autumnal
Enlightened
- Feb 4, 2020
- 1,950
Meto remains an antiemetic (not a potentiator) for SN (per PPH)
There has unfortunately been some misinformation recently stated and uncorrected that I felt needed to be clarified. A member's recent interpretation of a section of The Peaceful Pill Handbook (PPH) was that metoclopramide (meto) was now being recommended as a potentiator for SN rather than for its antiemetic effects. This is totally incorrect.
While it appears this misinterpretation was solely due to the misreading of a small paragraph, I figured it was still useful to define these terms further for anyone else who may be unfamiliar with them.
A potentiator is a drug or chemical that increases the effectiveness of another drug or chemical. A potentiator isn't taken for its own effects on the body, but rather for its effects on the other drug or chemical. So the taking of propranolol (at the latest reduced dosage in the PPH) and cimetidine are recommended in the PPH because they increase the effectiveness of the SN.
For the purposes of the PPH, meto is not a potentiator. Meto is an antiemetic, a drug which makes vomiting less likely to occur. Because the consumption of poison can often trigger vomiting reactions, taking an antiemetic is recommended by the PPH to help prevent this vomiting from occurring. In the PPH, meto is taken only for these antiemetic effects. It is not taken to have any effects on the SN (other than the indirect one of keeping it in the stomach where it can be absorbed).
Please note that there are differences in the recommendations by the PPH versus those given in Stan's Guide in many areas, including whether antiemetics are recommended versus totally optional. I am not stating here whether I believe one is more correct than the other, or which you should follow. I am simply clarifying what the PPH actually says and means, so that you can then make these decisions yourself based on the best and most accurate understanding of the two resources possible.
I have not referred to the source of this misunderstanding nor quoted their post because I want to keep this thread (and indeed the wider forum) about the presenting of factual information rather than fueling any kind of personal animosity. The member was however advised of their misinterpretation, and chose not to believe this nor to correct it. The thread was then locked, preventing the current explanation from being provided there in a full and proper context.
There has unfortunately been some misinformation recently stated and uncorrected that I felt needed to be clarified. A member's recent interpretation of a section of The Peaceful Pill Handbook (PPH) was that metoclopramide (meto) was now being recommended as a potentiator for SN rather than for its antiemetic effects. This is totally incorrect.
While it appears this misinterpretation was solely due to the misreading of a small paragraph, I figured it was still useful to define these terms further for anyone else who may be unfamiliar with them.
A potentiator is a drug or chemical that increases the effectiveness of another drug or chemical. A potentiator isn't taken for its own effects on the body, but rather for its effects on the other drug or chemical. So the taking of propranolol (at the latest reduced dosage in the PPH) and cimetidine are recommended in the PPH because they increase the effectiveness of the SN.
For the purposes of the PPH, meto is not a potentiator. Meto is an antiemetic, a drug which makes vomiting less likely to occur. Because the consumption of poison can often trigger vomiting reactions, taking an antiemetic is recommended by the PPH to help prevent this vomiting from occurring. In the PPH, meto is taken only for these antiemetic effects. It is not taken to have any effects on the SN (other than the indirect one of keeping it in the stomach where it can be absorbed).
Please note that there are differences in the recommendations by the PPH versus those given in Stan's Guide in many areas, including whether antiemetics are recommended versus totally optional. I am not stating here whether I believe one is more correct than the other, or which you should follow. I am simply clarifying what the PPH actually says and means, so that you can then make these decisions yourself based on the best and most accurate understanding of the two resources possible.
I have not referred to the source of this misunderstanding nor quoted their post because I want to keep this thread (and indeed the wider forum) about the presenting of factual information rather than fueling any kind of personal animosity. The member was however advised of their misinterpretation, and chose not to believe this nor to correct it. The thread was then locked, preventing the current explanation from being provided there in a full and proper context.
