D-Amphetamine salt combo - very different results by generic manufacturer?

[sarsXdave]

I don't know if this site is considered super credible, but here:

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/410695_7
EDIT: I noticed the direct link doesn't work without a login. Just go here and pick the third result from the top:
http://www.google.com/search?q=fda+...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

It discusses how, generics WERE allowed to vary by 20% either way, until the 1980s. They have apparently moved to new statistical measures, but it's not exactly the same as so many people on BL like to claim either.

I was somewhat wrong as are you. Just because the FDA says they are the same doesn't mean they are, it means they fall into some government-regulated margin of error that's considered "same-enough" like all products. Again, I admit that I was somewhat wrong, but it wasn't based on some high school pillhead legend.

Here's FDA's current statistical idea to approve of something as "bioequivalent," if some don't want to click the link:

"I. When the current rule was adopted in 1986, if both the upper and lower limits of the CI were within 20% of the reference mean (80% to 120% ), the generic product was declared bioequivalent to the reference product. In 1992, the FDA issued a guidance in which the use of log-transformed data and an upper limit of 125% were adopted. These criteria remain the current rule for bioequivalence decisions."


EDIT: I just realized I phrased one of my above posts funnily. I meant it had to be AT LEAST 80% (I guess "within 20%" would've been the right way to say it). The way I said it, I'm sure it sounded like a pretty big potential difference.

 

[SteeleyJ]

Basically what it all boils down to is that the active ingredient stated does haveto be exactly the same but the inert binders do not, which could ( and probably do ) change the rate of absorbtion/ bioavailability ( to a certain acceptable extent ).


Sorry for jumping on you bro, but i've seen TONS of people just pull that stat out of thier ass.

 

[djsim]

I find this kind of ignorance coming from a moderator here at BL to be somewhat chilling. You of all people should know better. Just do a little research and the answers are right here in other threads as well as posted elsewhere on the net. Just check under generic bioequivalency tests - the testing process has been posted more than once, and it isn't 20% - it is 20% either way from baseline.

Ignorance is believing something despite evidence proving otherwise. I am a qualified pharmacist, and I can tell you that all generic medicines have the same bioequivalency as brand name counterparts. I have no vested interest in this arguement; hell, I dont own shares in pharmaceutical companies. I base my agruments on facts.

...Not to mention logic suggests that testing the FDA's power isnt in the pharm companies best interest. Any profit from underdosing (or overdosing to get ppl addicted) would be readily offset by the repurcussions the FDA would impose.

I can recalll a recent US recall of morphine tablets as there was a remote chance that a batch of tablets may have been overdosed with ~10% extra morphine IIRC. The company spent a fucking fortune recalling every single box of medicine on the off chance a few overdosed boxes made it to the market. Why? Because if even one single box of one single product is not as it is meant to be, the FDA will shut them down in a nanosecond.

Speculation aside, all I ask for is proof.

 

[sarsXdave]

^Well, djsim. I'm not trying to be arrogant or a dick anything, but why don't you have to show proof? I do believe your anecdotal evidence (the morphine recall) to probably be true, but I could always combat that with anecdotal evidence from my human and veterinary science professors who've said many generic human and animal medicines have tested to not be equivalent to the name brands.

I know confidence intervals aren't quite the same as the straight percentages I used when this thread was first started (though, the straight +/-20% bioequivalence were shown to have been used as late as the 1970s), but they do allow for variance.

I totally admit that it usually should have no effect and always buy generics when I can. But, in the informative spirit of the BL community, can you either show evidence that FDA does not use the regulations I just posted or explain why I'm incorrectly interpreting these regulations?

I totally admit I'm not good with logarithms. But it seems to me (again, I admit I may be wrong) that the "bioequivalence is bioequivalence" or "generics are always the exact same (aside from inert binders)" are oversimplifications and not actually true either. I really doubt that the vast majority of people for most brand vs. generic formulations should ever be able to tell a difference, but would the FDA regulations I posted above (if accurate) not allow for the possibility, especially when multiple active ingredients are used, of a certain formulation producing noticeably different effects in many people?

 

[krankenhaus]

Any idea as to which binders would cause such a difference in the pills?

 

[stringtheory]

sarsXdave, if government and pharmaceutical research sites on the net are to be believed, the information that you quoted in your previous post is entirely accurate and is what the government is currently using for bioequivilence testing. I rounded it off to 20% both ways from baseline because for arguments sake the odd 5% is insignificant, but yes, it is 80% on the low side to 125% on the high side which actually could yield a difference of not 20% but actually 45%. Now granted, most fall close to the 100% mark and for all practical purposes, are equal in bioequivalence. But all do not, and none are required by law to be 100% bioequivalent.

Djsim - it is said that you are a med student and you call yourself a "qualified pharmacist" and seem to believe that we should all bow down and accept your opinions on everything drug related due to this supposed fact coupled with your indisputable logic. What has bothered me most is not the fact that you feel you don't need proof on your side which sarsXdave already alluded to, but the fact that you chose to ignore the proof that so many others have patiently brought to your attention. You seem to be in some sort of egomaniacal state of tunnel vision that doesn't allow you to see or acknowledge different points of view or the evidence presented to back them up-this thread being a prime example.

If you are indeed a qualified pharmacist, then you should have already known the principle of what I am about to say. I will use methamphetamine as an example, since in this thread you claimed that prescribed amphetamines with the same amount of active ingredient are the same. They are more than likely not if the chemistry used to create the basic ingredient was different.

Some of the original meth recipes used phenyl acetone, better known as P2P. A later recipe used anhydrous ammonia, and a third used red phosphorous as one of the primary ingredients. Although all of the 3 chemical recipes could produce the same 90% pure grade of methamphetamine, the characteristics of the final product were vastly different. One had a tendency to wire a person up and keep them vibrantly active, while another allowed a person to sit calmly and focus on whatever was before them.

This is simply one example, but the same principle exists across the entire drug spectrum. Different manufacturing procedures and chemicals can produce varying types of the same basic active chemical, even though the basic chemical formula and molecular structure would appear to be the same.

Don't take everything so seriously. It is ok to be wrong occasionally. Every day I learn something new, and I have lived longer than you. But when I am wrong, and it is too often for my taste, at least I try to admit that fact to myself, learn from it and then go on.

 

[krankenhaus]

Stringtheory
A final product is a final product. There is no difference whatsoever between correctly produced methamphetamine from any source if it is 100% pure. Two identical molecules will produce identical effects. However- if other substances from the production process are still present, they may change the effects produced. Any difference in the "90% pure grad of methamphetamine" you talk about is a result of the 10% of the mixture which isnt methamphetamine.

It sounds like you are suggesting that different active ingredients are going into different pills labelled as the same thing. Whether Djsmin says it or not, I would say as long as it is regulated I find this quite unlikely.

 

[stringtheory]

Stringtheory
A final product is a final product. There is no difference whatsoever between correctly produced methamphetamine from any source if it is 100% pure. Two identical molecules will produce identical effects. However- if other substances from the production process are still present, they may change the effects produced. Any difference in the "90% pure grad of methamphetamine" you talk about is a result of the 10% of the mixture which isnt methamphetamine.

It sounds like you are suggesting that different active ingredients are going into different pills labelled as the same thing. Whether Djsmin says it or not, I would say as long as it is regulated I find this quite unlikely.

If what you say is correct, and final product is final product, then it is the residues and inactive ingredients that are causing the documented differences between meth made using different processes. Either way, the differences occur. One could perhaps observe the same phenomenon with different types of marijuana - although THC is the same active ingredient in the different types, something accounts for the differing experiences among the various types. THC concentration alone can't explain it, because regardless how much of one type a person smokes, the effects remain individualized. In other words, if one type makes you more lethargic, smoking more of the type that makes you more clear headed and active will never make a person lethargic like the first type did. I hope that I'm clear in what I am trying to say here.

And no, I wasn't suggesting that different active ingredients are going into different pills labeled as the same thing, just that the bioequivilence (blood level measurements after a given time) of the pills may be different and that the experience of pills made with a different chemical process may incur different reactions from people. They often do in fact, and it has been documented. The question is why. I don't really know all the answers to this one.

 

[djsim]

sarsXdave, if government and pharmaceutical research sites on the net are to be believed, the information that you quoted in your previous post is entirely accurate and is what the government is currently using for bioequivilence testing. I rounded it off to 20% both ways from baseline because for arguments sake the odd 5% is insignificant, but yes, it is 80% on the low side to 125% on the high side which actually could yield a difference of not 20% but actually 45%. Now granted, most fall close to the 100% mark and for all practical purposes, are equal in bioequivalence. But all do not, and none are required by law to be 100% bioequivalent.

That's not how it works. There is a 90% confidence interval that the plasma level is between 80% and 125% of that for the control. That's very diffferent to having 20% less or 45% more drug per dose; by that logic a 5mg dexamphetamine generic could have between 4 mg and 6.25mg of amphetamine sulphate per tablet. The label of the generic says 5mg dexamphetamine, not 4 - 6.25mg. The variable being analysed here is the relative plasma concentration at a given time, not dosage

Djsim - it is said that you are a med student and you call yourself a "qualified pharmacist" and seem to believe that we should all bow down and accept your opinions on everything drug related due to this supposed fact coupled with your indisputable logic. What has bothered me most is not the fact that you feel you don't need proof on your side which sarsXdave already alluded to, but the fact that you chose to ignore the proof that so many others have patiently brought to your attention. You seem to be in some sort of egomaniacal state of tunnel vision that doesn't allow you to see or acknowledge different points of view or the evidence presented to back them up-this thread being a prime example.

WHAT PROOF?
I am more than happy to listen to other people's opinions. I'm happy to hear your opinion too. But stop confusing speculation and opinion and feelings with proof. Proof means scientific proof. Not majority opinion of drug users, especially when the placebo effect makes accurate recording of personal user reports highly unreliable.

If you are indeed a qualified pharmacist, then you should have already known the principle of what I am about to say. This is simply one example, but the same principle exists across the entire drug spectrum. Different manufacturing procedures and chemicals can produce varying types of the same basic active chemical, even though the basic chemical formula and molecular structure would appear to be the same.

Pharmaceutical production is very different to backyard meth cooking. A pure product is accurately dosed and added to precise quantities of filler and binder and the tablet is then pressed. Quality control (random sampling) follows.
A meth cook has final product cut not with inert binders, but reaction byproducts. The two comparisons are like chalk and cheese. The reaction doesnt matter when the product is purified.

Don't take everything so seriously. It is ok to be wrong occasionally. Every day I learn something new, and I have lived longer than you. But when I am wrong, and it is too often for my taste, at least I try to admit that fact to myself, learn from it and then go on.

I am stating the facts, like I said before. You were the one who called me "ignorant"; so expect a rebuttal.

And for the record, I have absolutely no issue being proven wrong, because you're right when you say that "know it alls" don't further their knowledge. I would LOVE to be proven wrong here

PS. FDA Bioequivalence Definition (from Wikipedia) "The FDA considers two products bioequivalent if the 90% CI of the relative mean Cmax, AUC(0-t) and AUC(0-∞) of the test (e.g. generic formulation) to reference (e.g. innovator brand formulation) should be within 80.00% to 125.00% in the fasting state. Although there are a few exceptions, generally a bioequivalent comparison of Test to Reference formulations also requires administration after an appropriate meal at a specified time before taking the drug, a so-called "fed" or "food-effect" study. A food-effect study requires the same statistical evaluation as the fasting study, described above."

 

[kat602]

D-Amphetamine salt combo

I had the same thing happen to me on March 23 2009 at Walgreens on Mercer in Macon Georgia. After I picked up my meds and went home, I open my bottle of generic adderall and out come PINK pills. I call the Walgreens where I got them and they said it was the same pill but just a different manufacturer.
Ok so I believe them, because all Walgreens are the same. I was in Texas before Georgia.

After taking the first few doses I DID notice it made me feel very different. I was getting a major headache, jittery feelings, and along with some other not too pleaseant effects on my Lower gastrointestinal tract. This pill from "corepharma" is the worst generic for adderall. Barr is the much preferred manufacturer for adderall the football shaped 30 mg ORANGE pill.

Thanks to Eulla and Aspena for their posts or I would still be thinking it was just me. Glad to know that a generic is not just a generic!!!

Anyone know where to get the original Barr Adderall?

Thanks!

 

[djsim]

Thanks to Eulla and Aspena for their posts or I would still be thinking it was just me. Glad to know that a generic is not just a generic!!!

Anyone know where to get the original Barr Adderall?

Thanks!

OK, so you can accept that it could all be in your head... but when 2 strangers support your opinion, it becomes true, and no longer is it all in your head. So everything I just went through can't be true because a couple people have had similar experiences to you? Hmmm

 

[stringtheory]

Djsim, I was lying in bed this morning mulling this over and wondering why this subject matter in general and your attitude in particular was able to get me so hot under the collar.

The attitude that I see you exhibiting is the same one so common among doctors and pharmacists these days that have trouble listening to their patients. They become so obsessed with their own knowledge and expertise that they no longer put any credence in what their patients tell them. For the chronic pain patient, the pain they are complaining of is touted to exist only in their heads, and as it becomes difficult at best or downright impossible to prove levels of pain, the doctors often not only fail to provide treatment and relief but refuse to even acknowledge the existence of the problem.

The same can be said for addiction. Everyone does not easily get addicted to opiates or similar drugs and most are able to take opiates or amphetamines a few times and then walk away from them, and the actual studies bear this out. But for a small percentage of people, something different happens. They find it impossible to walk away and drug use becomes the controlling factor in their lives. Attempts have been made to explain this away by saying it is simply a lack of will power or laziness on the part of the addict, so society rejects them, doctors refuse to treat them and pharmacists refuse to fill their prescriptions.

Science isn't proof - it as a best-guess scenario, and as technology increases, theories are adjusted and thrown out and replaced with new ones.

Maybe drugs derived from plants and those developed synthetically are exactly the same. But molecules are some of the largest and grossest forms in particle science, and as we discover interaction among smaller and smaller particles, the theories regarding molecules may change a great deal from what they are today.

The main point here is that if someone says they are experiencing pain, or that certain pills provide different or varying levels of relief, who are you or anyone one else to doubt them? You say prove it. To you I say, prove what chocolate tastes like, prove that what you see as blue is truly blue and not green as someone else may envision it. In fact, I doubt you can even prove the fact that you exist at all.

The bottom line is, it is egocentric, insulting and just plain rude to play mind games with people's experiences. Because something didn't happen to you doesn't mean that it didn't happen.

 

[theWorldWithin]

Science isn't proof - it as a best-guess scenario

Could not have stated this better.

DJSim, I know you are qualified as a medical professional but I am sorry to say you are severely mistaken on this issue. There was just a scandal about a particular brand of adderall generics containing a chemical that caused urinary complications for users. I am trying to search it out but am having some trouble. If my memory serves me right I believe it was Barr and the additive was some type of urea byproduct.

Also consider this, after the patent expires why do people continue to pay much more for the brand name? Is it not in the interest of the pharmaceutical industry to make generics slightly inferior? Considering most every big pharma company has at least one hit brand name and a slew of generics an unspoken industry wide practice is not that unlikely here. Everyone wins except consumers, all the phama companies are allowed to get a nice bonus on their brand name when the competitors voluntarily make shitty generics. You scratch my back, I scratch yours (And don't tell me the FDA would never allow this, they are complicit in the corruption of the industry. Not a believer, do a bit of research)

Thousands upon thousands of users is more than a mere coincidence or psychological reaction. If you examine the psychology of dose placebo there is some evidence correlating peoples belief with a medication being stronger with the pill being larger and multi-colored. But considering these are so similar, simple and no one is claiming a potency discrepancy I find it highly unlikely that this is mere placebo.

And what relevancy does the dosage have to these side effects? Granted the dosages of amphetamine are probably statistically equivalent but that says nothing about the quality of the synthesis or interaction with other ingredients. And please do not fool yourself into believing all synths are truly 100 percent pure, this is an unobtainable goal with most compounds unless the drug was purified on the molecular level (IE nano-technology). Techniques like A/B and chromatography are not accurate enough to remove any and all highly similar by-products and impurities.

 

[ellua]

Thanks to Eulla and Aspena for their posts or I would still be thinking it was just me. Glad to know that a generic is not just a generic!!!

Anyone know where to get the original Barr Adderall?

Target and Wal-Mart still carry the Barrs. they both charge less than Walgreens, too.

 

[djsim]

Science isn't proof - it as a best-guess scenario, and as technology increases, theories are adjusted and thrown out and replaced with new ones.
.

I concede that point
I couldnt have said it better myself either, so point taken. As I said before I'd actually prefer to be wrong because it allows me to learn from the situation. I still tend to believe this is all psychosomatic, but I concede you do have a point, so ... well, there's not much I can say to "science isnt proof" you got me there

 

[Supernatural89]

Generic Adderall

I am taking the generics for the adderall by corepharma and I had them they seem to be not working they say do not take with soda and stuff that it will increase the effects of the drug but it is not doing anything it says...

 

[Cookie1456]

I am going to have to echo a statement earlier on this page, amphetamine is amphetamine is amphetamine. I honestly chalk it down to placebo, I have been on both generic and brand name Adderall XR, no difference in effects, of course I am a recreational user so maybe I am not seeing something. I don't know there is always a conspiracy about the government and "Big Pharma" on the internet, I really don't expect different.

 

[Captain.Heroin]

^Well, djsim. I'm not trying to be arrogant or a dick anything, but why don't you have to show proof?

Because you can find it out for yourself. It's not that hard to find out what the FDA mandates of generic manufacturers.

Plus, you should listen to what DJSim has to offer. He has a lot more experience than most here in this thread.

Djsim - it is said that you are a med student and you call yourself a "qualified pharmacist" and seem to believe that we should all bow down and accept your opinions on everything drug related due to this supposed fact coupled with your indisputable logic. What has bothered me most is not the fact that you feel you don't need proof on your side which sarsXdave already alluded to, but the fact that you chose to ignore the proof that so many others have patiently brought to your attention. You seem to be in some sort of egomaniacal state of tunnel vision that doesn't allow you to see or acknowledge different points of view or the evidence presented to back them up-this thread being a prime example.

Generics are the same dosage as brand name pills, no one's trying to pull a fast one on you. No one said you should "bow down and accept your opinions..." what we said was that there was no difference between generics and brand names.

We're beating a dead horse here people - there isn't a difference, I am sorry.

DJSim is just telling it how it is.

If what you say is correct, and final product is final product, then it is the residues and inactive ingredients that are causing the documented differences between meth made using different processes. Either way, the differences occur. One could perhaps observe the same phenomenon with different types of marijuana - although THC is the same active ingredient in the different types, something accounts for the differing experiences among the various types. THC concentration alone can't explain it, because regardless how much of one type a person smokes, the effects remain individualized. In other words, if one type makes you more lethargic, smoking more of the type that makes you more clear headed and active will never make a person lethargic like the first type did. I hope that I'm clear in what I am trying to say here.

The differences in different kinds of weeds can be attributed to the many different cannabinoids in marijuana. THC is not the only cannabinoid in marijuana.

The effects are dependent upon the active ingredient constituents, and the individual who is consuming the product and their state of mind (if they are tired/rested, relaxed/anxious, hungry/full, etc) and the way their receptors are effected by cannabinoids, and what their tolerance to cannabinoids are.

Cannabinoids (pronounced /ˈkænəbɪnɔɪdz/, KA-nə-bi-noydz) are a group of terpenophenolic compounds present in Cannabis (Cannabis sativa L). The broader definition of cannabinoids refers to a group of substances that are structurally related to tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) or that bind to cannabinoid receptors. The chemical definition encompasses a variety of distinct chemical classes: the classical cannabinoids structurally related to THC, the nonclassical cannabinoids, the aminoalkylindoles, the eicosanoids related to the endocannabinoids, 1,5-diarylpyrazoles, quinolines and arylsulphonamides and additional compounds that do not fall into these standard classes but bind to cannabinoid receptors.[1] The term cannabinoids also refers to a unique group of secondary metabolites found in the cannabis plant, which are responsible for the plant's peculiar pharmacological effects. Currently, there are three general types of cannabinoids: phytocannabinoids occur uniquely in the cannabis plant; endogenous cannabinoids are produced in the bodies of humans and other animals; and synthetic cannabinoids are similar compounds produced in a laboratory.

Djsim, I was lying in bed this morning mulling this over and wondering why this subject matter in general and your attitude in particular was able to get me so hot under the collar.

The attitude that I see you exhibiting is the same one so common among doctors and pharmacists these days that have trouble listening to their patients. They become so obsessed with their own knowledge and expertise that they no longer put any credence in what their patients tell them. For the chronic pain patient, the pain they are complaining of is touted to exist only in their heads, and as it becomes difficult at best or downright impossible to prove levels of pain, the doctors often not only fail to provide treatment and relief but refuse to even acknowledge the existence of the problem.

The same can be said for addiction. Everyone does not easily get addicted to opiates or similar drugs and most are able to take opiates or amphetamines a few times and then walk away from them, and the actual studies bear this out. But for a small percentage of people, something different happens. They find it impossible to walk away and drug use becomes the controlling factor in their lives. Attempts have been made to explain this away by saying it is simply a lack of will power or laziness on the part of the addict, so society rejects them, doctors refuse to treat them and pharmacists refuse to fill their prescriptions.

Science isn't proof - it as a best-guess scenario, and as technology increases, theories are adjusted and thrown out and replaced with new ones.

Maybe drugs derived from plants and those developed synthetically are exactly the same. But molecules are some of the largest and grossest forms in particle science, and as we discover interaction among smaller and smaller particles, the theories regarding molecules may change a great deal from what they are today.

The main point here is that if someone says they are experiencing pain, or that certain pills provide different or varying levels of relief, who are you or anyone one else to doubt them? You say prove it. To you I say, prove what chocolate tastes like, prove that what you see as blue is truly blue and not green as someone else may envision it. In fact, I doubt you can even prove the fact that you exist at all.

The bottom line is, it is egocentric, insulting and just plain rude to play mind games with people's experiences. Because something didn't happen to you doesn't mean that it didn't happen.

People's subjective experiences don't really matter. Have you heard of the placebo effect?

When I was in college, my friend drank a lot of vodka. If you're not a big drinker, you won't know the difference between good and cheap liquor. It's just true.

He poured Aristocrat vodka into a bottle of Smirnoff, and gave some girls some shots (who thought it was Smirnoff and didn't see the Aristocrat being poured into the bottle). As they drank the liquor, they noted how smooth it was, and how it wasn't rough like that nasty Aristo was...

I hope at this point you can realize that someone can subjectively perceive something if their mind is looking for it; people see what they're looking for.

With this being said, adderall is notorious for building up tolerances almost instantly as people continually take doses as days go on. It is likely that the people complaining about generics have a build up of tolerance, and that d,l-amphetamine is less effective because they are tolerant to it, not because it is a generic.

If you get back to having brand name pills, you might feel like you have a better pill - but it is a placebo effect. By the time you do this, it is likely you will feel even LESS than the generics got you, because your tolerance will continue to increase over time.

I know people who go through 90 and 120 count benzodiazepine along with a 60 count adderall prescription within the first week of every month - and they get less and less out of it as each month comes along. Despite the fact they don't use for 3 weeks before they get a refill - their continual use/abuse of the drug has desensitized the effects of amphetamine for the user, leading to long-term tolerance.

 

[stringtheory]

Capt Heroin, I think I can safely assume that neither you nor Djsim have tried every offering of every medication by every manufacturer. So unless you have actually done so, all you can do is say that in theory that they are all the same.

And just because placebo effect exists, doesn't mean that every reaction to every drug is placebo effect.

Anyway, I give up. If you believe that all generics and brand work exactly the same, then good for you. Personally, believing that drugs from different manufacturers created by different processes and containing different chemicals are all exactly the same and work exactly the same sounds like a classic case of placebo effect to me.

 

[sintrinsic]

Confirmation

Hey, guys. This is my first time reading/posting in any bluelight forums, but I found this thread in a search for an answer to this issue, and thought I'd post my "confirmation", if it can be called that. I appologize in advance for my long-windedness, but I want to be very specific, to prevent confusion.

I've been on Adderoll for about 4-5 months now. I started at 2 x 10mg/day, and used CVS's pharmacy to get my prescriptions. I still have an old bottle, and here is the exact label:
AMPHETAMINE SALTS
10 MG TABBRR
This pill was blue and football shaped with a line down the middle. It tasted very sweet.

On this dose, although the intensity did taper off rather quickly, I experienced an amazing increase in my ability to focus, but was unhappy with the "jittery" feeling, and daily use of the drug, exactly as directed by my doctor, caused what I can only describe as a "grainy" feeling after a while.

After the second month of this dosage, the jittery effects had worn off, but so had just about all the benefit to focus, so my doctor increased my dose to 2 20mg/day. He claimed that this initial increase was normal and due to the body's acclimation to the drug, but because I told him I was wary of the negative effects, he had me split my dosage down to 3 times a day (1,and 2x1/2s) to avoid "spikes".

On the day that I was to get this prescription filled, CVS was out of 20mg, and I was forced to go to Walgreens, in stead. This label read as follows:
D-AMPHETAMINE SALT COMBO 20MG TABS
MFG COREPHARMA
This pill was (i want to say pink, but it may have been orange) and circular, with a bit of a bitter/salty taste.

As I'm not accustomed to taking prescription medications, I didn't even think to check the label, at the time. I just took the pills as directed, and was very satisfied with the results. The jittery feeling was non-existent. I was extremely productive at work and in my personal projects, and my ability to focus was flawless. I assumed this was because I had found the correct dose, and never thought a thing of the difference in the pill appearances.

This month, on the exact same prescription from my doctor, I went back to CVS, and was given an orange pill identical in all but color to the 10mg tabs I had originally taken.

I did notice the difference in pills, but as they were both generics from different locations, I assumed that aesthetics were the limit of the difference.
After a week of taking this football shaped pill, I couldn't ignore the difference in effect. I was again struck with the jittery, "grainy" feeling, seemed to be more hyper, and although I was capable of focus, I just didn't seem get as much done.
I called my doctor about this, and he said that they were chemically identical, and the change in the way I felt was in my head. I'm typically not inclined to disagree with my doctor, but the difference is drastic, and for this to be a placebo effect, I would have had to EXPECT such a difference. I absolutely didn't, and I'm curious now if there's anywhere I can send samples of each of these pills for testing. I'd like to know, for SURE, if these pills are for some reason affecting my brain differently.