Editing: /home/medipk/public_html/includes/classes/class.rule.php Encoding: Re-open Use Code Editor Close Save Changes Orlifit (Orlistat) 120mg by Getz Pharma x 1 Strip - Clinix Plus- Pharma Suppliers ( World Most Trusted Health Care Online Mall)
  Loading... Please wait...

Our Newsletter


Orlifit (Orlistat) 120mg by Getz Pharma x 1 Strip

  • Image 1
Price:
$10.00
Weight:
3.33 Grams
Shipping:
Calculated at checkout
Bookmark and Share


Product Description

It is indicated for obesity management including weight loss and weight maintanance when used in conjunction with a reduced-calorie diet.


Find Similar Products by Category


Write your own product review

Product Reviews

  1. Before anything else

    Posted by Here on 12th Feb 2016

    Excuse Bout my bad english first, cuz i am from germany
    Great! Answering with in 24 hours and replIed every question as you write
    Have Very discreet and careful Packing . From his door to my only 3 days.
    Items ordered
    Orlifit (Orlistat) 120 mg by Getz Pharma 100 Strip
    Xanax (Alprazolam) Onax 2mg by Safe-Pharma 10 Strips
    Viagra
    Will test and write a New review then
    very fast and friendly environment of email . Good prices and offers like buy One and get One free for example...


  2. Before anything else

    Posted by Here on 12th Feb 2016

    Excuse Bout my bad english first, cuz i am from germany
    Great! Answering with in 24 hours and replIed every question as you write
    Have Very discreet and careful Packing . From his door to my only 3 days.
    Items ordered
    Orlifit (Orlistat) 120 mg by Getz Pharma 100 Strip
    Xanax (Alprazolam) Onax 2mg by Safe-Pharma 10 Strips
    Viagra
    Will test and write a New review then
    very fast and friendly environment of email . Good prices and offers like buy One and get One free for example...


  3. No one but Al Gore u

    Posted by Kip on 2nd Jul 2014

    No one but Al Gore uses the term “World Wide Web” anymore, given the ubtiuqiy of the channel — and for similar reasons as you point out, Alex, the term “mobile” has rapidly become equally antiquated. In principle the trouble with qualifying a digital experience, or any experience, for that matter, with a channel designation is you detract from the essence, which never deviates from engendering favorable behavioral change through engagement.So I agree wholeheartedly with your assertion that “e-patient” suffers from these same limitations. Worse still, the moniker is not only redundant, but creates a mythical subset of patients who are somehow qualitatively different in how they connect with, consume, and respond to content. The truth, as you cite through the eye-popping statistics, is that patients are already “e,” and inattentive marketers are the only ones using this already antiquated term.But all this elicits the challenge of somehow describing and differentiating the “evolved patient,” and by that I mean the patients of today who routinely embrace and engage with emerging technologies. If “e-patient” is admittedly superfluous and misleading, then should we nonetheless create a new descriptor to capture the transformative reality that patients have become active participants in their healthcare?Along these lines, a brief foray into etymology might guide us: According to Wikipedia, “the word patient originally meant ‘one who suffers’. This English noun comes from the Latin word patiens, the present participle of the deponent verb, patior, meaning ‘I am suffering,’ and akin to the Greek verb πάσχειν (= paskhein, to suffer) and its cognate noun πάθος (= pathos).”Interesting! So what about going all the way with your idea, Alex, and rekindling the very word “Patient”? Can we move from ‘I am suffering’ to ‘I am healing’? Throwing that into Google Translator we get: Είμαι επούλωση. Phonetically that is close to “Eίmai epoύlwsh” (I think). So what about changing “patient” to “epol” — Ironically enough retaining the “e”! To an extent I’m kidding, but the trajectory takes your idea to its logical conclusion.Great post, Alex. Brings up some fundamental issues regarding how we define the patient, and how we characterize their expanding and progressively more innate interactions with technology. The play is the thing as the Bard said, while God gave power over animals to Noah through naming; often we need to redefine and recreate our basic terms to truly capture the essence of a new way of thinking and feeling.SPITZ


  4. No one but Al Gore u

    Posted by Kip on 2nd Jul 2014

    No one but Al Gore uses the term “World Wide Web” anymore, given the ubtiuqiy of the channel — and for similar reasons as you point out, Alex, the term “mobile” has rapidly become equally antiquated. In principle the trouble with qualifying a digital experience, or any experience, for that matter, with a channel designation is you detract from the essence, which never deviates from engendering favorable behavioral change through engagement.So I agree wholeheartedly with your assertion that “e-patient” suffers from these same limitations. Worse still, the moniker is not only redundant, but creates a mythical subset of patients who are somehow qualitatively different in how they connect with, consume, and respond to content. The truth, as you cite through the eye-popping statistics, is that patients are already “e,” and inattentive marketers are the only ones using this already antiquated term.But all this elicits the challenge of somehow describing and differentiating the “evolved patient,” and by that I mean the patients of today who routinely embrace and engage with emerging technologies. If “e-patient” is admittedly superfluous and misleading, then should we nonetheless create a new descriptor to capture the transformative reality that patients have become active participants in their healthcare?Along these lines, a brief foray into etymology might guide us: According to Wikipedia, “the word patient originally meant ‘one who suffers’. This English noun comes from the Latin word patiens, the present participle of the deponent verb, patior, meaning ‘I am suffering,’ and akin to the Greek verb πάσχειν (= paskhein, to suffer) and its cognate noun πάθος (= pathos).”Interesting! So what about going all the way with your idea, Alex, and rekindling the very word “Patient”? Can we move from ‘I am suffering’ to ‘I am healing’? Throwing that into Google Translator we get: Είμαι επούλωση. Phonetically that is close to “Eίmai epoύlwsh” (I think). So what about changing “patient” to “epol” — Ironically enough retaining the “e”! To an extent I’m kidding, but the trajectory takes your idea to its logical conclusion.Great post, Alex. Brings up some fundamental issues regarding how we define the patient, and how we characterize their expanding and progressively more innate interactions with technology. The play is the thing as the Bard said, while God gave power over animals to Noah through naming; often we need to redefine and recreate our basic terms to truly capture the essence of a new way of thinking and feeling.SPITZ