On 5 Oct 1998 15:54:20 GMT, carlton at walleye.ccbr.umn.edu (Carlton
Hogan) wrote:
>In article <3617f386.29105757 at netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
> <johnburgin at worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>On Sun, 04 Oct 1998 19:51:51 GMT, gmc0 at ix.netcom.com (George M.
>>Carter) wrote:
>>>>>f.raaphorst at worldonline.nl wrote:
>>>>>>>In article <6v5q3u$98j at sjx-ixn10.ix.netcom.com>,
>>>>gmc0 at ix.netcom.com wrote:
>>>>>johnburgin at worldnet.att.net wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hey dipshit!! Get a clue!! The dose of AZT started at 1200 mg. Way
>>>>> too much. People died at that dose. It was cut to 600 mg very
>>>>> quickly. This was in the late 80s early 90s. That was the
>>>>> monotherapy dose. (300 mg probably works as well).
>>>Why not use 300 then?
>>Because of resistance concerns: in vitro work suggests that "trough" levels
> are too low to guarantee continued suppression, although there
>has not ben clinical endpoint trials over a long enough duration
>to confirm it.
>>> The reality is,
>>>>that you still haven't answered my question. What is the dosage with
>>PI's? 600? That's 600mg too much.
>>OK, let's take this thread back to it's beginning. I have answered your
>question. Now you explain why, if AZT is so toxic and non-beneficial,
>is a survival benefit seen for AZT + *another* nuke + PI?
>Put up or shut up.
I don't have to do any such thing. Remember, this is the internet,
cyberspace, we, all of us, can have and express an opinion. You were
given a nice diatribe by Todd Miller, whom you readily dismissed as
les incompetent. Why should I expect any different treatment from
you. Not all are seeing the "survival benefit" from AZT +*another*
nuke + PI. That's still up for debate.
>>Carlton
