"AIDS Treatment News" online * New Issue #302 (searchable/indexed)

johnburgin at worldnet.att.net johnburgin at worldnet.att.net
Mon Oct 5 16:46:52 EST 1998

On 5 Oct 1998 15:54:20 GMT, carlton at walleye.ccbr.umn.edu (Carlton
Hogan) wrote:

>In article <3617f386.29105757 at netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
> <johnburgin at worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>On Sun, 04 Oct 1998 19:51:51 GMT, gmc0 at ix.netcom.com (George M.
>>Carter) wrote:
>>>f.raaphorst at worldonline.nl wrote:
>>>>In article <6v5q3u$98j at sjx-ixn10.ix.netcom.com>,
>>>>  gmc0 at ix.netcom.com wrote:
>>>>> johnburgin at worldnet.att.net wrote:
>>>>> Hey dipshit!!  Get a clue!!  The dose of AZT started at 1200 mg.  Way
>>>>> too much.  People died at that dose.  It was cut to 600 mg very
>>>>> quickly.  This was in the late 80s early 90s.  That was the
>>>>> monotherapy dose.  (300 mg probably works as well). 
>>Why not use 300 then?
>Because of resistance concerns: in vitro work suggests that "trough" levels
> are too low to guarantee continued suppression, although there 
>has not ben clinical endpoint trials over a long enough duration 
>to confirm it.
>> The reality is,
>>that you still haven't answered my question.  What is the dosage with
>>PI's?  600?  That's 600mg too much.
>OK, let's take this thread back to it's beginning. I have answered your 
>question. Now you explain why, if AZT is so toxic and non-beneficial,
>is a survival benefit seen for AZT + *another* nuke + PI?
>Put up or shut up.
I don't have to do any such thing.  Remember, this is the internet,
cyberspace, we, all of us, can have and express an opinion.  You were
given a nice diatribe by Todd Miller, whom you readily dismissed as
les incompetent.  Why should I expect any different treatment from
you.  Not all are seeing the "survival benefit" from AZT +*another*
nuke + PI.  That's still up for debate.  

More information about the Immuno mailing list