Posted by tecknohed on January 7, 2008, at 20:37:00
In reply to Re: Nardil: My Experience Thus Far.... » tecknohed, posted by Phoenix1 on January 7, 2008, at 19:00:36
> Was there ever consensus on whether getting Nardil enteric coated (by a compounding pharmacy or using Plasminplus) increased the effects/bioavailability?
>
> Phoenix1Dont know. I doubt it. Apart from within the walls of the pharmaceutical companies of course LOL.
I wasn't saying that I dont believe the new/old Nardil problems people have are real, incase that is what you thought I was implying.
UK Nardil literally melts in the mouth so its coating simply holds the contents together. I often sucked on mine (I grew to love the taste) & loved its smell. It was the most powerfull pharmaceutical drug I've EVER taken, so obviously in my case no enteric coating was necessary. Have you any ideas why Nardil was given an enteric coating (if thats what happened)?
Perhapse it was a way to avoid refridgeration? I guess its well absorbed as a sulphate?
What salt is bound to phenelze in Pfizer's new formula? Would Nardil not work as a hydrochloride salt? I always found Nardil felt more potent with a quicker aborption when taken right at the start of a meal, when hydrochloric acid would be at peak stomach concentrations.
But to be honest I have no idea why different drugs are bound to different salt. Maybe each drug has its own most absorbable salt form. Maybe its to do with stability. Or both.By the way, what is Plasminplus & what is it meant to do? Is it a type of coating or something?
teck
poster:tecknohed
thread:804488
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20080105/msgs/804915.html