Posted by djmmm on April 13, 2004, at 12:52:20
In reply to Re: Nardil from Australia = 1950's version.JV » King Vultan, posted by Spotcheck on April 11, 2004, at 18:45:38
> I do not have any statistic -- yet -- that would tell me what percentage of Nardil users fail to respond to the new Nardil. Pfizer might have some of course, but I don't. I have run across about 10 people, but I suspect there are more. One has been able to move to Lamictal -- an atypical antidepressant. For some Parnate does not work on them at all, while in others it helps them only somewhat. However, it definitely does not work as well as the old Nardil did by anyone's standards.
>
> When the new Nardil does not work or begins to fade and actually fails, it's a tragic event to witness, let me tell you. My heart drops whenever I read someone's post to that effect. In SuzieQ1's post, I suspect that all she really has to do is increase the dosage and she will be just fine. She is expecting the new Nardil to work as well as the old Nardil did which is a common mistake.
>
> "Are there some people who have not noticed a difference?"
>
> Everyone has noticed a difference Todd, and everyone would much rather be taking the old Nardil rather the the new. Only those who have never taken the old before cannot know the difference. For the most part we have all had to increase the dosage we take of the old to achieve a similar effect.that's not true...I took Nardil (the "older" version) for a few years..was off it, and have been back on the "new" Nardil for a few months. Other than the HORRIBLE "plastic/glue" taste, my dosage of 60mg has been fine....so count me as, apparently, the only one that DOESN'T notice an efficacy difference....
I think that a select few people have created this non-effective Nardil "hysteria" and it has spread like wildfire (through that OTHER med forum) I do miss that orange candy coating...my GOD does the newer Nardil taste bad.
poster:djmmm
thread:283363
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20040412/msgs/335968.html