pregnant with hep C, what suppl. are safe? Diet? I don't drink milk

[illima]

Hello. I am 6 weeks pregnant. First timer and I am 44. Have Hep C. levels are good and low. I usually don't drink nor eat dairy, don't take any coffee nor teas, I am semi vegitarian as i don't usually eat red meat. I t6ake regularly 600mg of Alpha lipoic acid per day. I also take lots of artichoke pills and usually take sylimarin but have stopped that since i am pregnant. i still don't know if all will be okay with the pregnancy as i am spotting but in the meanwhile I'd like to do all the best and right things to make this possible and well. I have started to drink milk and eat red meat once a week (all organic) and wonder if that is a good idea or not. Also used to take spirulina and chlorella but have stopped those too. i do take every day since a few month prenatal vitamins. Can you direct me to the best ways or perhaps tell me some good books. thank you.

[v eggie dip]

I too wonder when I "got" this dreaded virus....All the Doc's I have seen so far seem to be in agreement that it was from a blood transfusion 37 years ago...But my logic tells me different...I am stage 1 and if I have had this for 37 years is it possible to have such low liver damage?  Possible yes, probable no, in my opinion...The only other explaination would be surgey I had in 91 or the dental cleanings throughout my life...Now, the medical gurus tell me that there is a very slim chance I contracted it from either of those two and that I am just one of the lucky ones that may be able to live to 90 years without treating Hep C and die from a heart attack after looking in the mirror and seeing an old wrinkled woman where I used to be lol...

I guess some of us will never know where and when we contracted this and just have to say "oh well"...and go on...But, it sure would be nice to know...

Beth

[susan400]

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.

Susan

[GoofyDad]

LOL - Hope the kids like latkes!

[cougareyes]

I can't really pinpoint how I got it per se. Yet in the 70's I did my share of post hippie partying, no needles though. But in 1980 I got sick, diag w/ non-A non-B hep, went back for a check-up and doc cleared me. Back then they knew nothing of it. Now we know what they use to call non-A non-B is now C. I never thought about it and never looked back, I was caught completely off guard in Oct of last year; when they diag me w/ HCV. So for me I've had it since 1980.
Now that you know you have it, the most important thing is you're taking steps to take care of it. I believe SVR can be achieved regardless of how long you've had it. I'm not familiar w/ any docs altering tx protocol based on how long you've had it. So of course the biggest concern is the longer you've had it the more chance it's had to do damage. And it can drive you absolutely mad trying to pin it down.   Peace

[jmjm530]

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. :)

-- Jim

[GoofyDad]

Coug:
I knew this would get you. Even tried to toss out a pre-emtive bone! LOL. Peace to you too, my friend.

Jim:
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 :)
* Male
* 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 ;)