Posted by ed_uk on March 11, 2006, at 12:42:31
In reply to Ed - here's why you are wrong » ed_uk, posted by Michael Bell on March 11, 2006, at 10:57:32
Hello
>Ed, no offense but you are patently mistaken, buddy.
Please don't call me buddy. I find it offensive.
>Absorbance rate is affected by BIOAVAILABILITY, which is the amount of time the drug takes to be absorbed in the body.
Actually, bioavailability is defined as the % of the drug which reaches the blood stream intact. It is not the same as the rate of absorption.
>Pfizer itself has stated that there is a difference in peak time of absorbance between the new and old nardil.
If that was the case, taking smaller but more frequent doses should help.
>Some people may not be able to metabolise the new nardil as well due to the changes in excipients.
Drug metabolism refers to the conversion of a drug to different chemicals (metabolites) in the body. Metabolism of drugs occurs mainly in the liver, but also in the wall of the intestines etc. I'm not sure what you saying here. I can't imagine that the excipients affect the metabolism of phenelzine in the liver. Excipients may be pharmaceutically active but they are, by definition, not pharmacologically active.
>And, yes, old nardil did have a sugar coating which slowed down its rate of dissolution. New nardil does not have this.
'Old' Nardil was film coated. It was not enteric coated. A film coat is not the same as an enteric coat. A film coat breaks down rapidly in the stomach, whereas an enteric coat prevent the drug from being released until it reaches the intestine. Both the 'new' Nardil tabs and the 'old' Nardil tabs disintegrate in the stomach.
>Finally, have you taken new and old Nardil Ed? What are you basing your observations on?
No, I do not take Nardil. I am basing my statements on simple logic.
Regards
Ed
poster:ed_uk
thread:614817
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20060310/msgs/618858.html