![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 10 of 10. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by willyee on August 25, 2006, at 6:15:31
Latly a lot of my posts have gone unanswered,i know this could be do too the fact i present the same problem over and over,or the recent issue i had,but i ask someone with some pharm knowledge or some idea of this post please ring in,this is a snip from Remedyfind,i dident take the name or anything else even though its there for everyone i just choose not to put someones info out there,anyway here it is,please some form of input....
regarding parnates effectivness this was his reply.
"worked great until the FDA mandated gluten be taken out of all medications because some people are allergic to. this happened in 03 just like what happened to nardil and now parnate no longer is effective either"
Make any sense?
Posted by Meri-Tuuli on August 25, 2006, at 9:32:36
In reply to Please Please at least some response...., posted by willyee on August 25, 2006, at 6:15:31
Hey!
I'll reply. Unfortunatly, I can't comment on your post, I have no experience/knowledge about parnate/nardil.
Yeah I mostly get ignored as well.
But can I say something objective willee? Sometimes I find your posts hard to follow....I particualry find it hard when there are no spaces after commas... I'm sorry, I don't mean to offend you, its just something that I struggle with when reading your posts and puts me off reading them, because I'll know I'll struggle!
Maybe thats why you don't get as much response? I dunno.
Kind regards
Meri
Posted by Phillipa on August 25, 2006, at 11:16:08
In reply to Please Please at least some response...., posted by willyee on August 25, 2006, at 6:15:31
Willyee in a way take it as a compliment as I can't answer with any knowledge just give you support. Love Phillipa
Posted by willyee on August 25, 2006, at 11:56:49
In reply to Re: Please Please at least some response...., posted by Meri-Tuuli on August 25, 2006, at 9:32:36
> Hey!
>
> I'll reply. Unfortunatly, I can't comment on your post, I have no experience/knowledge about parnate/nardil.
>
> Yeah I mostly get ignored as well.
>
> But can I say something objective willee? Sometimes I find your posts hard to follow....I particualry find it hard when there are no spaces after commas... I'm sorry, I don't mean to offend you, its just something that I struggle with when reading your posts and puts me off reading them, because I'll know I'll struggle!
>
> Maybe thats why you don't get as much response? I dunno.
>
> Kind regards
>
> Meri
No youre right,and of course i know it,the thing is if im writing a professional letter or something of a serious matter,E-mail etc,etc,the writing is usualy fine.However when i come to this site,it actualy provokes anxiety,why?....well i try not to spend too much time on this site as i promise myself this site should only be used as a tool,this is my thinking only,so when i get caught up in reading a thread,i finaly get around to my own post and im semi anxious,i know this sounds silly,and i know there really is no excuse for a person to use poor grammer,but that is the silly reasoning behind it.
My anixety shows in a wierd way when writing,even when im not actualy experiancing anxiety at the moment,its just the racing thoughts and trying to beat them from comming in with my writing,this is a second contributing factor,again im not excusing myself,just attempting to present to people the fact that i might not be perfect but i defiantly can write better than i do on groups and pm chats.
Posted by Racer on August 25, 2006, at 13:11:50
In reply to Re: Please Please at least some response...., posted by willyee on August 25, 2006, at 11:56:49
Posted by Meri-Tuuli on August 25, 2006, at 13:33:47
In reply to Re: Please Please at least some response...., posted by willyee on August 25, 2006, at 11:56:49
Hey willyee
I'm sorry to hear that babble causes you such anxiety. I'd never even considered it, to be honest.
But I guess anxiety shows in different ways for different people. I'm totally *not* socially phobic for instance (ha! too much drama as a kid!) but I have crippling hypochrondria, for some reason. I should have been a doctor!!!
Well, try not to worry when you come to babbleland. I know its easier said than done, but really you couldn't *be* amongst a bunch of better people to understand your anxiety.
:o)
Meri
Posted by willyee on August 25, 2006, at 13:36:14
In reply to Any reason you don't try to improve it, then? (nm) » willyee, posted by Racer on August 25, 2006, at 13:11:50
Kinda thing like quiting smoking,you say youre going to,you might do the right thing on some occasions,but in the long run,bam
This is me of course,professional letters and such are done a time or so so i sit down and make sure it is done correctly,posting here is so often i say i will post the way i should but again im so concerned with wording what in my mind is a odd question that grammer takes the back seat so often,which is contacting the exact thing im trying to prevent.
Im aboard the hopeless train myself,seems every drug out there for depression or more so mood stablizers simply sedate you,and the ones that dont are just speed,im not looking for a crank rush,but also not to feel my limbs weak,seems you take one drug to counter the other and so on so on,im just looking for some reasoning which is why i posted the question,i just wish the one drug was enough.
I dont even mind taking a sleep aid,just consistency during the day,and im digging in holes for reasons why this drug is failing me when there probuably is none.
Posted by Tomatheus on August 25, 2006, at 21:33:57
In reply to Please Please at least some response...., posted by willyee on August 25, 2006, at 6:15:31
Willyee,
As far as I know, the only time Parnate's formulation was changed was sometime in either 1990 or 1991 -- probably 1991.
The editions of the Physicians' Desk Reference published through 1991 list the following excipients for Parnate:
* acacia
* calcium sulfate
* cellulose
* ethylcellulose
* FD&C Red No. 3
* FD&C Yellow No. 6
* gelatin
* iron oxide
* magnesium stearate
* starch
* sucrose
* trace amounts of other inactive ingredientsSince 1992, the PDR has listed Parnate's excipients as follows:
* cellulose
* citric acid
* croscarmellose sodium
* D&C Red No. 7
* FD&C Blue No. 2
* FD&C Red No. 40
* FD&C Yellow No. 6
* gelatin
* iron oxide
* lactose
* magnesium stearate
* talc
* titanium dioxide
* trace amounts of other inactive ingredientsFrom 1992 to 2000, the section on Parnate in the PDR also included the following statement: "NOTE: Parnate (tranylcypromine sulfate) tablets have been changed from rose-red sugar-coated tablets to rose-red film-coated tablets. The film-coated tablets differ in size from the sugar-coated tablets, but the drug content remains unchanged."
Based on the information that I retrieved from older editions of the PDR, it does not appear that gluten was ever used as an excipient in Parnate tablets. It is theoretically possible that gluten could have been one of the "other inactive ingredients" present in a trace amount up until 2003, but I think that this is unlikely, considering that gluten was never listed as an excipient of Parnate to begin with. So, as far as I can tell, Parnate did not undergo a formulation change in 2003 as Nardil did -- it only happened in the early 1990s.
Whether or not the "new" Parnate that's been manufactured since the early 1990s is equally effective as the "old" version is something that I can only speculate about. The Internet as we know it today obviously didn't exist back in 1992, so if the "new" Parnate is indeed less effective and/or less tolerable than the old formulation, it would have been very difficult for those who noticed a change upon switching formulations to know that other Parnate users were experiencing similar changes. It is conceivable that a doctor with several patients on Parnate could have challenged the efficacy of the new formulation if he/she noticed at least a handful of patients reacting similarly after having switched formulations. However, it is highly unlikely that this would have happened. Even in 1991, it was rare for a psychiatrist to have more than a few patients on MAOIs, and my guess is that most psychiatrists would have just dismissed multiple patient reports of reduced efficacy with the "new" Parnate as a coincidence. So, if Parnate users did indeed notice a change in efficacy or tolerability upon switching formulations, they probably would have attributed the change to their body's ability to respond to the medication instead of to a difference in the drug itself. After all, that's what those who responded badly to the Nardil formulation change were doing before they discovered via the Internet that other Nardil users were having similar problems.
I've read some reports on this board suggesting that Parnate may be somewhat less energizing and activating than it used to be. However, I have yet to read a message specifically stating that a change in Parnate's effectiveness may have occurred during the early 1990s. If Psycho-Babble and other discussion boards devoted to the topic of psychiatric medications had been in existence during the early 1990s, then perhaps we might have seen some reports about the "new" Parnate possibly being less effective than the "old" Parnate. But to my knowledge, no such reports exist. So, if Parnate users did notice changes in the drug's efficacy and/or tolerability upon switching formulations, there's no way that any of us could know about it (unless some current and/or former Parnate users reading this did notice a change back in the early 1990s and are just now suspecting that it might have been caused by the formulation change).
I'm not sure how helpful this post has been. I could probably write more, but I'd basically just be speculating. When it comes down to it, I don't think that there's sufficient evidence to conclude that the "new" Parnate is less effective than the "old" Parnate (I think that the evidence is more convincing when it comes to the Nardil formulation change), but then again, it wouldn't surprise me if it did turn out that the "new" Parnate is somehow inferior. It does strike me as being awfully suspicious that SmithKline Beecher just so happened to have changed Parnate's formulation right before introducing Paxil to the market (the FDA approved Paxil in 1992). It is certainly conceivable that SmithKline Beecher could have changed Parnate to make it less effective in hopes that the Parnate users would switch to the newer, more profitable Paxil, but considering that there is no evidence that I know of to support this possibility, it would basically be nothing more than a conspiracy theory.
Tomatheus
> Latly a lot of my posts have gone unanswered,i know this could be do too the fact i present the same problem over and over,or the recent issue i had,but i ask someone with some pharm knowledge or some idea of this post please ring in,this is a snip from Remedyfind,i dident take the name or anything else even though its there for everyone i just choose not to put someones info out there,anyway here it is,please some form of input....
>
>
>
> regarding parnates effectivness this was his reply.
>
>
> "worked great until the FDA mandated gluten be taken out of all medications because some people are allergic to. this happened in 03 just like what happened to nardil and now parnate no longer is effective either"
>
>
> Make any sense?
Posted by willyee on August 26, 2006, at 16:04:15
In reply to Re: Please Please at least some response.... » willyee, posted by Tomatheus on August 25, 2006, at 21:33:57
Thanks for such a what must have been a time consuming post,i appreciate it.
I have pretty much all the conclusions drawn you have,i have nothing other than the data you mentioned on any formulation change of parnate,which is NOT the post i pasted here,and instead a inactive ingredient that was removed,and should have no bearing on parnate`s effectivness.
After doing a little snooping,i noticed the posters name in other groups,not many,but the few we speak of,and he there mentions the same thing,yet i have seen one other than himself mention this information in anyway,his comments went just unchallenged or for whatever reason more so un noticed so i couldent really make much,but i think unless he provided something somewhere i missed,like you and i,i believe he might have got caught up in the nardil change,with parnate and was partialy right,in one sense there was a change to parnate,but in another sense if the case is so dreadfully wrong as it was a inactive food coloring and there were no big parnate issus around the date it happened unlike nardil where you can almost put the two incidents....."users having trouble"....and its "formula change" hand and hand.So thanks,i think i was wishing on a star on that one.
HOWEVER,with that being said,you mentioned something i find EXTREMLY true,and not prone to any event such as a re formulation,BUT i do think parnate was at a time known on many groups to be a quite activating drug,and i think there is a rasing majority of users finding the same problems with parnate and going off it,we are seeing a great deal,and it is becomming common now,where it was not before,to have extreme daytime fatigue as one of parnates main side effects.
Insomnia was ALWAYS a pretty universal side effect of parnate,and now i believe the fatigue syndrome is falling in place right with that.I know from personal use only a few years ago this was not the case with the drug in action....and i know from tons of reading it was not a big issue in listed side effects when reading on it.
Now almost every user complains of it,so we have now insomnia,for some unbearable fatigue,and were seeing more ineffectivness i believe.
Personaly i see the profile of this drug changing a lot,i know so because as a third party its profile now would not excite me,however when i first heard of it,i could not wait to get a script for it,and when i did,it was immediatly acitvating,and its mood elevating properties were a lot more appeareant it seemd always,even on a benzo.Sorry for the long thread,just something im noticing,truth is,it doesent have to be a formula change,like you said the maois are so underused if a conspirasists really wanted to get reved up,all they would have to do is consider that the company can honestly make whatever process change they want to the drug without presenting it to the public,long as they are confident they are not gonna kill or make someone violently ill,i dont see what would stop them,you see the nardil manf. really have shivered much and they got an entire site on the heels.
Posted by Last Chance on August 31, 2006, at 12:17:07
In reply to Re: Please Please at least some response...., posted by willyee on August 26, 2006, at 16:04:15
willyee - your punctuation as a problem is not worth thinking about - I have no problem following your posts. No experience with parnate so I can't contribute - I am taking Emsam, and also tired during the day, sleep lousy, and have difficulty concentrating - more than pre-Patch. Take care, Richard
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.