Posted by ed_uk on March 10, 2006, at 15:46:58
In reply to Im shocked, posted by willyee on March 9, 2006, at 19:51:15
I'm sorry Willy, sometimes you just have to stick to your guns :)
I'm not saying it's impossible that the 'new' Nardil is less effective than the 'old' Nardil, I just think it's very unlikely. Any (potential) differences in bioavailability could be overcome by adjusting the regimen.
Willy, if you can't tolerate the side effects of the 'new' Nardil, I very much doubt that you could tolerate the 'old' Nardil either. Perhaps it's just not the right drug for you? If you *can* tolerate the side effects then give it a few weeks at least :) Don't be encouraged to believe that it's useless: it's not.
Don't foget that ACE the Nardil champ has always taken the 'new' Nardil ;-)
Regards
Ed
PS. It's common for people to believe that a medication which is unavailable is superior to medications which *are* available. Look at amineptine. VERY FEW p-babblers have tried it, yet many claim that it's a great AD. Is there really much evidence that it's a great AD? People want what they can't have. It's human nature. I may have made myself unpopular, but I needed to be truthful about my beliefs. Please respect that.
poster:ed_uk
thread:618079
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20060310/msgs/618451.html