How about if I post some death statistics and tell a few F-0s that they must insist on tx now because it is a matter of their life or death. Apparently that is good for the forum but confronting it is not.
Does admin even care about the direction this forum has taken or are we not allowed to discuss that?
Isiscat...you know very well that the Admin team cares very much about what is happening to this forum, and that is a very unfair and unwarranted question. And since you insist on bringing this out in the open I would also like to add that in all the time I`ve been involved with this forum I have never before seen such levels of confrontation and aggression. Please remember that your opinions are not the only ones that count here.
We hold back from interfering and censoring as much as possible in order to allow the free flow of discussions but you must remember that everyone here is entitled to express their feelings and views, even if you personally don`t agree with them.
Harvoninme...I do agree that this topic wasn`t very appropriate for this forum, especially in the way it was presented. Please bear that in mind with your future posts.
I`m now closing this thread...yet again a discussion has been ruined because of personal agendas and aggressive attitudes.
Jill (Administrator)
LC said
Dec 2, 2014
The more people dying, the bigger the wallets the insurance fat-cats have to treat the rest of us. So we need to get tested before we have ruined our livers, and treatment comes too late to do us any good. Makes good, good sense to me. There is always a sunny-side, so I shall choose to look at this positively in the interest of peace and harmony.
Isiscat2011 said
Dec 2, 2014
If this thread was really started to discuss the positives of testing people for HCV it would not have been titled "Grim News." This thread was about dying of HCV which is a new low for this forum.
It was also about everyone getting Harvoni as soon as they want it because that is, once again, the thread's real agenda. Just read the last line in the original post:
"The health impact of advances in HCV therapy can be realized only when HCV-infected persons are tested, identified, and linked to appropriate care and treatment..."
What is really too bad is the personal agendas that have engulfed this forum. Very sad.
LC said
Dec 2, 2014
Tess wrote:
The gist of the original message is that people born between 1945 and 1965 should be tested. It could save 120,000 lives.
I have been after a few of my loved ones in that age group to get tested. Now I have some stats to give them.
Too bad the thread went negative and the topic wasn't discussed.
Thanks for the info.
- Tess
So the topic of the article linked is - Fewer Americans are living with hepatitis C, because more have died. Maybe we should go ahead and discuss the positives of this worthwhile topic that so no one is diappointed. So what does that mean to us still living? I guess that means more Harvoni for the rest of us then doesn't it?
-- Edited by LC on Tuesday 2nd of December 2014 07:18:07 AM
Tess said
Dec 2, 2014
The gist of the original message is that people born between 1945 and 1965 should be tested. It could save 120,000 lives.
I have been after a few of my loved ones in that age group to get tested. Now I have some stats to give them.
Too bad the thread went negative and the topic wasn't discussed.
Thanks for the info.
- Tess
lilbit said
Dec 2, 2014
Sheesh why does everything have to turn into a fight. Maybe they should open a thread, give everyone boxing gloves and let them duke it out. Get everything out of their systems. Then maybe it can turn back into support and information.
Isiscat2011 said
Dec 2, 2014
LC wrote:
Yeah, I know I like reading grim news about HCV.
How about if I post some death statistics and tell a few F-0s that they must insist on tx now because it is a matter of their life or death. Apparently that is good for the forum but confronting it is not.
Does admin even care about the direction this forum has taken or are we not allowed to discuss that?
LC said
Dec 2, 2014
Yeah, I know I like reading grim news about HCV.
mallani said
Dec 2, 2014
Guys,
What's happened to the Forum while I've been away.
I see a lot of sniping, sarcasm and belittling.
Please keep it civil.
hrsetrdr said
Dec 1, 2014
Isiscat2011 wrote:
Nice.
The cirrhotics here already know HCV can kill them (but thanks for reminding all of us).
Clearly you intended to frighten someone other than those with advanced liver disease with this but I'm sure you know very well that they are not at risk of dying from HCV.
This confrontational style is not consistent with the standards we strive to uphold on this forum, and will not continue.
"Overall, 81% of all people with chronic hepatitis C were born between 1945 and 1965. This is why the CDC recommends that all people born during that window get tested at least once. Such screening would flag about 800,000 people who otherwise wouldnt know they were infected; if all of them got treatment, an estimated 120,000 deaths due to HCV could be avoided, the researchers wrote.
The health impact of advances in HCV therapy can be realized only when HCV-infected persons are tested, identified, and linked to appropriate care and treatment, they wrote."
This does not surprise me. My generation mostly didn't do drugs. Alcohol was all we wanted. Pot, cocaine, heroin were not readily available when we were 18-25 y.o.'s.
You can look at all the surveys but probably 80% of HCV cases came from IV drug use. Tainted blood and blood products, vaccination air guns, tattoos etc. probably accounted for another 10%. The remaining 10% will never know where their HCV came from.
Most new cases today would be from IV drug use, IMHO. Cheers.
Isiscat2011 said
Dec 1, 2014
Harvoninme wrote:
I find this interesting: 81% of all people with chronic hepatitis C were born between 1945 and 1965
Are there really that many fewer folks engaging in high risk activities now? What about tatts? Has AIDs education curtailed the spread? Was the blood supply a bit more tainted than the powers that be care to admit? Or is that demographic just the largest at this time?
The powers that be are now admitting that half of the HCV infections did not come from drug activity. I recall when that number was much smaller, and I expect it will become smaller still as the need to stigmatize HCV dissipates, with the availability of good tx.
HCV was spread through the medical and military industries before people were aware of it. Now both take better precautions. Nowadays IV drug use is the most likely avenue for transmission (estimated 75% of all new cases) because the previous methods of infection have been cleaned up. We see pockets where patients are exposed--like that Vegas dentist who went to prison--but health care workers and the military take more appropriate precautions now. Tatts are still a significant method of transmission in the prison population but most tattoo parlors are well aware of the risks.
I would think there are just as many or more people using IV drugs now as ever but I haven't studied the stats.
Harvoninme said
Dec 1, 2014
I find this interesting: 81% of all people with chronic hepatitis C were born between 1945 and 1965
Are there really that many fewer folks engaging in high risk activities now? What about tatts? Has AIDs education curtailed the spread? Was the blood supply a bit more tainted than the powers that be care to admit? Or is that demographic just the largest at this time?
Isiscat2011 said
Dec 1, 2014
Nice.
The cirrhotics here already know HCV can kill them (but thanks for reminding all of us).
Clearly you intended to frighten someone other than those with advanced liver disease with this but I'm sure you know very well that they are not at risk of dying from HCV.
"Overall, 81% of all people with chronic hepatitis C were born between 1945 and 1965. This is why the CDC recommends that all people born during that window get tested at least once. Such screening would flag about 800,000 people who otherwise wouldnt know they were infected; if all of them got treatment, an estimated 120,000 deaths due to HCV could be avoided, the researchers wrote.
The health impact of advances in HCV therapy can be realized only when HCV-infected persons are tested, identified, and linked to appropriate care and treatment, they wrote."
Isiscat...you know very well that the Admin team cares very much about what is happening to this forum, and that is a very unfair and unwarranted question. And since you insist on bringing this out in the open I would also like to add that in all the time I`ve been involved with this forum I have never before seen such levels of confrontation and aggression. Please remember that your opinions are not the only ones that count here.
We hold back from interfering and censoring as much as possible in order to allow the free flow of discussions but you must remember that everyone here is entitled to express their feelings and views, even if you personally don`t agree with them.
Harvoninme...I do agree that this topic wasn`t very appropriate for this forum, especially in the way it was presented. Please bear that in mind with your future posts.
I`m now closing this thread...yet again a discussion has been ruined because of personal agendas and aggressive attitudes.
Jill (Administrator)
The more people dying, the bigger the wallets the insurance fat-cats have to treat the rest of us. So we need to get tested before we have ruined our livers, and treatment comes too late to do us any good. Makes good, good sense to me. There is always a sunny-side, so I shall choose to look at this positively in the interest of peace and harmony.
If this thread was really started to discuss the positives of testing people for HCV it would not have been titled "Grim News." This thread was about dying of HCV which is a new low for this forum.
It was also about everyone getting Harvoni as soon as they want it because that is, once again, the thread's real agenda. Just read the last line in the original post:
"The health impact of advances in HCV therapy can be realized only when HCV-infected persons are tested, identified, and linked to appropriate care and treatment..."
What is really too bad is the personal agendas that have engulfed this forum. Very sad.
So the topic of the article linked is - Fewer Americans are living with hepatitis C, because more have died. Maybe we should go ahead and discuss the positives of this worthwhile topic that so no one is diappointed. So what does that mean to us still living? I guess that means more Harvoni for the rest of us then doesn't it?
-- Edited by LC on Tuesday 2nd of December 2014 07:18:07 AM
The gist of the original message is that people born between 1945 and 1965 should be tested. It could save 120,000 lives.
I have been after a few of my loved ones in that age group to get tested. Now I have some stats to give them.
Too bad the thread went negative and the topic wasn't discussed.
Thanks for the info.
- Tess
How about if I post some death statistics and tell a few F-0s that they must insist on tx now because it is a matter of their life or death. Apparently that is good for the forum but confronting it is not.
Does admin even care about the direction this forum has taken or are we not allowed to discuss that?
Guys,
What's happened to the Forum while I've been away.
I see a lot of sniping, sarcasm and belittling.
Please keep it civil.
This confrontational style is not consistent with the standards we strive to uphold on this forum, and will not continue.
The Admin Team
This does not surprise me. My generation mostly didn't do drugs. Alcohol was all we wanted. Pot, cocaine, heroin were not readily available when we were 18-25 y.o.'s.
You can look at all the surveys but probably 80% of HCV cases came from IV drug use. Tainted blood and blood products, vaccination air guns, tattoos etc. probably accounted for another 10%. The remaining 10% will never know where their HCV came from.
Most new cases today would be from IV drug use, IMHO. Cheers.
The powers that be are now admitting that half of the HCV infections did not come from drug activity. I recall when that number was much smaller, and I expect it will become smaller still as the need to stigmatize HCV dissipates, with the availability of good tx.
HCV was spread through the medical and military industries before people were aware of it. Now both take better precautions. Nowadays IV drug use is the most likely avenue for transmission (estimated 75% of all new cases) because the previous methods of infection have been cleaned up. We see pockets where patients are exposed--like that Vegas dentist who went to prison--but health care workers and the military take more appropriate precautions now. Tatts are still a significant method of transmission in the prison population but most tattoo parlors are well aware of the risks.
I would think there are just as many or more people using IV drugs now as ever but I haven't studied the stats.
I find this interesting: 81% of all people with chronic hepatitis C were born between 1945 and 1965
Are there really that many fewer folks engaging in high risk activities now? What about tatts? Has AIDs education curtailed the spread? Was the blood supply a bit more tainted than the powers that be care to admit? Or is that demographic just the largest at this time?
Nice.
The cirrhotics here already know HCV can kill them (but thanks for reminding all of us).
Clearly you intended to frighten someone other than those with advanced liver disease with this but I'm sure you know very well that they are not at risk of dying from HCV.
Fewer Americans are living with hepatitis C, because more have diedMarch 03, 2014|By Karen Kaplan
Interesting sniptistics from the article:
"Overall, 81% of all people with chronic hepatitis C were born between 1945 and 1965. This is why the CDC recommends that all people born during that window get tested at least once. Such screening would flag about 800,000 people who otherwise wouldnt know they were infected; if all of them got treatment, an estimated 120,000 deaths due to HCV could be avoided, the researchers wrote.
The health impact of advances in HCV therapy can be realized only when HCV-infected persons are tested, identified, and linked to appropriate care and treatment, they wrote."