No there is no way to determine the date when you where infected, and 1978
must be a fruit of the imagination of the "scientist" examined your sample.
Every virus species and the same species on different organisms even of the
same kind evolve differently and at different speeds. Sometimes you can say,
you adquired this virus at least "x" time ago, because it takes certain
amount of time to produce certain morphological changes (it's valid only for
certain types of virus), wich wouldn't be otherwise, but all this is
subjective, not objective. Simply put, as said the person before, it's
impossible to determine the date infection unless you have a "before" test,
wich is negative, and an "after" test, wich is positive. Then you can say it
happened between "before" and "after". Vytautas.
Mike Swink wrote in message <92b9gs$79j$1 at slb3.atl.mindspring.net>...
>>"John Gentile" <yjgent at home.com> wrote in message
>news:B66DA87E.94B%yjgent at home.com...>> Now you convince me that you are a conspiracy advocate that is anti
>> scientists.
>Question: Am I conspiracy advocate?
>>>1. The test information suggested I had contracted the virus as of 1978.
>>My question: Was the date based upon testing or a estimated date from other
>outside assumptions.
>>The advantages of being able to show even a year in which a virus invaded
>the patients body would be of great value to those like the Paramedics
>Nationwide who are being denied help.
>>Refrence to Paramedics problem in recieveing help.
>Judge splits decision on firefighters
>http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/krphiladelphia/20001221/lo/judge_splits_decisio
>n_on_firefighters_1.html
>>Hepatitis C Virus Infection Among Firefighters, Emergency
>Medical Technicians, and Paramedics --- Selected Locations, United States,
>1991--2000
>http://www.cdc.gov/epo/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4929a3.htm>>>2. Conflicting information is the only alarm that anyone may have.
>>First we were told that it was spread by sinfull acts.
>In 1992 CDC said 50% of cases were from sex. But when people were asked if
>they had children with Virus.
> Out of 5000 households only 1 percent had any additional infected
persons.
>I was married 12years they tested negative.
>>"However, 50 percent of the cases lack an identifiable parenteral source,
>raising the possibility of other transmissible means."
>http://www.aul.com/reinsurance/mrvol1no2.html#one>>In England,Canada and Australia you see on lists diffrent sources of
>transmissions than the USA: Dentist,Medical,Barbers,and vaccines. They
>quote investigative findings showing pcr test on instruments and surfaces
of
>virus living outside body for diffrent lenghts of time despite precautions.
>They have up to date instruments not used in the USA that allows in field
>testing. And give more test than the USA.
>>3.
>CDC Says: Declining.
>Incidence stable in 1980's; decline in 1990's Transfusion-associated cases
>occurred prior to donor screening, now very rare
>Most new infections due to high risk drug (60%) behaviors
>http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/diseases/hepatitis/c/fact.htm>>Insurance Companies Say: New Cases Remains Constant.
>>"With the advent of HCV screening by blood banks, the incidence of
>transfusion hepatitis is declining. However, the total number of HCV cases
>has remained constant."
>http://www.aul.com/reinsurance/mrvol1no2.html#one>>4. Testing is flawed.
>First we were told only those who had elevated liver enzymes ALT,AST levels
>were the only ones in danger.
>> Now we are told:
>"Once these techniques became available, it became clear that many such
>persons are viremic, and that about 25% of patients with chronic hepatitis
C
>have persistently normal ALT levels."
>http://www.hepnet.com/hepc/ddw00/jacobson.html>>Note:
>Today if your liver enzymes are normal they do not test for virus.
>> This suggest that 25% more people may have the virus. In my case only the
>insurance company knew I had the virus and it was not until later that
>tests were preformed. By then the damage was allready done to my
>liver,kidney,hearing and eyes.
>>>>>>
