![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
[email protected]Shown: posts 148 to 172 of 8406. Go back in thread:
Posted by Anyuser on August 22, 2002, at 17:39:26
In reply to Re: dosage » Anyuser, posted by pharmrep on August 22, 2002, at 17:26:50
What's curious to me is that nearly 2/3 of practitioners prescribe 20mg Celexa or less, and we're told that 10mg Lexapro=40mg Celexa, yet there seems to be no expectation that any practitioner would prescribe less than 10mg Lexapro.
Oh well. Time will tell. Thanks for your answers.
Posted by moxy1000 on August 22, 2002, at 19:04:13
In reply to Re: First clinical experience with Lexapro, posted by Bill L on August 22, 2002, at 10:30:09
I have done thorough research on Lexapro and am impressed so far by the clinical data. Nine positive studies and zero negative studies (for example, studies where Lexapro didn't work) were submitted to the FDA. That is a record for any new drug application. As far as it being a "miracle drug" - probably not. It's not really based on cutting edge technology, but based on clinical data alone, it looks like it will work more efficiently then anything else available on the market today. (Ane when I say efficient, I mean it will work more quickly and w/ fewer side effects.) The side effect profile of this drug looks like that of a vitamin. And you can apparently take it w/o any real risk of drug interactions, so that's good if you're taking several different meds. Plus, I understand from one of my friends at Walgreen's, it is priced less then any branded SSRI (including Celexa). In short, when you consider the withdrawal complaints from paxil and effexor, the weight gain complaints from paxil and remeron, the black box warning that serzone has, the nausea caused by zoloft, the drug interactions caused by prozac, and the significant seizure risk associated with wellbutrin, Lexapro looks pretty good. No drug is perfect for everybody, but this looks like it will be worth a shot.
Just my two cents.
Posted by pharmrep on August 22, 2002, at 20:20:05
In reply to Re: dosage » pharmrep, posted by Anyuser on August 22, 2002, at 17:39:26
> What's curious to me is that nearly 2/3 of practitioners prescribe 20mg Celexa or less, and we're told that 10mg Lexapro=40mg Celexa, yet there seems to be no expectation that any practitioner would prescribe less than 10mg Lexapro.
>
> Oh well. Time will tell. Thanks for your answers.*** Remember...in the studies, it was found that the r-citalopram is actually inhibiting the s-citalopram from working to its fullest capability. (Did you see the Sanchez microdialysis study?) That is why it doesnt take as much s-citalopram (Lexapro) to be as/or more effective than 40mg of Celexa. It's all about effectiveness and tolerability
Posted by pharmrep on August 22, 2002, at 20:25:46
In reply to Lexapro clinical data, posted by moxy1000 on August 22, 2002, at 19:04:13
> I have done thorough research on Lexapro and am impressed so far by the clinical data. Nine positive studies and zero negative studies (for example, studies where Lexapro didn't work) were submitted to the FDA. That is a record for any new drug application. As far as it being a "miracle drug" - probably not. It's not really based on cutting edge technology, but based on clinical data alone, it looks like it will work more efficiently then anything else available on the market today. (Ane when I say efficient, I mean it will work more quickly and w/ fewer side effects.) The side effect profile of this drug looks like that of a vitamin. And you can apparently take it w/o any real risk of drug interactions, so that's good if you're taking several different meds. Plus, I understand from one of my friends at Walgreen's, it is priced less then any branded SSRI (including Celexa). In short, when you consider the withdrawal complaints from paxil and effexor, the weight gain complaints from paxil and remeron, the black box warning that serzone has, the nausea caused by zoloft, the drug interactions caused by prozac, and the significant seizure risk associated with wellbutrin, Lexapro looks pretty good. No drug is perfect for everybody, but this looks like it will be worth a shot.
>
> Just my two cents.** Hi there...do you have access to the studies online? I only have hard copies and cant find links to share here...can you help?
Posted by Anyuser on August 22, 2002, at 21:40:58
In reply to Re: dosage » Anyuser, posted by pharmrep on August 22, 2002, at 20:20:05
I get it that 10mg of Lexapro is supposed to be equivalent to 40mg Celexa. However, two thirds of practitioners prescribe less than 40mg Celexa. If you buy the 10=40 equivalence, there is a sizeable difference between the potency of Lexapro that Forest recommends and apparently expects to be prescribed and the potency of Celexa that 2/3 of doctors prescribe today.
Posted by pharmrep on August 22, 2002, at 22:50:59
In reply to The point » pharmrep, posted by Anyuser on August 22, 2002, at 21:40:58
> I get it that 10mg of Lexapro is supposed to be equivalent to 40mg Celexa. However, two thirds of practitioners prescribe less than 40mg Celexa. If you buy the 10=40 equivalence, there is a sizeable difference between the potency of Lexapro that Forest recommends and apparently expects to be prescribed and the potency of Celexa that 2/3 of doctors prescribe today.
** good observation. Although indicated from 20-60mg...Celexa did not get used by the majority of internist/general practitioners beyond 40mg. Why...we arent sure...mostly it seems that without specific training...most family practices dont want to take "unknown risks" so they would not want to go too high in their mind. This group of doctors represents the largest segment of prescribers. Psychs ,although willing to titrate higher and having the training to observe more properly...represent a smaller percentage of prescribing doctors. Since effacacy and tolerability are seen earlier at a higher dose, that is why 10mg is used. This will probably result in many more patients being treated at the general practice level, and not necessarily being referred to psychs as often (assuming the patient is seeing the desired results.)
This is mine and the opinions of others at our meetings...no official Forest statement...if I get one, I will let you know.
Posted by Ritch on August 22, 2002, at 23:27:51
In reply to Re: dosage » Anyuser, posted by pharmrep on August 22, 2002, at 17:26:50
> > What do you understand to be the typical dose of Celexa? How often is 20mg prescribed? Do you know if pdocs typically prescribe a lower dose for maintenance, less than the therapeutic dose?
> >
> > Does Forest have any expectation that some pdocs, presumably those that prescribe lower doses of Celexa, will prescribe 5mgs of Lexapro?
> >
> > Thanks for your help. I am interested in your view of what practitioners do with your product. If you don't know the answers, that's fine.
>
> ** Celexa rx's are as follows; 10mg-20mg=63% 30mg-40mg=32% 40mg+=5%. In my experience..General practitioners and Internists will use 20-40mg but refer out to psychs if not helping. My psychs are not afraid to go higher at all...20-40 is routine..i have many who write 60-80 (there are a few studies that show 80mg without probs) I even have a few that have gone to 100+.
> As for Lexapro..the indications are pretty clear, and dosing is easy...10mg for everybody as the starting and maintenace dose...they are scored if you want to go to 15 or a 20 mg tab is available. As for 5mg...no studies yet, probably wont be since 10mg appears to be close to 40mg of Celexa. Since so many other AD's have a "titration" regimen...10 and 20 might seem too easy.(and only 1 wk needed before titrating if needed). Remember, the studies showed 1-2 wks for most patients and efficacy will be seen. Some Dr's might try 5mg to start, but the efficacy probably wont be the same since all the studies were done at 10 and 20mgPharmRep,
Why can't most SSRI manufacturer's go for the very low-dose maintenace dosages with scored tablets instead of liquids? I realize that it probably is far cheaper to "tool" for a liquid version, than to create dies and whatnot for low-dose tablets (and add scoring to the costs). However, given that you mention that about 2/3 of the prescribers are on the low-dose end, why not market very low-dose tablet alternatives? With Celexa, the max. I can tolerate every day is nowhere near 10mg. A 5mg tablet of Lexapro that is scored FOUR-WAYS to enable one to take a quarter-tablet would be a fine marketing idea, HINT-HINT
Mitch
Posted by pharmrep on August 23, 2002, at 0:05:14
In reply to Re: dosage » pharmrep, posted by Ritch on August 22, 2002, at 23:27:51
> > > What do you understand to be the typical dose of Celexa? How often is 20mg prescribed? Do you know if pdocs typically prescribe a lower dose for maintenance, less than the therapeutic dose?
> > >
> > > Does Forest have any expectation that some pdocs, presumably those that prescribe lower doses of Celexa, will prescribe 5mgs of Lexapro?
> > >
> > > Thanks for your help. I am interested in your view of what practitioners do with your product. If you don't know the answers, that's fine.
> >
> > ** Celexa rx's are as follows; 10mg-20mg=63% 30mg-40mg=32% 40mg+=5%. In my experience..General practitioners and Internists will use 20-40mg but refer out to psychs if not helping. My psychs are not afraid to go higher at all...20-40 is routine..i have many who write 60-80 (there are a few studies that show 80mg without probs) I even have a few that have gone to 100+.
> > As for Lexapro..the indications are pretty clear, and dosing is easy...10mg for everybody as the starting and maintenace dose...they are scored if you want to go to 15 or a 20 mg tab is available. As for 5mg...no studies yet, probably wont be since 10mg appears to be close to 40mg of Celexa. Since so many other AD's have a "titration" regimen...10 and 20 might seem too easy.(and only 1 wk needed before titrating if needed). Remember, the studies showed 1-2 wks for most patients and efficacy will be seen. Some Dr's might try 5mg to start, but the efficacy probably wont be the same since all the studies were done at 10 and 20mg
>
>
>
> PharmRep,
>
> Why can't most SSRI manufacturer's go for the very low-dose maintenace dosages with scored tablets instead of liquids? I realize that it probably is far cheaper to "tool" for a liquid version, than to create dies and whatnot for low-dose tablets (and add scoring to the costs). However, given that you mention that about 2/3 of the prescribers are on the low-dose end, why not market very low-dose tablet alternatives? With Celexa, the max. I can tolerate every day is nowhere near 10mg. A 5mg tablet of Lexapro that is scored FOUR-WAYS to enable one to take a quarter-tablet would be a fine marketing idea, HINT-HINT
>
> Mitch
>
** I think it boils down to this...efficacy just isnt seen at lower doses, and the "majority" of patients see the right amount of effectiveness at the starting doses. In your case, you just happen to be more sensitive and only lower doses are tolerable...unfortunately...you are in the minority. One other thought...have you considered that when you "cut" your own tabs, that since the active ingredients are so trace that you may not be getting a "therapeutic" dose? I know that the scored tablets are ok, but any further splitting might be giving you a placebo sometimes. (I dont know this for fact with Celexa...I am just theorizing with you since all manufacturing is done differently.)
Posted by dr. dave on August 23, 2002, at 3:59:39
In reply to Re: Lexapro clinical data » moxy1000, posted by pharmrep on August 22, 2002, at 20:25:46
The chief study on Lexapro v. Celexa is that by Gorman, and is a meta-analysis of three 8-week studies comparing Lexapro, Celexa and placebo. It is available in poster form at
http://www.cipralex.ch/pdf/poster/gorm521_501.pdf
and in its full form at
http://www.cipralex.ch/pdf/literatur/gorman.pdfHave a look at the end-point results when drop-outs have been taken into account - on the poster Cipralex is more effective than Lexapro by a tiny amount, in the printed paper it's the other way round. Same study, same graph. Go figure, as I understand you say on your side of the Atlantic.
There are also papers galore at
http://www.cipralex.ch/f/poster.htmlIt gets a bit overwhelming but here's what research there is
- lots of preclinical studies
- three 8-week studies comparing Celexa, Lexapro and placebo only two of which are available (Burke et al and Lepola et al, despite me having asked Lundbeck specifically for the third)
- a meta-analysis of these three (Gorman)
- a study comparing Lexapro and placebo alone
- a longer term study which again does not seem to be available for scrutinyAll of these papers have been produced by Lundbeck/Forest. You may think that as they are 'scientific papers' they could not be biased or misleading. You may think otherwise.
It is worth noting studies which show that research on the same topics published by those with conflicts of interest consistently come to different conclusions than those published by independent authors (British Medical Journal - I don't have the reference to hand but will supply it later)
Posted by dr. dave on August 23, 2002, at 8:21:18
In reply to Re: Lexapro clinical data » pharmrep, posted by dr. dave on August 23, 2002, at 3:59:39
Here's the link for the BMJ article about conflict of interest affecting trial results I referred to.
Posted by Ritch on August 23, 2002, at 8:34:52
In reply to Re: scoring » Ritch, posted by pharmrep on August 23, 2002, at 0:05:14
> > PharmRep,
> >
> > Why can't most SSRI manufacturer's go for the very low-dose maintenace dosages with scored tablets instead of liquids? I realize that it probably is far cheaper to "tool" for a liquid version, than to create dies and whatnot for low-dose tablets (and add scoring to the costs). However, given that you mention that about 2/3 of the prescribers are on the low-dose end, why not market very low-dose tablet alternatives? With Celexa, the max. I can tolerate every day is nowhere near 10mg. A 5mg tablet of Lexapro that is scored FOUR-WAYS to enable one to take a quarter-tablet would be a fine marketing idea, HINT-HINT
> >
> > Mitch
> >
> ** I think it boils down to this...efficacy just isnt seen at lower doses, and the "majority" of patients see the right amount of effectiveness at the starting doses. In your case, you just happen to be more sensitive and only lower doses are tolerable...unfortunately...you are in the minority. One other thought...have you considered that when you "cut" your own tabs, that since the active ingredients are so trace that you may not be getting a "therapeutic" dose? I know that the scored tablets are ok, but any further splitting might be giving you a placebo sometimes. (I dont know this for fact with Celexa...I am just theorizing with you since all manufacturing is done differently.)
I take a low-dose SSRI primarily to help prevent panic attacks and several of them (including Celexa) work rather well for that. It seems that with SSRI's I only need that small amount to make a big difference. Also, at higher doses they (all of them) tend to precipitate hypomania (I am bipolar). That is primarily the "sensitivity" issue. I had a general practictioner who disbelieved strongly that it wasn't doing me any good to take such a small amount, so "why take any at all". That was before a study was done that showed people could take as little as 15mg of Prozac every week as a *maintenance* to prevent panic. Then Prozac weekly came out after that (but not specifically for that condition). I wonder how many people out there on *maintenance* regimes for panic would find the four-way scored 5mg Lexapro tabs very convenient. The data you provide about dosages probably relate to "acute" treatment for depression only (which is the only formal indication for Celexa and Lexapro thus far-here in the US anyhow). There are many people who are being treated for anxiety disorders with SSRI's as well.thanks,
Mitch
Posted by Anyuser on August 23, 2002, at 8:53:10
In reply to Re: Lexapro clinical data, posted by dr. dave on August 23, 2002, at 8:21:18
Your comments are reasonable and interesting and apparently bona fide, but I have to ask. Do you have any biases or conflicts we should know about? What animates you to build a case against escitalopram?
Posted by pharmrep on August 23, 2002, at 9:39:16
In reply to Re: scoring » pharmrep, posted by Ritch on August 23, 2002, at 8:34:52
> > > PharmRep,
> > >
> > > Why can't most SSRI manufacturer's go for the very low-dose maintenace dosages with scored tablets instead of liquids? I realize that it probably is far cheaper to "tool" for a liquid version, than to create dies and whatnot for low-dose tablets (and add scoring to the costs). However, given that you mention that about 2/3 of the prescribers are on the low-dose end, why not market very low-dose tablet alternatives? With Celexa, the max. I can tolerate every day is nowhere near 10mg. A 5mg tablet of Lexapro that is scored FOUR-WAYS to enable one to take a quarter-tablet would be a fine marketing idea, HINT-HINT
> > >
> > > Mitch
> > >
> > ** I think it boils down to this...efficacy just isnt seen at lower doses, and the "majority" of patients see the right amount of effectiveness at the starting doses. In your case, you just happen to be more sensitive and only lower doses are tolerable...unfortunately...you are in the minority. One other thought...have you considered that when you "cut" your own tabs, that since the active ingredients are so trace that you may not be getting a "therapeutic" dose? I know that the scored tablets are ok, but any further splitting might be giving you a placebo sometimes. (I dont know this for fact with Celexa...I am just theorizing with you since all manufacturing is done differently.)
>
>
> I take a low-dose SSRI primarily to help prevent panic attacks and several of them (including Celexa) work rather well for that. It seems that with SSRI's I only need that small amount to make a big difference. Also, at higher doses they (all of them) tend to precipitate hypomania (I am bipolar). That is primarily the "sensitivity" issue. I had a general practictioner who disbelieved strongly that it wasn't doing me any good to take such a small amount, so "why take any at all". That was before a study was done that showed people could take as little as 15mg of Prozac every week as a *maintenance* to prevent panic. Then Prozac weekly came out after that (but not specifically for that condition). I wonder how many people out there on *maintenance* regimes for panic would find the four-way scored 5mg Lexapro tabs very convenient. The data you provide about dosages probably relate to "acute" treatment for depression only (which is the only formal indication for Celexa and Lexapro thus far-here in the US anyhow). There are many people who are being treated for anxiety disorders with SSRI's as well.
>
> thanks,
>
> Mitch
>
>** I am fascinated to hear that such a low dose (of any med) can still work for somebody in an off label application. I know that panic attack studies (for the indication) are being done. It will be interesting to see what mg is recommended.
PS You didnt comment on the "scoring" theory.
Posted by moxy1000 on August 23, 2002, at 11:09:37
In reply to Re: Lexapro clinical data » moxy1000, posted by pharmrep on August 22, 2002, at 20:25:46
Dr. Dave - I totally agree and understand that there seems to be some kind of "bias" on behalf of drug company data. However, there wouldn't be much data at all if not for the funds made available by drug companies in way of unrestricted educational grants. My suggestion to you would be this - if you don't "trust" the drug companies, do your own "clinical study" on Lexapro. Your experience with the drug, after all, will be the only experience that matters.
Just my two cents.
Posted by moxy1000 on August 23, 2002, at 11:17:03
In reply to Bias » dr. dave, posted by Anyuser on August 23, 2002, at 8:53:10
Never thought of it that way, but that is a good question. I will anxiously await Dr. Dave's response. Perhaps he is paid by other drug companies as a lecturer or research clinician? Maybe a lot of stock in a competitors company? It does seem he has a vested interest in tarnishing this drugs reputation, and since I'll presume Dr. Dave hasn't had wide clinical experience with Lexapro, I'm curious as to why he already has disdain for it.
Posted by moxy1000 on August 23, 2002, at 11:19:54
In reply to Re: Sanchez study » IsoM, posted by pharmrep on August 21, 2002, at 22:57:22
I heard about the sanchez study but it was my understanding that it wasn't finished yet (at least it wasn't back in June.) Maybe they're still getting the data ready for submission?
Posted by moxy1000 on August 23, 2002, at 11:21:40
In reply to Re: Lexapro clinical data » moxy1000, posted by pharmrep on August 22, 2002, at 20:25:46
I haven't found the studies on line, either, but they will be widely available in hard copy form sometime in september.
Posted by Dinah on August 23, 2002, at 11:39:09
In reply to Re: Bias, posted by moxy1000 on August 23, 2002, at 11:17:03
> It does seem he has a vested interest in tarnishing this drugs reputation, and since I'll presume Dr. Dave hasn't had wide clinical experience with Lexapro, I'm curious as to why he already has disdain for it.
Hi, Dinah here. I'm filling in for Dr. Bob for a couble of weeks. (See notice above.)
Please don't make assumptions about the motives of other posters, or post statements that may make other posters feel accused or put down. Here is a link to the civility guidelines of this site:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
Let's please keep this potentially volatile discussion based on ideas and facts?
Thanks,
Dinah
P.S. If wish to discuss this post or any other administrative issues, that's fine, but it should be done on the administrative board rather than on the medication board. Follow the link at the top of the page.
Posted by moxy1000 on August 23, 2002, at 11:40:07
In reply to Re: Wish I could » JaneB, posted by Ritch on June 11, 2002, at 23:04:41
September 5th the pharmacies will be stocked, according to the Forest Press Release.
Posted by moxy1000 on August 23, 2002, at 11:58:34
In reply to Re: Lexapro side-effects, posted by dr. dave on June 19, 2002, at 4:41:27
Dr. Dave, I have spent a few hours this morning reading your recent posts, and the more I read, the more I am convinced that you have some sort of hidden agenda against Lexapro.
I'm surprised I didn't notice it sooner. I am taking a "wait and see" attitude with Lexapro. I know you're in Europe, But I would like to ask what your opinion is of Lexapro's release in the U.S. I ask because Forest has a U.S. patent on Celexa until at least 2005. Why would they stop marketing a billion dollar drug and start marketing Lexapro if it had, as you say repeatedly, no advantages over Celexa?
Also, I think it's worth pointing out that this company (Forest) has a vested interest in Depression. Did you know Howard Soloman, the CEO of Forest, has a son who has battled depression his entire life? Andrew wrote a book about his battle, called the "Noonday Demon." (Andrew, by the way, mentions nothing of Celexa or any Forest product in his book.) Also, did you know Howard's wife committed suicide? This is common knowledge in the U.S. Business Week did a cover story about this a few months ago.
My point is that I believe this company has been touched to the core by this disease called depression. I also believe that they are releasing Lexapro in the U.S. because it would be unethical to delay the release of a superior treatment like Lexapro, simply because Celexa still had life left in it's patent.
I would be interested to hear your response.
Posted by Dinah on August 23, 2002, at 13:02:01
In reply to Dr. Dave - why do you hate this drug?, posted by moxy1000 on August 23, 2002, at 11:58:46
I'm terribly sorry, Moxy1000, but I've asked you before to follow the civility guidelines of this site. Those guidelines include not making assumptions about the motives of another poster and not posting anything that could be another poster could take as accusatory.
Therefore I have to block you from posting for one week.
Follow ups to this administrative matter may be discussed on the administrative board.
Posted by IsoM on August 23, 2002, at 15:36:29
In reply to Re: Wish I could, posted by moxy1000 on August 23, 2002, at 11:40:07
I don't believe either of you are out for ulertior motives like some believe. I do believe that two people can have conflicting ideas with perfectly good, altrusitic motives. I mean we're not talking "absolute truths" here but effects of a certain medication that may or may not prove what it is hoped to do.
Both of you aren't masquerading under misleading usernames as what you do - pharmrep says it & so does dr.dave. But due to opposite viewpoints, this sounds too much like an argument to me.
Please, I'm only interested in facts & some conjecturing based on solid information. I very much appreciate any links given & read them over as objectively as I can. Please continue with any relevant info you find.
Pharmarep, you say you only have hard copy studies (nothing online available). Could you not scan the papers in a word document form & then copy & paste the results directly here for us to read? My computer skills aren't fantastic but I can scan printed papers & change them easily into word documents for sending to others if needed.
And dr. dave, if you can find any further info on Lexapro from your practice or that of collegues, could you please let us know about them, both pro & con?
You see, I use Celexa & of all the various SSRIs & ADs I've used before (Prozac, Luvox, Zoloft, Effexor, moclobemide [Manerix], amoxepine, imipramine, & desipramine), Celexa is by far the best. If Lexapro may be even lightly better for me, I'd be interested in giving it a try. But I want my decision to be a sound one based on facts.
Posted by johnj on August 23, 2002, at 19:28:35
In reply to Question for pharmrep and dr.dave both, posted by IsoM on August 23, 2002, at 15:36:29
Hi again,
I just read your reply to my Celexa queston from a week or so back and thank you. I too have the dry mouth and constipation from TCA's, nortryptline and imipramine. The doc has pushed a ssri for quite some time, but after a sponge head binge on remeron I am a little leary of something new. However, I am going to try lexapro later in the year sometime around thanksgiving most likely. I have an exam to study for and I can't afford a setback at this moment. I can see the TCA/lithium wait gain due in part to age starting to emerge and want to try a new med that will not keep me from working out.
I don't remember but is your son in Japan or planning to go? Take care.
johnj
Posted by IsoM on August 23, 2002, at 20:17:16
In reply to Re: Question for pharmrep and dr.dave both » IsoM, posted by johnj on August 23, 2002, at 19:28:35
I'm at the computer fairly frequently, so saw your post right away. When it's hot in summer, I do some work, then come to the computer where there's an overhead fan & cool off for a few minutes, then back to work.
I hope Celexa (or Lexapro) works for you as well as it does for me. I honestly have noticed no side effects from Celexa but then I've always been a very sleepy & yet strangely, a wired sort of person. Maybe the Celexa's made it worse but I can't honestly judge it.
John, I don't remember what your diagnosis is - want to refresh my memory? Have you considered Provigil at all? It really serves to sharpen one's mind when there's cognitive difficulties from depression and/or medications. I joke that I could do so much but my working RAM is small even though my (brain's) HD is huge. That & being able to access what's in my memory somewhere but I can't pull it up when I want to. Provigil has helped somewhat for that but it'll always be my Achilles heel.
My son has never been to Japan but would dearly love to go. He has Asperger which involves dislike of too much social contact. I wonder if the sheer number of people packed into such a small island wouldn't overwhelm him. Not too many places are as beautiful & uncrowded as the gardens of the Imperial palace. It may be a degree of idealization but I wouldn't ruin his dreams for anything. Besides, the reserve that Japanese people must erect in such crowded conditions would be easier for him to take than the 'all-over-you' attitude found in our society here.
So what exam are you studying for? Personally, I'm happy that I don't have the stresses of cramming for exams, trying to remember under pressure. I don't do well with that. Things that I know fairly well will literally vanish when I write exams. It's only when a memory is so deeply engrained that I can call it up no matter what. And even then, not always (like someone's name I've known for many, many years!).
My biology professor would let students take cheat sheets into exams. We were allowed as much as we could hand-write on a standard 8x11 sheet of paper, one side & take that it with us. She said she remembered from her student days, the pressure & blank mind. By being allowed a cheat sheet, students would visibly relax & remember better. She also thought that the effort of writing down what we were less sure of was a great way to instill the info into our memory better. She was a fantastic instructor & we got along great, she was only about 5 years older than me. We were both plant nuts into growing exotic plants.
Posted by pharmrep on August 23, 2002, at 22:28:57
In reply to Question for pharmrep and dr.dave both, posted by IsoM on August 23, 2002, at 15:36:29
> I don't believe either of you are out for ulertior motives like some believe. I do believe that two people can have conflicting ideas with perfectly good, altrusitic motives. I mean we're not talking "absolute truths" here but effects of a certain medication that may or may not prove what it is hoped to do.
>
> Both of you aren't masquerading under misleading usernames as what you do - pharmrep says it & so does dr.dave. But due to opposite viewpoints, this sounds too much like an argument to me.
>
> Please, I'm only interested in facts & some conjecturing based on solid information. I very much appreciate any links given & read them over as objectively as I can. Please continue with any relevant info you find.
>
> Pharmarep, you say you only have hard copy studies (nothing online available). Could you not scan the papers in a word document form & then copy & paste the results directly here for us to read? My computer skills aren't fantastic but I can scan printed papers & change them easily into word documents for sending to others if needed.
>
> And dr. dave, if you can find any further info on Lexapro from your practice or that of collegues, could you please let us know about them, both pro & con?
>
> You see, I use Celexa & of all the various SSRIs & ADs I've used before (Prozac, Luvox, Zoloft, Effexor, moclobemide [Manerix], amoxepine, imipramine, & desipramine), Celexa is by far the best. If Lexapro may be even lightly better for me, I'd be interested in giving it a try. But I want my decision to be a sound one based on facts.
** I am tring to be objective...if you feel otherwise..let me know. Would you believe I dont have a scanner...sorry. I'm still looking online...they will show up soon.
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Medication | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
[email protected]
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.