 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Hepatitis / October 2004Spontaneously Healing
Any comments, thoughts regarding the following article about 20 percent of hep-c infected folks spontaneously healing? I was told that my genotype is 1a, the hardest to respond to treatment, the hardest to heal. I am considering forgoing treatment to avoid all those nasty side effects only to be told to stop treatment when my body starts bleeding, and generally going whacko from all those horrible side effects when I'll most likely have to stop treatment anyway because of my difficult genotype, 1a. Anyone ever hear of a 1a genotype killing the dragon from successful treatment? -Stephen- From > http://www.cnn.com/2004/HEALTH/08/06/hepatitis.recovery.ap/index.html > > Genes might be key to hepatitis C > Friday, August 6, 2004 Posted: 3:47 PM EDT (1947 GMT) > > HEALTH LIBRARY > > . Health Library > > RELATED > . Interactive: Releasing the stranglehold on killer cells > > . Hepatitis C information > > YOUR E-MAIL ALERTS > United States > > Great Britain > > Medical Research > > Stanford University > > or Create your own > > Manage alerts | What is this? > > WASHINGTON (AP) -- Genes that take the brakes off the immune system may help > explain why some people essentially cure themselves of liver-destroying > hepatitis C, research suggests. > > Hepatitis C is widely considered the most serious of a family of liver > viruses. Yet 20 percent of those infected clear it from their bodies without > treatment. > > Solving that mystery could point to new ways to treat hepatitis C or, more > important, develop a vaccine to prevent it. > > Research by a team of U.S. and British scientists suggests the key is being > lucky enough to inherit a specific gene combination that lets the body more > quickly unleash its front-line defense -- natural killer cells. > > The research, published Thursday in the journal Science, will not > immediately benefit the 3 million Americans and 180 million people worldwide > who remain chronically infected with hepatitis C. The virus leaves them at > risk of eventually developing liver cancer or failure, and claims 10,000 to > 12,000 lives a year in the United States. > > "It brings us closer to understanding how the virus works," said Dr. Chloe > Thio of Johns Hopkins University, co-author of the study with researchers > from Britain's Southampton University and the National Cancer Institute in > the United States. > > "In the long term, whether we can use this information to modulate the > body's immune system to improve therapeutics or vaccine design -- that is > the ultimate goal," she said. > > Hepatitis C studies in chimpanzees suggested natural killer cells were more > active in animals that recovered. To find the genes involved in that immune > response, the researchers analyzed the DNA of 1,037 hepatitis C patients, > 352 of whom spontaneously recovered. > > Natural killer cells are continually poised to attack if a virus strikes. > Inhibitory receptors called KIRs (pronounced "keers") keep them in check > between infections, to ensure they do not attack healthy tissue. > > The scientists discovered a particular gene combination that controls one > KIR receptor, and the molecule attached to it was twice as common in > recovered patients than in the still-infected. > > How would an immune-inhibiting system fight hepatitis? > > When the body senses viral infection, it has to activate the natural killer > cells by switching off inhibiting receptors, Thio said. This KIR combination > seems weak, "so it's easier to overcome," she said. > > The genetic protection was found only in patients thought to have received > an initial low dose of hepatitis C because they were infected by > contaminated drug or tattoo needles instead of a blood transfusion. It may > be that the extra virus from tainted blood -- long a common cause of > hepatitis C -- was simply too much for those patients' first-line defenses > to handle, Thio said. > > Since 1992, the U.S. blood supply has been strictly tested for hepatitis C, > so new transfusion-related cases have plummeted. Today the disease is most > commonly spread in the United States through injecting drug use. > > Other factors also play a role in spontaneous hepatitis C recovery, Dr. > Peter Parham of Stanford University said in an accompany editorial. > > But he said doctors already help treat a type of leukemia by releasing > natural killer cells from a different KIR receptor, so the question now is > whether a similar strategy could be developed for hepatitis. > Any comments, thoughts regarding the following article about 20 percent of > hep-c infected folks spontaneously healing? I was told that my genotype is [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > stop treatment anyway because of my difficult genotype, 1a. Anyone ever hear > of a 1a genotype killing the dragon from successful treatment? -Stephen- Lots of people with 1a sucessfully clear with treatment. I think the statistic I read was 60% but you can look it up. Of the people who don't clear, most still benefit from the treatment slowing the virus. Those "nasty" side effects are a temporary problem, the virus isn't. As for spontaneous healing I have never seen research that suggested a person could spontaneously heal "chronic" hep-C. There are two stages. When you first are exposed to the virus I believe it's considered "acute". That's when you are likely to feel symptoms. Some people manage to fight it off like they would A or B but for most it then moves to the second stage which is chronic Hep C. At this point the only option is to do treatment. AG > Any comments, thoughts regarding the following article about 20 percent of > hep-c infected folks spontaneously healing? Yeah, we wish we were part of that 20% :) I started treatment a week after I turned papaya yellow, 5 weeks after I was exposed to the virus. That 20% clearance happens during the initial infection or not at all (with some exceptions, but they're rare.) I wasn't willing to take the chance of it becoming chronic and lowering my chances of clearing it. Gordo Gordo, Do you mind my asking how you were exposed? You seem to have it nailed down in the near past. Are you a health worker? Just being curious. Steve >> Any comments, thoughts regarding the following article about 20 percent >> of [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Gordo I got it through sexual contact. May 22, 2004. The guy I got it from has had it but been in denial about it, and I'm afraid he's going to get sick fast from it. I guess you can't run other people's lives. Gordo > Gordo, > Do you mind my asking how you were exposed? [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > > > Gordo Wow. Shows how denial can really affect the lives of others. A good reason for all of us to stop doing something and just sit there, occasionally. A little mindfulness goes a long way. Anyway. You can drop this thread anytime if it makes you uncomfortable, but I'm still curious. I thought transmission was strictly a blood to blood thing, like injecting with a used needle, or getting transfused, jabbed, etc. In my case, I'm pretty sure it happened about 40 years ago when I got stabbed by a mugger in NYC. Was it just rough sex that got you? I guess I'm curious cause what sex I get has never drawn blood from both (or either) of us. Not even alone. Curious George (aka Steve) >I got it through sexual contact. May 22, 2004. > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] >> > >> > Gordo [...] > Anyway. You can drop this thread anytime if it makes you uncomfortable, but > I'm still curious. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Was it just rough sex that got you? I guess I'm curious cause what sex I > get has never drawn blood from both (or either) of us. I'm hesitant to give too many details for a lot of reasons, one of them being the almost automatic way that most straight people will think of a het couple as being about homes and families, while a gay couple is just basically about icky squicky butt sex (and therefore not worthy of equal rights and recognition...) Let me just say that it was a group activity, and some people would define it as "rough", and the problem occurred when someone playing the inserter role moved between people playing the receptive role without proper cleanup - so it is possible/probable that that is how small amounts of blood got from one person to the others. Condoms were being used, though, so it's a quite a sequence of unlikely steps that had to have occurred. It was either that, or that everyone (it turns out) used the same razor that I leave in the shower. Again, it was used in exactly the right order to spread it from the first user to later users. So no challenges to the theory that it's not found in semen and it's not easily spread in most one-on-one sexual situations. Gordo > Not even alone. > [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > >> > > >> > Gordo > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > Gordo Please disregard my earlier post. You obviously have done your homework and thought this one through, so I apologize for assuming that you hadn't. For the record, the only method of transmission that I have any real ugly feelings about is that of hospital-administered blood products. Now *that's* obscene. All the best, Waterspider >I got it through sexual contact. May 22, 2004. > > The guy I got it from has had it but been in denial about it, and I'm > afraid he's going to get sick fast from it. I guess you can't run other > people's lives. > Gordo Hm. Sexual transmission of hcv is an unproven theory. Blood-to-blood contact is required, and although that's possible during sex it's not that common. I'd be looking for other possibilities. Piercing? Tattoos? Dental work? Accident in an industrial setting? Sharing a razor, etc? Too bad about your friend though. I have a couple of friends, too, who are in denial, "I feel fine so I'm not gonna worry about anything, have another beer!" and it's so freakin' stupid I'd like to shake them. Oh well. Take care. Hope to see your photo in the Family Album. Waterspider > .. > >I got it through sexual contact. May 22, 2004. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Hm. Sexual transmission of hcv is an unproven theory. Blood-to-blood contact > is required, and although that's possible during sex it's not that common. WS - from all the reading I did when I first got HCV, I think this sums up best what's known: "The fact that people with more sex partners and other sexual risk factors have higher rates of HCV indicates that the disease can be sexually transmitted. On the other hand, if sexual transmission of HCV were common, we would expect to see many more new cases of the disease among people whose partners are HCV positive." (from hcvadvocate.org website) Without going into too many details, it was possible that we got it either from what we were doing sexually ("other sexual risk factors"), or from sharing a razor. In either case, it would have meant only the tiniest amount of blood being the culprit. There's no doubt when it was, who brought it, and who left with it, which is why other risk factors aren't really applicable. I'm not sure what I think about the ethics of someone who has testable levels of the virus having unprotected sex with someone who doesn't know the additional risk they're taking on. But I believe that unprotected sex for non-monogamously-coupled people is a bad thing in general. [...] > Too bad about your friend though. I have a couple of friends, too, who are > in denial, "I feel fine so I'm not gonna worry about anything, have another > beer!" and it's so freakin' stupid I'd like to shake them. Oh well. In this case, the guy is a real career-minded type and he recently moved to an island in the Caribbean to start his own business. His medical insurance is still states-based, and he knows that if he started tx he might not be able to give the new business the 24/7 attention it needs right now and he'd also have to come back to the states often for blood tests, etc. He knows he didn't have it as of 1999 but hadn't been tested since. It's most probable that he's now well out of the 6-month grace window of opportunity for >90% clearance with 24 weeks of treatment, but he's also HIV+ which means that instead of 10-20 years before he has liver damage, he might have as little as a year or two. > Take care. Hope to see your photo in the Family Album. I'm trying to find one that's appropriate :) Gordo There is NO documented case of Hep C being transmitted via sexual contact. All incidents are anecdotal. Not trying to be a downer just trying to keep it real. John >I got it through sexual contact. May 22, 2004. > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >> > >> > Gordo >There is NO documented case of Hep C being transmitted via sexual >contact. All incidents are anecdotal. >Not trying to be a downer just trying to keep it real. No documented cases of SPOUSAL transmission. The picture for multiple partners and high-risk sex is quite different. If I understand Gordo's explanation, his was both high-risk AND multi-partner. Not impossible to transmit that way at all. Thomas  SignatureTo reach me, complete my last name in the address. Impossible? Until I see it one case proven I'll believe the accepted opinion from the experts. Keep reaching my friend. Keep reaching. John (as I said just trying to keep it real) >>There is NO documented case of Hep C being transmitted via sexual >>contact. All incidents are anecdotal. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Thomas I am trying to write a response but I can't stop giggling. I was there, it was sex. Very good sex, in fact. 2 points: 1) People are kinkier than they let on, in general, so talking about the risks of only a subset of normal sexual activities isn't really doing the job right 2) Unless you injected someone with blood, it's impossible to really prove how they were infected. It's always a matter of deduction, hypothesis, and ruling out possibilities. I liked the quote I had this morning that was basically - there's an association between more sex partners and more Hep C, but it also seems to be hard for sexually active spouses to transmit it. Can't explain it yet. Seems to be contradictory, because it is. Until more is known, it's irresponsible to say that it's impossible. > Impossible? Until I see it one case proven I'll believe the accepted > opinion from the experts. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > > >Thomas Your first statement is silly and you know it. On the second you are telling the Hep C community that you know more than they do. The problem is you forget that people lie to save their self esteem. Not impossible. It just that is has never happened. John >I am trying to write a response but I can't stop giggling. > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] >> > >> >Thomas > Your first statement is silly and you know it. Silly that I know when I got it, and I know that I was having sex when I got it? What's silly is your insistence that I cannot tell the difference between having sex and not having sex. > On the second you are telling the Hep C community that you know more > than they do. The problem is you forget that people lie to save their > self esteem. "the Hep C community"? what the f.ck is "the Hep C community"? You're aware that you just called me a liar, right? I'm giggling again - why on earth would I admit to getting it sexually when I could lie and say I don't know, or there were no risk factors, or I got it from a mosquito bite? Until it's figured out why people with more sex partners have a higher incidence of HCV, it's just stupid to pretend that there's not some risk associated with sexual activity and not to protect yourself and others accordingly. > Not impossible. It just that is has never happened. > [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > >> > > >> >Thomas >> Your first statement is silly and you know it. > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >"the Hep C community"? what the f.ck is "the Hep C community"? The Hep C community is everyone from the doctors and nurses to the psychiatrist to the social worker and everyone in between who handles you case. It looks to me that you are unfamiliar with this so I wonder how much contact you actually have with the team. >You're aware that you just called me a liar, right? Yup. You wear it well. >I'm giggling again - why on earth would I admit to getting it sexually >when I could lie and say I don't know, or there were no risk factors, or [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >associated with sexual activity and not to protect yourself and others >accordingly. I already explained that but I'll do it again. People who have more sex partners also indulge in other high risk activities. Now this time write it down so I don't have to repeat it. John >> Not impossible. It just that is has never happened. >> [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] >> >> > >> >> >Thomas > Your first statement is silly and you know it. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > John Geeze, the guy gave you intimate details about his life and how he was infected, and it sounds very plausible. What more do you want? Is his doctor supposed to immediately run to the CDC and tell them he's got a case of sexual transmission? Like most doctors, I doubt he would even consider it. Usually people won't admit that they know how they were infected because they're embarrassed. Do you want him to just tell you he got it from a transfusion or a dirty razor to make you happy? Cut the guy a break already. I give Gordo full faith and credit for his honesty. He didn't have to tell anyone anything in the first place. jen >> Your first statement is silly and you know it. >> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > >jen You don't know much about the medical community I guess. A little background on me...I was a paramedic in California in the late 70's and I stayed in medicine for a total of nine years. And although I never got back into medicine it was still an interest and I kept up on medical advances and technology. And as with most of you this became more than a hobby when I was diagnosed. Now...when you are diagnosed with a communicable disease all sorts of reports have to be filled out and reported to the CDC and any number of other health agencies. This DOES INCLUDE method of transmission. This is entered in a national data base that is used to track the disease. So yes the doctor asked AND yes it was reported. Don't believe me? Ask your doctor. Granted I'm much more involved in my own case than most due to my experience but still all this is basic stuff you should have picked up from reading articles in the paper And now this...NO DOCTOR believes you got it through sex. If you are so insecure that he feels that calling you on your lie would cause you emotional problems then he would let it go but trust me he doesn't believe it. Some patients just can't handle the truth especially when they started the lie. Let's get this straight. You get Hep C from BLOOD PRODUCTS that are introduced INTO YOUR BLOOD SYSTEM. There is anecdotal evidence of the razor and toothbrush but no documented evidence of it happening. The same with blood on skin contact and spousal/significant other contact. Not once. Personally I have no time for liars. They spend more time making up new lies to cover up the old than they do actually getting something out of a group. I mean a real group. Face to face changes things and maybe some of you can't handle that so you hide here. Which brings up a good point. How many are taking part in a Hep C group? Did you have much trouble finding one? The nearest to me is 65 miles away. John <<snip>> > You don't know much about the medical community I guess. A little > background on me...I was a paramedic in California in the late 70's > and I stayed in medicine for a total of nine years. And although I > never got back into medicine it was still an interest and I kept up on > medical advances and technology. And as with most of you this became > more than a hobby when I was diagnosed.>> Pardon me... I was a medic (and volunteer firefighter) back in the day- when they called it Non-A, Non-B Hepatitis. I served with both paid and volunteer services, and don't need a lecture from another medic. When my husband was diagnosed it was reported to the health department, but he denied all risk factors. (He was infected at least 15 years prior by a dirty needle that he only confessed to way after treatment was over, and the doctor was never informed.) So according to your explanation, he must be one of those cases reported to the CDC with "no known risk factors". That skews the CDC's stats as well as the doctor's records, doesn't it? > Now...when you are diagnosed with a communicable disease all sorts of > reports have to be filled out and reported to the CDC and any number [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > John You appear to have a serious case of tunnel vision. That'll be $20, please. jen So..you scream that a doctor doesn't inform anyone of the cause of this disease and then when it's brought up that it is reported you....ignore it? Real nice, If Gordo's doctor had determined that he had got Hep C via sexual contact then he would have reported it that way. Actually I'm still not sure how I got it. I had an appendectomy in '75 and received "blood products" during the operation. The medical records were lost in a fire so all they have are a couple of nurses notes left. I got stuck I don't know how many times trying to start IVs and I even used IV drugs but that can't be the cause. It's on my records that I used them but we're sure that isn't it. And while in California (US Army) I probably had sex with 30 different girls. THAT was not the cause. Couldn't be because it can't happen. Does it skew the CDC records? Hell no. It's reported correctly. I have no idea why you think that skews anything. John ><<snip>> >> You don't know much about the medical community I guess. A little [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > >jen >Does it skew the CDC records? Hell no. It's reported correctly. I have >no idea why you think that skews anything. > >John According to the CDC only 30% of cases are reported with extended case investigation data( e.g., clinical characteristics, exposure history) http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/diseases/hepatitis/resource/PDFs/hep_surveillanc e_59.pdf Now if the CDC is missing 70% of this extended data, how can you claim knowledge of exposure history for anyone? > So..you scream that a doctor doesn't inform anyone of the cause of > this disease and then when it's brought up that it is reported > you....ignore it? > Real nice,>> At the risk of answering the call of a net-loon, d00d- the gastro didn't even do a genotype on him. Said it didn't matter- either he would respond to treatment or he wouldn't. He did respond, has SVR for 4 years and has never heard from the gastro since. He gets tested by his regular doctor now. So even if the gastro bothered to report it, which I doubt, he would have reported it as...what? A case with no known risk factors, because he refused to admit to a dirty needle. You have basically said that doctors will take the liberty of reporting whatever mode of transmission they like if they don't "believe" your account. I take issue with that. jen > If Gordo's doctor had determined that he had got Hep C via sexual > contact then he would have reported it that way. Actually I'm still [quoted text clipped - 63 lines] > > > >jen >At the risk of answering the call of a net-loon, You are. Here's what the CDC actually says about their database: "In addition, 15%-20% of patients with acute hepatitis C who have been reported to CDC's sentinel counties surveillance system, have a history of sexual exposure in the absence of other risk factors. Two thirds of these have an anti-HCV-positive sex partner, and one third reported greater than 2 partners in the 6 months before illness." http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00055154.htm Guess why John refused to provide documentation for his claim... Thomas SignatureTo reach me, complete my last name in the address. >I am trying to write a response but I can't stop giggling. > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >it yet. Seems to be contradictory, because it is. Until more is known, >it's irresponsible to say that it's impossible. Because it's bullshit. I've already explained it and if you would talk to a doctor he would to. But...as I said if you are one of those who are in denial then there is no hope for you. John >> Impossible? Until I see it one case proven I'll believe the accepted >> opinion from the experts. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >> > >> >Thomas > >I am trying to write a response but I can't stop giggling. > > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Because it's bullshit. I've already explained it and if you would talk > to a doctor he would to. Just wanted to clarify that the belief that this was sexual transmission was a joint decision that included three different doctors. What's so funny here is that everyone involved with this understands how this specific group of people doing specific sexual things in a specific order could result in blood-to-blood contact. It's like it's not comprehensible to you that "sex" covers a delightfully wide range of activities each with different risk factors for HCV transmission. Nothing in this particular case provides any challenge to the hypothesis that monogamous couples are at low risk of passing it. Gordo Not one reported case. The doctors don't believe you and it wasn't reported that way. Are you know screaming that it was an S&M related blood/blood contact? That isn't sex. Not by the longest stretch of the imagination. John >> >I am trying to write a response but I can't stop giggling. >> > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > >Gordo >Impossible? Until I see it one case proven I'll believe the accepted >opinion from the experts. >Keep reaching my friend. Keep reaching. > >John >(as I said just trying to keep it real) You're disqualifying yourself with your statements. You have ZERO backing from the real experts on your claims, you're simply posturing. You continue to confuse monogamous "vanilla" sex with polygamous anal penetration, which has a completely different potential for allowing blood-to-blood contact. There have been several publications, including from the NIH, that warn about possible sexual transmission when multiple sex partners and "rough" sex are involved. Overview: HCV Sexual Transmission --MSM & Heterosexual http://www.natap.org/2003/EACS/day1_3.htm Risky Sex Practices That May Increase Risk for Getting HCV Among Men Who Have Sex With Men http://www.natap.org/2001/8thcroi/riskysex022601.htm What exactly is your agenda? Keeping it "real" certainly isn't. Thomas SignatureTo reach me, complete my last name in the address. >>Impossible? Until I see it one case proven I'll believe the accepted >>opinion from the experts. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >from the NIH, that warn about possible sexual transmission when multiple >sex partners and "rough" sex are involved. Nope. Not one case. Show me where I'm wrong. Or..ask your doctor. Form my side feel free to contact the Liver Transplant Board at UAB and use my name. Warned? Yes. My doctor explained (although it really wasn't necessary) that we should abstain from ANY activity that would allow my blood to come in contact with her in any way which would include anal sex. And although a condom reduces the chances it is still not fool proof. And that's proven by the fool in here. Now...exactly what point were you trying to make? John >Overview: HCV Sexual Transmission --MSM & Heterosexual >http://www.natap.org/2003/EACS/day1_3.htm [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Thomas >>There is NO documented case of Hep C being transmitted via sexual >>contact. All incidents are anecdotal. >>Not trying to be a downer just trying to keep it real. > > No documented cases of SPOUSAL transmission. <snip> And no documented cases of NON-SPOUSAL sexual transmission. Just thought I'd clarify that. WS > >>There is NO documented case of Hep C being transmitted via sexual > >>contact. All incidents are anecdotal. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > And no documented cases of NON-SPOUSAL sexual transmission. Just thought I'd > clarify that. I'm gonna take issue with your use of "documented". Like I said, unless you got it from a recorded blood tranfusion where a sample of the blood can be tested, there is no way to prove how you got it. Especially so if it was 10-20 years ago. So there's a lot of probables, with not a lot of definites. In my case, we have medical histories before the event, we know when the event was, we know what we did SEXUALLY that could have passed small amounts of blood, and we know that two people got infected and that one person already was infected. We know that we did nothing else that night that is a known risk. Outside of my particular specifics, one has to deal with *both* facts - the long-term monogamous partners vs an association between being sexually active with multiple partners and an increased risk of HCV. It's a pretty basic deduction that until proven otherwise, that association is most obviously explained by sexual transmission. Until that is explained away, it's not really fair to say that there are no documented cases of sexual transmission. >> >>There is NO documented case of Hep C being transmitted via sexual >> >>contact. All incidents are anecdotal. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >that is explained away, it's not really fair to say that there are no >documented cases of sexual transmission. The statement is good enough for the Hep C community. It's just you fighting it. John >> > On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 17:53:38 -0500, Lookout >> > <Lookout@NOSPAMcableone.net> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > I'm gonna take issue with your use of "documented". It's the word to use when discussing evidence beyond hearsay. Like I said, unless > you got it from a recorded blood tranfusion where a sample of the blood > can be tested, there is no way to prove how you got it. Blood-to-blood contact can be proven, and has been proven, in cases of piercing, tattooing, mass innoculations and minor surgeries such as dental work where instruments were not properly cleaned. Especially so > if it was 10-20 years ago. So there's a lot of probables, with not a > lot of definites. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > person already was infected. We know that we did nothing else that > night that is a known risk. So then you acquired HCV by blood-to-blood contact. Because the contact occurred during a sexual act doesn't make hep c a sexually transmittable disease. > Outside of my particular specifics, one has to deal with *both* facts - > the long-term monogamous partners vs an association between being > sexually active with multiple partners and an increased risk of HCV. Using that logic, one could "prove" that drinking milk as a baby causes heroin addiction. > It's a pretty basic deduction that until proven otherwise, that > association is most obviously explained by sexual transmission. Until > that is explained away, it's not really fair to say that there are no > documented cases of sexual transmission. It may not seem fair, but it's factual. Waterspider >So then you acquired HCV by blood-to-blood contact. Because the contact >occurred during a sexual act doesn't make hep c a sexually transmittable >disease. Which nobody ever claimed. PUHLEEASE, WS, look at the thread, and the company you keep. All Gordo said was that he got it during sex. He never called HCV a sexually transmitted disease. What John is doing, however, is calling Gordo a liar for stating the facts about how he was infected. Are you supporting that? I sure hope not. That risky sexual practices, especially among homosexual men, are a potential vector of HCV infection can hardly be disputed given the NATAP report I cited (and several other sources, try Google). In case you overlooked it, here it is again: http://www.natap.org/2003/EACS/day1_3.htm. One quote: "50% of the HCV+ men reported never using injection drugs, and among them insertive fisting and oral-anal contact were significant risk factors for being HCV+. The authors concluded that 'specific sex practices that might include the exchange of blood' may increase the risk for acquiring HCV." >> It's a pretty basic deduction that until proven otherwise, that >> association is most obviously explained by sexual transmission. Until >> that is explained away, it's not really fair to say that there are no >> documented cases of sexual transmission. > >It may not seem fair, but it's factual. Your conclusion is nonsensical. There is no way to definitively prove how a virus was transmitted. But since Gordo's case is documented, and his transmission was during sex (which by definition makes it a case of sexual transmission), there now is at least one documented case of sexual transmission of HCV. But let's be real, John has no proof whatsoever that there was no documented case before. Given the published reports, that claim is dubious to say the least, and more probably simply a lie. That STILL doesn't make HCV a sexually transmittable disease, because it surely is not among "Infections transmitted primarily by sexual contact" (the definition of an STD). Thomas SignatureTo reach me, complete my last name in the address. > >So then you acquired HCV by blood-to-blood contact. Because the contact > >occurred during a sexual act doesn't make hep c a sexually transmittable [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > surely is not among "Infections transmitted primarily by sexual contact" > (the definition of an STD). Um, I was saying that HCV wasn't a sexually transmittable disease, but you said at the beginning of your reply that we weren't talking about HCV being a sexually transmittable disease. Just what are we disagreeing about here? I do enjoy a debate with you, Thomas, but it's more fun (at least for me) if I know what we're debating. <g> Waterspider >Um, I was saying that HCV wasn't a sexually transmittable disease, but you >said at the beginning of your reply that we weren't talking about HCV being >a sexually transmittable disease. Just what are we disagreeing about here? I >do enjoy a debate with you, Thomas, but it's more fun (at least for me) if I >know what we're debating. <g> The difference between an STD (a disease primarily transmitted by sexual contact) and a disease that under certain circumstances can be transmitted by sex. Unfortunately, a confusion arises out of the slight difference between "transmittable" and "transmitted". My last paragraph, as Gordo pointed out, should have used "transmitted" instead of "transmittable". And since you used "transmittable", not "transmitted" in your post, my criticism was misplaced - both Gordo and I actually DO claim that HCV is sexually transmittABLE, although I would use different wording (the closeness threw me). However, the rest of the argument stays the same - you and John claim (without citing sources other than an anonymous doctor) that HCV can absolutely not be sexually transmitted, and that no documented case exists. But several publications refer to cases that obviously are documented enough for researchers to count them. Hmmm... It also makes no sense to argue against the possibility of sexual transmission of HCV by simply redefining sex to exclude any activity that could transmit HCV. You have sex in any way, shape, or form, you become infected, that's sexual transmission. Again I have to refer you to the NATAP report, which summarizes the current thinking of actual doctors and researchers about this topic quite well, and is far from the only report citing infection risks of certain sexual practices. Those practices may not be what is considered "mainstream", and they're surely far from "vanilla", but they're still sex. Although if you ask Bill Clinton, maybe they're not... ;-) Thomas SignatureTo reach me, complete my last name in the address. Let's try it this way. If you are shooting up Heroin WHILE having sex does that make it transmitted or transmittable? Neither. Thank you. John >>Um, I was saying that HCV wasn't a sexually transmittable disease, but you >>said at the beginning of your reply that we weren't talking about HCV being [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > >Thomas [....] > That STILL doesn't make HCV a sexually transmittable disease, because it > surely is not among "Infections transmitted primarily by sexual contact" > (the definition of an STD). I think you mean to say that HCV is not a "sexually transmitted disease" based on it not being primary. It is certainly sexually transmittable. > .. > > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > piercing, tattooing, mass innoculations and minor surgeries such as dental > work where instruments were not properly cleaned. But aren't those almost all based on deduction and inference, and not on - for example - testing of the tattoo gun needle that was used to give the infected person the tattoo? 50% of a dentist's patients turn up positive for HCV. Numerous people report getting piercings at the same shop. Sometimes you could find contaminated equipment but even then it's after the fact. So you're putting together enough circumstantial evidence to support a hypothesis. That's my point - that we've got a lot of circumstantial and anecdotal information to try to make informed decisions from, and some of it is contradictory, even. > Especially so > > if it was 10-20 years ago. So there's a lot of probables, with not a [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > occurred during a sexual act doesn't make hep c a sexually transmittable > disease. Lady, I am so not needing to hear yet again that what I do to get off is not "sex" because "sex" is a man ejaculating into a woman, period. There are a lot of different sex acts. There are innumerable combinations of ways people find to arouse themselves. Look at what you wrote: > Because the contact > occurred during a sexual act doesn't make hep c a sexually transmittable > disease I think that getting people the information they need to keep themselves safe and healthy is important. Knowing that there is an increase in the number of HCV cases in sexually active people, it's irresponsible to define what they do as not part of the "sexual" in "sexually transmittable". > > Outside of my particular specifics, one has to deal with *both* facts - > > the long-term monogamous partners vs an association between being > > sexually active with multiple partners and an increased risk of HCV. > > Using that logic, one could "prove" that drinking milk as a baby causes > heroin addiction. If you want to be ridiculous about it. I wasn't trying to "prove" anything. I way saying: this is what's currently known. Think about how it might apply to you, and make informed decisions. > > It's a pretty basic deduction that until proven otherwise, that > > association is most obviously explained by sexual transmission. Until > > that is explained away, it's not really fair to say that there are no > > documented cases of sexual transmission. > > It may not seem fair, but it's factual. If you define any sex act that might be at risk of passing blood as not really being sex, then you're done, there's nothing to talk about. >> .. >> > [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > lot of circumstantial and anecdotal information to try to make informed > decisions from, and some of it is contradictory, even. Agreed. >> Especially so >> > if it was 10-20 years ago. So there's a lot of probables, with not a [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Lady, I am so not needing to hear yet again that what I do to get off is > not "sex" because "sex" is a man ejaculating into a woman, period. Whoa! You're hearing something way different than what I wrote. I simply do not care how you (or anyone else) gets their rocks off, but I find it disturbing when people refer to hep c as a sexually transmittable disease. > There are a lot of different sex acts. There are innumerable > combinations of ways people find to arouse themselves. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I think that getting people the information they need to keep themselves > safe and healthy is important. It's important that the information is accurate. It's dishonest for a medical professional, or anyone else, to tell a hep c patient that his disease is sexually transmittable, and this happens frequently under the umbrella of "harm prevention." Knowing that there is an increase in the > number of HCV cases in sexually active people, it's irresponsible to > define what they do as not part of the "sexual" in "sexually > transmittable". I'm not dismissing anyone's sexuality, I'm saying that hep c has not been proven to be a sexually transmittable disease and therefore shouldn't be called such. >> > Outside of my particular specifics, one has to deal with *both* facts - >> > the long-term monogamous partners vs an association between being [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > If you want to be ridiculous about it. I wasn't trying to "prove" > anything. I way saying: this is what's currently known. How can something be known if it can't be proven? Think about > how it might apply to you, and make informed decisions. Not sure where you're heading with this one. Please explain. >> > It's a pretty basic deduction that until proven otherwise, that >> > association is most obviously explained by sexual transmission. Until [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > If you define any sex act that might be at risk of passing blood as not > really being sex, then you're done, there's nothing to talk about. Gordo, you truly miss my point on this one, sorry. Waterspider > .. > > [quoted text clipped - 80 lines] > disease is sexually transmittable, and this happens frequently under the > umbrella of "harm prevention." WS, I just am not following. If a disease is passed during sex, and would not have been passed by the same people in the same proximity if they were not having sex, then how do you define "sexually transmittable" to exclude it? It's dishonest for a doctor to not tell a patient with active Hep C that there is an association between more sexual partners and getting Hep C. Because there is. Just because the details of which specific sex acts are more risky and which are not are not known doesn't mean people shouldn't be concerned. > Knowing that there is an increase in the > > number of HCV cases in sexually active people, it's irresponsible to [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > proven to be a sexually transmittable disease and therefore shouldn't be > called such. I was one of two people who got it from another while having sex. There were no other risk factors or activities. [....] > Think about > > how it might apply to you, and make informed decisions. > > Not sure where you're heading with this one. Please explain. Based on what's known - and most of it is based on reporting and anecdotes - if I was in a monogamous relationship and found out I had had chronic HCV for years, I could reasonably make the decision to not start using protection. If, on the other hand, I was sexually active with mulitiple partners what's knonw is that I probably have a higher risk of getting it or spreading it. Informed decisions. Not telling people all the information is just wrong. > >> > It's a pretty basic deduction that until proven otherwise, that > >> > association is most obviously explained by sexual transmission. Until [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Gordo, you truly miss my point on this one, sorry. Then explain to me what definition of "sex" you are using? > Waterspider Bottom line: If HCV WAS a transmitted OR transmittable disease during sex then all patients would be told to abstain from sex with anyone. Not only is it not they don't even tell you to use protection for oral and vaginal contact and only some physicians even mention anal. That's clear enough for me. John >>> .. >>> > [quoted text clipped - 115 lines] > >Waterspider >>There is NO documented case of Hep C being transmitted via sexual >>contact. All incidents are anecdotal. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Thomas Really? Show us one case. John >Really? Show us one case. See the reports I cited for strong evidence of sexual transmission. Now show us your source for the claim that no such case exists. Well? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence... Thomas SignatureTo reach me, complete my last name in the address. >>Really? Show us one case. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence... >Thomas Ask your doctor. I have. John >Ask your doctor. I have. And your doctor is all-knowing. Riiight... Why do I even bother? Thomas SignatureTo reach me, complete my last name in the address. >>Ask your doctor. I have. > >And your doctor is all-knowing. Riiight... > >Why do I even bother? >Thomas He was quoting the official position of the CDC. Why even bother. I've been right from my first post. John >He was quoting the official position of the CDC. >Why even bother. I've been right from my first post. What utter nonsense. You've been lying from your first post, you're lying with your last. There is no "official position of the CDC" that would claim that there is no case of sexually transmitted HCV. You simply made that up. If not, show us the proof. An official position of the CDC must be published. So, where is that document? Expecting more hot air but not a single shred of proof... Thomas SignatureTo reach me, complete my last name in the address. >>He was quoting the official position of the CDC. >>Why even bother. I've been right from my first post. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >Expecting more hot air but not a single shred of proof... >Thomas Keep trolling. It's a fact. John >Keep trolling. It's a fact. Yep, more hot air. How predictable. Thomas SignatureTo reach me, complete my last name in the address. >Any comments, thoughts regarding the following article about 20 percent of >hep-c infected folks spontaneously healing? That number is ONLY for people who are freshly infected and can fight it off within the first few months. Once it's past 6 months, you're chronic, and then the rate of spontaneous healing is about 0.0000001%. Your chances of being hit by lightning are better than that. > I was told that my genotype is >1a, the hardest to respond to treatment, the hardest to heal. Yeah, well, but your chance for a cure is still better than 50%. Not that bad after all. And some studies have seen clearance rates much higher than that. > I am >considering forgoing treatment to avoid all those nasty side effects only to >be told to stop treatment when my body starts bleeding Your friend is an exception, not the rule. It's understandable that you're scared, but get a grip. You've been posting to this group since May, you've read the reports from the people here. Some had to give up early, including me - but I still cleared the virus, and I'm genotype 1. And most people managed to muddle through treatment without major (i.e. really damaging instead of just annoying) side effects. >and generally going >whacko from all those horrible side effects when I'll most likely have to >stop treatment anyway because of my difficult genotype, 1a. Anyone ever hear >of a 1a genotype killing the dragon from successful treatment? Well, yeah, me, for example. And Elmo. And a lot of others. Thomas SignatureTo reach me, complete my last name in the address. Your chances of being hit by lightning are better than that. Thomas Signature//////////// I'm gonna go out and stand on top of the nearest big hill without trees waving a golf club over my head during the next big thunderstorm to see if I can get hit by lightening. Anyone want to bet their boogers on it? Elmo http://community.webtv.net/elmoemerson/DocElmosHepFile > Your chances of being hit by lightning are better than that. >Thomas You mean Namoi Judd Syndrome? That's where jesus cures you!! John |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.