Posted by Janelle on March 26, 2003, at 19:02:45
In reply to Re: Thanks, Jack and further question:, posted by Jack Smith on March 26, 2003, at 17:12:54
Jack -
Interestingly, what you explained about what was done to Celexa in order to derive Lexapro is the same thing I have heard. I just added my *own* conclusion that the non-therapeutic/inactive ingredients in Celexa which were removed to make Lexapro must have been taken out because they were *useless*! (placebo-like)
I bet your pdoc is right in his thinking that the "ineffective" half of the celexa molecule is not necessarily "ineffective" and even may work in concert with the other half, since he and his colleagues have a lot of experience with celexa.
And of course there is the marketing, patent, gimmick, MONEY (business) side to all of it, as you very well explained!
In fact, when I was at my pdoc's office in walked the LEXAPRO rep, with tons of samples and *goodies* for the pdocs (pens, post-it pads, etc.)
Wow - I had no idea Celexa's patent is already going to run out ... I still think of it as a relatively new med! I wonder how long a patent lasts these days ... perhaps it can vary.
Well, based on what I've read here and my own thoughts about all of this, I'm sticking with the Celexa, thank you!
poster:Janelle
thread:213128
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20030325/msgs/213235.html