3 ms·
The article itself doesn't, some of the quotes from relevant papers do. It seems likely that studies are often done comparing treatments, and at least one of th
by sambe 9y ago
The article itself doesn't, some of the quotes from relevant papers do. It seems likely that studies are often done comparing treatments, and at least one of the quotes has context supporting that idea.
- DannyBee 9y agoNo, it very clearly mixes anecdotes from the papers about atomoxetine with those of amphetamine variants. It also lumps in "adhd drug" risk studies (which include plenty of non-stimulants) into a discussion about adderall and it's variants. Given the papers clearly state that some of these risks/issues are only appreciable for the amphetamine variants (and some only appreciable for the non-amphetamine drugs), this is, imho, a disservice.
- sambe 9y agoWhat do you mean "no"? The article literally never mentions atomoxetine outside of quoted text. It mentions it twice in the contextual part of quotes from papers also dealing with amphetamine variants. There is a single anecdote about atomoxetine. The quote has nothing to do with the drug's action. The point of the anecdote is the researchers' attitude toward the behaviour of young children, in the context of debating their approach to judging side-effects. That is certainly relevant context: the paper in question is also looking at side-effects for amphetamine variants. Strange approaches to behaviour classification likely apply across all the trials involved. Your original comment was that this is confusing. I think it's very clear. I am not left with the impression that results for atomoxetine are being conflated with results for amphetamine variants.