No, that would be, hmmm, let's see, ICKY!

Going to bed now.

Prepare for a bit O snow tomorrow.

I am planning on doing this once it just about killed my ass

The insignificance of viral load makes it hard for me to understand why so much importance is put on it when on treatments. Even if you show SVR, it doesn't always mean the virus is gone. How many people have been SVR, only to show viral load again later. I'm not getting something.

You guys need to read the entire article before you start talking about hypothesizing anything!

Here's the article's important points but nevertheless, re-read the article again please:

Inspection of the clearance equation makes clear that the most
effective treatment regime would be one of continuous treatment
(hemopurification) for as long a period of time as is safe.

In continuous renal replacement therapy, commonly used to treat acute kidney failure, hemodialysis therapy is typically maintained for up to 24 h and has been used for up to 40 days on a single patient.

By analogy, for continuous affinity plasmapheresis treatment, it
is reasonable to suppose that a similar time frame for treatment
would be safe.

In order to model the combination of the techniques, we needed
an expression that combines exponential decay functions, one
clearance rate for the drug treatment (k) and one for the device
treatment (c). The combined expression is given by C = C o e (k + c)t , where k = HCV virus daily clearance rate during treatment with pegylated IFN + ribavirin and c = HCV daily clearance rate during continuous hemodialysis of HCV dialysis patients and C o = initial viral load in international units per milliliter.

Using this formulation allows us to calculate the effect of combining continuous lectin affinity hemodialysis with standard-of-care HCV treatment in patients and compare it to the pattern for drug treatment alone. For the purposes of this discussion, the comparison applies primarily to a single continuous LAP treatment in combination with drug therapy where both mechanisms are operating.

Results and Discussion

The regimen we envision proposes continuous hemopurification
to rapidly reduce HCV viral load for the first week of standard-of-care treatment with pegylated IFN and ribavirin [2] .
A similar approach developed by Asahi has recently been reported to improve sustained viral response outcomes from 50% without double-filtration plasmapheresis (DFPP) to 78% in genotype 1 HCV patients when DFPP is used in conjunction with ribavirin and pegylated IFN [12, 13] .
In DFPP, plasma from venous blood is obtained from the patient and cleared of virus particles by ultrafiltration. In this study, an average of 3 treatments were given for 3.25 h during the first week of drug therapy.

Typical results showed an approximate 100-fold drop
in viral load in about 1 month ( fig. 1 a, replotted from data
of Fujiwara et al. [13] ). This simple 1-week pretreatment
by physical virus removal increased the rate of virus
clearance by the drug by approximately 33% and allowed
drug therapy to be about 50% more successful in curing
the infection.

These results are not without historical precedent. Table
2 shows a list of viral infections where viral load is
correlated with the severity of viral disease and disease
progression. For instance, it is well known that HCV is
more responsive to drug therapy when the initial viral
load is less than 800,000 copies/ml.

Thus, viral load reduction prior to or early in the treatment
process should be expected to improve treatment
outcomes. We have therefore looked to find more efficient
methods to reduce viral load without the need for
fluid replacement.

LAP is a good candidate for such a process. Figure 1 b
shows the analysis of the HCV virological response predicted
for continuous application of LAP in the absence
of any other treatments. It shows a rapid reduction in
HCV viral load based on a clearance rate of 29% in 4 h
obtained in clinical studies.

From this it may be calculated that starting from an initial viral load of 5 million IU/ml, continuous LAP should reduce HCV to undetectable levels in 2.28 days. In order to predict the full effect of performing hemopurification in conjunction with the standard of care HCV treatment, we analyzed the kinetics of HCV drug
treatment on a typical HCV patient population.

Veillon et al. [33] have provided such treatment data in 34 patients
using a combination of pegylated IFN- and ribavirin.
In this study, patients infected with genotype 2 and
3 HCV receiving weekly injections of pegylated IFN- 2a
and daily ribavirin were studied. In these patients, a more
than 100-fold decrease in viral load was predictive of a
sustained virus response.

Among sustained responders to combination therapy, 76 out of 96 (79.2%) had a viral load decrease of greater than 100-fold after 1 month of treatment. A plot of the data averaged for the patients who showed a sustained virological response is shown in figure 2 a. The rate of virus clearance during treatment was evaluated using a single exponential function.

The clearance rate constant here was k = 0.0857 per day corresponding to an overall half-time of 8.09 days. While the data is clearly biphasic, a single exponential fit simplifies the picture and gives a reasonable correlation coefficient of 87%.
Figure 2b shows the results of combining drug treatment
with 1 session of continuous LAP versus drug treatment alone.

The striking feature of this comparison is
that the combination treatment of continuous LAP with
standard-of-care pegylated INF- + ribavirin is predicted
to proceed significantly faster than drug treatment
alone. In this regard it is similar to DFPP, with the primary
difference that continuous LAP-mediated virus
clearance is at least 10 times faster and will also clear immunosuppressive free viral proteins and viral fragments
which would be missed by DFPP.

Conclusions

Physical reduction of viral load has been demonstrated
to substantially improve HCV cure rates. Based on the
observed rates of virus clearance in clinical studies, we
calculate that LAP applied continuously for 4.1 days
would reduce HCV viral load to undetectable levels versus
more than 30 days measured for DFPP in combination
with drugs.

This calculation suggests that 1 week of pretreatment with LAP used in combination with standard HCV drug therapy would probably lead to cure rates of more than 80%.

All of the graphs & charts are in the .pdf that can be found in the link below:

http://content.karger.com/ProdukteDB/produkte.asp?Aktion=ShowPDF&ArtikelNr=245649&Ausgabe=253603&ProduktNr=223997&filename=245649.pdf

Enjoy the re-read!!!

Respectfully,
Henry

Well why didnt ya just say so! lol.

PHYSICALLY REDUCING VIRAL LOAD PRIOR TO TREATMENT, IS WELL KNOWN TO INCREASE SUCCESS RATES OF TREATMENTS USING DRUGS.

Not to be argumentative Henry but the reality still remains that the problem still exists with SOC that were were those who became undetectable and then relapsed after treatment.
What is the qualification to the use of the term "cure" at this date in time? (Jan. 2010)
That is the mystery that was the impetus behind developing triple treatment.
This study is pre-dated the release of Telaprevir and Boceprevir.
One must keep in mind the words "suggest" and "probably" too when referring to the "80%".
Thank you for posting your articles and comments but I must admit I have lost the capacity to read and assimilate all of the information in such lengthy posts. I am guilty of speed reading.
Regardfully,
IMK :^)

If I may add Hemopurifier is still awaiting FDA approval and indeed "may" become a legitimate treatment for all kinds of blood treatments.
It is not approved yet and it's company profile is struggling. I do however wish them success as any effective innovation is most welcome!
http://www.aimhighprofits.com/aemd-fda-approval-for-aethlon-medical-is-worth-the-wait-22576
IMK :^)

I personally don't agree with the so-called magic number of 6 months SVR means that one is cured because in reality, especially from my own experience, people do relapse after 6 months SVR...

In fact, I was SVR TWICE for over two years, and there have been quite a few more who have relapsed after 6 months SVR.

Kramer, when one speed reads as much as you do, one tends to interpret the details properly and instead assume that they read what they did and that what it says and in this case, it definitely not the case.

I believe as an alternative to going on one of the recently approved protease inhibitors, this could be a less expensive, less harmful way of achieving what is considered today as being SVR...

And as far as Interferon is concerned, for some folks like yourself it's really not an option but, for other folks who have not experienced such horrific sides from it. This could be used as an added feature as it will accelerate the process of reducing one's viral load.

At this point, I'll take what I can get for now until the newer drugs get approved for post-transplant patients of 12 years or more like myself... One mans garbage is another mans gold!
Our friend Marilyn doesn't have to wait as long thank God!

Respectfully,
Henry

Kramer,

Look who they have on their scientific advisory board in this January 17, 2013 press release:

http://aethlonmedical.investorroom.com/2013-01-17-Aethlon-Medical-Announces-the-Appointment-of-Laszlo-Radvanyi-Ph.D.-to-its-Scientific-Advisory-Board

They are not filing for approval of a medicine, they filing for an Investigational Device Exemption, or IDE to initiate clinical studies in the United States is pending with The Food and Drug Administration (FDA). This takes a bit longer to get approved than a medicine does.

As far as their financial condition is concerned, have you looked @ what they have posted on their own site? Granted, they're nowhere nearly as resourceful as Big Pharma is and they shouldn't be expected to be so because they're basically a "penny" stock currently.

Things will definitely change once they receive FDA "IDE" approval which would obviously increase their net worth exponentially... So don't abandon them yet... Remember, they also have a military contract with DARPA - Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency.

Finally, I believe this device will be beneficial as a compliment to one achieving SVR in order to insure that after six months to a year, this device could be used to filter out any virus that may still be around that can, or cannot be detected with a PCR or any other type of blood test that could measure insignificant amounts of this virus so that people can trully eradicate the virus from their bodies!

Respectfully,
Henry

Yes I tried to find third party comments on it but could find nothing. Aside from Karger which is just a publishing site of medical data, I could find no other reviews or investigations and findings other than those generated by aethlon medical.
It seems this technology has been around some time and in the works for FDA approval since 2008.
I am not denying there could be great potential in this therapy.
Getting back to the beginning of this post is MAK's claim that lowering viral load hence the damage it is causing which is debatable. Nowhere can I find that viral load is related to inflammation.
I really have come to an end on this Henry. Thank you for posting all he information you do.
We all must choose our path to health.
Keep up the research!

Henry,
I don't have to wait as long for what?

Marilyn,
I was referring to the all oral clinical trial I posted for you in another thread... Here's the inclusion criteria:

Subjects with evidence of chronic HCV (all genotypes) documented pretransplantation

HCV RNA 10,000 IU/mL at screening

Absence of organ rejection as documented by post transplant liver biopsy taken no more than 12 months prior to Baseline/Day 1 visit

Liver transplant 6 months and 12 years prior to screening.

Here's the link:

http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01687270?term=gs-7977+transplant&rank=2

Respectfully,
Henry

Kramer,
They're not proposing the hemopurifier as a stand alone therapy.
Instead, they're contacting Big pharma to persuade them into using this device as another tool used in a variety of therapies for HCV treatment as well as treatments for breast cancer, and many other types of cancers and many other types of infectious diseases such as HIV, Sepsis, Ebola, etc.

This device is to be used to enhance already existing therapies for a variety of illnesses so they're not trying to compete with anyone from Big Pharma.

I agree, this subject has run it's course. :>) You too!

Respectfully,
Henry

Marilyn,

I was referring to the clinical trial that's currently recruiting post transplant patients that have been post transplant for less than 12 years (darn it!) which excludes me but, doesn't exclude you.

The clinical trial I'm referring to is this one:

http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01687270?term=gs-7977+transplant&rank=2

Inclusion Criteria:

Subjects with evidence of chronic HCV (all genotypes) documented pretransplantation

HCV RNA 10,000 IU/mL at screening

Absence of organ rejection as documented by post transplant

liver biopsy taken no more than 12 months prior to Baseline/Day
1 visit

Liver transplant 6 months and 12 years prior to screening

Hah!

I already answered your question Marilyn and then I did it again!!!LOLOLOL

Henry