Hep C is getting a lot of attention now due to the newer treatments, but the reality is that most patients with Hep C will die with Hep C rather than from Hep C. Statistically, it's not generally a huge problem for most people with it. Our livers regenerate and assuming you're not also an alcoholic, in most cases you can live with Hep C for decades without it adversely affecting your health. Until recently the treatments were often worse than the condition for most patients. The newer treatments have fewer side effects and are generally more effective, but also insanely expensive.
The government (CDC, FDA, NIH and others) were pretty negligent when it came to blood safety until HIV emerged on the scene. Blood product purification methods (detergent and heat treating) had been developed in the 1930's-1950's, but the government felt that the risk was small enough to not justify the use of such practices to ensure a safe blood supply. Instead they established data collection centers for those at high risk of being contaminated (hemophiliacs among them) where they could monitor their health and use them as the "canaries in the coal mines" so when they started to die or develop issues they'd know there was a more widespread problem and decide to address it or not.
When HIV came along it defied their thinking on how a blood born pathogen would emerge. The long incubation time of HIV (seven years or more) gave it time to spread widely before the government could take action to slow the spread. By then the clotting factor used by hemophiliacs was being made from lots of pooled plasma containing ten thousand to a hundred thousand units of plasma. Pretty much every hemophiliac who used clotting factor before the mid eighties was exposed to the whole gamut of the hepatitis family and HIV simply due to the size fo the plasma pools and the lack of any protective action to deactivate any active pathogens in the plasma. Once it was evident that the HIV virus was being spread through the plasma pools the government finally relented and approved the treatment methods that had been developed back in the 30's-50's.
How dangerous is Hep C? It depends on who you ask. If you're not constantly re-exposing yourself by sharing used syringes, you don't drink, don't smoke, you don't use much in the way of drugs (legal or otherwise) and you don't do a lot to stress out your liver, you'll more likely die with Hep C than from Hep C. Your body will be in a constant fight with Hep C where your body will recognize the virus and fight it off, only to have the virus evolve into a new form that surges back forward a bit until your body launches a new counterattack that knocks it back down. If you get especially unlucky and either get, or have your virus evolve into an especially aggressive version that gets the upper hold, then things could get messier for you, but in the majority of cases most people just cruise through life with Hep C and don't die from it.
Just to give it some perspective, one in three hundred Americans are said to have Hep C and deaths from it aren't exactly front page news. If they were dying at a large rate, it would be in the news a whole lot more than it is. Lifestyle plays a big role in liver health. Alcohol consumption, smoking, and drug use (legal or illegal) will stress your liver and can cause you significant issues if you also have Hep C, but they can also cause significant health issues even if you don't.
Much of the talk of Hep C is now driven by the drug companies who want all of those Americans with the virus to take their newest treatment. It's not necessarily what's in the best interest of the virus carriers as it's in the best interest of the drug company's bottom line. If you have Hep C monitoring it is wise, but in most cases, most people die with Hep C rather than from Hep C.
Fly!!! Eagles!!! Fly!!!
Blogs & Forums
