On 13 Oct 1998 17:12:03 GMT, carlton at walleye.ccbr.umn.edu (Carlton
Hogan) wrote:
>In article <ShzPMvTWl66V at mcrcr6>,
>ROBERT S. HOLZMAN <holzmr01 at mcrcr6.med.nyu.edu> wrote:
>>In article <6vteq4$9jk at dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>, gmc0 at ix.netcom.com (George M. Carter) writes:
>>>johnburgin at worldnet.att.net wrote:
>>>>>>>>No. It was just dead cold wrong.
>>>>Well, have I moved off of the idiotic list, Mr Carter? I've been
>>>>upgraded to simply dead wrong? I gave you "A" study, I can give you
>>>>lots more with higher doses. Want to keep looking foolish?
>>>>>> No, you're still an idiot, not to worry. And wrong, too.
>>>>>> As to other studies using higher doses, yes, there are.
>>>>>> But let's get to the point.'
>>>>>>>no I didn't. I said higher doses were used than today. Don't mislead
>>>>our audience. Remember, they can read too.
>>>> that people were taking 1200 mg or some high dose until the
>>>>protease inhibitors came along, then the dose dropped.
>>>>>>>Dosage changed in 1989, quite a bit before PIs came along.
>>As I recall it, it was ACTG 002 that drove the change in standard care.
>This was the second trial ever initiated by the ACTG, which (under
>the name ATEG) was started in 1987.
Was that one for me? I don't want to sound unappreciative. jb
>>Carlton
>>>> -- those who don't know history are doomed to misquote it.
>>>>>>>
