johnburgin at worldnet.att.net wrote:
>Similar results were found in a US study comparing zidovudine with
>placebo in primary HIV infection (n=28).[46] At 48 weeks, patients
>who had taken 1000 mg of zidovudine per day for 24 weeks had
>higher CD4+ cell counts (median, 0.70x 109/L) than the placebo group
>(median, 0.36x109/L) (P=.02). 46. Holodniy M, Niu M, Bethel J, et
>al. A pilot study to evaluate the efficacy of zidovudine (ZDV) vs
> placebo in primary HIV infection (DATRI 002). Presented at XI
>International Conference on AIDS; July 8, 1996; Vancouver, British
>Columbia.
>Oh, do I still have to keep digging up data, that you will refute
>again that proves, once more, that I was correct when I stated that
>higher dosages of monotherapy AZT had been used, RECENTLY? Is this
>one recent enough? It certainly appears to have passed your timeline
>of 1989. jb
Yes, you do. Because the reality is that most people with HIV take
600 mg per day, if they take it at all and this has essentially been
the case since the early 90s. One or two small dose ranging studies
do not prove the contrary.
Nor do they support the notion that 600 mg of AZT will cause AIDS.
Certainly such a small study does not explain how, in combination with
drugs with distinct and significant toxicity profiles like 3TC,
nevirapine or ritonavir (to give a few examples), most folks see
improvement in surrogate markers, clinical condition and survival.
The notion that "drugs cause AIDS" is not supported by these studies
in any fashion whatsoever.
You are a disgrace to the medical community.
George M. Carter
