On 5 Oct 1998 15:46:34 GMT, carlton at walleye.ccbr.umn.edu (Carlton
Hogan) wrote:
>In article <361545cd.83282293 at netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
> <johnburgin at worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>>>>> 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.
>>That *might* make sense, if the doses used in combo with the PIs
>were not exactly the same as used in monotherapy.
>>>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
>>That is the fact. Before you jump in to the fray, learn the basics.
Basically, as you wish to return to, I have not jumped into anything,
except apparently your face. I believe that the past history of
Wellcome's misbehavior, and Gallo should be enough to make any
information that you provide concerning AZT and/or HIV suspect. If
the basics are flawed, which I BELIEVE that they are, the rest should
and must be. You're a data miner. Need me to explain that one? jb
>>Carlton
