Posted by so on July 17, 2005, at 21:36:41 [reposted on July 22, 2005, at 14:23:30 | original URL]
In reply to Re: Nor do I ... » so, posted by chemist on July 17, 2005, at 21:02:45
> > at least not routinely, but I do track the comments of some leading figures as they appear in various media, and I don't arbitrarily exlude any publication from my list of potential sources of information about public figures.
> hello there, chemist here...there is nothing arbitrary in my exclusion of "People" magazine for sources of information pertaining to the sciences: it is not a peer-reviewed journal with foci in any fields other than the entertainment industry and thus has no value whatsoever as a reference tool in arenas outside show business.
Fortunately, the field of qualified, informative information available to the human race reaches far beyond the limited scope of peer-reviewed academic journals.
Within that wide scope of informative information about other humans and life in general available beyond that published in peer-reviewed publications, we find periodicals such as People, the editorial focus of which reaches far beyond the entertainment industry. While it is offered as entertainment journalism, the scope of biographical information presented in People reaches far beyond show business, to explore almost every aspect of society, including biographical information about researchers not available in the peer-reviewed publications that publish results of their research. People is widely recognized as a leading publisher of biographical information about leading public figures of our time, whereas peer-reviewed publications are a comparatively sparse source of biographical information about living persons or about current events.
> the current president of the APA is, sadly, not a contemporary of welder and chemist Le Chatelier - nor are you or i - having been born a few centuries too late; and the anointment by you and/or "People" magazine as a "public figure" might indeed flatter some, yet the point of this discourse apparently remains elusive, so here it is, again:
Neither I nor People magazine establish who is a public figure under civil law, but rather, the behavior of a specific individual which tends to present them as persons of interest to the public at large. More precisely in the present case, the president of the APA would be considered a limited public figure should a controversy arise within the scope of civil law. His comments are fair product for People because he offered them voluntarily, with no expectation of privacy, knowing they could be selected for publication.
> "People" magazine, the APA, and your thorough tracking of all media aside, the understanding and dissemination of the phenomenon known as chemical equilibrium has been addressed long ago and is not an opinion and/or a well-kept secret.
But that century old principle has not been conclusively or even generally connected in any scientific or popular literature that I know of or which you have cited as the basis of the concept of "chemical imbalance" as perpetuated by Pfizer in drug marketing campaigns, or as represented by clinicians often as a result of advice by pharmaceutical marketing reps. I dare suggest the concept of "Chemical imbalance" found its way into clinical rhetoric not through academies seeking scientific explanations, but rather, as evidence suggests, through manufacturers efforts to promote language that explains why people should use their products.
We know certain mental distress has been shown to correlate with increased or decreased levels of certain chemicals, but only on a population basis and never on an individual basis diagnostically in a clinical setting, which is why the APA president said there is no "clear-cut test". Beyond the lack of a diagnostic test to establish specific excesses or definciencies, even with evidence of correlation with high or low levels of certain chemicals known to be present in a population basis for a minority of classified mental disorders, we don't have scientific literature describing the etiology of how these generalized high or low levels of various chemicals among groups of people presenting similar symptoms comprise specific imbalances with other chemicals. In laymans terms, an overinflated or underinflated tire doesn't comprise evidence of an unbalanced wheel.