They have alot of info on it, it is supposed to be very good for variety of medical problems it even raises your HDL.
Dilantin is it a wonder drug for many ills? Ask Jack Dreyfus
by frankiespeakin 29 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Frog
Well Frankiespeakin if you're using it and are going so strong at 90y6m17d then I'd say that's a damn fine advertisement!...I'll take a box:-)
post script: what is my HDL? frog
-
El blanko
Good old Google
Why is HDL cholesterol considered "good"?About one-third to one-fourth of blood cholesterol is carried by high-density lipoprotein (HDL). HDL cholesterol is known as the "good" cholesterol because a high level of it seems to protect against heart attack. (Low HDL cholesterol levels [less than 40 mg/dL] increase the risk for heart disease.) Medical experts think that HDL tends to carry cholesterol away from the arteries and back to the liver, where it's passed from the body. Some experts believe that HDL removes excess cholesterol from plaque in arteries, thus slowing the buildup.
-
Frog
Thanks EB for doing the hard work for me (www.google.com,edit+copy,alt+tab,edit+paste;-)...what did we do before the advent of the search engine? aint the information age grand!?
-
frankiespeakin
El,
Thanks for answering that question while i was gone. The Jack D. story is interesting I found it when I was doing a google on Dilantin. If your in the USA you can get it through the internet without a perscription pretty cheap I bought 200 caps 100milagrams each. They shipped it from some foriegn country. It is pretty safe I use it as a nootropic.
-
Satanus
Aren't there some bad side effects?
S
-
frankiespeakin
Satan,
It is basically a very safe drug that has been used for many decades, for epilepsy. Usually is so type of side effect occurs the dosage is just decreased but for most uses this is not nessarry (100-300ml).
here is a link and partial clip about side effects notice that this can occure with large doses:
http://professionals.epilepsy.com/medications/p_dilantin_commonside.html
Common side effects of Dilantin
Dose-related side effects
The most common side effects are neurotoxic and dose-related. They include:- sedation
- impaired memory
- slurred speech
- nystagmus
- decreased coordination
- confusion
- dizziness
- headache
If these problems do not diminish within several days, a reduction in the dose of phenytoin often will solve the problem. Problems with sedation also may be helped by splitting the dose or giving the largest dose at bedtime.
The most common side effects of long-term use affect appearance. About 20% to 40% of these patients notice a problem with gingival hyperplasia. This effect appears to be dose-related and is more common in children than in adults. Its occurrence and its associated problems can be minimized by good dental care, including vigorous brushing, daily flossing, and regular dental care. It usually resolves within a few months if phenytoin is discontinued.
-
EvilForce
Frankel....
Please discuss taking this drug with your doctor at you next visit!!! Also, please do not buy meds from outside of North America. There are many nefarious sites out there that ship drugs that are a lot of times out of date, out of country, and not what they are labeled!!! Besides, if you buy meds from OUTSIDE of the country it is illegal and should the Drug Enforcement Agency decide to prosecute you to make an example....you will get fined, community service, and / or jail time. Please, please do not take these drugs without a doctor's visit.
While you may have found some benefits to taking the drug...I'm not sure what condition you started taking this drug for. But if you think there is some benefit, please go to your doctor and tell him you want a prescription for it and the reasons why.
Be careful with your body. Unless you know how to read pharmacology and toxicology reports on the drug and the interaction w/ your biology you can be doing unintended damage. -
frankiespeakin
Evil,
I have been buying drugs outside the US for some time now and I have never yet been disapointed. I don't worry about Uncle Sam as far as I'm concerned he can go take a shit in his hat. They don't have time to waste on people like me,, they won't get much bang for thier buck and besides it is not against the law to buy these type nootropic drugs anyway. The way I look at it is I save lots of money and cut out a lot of middle men. You can get alot of these generic brands far cheaper overseas then you could at a local pharmacy,,most of these places have to keep a good reputation to stay in business.
-
frankiespeakin
Here's a reason we have problems with the FDA for the whole essay click the link:
http://www.remarkablemedicine.com/Medicine/flaw1.html
Flaw in the System: Page One
Parke-Davis?the Physician?the FDA
A medicine can get overlooked for a million years if no one discovers it. But can the benefits of a discovered medicine get overlooked for decades when thousands of studies have demonstrated its usefulness? The answer is it can. We have a flaw in our system of bringing prescription medicines to the public. That there?s a flaw is no surprise. We?re human and all our systems have flaws. But this particular flaw should be explained. It has acted like a barrier between the American public and a great medicine. From drug company, through FDA, to physician?that?s the route a prescription medicine takes to get to the public. That?s our system. It was not set up by anyone, it just evolved. But we?re used to it; it has become custom. And as Mark Twain said, custom is like iron.
Years ago doctors concocted their own medicines?and leeches outsold aspirins. But for the last century the business of pharmaceuticals has been in the hands of the drug companies. Drug companies, formed for the purpose of making money for shareholders, are not charged with a responsibility to the public that is not consistent with making money. That is not to suggest that drug companies are not interested in public welfare but they are not charged with a responsibility for it.
In 1938 the FDA was empowered to protect us against medical substances more dangerous than therapeutic. Since that time drug companies have been required to get approval as to safety of a new chemical entity and, since 1962, approval as to its effectiveness. Although the neglect of a great drug can be far more deadly than the use of a bad one, correcting such neglect does not appear to be a function of the FDA.
When a drug company synthesizes a compound which it believes to be therapeutic, it?s brought to the FDA. If the drug satisfies that agency?s requirements, the company is awarded a ?listed indication-of-use,? which permits it to market the drug. Getting FDA approval is time-consuming and expensive; it has been estimated, on average, to take seven years and to cost $11 million. (Today, the estimate of cost is far greater.)
Drug companies patent their new compounds. Patents give the company exclusive rights for seventeen years. If the FDA approves a drug and it becomes popular, the drug company has a winner since the drug will sell at a high price for the life of the patent. (This is reasonable; a drug that is a winner has to pay for the research that went into it, the expense of getting FDA approval, and for money spent on the many drugs that are not successful.) However, when the patent expires, competition enters the picture and the price of the drug drops dramatically. At that point there is more financial incentive for the drug company to look for a new drug to patent than to look for new uses of an old drug.
FDA approval is the second of the three steps in our system. The third step is to introduce the drug to the physician. This is a function of the drug company and is done through advertisements in trade journals and by visits of their salesmen to physicians.
That is the system?and physicians have come to depend on it. If a doctor doesn?t hear from a drug company about new uses for an old medicine, the doctor infers there aren?t such uses. This is a reasonable inference. But in the case of PHT it?s wrong.
So this is the flaw in the system. When a drug company doesn?t do what is expected of it, and the FDA can?t or doesn?t do anything about it, the physician doesn?t get vital information. And, as in this case, a great drug can get overlooked.
Parke-Davis
Parke-Davis?s research did not discover PHT. The company bought the compound from a chemist in 1909. For twenty-nine years this remarkable drug sat on the shelf doing nobody any good. Then Putnam and Merritt, two physicians outside the company, discovered its first therapeutic use. Parke-Davis paid almost nothing in money for PHT. They paid less in brains for PHT. Still, were it not for Parke-Davis we might not have PHT today. Someone in the company did buy the compound, and someone else in the company did give it to Putnam and Merritt for trial. It should also be said, to its credit, that Parke-Davis has been consistent in manufacturing a good product.
It is not easy to understand how a drug company can overlook its own product. An outline of my own experience with Parke-Davis may help. In 1966, as Secretary Gardner had recommended, I made contact with Parke-Davis. I phoned the company and spoke to the president, Mr. H. W. Burrows. I told him of Secretary Gardner?s recommendation that I speak to Parke-Davis, and supposed that would arouse his interest. But as I talked I didn?t hear the noises one expects from an interested listener. To get his attention I said, ?Look, I?ve spent $400,000 on your medicine and I don?t want anything for myself, I just want to tell Parke-Davis about it.? That got Mr. Burrows? attention. He said, ?I wouldn?t know anything about this, I?m just a bookkeeper.?
That startling statement was my introduction to Parke-Davis. President Burrows said he would have someone get in touch with me. Two months later I got a call from Dr. Leon Sweet of Parke-Davis?s research department. He was calling at Mr. Burrows? suggestion and made a date to meet with me in New York.
We met at my home. Dr. Sweet brought Dr