![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 13 to 37 of 37. Go back in thread:
Posted by saturn on January 31, 2007, at 18:39:42
In reply to Re: Why is valium relatively unpopular?, posted by shadowplayers721 on January 31, 2007, at 0:26:54
> I think it's, because people would have a depressive hangover the next day. Klonopin doesn't do that.
I'm not sure what you mean. If you're taking it daily for a level effect how would this result in a hangover?
Posted by alienatari on January 31, 2007, at 19:22:00
In reply to Re: Why is valium relatively unpopular?, posted by shadowplayers721 on January 31, 2007, at 0:26:54
> I think it's, because people would have a depressive hangover the next day. Klonopin doesn't do that.
Long term valium user here and i have never had a depressive hangover the next day
Posted by UgottaHaveHope on January 31, 2007, at 20:28:01
In reply to Re: Why is valium relatively unpopular?, posted by alienatari on January 31, 2007, at 19:22:00
Valium is a med that has helped thousands and thousands of people who use it strictly for medicinal purposes. It gets bad rap from people who use it for recreational purposes. Dont fear it if you need it.
Posted by notfred on January 31, 2007, at 21:23:25
In reply to Re: Why is valium relatively unpopular?, posted by ed_uk on January 31, 2007, at 17:43:11
> Old drugs are rarely popular in the US. The Americans prefer meds which are new, shiny, heavily-advertised, expensive, and which come as 'samples' ;)
>
> EdThat is a very unfair generalization. HMO's do not pay for new drugs if older version are just as good.
Posted by yxibow on January 31, 2007, at 23:52:24
In reply to Re: Why is valium relatively unpopular?, posted by notfred on January 31, 2007, at 21:23:25
> > Old drugs are rarely popular in the US. The Americans prefer meds which are new, shiny, heavily-advertised, expensive, and which come as 'samples' ;)
> >
> > Ed
>
> That is a very unfair generalization. HMO's do not pay for new drugs if older version are just as good.
>
>Its just a different model of consumerism in the US. I would love for us to have universal health care like NHS. But NHS also has problems just like in Canada where sometimes people take out American HMO/PPO insurance just to have a procedure crossborder without waiting for their kidneys to fail or something.
Sometimes "shiny new drugs" are a lifesaver for people. You can look to all the new retrovirals, chemotherapy agents, arthritis medications, etc. If I were to make a generalisation about the UK, it is that stodgy doctors hate benzodiazepines and use old drugs that have gathered dust on the shelves here in the US because of lack of sales and bad side effects. But I'm not living there so I won't make that generalisation.
I agree, we have overadvertizing which pumps up the cost of medication. Doesn't mean that people don't respond to new medications. My [nameless] PPO charges more for new medications, yes, sometimes doubles copays for medications it deems only fits a certain dosage or will only pay for part of the dosage. Medications are not as heavily regulated in pricing as Canada and definately not as regulated in England and probably to an extent in the EU.
Posted by notfred on February 1, 2007, at 0:52:12
In reply to Re: Why is valium relatively unpopular?, posted by yxibow on January 31, 2007, at 23:52:24
"I agree, we have overadvertizing which pumps up the cost of medication."
The US consumer pays more for meds than anywhere else. This allows other countries to have more affordable meds. In a normal economy things tend to get cheaper when you buy more, but not in this case.
I see it more as the cost of meds in the US drives the need to shameless flogging in every media.
Posted by XanyADDam on February 1, 2007, at 2:56:27
In reply to Why is valium relatively unpopular?, posted by saturn on January 30, 2007, at 21:49:14
> Reputation? It would seem to me that all other things considered equal (anxiolytic capability, side effects) that it would be a good long-term benzo due to its long half-life and active metabolite (which I believe itself has a long half-life).
>
> Perhaps my analysis is oversimplistic.
>
> Phillipa, I know you have lots of experience with it. Any thoughts?
>
> Thanks...Peace...Saturn.Well, the reason I don't care for Valium is because, though I'm not exactly familiar with the dosage, I was given 15 mg and quite frankly it did very little for me. I have a rather bad case of generalized anxiety disorder, and I can honestly say it barely took the edge off of it. I suppose I could have gone higher, I don't know. I'm prescribed 2 mg of Xanax, which continues to work like a charm to this day.
Posted by tensor on February 1, 2007, at 11:08:55
In reply to Re: Why is valium relatively unpopular? » saturn, posted by XanyADDam on February 1, 2007, at 2:56:27
My opinion is that Valium produces more euphoria and grogginess than for e.g. clonazepam and therefore have a higher street value and thus has a worse reputation. For me, clon feels like a clean drug. I'm not saying it is a better drug though. They target somewhat different symptoms.
As for the different use of older vs. new drugs in US and EU, I wonder what the arguments are for why bupropion is not approved for depression here in the EU and why milnacipran and reboxetine are not approved in the US. The seizure risk is hardly an argument since it's approved for smoking cessation and the risk for doses of max. 450mg is not higher than for a high dose of TCA, escpecially clomipramine.
/Mattias
Posted by ed_uk on February 1, 2007, at 17:02:08
In reply to Re: Why is valium relatively unpopular?, posted by notfred on January 31, 2007, at 21:23:25
>That is a very unfair generalization......
Not at all. Just look at the posts on this board for a start. Notice everyone seems to be starting on drugs like Lexapro when they might as well have started on generic fluoxetine or citalopram?
Ed
Posted by notfred on February 1, 2007, at 18:00:03
In reply to Re: Why is valium relatively unpopular? » notfred, posted by ed_uk on February 1, 2007, at 17:02:08
> >That is a very unfair generalization......
>
> Not at all. Just look at the posts on this board for a start. Notice everyone seems to be starting on drugs like Lexapro when they might as well have started on generic fluoxetine or citalopram?
>
> Ed
This board is not representative of the general population, nor their med choices. Patients here
tend to be treatment resistant so judging a whole countries use and choice of meds on a very limited
sample and a sample that is not random is flawed.The best persons to judge the correct meds are patients and their docs, and not other lay people
or medical professionals.
Posted by Phillipa on February 1, 2007, at 22:34:09
In reply to Re: Why is valium relatively unpopular?, posted by notfred on February 1, 2007, at 18:00:03
Just got home no valium has never ever made me euphoric and xanax is what I'm planning on switching back to. Discussed it with my pdoc today as the xanax acts as a mild ad too. And klonopin makes me feel suicidal. Ativan is good too. Love Phillipa
Posted by Dr. Bob on February 2, 2007, at 3:26:43
In reply to Re: Why is valium relatively unpopular?, posted by ed_uk on January 31, 2007, at 17:43:11
> The Americans prefer meds which are new, shiny, heavily-advertised, expensive, and which come as 'samples' ;)
Please be sensitive to the feelings of others (such as Americans).
But please don't take this personally, this doesn't mean I don't like you or think you're a bad person.
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please first see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforceFollow-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.
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by sdb on February 2, 2007, at 10:33:36
In reply to Re: Why is valium relatively unpopular?, posted by ed_uk on January 31, 2007, at 17:43:11
> >Why is valium relatively unpopular?
>
> Old drugs are rarely popular in the US. The Americans prefer meds which are new, shiny, heavily-advertised, expensive, and which come as 'samples' ;)
>
> EdMaybe true. But worse here. A big company sold an old non psych. med as a totally new one for a higher price. Bad for the consumers, better said sufferer and good for the purse of some managers. It's perverse. Roche is is more innovative than its brother.
~S
Posted by sdb on February 2, 2007, at 10:45:08
In reply to Re: Why is valium relatively unpopular? }} ed, posted by sdb on February 2, 2007, at 10:33:36
> > >Why is valium relatively unpopular?
> >
> > Old drugs are rarely popular in the US. The Americans prefer meds which are new, shiny, heavily-advertised, expensive, and which come as 'samples' ;)
> >
> > Ed
>
> Maybe true. But worse here. A big company sold an old non psych. med as a totally new one for a higher price. Bad for the consumers, better said sufferer and good for the purse of some managers. It's perverse. Roche is is more innovative than its brother.
>
> ~SI just ate a xanax IR 1mg because its weekend and it's time for research. I experienced the following:
-no muscle relaxation
-something like a spacey feeling, tiny symptoms of motoric ataxia, dyskinesia
-seems to have more hallucinogen properties than valium
-onset of action gradually, good remarkable after 20 minutes.
-no kick, just nothing but no depression also.
-drug disappears very fast, after 2h I felt just as normal.
-I would say that Valium 20mg is stronger than 1mg Xanaxsdb
Posted by ed_uk on February 2, 2007, at 14:47:01
In reply to Re: Why is valium relatively unpopular?, posted by notfred on February 1, 2007, at 18:00:03
Well bugger me
Posted by ed_uk on February 2, 2007, at 14:50:12
In reply to Re: please be sensitive » ed_uk, posted by Dr. Bob on February 2, 2007, at 3:26:43
Oh for God's sake. Now I have to be sensitive to the feelings of Americans. My post was intended to be humerous. Typical, Americans take themselves too seriously.
Posted by ed_uk on February 2, 2007, at 14:56:31
In reply to Re: Why is valium relatively unpopular?, posted by notfred on February 1, 2007, at 18:00:03
Any country where patients are given 'samples' is bound to overuse 'shiny new meds' when older ones would have done just as well.
>Patients here
tend to be treatment resistant so judging a whole countries use and choice of meds on a very limited
sample and a sample that is not random is flawed.I've been watching this board for years. I am well aware that highly expensive new drugs are extremely widely prescribed in the US, often as a first-line treatment.
>The best persons to judge the correct meds are patients and their docs, and not other lay people
or medical professionals.What's your implication?
Posted by sdb on February 2, 2007, at 15:16:10
In reply to Re: Why is valium relatively unpopular?, posted by notfred on February 1, 2007, at 0:52:12
> The US consumer pays more for meds than anywhere else.
I disagree here. There are some countries you have to pay a 100% more for some older meds than people in the US.
Librium could be a good treatment for many people, there should only be a 50mg-100mg pill available. Why is prazepam (marketed by pfizer), which could be a good benzodiazepine with lack of depressant effects not available in the US whereas it is available in Europe?
sdb
Posted by notfred on February 2, 2007, at 16:17:42
In reply to Why is valium relatively unpopular? }} notfred, ed, posted by sdb on February 2, 2007, at 15:16:10
> > The US consumer pays more for meds than anywhere else.
>
> I disagree here. There are some countries you have to pay a 100% more for some older meds than people in the US.
>
http://www1.wfubmc.edu/News/NewsARticle.htm?ArticleID=1764
WINSTON-SALEM, N.C. – A study of drug costs around the world revealed proven methods that could be used to reduce costs in the United States, according to a researcher from Wake Forest University School of Medicine.
“Americans don’t need to pay the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs – with our average expenditures increasing by 12 to 15 percent every year,” said Curt Furberg, M.D., Ph.D., professor of public health sciences.
Posted by ed_uk on February 3, 2007, at 9:41:42
In reply to Re: please be sensitive » ed_uk, posted by Dr. Bob on February 2, 2007, at 3:26:43
Dr. Bob,
Sorry about my posts last night, I was in a bad mood.
Just to clarify, I was annoyed by your post to me because I did not feel that I had been insensitive. My post was intended to be light-hearted and amusing. It was not intended to offend anyone. In fact, given that the majority of posters on this board are American, I do not see how anyone could feel personally insulted or offended. There are many problems with doctor's prescribing practices in all countries, including the US and the UK.
I was also hurt by notfred's reply, which seemed to involve a very literal interpretation of my original post, which was a generalisation........with a certain amount of truth in it.
Ed
Posted by sdb on February 4, 2007, at 11:32:39
In reply to Re: please be sensitive » Dr. Bob, posted by ed_uk on February 3, 2007, at 9:41:42
> Dr. Bob,
>
> Sorry about my posts last night, I was in a bad mood.
>
> Just to clarify, I was annoyed by your post to me because I did not feel that I had been insensitive. My post was intended to be light-hearted and amusing. It was not intended to offend anyone. In fact, given that the majority of posters on this board are American, I do not see how anyone could feel personally insulted or offended. There are many problems with doctor's prescribing practices in all countries, including the US and the UK.
>
> I was also hurt by notfred's reply, which seemed to involve a very literal interpretation of my original post, which was a generalisation........with a certain amount of truth in it.
>
> EdRecently a person came back from the USA and said that "I am glad that I left this third world country". Somebody else told me that it could be horrible for old persons at an old people's home "I am glad to be here and not there". Many other non-US students are no more satisfied by the quality of the Universities such as Yale etc. More party instead of hard work.
But back to the topic, hopefully the US will not become a third world health care system. There's still much innovations there in some disciplines, no doubt.
sdb
Posted by gardenergirl on February 5, 2007, at 23:08:14
In reply to Re: please be sensitive, posted by sdb on February 4, 2007, at 11:32:39
> Recently a person came back from the USA and said that "I am glad that I left this third world country".
Please be sensitive to the feelings of others (such as Americans), even when you are quoting someone else's words.
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please first see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforceFollow-ups regarding these issues should be directed to the Admin board and should of course be civil. Dr. Bob has oversight over deputy decisions. Thus, you can always appeal this decision to him, and he may choose a different action.
namaste
deputy gg
Posted by sdb on February 6, 2007, at 2:32:03
In reply to Please be sensitive » sdb, posted by gardenergirl on February 5, 2007, at 23:08:14
> > Recently a person came back from the USA and said that "I am glad that I left this third world country".
>
> Please be sensitive to the feelings of others (such as Americans), even when you are quoting someone else's words.
>
> If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please first see the FAQ:
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforce
>
> Follow-ups regarding these issues should be directed to the Admin board and should of course be civil. Dr. Bob has oversight over deputy decisions. Thus, you can always appeal this decision to him, and he may choose a different action.
>
> namaste
>
> deputy ggDear gg
I don't regret anything. And I don't have to do that.
First, this could be a true circumstance.
Secondly, these words are not mine but from somebody else.
Please respect the reality described by people's experiences and furthermore respect the truth if the these words are true.
warm regards
sdb
Posted by gardenergirl on February 6, 2007, at 11:17:11
In reply to Re: Please be sensitive }} gardenergirl, posted by sdb on February 6, 2007, at 2:32:03
Hi sdb,
I've redirected your comments to the Admin board since they pertain to administrative action. Here is a link to your posts there: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20070123/msgs/730348.htmlnamasté
deputy gg
Posted by sdb on February 6, 2007, at 12:07:27
In reply to Redirected to Admin. » sdb, posted by gardenergirl on February 6, 2007, at 11:17:11
> Hi sdb,
> I've redirected your comments to the Admin board since they pertain to administrative action. Here is a link to your posts there: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20070123/msgs/730348.html
>
> namasté
>
> deputy ggHi deputy gg,
That's ok, I think I need a babble
break, not to do a bad mistake, working
in a support machine, something like
Charlie Chaplin.salut
sdb
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.