On 28 Sep 1998 16:48:29 GMT, carlton at walleye.ccbr.umn.edu (Carlton
>In article <360c04a9.319577014 at netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
> <johnburgin at worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>On 25 Sep 1998 20:52:04 GMT, carlton at walleye.ccbr.umn.edu (Carlton
>>>>>In article <360bfe32.317922269 at netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
>>> <johnburgin at worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>>>On 25 Sep 1998 16:40:29 GMT, carlton at walleye.ccbr.umn.edu (Carlton
>>>>>>>>>>johnburgin at worldnet.att.net wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I have spoken to AIDS patients that I have treated
>>>>>>>that don't know why they are taking chemotherapy medication.
>>>>>>>>>>Please name a prescribed drug that is *not* chemotherapy. If you treat
>>>>>patients, I will eat my hat.
>>>>Are you hungry? Dose makes the poison, I said that before. Aspirin,
>>>>is a chemotherapy drug. Now, just be sure that our laiety isn't
>>>>confused, and without any Clintonesque problems with defining terms,
>>>>ask any person who has been through "chemotherapy" what a chemotherapy
>>>>drug is. You won't need to put stars around their responses. jb
>>>>>>No stars necessary. Sure, the poison is in the dose: enough salt
>>>or water can kill somebody. Yet we don't advise against salt or
>>>water. I'll say it again, slowly so that you can grasp it:
>>>dissidents commonly use the term "chemotherapy" when talking
>>>about HIV antivirals specifically and intentionally to confuse
>>>people by making them think that cytotoxic cancer chemotherapy
>>>well, imagine how confused those "people" must be when you, you dumb
>>ass, cannot even understand that AZT is a DNA chain terminator.
>>Actually, although some low-level interference may occur, and cause
>side-effects, AZT was initially chosen as a potential HIV therapy
>because it is fairly specific, with much higher viral inhibition
>that cellular. The data is in the AZT package insert and PDR
>entry. If you have contrary data, please post it.
>>was probably the most ignorant statement that you have made thus far.
>>>is being discussed. Although AZT was screened as a candidate
>>>molecule for anti-neoplastic drugs, it failed, in great degree
>>>because it was not cytotoxic enough
>>Oh contrare, it was cytotoxic enough to be dc'd as a chemotherapy drug
>>when first developed at the Detroit Cancer Foundation, 1964, Jerome
>>Horwitz, head of the lab, because more lab rats DIED with AZT than
>>without it when treated for tumors. I guess that's not factual enough
>>for you either, eh? jb
>>In the context of anti-neoplastics, an increased death rate does
>*not* neccesarily reflect cytotoxicity. A higher death rate can mean
>dozens of thing, ranging from just an ineffective treatment, to
>a wide range of toxicities that are not all cytotoxic. If you have
>evidence that 1. the mice died of cytotoxic effects, and 2. the dosages
>were (weight adjusted) roughly equivalent to prescribed human dosages
>please post them.
>>Remember: you brought up up the "poison is in the dose" argument.
>There are many pharaceutical compounds, and even food stuffs that
>are well tolerated in humans, yet will kill laboratory rates in
>high enough dosages.
>>If there is any data that supports your claims, I am eager to see it.
The package insert, now that's interesting. I'm really getting
confused by the argument that you are presenting. You keep trying to
protect the assumption that AZT is not an immune depressive chemical
but assert that it is not a good drug for the treatment of AIDS(Why
isn't it, I mean, if it's so safe and so specific?). I am, and have
been, asserting that AZT is a bad drug for the treatment of anything
except those wishing to kill every living cell in their body, which,
it does quite well in the proper amounts and if consumed for a long
enough period of time. Protease inhibitors do not appear to be as
toxic from the latest info that I have seen. Maybe if you tried
something a little less toxic, like a placebo, the humps and Crix
bellys would disappear also. jb