"AIDS Treatment News" online * New Issue #302 (searchable/indexed)
carlton at walleye.ccbr.umn.edu
Thu Oct 1 12:14:56 EST 1998
In article <3611441e.663553911 at netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
<johnburgin at worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>On 28 Sep 1998 16:48:29 GMT, carlton at walleye.ccbr.umn.edu (Carlton
>>In article <360c04a9.319577014 at netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
>> <johnburgin at worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>>On 25 Sep 1998 20:52:04 GMT, carlton at walleye.ccbr.umn.edu (Carlton
>>>>In article <360bfe32.317922269 at netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
>>>> <johnburgin at worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>>>>On 25 Sep 1998 16:40:29 GMT, carlton at walleye.ccbr.umn.edu (Carlton
>>>>>>>johnburgin at worldnet.att.net wrote:
>>>>>>>>I have spoken to AIDS patients that I have treated
>>>>>>>>that don't know why they are taking chemotherapy medication.
>>>>>>Please name a prescribed drug that is *not* chemotherapy. If you treat
>>>>>>patients, I will eat my hat.
>>>>>Are you hungry? Dose makes the poison, I said that before. Aspirin,
>>>>>is a chemotherapy drug. Now, just be sure that our laiety isn't
>>>>>confused, and without any Clintonesque problems with defining terms,
>>>>>ask any person who has been through "chemotherapy" what a chemotherapy
>>>>>drug is. You won't need to put stars around their responses. jb
>>>>No stars necessary. Sure, the poison is in the dose: enough salt
>>>>or water can kill somebody. Yet we don't advise against salt or
>>>>water. I'll say it again, slowly so that you can grasp it:
>>>>dissidents commonly use the term "chemotherapy" when talking
>>>>about HIV antivirals specifically and intentionally to confuse
>>>>people by making them think that cytotoxic cancer chemotherapy
>>>well, imagine how confused those "people" must be when you, you dumb
>>>ass, cannot even understand that AZT is a DNA chain terminator.
>>Actually, although some low-level interference may occur, and cause
>>side-effects, AZT was initially chosen as a potential HIV therapy
>>because it is fairly specific, with much higher viral inhibition
>>that cellular. The data is in the AZT package insert and PDR
>>entry. If you have contrary data, please post it.
>>>was probably the most ignorant statement that you have made thus far.
>>>>is being discussed. Although AZT was screened as a candidate
>>>>molecule for anti-neoplastic drugs, it failed, in great degree
>>>>because it was not cytotoxic enough
>>>Oh contrare, it was cytotoxic enough to be dc'd as a chemotherapy drug
>>>when first developed at the Detroit Cancer Foundation, 1964, Jerome
>>>Horwitz, head of the lab, because more lab rats DIED with AZT than
>>>without it when treated for tumors. I guess that's not factual enough
>>>for you either, eh? jb
>>In the context of anti-neoplastics, an increased death rate does
>>*not* neccesarily reflect cytotoxicity. A higher death rate can mean
>>dozens of thing, ranging from just an ineffective treatment, to
>>a wide range of toxicities that are not all cytotoxic. If you have
>>evidence that 1. the mice died of cytotoxic effects, and 2. the dosages
>>were (weight adjusted) roughly equivalent to prescribed human dosages
>>please post them.
>>Remember: you brought up up the "poison is in the dose" argument.
>>There are many pharaceutical compounds, and even food stuffs that
>>are well tolerated in humans, yet will kill laboratory rates in
>>high enough dosages.
>>If there is any data that supports your claims, I am eager to see it.
>The package insert, now that's interesting. I'm really getting
>confused by the argument that you are presenting. You keep trying to
>protect the assumption that AZT is not an immune depressive chemical
>but assert that it is not a good drug for the treatment of AIDS(Why
>isn't it, I mean, if it's so safe and so specific?)
I never said it was totally safe. AZT is fairly toxic. But it is
not immunesuppressive in any way that resembles AIDS. The chief
problem is that the virus mutates so frequently, it quickly escapes
AZT monotherapy. However, in combination with a protease, or other
nucleosides, AZT can be part of a very effective, and relatively
>. I am, and have
>been, asserting that AZT is a bad drug for the treatment of anything
>except those wishing to kill every living cell in their body, which,
>it does quite well in the proper amounts and if consumed for a long
>enough period of time.
Protease inhibitors do not appear to be as
>toxic from the latest info that I have seen.
If you knew anything about the field that you blather on about,
you would know that proteases are virtually never prescribed without
*2* drugs from AZT's class (nucleoside analogue reverse transcriptase
inhibitors) The most commonly prescribed protease-containing regimens
consist of AZT, 3TC, and a protease. That is one thing I have never
seen any "dissident" be able to explain. If AZT is so toxic, how come
combining it with another drug in it's class, and a protease causes
death rates to drop in clinical endpoint trials? There are now at least
a dozen well-conducted, randomized trials that show that combination
therapy reduces morbidity and mortality compared to AZT montherapy.
> Maybe if you tried
>something a little less toxic, like a placebo, the humps and Crix
>bellys would disappear also.
Is that a lame attempt at a personal attack?
More information about the Immuno