"AIDS Treatment News" online * New Issue #302 (searchable/indexed)
carlton at walleye.ccbr.umn.edu
Mon Oct 5 10:54:20 EST 1998
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.
>>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.
More information about the Immuno