johnburgin at worldnet.att.net wrote:
Snip...
>O.k., I'll start with V.A. Cooperative Study 298. The patients were
>randomized into two treatment arms: the first received 1500mg(that's
>FIFTEEN HUNDRED, ONE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED, MC MILLIGRAMS OF AZT. I'm
>sure being as dismissive as you are you'll state that, "oh, that was a
>long time ago", we've learned that much lower daily dosages had the
>same effect". I submit to you and your ilk that if this study is only
>one of many, try to imagine what individual practitioners were
>prescribing for individual situations. May I make one point very
>clear, the American Heart Association recommendation for subacute
>bacterial endocarditis prophylaxis in susceptible patients is 2 grams
>of amoxycillin one hour prior to dental surgery. Why is this
>relevant? I have not encountered one physician as of this date that
>knows this. They are, every one of them, prescribing the wrong
>amounts and types of drugs for this situation. If they can screw up
>for this, why is it so difficult for you meatheads to understand that
>they would be inconsistent in their treatment of AIDS and HIV? You
>don't treat patients, you treat data, and, you do it poorly. jb
All you're doing with this post is giving me the cold horrors about
just how fucked up dentists are as a class. Or maybe it's just you.
The dose of AZT dropped to 600 mg/day very rapidly. You're simply
making something based on one old study to try to justify your rank
stupidity. The fact is that people are getting 600 mg/day of AZT, for
those who are taking it. The last time I heard of higher doses was
among those with dementia.
In any event, speaking of dementia, it was your idiotic statement that
people now were taking LESS than the former commonly prescribed dose.
This has not been the case for many years.
I'm sorry you're having difficulty facing the fact that you're an
asshole.
George M. Carter
