𝕯𝖎𝖕𝖘𝖍𝖎𝖙

You’re absolutely correct that a medication isn’t going to react the same for every person. People can have weird or even fatal reactions to medications. Any local pharmacist should be able to answer questions about medications and interactions.

To be clear, I am just saying that if adderall works for someone, vyvanse is likely to work for that person as well, because the drugs are so similar. Vyvanse’s biggest difference from adderall is that it’s a prodrug, meaning that starts off as a drug that has no effects on the body until it reacts with an natural enzyme we have in our colon which causes the drug to turn into what is basically adderall.

Adderall is mixed amphetamine salts.

The mixture is composed of equal parts racemic amphetamine and dextroamphetamine, which produces a ratio between dextroamphetamine and levoamphetamine, the two enantiomers of amphetamine.

Compared to vyvanse:

Lisdexamfetamine is an inactive prodrug that is converted in the body to dextroamphetamine, a pharmacologically active compound which is responsible for the drug’s activity.

So technically, Adderall is dextroamphetamine and levoamphetamine. I can’t speak more to this because of my lack of knowledge but “dextro” and “levo” are “right” and “left”, basically meaning something like the left and right “versions” (wrong word) of the molecule. Vyvanse on the otherhand is just the right “version” (wrong word) of the molecule.

OP: I hear you on not trying different meds, but one of these things is barely different from adderall (still very much a stimulant). Vyvanse is basically adderall xl, just in prodrug form. Apparently other commentors say it is allowed in japan. Prodrug just means that an enzyme plus the drug means your body creates the basically the same exact drug as adderall when ingested. If vyvanse is allowed but adderall is not that’s strange although one of vyvanse’s strengths is that it can’t be snorted, which might make some nations feel better about the drug’s potential for abuse, since it must be ingested to work.

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

k. brb going to diddle my laptop

Technically, I think it was administration of blunt force trauma, but yOu nEvEr kNoW!

“The” pow “vaccine” bam! “kills!” slash

Father?

Father what have I done?!

The lord works in mysterious ways, isn’t that right, joel?

My mistake.

deleted by creator

tragedy

I don’t think catholics know what that word means. Not in this context they sure don’t.

This sounds like some “I don’t want to tell my kids about gay marriage because it’s going to make me mildly uncomfortable so I might as well demonize it”.

Yeah, I guess I have a lot more faith in the pope than you do. I know he can do it, but I also know he doesn’t care enough to do it. It’s just showing face. It’s trying to market a dying religion.

But actions have consequences, so he doesn’t, even if it might be the “better” course of action for humanity if he did.

1. We can be critical of is action or inaction.
2. These consequences are mythical and not relevant. I mean, do you think everyone’s going to just up and leave catholocism (good luck, literally no one can stop being a catholic, to the extent that their religion means anything)? Do you think they will take over the vatican? Do you think they will start sinning in other ways, like killing one another? Do you think catholics would go against what the pope has told them God has commanded?, really? I don’t. What am I missing here?

Because it wouldn’t be the best course for his organization (at least from his perspective).

Because it’s his opinion, because he (*[via] God [or whatever]) sets the rules. You know what, I’ll write him about this. I realize he’s got other archdiocese reading and responding to him but as a catholic it’s one of my rights. I am all for meeting people where they are at, but… it’s all but saying it, and until he does say it, he’s just giving people a way to win arguments claiming that homosexuality is a sin, making everyone their own lawyer trying to interpret what the pope is saying.

If this were a politician trying to sway congress that’s one thing, but is the vatican not functionally a dictatorship, with the pope at the top?