Posted by michael on October 24, 2006, at 1:56:40
In reply to Re: Goldshield Parnate » shasling, posted by Tomatheus on October 21, 2006, at 1:09:03
> Suzie,
>
> Thank you so much for your response. I apologize for taking so long to acknowledge what you wrote.
>
> I think it's very encouraging to hear that you found the Goldshield tranylcypromine to be noticeably more efficacious than the Glaxo Parnate. I too have a "sleepy fatigued" kind of depression that (among other things) is characterized by extreme psychomotor retardation, lethargy, hypersomnia, unrefreshing sleep, and leaden paralysis. My energy levels have actually been so low as of late that I have not been able to write and post messages of any coherence for the last few days.
>
> When I took the Glaxo Parnate previously, I noticed a distinct energizing effect on the first day that lasted for a few hours (I suspect that what I felt might have been caused by Parnate's amphetamine metabolites, but I can't say for sure). But after the energizing effect faded, I felt extremely sleepy and could not stay awake no matter how hard I tried. After being on the Glaxo Parnate for a few days, I seemed to develop a tolerance to the drug's energizing effect but still could not keep myself awake in the middle of the day, no matter what I did (I tried drinking lots of coffee to combat the sleepiness, but to no avail). So, for the most part, I found the Glaxo Parnate to be a very sedating drug, which obviously did not help me with the type of depressive disorder that I suffer from. I probably should have tried staying on the Glaxo Parnate for longer than I did (I stayed on it for about two weeks), but I was taking afternoon and evening classes at a university at the time, and I didn't want to fail my courses due to bad attendance.
>
> Your theory that Glaxo might have removed Parnate's amphetamine metabolites is very interesting and thought-provoking. It's difficult to imagine how Glaxo could have removed Parnate's metabolites without changing the active ingredient (which has remained the same over the years despite changes in the drug's inactive ingredients), but I find your theory to be interesting nevertheless, and I thank you for sharing it with all of us.
>
> Of course, whether or not the version of Parnate that's currently being sold in the U.S. lacks amphetamine metabolites, I think there is no questioning the fact that you found the Goldshield tranylcypromine to be significantly more activating than the Glaxo version. I realize that not everybody's experience with Parnate will mirror yours and that there's no guarantee that the Goldshield version will work for me. But considering that Nardil is the only psychiatric medication that's ever produced more than a few days' worth of meaningful clinical benefits for me (I was feeling *so normal* on a specially prepared version of the Australian Nardil for about a month until the manufacturer stopped putting silica gel inside the bottles), I certainly think that it would be worthwhile to try the Goldshield tranylcypromine. I am very strongly considering ordering it from an online pharmacy that I've used in the past. I know that it's generally not advisable to go the self-medication route, but quite frankly, the meds that I've ordered from overseas have generally worked much better than any of the meds that my pdoc ever prescribed me. I'd certainly prefer to "play by the rules," so to speak, just as I did for the first few years of receiving psychopharmacological treatments. But when it comes down to it, I'd prefer to take medications that are actually effective at treating my psychiatric illness instead of paying my pdoc more than $100 a session to prescribe me medications that just make my condition worse (and consequently put me deeper into debt by keeping me out of work for longer). So, as you did with the Goldshield tranylcypromine and as I did previously with the Australian Nardil, I will probably continue to travel down the forbidden path of self-medication -- most likely by ordering the Goldshield tranylcypromine for myself.
>
> Thanks again for your helpful post. As I mentioned, I found it encouraging to read about your experience with the Goldshield tranylcypromine, and I'm sorry to hear that you weren't able to continue taking it. I hope that everything is going ok for you in your struggle with this illness.
>
> Tomatheus
>
> > Tomatheus,
> >
> > I think you have hit the nail on the head. The Goldshield was very activating for me; upon research I find that Parnate "has" amphetamine metabolites. I am unfortunately acquianted with amph, and recognized it as that.
> >
> > I think I was taking 10 or 20 mg per day, not very many b/c of the cost and hassle to obtain. (Couldn't get a doc to try maoi for me so I had to go the self medication route) I have a very sleepy fatigued depression so the Goldshield was working wonders for me. I found a psych who would, since I was already on it, rx it for me so I started taking the American version - Glaxo I guess. The activation immediately faded. My theory is that Glaxo reformulated and removed the amph metabolites somehow. Why its still okay to have activating Parnate in the UK, but not here, who knows? But for me, Glaxo parnate not worth taking; Goldshield was the BOMB. I unforunately can't handle the diet and all so can't go back to it. But that's my experience. Hope I was able to fill in what you were looking for.
> >
> > Suzie
>
>
...just fyi:First, let me say that I do not dispute the observation that there may be differences between the 2 formulations of Parnate - nor that there may be differences in how each makes someone feel.
However, I believe that a metabolite is what results from the body processing / changing [or metabolizing] the substance ingested. A metabolite can not be "removed" from the medication because it does not exist until the body transforms [or metabolizes] the initial substance into the resultant metabolite(s).
My understanding is that, in this case, amphetamine is one of the substances that results from the body breaking down [or metabolizing] the Parnate.
I know, this is probably just a matter of vocabulary... and I do understand the intent of the discussion. I mention it only because it the way in which the word "metabolite" was being used/mis-used [kind of as a synonym for ingredient?] could be very confusing...
Apologies if I'm being too critical - no intention to offend anyone. The distinction just seemed relevant - and kind of important - to understanding the discussion.
And lastly, I will add that I am neither a doctor, nor a dictionary... Nonetheless, I am fairly certain that what I've written above is accurate. ...and if not, hopefully someone who knows better will correct me!
michael
poster:michael
thread:693461
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20061020/msgs/697209.html