In This Assignment You Will Be Asked To Determine The Lewis Structures And The Three: Fill & Download for Free

What your effectively asking is how to draw lewis structures and derive the orientation of said bonds. How I generally like to do it is to first determine what the central atom is. Let’s take SO2. When you see this, I instinctively believe the S should go in the middle. Why? Well this is generally because the central atom is generally the hetero atom that is central. This is not always the case but it generally holds true for the chemistry your likely at (I’m assuming high school to first year college chemistry). Now, found the number of electrons all the atoms provide. This can easily be derived from the period table. With the number of electrons determined, assign electrons such that all atoms have 8 electrons to fulfill an octet. Remember that electrons shared count as two electrons for both atoms sharing them. What you should see is that the electron assignment is something like two lone pairs on oxygen connected by two pairs to sulfur with one lone pair connected by oxygen with three lone pairs. Google sulfur dioxide if that is unclear. What is interesting about this structure is that could be mirrored images by flipping the electrons around. This is a resonance structure which indicates that the electrons are actually shared between the oxygens. In fact, sulfur dioxide can violate the “octet” rule but we’ll avoid this for now since there are already many concepts in this single molecule. This simplified system provides resounding predicting power for most simplistic compounds.Now for shape. For predicting shape, just remember that electrons repel each other. So for sulfur, there are three groupings of electrons around it so the optimal angle will be 120 degrees theoretically. This should be enough for now. However, if you do decide to delve into the magic of chemistry you’ll realize that while this basic concepts of Lewis structures and vespr theory will serve you well, stronger models will be needed eventually. This is where the predictive model of molecular orbital theory comes into play.

I assume you are referring to the concept of oxidation state or number, and the question as you have phrased it can only be answered in the abstract, only in respect to a particular structure, e.g., what are the oxidation states of the various atoms inTo answer the question, you begin with a Lewis structure showing all valence electrons, both shared and unshared pairs. Then recall that “oxidation” refers to loss of electrons, so in determining an oxidation number for an atom you are essentially asking how many electrons it “owns” in a particular environment and whether it is less or more than what an isolated atom of that same element would have. The key is deciding how to allot the electrons in that structure and you do that by looking at the various bonds and apply three rules:If the atoms have the same electronegativity (e.g., in H—H), assign one electron to each atom. In this example, each would have one electron, just as an isolated H atom would have. Thus H in H2 hasn’t lost or gained any electrons, so its oxidation number is zero.If their electronegativities are different, assign both electrons in the bond to the more electronegative element. For instance, in H—Br both electrons would be assigned to the Br, and H would have none (I haven’t shown the three lone pairs on Br, though they should be there).Lone pair electrons are assigned to the atom they are on, so in H–Br Br would “own” seven electrons, while H has none. So in HBr, H has one less electron than it would normally have, so its oxidation number is +1. Br, on the other hand, has one more electron than it normally has, so its oxidation number is -1. (More specifically, Oxidation Number = (#electrons in the isolated atom) - (#electrons on atom in structure).Getting back to the first structure I put up, these rules would give H 0 electrons, C 2 electrons, O 8 electrons and Cl 8 electrons, soH O.N. = 1–0 = +1C O.N. = 4–2 = +2O O.N. = 6–8 = -2Cl O.N. = 7–8 = -1To check if your calculations are correct, remember that the sum of all the oxidation numbers should be zero; otherwise you made a mistake somewhere.You might also take a look at my answers to these questions:Is the oxidation number of an element always equal to its charge in a compound? and What is the best way to determine the amount of lone pair electrons present in an organic molecule? For example, how many lone pairs are present in the N, P, O, and C atoms of hexamethylphosphoramide?

It’s worse than a scam.It’s a profiteering, brutal pseudo-science, ruining millions of lives every day. With that said, you should NEVER stop taking any psychiatric medication, without proper clinical oversight.That’s the hardest part, trying to find one who will taper you safely and humanely, when they financially incentivized to keep you hooked. If you think you need a shrink, I hope you will think twice. When you schedule that $250 intake session, prepare to park your civil rights at the door.How to Drive Someone InsaneThe Shrunken Heads’ How-To Guide for ShrinksIn The Screwtape Letters by C.S. Lewis, the uncle demon Screwtape counsels his junior demon, Wormwood, how to tempt his ‘patient,’ converting him from a new believer into a mindless foot soldier in their evil revolution.“I have great hopes that we shall learn in due time how to emotionalise and mythologise their science to such an extent that what is, in effect, a belief in us (though not under that name) will creep in while the human mind remains closed to belief in the Enemy. The ‘Life Force’, the worship of sex, and some aspects of Psychoanalysis, may here prove useful.”[1]– The Demon ScrewtapeIntroductionThough comprehensive, most shrinks need one or two methods outlined below to drive their patients insane. Before he determines the best approach, the shrink must evaluate each patient’s worst hopes and fears, and how the patient best serves the shrink’s needs, before he defines his unique goals for each target.The vast majority of shrinks spend an average 10-15 minutes with the patient.[2] Therefore, most shrinks need to employ “The Comorbid Stranglehold” (See Step One) to enslave their patients, cripple their nervous systems, and empty their bank accounts.Please remember the absence of evidence is your best defense.Shrinks that pay attention to corruption in the FDA should take notes from their playbook. Prozac went to market after less than six weeks of FDA testing [3]. The trials were not double-blinded and it barely out-performed a placebo.The antidepressant Cymbalta went to market in three months, despite a higher than average rate of suicides.How many suicides?No one knows for certain. Reporters who file Freedom of Information Act requests receive rejection letters on the basis the number of suicides represents “proprietary information.”“I received a database that included 41 deaths and 13 suicides among patients taking Cymbalta. Missing from the database was any record of Johnson, or at least four other volunteers known to have committed suicide while taking Cymbalta for depression.”- “What The FDA Isn’t Telling,” Jeanne Linzer, Slate Magazine, 09/2005The FDA slapped all modern antidepressants with a black-box warning for the suicidal effects of these purported miracle medications. Strangely, the agency allowed doctors to double the recommended average maximum dose for a broader range of disorders,before the patent expired.The manufacturer, Ely Lily, hit major pay dirt in 2008, when the FDA approved Cymbalta for the long-term management of Major Depressive Disorder. This escalating pattern continued through 2011.The patent expired in 2013.In addition, all ADHD drugs received approval after less than four weeks after trials on children’s brains. [4] Yet, the FDA claims the standard trial length for any medication lasts an average ten months, with six months for “fast-tracked” drugs. The FDA implemented these PDUFA regulations in 1992, shortening the average required trial length to address the AIDS epidemic.[5] So we can conclude FDA-approved medications prior to 1992 were subjected to more stringent protocols at the time.Profits drive the rush to market, but we must also consider plausible denial.What are PDUFA regulations?The Prescription Drug User Fee Act allows the FDA to charge pharmaceutical companies huge fees to evaluate new medications. These fees have become the FDA’s bread and butter, constituting between 58% - 68% of their drug review process.Pharmaceutical companies pay the FDA $2.3 million to approve a new medication. The FDA has collected $7.67 billion in these fees over the years. It begs the bigger question: Are the FDA’s incentives and interests aligned with the tax-payer or the corporations?When the FDA adheres to the 10-month average trial period, there is no prescription medication on the market, with any knowledge of its long-term effects. After the first year, the public becomes the clinical trial.This claims holds especially true for psychiatric medications, which rely on subjective assessment scales, with effects reported from paid clinical research candidates. In later Cymbalta trials, email exchanges between company executives confirmed no scales were used to measure discontinuation effects, concealing the harrowing and sometimes lethal withdrawal from this “non-narcotic” drug.Dr. Detke stated that “We didn’t use any elicited scales. The data that exist are nicely summarized in a Perahia paper.” Dr. Detke then explained “[i]f you use an elicited scale, you’ll see higher rates. This WILL end up in the label.”But shrinks? Please don’t concern yourselves with FDA Guidelines.Government regulations, warnings, professional standards and medical ethics – these are not enforceable laws. You cannot violate a standard of care that does not exist in court. So have some fun!Whatever happens, it’s never your fault.If you cannot blame the patient, you can always blame the system!BackgroundPsychiatry is so subjective from a medical perspective, but so well insulated in the judicial system shrinks and their diagnoses enjoy special exemptions under HIPAA laws,[6] the Americans with Disabilities Act[7] and the kangaroo court of public opinion. In popular culture, Carrie’s Fisher interred her ashes in a huge Prozac-shaped urn.According to her brother, as quoted in Rolling Stone magazine:“It was her favorite possession, bought a long time ago…a big pill. She loved it. It was her favorite thing, and so that’s how you do it.” [8]What is the strange irony here?Fisher served as advocate for mental illness and publicly discussed her bipolar diagnosis. If you are rich and famous enough to receive decent healthcare, perhaps she enjoyed a much difference experience than 99% of patients. It does not change this fact: The FDA rejects the treatment of bipolar disorder with SSRIs and other modern antidepressants.[9]As a popular advocate for the psychiatric state, her last wishes elevated these medications to the sacred.It served as a powerful symbol that psychiatry has evolved into the new American religion, sanctioned by a complicit state, with psychiatrists as its new priests.[10]With rare exception, shrinks are the only medical professionals not required to share their clinical or progress notes with the patient. I cannot find a legal or political rationale beyond the notion this special exemption somehow protects the patient’s sensitive healthcare information, and the paternal noblesse oblige that psychiatric patients do not possess the psychological stamina to review their shrinks’ private insights.[11]We find another sardonic irony here.My former psychiatric provider shared my personal contact and diagnostic information with a research institute for mass-marketing, direct-mail purposes. After I filed a HIPAA privacy violation complaint, the DHHS Office of Civil Rights rejected this grievance outright.In other words, I cannot access my shrink’s private clinical notes, but my psychiatric provider can sell or share my contact and diagnostic information for mass marketing purposes, subjecting the patient to humiliating images, and reinforcing stereotypes.Because the shrink’s clinical notes only serve as a front-line defense strategy in malpractice suits, this exemption provides him with the incentive to record the worst notes possible about the patient.Rates and plans vary from state to state, so I cannot reach a definitive consensus, but I can make the fair argument that these exemptions explain why shrinks remain the most frequently disciplined medical professionals by their peers but are the least often successfully sued doctors, and thus pay the lowest malpractice insurance rates by a wide margin. [12].This study indicates shrinks are most often responsible for abusing their patients, but rarely held accountable. If you were an unethical medical school student, prone to fraud, and seeking to specialize where you had the most latitude over your patients with the least accountability?Which medical specialty would you chose?The table below demonstrates the average malpractice claim ranked by specialty. Do you believe shrinks are the least often sued because they make the fewest mistakes? For you sake, I hope you are not that naive.1) Engaging the Comorbid Stranglehold.“An increasing craving for an ever diminishing pleasure is the formula.”[13]– The Demon ScrewtapeAddiction is the greatest marketing strategy ever!These tactics serve as parts of an orchestrated strategy to enslave the patient’s mind and drive him insane. Its overall goal entraps the patient by perpetuating a cycle of compounded psychological and chemical dependency. This strategy holds for most psychiatric medications, even the “non-narcotic” antidepressants, especially the SNRIs. Though a so-called non-narcotic, Cymbalta produces withdrawal so notorious for causing suicides Ely Lily has quietly settled more than 5,000 Cymbalta Suicide lawsuits since 2014.If you cannot ensnare the patient in chemical dependency, you can entrap the patient on the back end, rendering his escape attempts miserably impractical and even lethal.“Although antidepressants diminish suicidal ideation in many recipients, about as many patients experience worsening suicidal ideation on active medication as they do on placebo.”– Teicher, MH, Drug Safety, March 8, 1993.The commonly prescribed psychiatric medications backfire over time, causing central nervous system and brain damage, leading to higher dosages and more medications. The shrink never attributes worsening or elusive symptoms to the drugs or protracted withdrawal.You must remember this evil axiom:The cure is never worse than the disease.In his coup de gras, the shrink attributes these symptoms to a worsening “underlying condition,” prescribing more medications, creating a greater need for his services. This compounded cycle of medication-induced mental illness continues until the patient overdoses or opens his eyes.“You’re a tough case. It takes this many medications to find the right cocktail for you.”[14]“I have treated you for two years. Whatever I prescribe, your symptoms become worse, or new symptoms emerge, so I have struggled to diagnose you. I don’t know where to put you, but you might be Bipolar II. In the past 15-20 years, we’ve come to realize that bipolar is more of a spectrum than a single disorder.”– Former shrink assigning a Bipolar II diagnosis by default circa 2008, declared misdiagnosed by the state’s leading researcher in 2013.In this respect, the allopathic blinders acquired in medical school serve the shrink’s purposes well here. After the shrink addicts the patient, he applies the comorbid stranglehold: 1) branding the patient a hardcore junkie and 2) an erratic lunatic. Two or more psychiatric diagnoses humbles sensitive but otherwise lucid minds. Please remember that your prescription pad is your best friend.Most shrinks serve one purpose: to prescribe medications. Drugs are the one and only reason your patients need you. It provides you with an endless number of aces up your sleeve, rarely failing to produce repeat business. In this pursuit, the tightened noose of chemical dependence always provides the best departure. It turns your prescription pad into a short leash.2) Creating the Illusion of Choice“We become what we fear.”My first talk therapist shared this precious gem.In college, an anxiety disorder overwhelmed my mind with intrusive fears, and what I call “fatal sensations” – NOT suicidal feelings, but a haunting sense of impending doom. I came of age at the advent of the AIDS epidemic, raised in a conservative religion. These two clashing themes spiraled into hideous panic attacks, ruining my 4.0 grade-point average and estranging me from my parents.At this tender age, I could not control my fears about AIDS – and the public hysteria, the televangelists foaming rapid at the mouth, already had damned me to hell. But the shrink made it so much worse. Her pseudo-therapeutic prophecy double doomed me. Without a supportive family at the time, and my relationship with God severed, it elevated the anxiety to such extremes I clung to shrinks. With Prozac on the cover of Newsweek magazine, they became my priests and psychiatry became my cult religion.At the end of George Orwell’s 1984, our protagonist must choose between a starving rat eating his face or returning to Big Brother’s flock. He not only returns to the fold, but he embraces his tormentor as his savior.His worst nemesis becomes his messiah.He becomes the grateful slave, laboring under the delusion of choice.Based on my experience, many psychiatric patients are grateful slaves.I could choose between crashing off two-four dangerous medications, or I could sing in the psychiatric choir. I approached it the right way, embracing he chance to go inpatient, to taper from these medications.A godless team of shrinks pulled me off all medications in five days.I was on both Cymbalta and Klonopin for around 10 years.In the end, combined sudden cessation from both medications nearly killed me. If you do not believe me, Stevie Nicks posted a great interview with Oprah Winfrey, where she compares her withdrawal from Clonazepam as worse than her decade-long cocaine addiction. I cannot draw a personal comparison to cocaine use, but I endured a mental anguish I would not wish on anyone, even the shrinks who tortured me.3) Establishing a therapeutic bond based on false trust.I posed this question to a trained psychoanalyst, regarding the absence of any regulations that require objective screening before he assigns a psychiatric diagnosis. I used the example of a patient assigned a Manic Depressive diagnosis when his symptoms stemmed from cocaine use.In psychiatric terms, he suffers from an “addictive disorder” not “manic depression,” but the shrink shoulders no burden to assign an accurate diagnosis. Despite the S.C.I.D. (DSM Structured Clinical Interview), there are no qualitative or quantitative screenings to confirm a psychiatric diagnosis. In twenty years, I have seen the S.C.I.D. used once to screen research candidates.(That’s how I learned I was misdiagnosed, not because any shrink cared enough to prove or disprove a suspect diagnosis, but because one happened to need candidates for a research study. This irony made me realize that my “treatment,” through all those years, was always about their needs, not mine).Back to the absence of diagnostic standards:Shrunken Head: “A simple urine test would reveal the real problem. Instead, this patient’s doctors prescribed benzodiazepines and other drugs. Where is the responsibility to identify the real issue, rather than reinforce his addiction, and further endanger the patient’s life?”Shrink: “If we force that patient to take a blood or urine test, then we undermine the premise of mutual trust the underscores the successful, therapeutic bond.”It sounds like a good reason and not an excuse, but the patient violates this premise of “trust” that fosters this alleged therapeutic bond.”The shrunken head celebrates how shrinks have created a logical edifice that resonates as psychological gospel, but does not produce results.The patient concedes to this logical fallacy: If it makes sense, then it must be true. Trust does not take priority over honesty because trust cannot exist independent of the truth, but we keep this evil secret to ourselves.If psychiatric diagnoses are credible, the truth must take precedence.This claim holds should we dare to assume the shrink desires to improve the patient’s mental health. Otherwise, the shrink and patient embrace the mutual delusion of trust, malingering for medications that further entrench the patient in addiction.I know one woman misdiagnosed bipolar, when she had Graves Syndrome, an inflammatory disorder. I know another woman with Lyme disease, misdiagnosed with major depression, ending up with a lifetime of arthritis. I have interacted with people with cancer, misdiagnosed with depression.This point is a crucial one:There are nutritional deficits, inflammatory issues, bacterial infections and, of course, substance abuse problems that cause “mental health” problems, but no psychiatrist is required to rule out other possibilities before subjectively assigning a diagnosis. That GROTESQUE level of malpractice kills.And how that ethical medicine?How is that scientific?4) Estranging the patient from friends and family.The shrink declares the patient suffered from sexual abused by a parent in the first few sessions. If she claims no abuse history, the shrink insists she suppressed those memories, emerging in her symptoms.“You buried them out of sight, but not out of mind, and now they have taken on a mind of their own.”So you don’t need evidence.You only need to plants the seeds of doubt. The tumorous roots amass until it consumes the mind of the host. In the Paul Lazano case, a Harvard campus shrink lured a medical school student into a sadomasochistic sex scandal, ending with the patient’s suicide in 1991.What was her first move?She declared that he suffered from repressed sexual abuse by his mother and physical abuse by his father. After she estranged him from his family – especially his mother – the shrink became his maternal replacement, regressing the patient to his “wounded infantile state.”[15]In the absence of evidence, she wielded doubt to isolate and seduce her patient.5) Forcing the Patient to Question Her Core Identity.Most psychiatric diagnoses serve this purpose. The worst psychiatric diagnosis that you can assign to the patient, despite their fictional and politically driven criteria, can act as the most effective weapon in your clinical arsenal.The “unspecified” diagnosis is also quite useful.It sucker punches the unsuspecting patient, and it bewilders her when she cannot grasp its vague criteria and circular definition. Recently, I tried to locate a less expensive shrink who would help me with my tapering goals. In retrospect, the shrink wanted me to participate in a clinical call-and-response at my intake session, completing a questionnaire on his computer.As a well “seasoned” patient, and an honest one, I learned that the truth, often taken out of context, does not set you free. He wanted simple answers but dismissed my questions and concerns. I needed to share my story, and he did not care. So he played the symptomatic version of the shame the patient game.It triggered a heightened anxious response. In twenty minutes, he declared me “bipolar,” accusing me of “pressured speech” and “flights of fancy.”This terse exchange ended our session:Shrunken Head: “You have known me five minutes, and I am already bipolar?”Shrink: “Well, I have known you twenty minutes.”The shrink can assign the patient a “Personality Disorder, Unspecified” diagnosis, because he “cannot control his emotions.” It does shut him up long enough, forcing the patient to interpret each fluctuation in mood, quirks in character, and character traits through your warped diagnostic filter.It compares to an oncologist sharing this diagnosis with a patient:“You have cancer, unspecified. We don’t know what organ it affects. We cannot isolate real symptoms, determine a course of treatment, and there’s no prognosis. But guess what? We don’t need to justify our diagnosis.Only in psychiatry does an opinion equal evidence.6) Twisting the Patient’s Values into Symptoms.For example, you can seduce a patient who does not believe in sex before marriage. After you have engaged the comorbid stronghold, forcing her to interpret her values as symptoms, you claim she suffers from “anhedonia” or the inability to feel pleasure.When she resists on religious or moral grounds, claim her “hyper-religiosity” springs from erotic conflicts, and repressed abuse memories (See Step Four).The shrink must remember to shame her “clinical treatment resistance.” Because she cannot discuss the topic like an adult, you might suggest that “perhaps we should explore this issue using non-verbal techniques?”Then explain erotic transference, stressing this sexual tension is “normal and expected” when it enters the therapeutic relationship. The next step takes some gumption. It assumes the patient holds some attraction for you.It best serves the evil shrink to prime the target with Prozac and tranquilizers, striking right after the drugs take effect. The drug-induced “normal euphoria” endears the patient to the shrink. Grateful patients are the most compliant.Then you ask this question:“Why do you fear your erotic transference for me?”7) Escaping Blame for Apathetic Inertia.“I hear you.”This common refrain enables the cornered shrink to ignore the patient’s needs while perpetuating the mirage of trust and the empathetic bond. This smokescreen justifies your inaction, and your failure to solve the patient’s problems. It appears to validate the patient’s pain but exempts you from curing anything – whatsoever – in history, while it does allows you to perpetuate crimes against humanity for more than a century.The patient pays the shrink for nothing of clinical value.What’s the best part? It never ends!——————————————————————————[1] The Screwtape Letters, Lewis, C.S. Page 31. HarperCollins, 1942.[2] Psychology Today. “Psychiatry’s Med Check: Is Fifteen Minutes Enough?” November 10, 2015[3] Toxic Psychiatry, Breggin, Peter Dr. Page 168. St. Martin’s Press, 1991.[4] “Premarket Safety and Efficacy Studies for ADHD Medications in Children,” PLOS ONE, Volume 9. Issue 7, July 2014.[5] History of Prescription Drug User Fee Act.[6] Patient Access to Psychiatric Medical Records - LawRefs.[7] The ADA Does Not Protect Persons with Bipolar Disorder in the Fourth Circuit[8] Rolling Stone Magazine. “Carrie Fisher’s Ashes Placed in Giant Prozac Pill Urn”[9] U.S. Food & Drug Administration: The Fact on Bipolar Disorder and FDA Recommended Treatment.[10] Szasz, Thomas Dr. “In the Church of America, Psychiatrists Are Priests.” Hospital Physician (October), 44-46.[11] South Carolina Physician’s Patient Act, Section 44-115-60.[12] New England Journal of Medicine: “Malpractice Risk According to Specialty” August 18, 2011.[13] The Screwtape Letters, Lewis, C.S. Page 44. HarperCollins, 1942.[14] One shrink’s response, during a two-week period (October 31, 2013 – November 13, 2013) when I was prescribed eight psychiatric medications for a “bipolar, unspecified” diagnosis. After two referrals, I volunteered to enter the hospital on November 24, 2013.[15] McNamara, Eileen. BREAKDOWN: Sex, Suicide & The Harvard Psychiatrist, NY Pocket Books, April 1994.