Psycho-Babble Medication Thread 602979

Shown: posts 1 to 25 of 27. This is the beginning of the thread.

 

What's Different Between the Old and New Nardil?

Posted by shasling on January 26, 2006, at 10:05:59

I've seen it referenced several times...

What did they do to it, and where does the old (better?) Nardil come from?

Thanks!

Suzie

 

Re: ... Old and New Nardil (warning: very long) » shasling

Posted by Tomatheus on January 28, 2006, at 22:14:49

In reply to What's Different Between the Old and New Nardil?, posted by shasling on January 26, 2006, at 10:05:59

Suzie,

Considering that I'm guilty of having made several references to the "old" and "new" Nardils without really giving much of an explanation, it seems appropriate that I should offer a response to your post.

To answer the first part of your question on the simplest level, Pfizer essentially changed the formulation of the U.S. version of Nardil. Many of the inactive ingredients in the "old" Nardil are no longer in the "new" Nardil, and the coatings of the two formulations look obviously different. The "old" Nardil had a hard, shiny candy-like coating, whereas the coating of the "new" Nardil is softer and has the lettering ("PD 270") engraved into it. Pfizer began distributing the "new" Nardil to pharmacies in the place of the "old" Nardil in the fall of 2003. I've listed the inactive ingredients of the two Pfizer Nardil formulations below:

THE "OLD" PFIZER NARDIL (Parke-Davis Division of Pfizer Inc., 2001)
* Acacia, NF
* Calcium carbonate
* Carnauba wax, NF
* Corn-starch, NF
* FD and C yellow No. 6
* Gelatin, NF
* Kaolin, USP
* Magnesium stearate, NF
* Mannitol, USP
* Pharmaceutical glaze, NF
* Povidone, USP
* Sucrose, NF
* Talc, USP
* White wax, NF
* White wheat flower

THE "NEW" PFIZER NARDIL (Parke-Davis Division of Pfizer Inc., 2003)
* Mannitol, USP
* Croscarmellose sodium, NF
* Povidone, USP
* Edetate disodium, USP
* Magnesium stearate, NF
* Isopropyl alcohol, USP
* Purified water, USP
* Opadry orange Y30-13242A
* Simethicone emulsion, USP

Note: According to a letter sent to Pfizer by the FDA (Katz, 2003), the labeling document that Pfizer submitted as part of its supplemental new drug application (dated March 27, 2003) listed "corn starch, NF" as an inactive ingredient using strikethrough formatting.

With respect to whether the "old" Nardil was better than the "new" Nardil, there is some disagreement, but it is my assessment that the "old" Nardil was clearly superior to the "new" Nardil in some individuals. From the experiences that I've read on this board and on the Anxiety Community's Nardil discussion board (http://anxietyhelp.org/treatment/medication/nardil.html), it is clear that some "old" Nardil users find the "new" Nardil to be markedly less effective and less tolerable (in terms of side effects) than the old product. There are others, however, who have reported no noticeable differences between the two formulations. I have yet to read an experience from someone who took both formulations and found the new one to be superior to the old one. From the posts I've read on the topic, it seems that among those who took both the "old" and the "new" Nardils, most tend to describe the old formulation as being superior to the new one. What is not entirely clear is whether the posts I've read are representative of the overall group of patients who have taken both the "old" Nardil and the "new" Nardil. It is generally believed that those with positive experiences to meds in general to be underrepresented on online discussion forums, so it's possible that those with negative experiences on the new Nardil might not actually be in the majority; they might just be more likely to report their experiences here. But then again, there is no way to know to what extent certain groups of patients are overrepresented here or underrepresented here, so I guess that only thing I can say for sure (assuming that all the reports are accurate) is that some patients (at least several hundred, based on some reports) noticed a significant difference between the "old" and "new" Nardils (with the "old" Nardil being superior), and others did not notice a difference.

In terms of hard data that show a difference in terms of the ways in which the two formulations exert their effects on the body, I have only been able to find one clearly measurable difference. This is not to say that there are not more differences. The problem for me with respect to finding hard data has been twofold: one, I've only had so much time so far to research the Nardil formulations; and two, the amount of hard data regarding the differences between the formulations is likely limited. In terms of my research, I plan to do more, and it's quite possible (and I would even say likely) that I will find more data suggesting that the two formulations affect the body differently. But for now, the only thing I have is that the peak plasma concentration of the "old" Nardil occurred between two and four hours postdose (Robinson et al., 1985, as cited in Mallinger & Smith, 1991), but the peak plasma concentration of the "new" Nardil occurs approximately 43 minutes after the administration of a single 30 mg dose (Parke-Davis Division of Pfizer Inc., 2003). Because I currently only have the abstract of the original article reporting the peak plasma concentration of the "old" Nardil (Robinson et al., 1985), I don't know what dose of Nardil was given to the patients whose peak plasma concentrations of phenelzine (the active ingredient) averaged between two and four hours postdose. So, I can't really make a direct comparison between the two statistics without knowing whether those who received the "old" Nardil received the same dose as those who took the "new" Nardil. Of course, I will eventually track down the Robinson et al. (1985) article; it's just a matter of me being able to find the time to take a trip down to my nearest med school library. But even though a 100 percent direct comparison cannot be made, it still seems likely that there is a difference between the peak plasma concentrations of the two formulations. If nothing else, such a difference would be consistent with patient reports that the "new" Nardil -- but not the "old" Nardil -- sometimes begins to dissolve in the mouth if not swallowed quickly enough.

Between this board and the Anxiety Community's Nardil discussion board, patients have put forth several different (but sometimes related) hypotheses that have attempted to explain why some patients find the "new" Nardil to be inferior to the old product. Generally, there seems to be a consensus that the "old" Nardil's hard coating (possibly an enteric coating, which is not dissolved until it reaches the small intestine) and/or its relatively slow rate of dissolution and absorption in the body are what cause some patients to find it to be superior to the new formulation.

At this point, I am researching the possibility that too much phenelzine (Nardil's active ingredient) might make its way directly to the liver (where it is metabolized) if it dissolves in the stomach. In accordance with this possibility, I'm also going to be looking into whether or phenelzine is absorbed directly into the bloodstream (without first going through the liver) when it's enterically coated and absorbed in the small intestine. If both of these ideas are true, then I would be able to say with some certainty that at least part of the problem with the "new" Nardil is that it dissolves in the stomach, allowing too much of the phenelzine to go directly to the liver instead of making its way to the small intestine, where it can go directly to the bloodstream and potentially to the brain. The implications of too much phenelzine going directly to the liver would be twofold: one, there would be significantly less phenelzine to enter the bloodstream, reach the brain, and exert its antidepressant effects; two, a relatively large amount of phenelzine would immediately go to the liver and be metabolized to the bioactive amine beta-phenylethylamine, or PEA (Baker et al., 1999). PEA levels would rise to excessively high levels both because more PEA would be created (through the rapid metabolism of phenelzine in the liver) and because less PEA would be destroyed (via the inhibition of MAO-B, the enzyme responsible for the degredation of PEA). Considering that PEA stimulates the release of dopamine and briefly stimulates dopamine receptors (Barroso & Rodriguez, 1996), dopamine levels would also rise to relatively high levels (higher with the "new" Nardil than with the "old" Nardil) -- levels that would likely be excessively high for many traditional MAOI responders suffering from depression and/or anxiety. So, once again, if my mini hypothesis here has any validity, the problem with the "new" Nardil would be a combination of there being not enough MAO-A and MAO-B inhibited in the brain and there being an excessively high level of dopamine, especially in comparison to serotonin and norepinephrine. Raising the dose of the "new" Nardil would raise the level of MAO inhibition in the brain, but it would also allow dopamine to keep rising disproportionately in comparison to the other neurotransmitters. This could, among other things, explain why patients who took both Nardil formulations were more likely to experience insomnia and other side effects on the "new" Nardil, and why some patients reported after the formulation switch that still felt Nardil's antidepressant effect (to a lesser extent than with the "old" Nardil) but not its anti-anxiety effect (high dopamine = generally bad for anxiety). And of course, it could explain why simply raising the dose of the "new" Nardil would not produce the same results as the "old" Nardil.

To answer your last question, it is my understanding that no version of Nardil produced anywhere in the world is exactly the same as the "old" Pfizer Nardil in terms of the drug's inactive ingredients. Based on information that I have gathered, the inactive ingredients for the Australian Nardil (manufactured by Link Pharmaceuticals) are listed differently than the ingredients for the U.K. Nardil (manufactured by Concord Pharmaceuticals). But considering the fact that Link is the "marketing authorisation holder" of the U.K. Nardil and the fact that the U.K. and Australian versions of Nardil appear to have the same type of coating, it's possible that they might actually be the same (with some of the ingredients in the U.K. Nardil being incorporated under the "coating" ingredient for the Australian Nardil), or at least very similar. Here is a breakdown of the inactive ingredients of both the U.K. and Australian Nardils:

CONCORD (U.K.) NARDIL (James, 2006)
* Mannitol
* Povidone
* Magnesium stearate and maize starch with the tablet coating containing hydroxypropyl cellulose
* Polyvinylacetatephthalate
* Stearic acid
* Sunset yellow (E110)
* Titanium dioxide (E171)
* Erythrosine (E127)
* Hydroxypropylmethylcellulose (E464)
* Talc

According to David James (2006), Concord's product information and technology executive, the company's formulation "has been in use prior to the current Marketing Authorisation Holder acquiring the rights to the product in 1999."

LINK (AUSTRALIA) NARDIL (Link Medical Products Pty Ltd, 2004)
* Mannitol
* Povidone
* Maize starch
* Magnesium stearate
* Coating (Opadry 20A25096 Red)

Finally, with respect to the efficacy of the U.K. and Australian versions of Nardil, I have read mixed reports from those who have posted both here and on the Anxiety Community's Nardil discussion board. Some Nardil users from the U.K. and Australia argue that their versions of Nardil are no different from the "old" Pfizer Nardil. But then again, I don't recall having read a message written by someone from either Australia or the U.K. who took *both* their local Nardil formulation and the "old" Pfizer Nardil. I suspect that the Nardil formulations in both the U.K. and Australia either haven't been changed at all or haven't been changed in significant ways. So, for those who have *only* taken either the Australian Nardil or the U.K. Nardil all along, the new stuff would be just as good as the old stuff because nothing about their versions of Nardil have changed. What I can with respect to the "old" Pfizer Nardil and the various international Nardils is that some former "old" Nardil users on the Anxeity Community's discussion board have tried taking either the U.K. version of the drug, the Australian version, or both, and they generally found the U.K. and Australian Nardil versions to be comparable to the "new" Pfizer in terms of both efficacy and side effects.

Even though I live in the U.S., I have been taking the Australian Nardil with somewhat successful but sometimes frustrating results. What's frustrated me about Nardil is that I usually feel its antidepressant effect for the first two to three weeks after increasing to a higher dose (assuming that my dose is at least 60 mg), but then I experience a sort of negative energy that doesn't completely negate the antidepressant effect, but sort of makes it less noticeable. The best thing that I can compare the "negative energy" to is how I felt on Wellbutrin, which would suggest that my dopamine levels might be disproportionately high in comparison to those of norepinephrine and especially serotonin (remember, this is consistent with what I had hypothesized about earlier). I suspect that if I add something like Lamictal to my Nardil (as some Nardil users tend to do), it might help with the "negative energy" and allow Nardil's antidepressant effect to shine through. I might very well end up going this route. But right now, I've actually just begun a trial of the make-your-own enterically coated Nardil that PsychoBabble member Michael Bell first tried. I've already noticed some improvements, but I'm going to wait a few weeks before making a judgment as to whether or not the make-your-own enterically coated Nardil approach is something that's truly working for me. But anyway, if you would like more information on Michael Bell's approach, check out these links:

http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20050527/msgs/505052.html

http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/alter/20050510/msgs/506644.html

http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/alter/20050510/msgs/506649.html

Well, I hope you found my post helpful and not too confusing. If you have any questions about anything that I've written, feel free to let me know.

Tomatheus

==

PRIMARY-SOURCE REFERENCES

Baker, G. B., Urichuk, L. J., McKenna, K. F., & Kennedy, S. H. (1999). Metabolism of monoamine oxidase inhibitors. Cellular and Molecular Neurobiology, 19, 411-26.

Barroso, N., Rodriguez, M. (1996). Action of beta-phenylethylamine and related amines on nigrostriatal dopamine neurotransmission. European Journal of Pharmacology, 297, 195-203.

James, D., personal communication (e-mail), Jan. 4, 2006.

Katz, R., republished personal communication to Alan Dunbar, Pfizer, Inc. (letter), n.d. (apparently 2003). Retrieved January 13, 2006, from http://www.fda.gov/cder/foi/appletter/2003/11909slr033ltr.pdf

Link Medical Products Pty Ltd. (2004). Nardil Phenelzine Consumer Medical Information. (Available from Link Pharmaceuticals Pty Ltd; Level 1, Bridgeport Centre; 3 Brady St.; Mosman NSW 2088, Australia)

Mallinger, A. G., & Smith, E. (1991). Pharmacokinetics of monoamine oxidase inhibitors. Psychopharmacology Bulletin, 27, 493-502.

Parke-Davis Division of Pfizer Inc. (2003). Nardil® (Phenelzine Sulfate Tablets, USP), labeling information. Retrieved January 13, 2006, from http://www.fda.gov/cder/foi/label/2003/11909slr033_nardil_lbl.pdf

Parke-Davis Division of Pfizer Inc. (2001). Nardil® (Phenelzine Sulfate Tablets, USP), labeling information. Retrieved January 13, 2006, from http://www.fda.gov/cder/foi/label/2002/11909slr030lbl.pdf

SECONDARY-SOURCE REFERENCE

Robinson, D. S., Cooper, T. B., Jindal, S. P., Corcella, J., & Lutz, T. (1985). Metabolism and pharmacokinetics of phenelzine: Lack of evidence for acetylation pathway in humans. Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology, 5, 333-37.

 

Re: ... Old and New Nardil (warning: very long)

Posted by shasling on January 29, 2006, at 10:47:31

In reply to Re: ... Old and New Nardil (warning: very long) » shasling, posted by Tomatheus on January 28, 2006, at 22:14:49

Thank you - that is incredibly helpful. I appreciate it

 

Goofy method to simulate enteric coating

Posted by WeeWilly on January 29, 2006, at 11:59:23

In reply to Re: ... Old and New Nardil (warning: very long), posted by shasling on January 29, 2006, at 10:47:31

It likely will not work but I am going to try inserting each pill of Nardil in a little wad of chewing gum. If the enteric coating allows for more of the Nardil to reach the intestines maybe the gum will have this ability too. What do think? Like they say " The proof in the pooding is in the tasteing". I will let you know how I respond to this method. Best wishes.

 

You're welcome (nm) » shasling

Posted by Tomatheus on January 29, 2006, at 13:28:19

In reply to Re: ... Old and New Nardil (warning: very long), posted by shasling on January 29, 2006, at 10:47:31

 

Re: Goofy method to simulate enteric coating » WeeWilly

Posted by Tomatheus on January 29, 2006, at 13:42:26

In reply to Goofy method to simulate enteric coating, posted by WeeWilly on January 29, 2006, at 11:59:23

WeeWilly,

If you think that the idea of using PlasminPlus capsules as an enteric coating for the new Nardil is goofy (which seems to be what you're suggesting, but I'm not completely sure), then that's your opinion, and I think you're entitled to it. But considering my response to Nardil and the hypotheses that I and others have come up with concerning the differences between the two formulations, I think there's more than a slim chance that an enteric coating might be just what I need to get the Nardil to work right. If it doesn't work for me, then it doesn't work for me. But from my perspective (and in my case), I don't see why it's not worth trying. As far as I know, Michael Bell is the only person who's tried using PlasminPlus capsules to enterically "coat" Nardil, and he had some success with it, based on his message. I personally think that it's about time that someone else try his approach. If others don't want to do it, then that's fine with me. I certainly respect anyone's decision not to try something like that. But I find it highly unnecessary, inappropriate, and childlike that you've instead chosen to mock me in the way that you did.

Tomatheus

 

Re: Goofy method to simulate enteric coating

Posted by gibber on January 29, 2006, at 14:03:55

In reply to Re: Goofy method to simulate enteric coating » WeeWilly, posted by Tomatheus on January 29, 2006, at 13:42:26

He didn't mock you Tomatheus. WeeWilly simply said he was going to entericly coat HIS Nardil with chewing gum. That's why he said it was goofy.

 

Re: Goofy method to simulate enteric coating » WeeWilly

Posted by ed_uk on January 29, 2006, at 14:11:19

In reply to Goofy method to simulate enteric coating, posted by WeeWilly on January 29, 2006, at 11:59:23

Hi Willy

AFAIK, chewing gum cannot be digested. I don't think the Nardil would be able to get out!

Kind regards

Ed

 

Thank you Gibber, you got it exactly.

Posted by WeeWilly on January 29, 2006, at 14:22:51

In reply to Re: Goofy method to simulate enteric coating » WeeWilly, posted by ed_uk on January 29, 2006, at 14:11:19

I certainly was'nt mocking anyone. Misunderstandings do happen. Thank you for your replies all. Best wishes.

 

Re: Goofy method to simulate enteric coating

Posted by WeeWilly on January 29, 2006, at 14:32:17

In reply to Re: Goofy method to simulate enteric coating » WeeWilly, posted by ed_uk on January 29, 2006, at 14:11:19

Howdy Ed

You could be right. Allthough I have had a habit of swallowing chewing gum ever since I was a little kid. I am 46 now and have never seen gum in my stool. Best Wishes

> Hi Willy
>
> AFAIK, chewing gum cannot be digested. I don't think the Nardil would be able to get out!
>
> Kind regards
>
> Ed

 

Re: Goofy method to simulate enteric coating » WeeWilly

Posted by ed_uk on January 29, 2006, at 14:46:35

In reply to Re: Goofy method to simulate enteric coating, posted by WeeWilly on January 29, 2006, at 14:32:17

>......and have never seen gum in my stool

Me neither. It's probably hidden in there somewhere though!

I found this........

'What Exactly Happens to the Gum?
Chewing gum is made of either natural or synthetic materials (gum resin), preservatives, flavorings, and sweeteners. The body can absorb sweeteners, such as sugar, and they can add up to a lot of calories if you chew a lot of sugary gum. But the human digestive tract can't digest the gum resin. It's moved through the digestive tract by the normal pushing (peristaltic) actions of the gut. The gum's journey ends during a trip to the bathroom.'

Ed

 

Re: Thank you Gibber, you got it exactly. » WeeWilly

Posted by Tomatheus on January 29, 2006, at 15:40:28

In reply to Thank you Gibber, you got it exactly., posted by WeeWilly on January 29, 2006, at 14:22:51

WeeWilly,

I apologize for suggesting that you were mocking me. It was my impression that you were trying to portray the use of PlasminPlus capsules as an enteric "coating" as being no better than covering the "new" Nardil capsules with chewing gum. Considering that chewing gum cannot be digested at all (as Ed suggested) and that the PlasminPlus capsules are made using chemicals that *do* allow them to disintegrate (in the small intestine, but not in the stomach), there are obviously some differences between the two. So, thinking that you were trying to portray the two "methods" as essentially being the same, I responded to your post in the way that I did.

I can see now that you were just throwing out a "goofy" idea and that you weren't meaning to suggest that the use of the PlasminPlus capsules is equally as goofy as what you were jokingly suggesting (although I don't deny that the PlasminPlus idea sounds kind of goofy and is extremely unorthodox). I was reading something into your post that simply wasn't there.

Please accept my apologies.

Tomatheus

 

Goofy method is working

Posted by WeeWilly on January 31, 2006, at 0:20:18

In reply to Re: Thank you Gibber, you got it exactly. » WeeWilly, posted by Tomatheus on January 29, 2006, at 15:40:28

I tried this method because it was simple and I thought if it is helpfull to get more of the new Nardil to the intestines undisturbed, why not. I have detected little pieces of the brightly colored chewing gum in my stool. So the Nardil is getting out of the gum wad somewhere in my digestive tract. I can't say for sure that it's not getting out in my stomach, but it is likely staying intact longer than without the gum. I am haveing to reduce my daily dose of Nardil. For a few days I was up to 90mgs. Tomorow I will reduce to 30mgs. You never no with these medications, there could be some other reason for increased side effects makeing me need to reduce the dose. I will keep you posted. Best wishes.

 

Re: Goofy method is working » WeeWilly

Posted by Tomatheus on January 31, 2006, at 1:24:50

In reply to Goofy method is working, posted by WeeWilly on January 31, 2006, at 0:20:18

Ok, I've had enough this time. There's no way that you're being serious.

This board is for support and education, and I find your post neither supportive nor educational in any way. You're obviously just looking to provoke others, just as some others on this board have been doing lately. And even though some may disagree with this last statement of mine, there's no doubt in my mind that it's the truth. I think the amount of provocation on this board has reached an unhealthy level as of late, and quite frankly (but with all due respect to Dr. Bob and Gardenergirl), I'm tired of it.

Let's get back to support and education.

Tomatheus

> I tried this method because it was simple and I thought if it is helpfull to get more of the new Nardil to the intestines undisturbed, why not. I have detected little pieces of the brightly colored chewing gum in my stool. So the Nardil is getting out of the gum wad somewhere in my digestive tract. I can't say for sure that it's not getting out in my stomach, but it is likely staying intact longer than without the gum. I am haveing to reduce my daily dose of Nardil. For a few days I was up to 90mgs. Tomorow I will reduce to 30mgs. You never no with these medications, there could be some other reason for increased side effects makeing me need to reduce the dose. I will keep you posted. Best wishes.

 

I am absolutely sincere

Posted by WeeWilly on January 31, 2006, at 7:20:37

In reply to Re: Goofy method is working » WeeWilly, posted by Tomatheus on January 31, 2006, at 1:24:50

Tometheus, I don't really understand why you think I am not sincere. My struggle with depression and social phobia is not something I joke about. I am 46 and I have battled this condition all my life. I have empathy for all fellow sufferers.
Getting back to this gum procedure. I thought it might allow the Nardil to move futher down the digestive tract. It appears this is happening. There is no way to know where the Nardil tablet is escapeing the gum wad. How are you doing on Nardil? Like I said before in my last post, I took 90mgs for a few days before I tried the gum. Today I am reduceing to 30mgs. I am not sure the gum is responsible for this hopefully time will tell as I continue.
Best wishes

 

Please be civil » Tomatheus

Posted by Dinah on January 31, 2006, at 9:22:02

In reply to Re: Goofy method is working » WeeWilly, posted by Tomatheus on January 31, 2006, at 1:24:50

> Ok, I've had enough this time. There's no way that you're being serious.

Dinah here, acting as deputy for Dr. Bob.

Please don't jump to conclusions about others, or post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down.

If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ:

http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil

Follow-ups regarding these issues should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration. They, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.

 

Old and New Nardil - Here's the difference

Posted by Michael Bell on February 16, 2006, at 22:18:50

In reply to What's Different Between the Old and New Nardil?, posted by shasling on January 26, 2006, at 10:05:59

Hey folks, long time no see. Sometimes I peruse this board quickly to see what the topics are, and so I decided to respond to this one since it is an issue I have dealt with to a huge exent.

From the descriptions of others, research and my own experiences, I believe there are two problems with the new nardil as compared to the old:

1) new nardil is absorbed before it reaches the new intestine

2) even if new nardil does reach the new intestine, the absorbtion *rate* is off balance

That's why placing nardil in plasmin plus enteric tabs were only partially effective. yes, more phenelzine would likely survive the trip through the stomach, but once the enteric tab dissolved, the nardil itself won't be absorbed to the maximum level without an excipient to aid it.

The best excipients to aid absorption into the small intestine are sugar invert (a.k.a. honey) and ethanol (alcohol). Sugar is quite good, but the absorbtion rate, though high, is relatively slow.

As far as absorption into the small intestine, NOTHING beats alcohol. It's rate and level of absorption by the small intestine is extremely high. Obviously, I don't mean kick back shots of tequila, I'm talking mere drops of the substance.

Therefore mixing nardil with either honey or alcohol has been much more effective.

 

Re: Goofy method is working

Posted by zonked on April 21, 2009, at 15:56:29

In reply to Goofy method is working, posted by WeeWilly on January 31, 2006, at 0:20:18

WeeWily:

Dunno if you're still watching these boards, but did your "chewing gum" method continue to work?

zonked

> I tried this method because it was simple and I thought if it is helpfull to get more of the new Nardil to the intestines undisturbed, why not. I have detected little pieces of the brightly colored chewing gum in my stool. So the Nardil is getting out of the gum wad somewhere in my digestive tract. I can't say for sure that it's not getting out in my stomach, but it is likely staying intact longer than without the gum. I am haveing to reduce my daily dose of Nardil. For a few days I was up to 90mgs. Tomorow I will reduce to 30mgs. You never no with these medications, there could be some other reason for increased side effects makeing me need to reduce the dose. I will keep you posted. Best wishes.

 

Re: ... Old and New Nardil (warning: very long)

Posted by DebRose on July 23, 2009, at 0:15:10

In reply to Re: ... Old and New Nardil (warning: very long) » shasling, posted by Tomatheus on January 28, 2006, at 22:14:49

Tomatheus,

I don't know if you are still around to see this post, but if you are, I would be very interested to know if you gathered any more information on the topic? Also, do you know if there was ever a class action lawsuit filed against Pfizer for thier formulary change in 2003? If there hasn't been, there certainly should be and I would be interested in finding out how to go about organizing one!

Please email at debearwon@comcast.net

Thank you
Debrose

 

New Nardil and what you need with it!

Posted by sheensmusic on July 9, 2010, at 5:32:42

The New Nardil has lost its kick and effectiveness and this thread is here to get peoples opinions on What other medicines can augment Nardil and bring it back to work more like the original version.. I have found Neurontin to be a great enhancer for the loss of anti anxiety effects from the new nardil and also social phobia as nardil and neurontin both effect gaba in the Brain. Also lamictal can help if your having Ups and Downs with the new Nardil......

 

Re: Old and New Nardil - Here's the difference

Posted by sheensmusic on July 9, 2010, at 7:27:51

In reply to Old and New Nardil - Here's the difference, posted by Michael Bell on February 16, 2006, at 22:18:50

The New Nardil Has lost its kick basically in how it is metabolised because of its coating...Now it needs to be enhanced with other meds in order to get it back more like its originally formulation.. I have spent 16 years on Nardil and went thru its reformulation transition and the withdrawals when it lost effects in its new Formulation by Pfizer in 2003...
I have spent years trying add-On meds to test and manipulate nardil...
I also found that if you take 2 or 3 15mg tabs at night it will metabolize more and you will awake like if you were on the old nardil..
I am on 90mg a day and where it says take 1 tab six times a day..I found its better too take 2 in a.m. 1 in afternoon and 3 at night and it metbolizes more and effects you more like the old Nardil!!!!

 

Re: Old and New Nardil - Here's the difference

Posted by sheensmusic on July 9, 2010, at 7:28:54

In reply to Re: Old and New Nardil - Here's the difference, posted by sheensmusic on July 9, 2010, at 7:27:51

New Nardil needs to be augmenting because of its loos in some of its specific benefits and effects when it was reformulated to generic!!! Here are the Cocktails that seem to work if you have had Anxiety resurface and or more ups an downs!
Neurontin at high dosages seems to be with the new Nardil great for suppressing Anxiety and for Social phobia.. Where the Old Nardil kicked *ss on SP and anxiety.. Now if you ad Neuron-tin in its more like the Original Nardil..
Lamictal in the mix can boost the antidepressant effects of the new nardil and level off mood swings..
Seroquel can help with sleep and also help level moods and enhance anti-depressant effects...
The New Nardil Has lost its kick basically in how it is metabolised because of its coating...Now it needs to be enhanced with other meds in order to get it back more like its originally formulation.. I have spent 16 years on Nardil and went thru its reformulation transition and the withdrawals when it lost effects in its new Formulation by Pfizer in 2003...
I have spent years trying add-On meds to test and manipulate nardil...
I also found that if you take 2 or 3 15mg tabs at night it will metabolize more and you will awake like if you were on the old nardil..
I am on 90mg a day and where it says take 1 tab six times a day..I found its better too take 2 in a.m. 1 in afternoon and 3 at night and it metbolizes more and effects you more like the old Nardil!!!!

 

NARDIL the OLD and New and solutions

Posted by sheensmusic on July 9, 2010, at 14:40:38

New Nardil needs to be augmenting because of its loss in some of its specific benefits and effects when it was reformulated to generic!!! Here are the Cocktails that seem to work if you have had Anxiety resurface and or more ups an downs!
Neurontin at high dosages seems to be with the new Nardil great for suppressing Anxiety and for Social phobia.. Where the Old Nardil kicked *** on SP and anxiety.. Now if you ad Neuron-tin in its more like the Original Nardil..
Lamictal in the mix can boost the antidepressant effects of the new nardil and level off mood swings..
Seroquel can help with sleep and also help level moods and enhance anti-depressant effects...
The New Nardil Has lost its kick basically in how it is metabolized because of its coating...Now it needs to be enhanced with other meds in order to get it back more like its originally formulation.. I have spent 16 years on Nardil and went thru its reformulation transition and the withdrawals when it lost effects in its new Formulation by Pfizer in 2003...
I have spent years trying add-On meds to test and manipulate nardil...
I also found that if you take 2 or 3 15mg tabs at night it will metabolize more and you will awake like if you were on the old nardil..
I am on 90mg a day and where it says take 1 tab six times a day..I found its better too take 2 in a.m. 1 in afternoon and 3 at night and it metabolizes more and effects you more like the old Nardil!!!!
ALL and the application of Lyrica..May Help like Neurontin because its Neurontins big Sister and more potent....but Neurontin seems to work more rapidly......

 

Re: Old and New Nardil - Here's the difference

Posted by Lamdage on July 10, 2011, at 19:47:54

In reply to Old and New Nardil - Here's the difference, posted by Michael Bell on February 16, 2006, at 22:18:50

> The best excipients to aid absorption into the small intestine are sugar invert (a.k.a. honey) and ethanol (alcohol). Sugar is quite good, but the absorbtion rate, though high, is relatively slow.
>
> As far as absorption into the small intestine, NOTHING beats alcohol. It's rate and level of absorption by the small intestine is extremely high. Obviously, I don't mean kick back shots of tequila, I'm talking mere drops of the substance.
>
> Therefore mixing nardil with either honey or alcohol has been much more effective.

Micheal! A hint of dried honey powder as well as a hint of bioperine will be in my next batch of selfmade nardil! Question: how do i get Alcohol into my "formula"?? I mean it ll get wet wont it? Alcohol powder?...

 

Re: Old and New Nardil - Here's the difference

Posted by deepreason on July 11, 2011, at 14:53:27

In reply to Re: Old and New Nardil - Here's the difference, posted by Lamdage on July 10, 2011, at 19:47:54

Crumble up some of those instant whisky cubes you see on star trek and other sci-fy programs. The ones that look like OXO's. ;)


Go forward in thread:


Show another thread

URL of post in thread:


Psycho-Babble Medication | Extras | FAQ


[dr. bob] 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.