> it seems you think I am a simple mathematical average
No, I was merely inquiring after what appeared to be a misunderstanding but apparently wasn't.
> Lisdexamfetamine is not amphetamine
Just to clarify, this topic is always needlessly confusing because "amphetamine" is used to refer to both a distinct chemical as well as an entire class of chemicals. Lisdexamfetamine is _an_ amphetamine in exactly the same way that codeine is an opiate (ie a prodrug of).
I'm not sure why you think I'm mistaken about the study nor why you are so condescending about a misunderstanding rooted in terminology. You yourself state that it is about relative drug safety and the study is also quite clear about this so it would seem that we were in agreement all along.
Because I get triggered when people are illogical while using excessively complicated language and do not try to understand the points being made. Like in this comment, I clearly laid out all the ways I think lisdex != amphetamine. But you are once again answering in an obvious way without engaging my points.
If you look elsewhere in my comments, I have no problem calling myself an idiot when I make mistakes. But I hate the noise that is bad faith arguing concealed in fancy words.
No, I was merely inquiring after what appeared to be a misunderstanding but apparently wasn't.
> Lisdexamfetamine is not amphetamine
Just to clarify, this topic is always needlessly confusing because "amphetamine" is used to refer to both a distinct chemical as well as an entire class of chemicals. Lisdexamfetamine is _an_ amphetamine in exactly the same way that codeine is an opiate (ie a prodrug of).
I'm not sure why you think I'm mistaken about the study nor why you are so condescending about a misunderstanding rooted in terminology. You yourself state that it is about relative drug safety and the study is also quite clear about this so it would seem that we were in agreement all along.