> of the drugs work. one need not be an AID dissident to reckognize that
> all of these drugs undermine the body over time. AZT is widely, if not
> universially, considered a failure. i will not be shocked when all of
That's a claim which I have to refute. AZT is not considered a failure; it's used in modern drug therapy, after all, which does reduce virus load. AZT alone statistically extends life by an slim margin: six or eight months, if I recall correctly. Not a great deal. It wasn't an anodyne; that does not make it a failure (since it does demonstrate that HIV can be fought along certain approaches, a *huge* advance) although it certainly didn't cure AIDS.
For that matter, some people vaccinated against smallpox, or polio, or rabies can still get that disease when exposed. Does that make vaccination a failure?
One thing that AZT used alone does well is prevent HIV from being transmitted from mother to child. A rather specialized use, but still a valid use.
It would be interesting if those people where HIV load was reduced to nil and T-cell count partly restored developed AIDS anyway - this would certainly put paid to the HIV=AIDS theory. But it hasn't happened yet.
Marco
,--------------------------------------------------------------------------.
> | Civil liberties are always safe <
> Marco Anglesio | as long as their existence doesn't <
> mpa at the-wire.com | bother anyone. <
> http://www.the-wire.com/~mpa | --New York Times editorial, <
> | Jan 3, 1941 <
`--------------------------------------------------------------------------'