Posted by chemist on July 17, 2005, at 22:03:26 [reposted on July 22, 2005, at 14:23:30 | original URL]
In reply to Re: Nor do I ..., posted by so on July 17, 2005, at 21:36:41
hello there, chemist here...my comments delineated by asterisks, below....all the best, chemist
> Fortunately, the field of qualified, informative information available to the human race reaches far beyond the limited scope of peer-reviewed academic journals.
*** yes..."People" magazine! ***
> 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.
*** very far. all the way to Las Vegas, at least...***
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.
*** you are correct. i would not know so much about Brad and Jennifer if my dentist did not subscribe to "People." ***
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.
*** i think there are plenty of peer-reviewed journals which regularly include - if not focus upon - the living populace. in fact, many manuscripts are written and read by the living. however, i will take your word for it, throw away my library card, and look no further than "People" for such information. ***
> > 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.
>
*** does "People" offer legal advice? i was unable to locate the column, although i was dwelling upon my horoscope and might have missed it...darn those Virgos! ***
>
> > "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*** well, until now: "People!" ***
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.
*** sorry, but you are incorrect here: i did not cite any source or mention Pfizer at all. you have confused me and my posts with those of some other person. or "People," as it may well be...***
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.
*** and they advertise in "People," right? ***
> 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.
*** well, regardless of Liz Smith's position, i am going to begin reading "People" cover-to-cover...thanks so much for the heads-up! all the best, chemist ***
poster:chemist
thread:529166
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20050718/msgs/531640.html