In article <3624ded3.689754535 at netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
<johnburgin at worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>On 14 Oct 98 07:59:45 EDT, holzmr01 at mcrcr6.med.nyu.edu (ROBERT S.
>HOLZMAN) wrote:
>>>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.
>>I'll stand my ground. Most of the information that I have is that
>regardless of the amount of reduction, the dosage of the AZT, even at
>600mg is less than it was prior to the PI's "standard" cocktail.
This is SIMPLY NOT TRUE, no matter how much you want it to be.
>Maybe you don't know most physicians as well as I do.
Not counting the 60+ HIV/ID specialists in the CPCRA where I work,
or the 30 some physicians in the Twin Cities AIDS Clinicians group
(where I live)? You are Just plain wrong. If you can find ANY
Physician, ANYWHERE, that treats more than 5 patients with AIDS
who will confirm your bizarre and unsupported ideas, I would love to
know about it.
Bob is a full-time physician/researcher. I am a full time clinical
trialist. Trust me, we are aware of the bigger trends (like lower
AZT dosage) in our respective worlds. Get over it. You are wrong.
Let's move on.
Carlton
__________________________________________________________________________
| |
| Carlton Hogan (carlton at gopher.ccbr.umn.edu) |
| Community Programs for Clinical Research on AIDS Statistical Center |
| Coordinating Center for Biometric Research |
| Division of Biostatistics, School of Public Health |
| University of Minnesota http://www.biostat.umn.edu/~carlton |
| 2221 University Ave SE, Suite 200 Voice: (612) 626 8899 |
| Minneapolis MN 55414 FAX: (612) 626 8892 |
|________________________________________________________________________|
Affilation provided for purpose of identification, not representation.
