On 21 Oct 1998 johnburgin at worldnet.att.net wrote:
snip
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Dosage changed in 1989, quite a bit before PIs came along.
>> 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
>snip
ok, let me see if i get that straight. you claim that
(A) AZT does not help HIV+ people
(B) AZT is harmfull and causes AIDS.
but at the same time, you cite a study that shows an at least transient
positive effect on people during primary HIV infection just to dispute
when AZT dosage was changed ? doesn't that strike you a weired ?
wolfgang
p.s. I suspect the key word here is "primary infection". the initial
viremia results in much higher plasma titers (RT-PCR) than the chronic
viral titers. for clinical benefits, you want to hit the virus harder than
in normal therapy. i don't know the exact date the dosage was changed, but
i think chronically infected patients received the lower dosage discussed
here since the early 90s. so find some more studies to back your beliefs
(they are not opinions).
wolfgang
