hotgirls.jpg.exe
Bluelighter
I hope I'm not breaking rules by pulling a quote from a closed thread - it's from a post that had nothing to do with the main topic or why it got closed, and I really did want to continue the discussion with @LucidSDreamr, who said (regarding Targin)
It's always 50% of the oxycodone dose by weight. In my case that's 7.5mg naloxone/15mg oxycodone. Naloxone is orally inactive but somehow allegedly binds to opioid receptors in the gut to help reduce constipation. In my personal experience it doesn't seem to do much in that respect but it does make the oxy seem less potent. That could well be the placebo effect but if I take 7.5mg of IR oxy vs half of one of my targin after sucking the coating off and chewing it up (and I don't do this to get high, opioids have never done much for me, it's purely for when I'm having a fucked pain flare), the former certainly *feels* stronger.
The main point I wanted to make was about your first two sentences: as a former neuroscience researcher who did some work on drug trials, I can tell you first hand that they'll massage the data to get the outcome they want to prove their hypothesis about the drug's effectiveness. This includes finding spurious reasons to cut the data from subjects whose results skew things a little too much, so you can get a tidier curve on the scatterplot. The initial trials on SSRIs used faaaar more subjects than ended up making into the final findings, for example. This is not to say they're just making claims about the effectiveness of their drugs out of whole cloth, just that these things cost a LOT of money to develop and test, and the companies are quite keen to make sure that's not a waste. Making a minor tweak to a drug whose patent is nearing expiry so you can register a whole new patent is also common practice (see citalopram > escitalopram). There was a big legal stoush with Pfizer who tried desperately to extend the patent on Lyrica (it's one of their biggest moneymakers) so that other companies couldn't sell generic pregabalin, but they failed to prevent that. There's plenty more examples but it really soured me on the research world.
It's always 50% of the oxycodone dose by weight. In my case that's 7.5mg naloxone/15mg oxycodone. Naloxone is orally inactive but somehow allegedly binds to opioid receptors in the gut to help reduce constipation. In my personal experience it doesn't seem to do much in that respect but it does make the oxy seem less potent. That could well be the placebo effect but if I take 7.5mg of IR oxy vs half of one of my targin after sucking the coating off and chewing it up (and I don't do this to get high, opioids have never done much for me, it's purely for when I'm having a fucked pain flare), the former certainly *feels* stronger.
The main point I wanted to make was about your first two sentences: as a former neuroscience researcher who did some work on drug trials, I can tell you first hand that they'll massage the data to get the outcome they want to prove their hypothesis about the drug's effectiveness. This includes finding spurious reasons to cut the data from subjects whose results skew things a little too much, so you can get a tidier curve on the scatterplot. The initial trials on SSRIs used faaaar more subjects than ended up making into the final findings, for example. This is not to say they're just making claims about the effectiveness of their drugs out of whole cloth, just that these things cost a LOT of money to develop and test, and the companies are quite keen to make sure that's not a waste. Making a minor tweak to a drug whose patent is nearing expiry so you can register a whole new patent is also common practice (see citalopram > escitalopram). There was a big legal stoush with Pfizer who tried desperately to extend the patent on Lyrica (it's one of their biggest moneymakers) so that other companies couldn't sell generic pregabalin, but they failed to prevent that. There's plenty more examples but it really soured me on the research world.
