Possibly. There are branded products that she is allergic to and she's not allergic to the generic, but it tends to be the generics using the ingredient she can't have.
My point is that the generalizations are MOSTLY true, but there can be exceptions. People who discount all generics out of hand are usually just blowhards.
My daughter has an anaphylactic reaction to an inactive ingredient that is present in some generic products but not others. We have to be very aware of what company makes the generics she takes to make sure exactly what they contain. That's why I say most people can take them and not everyone. Some medications will harm her more than help because of an inactive ingredient.
I don't know if you are in the US, but AB-rated generic equivalents are determined to have a release profile that is within an acceptable range of variance from the reference product to still be considered equivalent. I'm not saying that all diltiazem products are equivalent because obviously Cardizem injection is not the same as Cardizem CD is not the same as Cardizem LA is not the same as Cardizem regular tablet. What I'm saying is that Cardizem CD 240 mg capsules and all of the AB rated equivalents a pharmacy would substitute for it may have some subtle differences, but in general they don't matter clinically for patients.
The active ingredients are exactly the same. The inactive ingredients may differ and there may be some slight differences in bioavailability that for most people are not significant. There is no reason that the vast majority of people can't take a generic equivalent of a branded medication. That said, there are sometimes exceptions that need to be considered on a cases-by-case basis. Anyone who says "I can't take generic medications" is full of shit.
Source: I am a licensed pharmacist.
Yes, obviously everything wrong with the country today is the fault of the Democrats. All of it.
Or is it both sides? I mean, both sides are equally bad, right?
/s if it isn't obvious
OMG you too?
"The IDF views the incident with great severity and emphasizes that the soldier's conduct is wholly inconsistent with the values expected of its troops."
So smashing the head of a statue of a Palestinian man is bad, but smashing the heads of real Palestinian people is a-ok?
Ok. Your question also didn't make sense.
Man, I'm old and too uncool for Lemmy.
Hahaha. It was a stretch to be sure. The point is one doesn't need to be exclusive of the other.
If television viewers were accepting of cooking then why did they have to create a subgenre of cooking shows?
But the Never Trump Republican Refugees will tell you that it was THEM that realized the truth! Not the left that has been saying it all along!