 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Pharmacy / December 2004Pseudoephedrine in the WSJ
From today's Wall Street Journal: " Pfizer said it will sell Sudafed with no pseudoephedrine, used to cook methamphetamine. Druggists often keep it behind the counter for that reason." I think this is should be illegal. The NEW "Sudafed" will be no more be Sudafed than NEW Coke was Coca-Cola. Since it will be OTC I suppose Pfizer will not have to run studies to prove it is as effected as the original Sudafed. > From today's Wall Street Journal: " Pfizer said it will sell Sudafed with > no [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > will not have to run studies to prove it is as effected as the original > Sudafed. Thats the Brand Name Shell game like Lotrimin - could be clotrimazole, butenafine or even miconazole - hafta look close at the package. And the rx Guaifed - it doesn't even have any "fed" in it anymore but they kept the brand name - most prescribers of it still think it has pseudoephedrine in it. They do that with lots of cough and congestion meds every season - just swap a bunch of ingredients around but keep the same old name. Brad > From today's Wall Street Journal: " Pfizer said it will sell Sudafed with no > pseudoephedrine, used to cook methamphetamine. Druggists often keep it [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > will not have to run studies to prove it is as effected as the original > Sudafed. The companies have been doing this for decades, i.e., using an established brand name to 'co-brand' a myriad of new products. The first example that I remember is/was an old product, 4-Way cold tablets. The ads stated that the product fought colds four ways. They then proceeded to introduce other '4-Way' products. I can't remember what the products were, but the ingredients were totally different. The assumption was that they would work in four different ways. If Pfizer's intent is to replace the original product, the label should clearly state MODIFIED FORMULA. Those whores! HankG http://www.oregonlive.com/search/index.ssf?/base/front_page/1103806620248030.xml ?oregonian?fpfp The company will continue selling the original Sudafed throughout the country after Sudafed PE is introduced in late January, according to spokesman Jay Kosminsky. Prices will be comparable for the two products. The change only affects Sudafed products containing pseudoephedrine by itself. Other products in the Sudafed line such as Sudafed Cold and Flu, which combine pseudoephedrine with other ingredients, will be completely converted to phenylephrine later in 2005. "This is to help consumers, regardless of what choices states make," Kosminsky said. There are no head-to-head studies to compare the effectiveness of phenylephrine with pseudoephedrine, he said, and some people will still prefer the original in states without pseudoephedrine restrictions. >From today's Wall Street Journal: " Pfizer said it will sell Sudafed with no >pseudoephedrine, used to cook methamphetamine. Druggists often keep it [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >will not have to run studies to prove it is as effected as the original >Sudafed. Are there any forms of pseudoephedrine now on the market which are as effective a the traditional little red tablet but are formulated so that they CANNOT be used for meth production? If so, that would be the product I would buy. Can anyone help me out on this? Hank > From today's Wall Street Journal: " Pfizer said it will sell Sudafed with no > pseudoephedrine, used to cook methamphetamine. Druggists often keep it [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > will not have to run studies to prove it is as effected as the original > Sudafed. The problem is that pseudoephedrine itself is a potential precursor to controlled substances, and has nothing to do with the formulation. If you're looking for a nasal decongestant, have you tried a spray? > Are there any forms of pseudoephedrine now on the market which are > as effective a the traditional little red tablet but are formulated so that they [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > will not have to run studies to prove it is as effected as the original > > Sudafed. People who wish to manufacture illicet substances will always find ways to do so. With Soma now being scheduled and with the removal of good ole everyday pseudoephidrine, what is going to be next? Is the DEA now going take good pharmacy oversite away from the pharmacists and doctors and make sure that no one can receive chemotherapeutics without a consult from a DEA agent?? -- Patrick H. Mason M.S. OHST, EMT-I > The problem is that pseudoephedrine itself is a potential precursor to > controlled substances, and has nothing to do with the formulation. If [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > > will not have to run studies to prove it is as effected as the original > > > Sudafed. Many years ago I had a rhinoplasty for a severely deviated septum. Since then there has never been a day--not even one during a bad head cold that I can not breath perfectly through both nostrils. (That surgery was the smartest move I ever made!) I use pseudoephedrine ONLY when I get sinus headaches or with amoxicillin for sinus infections--which I seem to be rather prone to. In both cases the pseudoephedrine works wonders. I would rather use nothing at all over a nasal spray. Without fail, every nasal spray I've ever used has caused some degree of rebound congestion. Before I had the rhinoplasty (and also, as it happens, before I knew about rebound congestion) I used nasal sprays and got hooked on them. Afrin was my drug of choice. I used that stuff for three months, finally woke up to the fact that I had a "problem," and went to an otolaryngologist (sp?). He wisely insisted that I stop the Afrin (and ALL nasal sprays) and gave me one of these packs of a cortisone-type drug which starts you off at a large dose with the dose getting smaller each day. That, and stopping the Afrin, solved the rebound congestion problem. When I returned in a month for him to see how my innards looked and if my "problem" had resolved recommended surgery to correct the "plumbing" problem. I opted to have the surgery done by a plastic surgeon thinking that perhaps he could solve the deviated septum problem and hopefully reduce the size of my admittedly rather big beak. TOTAL success on both counts! My current refusal to use spray-type decongestants may be irrational but there is simply NO way I am EVER going to go near one of those sprays again Exactly what is this new drug or new formulation that is going to replace pseudoephedrine? Will it be as effective? Hank > The problem is that pseudoephedrine itself is a potential precursor to > controlled substances, and has nothing to do with the formulation. If [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >> > will not have to run studies to prove it is as effected as the original >> > Sudafed. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.