Jump to content

Photo

Noticed A Difference Going From Accutane To Roaccutane

accutane

1 reply to this topic

#1 kkass

kkass

    New Member

  • Members
  • Posts & Likes
    Posts: 21
    Likes: 0
About Me
  • Joined: 05-November 07

Posted 22 March 2013 - 09:40 PM

I know that they say there's no difference, but there is a difference between (other) generics and original medications. Is this the case with Accutane and Roaccutane also? I switched about a month ago and I noticed how my skin has gotten more oily. I was taking 10mg of Accutane fior about 4 months and the oilyness decreased by a lot, then switched to Roaccutane 20mg every 2 days (insurance issues) and I can tell there is a difference,

 

I even got a pimple a week ago, I never had one during Accutane.

 

In your PERSONAL EXPERIENCE, did you notice a difference when you switched?



#2 Evie Conrad

Evie Conrad

    New Member

  • Members
  • Posts & Likes
    Posts: 8
    Likes: 3
About Me
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:European Union
  • Joined: 17-January 10

Posted 08 April 2013 - 08:46 PM

I think you meant to use the term "generic isotretinoin" to which several "brand names" are applied by its various manufacturers. As you know, "generic" effectively means that the patent has expired and any manufacturer can produce it.

 

"Accutane" was the brand name used in North America for Roche's original branded version of isotretinoin. It was a patented drug (i.e. Roche had a monopoly on making it) until 2002 if I remember correctly.

 

"Roaccutane" was the brand name used for the same thing, elsewhere in the English-speaking World.

 

"Accutane" was withdrawn from the North American market by F Hoffmann La Roche Inc in 2009 because they weren't making any money from it and thousands of people who had used the drug were lining up to sue them.

 

http://www.bloomberg...id=a7Oj2q25ZHZ8

 

It sounds to me as if many people on acne.org haven't thought very long or very hard about the consequences of taking a chemo drug for a slightly distressing but ultimately superficial, normal and temporary condition which affects almost three quarters of adolescents. How many people on this site know that the drug was licensed only for a type of acne so severe that it accounts for only three percent of all acne cases? How many know that NINETY-three percent of all prescriptions were dispensed to people with mild or moderate acne?

 

I appreciate that some posts come from drug company propaganda merchants but there seem to be a few genuinely gullible, desperate or ignorant teenagers.

 

I pity them but can't understand why they didn't bother to find out anything about isotretinion before they started taking it. It is now 31 years since "Accutane" was launched in the United States and a wealth of material on it has been available for years. In my opinion, anyone who takes isotretinoin is a fool. It is one of the most dangerous drugs ever to have been licensed. There are much more effective and safer treatments.

 

I also find it strange that there are still so many kids who accept whatever doctors tell them and don't realise how easily influenced doctors themselves are. I thought the Internet had made people more skeptical but I suppose that some people are just hardwired for religion and any religion will do.

 

It doesn't really matter whether it's tub-thumping Christianity, fanatical Islam or pill-pushing Big Phama and industrialised medicine. Their followers are sheep, who want to be led. They need to believe that someone or something will solve all their problems, without them having to make much of an effort themselves. Prescription drugs are the holy wafers of the late 20th and early 21st Century.

 

Something isn't good just because it claims to be. In fact, most people who feel a need to tell others that they're good are anything but. You have a lot to learn and I am truly sorry to say that some of you will learn the hard way, perhaps years from now.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users