![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 2 to 26 of 29. Go back in thread:
Posted by so on July 17, 2005, at 18:32:04
In reply to Chemical balance quantified (redirect), posted by so on July 17, 2005, at 17:32:27
It was represented that Henri Louis Le Chatelier's Principle is the basis of the concept of chemical imbalance as it relates to mental health.
LeChatelier stated that "If a system at equilibrium is disturbed the system will, if possible, shift to partially counteract the change"
But this process of seeking equilibrium describes all life, and the only condition in life that eventually acheives chemical equilibrium is death, after which molecules are no longer disturbed by metabolism and eventually degrade to basic elements at which time a general equilibrium of chemicals is realized.
What Le Chatelier described was the role of upset equilibriums seeking to regain equilibrium as a catalyst for life, but he never described a balanced equilibrium which, when the upset by quantifiable factors, leads to specific mental disorders.
Certainly proponants of the "Chemical imbalance" theory as the basis for administering psychiatric drugs can cite more specific imbalances than a general principal of chemistry and ecology. A Google search found only four results relating Le Chatelier in any way to the concept of "chemical imbalance" but none were specific to anything related to any mental health topic.
Of some 113 results for Le Chatelier and "mental health" none pointed to Le Chatelier as the source of any theory related to mental health.
I have no problem recognizing the merit of research that identifies chemical changes related to mental disorders, but there is plainly a lack of concensus as to whether those chemical conditions are causal or symptomatic.
Now I am well aware that depression is sometimes related to low levels of serontonin, with low levels of GABA, or high levels of dopamine or norepenepherine. But all emotions have chemical consequences and all are related to "imbalance" or upset equilibrium. Depression and other mental difficulties involve changes in chemical equilibrium as do all emotions, but "Chemical imbalance" simply doesn't describe the full spectrum of conditions that are descibed as mental disorders and in the opinion of many qualified researchers fails to fully describe a cause of mental difficulty. "Chemical imbalance" no more fully describes nor quantifies the causes of mental difficulty than does the phrase "Life is sometimes difficult."
"Depression is 10 times more common in people born since 1945 compared to people born before 1945. So, ten times as people are becoming depressed now as compared to fifty years ago (and this research takes into account increased reporting and public awareness). Biology doesn't change this fast. Genes don’t alter this rapidly - so this is a clue that clinical depression and its increase are more to do with the way society and lifestyles are changing.
Thyroid problems, food intolerances and other physical illness can lead to feelings of depression but less than 10% of clinical depression is thought to have a chemical basis. Appropriate psychotherapy has still been shown to be more effective than drug treatment alone in the treatment of chemically based depression, and far more effective in preventing relapse. By far the majority of depressions are learned phenomena not chemical ones."
http://www.clinical-depression.co.uk/faq/chemical.htm"The term chemical imbalance, I'm afraid, is not a medical or psychiatric term in the strict sense. It is often used as a short-hand explanation for severe psychiatric disorders, such as schizophrenia, bipolar (manic-depressive) disorder, and panic disorder. However, that is certainly an over-simplification. All of these conditions-while very strongly driven by biochemical and genetic factors-also have a psychological and social dimension.
...most major mental disorders have not yet been linked convincingly with such specific biochemical problems."
http://www.mhsource.com/expert/exp1021901c.html"The misconception the (Pfizer) commercials foster is that the brain somehow develops a chemical imbalance and the result is depression, occurring in a single directional process. In fact, the relationship between brain chemistry and experience is a two-directional phenomenon: Life experience affects brain chemistry at least as much as brain chemistry affects life experience. ***The 'chemical imbalance' hypothesis is not wrong. It's just not entirely correct.***
http://www.helpguide.org/mental/medications_depression.htm
Note that none of these citations are from anti-pscyhiatric drug sources, and as is typical of most literature on the subject of chemical imbalance in mental health, none tie the Pfizer theory of "chemical imbalance" to the general theory of chemical equilibrium posited by Le Chateleir.
Posted by chemist on July 22, 2005, at 14:23:29
In reply to Re: Chemical balance: The gift of nature, posted by so on July 17, 2005, at 17:01:32
hello there, chemist here...the body of literature pertaining to equilibria in chemistry - not to mention all other areas - is not relegated to the subdiscipline of organic chemistry. further, the content is not that of opinions: it is fact.
you have taken the liberty of comparing the observation - a ``fact'' not always true, by the way - that the electronic structure of a system is optimised (and energetically favourable) when the valence electron configuration of an atom or molecule is akin to that of the group VIII elements (noble gases) with ``death:'' i fail to see the parallels, yet i will have to shoulder that burden alone. as far as equilibrium in natural systems is concerned, my work here is done.
in reference to the questions you profer in the rest of your post: they do not pertain to your previous assertion that the ``concept of chemical balance'' is an opinion and not well-documented in the literature or my countering of said assertion.
i will politely decline the implicit (or is it explicit?) offer to tackle the associated ruminations, and also take a pass on redirecting this thread: inertia, alas, has taken firm hold on this fine sunday evening...
all the best, chemist
> >
> >
>
> I understand there is a significant body of literature about equilibrium in organic chemistry, but based in part on the opinions of many scientists, I do not have as much confidence in literature that attempts to correlate well-defined tendencies toward equilibrium with preferred subjective sensations.
>
> As I understand it, chemical equilibrium -- especially the tendency of molecules to seek a balanced contingent of 8 electrons -- eventually leads us all to a condition we call "death" and which is nothing to fear or regret, according to many faiths.
>
> Is the subjective sensation of happiness a result of equilibrium or of an upset equilibrium? What about sorrow? Would you describe depression as "serontonin deficiency" or "monoamine oxidase poisoining"? What imbalanced chemicals tell us the difference between appropriate situational sadness and conditions described as temporary chemically induced depression? Which condition is chemically balanced - happiness or stoicism?
>
> Perhaps you can redirect your reply to the drugs board, where I or others can reply with further questions if we feel we can gain information from your answer.
Posted by so on July 22, 2005, at 14:23:29
In reply to Re: Chemical balance: The gift of nature » so, posted by chemist on July 17, 2005, at 18:21:45
So do you concede the vast distance between Le Chatelier's Principle as contributed to the understanding of general chemistry and the chemical imbalances represented in marketing of mental health remedies about which American Psychiatric Association president Steven Sharfstein said in People Magazine (July 11) "We do not have a clean-cut lab test"?
Posted by chemist on July 22, 2005, at 14:23:29
In reply to Re: Chemical balance: The gift of nature, posted by so on July 17, 2005, at 18:49:42
Posted by so on July 22, 2005, at 14:23:29
In reply to sorry, i do not read or subscribe to People''... (nm) » so, posted by chemist on July 17, 2005, at 18:56:23
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.
Posted by Sarah T. on July 22, 2005, at 14:23:29
In reply to Chemical balance: The gift of LeChatlier et al. » so, posted by chemist on July 17, 2005, at 16:27:55
> hello there, your friend chemist here...the ``concept of chemical balance'' - known to chemists and non-chemists alike as chemical equilibrium - is explained exhaustively in the literature and is based explicitly on observations that are repeatable, quantifiable, and objective in nature...all the best, chemist>
>> > > > > > >Hello there, Chemist,
It's good to see you around here. Yes, I first learned about LeChatelier's principle in General Chemistry, which was primarily Inorganic Chemistry. We used the principle a bit in Organic Chemistry. I think what the original poster might be referring to is something that would be more appropriately called "homeostasis," but even if we do re-label this discussion, it would take an enormous leap to apply these principles to human beings and emotions.
Posted by chemist on July 22, 2005, at 14:23:29
In reply to Nor do I ... » chemist, posted by so on July 17, 2005, at 20:08:57
> 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.
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:
"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.
i now retire to the study, where special vs. general relativity is being hotly contested on this evening's airing of "Hollywood Squares:" Joan Rivers just might edge the ghost of Paul Linde, methinks...
all the best,
chemist
Posted by chemist on July 22, 2005, at 14:23:29
In reply to Re: Chemical balance: The gift of LeChatlier et al. » chemist, posted by Sarah T. on July 17, 2005, at 20:42:10
> > hello there, your friend chemist here...the ``concept of chemical balance'' - known to chemists and non-chemists alike as chemical equilibrium - is explained exhaustively in the literature and is based explicitly on observations that are repeatable, quantifiable, and objective in nature...all the best, chemist>
> >> > > > > > >
>
> Hello there, Chemist,
> It's good to see you around here. Yes, I first learned about LeChatelier's principle in General Chemistry, which was primarily Inorganic Chemistry. We used the principle a bit in Organic Chemistry. I think what the original poster might be referring to is something that would be more appropriately called "homeostasis," but even if we do re-label this discussion, it would take an enormous leap to apply these principles to human beings and emotions.
>
>
>hello there, sarah...a pleasure to "see" you, as well...and homeostasis would, as you note, be far more apt: nice catch!
as for re-labelling, this discourse might best be filed under "apoptosis," in the end :) ...yours, c
Posted by Sarah T. on July 22, 2005, at 14:23:29
In reply to Re: Chemical balance: The gift of LeChatlier et al » Sarah T., posted by chemist on July 17, 2005, at 21:09:49
> > > > > > hello there, sarah...a pleasure to "see" you, as well...and homeostasis would, as you note, be far more apt: nice catch!
>
> as for re-labelling, this discourse might best be filed under "apoptosis," in the end :) ...yours, cApoptosis indeed!
Posted by so on July 22, 2005, at 14:23:30
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.
Posted by so on July 22, 2005, at 14:23:30
In reply to Re: Chemical balance: The gift of LeChatlier et al » chemist, posted by Sarah T. on July 17, 2005, at 21:18:39
> > > > > > > hello there, sarah...a pleasure to "see" you, as well...and homeostasis would, as you note, be far more apt: nice catch!
> >So you concede that "chemical imbalance" might not be the most precise description of the etiology of any specific mental disorder?
All the same, we have no more evidence that any specific mental disorder is a result of upset homeostasis than we do that disorders are the result of a homeostasis established in response to external, cognitive, behavioral or learned influences.
Posted by so on July 22, 2005, at 14:23:30
In reply to Re: Chemical balance: LeChatlier's Principle » Sarah T., posted by so on July 17, 2005, at 21:42:14
Posted by Deneb on July 22, 2005, at 14:23:30
In reply to Re: Chemical balance: LeChatlier's Principle » Sarah T., posted by so on July 17, 2005, at 21:42:14
> All the same, we have no more evidence that any specific mental disorder is a result of upset homeostasis than we do that disorders are the result of a homeostasis established in response to external, cognitive, behavioral or learned influences.
I was just going to say the same thing (more or less) about homeostasis. :-)
Deneb
Posted by so on July 22, 2005, at 14:23:30
In reply to Re: Chemical balance: LeChatlier's Principle » so, posted by Deneb on July 17, 2005, at 21:50:23
> > All the same, we have no more evidence that any specific mental disorder is a result of upset homeostasis than we do that disorders are the result of a homeostasis established in response to external, cognitive, behavioral or learned influences.
>
> I was just going to say the same thing (more or less) about homeostasis. :-)
>
> Deneb
I don't want to suggest you or I didn't have a profound thought, but it seems to be common sense enough that we both realized the question within moments of reading the term in this context.
Posted by thuso on July 22, 2005, at 14:23:30
In reply to Re: Chemical balance: LeChatlier's Principle » Sarah T., posted by so on July 17, 2005, at 21:42:14
> > > > > > > > hello there, sarah...a pleasure to "see" you, as well...and homeostasis would, as you note, be far more apt: nice catch!
> > >
>
> So you concede that "chemical imbalance" might not be the most precise description of the etiology of any specific mental disorder?
>
> All the same, we have no more evidence that any specific mental disorder is a result of upset homeostasis than we do that disorders are the result of a homeostasis established in response to external, cognitive, behavioral or learned influences.Ummmm....shouldn't you be discussing this somewhere other than Admin?????
Posted by chemist on July 22, 2005, at 14:23:30
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 ***
Posted by gabbii on July 22, 2005, at 14:23:30
In reply to Re: Nor do I ... » so, posted by chemist on July 17, 2005, at 21:02:45
>>
> Yow! Chemist "Peer reviewed Journals"?
Peer reviewed journals can have a pretty biased view of the sciences. Many scientists with valid new ideas that refute the old ones are strangely not able to publish in peer reviewed journals, additionally, some of what is published fails to stand up to outside critique.I'm very glad there are alternate media sources available for the sciences
Posted by so on July 22, 2005, at 14:23:30
In reply to Re: Chemical balance: LeChatlier's Principle » so, posted by thuso on July 17, 2005, at 22:02:36
> Ummmm....shouldn't you be discussing this somewhere other than Admin?????
Yes, and I provided a link a few hours ago to a more appropriate forum, but I can't discuss it there by myself, and others have declined to relocate their replies to the thread I offered for this topic. Maybe it can be manually redirected there later.http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20050713/msgs/529166.html
Posted by so on July 22, 2005, at 14:23:30
In reply to People it is, then... » so, posted by chemist on July 17, 2005, at 22:03:26
Chemist, it would be easier for me to maintain a dialogue with you if you were to recognize my premises as I offer them.
It is difficult for me to understand and respond to your interest in a publication that is only tangentally relevant to the discussion as the source of a quote from a relevant, qualified expert. I am certain the the statement from the well-qualified source who said no diagnostic test is available to identify a specific "chemical imbalance" could as well be published in a peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps you could address your review comments to the merit of his statement, instead of to the merits of the forum where the APA president's statement appeared.
> hello there, chemist here...my comments delineated by asterisks, below....all the best, chemist
>> *** yes..."People" magazine! ***
> *** very far. all the way to Las Vegas, at least...***
>
> *** you are correct. i would not know so much about Brad and Jennifer if my dentist did not subscribe to "People." ***
>>
> *** 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. ***Could you try to better understand my words if you are going to represent that you accept my statements as worthwhile? If anything, I have advocated that you might consider expanding your scope of interest; I have not suggested that you limit your scope by restricting your reading to a magazine even I rarely find interesting or informative. However, I'm sure many intelligent and interesting people find People magazine an interesting and informative read, and I don't want my lack of interest in the publication to appear as a put-down for those who do find it interesting. Different people have different interests.
> > *** does "People" offer legal advice?
I'm sure they advise their reporters on matters related to who is a public figure and who is fair game for media comment.
> >
> > > ***"People" magazine, the APA, and your thorough tracking of all media aside,***Please try to accurately represent my interest in popular literature if you are going to cite my interests, especially when I have stated this particular popular publication is seldom any more interesting to me than it is to you.
> > ***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.****
The concept of "Chemical imbalance" has not been connected to Le Chevelier's Principle in any scientific literature I have seen or that you have cited to this forum.
> >
> > 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!" ***Perhaps you have seen it connected there, but the quote from the APA president I cited and attributed to People magazine indicated the contrary -- that it has not been connected by any diagnositic test.
>
> *** 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 did not say you cited any source or mentioned Pfizer. I asserted, as you now concur, that you have not cited any source beyond a centuries-old fundamental principle of chemistry. I attributed the "chemical imbalance" concept in part to Pfizer marketing literature, and did not claim that you had similarly attributed the concept to that or any other source more recent than Le Chevelier.
>
> *** and they advertise in "People," right? ***again, I ask, what is the relevance of People Magazine in this context besides the fact that the president of the APA considered them a legitimate outlet and responded to their interview questions by confirming the absence of diagnostic tests to identify the role of a "chemical imbalance" in any particular individual mental problem?
Do you concur that the president of the APA is a qualified expert in the matter of whether a specific diagnostic test exists to reveal a "chemical imbalance"?
>> *** 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 ***Could you please try not to attribute to me advice, qualified or not, that I have not offered?
Posted by chemist on July 22, 2005, at 14:23:30
In reply to Re: People it is, then..., posted by so on July 17, 2005, at 23:13:26
So, the subtle humour interjected in your post would be a greater hit if M. Chevalier was in fact honoured with the proper spelling of his name - and hence a wider audience might catch the leap from Henri Le Chatelier to Maurice Chevalier, inclusive of the nod to show biz...many thanks on behalf of your loyal fans!...and as always, all the best, chemist
> The concept of "Chemical imbalance" has not been connected to Le Chevelier's Principle in any scientific literature I have seen or that you have cited to this forum.
>
> > >
> > > 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!" ***
>
> Perhaps you have seen it connected there, but the quote from the APA president I cited and attributed to People magazine indicated the contrary -- that it has not been connected by any diagnositic test.
>
>
> >
> > *** 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 did not say you cited any source or mentioned Pfizer. I asserted, as you now concur, that you have not cited any source beyond a centuries-old fundamental principle of chemistry. I attributed the "chemical imbalance" concept in part to Pfizer marketing literature, and did not claim that you had similarly attributed the concept to that or any other source more recent than Le Chevelier.
>
>
> >
> > *** and they advertise in "People," right? ***
>
> again, I ask, what is the relevance of People Magazine in this context besides the fact that the president of the APA considered them a legitimate outlet and responded to their interview questions by confirming the absence of diagnostic tests to identify the role of a "chemical imbalance" in any particular individual mental problem?
>
> Do you concur that the president of the APA is a qualified expert in the matter of whether a specific diagnostic test exists to reveal a "chemical imbalance"?
>
>
> >> *** 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 ***
>
> Could you please try not to attribute to me advice, qualified or not, that I have not offered?
>
Posted by so on July 22, 2005, at 14:23:31
In reply to Re: People it is, then... » so, posted by chemist on July 17, 2005, at 23:49:37
> So, the subtle humour interjected in your post would be a greater hit if M. Chevalier was in fact honoured with the proper spelling of his name - and hence a wider audience might catch the leap from Henri Le Chatelier to Maurice Chevalier, inclusive of the nod to show biz...many thanks on behalf of your loyal fans!...and as always, all the best, chemist
It seems I corrected your original spelling of Henri Louis Le Chatelier by adding the space after "Le" and first of two "e's" that belong in the proper spelling of the name, as well as using the full name as many style guides require on a first reference, but later degraded my spelling, probably by mentally associating it with the more familiar and like-sounding French term "chevrolet".
I also likely deviated from fact by calling his Principle "centuries old". More accurately, he first published expressions of the priniple some 12 decades ago.
Posted by chemist on July 22, 2005, at 14:23:31
In reply to Re: People it is, then..., posted by so on July 18, 2005, at 0:11:06
> > So, the subtle humour interjected in your post would be a greater hit if M. Chevalier was in fact honoured with the proper spelling of his name - and hence a wider audience might catch the leap from Henri Le Chatelier to Maurice Chevalier, inclusive of the nod to show biz...many thanks on behalf of your loyal fans!...and as always, all the best, chemist
>
> It seems I corrected your original spelling of Henri Louis Le Chatelier by adding the space after "Le" and first of two "e's" that belong in the proper spelling of the name, as well as using the full name as many style guides require on a first reference, but later degraded my spelling, probably by mentally associating it with the more familiar and like-sounding French term "chevrolet".
>*** you forgot the caret - ^ - to be placed above the ``a'', i.e., Le Ch\^atelier - and the expression includes principle, not ``priniple.''
finally, the word ``chevrolet'' is a town in kentucky, a brand-name from general motors, and otherwise is not actually a word or term in French or English: vous vous trompez...\`a bient\^ot, chimiste***
> I also likely deviated from fact by calling his Principle "centuries old". More accurately, he first published expressions of the priniple some 12 decades ago.
Posted by so on July 22, 2005, at 14:23:31
In reply to Re: People it is, then... » so, posted by chemist on July 18, 2005, at 0:36:56
>
> *** you forgot the caret - ^ - to be placed above the ``a'', i.e., Le Ch\^atelier - and the expression includes principle, not ``priniple.''If your going to cite my post for not using the caret, then maybe at least you could use it instead of a reference to it -- if you don't have the code, you can cut and past from my post -- Le Châtelier
But generally, Latin symbols are omitted in typical english spelling. You might also want to review the classic document "Netiquette" with reference to the value of what it calls "spell flames". Spelling tends to be very imprecise in electronic forums, and attention to other's spelling sometimes comes at the expense of attention to primary topics.
>
> finally, the word ``chevrolet'' is a town in kentucky, a brand-name from general motors, and otherwise is not actually a word or term in French or English: vous vous trompez...\`a bient\^ot, chimiste***
>It seems it is though who art mistaken. Louis Chevrolet was born in Switzerland but lived in France at one time. The name Chevrolet in French is the counterpart of the English name "Kidd" - it derives from animal images used on signs posted outside provisional inns. It is an old diminutive pronunciation of the word for goat i.e. "little goat". Corvette designers put the fleur-de-lis in the car's emblem after researching Louis Chevrolet's family name and deciding to honor the French origins of their company founder's name.
Posted by so on July 22, 2005, at 14:23:31
In reply to Re: Humanity it is, then... » chemist, posted by so on July 18, 2005, at 2:04:53
> It seems it is though who art mistaken.Or more correctly "thou art mistaken..." though one need feel no shame for their errors, nor perceive any put-down for the friendly support and education afforded by the identification of errors.
>Louis Chevrolet was born in Switzerland but lived in France at one time. The name Chevrolet in French is the counterpart of the English name "Kidd" - it derives from animal images used on signs posted outside provisional inns. It is an old diminutive pronunciation of the word for goat i.e. "little goat". Corvette designers put the fleur-de-lis in the car's emblem after researching Louis Chevrolet's family name and deciding to honor the French origins of their company founder's name.
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 22, 2005, at 14:26:49
In reply to Re: People it is, then... » so, posted by chemist on July 17, 2005, at 23:49:37
> the subtle humour interjected in your post would be a greater hit if M. Chevalier was in fact honoured with the proper spelling of his name - and hence a wider audience might catch the leap from Henri Le Chatelier to Maurice Chevalier, inclusive of the nod to show biz...many thanks on behalf of your loyal fans!
Please don't be sarcastic or post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down.
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
Follow-ups regarding these issues should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration. They, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
Bob
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Medication | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.