Is this correct that liver explants, mostly, were analyzed by PCR before the treatment cessation, at the time of transplantation? If yes, then these findings do not prove that virus persists in liver after SVR12.

We assessed the presence of hepatitis C virus (HCV) RNA in liver explants from 39 patients awaiting liver transplantation who were treated with an interferon-free regimen and had undetectable serum HCV RNA at the time of liver transplantation.

only 6 patients (15%) had finalized the treatment course at the moment of LT (mean time off-treatment 25 days [range 6-61]).

Yes, of course.

If i correctly understand, LFTs and PCR are signs, not symptoms. A quote about such things (really, i dont agree with all statements of this relatively old article):

let us consider the difference between signs and symptoms. Signs are typically abnormal blood tests; these are the tests that doctors order to monitor patients. Some signs measure the degree of inflammation (such as enzymes called aminotransferases, known by patients as “ALT” or “AST”). While the ALT or AST test is often called a “liver function test”, it really does not measure any function that the liver performs, but simply assesses the presence of liver cell damage. It is more appropriately denoted as a “liver enzyme test”. The other test (sign) that we need to consider is the one that measures the number of hepatitis C particles that are present in the blood (known as “viral load” or “viral titer”). Traditionally, the success of treatment has been measured by the absence of detectable viral particles in the blood at least six months after the therapy has been stopped. This prolonged clearance of virus from the blood stream is known as a “sustained viral response” or SVR.
Symptoms are the things that affect the quality and quantity of life; it is the development of symptoms that concerns patients. Symptoms of liver failure include internal bleeding from dilated veins (called varices), excessive fluid accumulation in the legs (called edema) and abdomen (called ascites), and slowing down of thinking with confusion and even coma (called hepatic encephalopathy). Another symptomatic complication of cirrhosis is the development of hepatocellular carcinoma.
The point is that if only the enzyme tests remain abnormal, and symptoms of liver failure never occur, there is no clinical “dis-ease”. Treatment is irrelevant because it is impossible to make an asymptomatic patient feel better and, at the time of treatment, patients do not have symptoms of end-stage liver disease.

(http://www.news-medical.net/health/Hepatitis-C-treatment-no-benefits-and-possible-harm.aspx)

Serg, If you don’t believe you have a disease, may I ask what benefit or purpose there is to your participation here?

fitz, I have F4 (cirrhosis) – hence, i definitely have a disease.

Your argument seems to be that the only rationale for treatment, or credible indicator of ‘disease’ would be if one is actually dying of cirrhosis – which is exactly the operative assumption of Big Phama and Big Insurance for denying treatment to Hep C patients until one is by their definition “sick enough”.

No, i dont think this way. If treatment is “prophylaxis” of cirrhosis/extrahepatic manifestations – people should have full rights to prevent cirrhosis/extrahepatic manifestations – whether they are sick or not.

Rather, semantics of “hcv is a disease in every infected”, “everyone must undergo treatment”, and “achieve a cure” may be promoted by Big Pharma for maximizing their profit. If we can convince infected people that they are all “sick” – it is much simple to sell him medication with huge prices, than sell prophylactic drugs to healthy people.