Hep C Discussion Forum

Hi all,

Many articles have been written about the origins of HCV. Authors have a wide range of opinions.

I personally believe HCV is a fairly recent virus. HepC was first called ' transfusion hepatitis' then 'non-A, non-B' hepatitis until the virus was identified in 1989. It was first reported after World War 2, and the surge of cases suggested it came back to the Western world by returning servicemen. They were perhaps infected by war-related transfusions, or from contact with infected blood in SE Asia or Africa. There is plenty of evidence that this is a primitive virus, and that all genotypes derived by mutation from the ' parent' virus, now called Genotype 1b. This parent virus must have 'jumped' from an animal host. Dogs, horses, bats and rodents have all been mentioned. All can carry a reservoir of an RNA virus, similar to HCV.

The spread through the Western world was rapid. New cases rose dramatically as IV drug use became commonplace in the 1960's and 1970's. Blood transfusions, vaccinations and use of other contaminated blood products also became more common during this period.

I believe most patients were infected during the period between 1945 and 1991. Many of those that are still alive will have cirrhosis.

Of those infected since 1991, it is my belief that most acquired the virus from IV drug use. Tattoos , sex transmission etc may account for a few, and for some, there is no obvious cause.

There is no evidence that a liver disease similar to HCV was reported prior to the 1940's, and retrospective studies have been attempted.

The ' baby-boomers' are the group who were most likely to be infected during the rise of IV drug experimentation in the 60's, 70's and early 80's. I believe this is why the years 1945-65 were chosen.

This is just my humble opinion. Cheers.

Thanks for your input Tig, Michaele, Ro, Jill,                                                                                                                                                the more I think about it the more I wonder if this is something that was there since birth. I worked for about 8 months in a print shop when I came down with an acute case, that since went chronic, and I sometime wonder if all the chemicals I was exposed to made it kick into high gear???, maybe my body was just trying to detox me of all that inhaled garbage?, and that was when my liver enzymes came back elevated, and the dr. then discovered the non-a non-b.                                                                                           Since I was adopted I have no records on the details of my birth, though I recently found out I can request them.

I feel if this possibility of it being passed at birth, invitro, or by blood products used before 1992, ..That, THAT should be the range of mandatory testing.  1945-1992, right?

Ro, I understand your grief...after my daughter was born I was scared to death to have any more children for fear of passing it on. Blasted virus, so I didn't.

BB, Iris

Iris Dragonfly wrote:

---

Hi folks,

At a recent Dr. visit, I saw a bulletin on the wall that recommends all baby boomers...those born between 1945 and 1965 be tested for "C".  Since blood products were unsafe until about 1992, why stop at 1965?

The question that plagues me is...could we have been exposed at birth, but shown no symptoms until later? Does anyone know if the virus could lay doormat then flair up when the body is compromised with some other problem?

 

Thanks, Iris

 

---

 Hi Iris, that`s a good question.  Luckily Hep C progresses very slowly, especially in children, and in many cases their own immune system will clear the virus spontaneously. 

Many people who are infected have no symptoms, at whatever age they were first infected, although the virus is still there causing damage and not what you`d call dormant.  I suppose if the immune system becomes compromised and under added stress from another illness or chronic infection that would allow the Hep C virus to replicate more rapidly and maybe certain symptoms would become more apparent. 

I agree with you on the question of testing, it really should be a lot more routine.

Hey Tig   Any time the liver profile is elevated , they are supposed to check it again in a few weeks and if is still elevated, then a Hep C test is done. Some people encluding Drs are not aware of this.   Michaele

Hi Iris,

Your point is a valid one. The reason as you mentioned, is  that the majority of cases were found to be in that bracket of time. Now that we have found it has affected all age groups, it would be wise to consider a much wider scope of ages.

The physicians are the tip of the spear and should consider expanding the age for screenings and any time they see an elevated ALT/AST, a HCV antibody test should be ran. The cost of the test is $50-100 and those costs are generally accepted as routine testing, unlike the PCR which often needs pre-approval and is big bucks. 

I agree that some simple changes in guidelines would make a big difference in helping to resolve undiagnosed chronic cases before they have the chance to sit and start boiling in the bodies of the unaware. By discussing this openly we are hopefully opening the minds of those we are able to touch. Thank you for bringing this up!