Silent Progression
There was, however, a small increase over time in the number of deaths specifically associated with liver disease in patients with non-A non-B, suggesting that it takes a very long time indeed for the disease to take its final toll.
     What can we make of such data? The optimist might conclude that the virus won’t reduce overall survival rates over time, and that increased numbers of liver-disease-related deaths that the study documented in infected patients might actually be due to intervening factors, including alcohol consumption. But as an editorial in the same issue of the Journal cautioned, a much longer-term follow-up of patients may well show a tide of death related to the virus. And the editorial also called for more research on the effects of the disease, and not just on how long people live.
     What this study immediately tells me is that evidence for a viral cause of non-A non-B is open to question. It raises a big red flag because of the time it appears to take this virus to do its dirty work. Other data suggest that it doesn’t even cause symptoms beyond a conventional flu-like illness in many people, even for decades. When science lines up behind a virus whose damage potential extends into many decades, I get suspicious.

Is Evidence Lacking?
So I did some checking. Those of you who read my last two columns know that I have come away from the voluminous data on the hepatitis C virus convinced that science has made a huge mistake. There is no good evidence that such a virus exists. I concluded that the scientists who made the initial discovery made fanciful leaps; consequently these leaps became the basis for further studies and entrenched beliefs. My view is that the cause of non-A non-B hepatitis remains unknown.
     Some 4 million Americans are said to be already infected with the hepatitis C virus. If I knew that I were among them, I would make it a major commitment to uncover everything I possibly could about this virus and the claims underlying its identification.
     I would stop at nothing to get a good fix on the virus because that knowledge would certainly affect how I live my life, how I would assess my chances of becoming ill and which treatments I might deem appropriate.

Strength in Numbers
I would try to associate with others affected by the disease who also had a burning desire to raise questions about the virus. I would make an effort to acquaint myself with the fundamental science and I would be particularly interested in following up any challenges to that science. I would consider it foolhardy to automatically accept the conventional wisdom. What is considered mainstream today in science might well be built on the basis of medical politics and corrupted research.
     I would take special care not to associate with organizations or support groups that would insist on following the CW and which would be immediately antagonistic to non-conventional thinking about the disease. And I would be particularly cautious about joining up with any patient group that was supported by pharmaceutical funds or led by lay people and doctors alike who appeared to be toeing some official line, or, for that matter, using the vehicle of a support group or voluntary association to enlarge their egos.
     I would much rather seek the support of independent spirits who gave me the empowered feeling that I was free to pursue any and all information about the disease.