Aa
ratio of hepitits c
About 2 years ago I was tested at my county health dept. and was informed that I have Hepitits C with a ratio of 1.58 at that time. I have not yet gotten treament due to insurance reasons. I now have insurance starting as of this year. What does it mean when they say the ratio is 1.58 ???? Also, since my insurance just took effect the 1st of the year......will I be covered to go start treatment. This is very new to me and any advise would be helpful and appreciated. Thanx All
kalio,
Do you have a reading comprehension problem ? You have distorted one too many of my statements. If you have a problem understanding what I post let me know and I will dumb it down for ya. ;)
EXAMPLE:
"You make statements like " it is only 20% more likely that you will get liver cancer" and don't consider what happens to that 20%"
I NEVER made that statement.
I don't need to credential myself to you or anyone but your lame statements and total lack of basic HCV knowledge are incredible and you need to be challenged.
I am on the liver transplant list at the University of Colorado Health Science Center (where the first liver transplants were performed) I have been on the list for 4 years now. My hepatologist of 5 years in not only nationally known, but internationally as well. We are friends and he openly shares data with me. And believe me he has a ton as principal investigator for the HALT-C trials. I do research for a prominent national HCV support organization. I am on the speaker's bureau and sit on 2 committees as well. I am also very close to the western regional Schering Biotech nurse for the US. The amount of data that can be teased out of all their trials is incredible.
kalio,if you started now you wouldn't be able to amass the knowledge I have about HCV in the next 10 years. I am not anti-tx and I never said ONCE that I was. In fact, tx has kept me off the operating table for at least 2 years now. Do you know what a sustained biochemical response is ?Why would I be anti-tx ? So, let's get this straight. Please take your time to fully digest this and don't screw it up and twist it:
I am for tx when it is APPROPRIATE. Appropriate is when the possible rewards are worth the risks. Do you UNDERSTAND that?
And I would like to inform you that EVERY decision we make in life is a "personal" decision. But every decision we make in life is not an INFORMED decision.
Once again I will ask you to put up or shut up. Show me proof of extrahepatic manifestations at stage 1 or 0. Show me the variance in mortality rates that exist proving the desirability of treating at stage 0 v stage 1. Or stage 1 v. stage 2. If you can't produce peer-reviewed material then shut up about it. Your wild-eyed explanations (the one about the vl was pretty funny) aren't needed.
PK
Do you have a reading comprehension problem ? You have distorted one too many of my statements. If you have a problem understanding what I post let me know and I will dumb it down for ya. ;)
EXAMPLE:
"You make statements like " it is only 20% more likely that you will get liver cancer" and don't consider what happens to that 20%"
I NEVER made that statement.
I don't need to credential myself to you or anyone but your lame statements and total lack of basic HCV knowledge are incredible and you need to be challenged.
I am on the liver transplant list at the University of Colorado Health Science Center (where the first liver transplants were performed) I have been on the list for 4 years now. My hepatologist of 5 years in not only nationally known, but internationally as well. We are friends and he openly shares data with me. And believe me he has a ton as principal investigator for the HALT-C trials. I do research for a prominent national HCV support organization. I am on the speaker's bureau and sit on 2 committees as well. I am also very close to the western regional Schering Biotech nurse for the US. The amount of data that can be teased out of all their trials is incredible.
kalio,if you started now you wouldn't be able to amass the knowledge I have about HCV in the next 10 years. I am not anti-tx and I never said ONCE that I was. In fact, tx has kept me off the operating table for at least 2 years now. Do you know what a sustained biochemical response is ?Why would I be anti-tx ? So, let's get this straight. Please take your time to fully digest this and don't screw it up and twist it:
I am for tx when it is APPROPRIATE. Appropriate is when the possible rewards are worth the risks. Do you UNDERSTAND that?
And I would like to inform you that EVERY decision we make in life is a "personal" decision. But every decision we make in life is not an INFORMED decision.
Once again I will ask you to put up or shut up. Show me proof of extrahepatic manifestations at stage 1 or 0. Show me the variance in mortality rates that exist proving the desirability of treating at stage 0 v stage 1. Or stage 1 v. stage 2. If you can't produce peer-reviewed material then shut up about it. Your wild-eyed explanations (the one about the vl was pretty funny) aren't needed.
PK
Perhaps you should read the information on the drug insert that accompanies your interferon. If the print is too small go to the maker's website. I'm suprised you would advocate putting a drug into your body when YOU don't even know what it can do. ;) Long term effects? I would call suicide a rather long term effect. A heart attack can bring many permanent long term effects. Death from infection or fulminant liver failure from INF both seem like they could have some long term consequences.Blindness seems rather long term to me. Want me to go on ? Nah, not gonna do the intellectual heavy lifting for someone who obviously hasn't done any research. Permanent thyroid damage is not only listed as a danger, but I know 25-30 ppl this has happened to.These are just SOME of the KNOWN risks. There are unknown risks as well. If there weren't more, the side effects list would not have steadily grown over the last 6 years.Read the insert before you pop off next time.
I have previously stated that HCV is a systemic disease.But that in no way means that you are going to develop extrahepatic symptoms at stage 1 or 0.I will state it once again: You cannot show me ANY documented, peer-reviewed data to assert extrahepatic manifestations at stage 1 or 0. And, of course, you didn't.
Your point (I guess you were trying to make one) about arthritis didn't make much sense. HCV is not a percursor to having arthritis. Millions of people have arthritis that don't have HCV. The treatment (INF) however has been directly linked to triggering autoimmune diseases such as arthritis,psoriasis,thyroid, and autoimmune hepatitis.
And all that baloney about "damaging my immune system" from Kalio. The most probable cause for liver aptosis is a host-immediated immune response. In other words it IS your immune system that is killing your liver cells !!! The data strongly suggests that rate of progression is linked directly to this immune response. Another way to say it: Those with the most active immune systems can have a faster rate of progression.
Some of you can't stand to hear that you might have made a mistake by treating too early. You feel the need to validate your choice, and prefer to do so by attacking the messenger.
The rush to treat mentality has become a mob mentality. You might try following the money. You might learn something.
I have previously stated that HCV is a systemic disease.But that in no way means that you are going to develop extrahepatic symptoms at stage 1 or 0.I will state it once again: You cannot show me ANY documented, peer-reviewed data to assert extrahepatic manifestations at stage 1 or 0. And, of course, you didn't.
Your point (I guess you were trying to make one) about arthritis didn't make much sense. HCV is not a percursor to having arthritis. Millions of people have arthritis that don't have HCV. The treatment (INF) however has been directly linked to triggering autoimmune diseases such as arthritis,psoriasis,thyroid, and autoimmune hepatitis.
And all that baloney about "damaging my immune system" from Kalio. The most probable cause for liver aptosis is a host-immediated immune response. In other words it IS your immune system that is killing your liver cells !!! The data strongly suggests that rate of progression is linked directly to this immune response. Another way to say it: Those with the most active immune systems can have a faster rate of progression.
Some of you can't stand to hear that you might have made a mistake by treating too early. You feel the need to validate your choice, and prefer to do so by attacking the messenger.
The rush to treat mentality has become a mob mentality. You might try following the money. You might learn something.
Cuteus - always wanted to ask someone who has cleared the virus - do you feel better now than you did before tx?
Excellent Point! Viral load means nothing unless it is registering 0. Too many do have viral loads in millions with no damage and many with very low viral loads have severe damage so this proves that viral load means nothing.
You wrote above: "if you are treating you are lowering the viral count which is what is causing havoc on your system."
I'm going to disagree with you on that statement. Prior to treatment, Snook had a VL of just 4,000 -- but he had Stage 3 damage. Others have VL's in the millions and are at Stage 0. In my mind ERADICATION, not mere lowering, of the VL should be goal of treatment (plus the possible reversal of some existing fibrosis).
I've hear you say more than once that lowering the VL is a goal of treatment. That just doesn't make any sense to me.A VL of 1 today could be a VL of 1 million six months from now. So what's the point of treatment if there's still one bugger left? I hope you'll rethink that. Not everyone CAN eradicate the virus, but that should always be the goal. Lowering the VL doesn't really add up to much of anything.
Susan
I'm going to disagree with you on that statement. Prior to treatment, Snook had a VL of just 4,000 -- but he had Stage 3 damage. Others have VL's in the millions and are at Stage 0. In my mind ERADICATION, not mere lowering, of the VL should be goal of treatment (plus the possible reversal of some existing fibrosis).
I've hear you say more than once that lowering the VL is a goal of treatment. That just doesn't make any sense to me.A VL of 1 today could be a VL of 1 million six months from now. So what's the point of treatment if there's still one bugger left? I hope you'll rethink that. Not everyone CAN eradicate the virus, but that should always be the goal. Lowering the VL doesn't really add up to much of anything.
Susan
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.
