![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 13 of 13. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by ace on August 22, 2004, at 0:23:04
First of all, this would definately not apply to everyone, but my story demonstrates how benzos can still be misunderstood and underprescribed...
For the last 12 weeks I have averaged 2mg Xanax a day...works like a new born baby with a dummy in its mouth!!One Sunday I didn't have to leave the house. So I decided to have NO Xanax at all....
I experience not one withdrawal symptom....There was no increase in anxiety, no GI distress, no psychomotor problems, no dysphoria....absolutely nothing.
I have heard similar stories MANY times....as one person stated, "i'd be more afraid of getting addicted to coffee than Xanax"
Obviously this doesn't apply to everyone, but I think that many would have a similar experience
God Bless you all!Ace
Nardil- 60mg/day
Zyprexa- 2.5mg/day
Xanax- 1-3mg/day
Posted by chemist on August 22, 2004, at 10:12:33
In reply to Xanax- no withdrawal!!, posted by ace on August 22, 2004, at 0:23:04
Posted by Fred23 on August 22, 2004, at 13:32:18
In reply to no argument from me on this one! (nm) » ace, posted by chemist on August 22, 2004, at 10:12:33
Chemist, I was hoping you, or the other knowledgeable people, would point out that just skipping one day is not going to cause withdrawal symptoms immediately. At that dosage, enough is left in the system to hold for a while.
If actually stopped, it may take several days for the withdrawal symptoms to appear. Someone once posted some of the half-life math behind it.
Posted by chemist on August 22, 2004, at 15:17:09
In reply to Re: no argument from me on this one! » chemist, posted by Fred23 on August 22, 2004, at 13:32:18
hello there, chemist here....i agree with you, and did not bother to elaborate on Ace's story as he was rather clear with disclaimers of it being one day and that it was only his experience...and while i am certain i am not exclusive in this one regard, i did post something concerning half-lives with the math not long ago.......all the best, chemist
> Chemist, I was hoping you, or the other knowledgeable people, would point out that just skipping one day is not going to cause withdrawal symptoms immediately. At that dosage, enough is left in the system to hold for a while.
>
> If actually stopped, it may take several days for the withdrawal symptoms to appear. Someone once posted some of the half-life math behind it.
>
Posted by Ramon on August 22, 2004, at 20:12:28
In reply to Re: no argument from me on this one! » Fred23, posted by chemist on August 22, 2004, at 15:17:09
Xanax has short duration of action as well as short half-life
Unless ace is taking Xanax-XR, I would think he'd be having breakthrough or rebound anxiety if not withdrawal
Posted by ace on August 22, 2004, at 20:49:10
In reply to Re: no argument from me on this one! ?chemist, posted by Fred23 on August 22, 2004, at 13:32:18
> Chemist, I was hoping you, or the other knowledgeable people, would point out that just skipping one day is not going to cause withdrawal symptoms immediately. At that dosage, enough is left in the system to hold for a while.
>
> If actually stopped, it may take several days for the withdrawal symptoms to appear. Someone once posted some of the half-life math behind it.
>I see what you mean, but still disagree. Not only have I missed a few days and STILL not had any w/drawal AT ALL, Xanax within around 55 hrs is completely out of the system....people have purpoted that missing a single dose, even WHEN a large quantity of Xanax molecules are in the bloodstream, can cause a huge w/drawal.
Maybe in some, but in others there is no withdrawal, period. And after reading many (i mean literally houndreds of anecdotes) on the subject, the majority of people have NO problem stopping Xanax, even if it necissitates a slow tapering period.
Others go off it cold turkey, with no problems.
Cheers for your reply, obviously we all have different opinions, which is great!
Ace
Posted by Fred23 on August 22, 2004, at 20:59:49
In reply to Re: no argument from me on this one! » Fred23, posted by ace on August 22, 2004, at 20:49:10
> I see what you mean, but still disagree. Not only have I missed a few days and STILL not had any w/drawal AT ALL, Xanax within around 55 hrs is completely out of the system....
That is what I'm thinking of. It may be days after that where the withdrawal symptoms kick in.
>people have purpoted that missing a single dose, even WHEN a large quantity of Xanax molecules are in the bloodstream, can cause a huge w/drawal.
This I haven't heard about, but wonder if that may be due to the generic vs name brand quality issues.
> Maybe in some, but in others there is no withdrawal, period. And after reading many (i mean literally houndreds of anecdotes) on the subject, the majority of people have NO problem stopping Xanax, even if it necissitates a slow tapering period.
Well, yes, if it is going to be stopped, then tapering is reported to be the safe way.
> Cheers for your reply, obviously we all have different opinions, which is great!
Your report sounded a bit over-optimisitic, so I was concerned about someone misinterpreting it and proceeding in an unsafe direction.
Posted by chemist on August 22, 2004, at 22:14:41
In reply to Re: no argument from me on this one! » ace, posted by Fred23 on August 22, 2004, at 20:59:49
hello there, chemist here...on the off chance that the repeated and erroneous *opinions* concerning generic formulations of an entire class of drugs commonly used by visitors to this board are responsible for numerous and potentially dangerous side-effects, i invite any poster who has any hard evidence at hand to provide it, and do so in short time. generic drugs of the benzodiazepine/triazolo-derivative class are rated with a T.E. of no less than AB in every case by the United States Food and Drug Administration: the information contained in the IND/NDAs for the various compounds are the references i cite in contesting this recurring and patently false claim. if a person chooses to waste their money as indicated in the post i am responding to, that is their choice. unlike some folks, i would like to see some independent results - such as literature, peer-reviewed, and not funded by any pharmaceutical concern - or well-controlled (with placebo), double-blind, randomized trials with a sufficient cohort - before spending exorbitant amounts of money based on one individual's claim. i look forward to the receipt of the requested information: please do post it publicly and prominantly, as it will be of service to the estimated 2 million + visitors to this site each month. thank you, and all the best, chemist
Posted by Fred23 on August 22, 2004, at 22:35:44
In reply to the generic thing? » Fred23, posted by chemist on August 22, 2004, at 22:14:41
> hello there, chemist here...on the off chance that the repeated and erroneous *opinions* concerning generic formulations of an entire class of drugs commonly used by visitors to this board are responsible for numerous and potentially dangerous side-effects, i invite any poster who has any hard evidence at hand to provide it, and do so in short time. generic drugs of the benzodiazepine/triazolo-derivative class are rated with a T.E. of no less than AB in every case by the United States Food and Drug Administration: the information contained in the IND/NDAs for the various compounds are the references i cite in contesting this recurring and patently false claim. if a person chooses to waste their money as indicated in the post i am responding to, that is their choice. unlike some folks, i would like to see some independent results - such as literature, peer-reviewed, and not funded by any pharmaceutical concern - or well-controlled (with placebo), double-blind, randomized trials with a sufficient cohort - before spending exorbitant amounts of money based on one individual's claim. i look forward to the receipt of the requested information: please do post it publicly and prominantly, as it will be of service to the estimated 2 million + visitors to this site each month. thank you, and all the best, chemist
I've cited my personal experience with Ativan several times here, and have heard from others with similar experiences.
(You were offering me advice in my "sounding out the idea" stage. But you didn't seem to comment when I reported a dramatic difference between the generic and the name brand. In other words, I personally experienced the difference. Many others here had simliar experiences, though many also found the generic to be OK.)
I'm aware that this is a controversial issue, but many people have reported here that in certain cases, name brand medications really do work better than the generic.
I'd be curious about your personal experience with all the benzos you'be been though, have the generics truly done as well as name brand?
Posted by chemist on August 22, 2004, at 23:10:51
In reply to Re: the generic thing? » chemist, posted by Fred23 on August 22, 2004, at 22:35:44
hello again, chemist here....thank you for clarifying. the generics have, in all cases where the medication is in tablet form and all capsules except one (i will get to some caveats in a moment), been of equal efficacy in my experience with the following (as generics and name brand, various generic manufacturers, but usually watson, teva, geneva, purepac, mallincrodt, INC, barr): xanax, klonopin, valium, ativan, halcion, luvox, dalmane, restoril, and dexedrine. parnate was available to me as brand name, as were neurontin, gabitril, topamax, and trileptal, at the time: i cannot comment on any of these that are now available in generic formulations, and am not sure if any are off-patent yet. the one delayed onset incident was with a trial of dextroamphetamine sulfate ER in 15 mg capsules, made by mallinckrodt: i had been taking the name-brand 5 mg tablets, and the alternative was not to my liking. this could be due to the extended-release aspect (vs. the immediate release i was used to), and nothing else: i cannot say. i currently use the generic 5 mg dextroamphetamine sulfate tablets from Barr (immediate release), and they are just fine. aside from our own experiences, i am curious about those of others: i know of one individual who has received what is likely a mix of older tablets + fresher ones, and there is real variability in what are seemingly identical generic 1 mg xanax tablets. however, bioequivalence is rarely a problem with tablet formulations, somewhat more with capsules, and pronounced with creams/gels/ointments, as the trnasdermal delivery systems are done on the cheap, and the brand-name Retin A (johnson and johnson) is superior to at least a couple of generics, for example. apologizes for the gruff demeanor, i am curious about this phenomena, as it seems quite rare....all the best, chemist
> > hello there, chemist here...on the off chance that the repeated and erroneous *opinions* concerning generic formulations of an entire class of drugs commonly used by visitors to this board are responsible for numerous and potentially dangerous side-effects, i invite any poster who has any hard evidence at hand to provide it, and do so in short time. generic drugs of the benzodiazepine/triazolo-derivative class are rated with a T.E. of no less than AB in every case by the United States Food and Drug Administration: the information contained in the IND/NDAs for the various compounds are the references i cite in contesting this recurring and patently false claim. if a person chooses to waste their money as indicated in the post i am responding to, that is their choice. unlike some folks, i would like to see some independent results - such as literature, peer-reviewed, and not funded by any pharmaceutical concern - or well-controlled (with placebo), double-blind, randomized trials with a sufficient cohort - before spending exorbitant amounts of money based on one individual's claim. i look forward to the receipt of the requested information: please do post it publicly and prominantly, as it will be of service to the estimated 2 million + visitors to this site each month. thank you, and all the best, chemist
>
> I've cited my personal experience with Ativan several times here, and have heard from others with similar experiences.
>
> (You were offering me advice in my "sounding out the idea" stage. But you didn't seem to comment when I reported a dramatic difference between the generic and the name brand. In other words, I personally experienced the difference. Many others here had simliar experiences, though many also found the generic to be OK.)
>
> I'm aware that this is a controversial issue, but many people have reported here that in certain cases, name brand medications really do work better than the generic.
>
> I'd be curious about your personal experience with all the benzos you'be been though, have the generics truly done as well as name brand?
>
>
Posted by Fred23 on August 28, 2004, at 17:50:29
In reply to Re: the generic thing? » Fred23, posted by chemist on August 22, 2004, at 23:10:51
> i am curious about this phenomena, as it seems quite rare....all the best, chemist
In another thread going on now, someone pointed out that Blue Cross has some concern with drugs with a "narrow therapeutic index" and has statements like:
"For medications classified by the FDA as
having a narrow therapeutic index (NTI),
Blue Cross of California discourages the
use of these generic substitutions."And:
"You will not be required to pay the difference
between brand and generic if you are taking one
of the following drugs or classes that are
considered to be NTI medications:"The thread is at:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20040825/msgs/382111.html
Posted by chemist on August 28, 2004, at 17:55:40
In reply to Re: the generic thing? » chemist, posted by Fred23 on August 28, 2004, at 17:50:29
hello there, chemist here...thanks very much for the info! all the best, chemist
> > i am curious about this phenomena, as it seems quite rare....all the best, chemist
>
> In another thread going on now, someone pointed out that Blue Cross has some concern with drugs with a "narrow therapeutic index" and has statements like:
>
> "For medications classified by the FDA as
> having a narrow therapeutic index (NTI),
> Blue Cross of California discourages the
> use of these generic substitutions."
>
> And:
>
> "You will not be required to pay the difference
> between brand and generic if you are taking one
> of the following drugs or classes that are
> considered to be NTI medications:"
>
> The thread is at:
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20040825/msgs/382111.html
>
>
Posted by KaraS on August 28, 2004, at 18:38:49
In reply to Re: the generic thing? » Fred23, posted by chemist on August 28, 2004, at 17:55:40
> hello there, chemist here...thanks very much for the info! all the best, chemist
>
> > > i am curious about this phenomena, as it seems quite rare....all the best, chemist
> >
> > In another thread going on now, someone pointed out that Blue Cross has some concern with drugs with a "narrow therapeutic index" and has statements like:
> >
> > "For medications classified by the FDA as
> > having a narrow therapeutic index (NTI),
> > Blue Cross of California discourages the
> > use of these generic substitutions."
> >
> > And:
> >
> > "You will not be required to pay the difference
> > between brand and generic if you are taking one
> > of the following drugs or classes that are
> > considered to be NTI medications:"
> >
> > The thread is at:
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20040825/msgs/382111.html
> >
> >
>Anyone know what that list is or where to find it?
-K
This is the end of the 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.