PDA

View Full Version : Prescription medication



Marak5
04-22-06, 02:34
Guys.

If I walk into a pharmacy in Buenos Aires, will I be able to purchase name brand drugs from the USA like Ambien and Xanax? I am not looking to take these recreationally, but it would be nice if I can just get a supply and take the drugs on an as needed basis. Just wondering if they carry everything a pharmacy in the USA would carry.

Thanks

El Aleman
04-27-06, 13:51
Marak,

They should stock most things, but not everything under it's U.S. Brand name, so you should know the name of the active ingredient (I. E. Sildenafil instead of Viagra)

Don't go to one of the chains like PharmaCity - they probably insist on a prescription. The small privately owned pharmacies will sell everything as long as you pay. I got the a. M. And antibiotics without problems.

El Alemán

Dickhead
04-27-06, 13:59
Xanax = Alplax here in Argentina.

Dickhead
06-03-06, 13:11
So I wrenched my back a few days ago and it isn't responding to rest. I performed a few tests to reassure myself it wasn't a herniated disc, such as toe raises, Babinsky reflexes, and checking the sensitivity of extremities. All were negative. So it is a pulled muscle, and the muscle is in spasm, and I am in agony.

Now in the US I'd have to call my doctor, make an appointment, sit around his office with my thumb up my ass, get told a lot of shit I already know, then get a prescription for muscle relaxers. Which is what know I need anyway, for Chrissakes. Plus then there'd be deductibles and it would end up costing me 200 dollars.

Here I google the names of two popular muscle relaxants, get the chemical names, bring them to the friendly neighborhood pharmacy and 29 pesos later I have 20 Norgesic Fortes.

Try that in the US on a Saturday.

Lochdhu
06-03-06, 13:29
So I wrenched my back a few days ago and it isn't responding to rest. I performed a few tests to reassure myself it wasn't a herniated disc, such as toe raises, Babinsky reflexes, and checking the sensitivity of extremities. All were negative. So it is a pulled muscle, and the muscle is in spasm, and I am in agony.

Now in the US I'd have to call my doctor, make an appointment, sit around his office with my thumb up my ass, get told a lot of shit I already know, then get a prescription for muscle relaxers. Which is what know I need anyway, for Chrissakes. Plus then there'd be deductibles and it would end up costing me 200 dollars.

Here I google the names of two popular muscle relaxants, get the chemical names, bring them to the friendly neighborhood pharmacy and 29 pesos later I have 20 Norgesic Fortes.

Try that in the US on a Saturday.I was recently diagnosed with type II diabetes 2 weeks before my trip to BA. Last month, is Diabetes Meds easily obtianable down there? Will I need to see a Dr to get a perscription? Or just walk into the neighborhood pharmacy and ask for the specific meds I need?

I intend to make the move to BA soon, can someone hook me up with a good doctor? One that speak some english, what pisses me off up here, was I had see 4 fucking doctors the past 2 years and tons of money for testing, cause I knew something was wrong with me, I just didnt feel "right"

Finally the 4th doctored pegged the problem.

Type 2 diabetes is normally what obese people get, and I am far from obese, so it never occured to these other doctors.

I'm sure the meds are way cheaper down there, but up here the meds are costing me 240$ a month, or roughly 4-5 chicas a month.

Dickhead
06-03-06, 14:29
It just depends on the pharmacy. The FarmaCity chain would ask for a script to buy a gum drop. This medication I bought cleary stated: "Venta con receta." They didn't ask for shit.

There's a thread on health insurance that might list some doctors, and you probably want to read it anyway.

El Aleman
06-06-06, 06:57
Avoid the chains like FarmaCity. They stick to the regs.

Go to the small, mom-and-pop outfits you find on every second corner. And talk to a person who looks like he / she could be the owner. Most likely the only signature he wants to see is the one of the central bank president on your 100 peso bill.

Btw. That's how everybody in Argentina apparently does it. Last year, when I was stuck in bed a few days with some nasty bug, a chica friend just told me to go to the nearest pharmacy and get an antibiotic. The 5 day cure set me back about 30 pesos and got my sinuses back into a condition to survive the flight home.

Worst thing that can happen is that you try 2 or 3 pharmacies to find the one that accomodates you.

El Alemán

AllIWantIsLove
06-07-06, 21:48
I hope that everyone here is aware of the problem we have with antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria. They come about, in part, because of people who use antibiotics improperly. For example, they take an antibiotic when they have a virus (at best a waste of money) Or they take an antibiotic just until they feel better then stop. You have to take an antibiotic until every last one of the little bastards is dead.

Please, if you are going to take an antibiotic without consulting a physician, at least make an effort to know what you are doing.

(No, I am not an MD or a biologist. The above is what I know about this subject from the media. Please speak up Mpexy.

AllIWantIsLove

Dickhead
06-07-06, 23:14
This is very sound advice, AWL. These Argies take antibiotics at the drop of the hat. Me, no. I was married to a physician's assistant who taught me all about the difference between viral and bacterial infections and when to use, and not use, antibiotics. However, if one should accidentally get say for example maybe the fucking clap, which is quite obvious, it is nice to be able to get on antibiotics right away instead of having to jerk around with a bunch of appointments and shit. I heard about a guy who knew a guy who had a friend who got the clap down here one time.

My ex used to say to people who came to see her with the flu: "You will get better in 72 hours, but if I give you antibiotics it will take three days."

Antibiotics are completely ineffective against viruses.

Mpexy
06-08-06, 20:59
My thoughts on the subject of taking specific or broad spectrum antibiotics fall in personal and professional categories.

On the professional side, I do believe that the proliferation of antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria is indeed due to often indiscriminate use of ABs. So of course, I don't professionaly advise or prescribe ABs when not specifically called for, and of course, knowing which AB to take is just as important.

However, while often quoted by many almost as a mantra - "antibiotics are completely ineffective against viruses" - and of course is true, the assumption many people make by this is that taking antibiotics when infected with a viral source condition is useless, not recommended, etc. This is a case of where perhaps only general knowedge is a bad thing, because there are indeed many scenarios in which a physician will prescribe antibiotics even when the diagnosis is positively due to a virus. One common generalization would be in conditions which the suppression of the patient's immune system due to the original viral infection may lead to or could cause concurrent or secondary post-infections that would have significant consequences. So I wouldn't assume just because your infection is likely viral that taking antibiotics is never a good idea. It depends.

Putting aside proliferation of AB resistant bacterial strains as an issue, there's also the equally serious issue, perhaps more when it comes down to you the individual, is making medical decisions without an actual trained professional aiding you - doctor, nurse, etc. In general, the consequences as an average of selecting to take or not take a specific antibiotic is usually not going to be that severe. But when it comes to my personal health, I generally wouldn't want to rely on just "usually" if and when getting specific advice is readily available. For example, how stupid would you feel if the simple choice of selection of penicillin vs. Erythromycin was all the difference in the world between your little strep throat going away and going into anaphylaxis?

On the personal side though - doctors smoke, police break laws, etc. So I'm as much an individual as my profession. And as an individual, I don't always make decisions based on some vast 'big picture' view or moral concern. For example, I believe in energy conservation as a generally good idea, and agree that burning fossil fuels has a generally negative direct and indirect impact on our planet. But I don't personally choose to drive 100% renewable energy source vehicles or those using clean fuels. I don't choose to restrict myself from ever taking an air flight (how many hollywood actors and actresses have you seen bragging in some interview how they are so world conscious and green that they drive only electric cars, have a all solar powered home, etc. But jump on a plane to fly to Cannes for a film promotion?

So along this same line of analogy, I don't personally make health decisions based on the big picture what-would-be-best-for-everyone else scenario, but what would be best for me personally. That could be considered selfish, but that's my personal choice.

So for myself, would I and have I ever taken antibiotics just as an in-case type of action? Would I and have I ever recommended to close friends or family to take antibiotics along this same scenario? Absolutely. And I make no bones about it that yes, overall big picture, it is adding to the proliferation of AB resistant strains. However, albeit it's a trained decision and probably a lot more targeted than those without medical training, I accept that I'm choosing to insure my personal or friend / family health over some impersonal, big picture concern.

Bottom line, one generalization that is always true is that when your condition is due to a bacterial source, the faster you take the matching antibiotic for it, the better.

But having expressed these personal opinions, I'll reiterate one more time on the professional side that there are so many potential complications and side effects to choosing or not choosing the correct medication, that ignoring or not even bothering to seek out trained medical advice if and when it is readily available is, in my opinion, fairly dumb. See a doc, nothing you could possibly say is going to shock him / her in the medical arena - spill your guts out and don't hold back on the symptoms and / or questions, get your meds or course of treatment advice, end of sermon.

Capt Dave
06-09-06, 11:24
Mpexy.

That was a very balanced and valuable post! Thanks.

As long as we're so shamelessly picking your brain for free medical advice, what do you think of the concept of taking Acyclovir either prophyacticaly or the morning after you wake up and discover your last nights companion has a nice juicy herpe somewhere on her otherwise delightful and well explored mouth / body, and if so how much?

Thanks in advance!

David

Mpexy
06-11-06, 12:37
Bottom line is that it can't hurt, other than the usual standard warnings re: possible complications from side effects and other low percentage yet possible negative drug interactions.

However, other than for peace of mind, the can't hurt outcome is really all you're going to get. There's no real medical or microbiological mechanism to support taking a drug such as acyclovir in prophylaxis to avoid or deter 'the morning after' potential for infection with a viral infection such as herpes (HSV-1 or HSV-2)

Prophylatic or immediate post-contact use of antibiotics against a biotic organism is a whole different story - but for a suspected viral contact, there's no real solution or mechanism to lower your chances of infection. With a virus, especially HSV-1 or 2, there's simply managment of the infection, not avoidance.

I did a combined MD / PhD in MCB so while it's fascinating to me, I'm sure it would bore most to tears here, so I'll just stick to the short layman's version on the microbiology - acyclovir is an SPN or synthetic purine nuceloside analogue - meaning it has good inhibitory effect, repeat inhibitory, against viruses such as herpes. If you'll recall some basic biology regarding viral replication - viruses have no method to replicate on their own, they need to infect and take over your own cellular machinery to replicate. The long and short of which is that there are a number of pre and post chain reaction steps that a virus could be controlled because of the specific signature of attack each virus has.

The reason acyclovir is effective in controlling and managing the outbreak of herpes symptoms once you are infected (e. G. The living with it sort of management, not a cure) is because all viruses have two major weak points to be contained by - either try to hold back the horde by preventing the virus from 'recognizing' the appropriate target cells they go after by altering or masking the specific binding site markers they look for, or simply go after the viral ability to replicate. It would be wonderful if mankind had yet made a drug that 100% stopped a virus from being able to replicate, but unfortunately we haven't. Hence why subtle yet very important words of distinction are used when describing anti-viral drug compounds - "inhibit", "suppress", "control", etc. Not erradicate or cure.

So, acyclovir is a pretty smart little package - it, as well as various other drugs, has a high affinity for binding with and masking the TK enzyme, or thymidine kinase, that the herpes virus encodes and uses as part of it's replication sequence. Any MCB majors out there might at this point be wondering what happened to the mono, di, and triphosphate stages for the halting and conversion of HSV replication, but like I said before, this is the quickie version. The bottom line is acyclovir inhibits and terminates where it can the replication sequence of herpes and other similar viruses by masking the enzyme herpes uses to encode replication of itself.

The problem is that when we talk about viruses in general and especially with something like herpes, stopping 99% of replication sounds good, which acyclovir does not get anywhere near to, but even if it did, the remaining 1% is still a fairly overwhelming load to the immune system and you still end up infected, and stay infected. So the sad reality is that perhaps in the future we'll have a more effective means of eradication, but at the moment we're simply talking about supression and management of the disease.

So, if you take acyclovir prohylatically, the drug will do nothing to prevent or help prevent infection - it has no impact on the virus entering your body and getting a foothold. Once infected and the virus starts the initial phase of invasion by hijacking your cellular machinery to RNA and DNA encode more of the nasty buggers, that's when acyclovir or other similar drug compounds will help manage just how much you are affected.

There are some controversial studies on the alternative approach - stopping the virus at the gates before it gets a foothold in your system via immuno-enhancing mechanisms. E. G. Prophylatically boosting your immune system to very high levels. But most conventional science is in the approach of finally producing a stable and reliable vaccination.

Capt Dave
06-11-06, 15:06
Thanks for an informative and interesting reply!

If I might ask one last herpes-related question?

As a "former" sufferer many years ago, I am happy to find that recurrences have dropped to near-zero in recent years. Does that imply some sort of "immunity" and perhaps mean that re-infection is less likely?

Also, could you give a quick laymans guide to the difference in use between topical and oral use of Acyclovir?

Sorry to be a pest, but perspiring minds want to know!

:)

David

Mpexy
06-12-06, 12:21
Herpes is not a state of infection, cured, then reinfected. Once infected, you have it for the current state of science, for life.

Outbreaks of symptomatic conditions can be controlled or managed via medication, such as acyclovir. So while a good portion of the patient population can live a fairly normal life, with years between synptomatic episodes, you're not immune or otherwise free from it.

Topical use of any medication typically comes in some form of aqueous cream or gel. For acyclovir specifically, studies have shown the cream to be more effective than gel based topical solutions. However, in general you'd have to talk to a specialist for a more specific recommendation. Oral, or tablet form, ingestion of acyclovir is in general the usual route.

Usually, the choice between topical or oral form if given an option, is guided by specific drug interaction and efficacy studies (e. G. Some drugs over time show a history of being more effective in double-blind tests via one form or the other) with some weighting towards patient factors. For example, some drugs can or can't be taken with foods, so if given the choice sometimes the prescriber will opt for the topical form to avoid digestive breakdown complications.

StrayLight
07-03-06, 19:29
Worst thing that can happen is that you try 2 or 3 pharmacies to find the one that accomodates you.Not quite. The worst thing that can happen is that one accomodates you and you die from taking something you should not have taken.

On my last visit, I had some sort of upper respiratory infection. Some local expat took me into a pharmacy on Las Heras, just west of Pueyrredon, and the pharmacist simply asked me if my phlegm was white or green. When I replied it was green, he gave me some sort of antibiotic and told me to take one every eight hours.

Well, within 24 hours my hands had swollen to the size of fucking basketballs and I was itching and scratching all over like a motherfucker. And I'm thinking I was lucky to have only had that.

If you don't know what you're doing, you're nuts to take prescription medicine without first consulting a real physician.

Having said that, I am here now and in pain from a recurring kidney stone problem. Anyone know of a mom and pop pharmacy where I can get a serious pain killer -- like demerol or dilaudid -- without any hassle.

Thanks,

SL

Exon123
07-03-06, 21:09
I don't mean to sound redundent but thats serious.

I'd spend a hundred peso's and see a doctor.

Exon

StrayLight
07-03-06, 21:58
I don't mean to sound redundent but thats serrious I'd spend a hundred peso's and see a doctor.

ExonYou know, if it were anything other than kidney stones, I'd be at the doc's in a heartbeat.

But I've had kidney stones off and on since 1986. I practically subletted a room in the urology clinic of one particular hospital. I see physicians now who were in middle school when I passed my first stone. I tell the x-ray technicians how to set up a KUB. For all intents and purposes, I have the x-rays of my kidneys tatooed to the backs of my eyelids. Get my drift?

I know exactly where I am in the cycle of growing a kidney stone and getting it shattered with extra-corporeal shock wave lithotripsy. It's no big deal. I just would like an industrial strength pain killer for those occassional moments when I am in industrial strengh pain.

SL

El Perro
07-04-06, 12:20
Good luck with the dilaudid search. Let me know if you find some. I think I can feel a stone starting right now.:)

Crash Helmet
07-09-06, 15:47
How's the selection of steroids there in Buenos Aires?

I'm not too interested in the heavy Barry Bonds / Arnold Schwarzenegger human growth hormone type stuff that blows your head up to the size of a pumpkin.

The lower androgen Marion Jones approved girly gear is more appealing. Stuff like Winstrol, Primobolan Depot, or Anavar.

Thomaso276
07-09-06, 16:16
I do not think you can buy steroids without a prescription - this is not Mexico. Taking this stuff is dangerous and can really mess you up, mentally and physically. But if you are asking and are in the cycle, you already know that.

Every once in a while I see a couple of guys in the gym who are juicing but not as much as in the States. There doesn't seem to be a strong desire for steroids in BA. Here is some Mayo Clinic info:

Anabolic steroids come with serious side effects.

Men may develop:

Prominent breasts.

Baldness.

Shrunken testicles.

A higher voice.

Infertility.

Women may develop:

A deeper voice.

An enlarged clitoris.

Increased body hair.

Baldness.

Increased appetite.

Both men and women might experience:

Severe acne.

Liver abnormalities and tumors.

Increased low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol (the "bad" cholesterol)

Decreased high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol (the "good" cholesterol)

Aggressive behaviors, rage or violence.

Psychiatric disorders, such as depression.

Drug dependence.

Sounds like steroids are the anti-mongering drug of choice!

Dickhead
07-09-06, 17:57
I dunno, the enlarged clitoris thing sounds kinda interesting.

Crash Helmet
07-10-06, 13:23
I do not think you can buy steroids without a prescription - this is not Mexico. In Mexico, one needs to have a doctor write you a prescription to obtain steroids. A mere formality that'll cost a guy or a Marion Jones 20 bucks. But, Mexico being Mexico, most pharmacies will sell it to you without a prescription. I would hope Argentina is the same way.

Stormy
07-10-06, 13:50
I did buy a fairly powerful steroid without a prescription for a friend who was having a gout attack and couldn't walk around to find a pharmacy. Can't remember the name of it. (He had had previous experience with this stuff.

Really, not a recommended process.