Dissent

Equation X-17 was stated in qualitative form by Young in 1805 [30], and we will follow its designation as Young s equation. The equivalent equation, Eq. X-19, was stated in algebraic form by Dupre in 1869 [31], along with the definition of work of adhesion. An alternative designation for both equations, which are really the same, is that of the Young and Dupre equation (see Ref. 32 for an emphatic dissent). 

Valentin Weigel, Von der Vergebung der Sunden, Samtliche Schriflen (Stuttgart Friedrich Frommanns Verfag, 1962-78), vol. 4 7, 17, 57, 133-51, 320-22. See also the discussion in Ozment, Mysticism and Dissent (1973), 203-45. 

R. Emmet McLaughlin, The Freedom of Spirit, Soeial Privilege and Religious Dissent (Baden-Baden, 1966), 255-71. 

Ozment, Stephen E., Mysticism and Dissent. Religious Ideology and Social Protest in the Sixteenth century (New Haven and London Yale University Press, 1973). 

Moran, Bruce Thomas. Paracelsus, religion and dissent the case of Philipp Homagius and Georg Zimmermann. Ambix 43, no. 2 (Jul 1966) 65-79. 

Linden, Stanton J. The Seminarie of all sects and their dissentions Thomas Vaughan and Miltons Limbo of Vanity. Papers on Language and Literature 25, no. 4 (Fall 1989) 364-375. 

Nine years later, the National Research Council issued a second study called Lead in the Human Environment. This time, Patterson was invited to serve on the panel. Predictably, he disagreed with the committee s conclusions. In 20 days, he wrote his own 78-page, dissenting report and inserted it into the study as an appendix with a clear and dramatic illustration—the Measles cartoon. 

In his 1980 dissent, Patterson warned that it is probable that (the middle) person is also poisoned with lead, but in more subtle ways that have not yet been disclosed. He called for the phase-out of lead mining, smelting, and manufacturing, a monumental crime committed by humanity against itself. Only two committee members, Cliff Davidson of the Carnegie Institution and Jerome Nriagu of the University of Michigan, endorsed Patterson s position. 

It was with that in mind that one of my postgraduate students, Guy Sapirstein, and I set out to investigate the placebo effect in depression - an investigation that I describe in the first chapter of this book, and that produced the first of a series of surprises that transformed my views about antidepressants and their role in the treatment of depression.4 In this book I invite you to share this journey in which I moved from acceptance to dissent, and finally to a thorough rejection of the conventional view of antidepressants. 

This is not a Tribunal of one mind it s a Tribunal of four minds. That s all I have to say officially. And now as one member and not as the presiding officer, I should make one dissent from a sentiment expressed by a couple of my associates, and that is that I do not have any sympathy whatever for the prosecution in this case, or any sympathy for any defendant. In the final resolution of what my judgment shall be speaking personally, so far as is humanly possible, it will be devoid of sympathy. . . and based upon what I understand to be the law and the evidence to establish. 

Judge Paul Hebert, his eyes snapping, dissented from the effect of this ruling. From the beginning, he pointed out, the court had openly invited Von Schnitzler not to take the stand. Judge Mer-rell, in an "alternate s" informal opinion, joined Hebert. 

---