Posted by craiggetty on November 3, 2005, at 14:26:30
In reply to Re: The other Nardil » craiggetty, posted by Chairman_MAO on November 3, 2005, at 7:57:47
> Of course brands can differ in pharacokinetic parameters, and brands are made to stricter standards than generics. However, that there could be such a difference for someone such that there is a COMPLETE LOSS OF THERAPEUTIC RESPONSE _AND_a dosage adjustment doesn't work seems unlikely to me.
Have you considered that there might have been a gross error in the manufacturing of the med by the new company? Manufacturing errors do take place. Afterall, that's how Kellogg's Corn Flakes came into existence.
> Not for nothing, but people who are insecure in argument generally take the tone you did with me.
An argument wasn't my intention. Just a plea for you to be courteous.
> Please let me know how you can reconcile the fact that the "New" Nardil conspiracy proponents claim that the excipients in the tablet are the problem--because the tablet isn't dissolving SLOWLY enough or even making it to the intestine--yet a LIQUID NARDIL ELIXIR is supposed to be the answer. Enteric coated? Not enteric coated? Liquid, solid, quick release, slow release, what? And in no way was the "old" Nardil formulated as a sustained release preparation.
I will try to remember to ask my pharmacist when I get the chance. What did your pharmacist say? You might want to try the following website: http://www.google.com
poster:craiggetty
thread:574256
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20051031/msgs/575017.html