one of several), how does one interpret the negative impact of being male on the likelyhood of SVR? The abstract: http://www.hcvadvocate.org/news/reports/DDW_2005/May%2015%20HCV.htm
Yeah, right. LOL. They always throw in that "regression anlaysis" stuff. But basically, being male is an indpendent negative *pre-tx* predictor for SVR, but my understanding from talks with those supposedly in the know is that it gets overriden once treatment starts with *during-tx* predictors such as the week 4 PCR. In other words, if being male in your case was such a negative predictor -- or your stage 3? damage for that matter -- then you probably never would have cleared at week 4. See???
I'm in a bit of a fog now -- so what follows is at your own risk LOL -- you're a geno 2 or 3 right who cleared at week 4. Standard tx is 24 weeks but you could conceivably treat-short course for 12 weeks or 16 weeks depending on whether you're on Peg intron or Pegasys.
But you're a stage 3? You're male? And you have a good sense of humor? OK. Putting all that in my regression equataion :) I could understand forgoing the short course and making yourself sick for 24 weeks while you entertain us with your woes. However, why the 48 weeks given being non-detecible at week 4? I'm sure the tomatoes in your fridge will be very happy with any leftover Procrit.:)My guess is your SVR stats will not change whether you treat for 12, 24 or 48 weeks. If you relapse (unlikely) you're gonna relapse but it will be for reasons other than treatment length. You kmow, sunspots hasn't been discussed a lot around here but personally that's how I decided to when to begin and end tx. :)
You guys remind me of the 70s, when my friends and I would be tripping on acid and discussing all the mysteries of the universe. But now you guys drug of choice is peg/riba combo cocktail. lol Peace
Actually, a female who is post-menopausal or has had surgically induced menopause through hysterectomy, has the same level of risk factor as a man, if they are not taking HRT. This is because the estrogen protective factor is not there. If a woman is on HRT then, she'd have the estrogen protective factor. If a woman still is having periods, non-menopausal, then she has the estrogen protective factor. This is the only thing that makes men's risk go up.
Goof prev: "In the Italian study, on which I seem fixated"
If you find yourself handing out canoli's at halloween, then maybe it's time to start reading the German study :)
LOL - Hope the kids like latkes!
I knew this would get you. Even tried to toss out a pre-emtive bone! LOL. Peace to you too, my friend.
Yeah I hear you on the quick clearance being a good postitive indicator, but....
My Negative Predictors
* Stage > 3 (hey, looky there, the eggs worked!)
* Past alcohol usage - let's call me a social drinker who can be VERY social :)
* Over 45
* 25 year infection
* "non-low" viral-load
My Positive Predictors
* Geno 3
* Early Response (*maybe - see below)
In the small study I cited there were 14 (genos 1 & 2) non-SVRs. 7 were non-responders and 7 were relapsers. So response in general is not an overriding factor. No metion of early response.
* I'm just looking at the Italian study, and if I'm not mistaken 4 week clearance seems to be a negative predictor! Not by nuch - 4-5% overall - but enough that it wouldn't be a postive predictor. This for early responders treating the entire 24 weeks. As the Veg says, YIKES!
"And you have a good sense of humor"... Jim, I'm afraid you're mis-reading the data again. Frequency and quality are not the same - in fact in this case they seem to exclude on another ;)
RVR still rules. I think you're comparing RVR in the Italian study to the group that treated longer. In any event, once you weed out all the details, both the Italian and German? study concluded SVR's equal in both the short-course and longer course group. That said, I can understand your stage 3 reluctance not to pursue the shorter course. My only question was why you would treat longer than the long course -- which is 24 weeks for geno 3's, especially in light of your RVR.
OK now, my analogy. I'm also a stage 3 (or 2.5, who knows) and I also cleared early (week 6). And I'm male and 58. Spoke to several well-respected hepatologists and they all agreed that to extend treatment beyone 48 weeks made no sense.
All said, I respect your angst over all this. At this point, you only have one major thing to obsess/decide on, and that is tx length. I went through that for about three months until the third hepatologist convinced me that 48 weeks was enough, especially in light of my RVR.
At some point we have to draw the line. Otherwise, one could make the argument that we all should treat for five years, if we consider length of tx the main consideration. The trick is to kill the virus with the least amount of drugs, not the most. :)
I have alot of time before the decision becomes critical path. I'll see the docs next month and we'll talk. Additional prof. opinions in light of RVR are probably waranted, but I would want to keep them confidential between me and doc (potential Ins issues).
In the Italian study, on which I seem fixated, SVR for the long treatment group as a whole was higher than SVR for the long treatment sub-group with RVR. Go figure. (The study doesn't compare the two, but the numbers are in there in separate places). I'll need to re-look to be certain.
BTW, I think I'm like a stage 3.9 or something.
Over and out. Time to decorate for Halloween, as next year they may be hanging me on the door. Pull the string and get a one-liner! "Ar-ar-ar-ar-arrrrr!", feet spazzing to-and-fro......