Episode 12: Synthesis

Aim: Early intervention services (EISs) for first-episode psychosis (FEP) have been established internationally, however, service disengagement is a recurrent concern resulting in unplanned treatment cessation. The implications of this are far-reaching due to the financial and personal costs associated with untreated symptoms. The aim of this meta-synthesis was to collect, interpret and synthesize qualitative research about how engagement is experienced within EISs for FEP.

Episode 12: Synthesis

When the Integrity Knight sees that the two escaped prisoners are simply wielding chains, he decides not to fight them with his sword, but rather give himself a handicap and use his whip instead. And, already, we have my first complaint of the episode:

Matter synthesis, or rarely replication,[2][3] is the dematerialization of matter via synthesizers and rematerialization as something else. Matter synthesis has two major branches, generic matter sythensis and food synthesis, each exploited by different devices: Matter Synthesizers and Food Synthesizers.

A Food Synthesizer is a specialized device that dematerializes organic matter called foodstock via magnets and rematerializes it as consumable food.[5] As a matter of technology, food synthesis is a specific kind of matter synthesis, used throughout the Planetary Union and by the Calivon.[6]

At some point prior to the 25th century, matter synthesis was developed as a method to fashion any desired good, ushering in the end of resource-scarcity and the dawn of the post-economy. Synthesizers are ubiquitous across Planetary Union spacecraft, including its shuttlecraft.

The Synthesizer's ability to recreate any food and goods with virtually no cost was partly responsible for ending resource scarcity and ushering Earth into a post-economic age. Despite food synthesis supplanting the need for soil-grown food, grown (or "real") food and cooking with grown ingredients continue to be enjoyed in the early 25th century alongside synthesized food.[n 7][n 8][n 9] Very few people could tell the difference between "real" food and that which was synthesized and very few people still knew how to bake.[8]

Like Earth, the people of Alibar stopped using money and turned to matter synthesis by 2320. After the Alibar left the Union in 2401, they were unable to maintain synthesizer technology and resources became scarce again - though one Alibaran in 2421 speculated that food synthesizers were still used by the wealthy.[9]

The invention of matter synthesis is generally considered a game-changer for any society as, when shared freely among the populace, it completely eliminated the traditional system of working for a living as was common in most cultures. This concept was that which newcomers to the Planetary Union had the hardest time adjusting to.[10]

The name matter synthesizer is not used in the show (although Commander Grayson does refer to "matter synthesis"[20]), but is revealed as the term used by the show's creators in the book The World of the Orville.

I think that there's a lot of opportunity in green synthesis, and green science, environmentally friendly synthesism materials, that maybe there wasn't in the past, as much. I remember when I was first thinking about making bio materials, using real organisms, or using proteins from the organisms, the aspect that you could do it at lower temperature, and using cleaner solutions and solvents, wasn't a big draw, at least in funding. But, I think it is now. There's so much opportunity, in terms of people interested in funding solutions to reduce carbon, for example, or CO2 to products, or cleaner ways of manufacturing important precursor molecules that are used to make and grow all kinds of polymers and other materials.

Thanks to you for listening. If you want to hear from another scientist working at the cutting edge, check out our recent episode titled, "Turning Pollution Into Jet Fuel and Yoga Pants," in which we talked to Dr. Jennifer Holmgren, a chemist and the CEO of LanzaTech. Of course, if you want to receive new episodes of the show every week, subscribe. "Instigators of Change" is produced by Matt Purdy. We'll talk to you next week.

For myself personally, I can definitely say that my viewpoint has changed quite a bit from listening to the two different episodes. The first episode contains information on why Syed could have been innocent, suggesting that the police investigation and the court ruling could be all wrong. In fact, after listening to the first episode, it had me believing that Syed was actually innocent.

However, after a full year of investigation, the last episode shows many contrasting views, with even the narrator Sarah Koenig stating that although she would acquit Syed in a legal perspective, she is starting to have doubts over the entire situation. With that said, after having watched the final episode of the season, I must say that I believe that Adnan Syed is in fact guilty in murdering his ex-girlfriend Hae.

On the topic of memory, the alibi of Adnan, that being Asia McClain, seemed to have an extraordinary sense of memory for the events on that day. It would seem strange that such opposites in retaining memory exist in this scenario. In my opinion, I do not think I can believe the legitimacy of McClain in her memories. Retaining such quality of memory in favor for Syed on such a specific day would seem that Asia is doing this for the benefit of Syed. Additionally, I even found out that according to The Baltimore Sun, two ex-classmates of Asia stated that she would even lie for Syed to get out of jail. So while the podcast likes bringing asia up, especially in the first episode, I think that it would help to judge the situation properly, if she did not alter her memories.

Ultimately, by analyzing all the given information presented in the first and last episodes of the podcast, it can be said that although many opinions are split on this matter, I say that I believe that evidence can eventually add up, proving that Adnan Syed is in fact guilty. After all, regardless of how the authorities handled this situation, I find that is important to consider that at the end, the podcast is simply trying to entertain its audience.

In randomized, controlled trials, antidepressant medications have been shown to reduce the duration of major depressive episodes and to reduce the frequency of relapse during long-term treatment. The epidemiological impact of antidepressant use on episode duration and relapse frequency, however, has not been described.

Data from two Canadian general health surveys were used in this analysis: the National Population Health Survey (NPHS) and the Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS). The NPHS is a longitudinal study that collected data between 1994 and 2000. These longitudinal data allowed an approximation of episode incidence to be calculated. The cross-sectional CCHS allowed estimation of episode duration. The surveys used the same sampling frame and both incorporated a Short Form version of the Composite International Diagnostic Interview.

Episodes occurring in antidepressant users lasted longer than those in non-users. The apparent incidence of major depressive episodes among those taking antidepressants was higher than that among respondents not taking antidepressants. Changes in duration and incidence over the data collection interval were not observed.

The most probable explanation for these results is confounding by indication and/or severity: members of the general population who are taking antidepressants probably have more highly recurrent and more severe mood disorders. In part, this may have been due to the use of a brief predictive diagnostic interview, which may be prone to detection of sub-clinical cases. Whereas antidepressant use increased considerably over the data-collection period, differences in episode incidence and duration over time were not observed. This suggests that the impact of antidepressant medications on population health may have been less than expected.

Depressive disorders are among the most important contributors to disease burden at the population level While primary prevention for this condition has remained an elusive goal, provision of treatment has been viewed as having the capacity to reduce its impact on population health. Randomized, controlled clinical trials confirm that treatment with antidepressant medications can favorably impact the course of major depressive disorder. Clinical practice guidelines recommend acute treatment to reduce episode duration, continuation treatment to prevent relapse and maintenance treatment for those at high risk of recurrence [1].

Direct generalization of clinical trial data to the general population results in an expectation that depressive episode frequency and episode duration should be reduced in those receiving antidepressant treatment. However, outcomes reported in clinical trials are not necessarily reflected in "real world" outcome data. Since treatments are not assigned randomly in clinical settings, those treated are likely to have more severe illness (both in terms of episode duration and recurrence risk) than those who do not seek or receive treatment. In such circumstances, the effect of treatment may become confounded with the effect of the underlying disorder itself, and/or its severity [2].

Despite the plausible occurrence of confounding by indication and confounding by severity, population-based studies examining outcomes in relation to treatment status in the general population have not been reported. The objective of the current study was to estimate the incidence and duration of major depressive episodes in members of the general population who are receiving or not receiving antidepressant treatment.

Both the NPHS and the CCHS recorded medication use with a series of self-report items. The item relevant to this analysis asked whether the respondent had taken antidepressant medications during the month preceding the interview. Each interview also included the Composite International Diagnostic Interview Short Form for Major Depression (CIDI-SFMD), which was developed and validated by Kessler et al. [3]. This is a brief, fully structured instrument derived from a set of modified CIDI items. The CIDI-SFMD was designed to provide an operationalization of the DSM-IV [4] diagnostic criteria for major depression and is sufficiently brief that it can be included in general health surveys. The instrument detects symptoms indicative of major depression, and identification of five such symptoms (one of which must be depressed mood or loss of interest) indicates a high probability that the subject fulfilled DSM-IV criteria for major depression in the 12-months preceding the interview. It should be noted, however, that the Short Form does not contain all of the clinical significance probes and organic exclusion items that are included in the full CIDI, and may therefore detect some subclinical episodes [5]. A component of the CIDI-SFMD is an item that asks (of subjects reporting a probable episode of major depression) the number of weeks in the preceding year that were characterized by depressive symptoms. 041b061a72