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

[johnburgin at worldnet.att.net]

On 14 Oct 1998 17:30:57 GMT, johnburgin at worldnet.att.net wrote:

>On 14 Oct 98 07:59:45 EDT, holzmr01 at mcrcr6.med.nyu.edu (ROBERT S.
>HOLZMAN) wrote:
>
>>In article <3623dacc.623177053 at netnews.worldnet.att.net>, johnburgin at worldnet.att.net writes:
>>> 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.

Similar results were found in a US study comparing zidovudine with
placebo in primary HIV infection  (n=28).[46] At 48 weeks, patients
who had taken 1000 mg of zidovudine per day for 24 weeks had
higher CD4+ cell counts (median, 0.70x 109/L) than the placebo group
(median, 0.36x109/L)  (P=.02).     46. Holodniy M, Niu M, Bethel J, et
al. A pilot study to evaluate the efficacy of zidovudine (ZDV) vs
 placebo in primary HIV infection (DATRI 002). Presented at XI
International Conference on AIDS;  July 8, 1996; Vancouver, British
Columbia. 
Oh, do I still have to keep digging up data, that you will refute
again that proves, once more, that I was correct when I stated that
higher dosages of monotherapy AZT had been used, RECENTLY?  Is this
one recent enough?  It certainly appears to have passed your timeline
of 1989.  jb

>>>>
>>>>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
>>
>>I don't know if it is one for you.  Were you the one who said dosage changed
>>in response to PI availabilty?  Seems like you were arguing that the dosage
>>was reduced in combo therapy.  It was reduced long before.
>>
>>However if it is one for you, take it.  You need it pretty bad.
>
>I'll stand my ground.  Most of the information that I have is that
>regardless of the amount of reduction, the dosage of the AZT, even at
>600mg is less than it was prior to the PI's "standard" cocktail.
>Maybe you don't know most physicians as well as I do.  Consistency
>with them, god bless them, is like trying to herd kittens. I'll take
>your comments as being well intended.  No, you can't begin to
>comprehend how badly we all need some common ground.  Not all of us
>live in a laboratory.  jb
>>
>>
>