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

[johnburgin at worldnet.att.net]

On 13 Oct 1998 17:12:03 GMT, carlton at walleye.ccbr.umn.edu (Carlton
Hogan) wrote:

>In article <ShzPMvTWl66V at mcrcr6>,
>ROBERT S. HOLZMAN <holzmr01 at mcrcr6.med.nyu.edu> wrote:
>>In article <6vteq4$9jk at dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>, gmc0 at ix.netcom.com (George M. Carter) writes:
>>> johnburgin at worldnet.att.net wrote:
>>> 
>>>>>No.  It was just dead cold wrong.  
>>>>Well, have I moved off of the idiotic list, Mr Carter?  I've been
>>>>upgraded to simply dead wrong?  I gave you "A" study, I can give you
>>>>lots more with higher doses.  Want to keep looking foolish?
>>> 
>>> No, you're still an idiot, not to worry. And wrong, too.
>>> 
>>> As to other studies using higher doses, yes, there are.
>>> 
>>> But let's get to the point.'
>>> 
>>>>no I didn't.  I said higher doses were used than today.  Don't mislead
>>>>our audience.  Remember, they can read too.
>>>> that people were taking 1200 mg or some high dose until the
>>>>protease inhibitors came along, then the dose dropped.  
>>> 
>>
>>Dosage changed in 1989, quite a bit before PIs came along.
>
>As I recall it, it was ACTG 002 that drove the change in standard care.
>This was the second trial ever initiated by the ACTG, which (under 
>the name ATEG) was started in 1987.

Was that one for me?  I don't want to sound unappreciative. jb
>
>Carlton
>>
>> -- those who don't know history are doomed to misquote it.
>>
>>> 
>
>