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

johnburgin at worldnet.att.net johnburgin at worldnet.att.net
Tue Oct 13 17:51:53 EST 1998

On 13 Oct 1998 17:10:18 GMT, carlton at walleye.ccbr.umn.edu (Carlton
Hogan) wrote:

>In article <36228937.536742865 at netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
> <johnburgin at worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>On 12 Oct 1998 17:33:32 GMT, carlton at walleye.ccbr.umn.edu (Carlton
>>Hogan) wrote:
>>>In article <6vqhr5$kc5 at dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>,
>>>George M. Carter <gmc0 at ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>>>johnburgin at worldnet.att.net wrote:
>>>>>>In any event, speaking of dementia, it was your idiotic statement that
>>>>>>people now were taking LESS than the former commonly prescribed dose.
>>>>>I gave you a study, I can give you others, ergo, it wasn't idiotic.
>>>However, this study does not in any way reflect prescribing practices
>>>today. Most physcians who are not HIV specialists (who may not know 
>>>that dosages of 600 mg/day are clinically equivalent) probably go
>>>to treatment guidelines. For example
>>>Carpenter CJ, Fischl MA, Hammer SM, Hirsch MS et al "Antiretroviral 
>>>therapy  for HIV infection in 1997; updated reccomendations of the 
>>>international AIDS society-USA panel" 1997 JAMA:277 1969
>>>Bartlett JG, Fauci AS et al "Guidelines for the use of antiretroviral 
>>>agents in HIV-infected adults and adolescents" (developed by the panel
>>>on clinical practices for treatment of HIV infection convened by the US 
>>>DHHS and the Henry J Kaiser family foundation) Widely disseminated
>>>included in 1997 MMWR, and most reference texts after 1997.
>>>If some GP somewhere is just flying by the seat of his/her pants,
>>>and does not refer to the guidelines, it is probable that they would 
>>>at least read the package insert, which also recommends 600 mg.
>>>Can you provide _any_ references that _anybody_ besides persons with 
>>>HIV encephalopathy
>>You mean besides you? jb
>Is this some form of pathetic attempt at insult? 
You recognized it as an insult?  Why, that's not what I call an insult
at all.  You'll really have to get me upset to warrant one of those.
That seems par for the
>course with you. You make wild, completely unsubstantiated assertions.
Again, there you go, "wanking" again.  I haven't changed a blessed
thing since our first encounter.  Just like Duesberg.  He swats you
down like flies.  One by one all of the assertions that the AIDS
establishment makes are destroyed:
1)AIDS is an epidemic out of control
2)Millions of people will die every year
3)AZT will be the drug that knocks HIV dead(I agree with this one,
unfortunately, the host goes down also)
4)Heterosexuals will replace gays as the main infected group(I guess
there's no woman that abuse drugs)
5)protease inhibitors are the next best thing to french bread(and they
come with humps and crix bellies for no extra charge)
6)I'm too sick to go on.
>When a counter evidence is presented to you, you make no effort
I do try, but you're so demanding.  You want me to say something that
contradicts a dogma that is bought and paid for by the government
 to defend
>your position, but revert to this kind of immature insult.
I can assure you, this is not immature enough for you.
>Some other trials you might want to look at are ACTG 175, CPCRA 007,
>and the MRC combo nucleoside trial. These were the original trials 
>that validated combo therapy.
Remember, AIDS death rates were already declining before PI's came
along, or did you simply forge that one?
 Guess what? The "control" arm, which 
>was supposed to mirror community standard of care contained
>600 mg of AZT. The combo arms also had 600 mg AZT, along with 
>either ddI or ddC (drugs that work the same way as AZT). There was
>a subtantial *clinical* *benefit* seen in the combo
Sounds kind of like a chemo big mac.
 arms. If AZT
>was so poisonous, or caused AIDS, how could pairing the same dose 
>with another nuke *improve* clinical outcome?
Beats me, maybe some kind of reductionist synergism, like mixing two
highly toxic poisons, sodium with Chlorine, to make table salt.
>These trials also demonstrates the basic error in your assertion that 
>less AZT is given in combination. It's not true, it was never true,
>and the weak one line insult which you answered my post with is 
>pretty clear demonstration that you know it too.
Just "pretty clear"?  jb
> __________________________________________________________________________
> |                                                                        |
> |   Carlton Hogan  (carlton at gopher.ccbr.umn.edu)                         |
> |   Community Programs for Clinical Research on AIDS Statistical Center  |
> |   Coordinating Center for Biometric Research                           |
> |   Division of Biostatistics, School of Public Health                   |
> |   University of Minnesota          http://www.biostat.umn.edu/~carlton |
> |   2221 University Ave SE, Suite 200              Voice: (612) 626 8899 |
> |   Minneapolis  MN 55414                            FAX: (612) 626 8892 |
> |________________________________________________________________________|
>   Affilation provided for purpose of identification, not representation.

More information about the Immuno mailing list