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

Carlton Hogan 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.
>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.


More information about the Immuno mailing list