"AIDS Treatment News" online * New Issue #302 (searchable/indexed)
carlton at walleye.ccbr.umn.edu
Tue Oct 6 13:41:59 EST 1998
In article <36193d76.113582531 at netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
<johnburgin at worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>On 5 Oct 1998 15:54:20 GMT, carlton at walleye.ccbr.umn.edu (Carlton
>>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.
Again, I would suggest that you demonstrate the specific flaws in
the dozen or so clinical trials that have shown an AIDS-free survival
benefit to combination therapy. Todd posted on a molecular biology
concern, not a clinical one, having to do with phosphorylation
of AZT. What he probably didn't realize when he posted it is that
arguing that little or no AZT gets phosphorylated pretty much
junks any statements about AZT being a terminater of host DNA.
If not enough gets phosphorylated to interfere with RT, then
given the relative specificity of AZT, even less is available
for interfering with host DNA synthesis.
Perhaps you should get a basic familiarity with the field: it would
save you from these embarassing revelations of your ignorance. If
you like, I can refer you to some basic texts.
More information about the Immuno