Posted by Chihuahua on February 4, 2009, at 19:47:51
In reply to Re: Nardil did change, posted by djmmm on February 4, 2009, at 13:22:25
> > > I had used Nardil for severe TRD/anxiety with success for over ten years until 2003. I'm convinced there was something that changed.
> >
> > hey,
> >
> > Any ideas or theories on what changed captain?
> >
> > thnx
>
> several of the "excipients" were changed-- including materials used for the binding of the medication (pressed in pill form), some excipients that induced an allergic response in some patients were removed, including the sugar, shellac (coating), talc, wheat, and corn starch. The functions of these excipients vary, and have been replaced by newer, and less expensive products.I have my suspicions that the operative words above are " LESS EXPENSIVE PRODUCTS " , rather than " REMOVAL OF SOME EXCIPIENTS THAT CAUSED AN ALLERGIC RESPONSE IN SOME PATIENTS".
I would be interested to know how many of these "ALLERGIC" people are now happily taking the NEW FORMULA NARDIL, compared to the number of people who were functioning well on the OLD NARDIL FORMULATION , but have had their lives ruined by the altered absorption and bioavailability of Nardil.Maybe someone has had the priviledge of seeing studies that were done before "THEY" decided to make such big changes to Nardil formula.
I have spoken to several very practical medical practitioners,who have worked at the "coal face " for decades . Most agree that so- called" inert" fillers in medicines do make a difference to drug action within the human body.
Is it all just a futile exercise. Will we ever see the OLD NARDIL formula again?
Whatever the case, I appreciate very much the opportunity you have all given me to chat on the subject. I would be frustrated had I not been able to verify and understand my observations on the subject of Nardil.
poster:Chihuahua
thread:877613
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20090203/msgs/878068.html