This means that any range of illnesses and syndromes, especially horrific “lady problems,” can be attributed to the brain: metabolic; hormonal; physiological; neurological; autoimmune, everything. It is all neurochemistry. Don’t get me started on the thyroid and adrenal glands, you guys.

Also, everything will change the brain’s neural pathways, from substance abuse to a traumatic experience. Even the point of cognitive behavioral therapy is to remap the brain. Many or most neuroscientists now believe PCOS to be a “neurogonadal” disease, and a few researchers have pointed to “childhood trauma” as predictor of developing a pituitary tumor later in life—almost as if a lump naturally formed on top of the brain’s “panic button” as a precautionary survival measure. Fascinating stuff.

Of course I have tried my best to not assert any real causality, and I didn’t mean to insinuate that diabetics get hooked on smoking. For what it’s worth, I’d reiterated what I’ve read about blood sugar as “repeatable fact” or “useful trivia,” rather than some contentious point of research. Had I realized I was about to make an outrageous or facetious claim I might have sidestepped it, but in lieu of the convo-storm, I don’t think I’ll retract it, either. Conflict is great for business, right? (Ha, ha.)

HR: It is true that I think we overmedicate and paradoxically underdiagnose, so yes, I have absolutely been pernicious. That’s fine. And although I’m not a doctor (ha! that’s sort of funny on its own), I am an unfortunate patron/patient of the art, and I have been taught to be my/my mother’s/my father’s “health advocate.” (Full disclosure: I was suspicious about my father’s too-rapid decline, and I sent him to see some people, but no specialists caught that slow concussion that finally killed him in June. Of course I love doctors and nurses, but I love ‘em like I love cops.)

Despite your admirably strong stance and credentials, I am not changing two short sentences in an aside in a post about Paula Deen. I’m sorry. I am ordinarily not so ruffled when someone takes me to task—someone is always disturbed by something, and I think I am genuinely easygoing—so I apologize for being uncharacteristically nervy about all things metabolic, endocrinological, and pituitary. I don’t know.

Certainly I don’t mean to be brusque. But if you want your celebrity gossip to be written by medical doctors who share your opinion, rather than the usual entertainment lawyers and psychologists and addled English majors—and I think this might be an interesting vantage, honestly, given the number of Hollywood addictions, overdoses, unsolved deaths, and so on—you should start that blogspot. I am not being snide, here; I’d read it.

it sounded like you were saying that smoking does not potentially lead to insulin resistance, thus why i disagreed with you. i can point you to numerous recent articles from scientific articles, or you can take it up with my professors that taught me this mere weeks ago. also, you can take it up with any family physician that would tell you the same thing. you quite obviously missed the point for which i was arguing, that smoking has been shown to, over a period of time, decrease insulin sensitivity. you are too busy arguing your own point about addiction to see what i am saying.