![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 28 to 52 of 55. Go back in thread:
Posted by Elizabeth on August 23, 2001, at 11:09:24
In reply to Re: Elizabeth, Santa Barbara Guy, posted by Neal on August 22, 2001, at 23:38:44
Okay, I'll see if I can find his name somewhere. I feel like I could probably pick out his name if I had a Santa Barbara phone book.
I saw him while I was attempting grad school at UCSB. I was in pretty bad shape, and I remember him as being kind, open-minded, and smart.
-elizabeth
Posted by JahL on August 23, 2001, at 11:50:21
In reply to Re: Temgesic » JahL, posted by Elizabeth on August 23, 2001, at 11:02:44
> What I would do is take 0.1 mg for a few days (at least), then go up to 0.2 mg for a bit, then try 0.3, and so on until it works (or you get to ridiculous doses, I guess!). This way you develop tolerance to the side effects so you can get up to an effective dose (if there is one for you).Mmmm. I could do but it's beginning to nudge my depression the wrong side of suicidal. Not good for someone who recognises this a legimate way out. I wouldn't mind the side-effects if it didn't feel so 'wrong'. I've taken almost as many meds as you & think I've developed some degree of intuition regarding what meds are going to help.
> In the USA, at least, most "black" people really have some "white" ancestry, for example.
I can believe it. My cousin, to the casual observer *is* a 'white man'. He's actually half Afro-American.
>I was always in favour of the melting pot idea
Same. It's pretty 'multicultural' where I live.
> (i.e., the "races" aren't distinguished, we're all just human beings), but that's become unfashionable lately.
As in 'race' has become such an issue?
Ta,
J.
Posted by jojo on August 23, 2001, at 23:37:46
In reply to Re: Temgesic » JahL, posted by Elizabeth on August 23, 2001, at 11:02:44
> > Thanx (as per usual) for yr answers.
>
> You're welcome. I'm sorry I couldn't be more helpful.
>
> > I started out on half a pill the previous day but felt nothing. 0.2mg & then 0.3mg also had no positive effect upon any of my symptoms & exacerbated one or two of them.
>
> What I would do is take 0.1 mg for a few days (at least), then go up to 0.2 mg for a bit, then try 0.3, and so on until it works (or you get to ridiculous doses, I guess!). This way you develop tolerance to the side effects so you can get up to an effective dose (if there is one for you). I started out with 0.5 mL of the injectable sol'n (0.3 mg/mL), which wasn't really optimal for me but did help some, and then increased it to 1 mL after about 10 days (IIRC). When I missed it for a few days and then tried taking 1 mL without titrating, I was vomiting all day. (The story is really kind of funny: I went to see _The Matrix_ that day, and I threw up before the movie and again several hours afterwards, but not during or shortly after the movie. With the FX in that movie, I would have expected to be throwing up through the whole thing without even taking anything! < g >)
>
> FWIW, I've heard of people taking as much as 16 mg/day of the SL formulation (these are addicts, mind you, so their tolerance is through the roof).
>
> I have serious doubts about the reliability of the sublingual route, though. Seems to me you'd end up swallowing an unpredictable amount of the pill before it got absorbed.
>
> > No way could I handle more than 0.3. I'd be comatose.
>
> Tolerance is your friend here.
>
> > If Bupe was going to be of any benefit wouldn't I have at least *some* idea by now (given that opioids are fast-acting)? As yet no indication whatsoever.
>
> I would expect so. But then again, I have no idea what the effective dose range would be for SL buprenorphine. For all I know, taking 0.2 mg SL is like taking 0.1 mL (0.03 mg -- it's potent, but not *that* potent) IN!
>
> Something from another post of yours, BTW:
> > I've seen plenty of stuff on this. Certain races being slower metabolizers etc. In the future yr racial background could well influence yr treatment.
>
> I doubt it. The various "races" aren't really as easily distinguishable as all that. In the USA, at least, most "black" people really have some "white" ancestry, for example. I was always in favour of the melting pot idea (i.e., the "races" aren't distinguished, we're all just human beings), but that's become unfashionable lately. :-P
>
> -elizabethElizabeth-
That's why I put the word "race" in quotes. Whatever scientific meaning that it may posses is statistical and says nothing about the individual, but it does refer to one's chance of possessing certain genes, which has an effect on their disease susceptibility and drug response, and is more than just being a fast or slow metabolizer. As to individual drug response, the proof is still in the pudding, as they say.BTW, it sounds like you and JahL (don't know about Neal) would make really lousy heroin addicts. Do either of you know if you respond to amphetamine with euphoria. There was an article some years ago about that being a predictor of one's chance of responding to imipramine vs amitriptylene, if one was going to respond to one of them. I don't know if anyone claims that as being a predictor for the newer ADs.
jojo
Posted by JahL on August 24, 2001, at 9:54:28
In reply to Re: Temgesic, posted by jojo on August 23, 2001, at 23:37:46
> > The various "races" aren't really as easily distinguishable as all that. In the USA, at least, most "black" people really have some "white" ancestry, for example. I was always in favour of the melting pot idea (i.e., the "races" aren't distinguished, we're all just human beings), but that's become unfashionable lately. :-P
> That's why I put the word "race" in quotes. Whatever scientific meaning that it may posses is statistical and says nothing about the individual, but it does refer to one's chance of possessing certain genes, which has an effect on their disease susceptibility
Hi jojo. It's not a mental illness but sickle-cell anaemia, which mainly affects 'black' people is an example that springs to mind.
>and drug response, and is more than just being a fast or slow metabolizer. As to individual drug response, the proof is still in the pudding, as they say.
> BTW, it sounds like you and JahL (don't know about Neal) would make really lousy heroin addicts.How do you mean? In terms of actual response or ability to handle side-effects (which wouldn't bother me if the stuff actually worked)?
>Do either of you know if you respond to amphetamine with euphoria.
No. Over time I sniffed the equivalent of yr average speed factory (*never* again) and all it did was make me talk crap & stay up days on end for clubbing purposes. MDMA is the only drug-illegal or otherwise-that's ever made me feel euphoric. And that only worked for a yr or so.
>There was an article some years ago about that being a predictor of one's chance of responding to imipramine vs amitriptylene, if one was going to respond to one of them.
I've read (& forgotten) something similar.
Which did lack of euphoria predict? Amitript. is one of the few TCAs I didn't try.Thanks,
J.
Posted by Lorraine on August 24, 2001, at 9:58:34
In reply to Re: Elizabeth, Santa Barbara Guy, posted by Neal on August 22, 2001, at 23:38:44
Neal:
Martin Jensen seems to support opiate use. In his book "Diagnosis and Treatment of Brain Chemical Imbalance" he includes opiate use and notes that it is supported in the literature and by his personal observations as effective with depression. He is in Laguna Niguel and can be reached at 949-363-2600.
Good luck with all this. I suspect that you will need to change pdocs entirely to get opiates. What I mean is that it seems unlikely that one would just take on the opiate part of the program for you. Is it your intention to switch entirely? Even though Laguna Niguel is closer than Santa Barbara it's not convenient for weekly or even bi-weekly appointments. The other thing is that Martin Jensen (whose book I love, by the way and who has a very interesting approach generally to meds) will work with local therapists. So maybe you could see him and then have him refer you to someone in the LA area that is comfortable prescribing opiates.
Lorraine
Posted by jojo on August 24, 2001, at 11:44:39
In reply to Re: Temgesic » jojo, posted by JahL on August 24, 2001, at 9:54:28
> > > The various "races" aren't really as easily distinguishable as all that. In the USA, at least, most "black" people really have some "white" ancestry, for example. I was always in favour of the melting pot idea (i.e., the "races" aren't distinguished, we're all just human beings), but that's become unfashionable lately. :-P
>
> > That's why I put the word "race" in quotes. Whatever scientific meaning that it may posses is statistical and says nothing about the individual, but it does refer to one's chance of possessing certain genes, which has an effect on their disease susceptibility
>
> Hi jojo. It's not a mental illness but sickle-cell anaemia, which mainly affects 'black' people is an example that springs to mind.
>
> >and drug response, and is more than just being a fast or slow metabolizer. As to individual drug response, the proof is still in the pudding, as they say.
>
> > BTW, it sounds like you and JahL (don't know about Neal) would make really lousy heroin addicts.
>
> How do you mean? In terms of actual response or ability to handle side-effects (which wouldn't bother me if the stuff actually worked)?
>
> >Do either of you know if you respond to amphetamine with euphoria.
>
> No. Over time I sniffed the equivalent of yr average speed factory (*never* again) and all it did was make me talk crap & stay up days on end for clubbing purposes. MDMA is the only drug-illegal or otherwise-that's ever made me feel euphoric. And that only worked for a yr or so.
>
> >There was an article some years ago about that being a predictor of one's chance of responding to imipramine vs amitriptylene, if one was going to respond to one of them.
>
> I've read (& forgotten) something similar.
> Which did lack of euphoria predict? Amitript. is one of the few TCAs I didn't try.
>
> Thanks,
> J.JahL-
I meant in ability to handle side effects. Bup rolled off my back like water off of a duck's. No "side effects" to speak of, and I'm approaching 2 months, my previous record for not crashing after dropping a reasonably effective AD (Celexa). I'm taking about 0.9 mg./day intrnasally, and did so from day one. It does, however, alleviate a persistent pain in my neck, no Freudian meaning intended (but I know you Freudians out there don't really care if it was intended or not.)
In the published study (or was it a letter?) people who responded to amphetamine with euphoria responded positively to imipramine, but not to amitriptyline. If there was no euphoric response to amphetamine, they responded to amitriptyline, but not imipramine. To my knowledge, the study was never reproduced. Actually, it was pretty much ignored. I experience no euphoria from amphetamine, did not respond to imipramine, but did have a positive response to amitriptyline.
Although I have taken amphetamine, as an adjunct to ADs, at up to 35 mg. per day, for several years, it provides me no euphoria and no addictive potential, as far as I can judge. When I stopped it for three weeks I had no cravings, only my previous anergic state.
jojo
Posted by Elizabeth on August 24, 2001, at 12:12:08
In reply to Re: Temgesic » Elizabeth, posted by JahL on August 23, 2001, at 11:50:21
> Mmmm. I could do but it's beginning to nudge my depression the wrong side of suicidal. Not good for someone who recognises this a legimate way out. I wouldn't mind the side-effects if it didn't feel so 'wrong'. I've taken almost as many meds as you & think I've developed some degree of intuition regarding what meds are going to help.
I'm sure. :-) Do what you think is best -- only you know what you're experiencing. I was just offering an algorithm if you want to give it another try.
> > In the USA, at least, most "black" people really have some "white" ancestry, for example.
>
> I can believe it. My cousin, to the casual observer *is* a 'white man'. He's actually half Afro-American.Americans of African descent are generally much lighter-skinned than Africans. It's because of intermixing with other races, of course.
> >I was always in favour of the melting pot idea
>
> Same. It's pretty 'multicultural' where I live."Multiculturalism" is actually opposed to the "melting pot" idea -- the politically correct CW is that different cultures should remain segregated rather than be subsumed into "American" culture.
> > (i.e., the "races" aren't distinguished, we're all just human beings), but that's become unfashionable lately.
>
> As in 'race' has become such an issue?Yes. It's so ironic that a lot of people who consider themselves "liberals" are basically in favour of keeping society segregated.
-elizabeth
Posted by Elizabeth on August 24, 2001, at 12:18:22
In reply to Re: Temgesic, posted by jojo on August 23, 2001, at 23:37:46
> That's why I put the word "race" in quotes. Whatever scientific meaning that it may posess is statistical and says nothing about the individual, but it does refer to one's chance of possessing certain genes, which has an effect on their disease susceptibility and drug response, and is more than just being a fast or slow metabolizer. As to individual drug response, the proof is still in the pudding, as they say.
I understand. (Didn't I put "race" in quotes too? :-) )
> BTW, it sounds like you and JahL (don't know about Neal) would make really lousy heroin addicts.
I've been told that before (by other people who should know).
> Do either of you know if you respond to amphetamine with euphoria.
The only times I've taken amphetamine (Dexedrine and Adderall -- 5 mg was the most I tried of either one), I was on Parnate. I got really jittery and hypertensive. (So that would be a "no.")
> There was an article some years ago about that being a predictor of one's chance of responding to imipramine vs amitriptylene, if one was going to respond to one of them.
I remember. I'd like to see if the result can be replicated.
-elizabeth
Posted by Elizabeth on August 24, 2001, at 12:19:13
In reply to Re: Neal What about Martin Jensen in Laguna?, posted by Lorraine on August 24, 2001, at 9:58:34
> Martin Jensen seems to support opiate use. In his book "Diagnosis and Treatment of Brain Chemical Imbalance" he includes opiate use and notes that it is supported in the literature and by his personal observations as effective with depression.
Hey Lorraine -- does Jensen provide a definition for "chemical imbalance?" < g >
-elizabeth
Posted by JahL on August 24, 2001, at 12:38:35
In reply to Re: Temgesic » JahL, posted by Elizabeth on August 24, 2001, at 12:12:08
> > >I was always in favour of the melting pot idea
> >
> > Same. It's pretty 'multicultural' where I live.
>
> "Multiculturalism" is actually opposed to the "melting pot" idea -- the politically correct CW is that different cultures should remain segregated rather than be subsumed into "American" culture.Yeah you're right. My mind is not working too well right now. I probably meant 'multi-racial'. It's 'multiculturalism' that's at the heart of the most of the problems where I'm situated. The well-meaning liberals you speak of positively encourage large swathes of legal immigrants *not* to integrate. An example: a few (mostly left-wing/Socialist) politicians in the UK recently suggested that it would be in the best interests of everyone if newcomers were encouraged to learn the language. This was denounced as "linguistic emperialism." You can't win.
I'm personally in favour of everyone just getting on with it.J.
> > > (i.e., the "races" aren't distinguished, we're all just human beings), but that's become unfashionable lately.
> >
> > As in 'race' has become such an issue?
>
> Yes. It's so ironic that a lot of people who consider themselves "liberals" are basically in favour of keeping society segregated.
Posted by Lorraine on August 24, 2001, at 13:26:35
In reply to Jensen » Lorraine, posted by Elizabeth on August 24, 2001, at 12:19:13
> > Martin Jensen seems to support opiate use. In his book "Diagnosis and Treatment of Brain Chemical Imbalance" he includes opiate use and notes that it is supported in the literature and by his personal observations as effective with depression.
>
> Hey Lorraine -- does Jensen provide a definition for "chemical imbalance?" < g >Why, yes, he does, elizabeth:-) He says "Chemical imbalances are psychological signs with physical causes". I think that about covers it, don't you < vbg >?
>
> -elizabeth
Posted by Neal on August 24, 2001, at 23:50:09
In reply to Re: Jensen » Elizabeth, posted by Lorraine on August 24, 2001, at 13:26:35
Hey JahL,
Didn't you say in a previous post that Jensen would not write a script for bup?-Neal
Posted by JahL on August 25, 2001, at 8:55:33
In reply to Re: Jensen; -JahL, posted by Neal on August 24, 2001, at 23:50:09
> Hey JahL,
> Didn't you say in a previous post that Jensen would not write a script for bup?Hi Neal.
I saw the guy about a year ago & so theoretically things could've changed. His prescribing policy is pretty liberal (I had a handful of stimulants doled out 1st time) but I got the impression he didn't prescribe opioids because of abuse-potential & LT tolerance. I don't know if this would apply to Bupe tho'.
Your best bet is probably to e-mail him (addr. on his site) explaining yr dilemma. He replies quite quickly IME & he should let you know if he's prepared *in theory* to prescribe.
I would imagine he would also call back if you speak to his secretary on the no. flying about on this page. Saves you the time & cost of a consult. of course.
Either that or move to England where customs let you have yr Temgesic :-)
Good luck,
J.
Posted by shelliR on August 25, 2001, at 9:17:46
In reply to Re: VERDICT/depersonalisation. » JahL, posted by shelliR on August 22, 2001, at 1:09:38
Hey Jahl,
>
> > >I brought in all this stuff about buprenorphine because it was obvious that I've become habituated to the oxy, but he made a comment about if you're going to use opiates, use opiates. I'll try to ask him more when I see him on Thursday, what exactly he meant.
> > I'd be interested to know. I want yr doctor! :-)Okay, (This is a repetition from another thread with Elizabeth & Lorriane, but I doubt seriously you have followed that thread).
On my pdoc's comment about opiates and buph. He says that buph is a "dirty" drug, meaning it has a lot of side effects and he has seen complications mixing other meds with it. Also that he doesn't buy that tolerance is not developed as it is for full opiates. That was as long as any answer I get. Really. Anyway, I think you can believe the side effects part. I would still be willing to potentially waste one day to to find out for myself. I mean what if this guy gets runs over by a truck? Not that I wouldn't have compassion for his family, < g >; but what about *me*? I can see not having any records available and trying to persuade some new pdoc that my meds for depression and DD are oxy and valium. Like yea, sure.
> > Here's hoping the Wellbutrin's better than the Parnate (couldn't have been much worse, huh?).....
Well, here's the problem with Wellbutrin. It's making explaining things really difficult for me. (Verbal inarticulation, because I think I'm still doing okay on paper.) When I am talking to a potential client and trying to explain what their options are and what I charge for each, I am getting words and ideas mixed up and nothing cohesive comes out. It's really embarrassing--like I'm not clear of my own price structure. So my pdoc says, oh yea, that sounds like a not uncommon side effect from wellbutrin that *may* clear up with time. He's even had people on wellbutrin start to stutter.
My tongue also feels a bit heavy which I guess people have referred to as a cotton in the mouth feeling. I feel a bit like I'm lisping. Did you or do you experience these verbal/oral side effects? If you did, has it gone away? What dose up you up to?
Thanks, Shellli
Posted by shelliR on August 25, 2001, at 9:20:24
In reply to Re: Jensen » Neal, posted by JahL on August 25, 2001, at 8:55:33
Posted by JahL on August 25, 2001, at 10:22:55
In reply to Re: VERDICT/depersonalisation:WELLBUTRIN » shelliR, posted by shelliR on August 25, 2001, at 9:17:46
> On my pdoc's comment about opiates and buph. He says that buph is a "dirty" drug. I would still be willing to potentially waste one day to to find out for myself.That's my outlook. Nothing to lose.
> I can see not having any records available and trying to persuade some new pdoc that my meds for depression and DD are oxy and valium. Like yea, sure.
I could foresee problems...
> Well, here's the problem with Wellbutrin. It's making explaining things really difficult for me. (Verbal inarticulation, because I think I'm still doing okay on paper.) When I am talking to a potential client and trying to explain what their options are and what I charge for each, I am getting words and ideas mixed up and nothing cohesive comes out. It's really embarrassingTell me about. The psychomotor retardation I suffer from replicates the symptoms you describe. Part of the reasom I'm no longer sociable is that my brain just doesn't work fast or well enough to engage in conversation. It's a real effort & is slightly demeaning; people think you're a lot 'slower' than you really are. As you say, writing's a little (but not much) easier probably because you have longer to think. The fact that I'm in a perpetual state of derealisation doesn't help; common-usage words often appear new or foreign.
But to answer yr Q; I don't think Wellbutrin is making anything worse. I'm up to 300mg/day now & I hardly notice I'm on it. Not surprising; it's hard to know what's doing what when you're on a combo. Nothing good yet (& I'm not expecting much).>So my pdoc says, oh yea, that sounds like a not uncommon side effect from wellbutrin that *may* clear up with time.
Believe me, you would hope it resolves. Becomes a bit wearing after time.
> My tongue also feels a bit heavy which I guess people have referred to as a cotton in the mouth feeling. I feel a bit like I'm lisping. Did you or do you experience these verbal/oral side effects?
No not really. If anything just *more* agitation.
>I am getting words and ideas mixed up and nothing cohesive comes out.
Care-taker & lucky goods.
J.
Posted by JahL on August 25, 2001, at 10:46:10
In reply to Re: VERDICT/depersonalisation:WELLBUTRIN » shelliR, posted by shelliR on August 25, 2001, at 9:17:46
One other noticeable side-effect; I have no appetite. I've lost 4 lbs in the last fortnight & I'm not exactly overweight to begin with...
Weight-watchers take notice...J.
Posted by Elizabeth on August 25, 2001, at 11:53:09
In reply to Re: Jensen » Elizabeth, posted by Lorraine on August 24, 2001, at 13:26:35
> > Hey Lorraine -- does Jensen provide a definition for "chemical imbalance?" < g >
>
> Why, yes, he does, elizabeth:-) He says "Chemical imbalances are psychological signs with physical causes". I think that about covers it, don't you < vbg >?Uh, no. That's awfully vague! (Sorry, the term "chemical imbalance" is very irritating to me because people toss it around as though it is both a meaningful term and that it is proven to exist.)
-elizabeth
Posted by shelliR on August 25, 2001, at 14:53:40
In reply to Re: WELLBUTRIN ps » shelliR, posted by JahL on August 25, 2001, at 10:46:10
Johl,Re: Care-taker & lucky goods.
What does that mean and where does the expression come from?> One other noticeable side-effect; I have no appetite. I've lost 4 lbs in the last fortnight & I'm not exactly overweight to begin with...
Yes, I am very very happy about this effect. Actually as soon as I dropped nardil, I lost my carbohydrate cravings. Now with the wellbutrin, I can easily forget to eat. I was really thin until I was about thirty-five. Now I am twenty pounds overweight and working really hard, (watching what I eat and exercising), but I don't have a scale. (Just weigh myself when I go to a doctor's office). Hey, I just had a thought that if I lose enough weight I might be willing to retry lamictal .......so if I can stay with wellbutrin, I will be trim and stupid. (or trim and mute.) Sounds like a good tradeoff to me. (not. :-( )
S
Posted by JahL on August 25, 2001, at 15:55:11
In reply to Re: WELLBUTRIN ps » JahL, posted by shelliR on August 25, 2001, at 14:53:40
>
> > >I am getting words and ideas mixed up and nothing cohesive comes out.
>
> Re: Care-taker & lucky goods.
> What does that mean and where does the expression come from?It's 'take care & good luck' said on Wellbutrin, another side effect of which is obviously crap sense of humour. I'm not on form today (being stoned don't help)...:-(
[a care-taker is a janitor FYI...]> ......so if I can stay with wellbutrin, I will be trim and stupid. (or trim and mute.) Sounds like a good tradeoff to me. (not. :-( )
I'm already trim & mute (just *try* and get a sociable word outta me, especially first thing) & I'm working on the other one. :-(
J.
PS You like tennis? As of last week so do I. Rafter & Roddick came home for me£££:-):-)
I expect one of them to do the same @ the US Open.....
Posted by shelliR on August 25, 2001, at 16:53:27
In reply to Re: WELLBUTRIN ps » shelliR, posted by JahL on August 25, 2001, at 15:55:11
> > Re: Care-taker & lucky goods.
> [a care-taker is a janitor FYI...]
or a person who cares for your gardens or who cares for your elderly parents . Or cares for both, *FYI*.
And lucky goods?
> J.
> PS You like tennis? As of last week so do I. Rafter & Roddick came home for me£££:-):-)
> I expect one of them to do the same @ the US Open.....Hey, they are my guys also. Roddick won in Washington (you remember---this nation's capital-- where I live (very near)). My neighbor saw Roddick play and said he was embarrassingly immature (like screaming things at himself really really loud), but he is pretty young still.
So what about the women? Women's tennis is more interesting anyway--the serve does not rule all. Who do you follow and if you say Anna K, I'll throw up. (Besides, she hasn't played much this last year). Actually I think Mary Pierce is the coolest woman player, but she's been out a long time and won't be in the U.S. open. I'm pretty into Capriati's comeback thing because I remember watching her come on the circuit when she was fourteen. Venus Williams' play has also been pretty awesome. Seles is starting a good comeback also (best since her stabbing). I love the US open because I don't have to wake up at 3am to see it live. Also, the matches under the lights are really intense. I leave town for the second week so I can watch without feeling guilty that I'm not working.
Starts Monday. Do you have like ESPN or a sports channel over there that shows all the matches?
S
Posted by jojo on August 25, 2001, at 17:01:17
In reply to Re: Temgesic » jojo, posted by Elizabeth on August 24, 2001, at 12:18:22
> > That's why I put the word "race" in quotes. Whatever scientific meaning that it may posess is statistical and says nothing about the individual, but it does refer to one's chance of possessing certain genes, which has an effect on their disease susceptibility and drug response, and is more than just being a fast or slow metabolizer. As to individual drug response, the proof is still in the pudding, as they say.
>
> I understand. (Didn't I put "race" in quotes too? :-) )
>
> > BTW, it sounds like you and JahL (don't know about Neal) would make really lousy heroin addicts.
>
> I've been told that before (by other people who should know).
>
> > Do either of you know if you respond to amphetamine with euphoria.
>
> The only times I've taken amphetamine (Dexedrine and Adderall -- 5 mg was the most I tried of either one), I was on Parnate. I got really jittery and hypertensive. (So that would be a "no.")
>
> > There was an article some years ago about that being a predictor of one's chance of responding to imipramine vs amitriptylene, if one was going to respond to one of them.
>
> I remember. I'd like to see if the result can be replicated.
>
> -elizabeth
elizabeth-
Here's a relevant article regarding "race" and drug reaction:: Hum Exp Toxicol 1994 Aug;13(8):542-4
Related Articles, Books
Adverse reactions to intravenous N-acetylcysteine in Chinese patients
with paracetamol (acetaminophen) poisoning.Chan TY, Critchley JA.
Department of Clinical Pharmacology, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Prince of Wales
Hospital, Shatin, New Territories.The incidence of adverse reactions to intravenous N-acetylcysteine (NAC) was studied in 56
Chinese patients with paracetamol (acetaminophen) poisoning. Eight (14%) patients developed
a skin rash (n = 7) or fever (n = 1) mostly during the initial high dose infusion of the antidote. In
four subjects (three with toxic plasma paracetamol levels), the infusion was continued without a
worsening of the adverse reaction. NAC was discontinued in the remaining four subjects in
whom the paracetamol levels were subsequently found to be non-toxic. Intravenous
chlorpheniramine was given to six subjects. All eight subjects completely recovered. In the dose
that is recommended for the treatment of acute paracetamol poisoning, intravenous NAC is
generally safe in Chinese but mild side effects are common. We recommend that the initial
loading dose is given over 60 rather than 15 min.Publication Types:
Clinical trial
Posted by shelliR on August 25, 2001, at 17:02:42
In reply to Re: WELLBUTRIN ps » shelliR, posted by JahL on August 25, 2001, at 10:46:10
to keep the last post appropriate to Psychobabble and not be redirected. Won't happen again, Dr. Bob. Posts *solely* on the topic of the U.S. open and not medications will be posts on PB in the future.
shelli
Posted by Lorraine on August 25, 2001, at 17:31:55
In reply to Re: Jensen » Lorraine, posted by Elizabeth on August 25, 2001, at 11:53:09
> > > Hey Lorraine -- does Jensen provide a definition for "chemical imbalance?" < g >
> >
> > Why, yes, he does, elizabeth:-) He says "Chemical imbalances are psychological signs with physical causes". I think that about covers it, don't you < vbg >?
>
> Uh, no. That's awfully vague! (Sorry, the term "chemical imbalance" is very irritating to me because people toss it around as though it is both a meaningful term and that it is proven to exist.)I thought it was vague too and that tickled me. I find the term meaningless and actually as harmless as any of the other lingo floating around out there. For instance, I hate the term depression. People without mental illness believe the they know what depression is. What bothers you about chemical imbalance? I think the term chemical imbalance is used as code for "physical treatment" as opposed to talk therapy.
Lorraine
Posted by shelliR on August 25, 2001, at 18:34:02
In reply to Uh oh-forgot to mention tennis and ADs in order, posted by shelliR on August 25, 2001, at 17:02:42
> to keep the last post appropriate to Psychobabble and not be redirected. Won't happen again, Dr. Bob. Posts *solely* on the topic of the U.S. open and not medications will be posts on PB in the future.
>
> shelli
WOOPS
I mean on *social* psychobabble. And I thought the wellbutrin was only affecting my speech.S
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Medication | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.