Talk:Diacetyldihydromorphine

Misinformation

I'm sorry but there are some mistakes in this article. I'm going to keep it short as much as possible:

'Diacetyldihydromorphine (...) as a more potent form of diamorphine (Heroin).' 'diacetyldihydromorphine is actually less potent than diamorphine'

'Paralaudin is fast acting and longer lasting than diamorphine' 'perhaps because it is metabolised more slowly'

The second example might be a bit off as it is written that it is fast acting, not faster than heroin. Anyway check out the first one. I'm not going to edit this article because it is a complete mess at some points. Someone wrote it while on heroin? Just a joke.

Tripleffect (talk) 03:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Just of note, the second example isn't contradicting whatsoever, if that is the point you clarify at your amendment below or not is unclear to me. Yet speed of onset needn't mean how quickly metabolized into inactive constituents, or how quickly 'offset'. Nagelfar (talk) 06:39, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Really Necessary?

Is it really necessary to put "(heroin)" after every mention of diamorphine? I personally found it to be distracting and annoying, it steals from the main idea. In the real world of academic/scientific/scholarly articles, you only have to do that once... Seems like one editor was a little overzealous? Anyway, I won't speculate, but I don't feel it's necessary to "clarify" that 4 separate times in an article that's scarcely 2 paragraphs long. Taking out all of the parenthetical asides except the first. 72.128.67.81 (talk) 16:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Contradiction

As was pointed out above: the article contains a contradiction in that it claims that diacetyldihydromorphine is both more potent and less potent than diamorphine. Both statements appear to be referenced, so the issue might be the precise interpretation of "potent". AxelBoldt (talk) 14:23, 1 March 2012 (UTC)