Closing the "Thomas Szasz" Thread
Monica Pignotti
No, I'm ~not~ leaving ARS again, but I am ending my participation in
the so-called "Thomas Szasz" thread, which has long been off the topic
of what the original subject matter of the thread started out as and
has instead turned out to be a flame fest against me. I have not read
any of the responses since yesterday and do not intend to wade through
the over 200 posts on that thread. It is simply a waste of my time. I
could go on forever, back and forth with you all but I've got better
things to do with my time. The truth is I've grown bored with it as
I'm sure many others on ARS have also.
I also am withdrawing my agreement to the so-called demonstration since
Diane has made it obvious that she wants to turn it into some kind of
controlled study, which is hardly appropriate for such a
demonstration. No matter what I showed her, she would find a way to
disagree. Again, none of this is worth my time, which is much better
spent in my doing serious research on the topic we have been
discussing. Such serious research would not include a public
demonstration for Diane Richardson.
I will continue to participate on ARS, but the topic of this thread is
finished as far as I'm concerned. You'll have to carry on your flame
fest without me. It's sad that some people have nothing better to do
with their time than to tear other people down and I've had enough of
it.
Monica Pignotti
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Diane Richardson
<pign...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>
>No, I'm ~not~ leaving ARS again, but I am ending my participation in
>the so-called "Thomas Szasz" thread, which has long been off the topic
>of what the original subject matter of the thread started out as and
>has instead turned out to be a flame fest against me.
It's not a "flame fest" against you and it hasn't borne the subject
header "Thomas Szasz" for quite some time, Monica. You are
referring to the thread dealing with my retraction.
>I have not read
>any of the responses since yesterday and do not intend to wade through
>the over 200 posts on that thread.
You've waded through most of those posts already, Monica. If you
can't locate the few (3 or 4) posts you haven't yet responded to, I'd
suggest you find yourself a better newsreader.
> It is simply a waste of my time. I
>could go on forever, back and forth with you all but I've got better
>things to do with my time. The truth is I've grown bored with it as
>I'm sure many others on ARS have also.
Funny, but you didn't seem to be bored until it became impossible
for you to ignore our repeated requests for data.
>I also am withdrawing my agreement to the so-called demonstration since
>Diane has made it obvious that she wants to turn it into some kind of
>controlled study, which is hardly appropriate for such a
>demonstration.
Not at all, Monica. Actually, all I was originally asking was for you
to include me in one of those numerous demonstrations you claim to
present of the miraculous cures effected by your pseudotherapy. It
was only when you began backpedaling and making ridiculous demands
that it began growing complex -- all at your insistence.
>No matter what I showed her, she would find a way to
>disagree.
No more so than all those other professionals you claim were convinced
of the truth of your pseudotherapy after they'd done nothing more than
see it demonstrated by you. You've made such a claim more than once,
Monica.
>Again, none of this is worth my time, which is much better
>spent in my doing serious research on the topic we have been
>discussing. Such serious research would not include a public
>demonstration for Diane Richardson.
So you're just like the Scientologists, with their overblown claims
of OT Sooperpowerz, which evaporate instantaneously once they
are asked to demonstrate them.
>I will continue to participate on ARS, but the topic of this thread is
>finished as far as I'm concerned. You'll have to carry on your flame
>fest without me. It's sad that some people have nothing better to do
>with their time than to tear other people down and I've had enough of
>it.
Yes, you've been particularly vicious with Brandon Gaudiano. I can
understand why you've become disgusted with your behavior here.
Perhaps some day, after you've realized how thoroughly you've been
taken in by yet another scam, you'll apologize to him for your
behavior.
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
Martin Beyer
[snip]
> over 200 posts on that thread. It is simply a waste of my time. I
> could go on forever, back and forth with you all but I've got better
> things to do with my time. The truth is I've grown bored with it as
> I'm sure many others on ARS have also.
Yes.
> I also am withdrawing my agreement to the so-called demonstration since
> Diane has made it obvious that she wants to turn it into some kind of
> controlled study, which is hardly appropriate for such a
> demonstration. No matter what I showed her, she would find a way to
> disagree. Again, none of this is worth my time, which is much better
> spent in my doing serious research on the topic we have been
> discussing. Such serious research would not include a public
> demonstration for Diane Richardson.
She has other TFT persons in the world she can ask for such a
demonstration. That is open to her any time.
Diane had no right to your demonstration, in my view. She kicked you in
the teeth for weeks, then demanded ("I challenge you") a demonstration
-- No.
No. This is not the way a scientist works.
He collects accurate data ~first~, avoiding oppinion, seeking and
getting fact. Bang.
Then, "other's oppinions" become interesting. Then.
Not after I have vomitted all over your head in public, peed on your
feet.
Diane has disqualified herself utterly. This is no scientific method. I
was very slow to realize this: she did not qualify to see your
demonstration, she was never eligible. She ~was~ insolent. It's called
character assassination and is serious. I hope the next person she tries
this on remembers the thread. She should apologize to you and change.
> I will continue to participate on ARS, but the topic of this thread is
> finished as far as I'm concerned. You'll have to carry on your flame
> fest without me. It's sad that some people have nothing better to do
> with their time than to tear other people down and I've had enough of
> it.
>
> Monica Pignotti
That's understandable. I applaud you on this post.
Please resist the temptation to sit down and defend yourself against
Diane's next tirade which will arrive today, if she sticks with her
habits (she is free to change them). Don't answer it. She'll have to
look for another hobby. Stay cool and get on with the important things.
You've lost one hundred hours of time.
I'd like to add for the record that I have no prejudice and no knowledge
whatsoever regarding your skills and your healing methods. I am opposing
simply and plainly the attacks of Diane Richardson against your person
and healing practises, since she has demonstrated that her behavior is
founded not on having honestly inspected, but on prejudice, and it is
brought here in an international, public forum in a malicious way.
Good luck, Monica!
Martin
Martin Beyer
Sektenberatung und Selbsthilfe
Fuchskaulenstrasse 5
D-50354 Hürth
Germany
Martin Beyer
You were insolent to Monica.
Your very first step should have been watching a TFT demonstration,
before beginning to kick Monica.
No true scientist inspects secondary literature first, as an entry
towards understanding and evaluating a subject -- a measure to avoid
oppinion and obtain fact.
~Then~, oppinions of others become a relevant factor. But not ~without~
being firmly grounded in knowing the facts.
You should have done that research and investigation of Monica's skills
and TFT practise miles b e f o r e beginning to name-call her.
You never had a right to demand a demonstration of Monica, not at the
point in time and in the manner you did.
[cut]
> >I also am withdrawing my agreement to the so-called demonstration since
> >Diane has made it obvious that she wants to turn it into some kind of
> >controlled study, which is hardly appropriate for such a
> >demonstration.
>
> Not at all, Monica. Actually, all I was originally asking was for you
> to include me in one of those numerous demonstrations you claim to
> present of the miraculous cures effected by your pseudotherapy. It
> was only when you began backpedaling and making ridiculous demands
> that it began growing complex -- all at your insistence.
That is the trouble in conversing with you Diane: it becomes too complex
rapidly.
It starts out interesting and ok, and at one point or the other you
start claiming someone said something they in fact did not say.
So, the person has to answer and defend himself/herself, in my case I
even invested valuable time to quote specifically what you and I said,
in detail. You then read your own words and still deny.
In answering that, you create yet another half-truth or sometimes
untruth, which in turn cries to be addressed. Very soon, a discussion
with you becomes time-consuming and fruitless, a tiring endeavour. Sad.
You have a way, adding bad to worse, of belittling and sometimes
insulting your discussion partners. This makes it hard to enjoy
conversing with you. It is hard to resist the pull to pay you back with
your own medicine.
This is especially sad because you seem to be knowledgable and
conversant on a number of subjects relevant to this NG, and you are a
pleasant person to talk to, when and if the devil is not riding you, as
they say in German. You sometimes like to hand over a bouquet of
flowers, but there is a piece of barbed wire amongst the stems.
My experience is that -- when it really counts -- I cannot take what you
say on faith alone: I m u s t check and cross-check it. This
shouldn't be so.
Maybe you want to reconsider your course slightly. There are more people
on this NG who are looking forward to it.
Martin
Martin Beyer
Sektenberatung und Selbsthilfe
Fuchskaulenstrasse 5
D-50354 Hürth
Germany
> >No matter what I showed her, she would find a way to
> >disagree.
>
> No more so than all those other professionals you claim were convinced
> of the truth of your pseudotherapy after they'd done nothing more than
> see it demonstrated by you. You've made such a claim more than once,
> Monica.
>
> >Again, none of this is worth my time, which is much better
> >spent in my doing serious research on the topic we have been
> >discussing. Such serious research would not include a public
> >demonstration for Diane Richardson.
>
> So you're just like the Scientologists, with their overblown claims
> of OT Sooperpowerz, which evaporate instantaneously once they
> are asked to demonstrate them.
>
> >I will continue to participate on ARS, but the topic of this thread is
> >finished as far as I'm concerned. You'll have to carry on your flame
> >fest without me. It's sad that some people have nothing better to do
> >with their time than to tear other people down and I've had enough of
> >it.
>
Monica Pignotti
ref...@bway.net wrote:
<snip>
> You've waded through most of those posts already, Monica. If you
> can't locate the few (3 or 4) posts you haven't yet responded to, I'd
> suggest you find yourself a better newsreader.
I didn't say I couldn't. I said that I choose not to because it's too
boring.
> > It is simply a waste of my time. I
> >could go on forever, back and forth with you all but I've got better
> >things to do with my time. The truth is I've grown bored with it as
> >I'm sure many others on ARS have also.
>
> Funny, but you didn't seem to be bored until it became impossible
> for you to ignore our repeated requests for data.
Wrong. You are wanting me to give you an entire advanced report on
data that we're still working on. No reputable researcher does this.
I have plenty of mainstream research projects I've been involved in at
the hospital where I work, where I am not allowed to talk about it to
anyone. That's a common practice in research, so don't flame me
for "secrecy".
> Not at all, Monica. Actually, all I was originally asking was for you
> to include me in one of those numerous demonstrations you claim to
> present of the miraculous cures effected by your pseudotherapy. It
> was only when you began backpedaling and making ridiculous demands
> that it began growing complex -- all at your insistence.
That was not "backpedalling". I was simply making the same claims that
Roger Callahan has been making all along and you would realize that if
you had actually read any of his books and seen his definition of a
cure, rather than just looked for out of context snippets from the
web. You were ignorant and thought I was claiming that this technique
was effective 100% of the time and that these cures lasted forever when
no such claim has ever been made, and please don't snip things from the
webpage out of context because if you read his book, in full, he makes
it very clear exactly what is being claimed.
> >I will continue to participate on ARS, but the topic of this thread
is
> >finished as far as I'm concerned. You'll have to carry on your flame
> >fest without me. It's sad that some people have nothing better to do
> >with their time than to tear other people down and I've had enough of
> >it.
>
> Yes, you've been particularly vicious with Brandon Gaudiano. I can
> understand why you've become disgusted with your behavior here.
> Perhaps some day, after you've realized how thoroughly you've been
> taken in by yet another scam, you'll apologize to him for your
> behavior.
I've been "vicious"? That's a real joke. It was Brandon who first
launched the attack on me, accusing me of falling asleep in research
class and I jokingly carried on his line there by saying that he must
be falling asleep in class since he's spending so much time on line.
That's what you are calling "vicious". After all the extremely vicious
ad hominem attacks he (and you) have launched on me in this thread, I
make one comment in retaliation and I'm vicious. Apparently it's okay
for him to say anything he wants to me, but when I retailiate in any
way, I'm "vicious". I'm just supposed to sit there passively and take
this? I don't think so. This conversation is finished. I'm not
turning this into another 200 post thread.
Monica Pignotti
> > could go on forever, back and forth with you all but I've got better
> > things to do with my time. The truth is I've grown bored with it as
> > I'm sure many others on ARS have also.
>
>
> > I also am withdrawing my agreement to the so-called demonstration
since
> > Diane has made it obvious that she wants to turn it into some kind
of
> > controlled study, which is hardly appropriate for such a
> > disagree. Again, none of this is worth my time, which is much
better
> > spent in my doing serious research on the topic we have been
> > discussing. Such serious research would not include a public
> > demonstration for Diane Richardson.
>
> demonstration. That is open to her any time.
>
> Diane had no right to your demonstration, in my view. She kicked you
in
> the teeth for weeks, then demanded ("I challenge you") a demonstration
> -- No.
>
> No. This is not the way a scientist works.
>
> He collects accurate data ~first~, avoiding oppinion, seeking and
> getting fact. Bang.
>
> Then, "other's oppinions" become interesting. Then.
Yes, good point. You said very well what I was trying to say here.
Thank you.
> That's understandable. I applaud you on this post.
>
> Please resist the temptation to sit down and defend yourself against
> Diane's next tirade which will arrive today, if she sticks with her
> habits (she is free to change them). Don't answer it. She'll have to
> look for another hobby. Stay cool and get on with the important
things.
> You've lost one hundred hours of time.
Yes, I responded to her once but I have no intention of turning this
into another 200 post thread. She'll have to preach to the choir if
she wants to continue this thread.
> I'd like to add for the record that I have no prejudice and no
knowledge
> whatsoever regarding your skills and your healing methods. I am
opposing
> simply and plainly the attacks of Diane Richardson against your person
> and healing practises, since she has demonstrated that her behavior is
> founded not on having honestly inspected, but on prejudice, and it is
> brought here in an international, public forum in a malicious way.
>
> Good luck, Monica!
Thanks for your support!
Martin Beyer
for Monica Pignotti to demonstrate to Diane the
practise of TFT. For many weeks up to this, and
during it, Diane committed herself to an a.r.s.
campaign of ridicule and verbal abuse against
Monica and her practise. She did not undertake
to find out accurately about TFT before beginning
this campaign. It is 17 April 2000.
Monica Pignotti schrieb:
>
> In article <38FACAE2...@t-online.de>,
> Martin Beyer <Martin...@t-online.de> wrote:
> > Monica Pignotti schrieb:
[snip]
> > Diane had no right to your demonstration, in my view.
> > She kicked you in the teeth for weeks, then demanded
> > ("I challenge you") a demonstration -- No.
> >
> > No. This is not the way a scientist works.
> >
> > He collects accurate data ~first~, avoiding oppinion,
> > seeking and getting fact. Bang.
> >
> > Then, "other's oppinions" become interesting. Then.
>
> Yes, good point. You said very well what I was trying
> to say here. Thank you.
[snip]
> > Please resist the temptation to sit down and defend
> > yourself against Diane's next tirade which will arrive
> > today, if she sticks with her habits (she is free to
> > change them). Don't answer it. She'll have to look
> > for another hobby. Stay cool and get on with the
> > important things.
> > You've lost one hundred hours of time.
[snip]
> I have no intention of turning this into another
> 200 post thread. She'll have to preach to the
> choir if she wants to continue this thread.
[snip]
She's bound to, and you might feel very tempted to jump
in when she tries to capitalize on your silence. Your
point and hers are very clearly stated, you have said
all you needed to say many times over. My advice is,
again, end it off here and don't come back to any future
attacks of Diane for a long time, maybe a year. If she
wants to continue her unqualified name-calling campaign,
that'll be her choice.
We were given a mind of strength and the gift of free
speech. Diane chooses what she does with that.
You might feel tempted when she whips at you in some
future thread, out of nowhere. I propose you resist any
pull to defend yourself at such time, since it doesn't
lead to anything useful to discuss this with Diane.
I also suggest that you resist any bouquets of flowers
from Diane which do not follow her explicit public
apology, since these sometimes have had barbed wire
amongst the stems, red pepper between the petals. I
think she needs to do her honest inspection first.
She has the wits and means to do it, time enough on
her hands.
She has not invested the necessary work to come to
a rational evaluation of your practise, she doesn't
want to discuss, she wants to obliterate. So, I
propose you ignore the whip and, if you want,
forward this post instead. I will not always be
watching, but if I happen to see such an attempted
whip, I will forward it.
ref...@bway.net
<pign...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>In article <38fa69e3...@enews.newsguy.com>,
> ref...@bway.net wrote:
><snip>
>> You've waded through most of those posts already, Monica. If you
>> can't locate the few (3 or 4) posts you haven't yet responded to, I'd
>> suggest you find yourself a better newsreader.
>
>I didn't say I couldn't. I said that I choose not to because it's too
>boring.
No, this is *precisely* what you said: " I have not read
any of the responses since yesterday and do not intend to wade through
the over 200 posts on that thread."
There's no need for you to "wade through the over 200 posts on that
thread" to read the most recent posts: not unless you have a really
bad newsreader OR if you're looking for a quick an dirty way out of
answering questions you're not comfortable or qualified to address.
>> > It is simply a waste of my time. I
>> >could go on forever, back and forth with you all but I've got better
>> >things to do with my time. The truth is I've grown bored with it as
>> >I'm sure many others on ARS have also.
>>
>> Funny, but you didn't seem to be bored until it became impossible
>> for you to ignore our repeated requests for data.
>
>Wrong.
There's nothing wrong about my statement. It's an observation.
You've engaged in exactly this same pattern time after time.
>You are wanting me to give you an entire advanced report on
>data that we're still working on. No reputable researcher does this.
I'm asking you to support your claims with data, Monica. *Every*
reputable researcher does that. You, unfortunately, do not.
>I have plenty of mainstream research projects I've been involved in at
>the hospital where I work, where I am not allowed to talk about it to
>anyone. That's a common practice in research, so don't flame me
>for "secrecy".
Monica, it was you yourself who brought up the research you
purport you are currently engaged in. If you believe you are
forbidden to discuss your ongoing research, you've already violated
your own rule. Your excuses are devious and deceptive, which cannot
help to bring your TFT pseudotherapy into even worse repute.
>> Not at all, Monica. Actually, all I was originally asking was for you
>> to include me in one of those numerous demonstrations you claim to
>> present of the miraculous cures effected by your pseudotherapy. It
>> was only when you began backpedaling and making ridiculous demands
>> that it began growing complex -- all at your insistence.
>
>That was not "backpedalling".
Indeed it *was* backpedaling.
>I was simply making the same claims that
>Roger Callahan has been making all along and you would realize that if
>you had actually read any of his books and seen his definition of a
>cure, rather than just looked for out of context snippets from the
>web.
Sounds just like the same "defense" you used to make for auditing,
back when your guru was L. Ron Hubbard rather than Roger Callahan.
I have no inclination to put money into Roger Callahan's greedy
little palm to read up on his quackery. I read what he puts up on his
website. If that information provides an inaccurate or misleading
description of the pseudotherapy he sells, that's Roger Callahan's
fault, not mine.
>You were ignorant and thought I was claiming that this technique
>was effective 100% of the time and that these cures lasted forever when
>no such claim has ever been made, and please don't snip things from the
>webpage out of context because if you read his book, in full, he makes
>it very clear exactly what is being claimed.
Monica, I "snipped" nothing. I included the *entire* text of one of
Roger Callahan's own articles, which sounded amazingly Hubbardesque.
In it, he claimed there was no need to be concerned over the lasting
effects of TFT pseudotherapy, since he had discovered a solution to
the recurrence problem. His article sounded amazingly similar to L.
Ron Hubbard's claim that he'd found the cure for psychosis --
babywatch and the Introspection Rundown.
>> >I will continue to participate on ARS, but the topic of this thread
>is
>> >finished as far as I'm concerned. You'll have to carry on your flame
>> >fest without me. It's sad that some people have nothing better to do
>> >with their time than to tear other people down and I've had enough of
>> >it.
>>
>> Yes, you've been particularly vicious with Brandon Gaudiano. I can
>> understand why you've become disgusted with your behavior here.
>> Perhaps some day, after you've realized how thoroughly you've been
>> taken in by yet another scam, you'll apologize to him for your
>> behavior.
>
>I've been "vicious"?
Yes, you have. You apparently have difficulty dealing with questions
coming from an educated, intelligent skeptic. Rather than answer his
questions, you engage in a long-running commentary on his lack of
expertise, his lack of attention to his studies, etc., etc., ad
nauseam.
>That's a real joke. It was Brandon who first
>launched the attack on me, accusing me of falling asleep in research
>class and I jokingly carried on his line there by saying that he must
>be falling asleep in class since he's spending so much time on line.
It's very apparent you have a very tenuous grasp on the basic
principles which guide scientific research, Monica. Brandon Guadiano
isn't the only individual who has commented on this.
>That's what you are calling "vicious". After all the extremely vicious
>ad hominem attacks he (and you) have launched on me in this thread, I
>make one comment in retaliation and I'm vicious.
You've made far more than one ad hominem attack on Brandon
Guadiano, Monica. It appears you're much more eager to remark
upon the speck in someone else's eye than to deal with that gigantic
log that's blocking your own vision.
>Apparently it's okay
>for him to say anything he wants to me, but when I retailiate in any
>way, I'm "vicious". I'm just supposed to sit there passively and take
>this? I don't think so. This conversation is finished. I'm not
>turning this into another 200 post thread.
At least your behavior is consistent. I'll give you that much. You
eagerly post message after message until the questions get too
difficult to evade, then you run away and hide.
Don't think your behavior hasn't been noted. It's nearly as
consistent as your penchant for clinging to "quick-fix" gurus
to solve your still unresolved emotional problems.
Good luck to you.
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
Brandon Gaudiano
However, once again she runs away when discussants demand that
she start supplying a little bit of data to back up the usual
rhetoric.
What is the bottom line in this discussion?
Monica and Roger have no scientific evidence at the present time
to back up their claims about TFT. In fact, the only
uncontrolled study done on TFT by Figley and Carbonell found that
mean SUD ratings only dropped from 6.3 to 3.0 at post treatment.
These improvements are far less than advertised and because the
study did not have any controls it is impossible to know if the
TFT itself had anything to do with these paltry self-report
changes.
There was another therapy that was claimed to be able to cure
everyone of all their problems. It was created by a person who
claimed that he had done independent research which supported all
of his claims even though nobody ever saw it. It had many
testimonials attesting to its miraculous benefits. It too had
many highly credentialed people who believed in it. It was also
a fantastic business enterprise that raked in much money for its
creator. The name of this therapy was Dianetics.
History repeats itself and once again, people fail to learn from
their mistakes.
Truly sad,
Brandon
http://www.geocities.com/pseudoscience_2000
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Monica Pignotti
Brandon Gaudiano <bgaudian...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote:
> Monica's performance here has been quite amusing as always.
> However, once again she runs away when discussants demand that
> she start supplying a little bit of data to back up the usual
> rhetoric.
You haven't heard the last of me -- not by a long shot, and you haven't
heard the last of Roger Callahan. There will be alot more to come,
just not on this thread or on this newsgroup because you are not
important enough for me to waste my time on. What we have to say will
be presented in the appropriate forum at the appropriate time, so watch
for it. I have much bigger and more important projects to complete and
if I waste time arguing with you, I won't get them done. TFT is here
to stay because we are getting results way beyond anything you could
ever imagine. We're not going to go away, rest assured and it really
doesn't matter how many web sites you put up or how much you trash me.
That's the bottom line.
<rest snipped>
See ya around,
Conner
<38FACC06...@t-online.de>, Martin Beyer <Martin...@t-online.de>
wrote:
some stuff that pretty much hit the nail on the head.
thanks, martin.
>Diane,
>
>You were insolent to Monica.
>
>Your very first step should have been watching a TFT demonstration,
>before beginning to kick Monica.
>
>No true scientist inspects secondary literature first, as an entry
>towards understanding and evaluating a subject -- a measure to avoid
>oppinion and obtain fact.
>
>~Then~, oppinions of others become a relevant factor. But not ~without~
>being firmly grounded in knowing the facts.
>
>You should have done that research and investigation of Monica's skills
>and TFT practise miles b e f o r e beginning to name-call her.
>
>You never had a right to demand a demonstration of Monica, not at the
>point in time and in the manner you did.
>
>[cut]
>
>> >I also am withdrawing my agreement to the so-called demonstration since
>> >Diane has made it obvious that she wants to turn it into some kind of
>> >controlled study, which is hardly appropriate for such a
>> >demonstration.
>>
>> Not at all, Monica. Actually, all I was originally asking was for you
>> to include me in one of those numerous demonstrations you claim to
>> present of the miraculous cures effected by your pseudotherapy. It
>> was only when you began backpedaling and making ridiculous demands
>> that it began growing complex -- all at your insistence.
>
>
>> >No matter what I showed her, she would find a way to
>> >disagree.
>>
>> No more so than all those other professionals you claim were convinced
>> of the truth of your pseudotherapy after they'd done nothing more than
>> see it demonstrated by you. You've made such a claim more than once,
>> Monica.
>>
>> >Again, none of this is worth my time, which is much better
>> >spent in my doing serious research on the topic we have been
>> >discussing. Such serious research would not include a public
>> >demonstration for Diane Richardson.
>>
>> So you're just like the Scientologists, with their overblown claims
>> of OT Sooperpowerz, which evaporate instantaneously once they
>> are asked to demonstrate them.
>>
>> >I will continue to participate on ARS, but the topic of this thread is
>> >finished as far as I'm concerned. You'll have to carry on your flame
>> >fest without me. It's sad that some people have nothing better to do
>> >with their time than to tear other people down and I've had enough of
>> >it.
>>
>> Yes, you've been particularly vicious with Brandon Gaudiano. I can
>> understand why you've become disgusted with your behavior here.
>> Perhaps some day, after you've realized how thoroughly you've been
>> taken in by yet another scam, you'll apologize to him for your
>> behavior.
>>
>> Diane Richardson
>> ref...@bway.net
-- see...@ix.netcom.com (Conner)
Eppur si muove - Galilei
Brandon Gaudiano
>You haven't heard the last of me -- not by a long shot, and you
haven't
>heard the last of Roger Callahan. There will be alot more to
come,
>just not on this thread or on this newsgroup because you are not
>important enough for me to waste my time on. What we have to
say will
>be presented in the appropriate forum at the appropriate time,
so watch
>for it. I have much bigger and more important projects to
complete and
>if I waste time arguing with you, I won't get them done. TFT is
here
>to stay because we are getting results way beyond anything you
could
>ever imagine. We're not going to go away, rest assured and it
really
>doesn't matter how many web sites you put up or how much you
trash me.
>That's the bottom line.
Once again you are personalizing the issues. Any criticism
against TFT becomes a personal attack against Monica Pignotti.
You really need thicker skin than that. Or is this "I'm a
victim" defense just a tactic to divert attention from the
obvious lack of any substance to back up your claims?
The fact is that TFT has no scientific support and the current
theory behind it defies the laws of physics. When you finially
have some research to present I welcome a discussion of the
evidence. Until it does, perhaps you should refrain from making
claims that you cannot support. I agree, put some of the effort
you do going from message board to message board "selling" TFT
into investigating your claims in controlled situations. Up to
this point you have only demonstrated evidence of the former.
You have always had possession of the ball Monica, and no one is
to blame but yourself and Callahan if you choose to drop it.
until later,
Brandon
Deana Holmes
<pign...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>
>No, I'm ~not~ leaving ARS again, but I am ending my participation in
>the so-called "Thomas Szasz" thread, which has long been off the topic
>of what the original subject matter of the thread started out as and
>has instead turned out to be a flame fest against me. I have not read
>any of the responses since yesterday and do not intend to wade through
>the over 200 posts on that thread. It is simply a waste of my time. I
>could go on forever, back and forth with you all but I've got better
>things to do with my time. The truth is I've grown bored with it as
>I'm sure many others on ARS have also.
Well, actually, I was rather curious. I'd gone and checked out your
teacher's website, Monica, and read a bit about Thought Field Therapy
and Voice Technology . These were the major things that got my
attention:
1) Voice Technology is $100,000.00. This is what you get for your
$100,000.00:
"This is a customized training course consisting of three-full days at
the Thought Field Therapy Training Center in La Quinta, CA, one-on-one
with Dr. Roger Callahan, the founder and developer of TFT and the
revolutionary Voice Technology. The course includes the tools and
technology necessary to practice TFT Voice Technology and includes
three years of follow-up support. A TFT Voice Technology practitioner
has the potential for the whole world as their clients."
[...]
"Schedule: By prior arrangement only
Fee: $100,000 USD"
[From http://www.tftrx.com/training/6advance.html]
[On this same page you have a testimonial of the efficacy of this
therapy, Monica.]
I don't know about *you*, Monica, but this sets my scamometer ringing
off the hook. $100K is a significant chunk of a medical school
education, for example. Most people can't come up with that kind of
money without selling something or taking out a loan.
2) Gary Craig reports that one has to sign a confidentiality agreement
not to discuss Voice Technology.
"I signed secrecy agreements, as did other VT’ers, so I am limiting my
discussion to those areas already brought up by Dr. Callahan or VT
trainees."
[From http://www.emofree.com/about.htm]
This is alluded to in passing in a report of sanctions that was handed
down by the Arizona Board of Psychologist Examiners against an unnamed
practitioner of Voice Technology.
"The Arizona board cited the psychologist for purporting to deliver
psychological services for a fee that did not constitute psychology by
current standards, for making claims without empirical basis that the
practice is superior to all other forms of treatment, for not
maintaining adequate records, and for refusing to provide relevant
data and information to the board."
[From http://www.apa.org/monitor/sep99/nl6.html]
This is another area where alarm bells went off in my head.
Psychologists as a group seem to me to be very accepting of different
treatments--so long as they are openly discussed. And I don't think
there's aversion to paying for the training either. However, I think
that psychologists do have an allergy to people who (a) claim to have
the one true therapy and (b) are unwilling to discuss any of their
evidence for (a).
This sounds so much like Scientology's upper levels, where one is
sworn to secrecy. I'm surprised this didn't set off alarm bells for
you, Monica.
3) At least one person who practices Voice Technology is apparently
adverse to oversight by licensing boards. Through a process of
deduction, it is my belief that the psychologist in question who was
sanctioned in Arizona (see above) is Stephen Daniel. He is the only
VT practitioner listed in Arizona. It is my belief that there are
approximately 15 Voice Technology trained people in the world (of
which 14 are listed here http://www.tftrx.com/training/6advance.html)
and the other is the "apostate" Gary Craig.
Stephen Daniel has apparently given up the practice of psychology.
The following comes from www.bythevoice.com, a website run by fellow
Voice Technology practitioners Gale and Liz Joslin:
"Dr. Stephen Daniel was the third of only 12 professionals world wide
trained in the use of TFTVT. VT is the highest form of TFT. He is
also trained at the advanced level of NAET and TBM (Total Body
Modification). Prior to devoting his full time to By The Voice
Techniques, Dr. Daniel practiced as a clinical psychologist in the
state of Arizona for 18 years. At that time, he was listed in the
National Register of Health Service Providers in Psychology. He
received his Ph.D. from Rosemead Graduate School of Professional
Psychology in 1981."
http://www.bythevoice.com/dr__daniel.htm
1981+18 = 1999, or the year that the unnamed psychologist was
disciplined by the Arizona Board. [It would be interesting to see if
Dr. Daniel has surrendered his license, if that information is
publicly available.]
Roger Callahan, the inventor/originator/discoverer of Voice Technology
also alludes to Dr. Daniel's problems with the psychological
establishment in Arizona on the same page by stating:
"Most important of all, Dr. Daniel has demonstrated that he possesses
an unusual and deep kind of courage and does not bow down to
illegitimate power assaults from hostile elements of the conventional
establishment who have no conception of, and are hence seemingly
threatened by, this new and exciting work. It is such people who will
confidently carry this work forward into the next millennium where it
will thrive."
It does not give me confidence in the therapy when the psychologist
practicing it will not talk about it to an oversight board and claims
reimbursement for same from third-party payers.
3) The presence of a confidentiality agreement means to me that there
can be no peer-reviewed studies of the Voice Technology therapy.
Indeed, there appear to be no peer-reviewed studies of this
alternative therapy. Under the current regime, there can be no
peer-reviewed studies. This is not my understanding of how
psychological therapy is to be reviewed. Granted, there are anecdotal
reports on http://www.tftrx.com, but these reports do not, IMHO, rise
to the level of case study, nor can their result be repeated because
the methodology is secret.
4) I question Roger Callahan's ability to assess people who have the
skills to undertake Voice Technology training--if he is truly trying
to train mental health practitioners. His first trainee in Voice
Technology was Gary Craig, whose own web page has this description of
his background:
"EFT was developed by Gary Craig whose academic training includes a
Stanford engineering degree. While personal healing has been his
passion for over 30 years, Gary is neither a licensed therapist nor a
trained psychologist. He is an ordained minister, a Certified Master
Practitioner of Neuro Linguistic Programming (NLP) and is a Certified
Master of The Callahan Techniques. Many of the concepts underlying EFT
came from Gary's training in Thought Field Therapy (TFT) under the
tutorship of Dr. Roger J. Callahan."
[From http://www.emofree.com/whatis.htm]
It appears to me that Roger Callahan has been less than discriminating
in who he takes on as a pupil.
My reason for enumerating all of this is to point out that anyone who
looks into this can come to the conclusion that something is not right
here. You don't have to be Diane Richardson, in fact. All of the
factors I have listed would cause me not to be interested in Voice
Technology as a therapy, because it sounds to me like a scam. And
this is the most disturbing part of all. You went through
Scientology, Monica, and yet it seems to me that you have fallen for
another scam.
When you're economically tied up in this thing (unless you happen to
be independently wealthy and can just drop $100K for training), you
may not want to see that there are holes. You may see that Voice
Technology has value for you and for others. But for people like me,
the jury is most definitely out--and you are not helping your case by
being evasive.
I would like to discuss this more, but in a different forum than
a.r.s, because in general I don't think that this is a good place for
it. Perhaps sci.skeptic or some other group would be more
appropriate. I did want you to know that there were others besides
Diane Richardson who think that you're pushing something, with all the
connotations that "pushing" implies.
Deana M. Holmes
mir...@xmission.com
Fredric L. Rice
> I also am withdrawing my agreement to the so-called demonstration since
> Diane has made it obvious that she wants to turn it into some kind of
> controlled study, which is hardly appropriate for such a
> demonstration. No matter what I showed her, she would find a way to
> disagree.
You can tell Diane that people eat table salt and she'll find
an excuse to argue with you about it.
--
"It doesn't give me displeasure to hear of a virgin being raped. The
lot of women is to be fornicated."-L. Ron Hubbard, "Affirmations" 1947
http://www.skeptictank.org/ http://www.xenu.net/ http://holysmoke.org/
Martin Beyer
>
> On Mon, 17 Apr 2000 10:32:06 +0200, in message
> <38FACC06...@t-online.de>, Martin Beyer <Martin...@t-online.de>
> wrote:
>
> some stuff that pretty much hit the nail on the head.
> thanks, martin.
Sure. Usenet may be anarchy, as some say, and nobody is infallible. But
there are times when the good people need some protection.
Martin
Martin Beyer
Sektenberatung und Selbsthilfe
Fuchskaulenstrasse 5
D-50354 Hürth
Germany
> >Diane,
> >
> >You were insolent to Monica.
> >
> >Your very first step should have been watching a TFT demonstration,
> >before beginning to kick Monica.
> >
> >No true scientist inspects secondary literature first, as an entry
> >towards understanding and evaluating a subject -- a measure to avoid
> >oppinion and obtain fact.
> >
> >~Then~, oppinions of others become a relevant factor. But not ~without~
> >being firmly grounded in knowing the facts.
> >
> >You should have done that research and investigation of Monica's skills
> >and TFT practise miles b e f o r e beginning to name-call her.
> >
> >You never had a right to demand a demonstration of Monica, not at the
> >point in time and in the manner you did.
> >
> >[cut]
> >
> >> >I also am withdrawing my agreement to the so-called demonstration since
> >> >Diane has made it obvious that she wants to turn it into some kind of
> >> >controlled study, which is hardly appropriate for such a
> >> >demonstration.
> >>
> >> >No matter what I showed her, she would find a way to
> >> >disagree.
> >>
Martin Beyer
>
> Monica Pignotti wrote:
>
> > I also am withdrawing my agreement to the so-called demonstration since
> > Diane has made it obvious that she wants to turn it into some kind of
> > controlled study, which is hardly appropriate for such a
> > disagree.
>
> an excuse to argue with you about it.
At post #112, that would also have been helpful. :-)
Monica Pignotti
You're right that this is not the appropriate forum to be discussing
any of this on. If you check the history of this thread, you'll see
that I have never "pushed" TFT on this newsgroup. None of this lengthy
discussion would have taken place had Diane not continuously brought
this off-topic discussion up on this newsgroup as a way of attacking me
for stands I've taken on the topic of ECT. I don't need to spend my
time "pushing" this on newsgroups, since I am currently getting plenty
of referrals to keep me very busy without any advertising or "pushing"
whatsoever. There is plenty I could say in response to what you wrote
but As you said, this is not the appropriate forum to do so. I am here
to discuss Scientology, so let's get back to that.
Monica Pignotti
In article <jtanfscqad4ibdiu9...@4ax.com>,
--
Monica Pignotti
Disclaimer: The statements I make on this forum
are an expression of my individual opinions. I
do not represent any institution here.
Rebecca Hartong
"Monica Pignotti" <pign...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8dhcjh$4mo$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Deanna:
>
> You're right that this is not the appropriate forum to be discussing
> any of this on. If you check the history of this thread, you'll see
> that I have never "pushed" TFT on this newsgroup. None of this lengthy
> discussion would have taken place had Diane not continuously brought
> this off-topic discussion up on this newsgroup as a way of attacking me
> for stands I've taken on the topic of ECT.
Hmm... Interesting interpretation... And here--silly me!--I thought Diane
was posting about TFT because she thinks it's nonsense. Odd that you should
think it's because of your stand on ECT (which, just for the record, *I*
think is nonsense.) Whatever...
At any rate-- I think a large part of why these threads have persisted,
Monica, is because you apparently cannot stand to let Diane or Brandon (or
me? we'll see!) have the last word. You say you're through posting about
this stuff but, let Diane or Brandon follow up with some comment or other
and-- there you are-- right back at it. It's really sort of amusing.
If you're convinced that your previous arguments have been
sound...well....just let them stand. If you want to add more to them, then
go ahead and do so. Just don't blame other people for perpetuating these
discussions when--truth is--they'd die rapidly without your own
participation.
Diane Richardson
<pign...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>Deanna:
>
>You're right that this is not the appropriate forum to be discussing
>any of this on. If you check the history of this thread, you'll see
>that I have never "pushed" TFT on this newsgroup. None of this lengthy
>discussion would have taken place had Diane not continuously brought
>this off-topic discussion up on this newsgroup as a way of attacking me
>for stands I've taken on the topic of ECT.
This statement is incorrect. I don't believe I've ever responded to
any comment by Monica Pignotti on ECT -- in fact, I'm not aware
that she's ever commented on ECT on this newsgroup.
>I don't need to spend my
>time "pushing" this on newsgroups, since I am currently getting plenty
>of referrals to keep me very busy without any advertising or "pushing"
>whatsoever. There is plenty I could say in response to what you wrote
>but As you said, this is not the appropriate forum to do so. I am here
>to discuss Scientology, so let's get back to that.
A comparison of the tactics used by an "alternative psychotherapy"
quack to market his pseudotherappy with the those devised by
L. Ron Hubbard to market his "alternative psychotherapy" Dianetics
is most definitely topical for this newsgroup.
I've commented several times that if L. Ron Hubbard were alive
today I believe he would have chosen to market Dianetics as an
"alternative psychotherapy" rather than as an "applied religious
philosophy." I've found it fascinating that current shysters are
using the same tactics to push their "alternative psychotherapies"
as the CoS does.
Take a look at the "Disclaimer" provided on the website of TFT
practitioners Gale Joslin, Liz Joslin and Stephen Daniel:
http://www.bythevoice.com/disclaimer.htm
"By The Voice Technique is a natural, alternative technique which is
not intended as diagnosis, prescription, treatment, or cure for any
disease, mental or physical, and is not intended as a substitute for
regular medical care. Please consult your health care specialist for
medical needs. Also, By The Voice is not the practice of
Psychology, Social Work , or any other licensed discipline."
Compare that disclaimer with the statement that appears at the
beginning of every CoS publication. Eerily familiar, isn't it?
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
Diane Richardson
<praet...@mgfairfax.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"Monica Pignotti" <pign...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>news:8dhcjh$4mo$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>> Deanna:
>>
>> You're right that this is not the appropriate forum to be discussing
>> any of this on. If you check the history of this thread, you'll see
>> that I have never "pushed" TFT on this newsgroup. None of this lengthy
>> discussion would have taken place had Diane not continuously brought
>> this off-topic discussion up on this newsgroup as a way of attacking me
>> for stands I've taken on the topic of ECT.
>
>Hmm... Interesting interpretation... And here--silly me!--I thought Diane
>was posting about TFT because she thinks it's nonsense. Odd that you should
>think it's because of your stand on ECT (which, just for the record, *I*
>think is nonsense.) Whatever...
Not only is it wrong, it's incorrect. I became aware of Monica's
involvement in the TFT scam after responding to her heated defense
of Peter Breggin's disinformation regarding Prozac. I don't recall
ever reading anything Monica's written about ECT.
>At any rate-- I think a large part of why these threads have persisted,
>Monica, is because you apparently cannot stand to let Diane or Brandon (or
>me? we'll see!) have the last word. You say you're through posting about
>this stuff but, let Diane or Brandon follow up with some comment or other
>and-- there you are-- right back at it. It's really sort of amusing.
It is amusing! It's almost as if she can't control herself. She's
done this so many times it's become a predictable behaviorial
pattern.
>If you're convinced that your previous arguments have been
>sound...well....just let them stand. If you want to add more to them, then
>go ahead and do so. Just don't blame other people for perpetuating these
>discussions when--truth is--they'd die rapidly without your own
>participation.
Monica Pignotti declares victory and stomps off when discussion
reaches the point that she can no longer avoid addressing
uncomfortable issues.
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
Dave Bird
deja.com> writes:
>In article <22676526...@usw-ex0105-037.remarq.com>,
> Brandon Gaudiano <bgaudian...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote:
>> Monica's performance here has been quite amusing as always.
>> However, once again she runs away when discussants demand that
>> she start supplying a little bit of data to back up the usual
>> rhetoric.
>
>heard the last of Roger Callahan. There will be alot more to come,
>just not on this thread or on this newsgroup because you are not
>important enough for me to waste my time on. What we have to say will
>be presented in the appropriate forum at the appropriate time,
Well, jolly good luck with your carpet-tufting. I might even look
up and take slight notice, if I'm not tied up doing things that
interest me more like programming or like fighting censorship.
|~/ |~/
~~|;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;||';-._.-;'^';||_.-;'^'0-|~~
P | Woof Woof, Glug Glug ||____________|| 0 | P
O | Who Drowned the Judge's Dog? | . . . . . . . '----. 0 | O
O | answers on *---|_______________ @__o0 | O
L |<a href="news:alt.religion.scientology"></a>_____________|/_______| L
www.xemu.demon.co.uk 2B0D 5195 337B A3E6 DDAC BD38 7F2F FD8E 7391 F44F
Monica Pignotti
ref...@bway.net wrote:
<snip>
> Monica Pignotti declares victory and stomps off when discussion
> reaches the point that she can no longer avoid addressing
> uncomfortable issues.
Wrong. Stop overestimating your own importance. It is
not "uncomfortable" at all for me to discuss and mark my words, these
issues will and are being discussed at length on more appropriate
forums with people that matter in this profession, not you. Stop
trying to reframe this as a cop out on my part, because there are
plenty of other forums I am discussing these issues on. I am ending
this because you are a waste of my time and not worth the dignity of
further responses on my part. If you want to bring down TFT, keeping
me tied up in useless discussions is one way to do it, because it ties
up my time so I can't do the really important work I am doing to
scientifically validate TFT, so your comments can be relegated to the
scrap heap along with all the other dinosauer nay-sayers that have put
down innovation. Let's discuss this further 10 years from now, when
you are going to look like a total fool.
Monica Pignotti
Rebecca Jo McLaughlin
> You haven't heard the last of me -- not by a long shot, and you haven't
> heard the last of Roger Callahan. There will be alot more to come,
> just not on this thread or on this newsgroup because you are not
> important enough for me to waste my time on. What we have to say will
> for it.
We'll be watching medline with bated breath.
Beck
Raptavio
A) You said you were going to stop talking to Diane about this on this
forum. Twice. Why are you still running her program?
B) Every time I hear you talk about how TFT is so much better than
anything on the planet and how in 10 years Diane'll look like a total
fool for doubting you, I wince because it sounds so very much like
every true believer of every half-backed crackpot scheme I've ever
examined - various Amway spin-offs, EST, Landmark, NLP, therapeutic
touch, ABLE, et cetera.
The real problem is that someone who was caught by one cult or
quacksalver can get caught by another if her vulnerabilities to such
predation aren't addressed.
--
"It must be exciting to think that way, but a drag to have to deal with
the clinical diagnosis."
Martin Beyer
Bated breath -- gosh what a phrase.
Sounds cool. What could that possibly be. You native speakers have it
good.
Rebecca Hartong
"Diane Richardson" <ref...@bway.net> wrote in message
news:38fc4b04...@enews.newsguy.com...
> Not only is it wrong, it's incorrect. I became aware of Monica's
> involvement in the TFT scam after responding to her heated defense
> of Peter Breggin's disinformation regarding Prozac. I don't recall
> ever reading anything Monica's written about ECT.
Yeah... you have. You've just forgotten. She was claiming that ECT causes
long-term memory loss and supported her argument with an anecdote about some
friend of hers who'd had ECT. I think you only posted one or two brief
follow-ups... (I posted much more on that particular thread.) One of the
things you mentioned, though, was that there are a lot of things that can
account for loss of long-term memory, including alcohol abuse. Monica may
have taken that as an insinuation that her friend is a drunk and gotten
pissed off about it. Perhaps, that's where she got the idea that you've got
some grudge against her over ECT-- a bit of projection on her part, maybe?
(Ah...armchair psychoanalysis at its best! :-) )
Monica Pignotti
I'd say it's nickel & dime psychoanalysis at it's worst, since that's
entirely your projection I was "pissed off" about my friend. If people
are claiming that ECT "never" causes long-term memory loss, all it
takes is one case where it did to disprove that.
And it was more than just a few posts. The discussion with Diane went
on much longer than that, since I had referred her to statistics from
the California Dept. of Mental Health posted at the ECT.org website,
which Diane repeatedly referred to as the "volts of fun" website, from
which an entire discussion ensued about Juli, the treatment she chose
for herself and her website. Cornelius Krasel was also involved in
this discussion.
There were actually two threads where Diane, myself and others
discussed ECT. It was on the thread started by Martin Beyer on ECT
that Diane started up again attacking me for TFT which became a very
long thread about TFT. She is correct that she did this before, after
my comments on prozac, but she did it again on this ECT thread. She
can check it out on deja if she wants to see it.
Monica Pignotti
Monica Pignotti
ref...@bway.net wrote:
> >You're right that this is not the appropriate forum to be discussing
> >any of this on. If you check the history of this thread, you'll see
>>that I have never "pushed" TFT on this newsgroup. None of this
>>lengthy discussion would have taken place had Diane not continuously
>>brought this off-topic discussion up on this newsgroup as a way of
>>attacking me for stands I've taken on the topic of ECT.
>
> This statement is incorrect. I don't believe I've ever responded to
> any comment by Monica Pignotti on ECT -- in fact, I'm not aware
> that she's ever commented on ECT on this newsgroup.
How quickly you forget. You had said that you would be willing to
undergo ECT if done by someone qualified. What did you do, take the
CofS up on their challenge?
I commented a great deal on it, as I am opposed to ECT and think it's a
barbaric, violent treatment whether done under anasthesia or not. We
had a whole discussion on the ect.org website on one thread that you
were involved in, as well as a big discussion on another thread started
by Martin Beyer on ECT where you started attacking me again about TFT.
You kept referring to it as the "volts of fun" website. By the way,
she took that "volts of fun" title off her website. You were correct
about the prozac thread, but the same thing also happened after a
discussion of ECT.
Monica Pignotti
ref...@bway.net
<praet...@mgfairfax.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"Diane Richardson" <ref...@bway.net> wrote in message
>news:38fc4b04...@enews.newsguy.com...
>
>> Not only is it wrong, it's incorrect. I became aware of Monica's
>> involvement in the TFT scam after responding to her heated defense
>> of Peter Breggin's disinformation regarding Prozac. I don't recall
>> ever reading anything Monica's written about ECT.
>
>Yeah... you have. You've just forgotten.
Ah, yes! I'd forgotten (and no, I've never had ECT). <grin>
>She was claiming that ECT causes
>long-term memory loss and supported her argument with an anecdote about some
>friend of hers who'd had ECT. I think you only posted one or two brief
>follow-ups... (I posted much more on that particular thread.)
I'm not sure I followed that up at all. I believe she used that
anecdotal report about her friend twice, and that I twice questioned
her for further details about her friend.
>One of the
>things you mentioned, though, was that there are a lot of things that can
>account for loss of long-term memory, including alcohol abuse. Monica may
>have taken that as an insinuation that her friend is a drunk and gotten
>pissed off about it. Perhaps, that's where she got the idea that you've got
>some grudge against her over ECT-- a bit of projection on her part, maybe?
>(Ah...armchair psychoanalysis at its best! :-) )
The only grudge I hold with Monica Pignotti is that she repeatedly
makes "scientific" claims about the pseudotherapy she hawks on
the internet -- yet she "clams up" the minute she's asked for any
research data to support those claims. Typical behavior for someone
trying to scam people with pseudoscientific snake oil -- TFT tapping,
Scientology auditing, etc.
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
Raptavio
Monica Pignotti <pign...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> blah
Monica, you said you'd stop talking to Diane - why are you still
running her program?
--
"It must be exciting to think that way, but a drag to have to deal with
the clinical diagnosis."
ref...@bway.net
<pign...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>In article <FNfL4.12394$cZ.2...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>,
> "Rebecca Hartong" <praet...@mgfairfax.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>> "Diane Richardson" <ref...@bway.net> wrote in message
>> news:38fc4b04...@enews.newsguy.com...
>>
>> > Not only is it wrong, it's incorrect. I became aware of Monica's
>> > involvement in the TFT scam after responding to her heated defense
>> > of Peter Breggin's disinformation regarding Prozac. I don't recall
>> > ever reading anything Monica's written about ECT.
>>
>>Yeah... you have. You've just forgotten. She was claiming that ECT
>>causes long-term memory loss and supported her argument with an
>>anecdote about some friend of hers who'd had ECT. I think you only
>>posted one or two brief follow-ups... (I posted much more on that
>>particular thread.) One of the things you mentioned, though, was that
>>there are a lot of things that can account for loss of long-term
>>memory, including alcohol abuse. Monica may have taken that as an
>>insinuation that her friend is a drunk and gotten pissed off about it.
>>Perhaps, that's where she got the idea that you've got
>>some grudge against her over ECT-- a bit of projection on her part,
>>maybe? (Ah...armchair psychoanalysis at its best! :-) )
>
>I'd say it's nickel & dime psychoanalysis at it's worst, since that's
>entirely your projection I was "pissed off" about my friend. If people
>are claiming that ECT "never" causes long-term memory loss, all it
>takes is one case where it did to disprove that.
What "people" were making such a claim, Monica? I certainly
wasn't. I am eager to see your answer to this question. Please
don't engage in your usual evasion by snipping it without comment.
>And it was more than just a few posts. The discussion with Diane went
>on much longer than that, since I had referred her to statistics from
>the California Dept. of Mental Health posted at the ECT.org website,
>which Diane repeatedly referred to as the "volts of fun" website,
Perhaps you don't care for the official title of that website, Monica.
It *was* however titled "SHOCKED: 40,000 VOLTS OF FUN." I
note the website has since undergone an update: it's still called
"SHOCKED" but the "40,000 VOLTS OF FUN" subtitle has been
removed in favor of a graphic image of some sort of cartoon animal
hooked up to some cartoon version of an ECT machine.
>from
>which an entire discussion ensued about Juli, the treatment she chose
>for herself and her website. Cornelius Krasel was also involved in
>this discussion.
I don't recall discussing Juli Lawrence's choice of treatment.
I *did* comment that the "long term memory loss" she claims to
suffer from consisted of nothing more than the inability to
remember a fun-filled, joyous vacation to New York City. Perhaps
memories of that vacation are really, really vital to Juli's
well-being and continued existence. I tend to doubt it.
>There were actually two threads where Diane, myself and others
>discussed ECT. It was on the thread started by Martin Beyer on ECT
>that Diane started up again attacking me for TFT which became a very
>long thread about TFT.
I believe you are mistaken about that, Monica. You were defending
healthnut Gary Null's absurd statements about the "dangers of Prozac."
You pointed out that Gary Null had provided numerous references to
peer-reviewed articles in his comments. I went through those
references methodically, showing you that Gary Null depended almost
exclusively on CCHR and Peter Breggin writings for those references
(all of which were taken out of context and deliberately
misrepresented). I don't recall EVER mentioning ECT in this thread.
Your vociferous and heated defense of Gary Null, Peter Breggin and
the CCHR goons led me to wonder just why defending these fruitcakes
was so important to you. That led me to do a web search on your
name, which led me to your guru Roger Callahan's website. Your
telephone number was included in the Big Win statement you wrote
up for Roger, so I gave you a call to insure you were the Monica
Pignotti involved in selling Callahan's quack therapy. You answered
the phone, and that's how it started.
>She is correct that she did this before, after
>my comments on prozac, but she did it again on this ECT thread. She
>can check it out on deja if she wants to see it.
No need for me to do that, Monica. I remember the shock I experienced
when I realized you *were* the Monica Pignotti peddling TFT quackery
on the internet. It all happened because you were so loudly
defending CCHR agit-prop. Now I understand why you do.
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
ref...@bway.net
<pign...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>In article <38fc443c...@enews.newsguy.com>,
> ref...@bway.net wrote:
>> On Tue, 18 Apr 2000 10:15:22 GMT, Monica Pignotti
>> <pign...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>> >You're right that this is not the appropriate forum to be discussing
>> >any of this on. If you check the history of this thread, you'll see
>>>that I have never "pushed" TFT on this newsgroup. None of this
>>>lengthy discussion would have taken place had Diane not continuously
>>>brought this off-topic discussion up on this newsgroup as a way of
>>>attacking me for stands I've taken on the topic of ECT.
>>
>> This statement is incorrect. I don't believe I've ever responded to
>> any comment by Monica Pignotti on ECT -- in fact, I'm not aware
>> that she's ever commented on ECT on this newsgroup.
>
>How quickly you forget. You had said that you would be willing to
>undergo ECT if done by someone qualified. What did you do, take the
>CofS up on their challenge?
This statement comes from a woman who claims she never engages
in ad hominem. If nothing else, at least Monica's consistently
demonstrates the inaccuracy of her claims. :-)
>I commented a great deal on it, as I am opposed to ECT and think it's a
>barbaric, violent treatment whether done under anasthesia or not. We
>had a whole discussion on the ect.org website
Ah, yes, Juli Lawrence's website titled "SHOCKED ! 40,000 VOLTS OF
FUN"
>on one thread that you
>were involved in, as well as a big discussion on another thread started
>by Martin Beyer on ECT where you started attacking me again about TFT.
Actually, what led me to search for you name on altavista was your
vociferous defense of the lies forwarded by Peter Breggin and his
CCHR buddies. I was puzzled why you would feel it so important to
defend such a deceitful and deceptive group. Now I understand.
>You kept referring to it as the "volts of fun" website. By the way,
>she took that "volts of fun" title off her website. You were correct
>about the prozac thread, but the same thing also happened after a
>discussion of ECT.
It was your ongoing, fanatical defense of frauds and charlatans
which led me to question your motivation for such behavior, Monica.
I found out why such deception is so important to you.
Since you appear to be incapable of dropping this topic, when
are you going to answer all those questions you've been asked
about the "scientific research" you purport to be conducting on
the effectiveness of your TFT pseudotherapy?
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, Monica. Thus
far, you've made numerous extraordinary claims, but you've
provided no proof whatever. Where's your proof?
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
Monica Pignotti
ref...@bway.net wrote:
<snip>
> Since you appear to be incapable of dropping this topic, when
> are you going to answer all those questions you've been asked
> about the "scientific research" you purport to be conducting on
> the effectiveness of your TFT pseudotherapy?
> Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, Monica. Thus
> far, you've made numerous extraordinary claims, but you've
> provided no proof whatever. Where's your proof?
I have dropped "this topic". I was simply setting the record straight
about the ECT posts that you seemed to think did not exist. I told you
several times that the proof for TFT will be presented in a
professional context where only respectful dialogue is allowed, not
here on this newsgroup in the midst of flames, name calling and
insults. I will not discuss research projects that are in progress in
this newsgroup and it would be most unprofessional for me to do so.
Any professional researcher will tell you that discussing the details
of ongoing research simply is not done and for good reason.
Monica Pignotti
Raptavio
The only reason for doing this by researchers is if you're worried
other researchers might duplicate your research and publish first.
Researchers with no such concerns may not discuss preliminary data, but
will often freely describe their method of research. It's often done
because colleagues of the researcher can point out flaws in the
methodology or suggest better ways of obtaining the desired data.
Oh, did I mention I'm from a family of professional researchers and
that I used to work in a research lab?
--
"It must be exciting to think that way, but a drag to have to deal with
the clinical diagnosis."
Rebecca Hartong
> In article <FNfL4.12394$cZ.2...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>,
> "Rebecca Hartong" <praet...@mgfairfax.rr.com> wrote:
> >Yeah... you have. You've just forgotten. She was claiming that ECT
> >causes long-term memory loss and supported her argument with an
> >anecdote about some friend of hers who'd had ECT. I think you only
> >posted one or two brief follow-ups... (I posted much more on that
> >particular thread.) One of the things you mentioned, though, was that
> >there are a lot of things that can account for loss of long-term
> >memory, including alcohol abuse. Monica may have taken that as an
> >insinuation that her friend is a drunk and gotten pissed off about it.
> >Perhaps, that's where she got the idea that you've got
> >some grudge against her over ECT-- a bit of projection on her part,
> >maybe? (Ah...armchair psychoanalysis at its best! :-) )
>
> I'd say it's nickel & dime psychoanalysis at it's worst, since that's
> entirely your projection I was "pissed off" about my friend.
That last bit was joke, Monica. (Notice the smile-y?) Jeesh... lighten up.
> If people
> are claiming that ECT "never" causes long-term memory loss, all it
> takes is one case where it did to disprove that.
Of course you'd have to prove that it was ECT that caused the long-term
memory loss... something you have so far failed to do.
Monica Pignotti
True and that could apply to this case since there are several people
engaged in projects at this time who read the internet. Another reason
is that if just snippets of what's going to be done are presented in an
informal way, it could be misinterpreted and taken out of context and
the discussion could go on and on, being quite time consuming and
preventing me from using my time on the actual project.
The bottom line is that I'd like to see this whole thing presented
completely, all in one place at one time with all the relevant facts
available to the reader. It's very difficult to make a sensible
presentation whilst getting flamed and personally attacked as
a "pseudoscientist" and a "fraud". As I'm sure you know, such
defamatory language is not allowed in journals or other professional
forums. The most appropriate forum for this would be a journal or
book, not a newsgroup.
>Researchers with no such concerns may not discuss preliminary data, but
>will often freely describe their method of research. It's often done
>because colleagues of the researcher can point out flaws in the
>methodology or suggest better ways of obtaining the desired data.
Yes, amongst other professionals in a supportive, civil, collegial way,
it's a good idea for getting feedback and very useful in finding out
all the possible arguments and objections, and I am doing this with
some people. It's not useful, however, to discuss this with people who
are bent on tearing you down, no matter what you say and that is how I
perceive certain individuals on this forum at this time, so I choose
not to. I don't believe that at this time there is anything that would
convince Diane, no matter how much hard, solid evidence I give her and
quite frankly I don't care if she is ever convinced; it is her loss,
not mine. She needs to see it in print, coming from a recognized
authority. So be it. She's going to have to wait for that. You're
right that I should stop responding to her. I'm just attempting to set
the record straight on where I stand before I do.
> Oh, did I mention I'm from a family of professional researchers and
> that I used to work in a research lab?
No, I didn't know that. That's interesting.
Monica Pignotti
Brandon Gaudiano
progress in
>this newsgroup and it would be most unprofessional for me to do
so.
>Any professional researcher will tell you that discussing the
details
>of ongoing research simply is not done and for good reason.
>
Once again I don't know where you come up with your ideas
regarding research. Ongoing research is not some kind of secret
enterprise. Researchers routinely comment on exactly what they
are currently involved in. This helps other researchers to get a
sense of what is being done so that they know what still need to
be studied.
Now I can understand if you do not wish to present any
preliminary data *in detail* at this time before the study is
completed and submitted to a journal. However, there should be
nothing that would necessitate the secrecy that you espouse. A
description of the design should clearly be presented.
l
Secrecy is a hallmark of pseudoscience and not science.
However, since Callahan's Voice technology is legally restricted
it is impossible for anyone to independently test out the claims
of its effectiveness. Very convenient, indeed. When the e-meter
was examined it was clear that fraudulent claims were being made
about what it did. I hope this won't be the case with VT. A
psychologist was already sanctioned for unethically using a
treatment that he could not describe or provide evidence of its
efficacy.
I am currently involved in a large NIMH funded study and find
your assertions about disclosure to be patently false and
misleading.
ref...@bway.net
<pign...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>In article <38fdc4af...@enews.newsguy.com>,
> ref...@bway.net wrote:
><snip>
>> Since you appear to be incapable of dropping this topic, when
>> are you going to answer all those questions you've been asked
>> about the "scientific research" you purport to be conducting on
>> the effectiveness of your TFT pseudotherapy?
>> Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, Monica. Thus
>> far, you've made numerous extraordinary claims, but you've
>> provided no proof whatever. Where's your proof?
>
>I have dropped "this topic".
Quite obviously you haven't, Monica. You are still posting
responses, trying to justify yourself with some magnificent
rationalizations.
>I was simply setting the record straight
>about the ECT posts that you seemed to think did not exist.
Rebecca Hartong corrected me long before you decided
to respond. My response to Rebecca Hartong appeared
before you decided to respond. It's not a matter of "setting the
record straight," it's an unnatural compulsion to get the last word
in, not matter how foolish it makes you appear.
Believe me, Monica, you're looking quite foolish right about
now.
>I told you
>several times that the proof for TFT will be presented in a
>professional context where only respectful dialogue is allowed,
Monica, you have presented absolutely no evidence that
any such "proof" exists. If you can't face skeptics on this
newsgroup, how do you expect to face skeptics who are
experts?
>not
>here on this newsgroup in the midst of flames, name calling and
>insults.
"Respectful dialogue" includes a demand that you prove
your claims, Monica. You have made numerous claims about
the effectiveness of the pseudotherapy you're peddling; you
have failed utterly to provide even a scintilla of proof to back
up your assertions.
This isn't a matter of etiquette, this is a matter of intellectual
honesty. Unless you stop being devious and dishonest,
you will never have an opportunity to present any research
you might wish to undertake "in a professional context."
Real professionals (although I realize you use that term quite
loosely) are far more demanding of scientific rigor and
accuracy than anyone here has been.
>I will not discuss research projects that are in progress in
>this newsgroup and it would be most unprofessional for me to do so.
Yet you are the person who brought up the "research" you are
purportedly conducting. If you believe "it would be most
unprofessional" to do so, why have you already done it?
>Any professional researcher will tell you that discussing the details
>of ongoing research simply is not done and for good reason.
Again, Monica, it was *you* who brought up the the subject of
your purported research. Your arguments grow weaker and weaker
as you attempt to extricate yourself from the tangled web you've
woven. Take a step back an take a look at what you're doing to
yourself and to the pseudotherapy you're so eager to advertise.
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
Diane Richardson
<pign...@my-deja.com> wrote:
[snip]
>I don't believe that at this time there is anything that would
>convince Diane, no matter how much hard, solid evidence I give her
Monica, you haven't provided ANY hard, solid evidence. You
expect people to accept your statements on faith alone, just
as L. Ron Hubbard did, all the while claiming your "tech" has
nothing to do with faith and everything to do with science.
>and
>quite frankly I don't care if she is ever convinced; it is her loss,
>not mine.
I've never been convinced of the "workability" of Scientology,
either. Unfortunately, not everyone has been lucky enough to
experience the "loss" of seeing through a scam before being
sucked into it. Even sadder, some people go through life
getting sucked in by one scam after another.
>She needs to see it in print, coming from a recognized
>authority. So be it. She's going to have to wait for that.
I need nothing of the sort. I'm asking your to support your
claims with verifiable evidence. You're unable to do so.
You use the same evasive arguments to defend TFT as
"the most highly trained TFT practitioner on the East Coast"
as you used to defend Scientology when you were a "highly
trained auditor."
The parallels between Roger Callahan's scam and L. Ron
Hubbard's scam are evident, right down to the presence of
"squirrels." If you're unable to see the similarities between
the two, you're consciously deluding yourself.
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
Raptavio
Monica Pignotti <pign...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <8dl330$a5a$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Raptavio <lordmagnu...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > In article <8dknks$sbt$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > > In article <38fdc4af...@enews.newsguy.com>,
> > > ref...@bway.net wrote:
> > > <snip>
> > > > Since you appear to be incapable of dropping this topic, when
> > > > are you going to answer all those questions you've been asked
> > > > about the "scientific research" you purport to be conducting on
> > > > the effectiveness of your TFT pseudotherapy?
> > > > Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, Monica. Thus
> > > > far, you've made numerous extraordinary claims, but you've
> > > > provided no proof whatever. Where's your proof?
> > >
> straight
> > > about the ECT posts that you seemed to think did not exist. I
told
> > you
> > > several times that the proof for TFT will be presented in a
> > > professional context where only respectful dialogue is allowed,
> > > here on this newsgroup in the midst of flames, name calling and
progress
> in
> > > this newsgroup and it would be most unprofessional for me to do
so.
> details
> > > of ongoing research simply is not done and for good reason.
> > >
> >
> > other researchers might duplicate your research and publish first.
>
> True and that could apply to this case since there are several people
> engaged in projects at this time who read the internet. Another
reason
> is that if just snippets of what's going to be done are presented in
an
> informal way, it could be misinterpreted and taken out of context and
> the discussion could go on and on, being quite time consuming and
> preventing me from using my time on the actual project.
You can choose to end the discussion at any time.
> The bottom line is that I'd like to see this whole thing presented
> completely, all in one place at one time with all the relevant facts
> available to the reader. It's very difficult to make a sensible
> presentation whilst getting flamed and personally attacked as
> a "pseudoscientist" and a "fraud". As I'm sure you know, such
> defamatory language is not allowed in journals or other professional
> forums. The most appropriate forum for this would be a journal or
> book, not a newsgroup.
Undoubtedly.
> >Researchers with no such concerns may not discuss preliminary data,
but
> >will often freely describe their method of research. It's often done
> >because colleagues of the researcher can point out flaws in the
> >methodology or suggest better ways of obtaining the desired data.
>
> Yes, amongst other professionals in a supportive, civil, collegial
way,
> it's a good idea for getting feedback and very useful in finding out
> all the possible arguments and objections, and I am doing this with
> some people. It's not useful, however, to discuss this with people
who
> are bent on tearing you down, no matter what you say and that is how I
> perceive certain individuals on this forum at this time, so I choose
> not to. I don't believe that at this time there is anything that
would
> convince Diane, no matter how much hard, solid evidence I give her and
> quite frankly I don't care if she is ever convinced; it is her loss,
> not mine. She needs to see it in print, coming from a recognized
> authority. So be it. She's going to have to wait for that. You're
> right that I should stop responding to her. I'm just attempting to
set
> the record straight on where I stand before I do.
Well, I think Diane was set off by the fact you forked over six figures
to learn an untested method of therapy. In the academic community they
call someone who'd charge that much for something that unproven
a "quack". It definitely raises the bar a bit for the standard of proof
you have to offer.
By the way, what are this guy's credentials anyway?
> > Oh, did I mention I'm from a family of professional researchers and
> > that I used to work in a research lab?
>
> No, I didn't know that. That's interesting.
>
To be precise, the researchers are PhDs in pyschology (professors at a
college and a university) and it was a psychology lab I once worked in.
(Performing drug addiction research on rats and Rhesus monkeys.
Interesting stuff - we were testing the degree to which monkeys and
rats would work for their hits as compared to the strength of the
dosage, testing for a positive correlation. Never mind the street value
of the cocaine and crack we had in the lab...)
Anyway, I'm interested in seeing what you're up to. If you slide a
synopsis of your methodology my way, I'll offer you (Privately) some
peer review at the hands of a couple psychology professors.
--
"It must be exciting to think that way, but a drag to have to deal with
the clinical diagnosis."
Monica Pignotti
What you're completely forgetting and distorting is that I never said
that my friend had long-term memory loss. I said he had short-term
memory loss, and this is a known side-effect of ECT. My description
was very specific that it lasted for a few months and then he regained
his memory.
Monica Pignotti
Rebecca Hartong
> In article <dzoL4.17278$cZ.2...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>,
> What you're completely forgetting and distorting is that I never said
> that my friend had long-term memory loss. I said he had short-term
> memory loss, and this is a known side-effect of ECT. My description
> was very specific that it lasted for a few months and then he regained
> his memory.
No, Monica. You described your friend's loss of *long-term memory*. Perhaps
you're confused by the term long-term memory (though you didn't appear to be
when you first posted on the subject.) In the context in which we were
discussing it then--and in the context in which it's being used
here--"long-term memory" refers to a *kind* of memory. It doesn't refer to
how long the memory is lost.
Here. Refer back to our original exchange (which can be found at
http://x39.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=588486291&CONTEXT=956262256.6832
12813&hitnum=2 ):
I wrote:
>With the caveat that I'm not an expert on the brain: I'm guessing that
>since it's generally short-term memory that's affected by ECT, lapses
>are probably due to electro-chemical changes that occur during the ECT
>seizure-- changes that would disrupt the storage of memories that have
>not yet been laid down in long-term memory. Although it's not a
>perfect analogy by any means, I think the comparison of ECT with
>pushing the reset button on a computer is a good comparison.
You wrote:
It's not always just short term memory loss. A friend of mine who was a
court reporter and a musician had ECT (from one of the top experts in the
field) and afterwards he suffered from a loss of memory with both of these
skills, which he had had for years. Most of it gradually, over a period of
months, came back to him but it took awhile.
(end quote)
You were apparently quite capable of understanding the difference between
long-term memory and short-term memory when you posted that, Monica. You app
arently understood that forgetting a skill which one has possessed for years
would, in fact, be a kind of long-term memory loss. (Note, you also
apparently understood that what was being discussed was the *kind* of
memory-- not how long it's been gone.)
Has something changed? Do you no longer understand the meaning of these
terms?
Further, you never said that your friend had short-term memory loss and that
this is a known side effect of ECT, either (though, of course, this is
true.) -- not that I ever saw. What you did say can be seen in a post
archived at
http://x39.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=588800056&search=thread&CONTEXT=
956262256.683212813&HIT_CONTEXT
=956262256.683212813&HIT_NUM=2&hitnum=21
You wrote:
(begin quote)
Note, that I never, at any time in this post, said that my friend's
experience was absolute proof of anything, but this kind of anecdote is not
at all uncommon if you listen to what ECT survivors have to say. In fact,
when there are a number of "anecdotes" as there are in the case of people
having long-term memory loss with ECT, which conflict with existing
published research, that is an indication that more research has to be done.
(end quote)
Pretty clearly, you understood that what you were claiming was that your
friend had had long-term memory loss and, also pretty clearly, you
understood that this claim was at odds with what the known side-effects of
ECT are.
So... again, I have to ask: What's changed? What happened to your
understanding of these concepts?
Monica Pignotti
The bottom line is, get real. You're so out of touch that I'll bet
that if you and I watched a car drive across the field and then
observed that it left tracks and I said that the car driving across the
field was the cause of the tracks, you'd say I was giving "anectotal"
evidence and that we'd need to do double blind studies to determine if
this was the case.
Someone has no previous memory problems and is capable of preforming
his skilled job. He goes into the hospital and has ETC and then all of
a sudden he has forgotton how to do his job is unable to do use his
skills. What else could have caused this sort of memory loss? The
psychiatrist's bad breath, perhaps? Did he just by some odd
coincidence suddenly just happen lose his memory at the same time he
had ECT, which had nothing to do with it? Nonsense. I think it's
pretty obvious that the ECT had everything to do with this and I know
for a fact that this person's own doctors who were leading experts in
ECT and know far more than you do acknowledged that the ECT did cause
this memory loss he was experiencing which is a common side effect of
ECT. It is "short-term" in the sense that the person's memory usually
does come back, which was the case with this person.
What I said that these effects were temporary in that they only lasted
a few months and these memories gradually came back to him, but so did
the depression. It's interesting that people are so obsessed with non-
toxic alternative treatments "not lasting" but have no criticism about
the effects of ECT not lasting, which it hardly ever does, and yet can
give the person devastating side effects. There are plenty of others
with experiences just like this that cannot be explained in any other
way. If you want to chalk this up to "anecdotal" go right ahead, but I
think you need to get real.
Monica Pignotti
In article <O3KL4.29263$cZ.3...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>,
--
Monica Pignotti
Disclaimer: The statements I make on this forum
are an expression of my individual opinions. I
do not represent any institution here.
Dave Bird
online.de> writes:
>Rebecca Jo McLaughlin schrieb:
>>
>> Monica Pignotti <pign...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> > You haven't heard the last of me -- not by a long shot, and you haven't
>> > heard the last of Roger Callahan. There will be alot more to come,
>> > just not on this thread or on this newsgroup because you are not
>> > important enough for me to waste my time on. What we have to say will
>> > be presented in the appropriate forum at the appropriate time, so watch
>> > for it.
>>
>> We'll be watching medline with bated breath.
>>
>> Beck
>
>
>Bated breath -- gosh what a phrase.
>
>Sounds cool. What could that possibly be. You native speakers have it
>good.
"Bated" is only like "abated"; means they'll be waiting with held
breath, or anyway hushed breathing, for something dramatic to happen.
Me, I won't be holding my breath, I reckon it will all be a fizzle....
Rebecca Hartong
> Rebecca:
>
> The bottom line is, get real. You're so out of touch that I'll bet
> that if you and I watched a car drive across the field and then
> observed that it left tracks and I said that the car driving across the
> field was the cause of the tracks, you'd say I was giving "anectotal"
> evidence and that we'd need to do double blind studies to determine if
> this was the case.
I wasn't criticizing your anecdotal evidence in the post you're following up
to here, Monica. We've been through all that, remember?
> Someone has no previous memory problems and is capable of preforming
> his skilled job. He goes into the hospital and has ETC and then all of
> a sudden he has forgotton how to do his job is unable to do use his
> skills. What else could have caused this sort of memory loss? The
> psychiatrist's bad breath, perhaps? Did he just by some odd
> coincidence suddenly just happen lose his memory at the same time he
> had ECT, which had nothing to do with it? Nonsense.
Sigh... alright. I suppose we can go through this again, if you insist. As
fascinating as this anecdote is, I'm afraid I can't take your word for it
that the appearance of your friend's problems with long-term memory for
learned skills correlated so strongly with his ECT. (For, of course, that is
the *best* you could claim with such evidence --a correlation.) There is
research which suggests that both short-term and long-term memory may be
affected by depression itself (in the absence treatment). This is just one
of several possible explanation for your friend's problem.
> I think it's
> pretty obvious that the ECT had everything to do with this and I know
> for a fact that this person's own doctors who were leading experts in
> ECT and know far more than you do acknowledged that the ECT did cause
> this memory loss he was experiencing which is a common side effect of
> ECT.
This is incorrect, Monica. If his doctors told him that loss of long-term
memory for learned skills is a common side effect of ECT then they were
wrong, regardless of what kind of experts they were-- and I say that with
great confidence. As you, yourself, have written "there are a number of
'anecdotes' as there are in the case of people having long-term memory loss
with ECT, which conflict with existing published research..." I don't think
it could be any clearer than that, though I now understand that you were
apparently referring to the length of time the memory is lost--not to the
*kind* of memory lost. (Actually-- if you *were* referring only to the
length of time memory is lost, you'd be mistaken here. Research *does*
document that some people permanently lose their memory of events which
occurred around the time of their ECT.)
> It is "short-term" in the sense that the person's memory usually
> does come back, which was the case with this person.
Oh my. It seems we were talking about completely different things (though my
original post from back in February made it pretty obvious, I thought, that
I was talking about *types* of memory...) Whatever. This explains a lot. If
I had realized that you simply didn't understand, I'd have phrased my
original post on this (yesterday) in a gentler way.
> What I said that these effects were temporary in that they only lasted
> a few months and these memories gradually came back to him, but so did
> the depression. It's interesting that people are so obsessed with non-
> toxic alternative treatments "not lasting"
I don't know of anyone who's obsessed with that. Is there someone in
particular you're referring to?
> but have no criticism about
> the effects of ECT not lasting, which it hardly ever does, and yet can
> give the person devastating side effects.
No responsible psychiatrist represents ECT as a permanent cure. It is most
often used to temporarily lift a person out of deep depression in order to
"buy time" for an effective long-term treatment to be found (if one is
necessary.) Research has shown that the great majority of people who have
ECT have no lasting side effects. Those who do have lasting side effects
most frequently report a permanent loss of memory for events which occurred
right around the time of the ECT. Loss of long-term memory for learned
skills, on the other hand, is not a documented side effect of ECT.
> There are plenty of others
> with experiences just like this that cannot be explained in any other
> way.
This is incorrect. Just one of the other explanations for loss of long-term
memory for learned skills is the effect on cognitive functioning that
depression itself has. There are several studies documenting this effect.
There are other possible explanations, as well...
> If you want to chalk this up to "anecdotal" go right ahead, but I
> think you need to get real.
I can assure you, I am already quite real.
Here. Here's something for you to read that I found at
http://www.mhsource.com/expert/exp1030397h.html (and I hope the author
doesn't mind me quoting it here.) You might find it particularly interesting
because the author specifcally addresses the question of ECT causing a loss
of skills related to musical performance. (If I recall correctly, your
friend is/was a musician, yes?)
(begin quote)
Q. Have there been any studies to determine memory loss after ECT, with
special regard to psychomotor skills and auditory (musical) memory?
A. I am unable to find data specifically relating to auditory/musical
memory, but there are good data showing that ECT generally does not impair
cognitive performance on broad screening instruments, such as the WAIS
(Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale) or the Halstead-Reitan Battery. The
Halstead-Reitan Battery contains subscales for finger dexterity and auditory
discrimination (see Malloy et al., Biological Psychiatry, Jan. 1982, pp.
61-7; thus, impairment of musical/auditory ability and motor function would
seem unlikely, post-ECT. The Malloy study, utilizing the WAIS and the
Halstead, actually found improvement in 96% of measures, during the course
of ECT.
As a generalization, ECT is a safe and very effective treatment for severe
depression. ECT can result in transient memory problems, usually confined
to: 1) experiences at or near the times of treatment (e.g., patients may say
they can't recall what they talked about with the nurse, prior to their
session); 2) some loss of memory for events prior to the ECT (much more
pronounced with bilateral ECT than with unilateral ECT to the nondominant
hemisphere); and 3) a period lasting a few days to 2-3 weeks after the
treatments, during which the patient may have some difficulty learning new
material. There is no credible evidence that ECT results in long-term brain
damage or ongoing impairment of memory, though patients often claim their
memory is not as good as before the ECT.
Most likely, this is a result of residual depression, or preexisting brain
dysfunction, since detailed neuropsychiatric testing 6 months after ECT has
failed to show any objective evidence of new memory impairment. Similarly,
MRI, CAT scans and other tests of brain structure have not shown evidence of
any harmful effects of ECT. See the American Psychiatric Press, Textbook of
Neuropsychiatry, eds. Coffey & Cummings, pp. 652-3, for a review of this
area.
(end quote)
Patrick Volk
<pign...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>Rebecca:
>
>The bottom line is, get real. You're so out of touch that I'll bet
>that if you and I watched a car drive across the field and then
>observed that it left tracks and I said that the car driving across the
>field was the cause of the tracks, you'd say I was giving "anectotal"
>evidence and that we'd need to do double blind studies to determine if
>this was the case.
This is more like you heard there were strange lines in a field, and
you surmised them to be tire tracks. I doubt this is a first-person
story.
>
>Someone has no previous memory problems and is capable of preforming
>his skilled job. He goes into the hospital and has ETC and then all of
>a sudden he has forgotton how to do his job is unable to do use his
>skills. What else could have caused this sort of memory loss? The
>psychiatrist's bad breath, perhaps? Did he just by some odd
>coincidence suddenly just happen lose his memory at the same time he
>had ECT, which had nothing to do with it? Nonsense. I think it's
>pretty obvious that the ECT had everything to do with this and I know
>for a fact that this person's own doctors who were leading experts in
>ECT and know far more than you do acknowledged that the ECT did cause
>this memory loss he was experiencing which is a common side effect of
>ECT. It is "short-term" in the sense that the person's memory usually
>does come back, which was the case with this person.
Schizophrenics lose their breaks with reality (the classical
definition). They get treatment. Does that mean that treatment causes
their break with reality?
In other words, a normal person doesn't go and have ECT. People who
are canidates for ECT are severely clinically depressed people who
couldn't function in the first place, otherwise they wouldn't be
seeking treatment.
Canidates for ECT generally are hospitalized to begin with. Is that
*not* debilitated? Can the person you mention use his job skills? No.
ECT is not the first choice of treatment, it is used as the last
choice.
Generally, ECT is used when all else fails, when the patient is
either extremely psychotic of suicidal. which leaves three options in
the eyes of the shrink:
1) Continue institutional therapy, even though it doesn't seem to have
an effect.
2) Release the patient, and hope it gets better (doubtful, considering
what happened after the mental hospitals did this, most ended up on
the streets),
3) Try ECT, side effects and all.
>
>What I said that these effects were temporary in that they only lasted
>a few months and these memories gradually came back to him, but so did
>the depression. It's interesting that people are so obsessed with non-
>toxic alternative treatments "not lasting" but have no criticism about
>the effects of ECT not lasting, which it hardly ever does, and yet can
>give the person devastating side effects. There are plenty of others
>with experiences just like this that cannot be explained in any other
>way. If you want to chalk this up to "anecdotal" go right ahead, but I
>think you need to get real.
Some people are prone to depression, and don't really get just one
bout of it. It is a cyclic disorder. (Down -> Try something to change
it, which fails -> further Down. The further down you get, the more
you try, and try too hard, and fail, which reinforces the depression).
That aside, I agree that the effects of ECT are not long-lasting.
No, I think you need to get real. You make this sound like someone who
went to get counseling got ECT first, and couldn't function. Try
putting a little less spin on it.
Monica Pignotti
pjv...@home.com (Patrick Volk) wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Apr 2000 12:55:44 GMT, Monica Pignotti
> <pign...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> >Rebecca:
> >
> >The bottom line is, get real. You're so out of touch that I'll bet
> >that if you and I watched a car drive across the field and then
> >observed that it left tracks and I said that the car driving across
the
> >field was the cause of the tracks, you'd say I was giving "anectotal"
> >evidence and that we'd need to do double blind studies to determine
if
> >this was the case.
>
> This is more like you heard there were strange lines in a field, and
> you surmised them to be tire tracks. I doubt this is a first-person
> story.
It wasn't second-hand to the person who received the ECT and it wasn't
second-hand to the psychiatrist who had no problem in acknowledging
that his side effects were indeed caused by the ECT.
> >Someone has no previous memory problems and is capable of preforming
> >his skilled job. He goes into the hospital and has ETC and then all
of
> >a sudden he has forgotton how to do his job is unable to do use his
> >skills. What else could have caused this sort of memory loss? The
> >psychiatrist's bad breath, perhaps? Did he just by some odd
> >coincidence suddenly just happen lose his memory at the same time he
> >had ECT, which had nothing to do with it? Nonsense. I think it's
> >pretty obvious that the ECT had everything to do with this and I know
> >for a fact that this person's own doctors who were leading experts in
> >ECT and know far more than you do acknowledged that the ECT did cause
> >this memory loss he was experiencing which is a common side effect of
> >ECT. It is "short-term" in the sense that the person's memory
usually
> >does come back, which was the case with this person.
>
> Schizophrenics lose their breaks with reality (the classical
> definition). They get treatment. Does that mean that treatment causes
> their break with reality?
Why are you bringing up schizophrenics? ECT is mainly done on people
diagnosed with major depression. Depressed people are not psychotic.
Your "analogy" makes no sense. You are talking about a condition that
existed prior to the ECT. I'm talking about depressed, non-psychotic
people who have demonstrated their memory was perfectly fine (i.e., as
evidenced by their ability to perform job skills) and then all of a
sudden after the ECT they are unable to do so.
> In other words, a normal person doesn't go and have ECT. People who
> are canidates for ECT are severely clinically depressed people who
> couldn't function in the first place, otherwise they wouldn't be
> seeking treatment.
You need to get your facts straight about mental illness. People with
depression are not schizophrenics. You can't defend ECT by
discrediting the patient's sanity. This is what makes the mentally ill
population so vulnerable to exploitation and I find such arguments
deplorable.
> Canidates for ECT generally are hospitalized to begin with. Is that
> *not* debilitated? Can the person you mention use his job skills? No.
> ECT is not the first choice of treatment, it is used as the last
> choice.
Not true. You are woefully misinformed. There are many people who
suffer from depression who were not hospitalized and were holding jobs,
but nevertheless were not responding to their medications and felt so
hopelessly depressed that they agreed to get ECT and then were admitted
to the hospital for the treatment. Such was the case with my friend
and this is done with many people in similar situations.
> Generally, ECT is used when all else fails, when the patient is
> either extremely psychotic of suicidal. which leaves three options in
> the eyes of the shrink:
>
> 1) Continue institutional therapy, even though it doesn't seem to have
> an effect.
> 2) Release the patient, and hope it gets better (doubtful, considering
> what happened after the mental hospitals did this, most ended up on
> the streets),
> 3) Try ECT, side effects and all.
I think you need to go to a good library and do some reading on what a
diagnosis of depression means. Depression does not equal psychosis and
ECT is done on people who are very depressed and not responding to
meds, even if not suicidal.
> >What I said that these effects were temporary in that they only
lasted
> >a few months and these memories gradually came back to him, but so
did
> >the depression. It's interesting that people are so obsessed with
non-
> >toxic alternative treatments "not lasting" but have no criticism
about
> >the effects of ECT not lasting, which it hardly ever does, and yet
can
> >give the person devastating side effects. There are plenty of others
> >with experiences just like this that cannot be explained in any other
> >way. If you want to chalk this up to "anecdotal" go right ahead,
but I
> >think you need to get real.
>
> Some people are prone to depression, and don't really get just one
> bout of it. It is a cyclic disorder. (Down -> Try something to change
> it, which fails -> further Down. The further down you get, the more
> you try, and try too hard, and fail, which reinforces the depression).
>
> That aside, I agree that the effects of ECT are not long-lasting.
>
> No, I think you need to get real. You make this sound like someone who
> went to get counseling got ECT first, and couldn't function. Try
> putting a little less spin on it.
Yes, because this is what happens. There are plenty of people admitted
to the hospital for the purpose of getting ECT who were not previously
hospitalized. I think you need to get properly informed since you
obviously don't know what you're talking about.
Monica Pignotti
Monica Pignotti
If the memory loss was due to the depression itself, it would have
existed prior to the ECT treatment. It did not exist prior to the
treatment because he was performing job skills with no problem that all
of a sudden, after the ECT he was unable to do because he forgot them.
The memory loss, if due to depression would not have suddenly happened
following the ECT treatment, as was the case with this person. Three
months later, his memory was recovered although his depression had
returned, so it would seem that there is no relationship between his
memory and depression, since at that time he was once again depressed
but had his long-term memory back and was able to do his job.
The bottom line is if the person demonstrated that he had a certain set
of skills prior to ECT, in spite of being depressed and then suddenly
lost them after the ECT there really is no other explanation. These
side effects do exist, no matter how much the people who want to push
ECT trie to deny them.
Monica Pignotti
Diane Richardson
<pign...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>In article <39009932.55008357@news>,
> pjv...@home.com (Patrick Volk) wrote:
>> On Fri, 21 Apr 2000 12:55:44 GMT, Monica Pignotti
>> <pign...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Rebecca:
>> >
>> >The bottom line is, get real. You're so out of touch that I'll bet
>> >that if you and I watched a car drive across the field and then
>> >observed that it left tracks and I said that the car driving across
>the
>> >field was the cause of the tracks, you'd say I was giving "anectotal"
>> >evidence and that we'd need to do double blind studies to determine
>if
>> >this was the case.
>>
>> This is more like you heard there were strange lines in a field, and
>> you surmised them to be tire tracks. I doubt this is a first-person
>> story.
>
>It wasn't second-hand to the person who received the ECT and it wasn't
>second-hand to the psychiatrist who had no problem in acknowledging
>that his side effects were indeed caused by the ECT.
But your retelling of this anecdote IS second hand,
and undoubtedly colored by your own desire to criticize anything
viewed a competition for your tap-tap-tapping pseudotherapy.
Face it, Monica, you have a vested interest in making standard
psychotherapy look as bad as you possibly can. You have a
direct financial interest in making psychiatry look eeevil,
damaging and frightening can. You are motivated by exactly
the same interest as the CCHR shills.
>> >Someone has no previous memory problems and is capable of preforming
>> >his skilled job. He goes into the hospital and has ETC and then all
>of
>> >a sudden he has forgotton how to do his job is unable to do use his
>> >skills. What else could have caused this sort of memory loss? The
>> >psychiatrist's bad breath, perhaps? Did he just by some odd
>> >coincidence suddenly just happen lose his memory at the same time he
>> >had ECT, which had nothing to do with it? Nonsense. I think it's
>> >pretty obvious that the ECT had everything to do with this and I know
>> >for a fact that this person's own doctors who were leading experts in
>> >ECT and know far more than you do acknowledged that the ECT did cause
>> >this memory loss he was experiencing which is a common side effect of
>> >ECT. It is "short-term" in the sense that the person's memory
>usually
>> >does come back, which was the case with this person.
>>
>> Schizophrenics lose their breaks with reality (the classical
>> definition). They get treatment. Does that mean that treatment causes
>> their break with reality?
>
>Why are you bringing up schizophrenics?
To provide you with a parallel example.
>ECT is mainly done on people
>diagnosed with major depression. Depressed people are not psychotic.
I beg to differ with your statement "depressed people are not
psychotic." There are indeed depressed people who sink into
a psychotic state. I'd suggest you study your DSM-IV a little more
thoroughly, Monica.
>Your "analogy" makes no sense. You are talking about a condition that
>existed prior to the ECT.
Just as depression in your anecdote existed prior to your friend's
therapy, Monica.
>I'm talking about depressed, non-psychotic
>people
"people"??? Are you claiming you know more than one person
who lost long-term memory after ECT?
>who have demonstrated their memory was perfectly fine (i.e., as
>evidenced by their ability to perform job skills) and then all of a
>sudden after the ECT they are unable to do so.
>
>> In other words, a normal person doesn't go and have ECT. People who
>> are canidates for ECT are severely clinically depressed people who
>> couldn't function in the first place, otherwise they wouldn't be
>> seeking treatment.
>
>You need to get your facts straight about mental illness. People with
>depression are not schizophrenics.
You're terribly skilled at constructing strawmen. The only person
who has made such a statement is you. No wonder it's so
easy for you to demolish your own false statement, Monica.
Intellectually dishonest, but you do it with ease.
>You can't defend ECT by
>discrediting the patient's sanity. This is what makes the mentally ill
>population so vulnerable to exploitation and I find such arguments
>deplorable.
Yes, the mentally ill are tremendously vulnerable to quacks who do
their best to frighten them away from any real help by offering them
quick-fix, easy, pseudoscientific mumbo-jumbo for $100 an hour.
Go peddle your quack-tapping on some other newsgroup, Monica.
You've been exposed for the charlatan you are. Your tap-tap-tapping
is no more help to others than scientology's auditing, and every bit
as much of a scam.
>> Canidates for ECT generally are hospitalized to begin with. Is that
>> *not* debilitated? Can the person you mention use his job skills? No.
>> ECT is not the first choice of treatment, it is used as the last
>> choice.
>
>Not true. You are woefully misinformed. There are many people who
>suffer from depression who were not hospitalized and were holding jobs,
>but nevertheless were not responding to their medications and felt so
>hopelessly depressed that they agreed to get ECT and then were admitted
>to the hospital for the treatment. Such was the case with my friend
>and this is done with many people in similar situations.
The friend you're talking about is dead, Monica. He died of cancer.
Cancer that might easily, in its early stages, have contributed to his
loss of long-term memory following ECT. You are refusing to consider
numerous other variables that very well may have played a role in
his short-lived loss of memory and motor skills.
>> Generally, ECT is used when all else fails, when the patient is
>> either extremely psychotic of suicidal. which leaves three options in
>> the eyes of the shrink:
>>
>> 1) Continue institutional therapy, even though it doesn't seem to have
>> an effect.
>> 2) Release the patient, and hope it gets better (doubtful, considering
>> what happened after the mental hospitals did this, most ended up on
>> the streets),
>> 3) Try ECT, side effects and all.
>
>I think you need to go to a good library and do some reading on what a
>diagnosis of depression means. Depression does not equal psychosis and
>ECT is done on people who are very depressed and not responding to
>meds, even if not suicidal.
I'd suggest you follow your own advice, Monica. Some clinically
depressed people do indeed experience psychotic episodes. I'm
surprised someone who calls herself a "mental health professional"
isn't aware of this fact.
>> >What I said that these effects were temporary in that they only
>lasted
>> >a few months and these memories gradually came back to him, but so
>did
>> >the depression. It's interesting that people are so obsessed with
>non-
>> >toxic alternative treatments "not lasting" but have no criticism
>about
>> >the effects of ECT not lasting, which it hardly ever does, and yet
>can
>> >give the person devastating side effects. There are plenty of others
>> >with experiences just like this that cannot be explained in any other
>> >way. If you want to chalk this up to "anecdotal" go right ahead,
>but I
>> >think you need to get real.
>>
>> Some people are prone to depression, and don't really get just one
>> bout of it. It is a cyclic disorder. (Down -> Try something to change
>> it, which fails -> further Down. The further down you get, the more
>> you try, and try too hard, and fail, which reinforces the depression).
>>
>> That aside, I agree that the effects of ECT are not long-lasting.
>>
>> No, I think you need to get real. You make this sound like someone who
>> went to get counseling got ECT first, and couldn't function. Try
>> putting a little less spin on it.
>
>Yes, because this is what happens.
The problem with anecdotal accounts is that you can turn the "story"
into anything that proves the point you want to make. This is
especially true in the current case, since the person whose experience
you are spinning here right now is deceased and cannot set the record
straight.
>There are plenty of people admitted
>to the hospital for the purpose of getting ECT who were not previously
>hospitalized. I think you need to get properly informed since you
>obviously don't know what you're talking about.
And I think you need to examine your own motives for refusing to
end this thread, Monica. There are better and easier ways to attract
customers for your scam than getting into endless off-topic arguments
on this newsgroup.
Why not get busy working on that "scientific research" you claim
you're so involved in? Perhaps once you have some evidence to
back up your quackery, customers will come flocking to your office
door.
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
Diane Richardson
<pign...@my-deja.com> wrote:
[snip]
>The bottom line is if the person demonstrated that he had a certain set
>of skills prior to ECT, in spite of being depressed and then suddenly
>lost them after the ECT there really is no other explanation. These
>side effects do exist, no matter how much the people who want to push
>ECT trie to deny them.
The only one "pushing" anything is you, Monica. Go advertise your
quack-tapping elsewhere. You've been exposed for the charlatan
you are. Follow your little CCHR buddies to another newsgroup,
where readers don't understand you try to make money by offering
pie-in-the-sky for $100 an hour to suffering people.
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
Rebecca Hartong
> In article <pe%L4.41970$cZ.4...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>,
> >Sigh... alright. I suppose we can go through this again, if you
> >insist. As fascinating as this anecdote is, I'm afraid I can't take
> >your word for it that the appearance of your friend's problems with
> >long-term memory for learned skills correlated so strongly with his
> >ECT. (For, of course, that is the *best* you could claim with such
> >evidence --a correlation.) There is research which suggests that both
> >short-term and long-term memory may be affected by depression itself
> >(even in the absence treatment). This is just one of several possible
> >explanations for your friend's problem.
>
> If the memory loss was due to the depression itself, it would have
> existed prior to the ECT treatment. It did not exist prior to the
> treatment because he was performing job skills with no problem that all
> of a sudden, after the ECT he was unable to do because he forgot them.
Prove it.
Show me the objective tests of long-term memory which were performed upon
your friend before and after his ECT. What? None were done?
Look, Monica. I probably wouldn't be such a hard case on this except for the
fact that loss of long-term memory for learned skills is simply not a
documented side effect of ECT.
We've been through all this before and I have to admit I'm a bit mystified
as to why you wanted to discuss it again. If you'll recall, this time around
I was only questioning your recent statement "...I never said
that my friend had long-term memory loss. I said he had short-term memory
loss, and this is a known side-effect of ECT." That statement not only
appears to be at odds with your previous postings on this subject back in
February but also appears to conflict with your statements in this thread
wherein you acknowledge that the kind of memory you are claiming your friend
lost is, indeed, long-term memory.
> ...Three months later, his memory was recovered although his depression
had
> returned, so it would seem that there is no relationship between his
> memory and depression, since at that time he was once again depressed
> but had his long-term memory back and was able to do his job.
I'm willing to entertain the possibility that this apparent contradition on
your part has simply resulted from a sloppy use of the terms "long-term
memory" and "short-term memory", so unless you really want to rehash the
whole issue of the relative value of anecdotes in scientific research, let's
just drop it, okay?
Patrick Volk
<pign...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>In article <39009932.55008357@news>,
> pjv...@home.com (Patrick Volk) wrote:
>> On Fri, 21 Apr 2000 12:55:44 GMT, Monica Pignotti
>> <pign...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Rebecca:
>> >
>> >The bottom line is, get real. You're so out of touch that I'll bet
>> >that if you and I watched a car drive across the field and then
>> >observed that it left tracks and I said that the car driving across
>the
>> >field was the cause of the tracks, you'd say I was giving "anectotal"
>> >evidence and that we'd need to do double blind studies to determine
>if
>> >this was the case.
>>
>> This is more like you heard there were strange lines in a field, and
>> you surmised them to be tire tracks. I doubt this is a first-person
>> story.
>
>It wasn't second-hand to the person who received the ECT and it wasn't
>second-hand to the psychiatrist who had no problem in acknowledging
>that his side effects were indeed caused by the ECT.
You missed my point entirely. This sounds highly anecdotal, and you
passed on the source. Is this something you read, or someone you know,
or from someone who heard it from someone?
Why am I bringing up schizophrenia? Because you claim that a perosn
had no problems until he got ECT. I brought it up because
schizophrania is a preexisting condition, *like* major depression. The
person you mention was hospitalized.
Now, if he was debilitated enough by his depression to require
hospitalization, you cannot tell me that his job skills were not
impacted prior to the ECT. He must've had a problem functioning in
society, or else he wouldn't have been in a hospital, would he?
When I was clinically depressed, I couldn't work. I lost my job,
becuase I basically was unable to sleep, which impacted my memory, and
left me a little confused.
>
>> In other words, a normal person doesn't go and have ECT. People who
>> are canidates for ECT are severely clinically depressed people who
>> couldn't function in the first place, otherwise they wouldn't be
>> seeking treatment.
>
>You need to get your facts straight about mental illness. People with
>depression are not schizophrenics. You can't defend ECT by
>discrediting the patient's sanity. This is what makes the mentally ill
>population so vulnerable to exploitation and I find such arguments
>deplorable.
You answered my statement by responding to the previous paragraph. A
person who seeks help, be it financial, spiritual or otherwise,
generally had a deficiency in that area, wouldn'y you agree?
Stop trying to make ECT as something that many psychiatric patients
get. Less that .02% would be my guess of all people that receive
counseling. As I said, ECT is used for people who cannot respond with
other methods.
>
>> Canidates for ECT generally are hospitalized to begin with. Is that
>> *not* debilitated? Can the person you mention use his job skills? No.
>> ECT is not the first choice of treatment, it is used as the last
>> choice.
>
>Not true. You are woefully misinformed. There are many people who
>suffer from depression who were not hospitalized and were holding jobs,
>but nevertheless were not responding to their medications and felt so
>hopelessly depressed that they agreed to get ECT and then were admitted
>to the hospital for the treatment. Such was the case with my friend
>and this is done with many people in similar situations.
It is true that ECT is the treatment of last resort for depression.
Isn't it true that depression *is* a debilitating illness? You seem to
miss that point. You don't touch that statement, why?
>
>> Generally, ECT is used when all else fails, when the patient is
>> either extremely psychotic of suicidal. which leaves three options in
>> the eyes of the shrink:
>>
>> 1) Continue institutional therapy, even though it doesn't seem to have
>> an effect.
>> 2) Release the patient, and hope it gets better (doubtful, considering
>> what happened after the mental hospitals did this, most ended up on
>> the streets),
>> 3) Try ECT, side effects and all.
>
>I think you need to go to a good library and do some reading on what a
>diagnosis of depression means. Depression does not equal psychosis and
>ECT is done on people who are very depressed and not responding to
>meds, even if not suicidal.
Maybe you need to. You don't think depression is a serious problem.
This is not what happens. Most cases of depression aren't treated with
drugs, just a little counseling. Some people who experience bouts of
depression are found to be bipolar, in which case generally lithium is
prescribed. Prozac and wellbutrin are common antidepressants.
Sometimes group counseling is suggested.
Beyond this, you get into the heavier medications, and finally, ECT.
Depression does show a history of running in families, as do other
psychiatric maladies. My textbooks say this, plus I know in my family
alone 4 of 9 of us has sought treatment for problems.
Everyone I know who has received psychiatric treatment has not
received ECT. In the mental institutions where I had family working as
RNs, they maybe know two cases of theirs that ECT was prescribed (this
was one working for a corrections hospital).
That in my eyes doesn't say many people receive ECT. My experience
(treated for 4 months for depression), and the experience of the
people I know doesn't corroborate your 'evidence'.