![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 32. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by willyee on November 1, 2005, at 18:29:13
The other group i mention that basicaly consists of veteran nardil users struggling to deal with the reformulation of nardil.
This is not discussed almost at all here,but i cant help but find it interesting that veterans over there curse the "new" nardil, many actualy leaving it,or tripling the dose with barly an effect,this makes me think that the older nardil must have been something better,i mean i tdont think anyone can discredit that many users,they seem very smart as well,so again the creditabiliaty strikes me.
Does anyone here posting now not affiliated with that other group remember themeselves the Nardil change,when the pill took a comptply different form,did u notice a tremondous change in effect?
I mean the belief is the drug now is not even a shadow of what nardil once was.
Posted by Chairman_MAO on November 1, 2005, at 20:20:36
In reply to The other Nardil, posted by willyee on November 1, 2005, at 18:29:13
I only have tried the "New" Nardil; I cannot imagine wha the "old" Nardil is like if it were truly that much better than this.
People are going to flame me, but after thinking about this issue extensively, I feel it is safe to say that, at least for most people, the notion of a "new" Nardil is groundless hysteria. The claims of the proponents of that theory make no sense, such as claiming that their "Nardil elixir"--that is, phenelzine in a solvent with preservatives instead of a tablet--is just as good as the "old Nardil" while simultanously claiming that it was the excipients int he old tablet and the coating that is the point of contention.
Perhaps some people on the old formulation had problems adjusting to a new one, but I have a hard time believing my phenelzine is defective, considering it kicked it at almost exactly 1mg/kg a day and is spectacular.
Posted by craiggetty on November 1, 2005, at 20:24:47
In reply to The other Nardil, posted by willyee on November 1, 2005, at 18:29:13
After several months of "success" for my atypical depression with the "old" Nardil, I stopped taking it because of weight gain, extreme tiredness, and anorgamia.
Then I switched to Parnate which didn't do anything for me.
Then I went back to Nardil, but now it was the "new" Nardil. This new Nardil didn't help me at all - although the pills smell better than old Nardil. :-)
Anyway, at the time I just attributed it to someting akin to the poop out effect. Later I started seeing those posts about how people thought there was a difference in the Nardils. I considered that this might have been the case, but at this point I had switched back to another class of drugs and didn't feel like waiting 3-4 weeks to start MAOIs again. Plus, I was fed up with side effects and diet restrictions anyway. I guess I enjoy cheese and tap beer too much.
Posted by tecknohed on November 1, 2005, at 21:08:52
In reply to The other Nardil, posted by willyee on November 1, 2005, at 18:29:13
Hi
I get confused about this issue myself. It does seem that its the people switching from old to new that experience the problems. One thing thats mentioned is the coating being different. Apparently the new one 'melts in the mouth'. I'm in the UK and my Nardil works fine and has always had that 'melt in the mouth' quality. I'm unaware of the UK Nardil having ever been changed.
If people are that convinced, then I would suggest try using Nardil as a suppository - no kidding! (oops! have I just gained some new enemies?). Wouldn't that avoid any problems caused by its breakdown/absorbtion in the gastrointestinal system? ;-) Some Extacy (MDMA) pill users swear by this 'method'!
Another thing. I have witnessed a person convince themself into a relapse because thier Pharmacy started stocking a generic fluoxetine instead of the usual Prozac this person was used to. He didn't understand the concept of generics so convinced himself it wasn't working and played around with the dose etc. I've also seen many people come into a pharmacy complaining that thier meds aren't working as well, because it's a different looking med/brand/packing/generic - "its not working! Its different from the last one". I wonder if its kind of the same thing with the new/old Nardil?
When you're convinced of something, it becomes fact.teck
Posted by willyee on November 1, 2005, at 22:41:10
In reply to Re: The other Nardil, posted by tecknohed on November 1, 2005, at 21:08:52
Although im laughing i heard of this often....i personaly dont understand the concept of making a pill a subsitory.I mean do u plant it in a bean shooter like dennis the mennace and have a friend assist u in the procedure?
How in the world is that done?
Posted by Iansf on November 1, 2005, at 23:55:36
In reply to Re: The other Nardil, posted by tecknohed on November 1, 2005, at 21:08:52
> If people are that convinced, then I would suggest try using Nardil as a suppository - no kidding! (oops! have I just gained some new enemies?). Wouldn't that avoid any problems caused by its breakdown/absorbtion in the gastrointestinal system? ;-) Some Extacy (MDMA) pill users swear by this 'method'!
>Would using it as a suppository also avoid the tyramine issue, or would there still be a danger? And would you need to use less?
Posted by Declan on November 2, 2005, at 0:00:21
In reply to Re: The other Nardil, posted by willyee on November 1, 2005, at 22:41:10
Nah Willy, I'd need to babblemail you on that one, and you can do it on your own, but how many times a day do you need to take Nardil?
Declan
Posted by Meri-Tuuli on November 2, 2005, at 3:42:59
In reply to Re: The other Nardil, posted by tecknohed on November 1, 2005, at 21:08:52
Hi Teck,
Sorry to interupt (and be nosy) but how have you got Nardil in the UK? I was led to believe (by my doc and others here) that its impossible to get it prescribed here in the UK - I was told that my best bet would be flying across to the states!!
Kind regards
Meri
>I'm in the UK and my Nardil works fine and has always had that 'melt in the mouth' quality. I'm unaware of the UK Nardil having ever been changed.
Posted by ed_uk on November 2, 2005, at 15:01:10
In reply to Re: The other Nardil » willyee, posted by Declan on November 2, 2005, at 0:00:21
I very much doubt that there's anything wrong with the 'new' Nardil. I'm just not convinced.
Ed
Posted by Chairman_MAO on November 2, 2005, at 15:47:32
In reply to Re: The other Nardil » Declan, posted by ed_uk on November 2, 2005, at 15:01:10
I agree. I am waiting someone with anything that looks to me to be a coherent understanding of pharmacy and psychopharmacology free of self-contradicting propositions to argue in favor of the New Nardil conspiracy.
I told this story to my previous psychiatrist, who insightfully told me that sounds like when his methadone patients tell him that it is or sometimes even that they can FEEL it eating away at their bones.
I am open to all evidence; please, convince me! I want to know everything.
Posted by craiggetty on November 2, 2005, at 19:59:23
In reply to Re: The other Nardil » ed_uk, posted by Chairman_MAO on November 2, 2005, at 15:47:32
I don't quite get the methadone reference, but it seems apparent that you'll have to wait until a study is done - which is very unlikely. I think it's condescending of you to describe people as conspiracy theorists just because they personally noticed a difference in the 2 nardils. If you didn't want to hear that response then you shouldn't have asked people for their opinions. The "2 different Nardil" theory is similar to people who believe that generic drugs aren't always the same as name brand. Is this true? I don't know, I haven't seen any studies. However, I wouldn't discount a personal opinion that someone has reported. I know people who work for drug manufacturing companies who assert that their companies' products are superior than generic (primarily due to the system of checks and controls). Do I know if this is a fact? No. And neither do you. If you're so antsy, go do your own research instead of whining here. Your negativity isn't helpful.
> I agree. I am waiting someone with anything that looks to me to be a coherent understanding of pharmacy and psychopharmacology free of self-contradicting propositions to argue in favor of the New Nardil conspiracy.
>
> I told this story to my previous psychiatrist, who insightfully told me that sounds like when his methadone patients tell him that it is or sometimes even that they can FEEL it eating away at their bones.
>
> I am open to all evidence; please, convince me! I want to know everything.
Posted by Declan on November 2, 2005, at 21:11:11
In reply to Re: The other Nardil, posted by craiggetty on November 2, 2005, at 19:59:23
Well Craig, he probably doesn't call himself Chairman Mao for nothing (Where is my "Little Red Book" when I want a quote?), but there is this discrepancy between the liquid Nardil thing and Nardil absorbed through the small intestine with PlasminPlus or kaolin and Acacia, not to speak of a phenelzine patch and (now the suggestion of) a suppository.
The methadone thing doesn't sound odd to me. I'm all in favour of civilized drug regulations of course. But I do know people who are on methadone and have lost teeth and bone density. Of course that could be heroin, useing etc, nobody's going to care too much.
If the double double quotes thing doesn't work above (it doesn't, not to the right author) maybe it will work on this...."Talk to the Hand" by Lynne Truss.
Blessings and peace
Declan
Posted by willyee on November 3, 2005, at 1:40:00
In reply to Re: The other Nardil » ed_uk, posted by Chairman_MAO on November 2, 2005, at 15:47:32
> I agree. I am waiting someone with anything that looks to me to be a coherent understanding of pharmacy and psychopharmacology free of self-contradicting propositions to argue in favor of the New Nardil conspiracy.
>
> I told this story to my previous psychiatrist, who insightfully told me that sounds like when his methadone patients tell him that it is or sometimes even that they can FEEL it eating away at their bones.
>
> I am open to all evidence; please, convince me! I want to know everything.Unfortunatly not everyone is on the same level as you,and can articulate technical facts as well as you.Mostly its just lamons who are comming foruth,BUT doing so by the hundreds,and numbers to me show strentgh and truth.
You might have approx 20 ordinary folk who lived years on the drug,noticed something wasnt right,and seeked answers,ended up on the board.These 20 people might not be able to discuss pharmaocology with you,but they can tell u plain and simple something isnt right.
As far as getting the technical info id go to the page,they provide more than u can want on the matter.I dont have the link,just goog keywords anxiety community NARDIL
itll be the first one.Checkk it out
Posted by SLS on November 3, 2005, at 7:20:48
In reply to The other Nardil, posted by willyee on November 1, 2005, at 18:29:13
> The other group i mention that basicaly consists of veteran nardil users struggling to deal with the reformulation of nardil.
It was discussed here quite a bit when it was first reformulated. It might be that people have adapted their treatment dosages to accomodate any difference in bioavailability that there may be between the old and the new preparations.
The preparation was changed when it was discovererd that the amount of active ingredient, phenelzine, deviated too much from one pill to the next. I don't recall if it was a quality control problem or a shelf-life problem. Perhaps it was both.
Since I am convinced that there are bioavailability differences between generics and branded preparations, I have no reason to doubt that the reformulation of Nardil could have changed its effectiveness. However, I would think that an adjustment of dosage should remedy the problem. I don't know for sure, because I haven't actually experienced this problem myself. I still have the old Nardil lying around, and I never had to cross-over to the new Nardil.
I am not aware that there are conspiracy theories involved with this Nardil situation. Can anyone summarize the contentions?
- Scott
Posted by Chairman_MAO on November 3, 2005, at 7:57:47
In reply to Re: The other Nardil, posted by craiggetty on November 2, 2005, at 19:59:23
I am in a hurry, and will respond at length later.
Of course brands can differ in pharacokinetic parameters, and brands are made to stricter standards than generics. However, that there could be such a difference for someone such that there is a COMPLETE LOSS OF THERAPEUTIC RESPONSE _AND_ a dosage adjustment doesn't work seems unlikely to me.
Please do not hurl invectives at me. I certainly wasn't whining, and I was not being sarcastic when I said that I want to know everything about this.
Not for nothing, but people who are insecure in argument generally take the tone you did with me.Please let me know how you can reconcile the fact that the "New" Nardil conspiracy proponents claim that the excipients in the tablet are the problem--because the tablet isn't dissolving SLOWLY enough or even making it to the intestine--yet a LIQUID NARDIL ELIXIR is supposed to be the answer. Enteric coated? Not enteric coated? Liquid, solid, quick release, slow release, what? And in no way was the "old" Nardil formulated as a sustained release preparation.
Moreover, that stratguitar web site even goes so far as to claim that the "new" Nardil can dissolve in the MOUTH before it gets to the intestine! Come on ...
The reason the phenelzine is formulated as a SALT is to SURVIVE the acidity of the stomach! None of them seem to get this.
Posted by craiggetty on November 3, 2005, at 14:13:38
In reply to Re: The other Nardil » craiggetty, posted by Declan on November 2, 2005, at 21:11:11
Thanks, Declan,
I'll have to check out "Talk to the Hand." It looks fun. I've enjoyed her other book, "Eats, Shoots, and Leaves."
Regards,
Craig
Posted by craiggetty on November 3, 2005, at 14:24:24
In reply to Re: The other Nardil » craiggetty, posted by Chairman_MAO on November 3, 2005, at 7:57:47
> Of course brands can differ in pharacokinetic parameters, and brands are made to stricter standards than generics. However, that there could be such a difference for someone such that there is a COMPLETE LOSS OF THERAPEUTIC RESPONSE _AND_a dosage adjustment doesn't work seems unlikely to me.
Have you considered that there might have been a gross error in the manufacturing of the med by the new company? Manufacturing errors do take place. Afterall, that's how Kellogg's Corn Flakes came into existence.
> Not for nothing, but people who are insecure in argument generally take the tone you did with me.
An argument wasn't my intention. Just a plea for you to be courteous.
> Please let me know how you can reconcile the fact that the "New" Nardil conspiracy proponents claim that the excipients in the tablet are the problem--because the tablet isn't dissolving SLOWLY enough or even making it to the intestine--yet a LIQUID NARDIL ELIXIR is supposed to be the answer. Enteric coated? Not enteric coated? Liquid, solid, quick release, slow release, what? And in no way was the "old" Nardil formulated as a sustained release preparation.
I will try to remember to ask my pharmacist when I get the chance. What did your pharmacist say? You might want to try the following website: http://www.google.com
Posted by craiggetty on November 3, 2005, at 14:26:30
In reply to Re: The other Nardil » craiggetty, posted by Chairman_MAO on November 3, 2005, at 7:57:47
> Of course brands can differ in pharacokinetic parameters, and brands are made to stricter standards than generics. However, that there could be such a difference for someone such that there is a COMPLETE LOSS OF THERAPEUTIC RESPONSE _AND_a dosage adjustment doesn't work seems unlikely to me.
Have you considered that there might have been a gross error in the manufacturing of the med by the new company? Manufacturing errors do take place. Afterall, that's how Kellogg's Corn Flakes came into existence.
> Not for nothing, but people who are insecure in argument generally take the tone you did with me.
An argument wasn't my intention. Just a plea for you to be courteous.
> Please let me know how you can reconcile the fact that the "New" Nardil conspiracy proponents claim that the excipients in the tablet are the problem--because the tablet isn't dissolving SLOWLY enough or even making it to the intestine--yet a LIQUID NARDIL ELIXIR is supposed to be the answer. Enteric coated? Not enteric coated? Liquid, solid, quick release, slow release, what? And in no way was the "old" Nardil formulated as a sustained release preparation.
I will try to remember to ask my pharmacist when I get the chance. What did your pharmacist say? You might want to try the following website: http://www.google.com
Posted by Michael Bell on November 3, 2005, at 15:51:02
In reply to Re: The other Nardil » ed_uk, posted by Chairman_MAO on November 2, 2005, at 15:47:32
I will ignore the tones of supreriority used in some posts, as no one here is an expert in pharmaceuticals. And I'm sure all of you have complained that doctors don't know the truth about certain meds, and that we as users are the ones who notice the effects - so let's not be hypocritical.
As a user of old and new nardil, here are some FACTS, not opinions:
1. New Nardil does dissolve much quicker and will be broken down by saliva in a matter of minutes
2. Put a new nardil tab and old nardil tab in a cup
of water. Observe. then post a reply.
3. Excipients are extremely important. They effect absorbancy and release rate, among othe things
4. New Nardil is not nearly as effective as Old nardil. Period.
5. Putting nardil in enteric cap - yes, it helps
6. Adding acacia to the mix - no, it didn't help
6. Adding kaolin and bees wax (invert sugar) - yes, it helps
7. Adding white wax - yes, it helps
8. Shelf life issue - yes there are issues
9. There are problems with the formula - let's just say a chemist from a company that makes it admitted as much to me.There's no conspiracy, guys. It's really quite simple - the med was changed, and many people don't metabolize it as well. That's all
Posted by ed_uk on November 3, 2005, at 16:41:19
In reply to oh boy, here we go - Chairman, ed_uk and others, posted by Michael Bell on November 3, 2005, at 15:51:02
Oh dear, I wish I hadn't posted. I'm sorry if I offended you.
>It's really quite simple - the med was changed, and many people don't metabolize it as well.
Tell us more.......
Kind regards
Ed
Posted by Chairman_MAO on November 4, 2005, at 10:37:06
In reply to oh boy, here we go - Chairman, ed_uk and others, posted by Michael Bell on November 3, 2005, at 15:51:02
If you open up the 2005 USP, you will see that tablets of phenelzine sulfate made to spec are supposed to dissolve quite readily and COMPLETELY. As a matter of fact, the test for whether it is USP or not is whether 16 out of 18 tablets dissolve completely in the specified solutions (that mimic STOMACH ACID, not the intestines).
Posted by Tepiaca on November 4, 2005, at 21:00:03
In reply to Re: The other Nardil » Chairman_MAO, posted by craiggetty on November 3, 2005, at 14:26:30
In my experience , I inmediately felt the
difference between old and new Nardil.
I made the next post 2 years ago before Knowing
that Nardil "had changed".http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20030928/msgs/264371.html
(how con I turn on this link?
just copy- paste please !!)
This is my experience and I do believe there
is something wrong with the new one....
mmmm maybe not wrong, but different
Posted by ed_uk on November 5, 2005, at 11:19:40
In reply to Re: The other Nardil, posted by Tepiaca on November 4, 2005, at 21:00:03
Hi Tepi
When you took 75mg Nardil and suffered bad side effects, were you taking the new Nardil or the old Nardil?
Kind regards
Ed
Posted by Tepiaca on November 6, 2005, at 1:03:26
In reply to Re: The other Nardil » Tepiaca, posted by ed_uk on November 5, 2005, at 11:19:40
> Hi Tepi
>
> When you took 75mg Nardil and suffered bad side effects, were you taking the new Nardil or the old Nardil?
>
> Kind regards
>
> Edthe new one ed
saludos
tepi
Posted by ed_uk on November 6, 2005, at 14:39:16
In reply to Re: The other Nardil » ed_uk, posted by Tepiaca on November 6, 2005, at 1:03:26
Hi Tepi
Perhaps you could try 67.5mg. Gardenergirl finds 75mg too much but 60mg doesn't always work well enough for her.
Saludos!
Ed
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.