Posted by Squiggles on May 12, 2006, at 17:26:38
In reply to Re: Statistical question on SSRIs - Final Verdict » genes-r-us, posted by Squiggles on May 12, 2006, at 15:30:44
SORRY - some of my paragraphs here are sloppy;
i have been having some trouble with my memory
since my last med misadventure; i will make
some corrections.
> > Hi, first time poster here. Well, I just wrote a reasonably long and (hopefully) informative post on what happened between Dr. Healy and the University of Toronto, but the post submission process ate it, and I don't have the energy to re-do the whole thing from scratch.
>
*I hope you find time to repost it - it would
be interesting to read from a new poster.
>
>
> Suffice it to say that Dr. Healy was given a formal offer of a position at a University of Toronto associated centre, made his infamous comments in an introductory lecture, and was promptly relieved of his emplyoment offer.
>
*It does appear that there are certain links
missing to the public and maybe the court.
Was it the content that was threatening to
the product Prozac (Healy says U of T knew
of his opinions beforehand); or was it his
"worldview" which disturbed them or made them
see him in a new light? Or was it possibly an
agreement he made with the U of T, which he
broke in his speech? We don't know. At least,
I don't know.
>
>
>
> Eli Lilly, by the way, appears to have been the largest outside source of funding for the centre at the time this all happened (and may still well be).
>
*That's irrelevant. You may as well say that
so and so slept with someone who was the
most influential colleague in the department. Furthermore, there is no evidence that Eli Lilly played a role in Healy's or the university's actions. Nor that, as a conspiracy theory might have it and even come true, that Eli Lilly twisted the university's arm. It is unlikely that Eli Lilly's stock would suffer any substantial damage, great enough to take action against the hiring of a radical professor. They are powerful and rich enough to afford many gaflies and radical professors in universities who criticize their products. Though, i can understand that the
infamous gossiped corridor confrontation (floating around the net ether) about Dr. Nemeroff and Dr. Healy coming to near blows may make people believe Lilly had a role.
>
> So one can't use the fact that he was stripped of his position as a factor when considering the validity of his views on this issue, much as it's not particularly informative to define a word using the word itself in the definition.
>
*I don't understand the above paragraph.
>
*Squiggles
>
>
poster:Squiggles
thread:640557
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20060510/msgs/643131.html