In article <3623dacc.623177053 at netnews.worldnet.att.net>, johnburgin at worldnet.att.net writes:
> 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
I don't know if it is one for you. Were you the one who said dosage changed
in response to PI availabilty? Seems like you were arguing that the dosage
was reduced in combo therapy. It was reduced long before.
However if it is one for you, take it. You need it pretty bad.
