Posted by laima on February 28, 2007, at 19:52:22
In reply to Re: Drug manufacturing and quality control, posted by Squiggles on February 28, 2007, at 19:00:18
"Other influences"- like my being delusional? Or you fancy I am someone who insists on brand-name designer products, or thinks that expensive=better? Hardly! All I want is for my medication to work properly.What I can guarentee you is that Barr generic "adderall" and the Shire brand Adderall felt like entirely different drugs: radically different effects. They might have had a few molecules in common, but they did not do the same thing- AT ALL. I can also guarentee you that I've seen other patient testimonials reporting the very same results that I got, and I read them after the fact-ie, was not suggestably influenced by them. I can also guarentee you that my doctor agreed with zero hesitation or reservation that generics are not necessarily the same as the original versions. Some are more notoriously different and are more often and vigorously complained about by patients than others. You might have noticed that prescription pads even have a section where the doctor can choose to indicate: "Do Not Substitute". I can guarentee you that until recently, I could go to Walgreens and choose Shire or Barr, and now I can choose have Barr or nothing. I thought generics were intended to offer consumers choices? I got less choice. And, in the US, I am pretty darn certain that generic manufacturers are just as interested in turning a profit as the developers and pharmacies are. They are not non-profit entities run by selfless philanthropists, smiled upon and encouraged by a kind and attentive government which has nothing but public welfare in mind. And I've seen plenty of reports of the fda being pretty overwhelmed and spread thin these days. Checking to be sure generics BEHAVE in the same way as originals doesn't sound to be a top priority. Nor does it really sound to be required, if you dig around deep enough into the rules of standards they need to meet.
Maybe it's a little like cooking: you can give a bunch of people the exact same recipee and groceries, but I know the results do not always end up tasting the same-despite the molecules presumabley being the same. It's usually due to their talents and methods. But with drugs- it's more serious- if the results do not end up with the same therapeutic benefits.
Since this seems to be turning into another case of touting the 'ole "generics are exactly interchangeable with brand name originals- any differences are imaginary", line, I give up. Anything I say seems likely only be used to demonstrate how delusional I am about my own experience by those who feel generics are a sincere and angelic public service, and so really, what's the point?
Yes, actually in the past there have been reports by several people here on babble asserting strongly that generic versions of clonazapam are not the same as brand Klonopin- but I don't have personal experience of comparing them myself. All I've ever personally noticed is that the current generic clonazapam Walgreens offers is weaker and much shorter acting than the one they used to offer. And that it has tended to fuzz me up rather than relieve any anxiety or worry.
If all your particular generics are working out great for you- fantastic! Count your blessings.
> But how many cases have you seen? You say
> it's not "always" true. How often has it been
> false? And do you know why? I think that you may assume that the drug is different because it is generic, when so many other influences have been overlooked.
>
> Squiggles
>
poster:laima
thread:735309
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20070224/msgs/737146.html