On 1 Oct 1998 17:14:56 GMT, carlton at walleye.ccbr.umn.edu (Carlton
Hogan) wrote:
>In article <3611441e.663553911 at netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
> <johnburgin at worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>On 28 Sep 1998 16:48:29 GMT, carlton at walleye.ccbr.umn.edu (Carlton
>>Hogan) wrote:
>>>>>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
>>>>Hogan) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>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
>>>>>>Hogan) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>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.
>>>>>>> That
>>>>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 never said it was totally safe. AZT is fairly toxic. But it is
>not immunesuppressive in any way that resembles AIDS. The chief
>problem is that the virus mutates so frequently, it quickly escapes
>AZT monotherapy. However, in combination with a protease, or other
>nucleosides, AZT can be part of a very effective, and relatively
>enduring regimen.
>>>. 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.
>>Evidence?
>> Protease inhibitors do not appear to be as
>>toxic from the latest info that I have seen.
>>If you knew anything about the field that you blather on about,
>you would know that proteases are virtually never prescribed without
>*2* drugs from AZT's class (nucleoside analogue reverse transcriptase
>inhibitors) The most commonly prescribed protease-containing regimens
>consist of AZT, 3TC, and a protease. That is one thing I have never
>seen any "dissident" be able to explain. If AZT is so toxic, how come
>combining it with another drug in it's class, and a protease causes
>death rates to drop in clinical endpoint trials?
The short answer or the long one? I prefer the short. Less AZT
combined with anything else in the PI category means less toxicity.
Why is that so confusing? Am I missing something, do you contend that
the same amounts of AZT are given "with" PI "therapy" as "recommended"
alone? There you have it, a "dissident "explains".jb
There are now at least
>a dozen well-conducted, randomized trials that show that combination
>therapy reduces morbidity and mortality compared to AZT montherapy.
>>> Maybe if you tried
>>something a little less toxic, like a placebo, the humps and Crix
>>bellys would disappear also.
>>Is that a lame attempt at a personal attack?
>>Carlton
