Electroshock - Lies Exposed
Unzap My Brain
Only 1 in 10,000 people die as a result
of shock treatment.
The Truth:
Recent data indicates the death rate is
closer to 1 in 200! 1.
The Lie:
Shock therapy is effective in preventing suicide.
The Truth:
A 1986 study involving 1,494 patients found
no difference in suicide rates between shocked
and non-shocked depressed patients. "A close
examination of the literature does not support
the commonly held belief that ECT exerts long-range
protective effects against suicide.'' 2.
The Lie:
ECT (electroconvulsive therapy) does not cause brain
damage.
The Truth:
Many noted experts in the fields of Psychiatry
and neurology have reported brain damage as a
result of shock therapy. Some early literature on the
subject indicated brain damage was the source
of the improvement. 3.
The Lie:
Shock treatment is effective in eradicating
depression.
The Truth:
A 1984 study showed no difference between shock
and non-shock patients after 4 weeks. A six month
follow up also showed no difference.
A 1978 study showed no difference at 12 and 26 weeks
between patients who received shock compared to those
who received "fake" shock.4.
The Lie:
Modern shock treatment (ECT) is very safe.
The Truth:
The Texas Department of Mental Health and
Retardation reports 12 deaths within 14 days
of shock treatment (1993-94) and a study of death
rates showed 23%-45% higher death rate for elderly
people at one, two and three years after
shock treatment compared to a control group of
similarly aged people that received non-shock
psychiatric treatment. 5.
The Lie:
People receiving shock treatment do not suffer
long term damage to their memory. Only 1 in 200
people have trouble with memory after shock
treatment.
The Truth:
A 1983 study shows that three years after shock
treatment that 50% of patients that received
bi-lateral (temple to temple) electric shock
complained of poor memory. In fact 1 in 200 figure
was "impressionistic" -- they made it up! 6.
1.
Dennis Cauchon, Patients often aren't informed of full danger,
USA Today, http://web.usatoday.com/life/health/lhs195.htm
Kroessler D., Fogel B. Electroconvulsive Therapy for Major
Depression in the Oldest Old. The American Journal of
Geriatric Psychiatry 1993; 1: 30-37
SANDRA G. BOODMAN, SHOCK THERAPY... IT'S BACK, The
Washington Post, Tuesday, September 24 1996, Page Z14
2.
SANDRA G. BOODMAN, SHOCK THERAPY... IT'S BACK, The
Washington Post, Tuesday, September 24 1996, Page Z14
Black D., Winokur G., et al. Does Treatment Influence
Mortality in Depressives? Annals of Clinical Psychiatry 1989; 1:
165-173
Dennis Cauchon, Stunningly quick results often fade just as
fast, USA Today, http://web.usatoday.com/life/health/lhs188.htm
3.
Weisberg L., Elliott, D., Mielke, D. Intracerebral hemorrhage
following electroconvulsive therapy. Neurology Nov. 1991;
v41,n11 :1849.
Sterling P. Brain Damage and Memory Loss from ECT, Testimony
Prepared for the Standing Committee on Mental Health of the
Assembly of the State of New York, 1978.
Madow L. Brain Changes in Electroshock Therapy. The American
Journal of Psychiatry 1956; 113:337-347 Alpers B. The Brain
Changes in Electrically Induced Convulsions in the Human. Journal
of Neuropathology and Experimental Neurology
1942; 1:173-180
Calloway S.P., Levy R., et al. ECT and Cerebral Atrophy A
Computed Tomographic Study. Acta Psychiatra Scandinavia 1981;
64:442-445
Friedberg J. Shock Treatment, Brain Damage, and Memory Loss: A
Neurological Perspective. The American Journal of Psychiatry
1977; 134:1010-1013.
Breggin P. Neuropathology and Cognitive Dysfunction From ECT.
Psychopharmacology Bulletin 1986; 22:476-479
Breggin P. Toxic Psychiatry, (New York: St. Martin’s Press,
1991), Chapter 9, Shock Treatment is Not Good for Your Brain
Ferraro A., Roizin L. Cerebral Morphologic Changes in Monkeys
Subjected to a Large Number of Electrically Induced
Convulsions (32-100). The American Journal of Psychiatry 1949;
106:278-284
Levy N., Serota H.M., Grinker R. Disturbances in Brain
Function Following Convulsive Shock Therapy. Archives of Neurology
and Psychiatry 1942; 47:1009-1029
Afield, W. Testimony of Dr. Walter Afield for the Texas House
of Representatives Public Health Committee, in Support of House Bill
2452. April 18, 1995.
Bielski V. Electroshock’s Quiet Comeback. The San Francisco
Bay Guardian, April 18, 1990, p.17
Farber S. Madness, Heresy, and the Rumor of Angels, (Chicago:
Open Court, 1993), Chapter 14, From Victim to Revolutionary: An
Interview with Leonard Frank
Templar D., Hartlage L., Cannon W., Preventable Brain Damage:
Brain Vulnerability and Brain Health, (New York: Springer Publishing
Company, 1992). Chapter 8, ECT and Permanent Brain Damage
4.
Dennis Cauchon, Stunningly quick results often fade just as
fast, USA Today, http://web.usatoday.com/life/health/lhs188.htm
Lambourn J., Gill D. A Controlled Comparison of Simulated and
Real ECT. British Journal of Psychiatry 1978; 133:514-519
5.
Kroessler D., Fogel B. Electroconvulsive Therapy for Major
Depression in the Oldest Old. The American Journal of
Geriatric Psychiatry 1993; 1: 30-37
Dennis Cauchon, Patients often aren't informed of full danger,
USA Today, http://web.usatoday.com/life/health/lhs195.htm
6.
SANDRA G. BOODMAN, SHOCK THERAPY... IT'S BACK, The
Washington Post, Tuesday, September 24 1996, Page Z14
Cameron D., Electroshock Treatment: 1000 Cases of Permanent
Memory Loss (Unpublished Manuscript). 1994
Friedberg J., Shock Treatment is not Good for Your Brain (San
Francisco: Glide Publications, 1976).
Squire L., Slater P. Electroconvulsive Therapy and Complaints
of Memory Dysfunction: A Prospective Three-Year Follow-up Study.
British Journal of Psychiatry 1983; 142: 1-8
Janis I., Psychological Effects of Electric Convulsive
Treatments (I. Post-Treatment Amnesia). The Journal of Nervous and
Mental Disease 1950; 111:359-380, and Psychological Effects of
Electric Convulsive Treatments (II. Changes in Word Association
Reactions) The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease 1950;
111:383-397, and The Effects of Electroconvulsive Treatments on
Memory Efficiency.
The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 1951; 46:501-511,
and Memory Loss Following Electric Convulsive Treatments. Journal of
Personality 1948; 17:29-32
Mattes J., Pettinati H. Et al., A Placebo-Controlled
Evaluation of Vasopressin for ECT-Induced Memory Impairment.
Biological Psychiatry 1990; 27:289-303 see Alan W. Scheflin and
Edward M Opton, Jr., The Mind Manipulators, (New York: Paddington
Press, 1978)
CIA document dated December 3, 1951, related to Project
Artichoke, released under the Freedom of Information Act
Stewart/sna
>The Lie:
-snip-
>The Truth:
-snip-
>The Lie:
-snip-
>The Truth:
-snip-
>The Lie:
-snip-
>The Truth:
-snip-
>The Lie:
-snip-
>The Truth:
-snip-
Your lies:
Your truth:
My lies:
My truth:
Only God knows
The lies:
The truth:
Just my truth of course. You may know God much better than I do.
Sincerely
Stewart
--
The Metaphor Man *and* The Great Defender of the Self
metaphor...@usaor.net or anon...@anon.twwells.com
(remove the SPAMBLOCK)
Graeme Bacque
(Stewart/sna) wrote:
>
>
>Your lies:
>Your truth:
>
>My lies:
>My truth:
>
>Only God knows
FACT: ECT _invariably_ results in some degree of brain damage.
FACT: ECT _invariably_ results in some degree of memory loss.
FACT: It is totally unnatural and barbaric to subject the human body
to an electrical charge which is actually sufficient to cause death or
serious injury. (A jolt from a wall socket in your home can kill - the
maximum charge utilized for the purposes of ECT is up to 50% greater
than what you'd receive from a wall socket.)
This has nothing to do with god, or anyone's personal 'truths' - these
are universal physical realities which NO ONE is immune to.
Get used to it.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
'I long for the day when verbally condoning acts of
torture or abuse will be considered every bit as heinous
a crime as is actually committing these acts'
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tadish C. Durbin (a.k.a Shikasta)
The human body can withstand shocks of high voltage as long as the amperage
is low. ECT devices, while they deliver a high voltage charge, are of a low
amperage, and so yes, dying is a possibility.
I had a GP state it very clearly to me once:
There are three known cures for depression:
1. Exercise
2. Medication
3. Having a seizure
--
Tadish Durbin
a.k.a. Shikasta
--
No longer searching for beauty or love, just some kind of life
with the edges taken off.
-Jarvis Cocker
=============================================
Graeme Bacque wrote in message <35af97c7...@n3.idirect.com>...
Stewart/sna
>metaphor...@usaor.net(Stewart/sna) wrote:
>>Your lies:
>>Your truth:
>>
>>My lies:
>>My truth:
>>
>>Only God knows
>>
>>The truth:
>>
>>Just my truth of course. You may know God much better than I do.
(I reinserted those last three lines that you cut out because I thought
they were kind of important to the point I was trying to make.)
du...@email.not (Graeme Bacque) wrote:
>FACT: ECT _invariably_ results in some degree of brain damage.
>FACT: ECT _invariably_ results in some degree of memory loss.
>FACT: It is totally unnatural and barbaric to subject the human body
>to an electrical charge which is actually sufficient to cause death or
>serious injury. (A jolt from a wall socket in your home can kill - the
>maximum charge utilized for the purposes of ECT is up to 50% greater
>than what you'd receive from a wall socket.)
>This has nothing to do with god, or anyone's personal 'truths' - these
>are universal physical realities which NO ONE is immune to.
>Get used to it.
Apparently you are much closer to God than I am. I don't know these FACTs
in the same way that you do. I don't think that your FACTs hold the same
meaning for me as they do for you. Sorry about that. It is a big world
out there. I am sorry that you want it to have the same meaning for me as
it does for you. But I am not you. I am different from you.
It must be quite a burden to be so close to God that you know what
everything *should* mean to everyone else. I can't imagine the burden,
and so I run from it myself. Run from myself perhaps, since I think that
I am, that you are, that we all are, God. I am the center of it all. I
think we all are. I can be no less. Everywhere I turn, there I am, at the
center of it all. Jump, and the center jumps with me, because it *is* me.
pan
his lies his truth are all backed by references, and studies. are
yours- are mine? are gods? is there a god? fuck god.
my therapist says they give more electroshock volts now than they used
to, difference is: they give the patient stong tranquilizers now.
thats the only thing that makes ect safer today than in 1940.
no offence. just my dumb ass opinion
GMT, metaphor...@usaor.net (Stewart/sna) wrote:
>cgr...@linknet.kitsap.lib.wa.us (Unzap My Brain) wrote:
>>The Lie:
>-snip-
>>The Truth:
>-snip-
>>The Lie:
>-snip-
>>The Truth:
>-snip-
>>The Lie:
>-snip-
>>The Truth:
>-snip-
>>The Lie:
>-snip-
>>The Truth:
>-snip-
>
>
>Your lies:
>Your truth:
>
>My lies:
>My truth:
>
>Only God knows
>
>The lies:
>The truth:
>
>Just my truth of course. You may know God much better than I do.
>
pan
he has references to every fact he cited.
what he wrote here would get him an A in a Masters psych research
class.
these are the facts that the researchers have stewart.
what else is there? where else do these kind of facts come from? if it
was just his experience people would be minimizing it all by saying
its JUST HIS experience and not necessarily anyone elses, that he is
BIASED. here he says nothing about experience and just presents facts
with references and still, its never good enough for some people.
On Fri, 17 Jul 1998 16:05:31 GMT, metaphor...@usaor.net
(Stewart/sna) wrote:
>
>>metaphor...@usaor.net(Stewart/sna) wrote:
>>>Your lies:
>>>Your truth:
>>>
>>>My lies:
>>>My truth:
>>>
>>>Only God knows
>>>
>>>The lies:
>>>The truth:
>>>
>>>Just my truth of course. You may know God much better than I do.
>
>
>(I reinserted those last three lines that you cut out because I thought
>they were kind of important to the point I was trying to make.)
>
>
>du...@email.not (Graeme Bacque) wrote:
>>FACT: ECT _invariably_ results in some degree of brain damage.
>>FACT: ECT _invariably_ results in some degree of memory loss.
>>FACT: It is totally unnatural and barbaric to subject the human body
>>to an electrical charge which is actually sufficient to cause death or
>>serious injury. (A jolt from a wall socket in your home can kill - the
>>maximum charge utilized for the purposes of ECT is up to 50% greater
>>than what you'd receive from a wall socket.)
>>This has nothing to do with god, or anyone's personal 'truths' - these
>>are universal physical realities which NO ONE is immune to.
>>Get used to it.
>
>
>Apparently you are much closer to God than I am. I don't know these FACTs
>in the same way that you do. I don't think that your FACTs hold the same
>meaning for me as they do for you. Sorry about that. It is a big world
>out there. I am sorry that you want it to have the same meaning for me as
>it does for you. But I am not you. I am different from you.
>
>It must be quite a burden to be so close to God that you know what
>everything *should* mean to everyone else. I can't imagine the burden,
>and so I run from it myself. Run from myself perhaps, since I think that
>I am, that you are, that we all are, God. I am the center of it all. I
>think we all are. I can be no less. Everywhere I turn, there I am, at the
>center of it all. Jump, and the center jumps with me, because it *is* me.
>
pan
anything, you could be depressed and cured, you could be never
depressed and suddenly depressed, you could be healthy with no
illnesses then your weakly and sick all the time. before the shock you
could count your change back at the store, now you cant, before you
were a math dummy, now your great at math.
its a shock, it is generalised to the entire brain.
effecting virtually anything.
On Fri, 17 Jul 1998 09:00:24 -0700, "Tadish C. Durbin (a.k.a
Shikasta)" <tdu...@nospam.dnai.com> wrote:
>You know, it's not voltage, its amps.
>
>The human body can withstand shocks of high voltage as long as the amperage
>is low. ECT devices, while they deliver a high voltage charge, are of a low
>amperage, and so yes, dying is a possibility.
>
>I had a GP state it very clearly to me once:
>
>There are three known cures for depression:
>
>1. Exercise
>2. Medication
>3. Having a seizure
>
>
>--
>Tadish Durbin
>a.k.a. Shikasta
>--
>No longer searching for beauty or love, just some kind of life
>with the edges taken off.
>-Jarvis Cocker
>=============================================
>Graeme Bacque wrote in message <35af97c7...@n3.idirect.com>...
>>On Fri, 17 Jul 1998 14:43:11 GMT, metaphor...@usaor.net
>>(Stewart/sna) wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Your lies:
>>>Your truth:
>>>
>>>My lies:
>>>My truth:
>>>
>>>Only God knows
>>
>>FACT: ECT _invariably_ results in some degree of brain damage.
>>
>>FACT: ECT _invariably_ results in some degree of memory loss.
>>
>>FACT: It is totally unnatural and barbaric to subject the human body
>>to an electrical charge which is actually sufficient to cause death or
>>serious injury. (A jolt from a wall socket in your home can kill - the
>>maximum charge utilized for the purposes of ECT is up to 50% greater
>>than what you'd receive from a wall socket.)
>>
>>This has nothing to do with god, or anyone's personal 'truths' - these
>>are universal physical realities which NO ONE is immune to.
>>
>>Get used to it.
Sansuhod
forms they are not told the truth thank you to the person who keeps putting
this on the board. I know of a lot of people who have told me of the damage
that has been done and in England the clinics have been labelled unsafe in a
lot of cases but they are still using them . Susan Hodgson
Happy
> You know, it's not voltage, its amps.
>
> The human body can withstand shocks of high voltage as long as the amperage
> is low. ECT devices, while they deliver a high voltage charge, are of a low
> amperage, and so yes, dying is a possibility.
>
> I had a GP state it very clearly to me once:
>
> There are three known cures for depression:
>
> 1. Exercise
> 2. Medication
> 3. Having a seizure
Pardon me, but why not choose exercise? It seems like the least risky
alternative.
> --
> Tadish Durbin
> a.k.a. Shikasta
> --
> No longer searching for beauty or love, just some kind of life
> with the edges taken off.
> -Jarvis Cocker
He's aiming kinda low.
Happy
In other words, do you work in the field, have investments in the field,
sell the equipment, invent the equipment, etc? Thanking you in advance.
Sincerely, Curious
Anon wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Jul 1998 18:34:39 GMT, du...@email.not (Graeme Bacque)
> wrote:
>
> >FACT: It is totally unnatural and barbaric to subject the human body
> >to an electrical charge which is actually sufficient to cause death or
> >serious injury. (A jolt from a wall socket in your home can kill - the
> >maximum charge utilized for the purposes of ECT is up to 50% greater
> >than what you'd receive from a wall socket.)
>
> Bullshit.
>
> >This has nothing to do with god, or anyone's personal 'truths' - these
> >are universal physical realities which NO ONE is immune to.
> >
> >Get used to it.
>
> Get lost, twit.
>
> Anon
pan
know? how do you figure your right and he is wrong? his info comes
from books and studies -yours?
Ellen Shumate
long trial.
mog
>to an electrical charge which is actually sufficient to cause death or
>serious injury. (A jolt from a wall socket in your home can kill - the
>maximum charge utilized for the purposes of ECT is up to 50% greater
>than what you'd receive from a wall socket.)
Maybe it's just where I live and the psych papers I've read but I was
under the opinion that modern techniques utilise a high voltage, low
amperage, pulsed DC current. The significance being that the amperage
is far lower than is available through a wall socket, and ensuing tissue
damage is therefore massive reduced. Indeed, a wall socket causes very
real very painful skin burns, correctly applied ECT should result in no
tissue damage at all. This is of course true for modern techniques,
1930 through to about 1970 a 'shock em and see' mentality seemed to be
predominant and these techniques did cause actual damage. The
comparison is a bit like that of modern surgery to me doing an
appendicitis with an electric carving knife.
I suspect, but this is just a suspicion as I have not had time to
investigate the sources that were given, that a lot of the long term
studies of the effects of ECT on patients were conducted using earlier,
more dangerous techniques - if only because these are the only truly
long term patients in existence. The more recent techniques are
considered to be more safe but less long term data is available.
Because of this most doctors will only give ECT as a last resort or
where other forms of treatment are likely to cause serious injury (as
with the extreme elderly). ECT is a useful tool for the treatment of
depression, it saves lives, we must not forget that.
--
Mog
"Life, I suppose, will simplify.
In one way or another"
Graeme Bacque
wrote:
>
>Maybe it's just where I live and the psych papers I've read but I was
>under the opinion that modern techniques utilise a high voltage, low
>amperage, pulsed DC current.
Electricity is electricity... and just because the convulsions are
suppressed by using curare doesn't change what it does to the brain.
(In reality all this accomplishes is to make the procedure more
pleasant for those observing it.)
The effect can be compared to turning someone's cranium into a
microwave oven - and I'm sure you are aware of what such devices do to
objects which are placed inside them.
Stewart/sna
-snipped some->
no offence. just my dumb ass opinion
Hey Pan:
Well, I guess that's my point basically. No offense taken at all,
whatsoever in the least. My point is simply that it is just my dumb ass
opinion, just your dumb ass opinion, just the next guys dumb ass opinion.
We all simply make our own dumb ass opinions about what is and is not
important. About what this or that means. Gather 10,000 really *REALLY*
smart people together, and if they all agree, then it is still IMHO just a
bunch of individual dumb ass opinons - in my personal dumb ass opinion of
course.
Elizabeth
wrote:
>to an electrical charge which is actually sufficient to cause death or
>serious injury. (A jolt from a wall socket in your home can kill - the
>maximum charge utilized for the purposes of ECT is up to 50% greater
>than what you'd receive from a wall socket.)
I really think that calling any statement a "fact" which begins with "It is
totally unnatural and barbaric...." is...misguided.
-elizabeth
Elizabeth
> his lies his truth are all backed by references, and studies. are
> yours- are mine? are gods? is there a god? fuck god.
Wrong thread....
> my therapist says they give more electroshock volts now than they used
> to, difference is: they give the patient stong tranquilizers now.
> thats the only thing that makes ect safer today than in 1940.
Is there something wrong with using "tranquilizers" (actually they use general
anaesthesia) to make it safer?
Also, what are your therapist's credentials?
-elizabeth
Elizabeth
> having a seizure can do absolutely anything to you.
> anything, you could be depressed and cured, you could be never
> depressed and suddenly depressed, you could be healthy with no
> illnesses then your weakly and sick all the time.
please cite a reliable source that shows that these things actually happen.
there is so little understanding of the underlying mechanism of seizures (or of
most things that happen in the brain) that I take with a grain of salt any
statement at all about what can happen as the result of having one. this
includes your statement.
> before the shock you
> could count your change back at the store, now you cant, before you
> were a math dummy, now your great at math.
...and then there are the people who get seizures when they try to _do_ math.
(no joke.)
-elizabeth
Graeme Bacque
wrote:
>there is so little understanding of the underlying mechanism of seizures (or of
>most things that happen in the brain) that I take with a grain of salt any
>statement at all about what can happen as the result of having one. this
>includes your statement.
>
Hmmmmm, let me see.... respiratory or cardiac arrest, permanent
neurological damage (from protracted seizures), injuries from contact
with surroundings... how's that for a start?
Seems like any procedure (such as ECT) that deliberately subjects
persons to these hazards - and relies on either fraudulent or withheld
facts to do so - has to come up for serious questioning.
Graeme Bacque
wrote:
>
>I really think that calling any statement a "fact" which begins with "It is
>totally unnatural and barbaric...." is...misguided.
>
>-elizabeth
But if it is true........?
Graeme Bacque
wrote:
>>
>Is there something wrong with using "tranquilizers" (actually they use general
>anaesthesia) to make it safer?
>
How does it make ECT 'safer' when the drugs given along with it do not
change the shock's impact on the brain?
It seems to me that the only thing that would reduce this negative
effect would be to BAN ECT - not merely give the patient (victim?)
drugs which make the procedure prettier to watch for medical
personnel.
Jim Powell
biased just like anyone else. Earlier this century, German scientists
published texts detailing why Jews were genetically inferior to the "master
race". If I could provide a reference for such a statement would that make
it true? The results of research seems to vary from researcher to
researcher. You can find reports from researchers hired by the tobacco
industry declaring cigarettes non-addictive, while C. Everet Koop gets up
and calls cigarettes addictive killers. Would you take the tobacco industry
paper at face value without heeding the words of Koop? Unzap and his/her
colleagues can dig and find sources to demonize ECT and the "evil
psychiatrists who zap brains for a living". If you were so inclined, you
could find sources to support ECT as a valuable treatment for mental
illness. You can find research to back just about any point of view.
Jim Powell
Props wrote:
> The infidel an...@anon.edu wrote...
> >I don't have to prove anything to anybody here. All you ever
> >get from anybody is their word. That's all you get. Take it or
> >leave it, I don't care.
>
> You don't have to prove anything; such is your perogative<sp>. However,
> we can get more than someone's word. If you could provide a reference
> to a book, article, or paper which documents what you say, or tell your
> references to substanciate your word...
>
> There is no reason anyone on this group should believe any "fact" I say.
> However, I'm really not saying any "facts"; I'm asking for them.
>
> Props
> --
> Don Langguth--Technocrat:DramaTechie:Unix Snob:Hacker:Nutcase
> "There are artists who transform the sun into a little yellow spot, but
> there are others, who thanks to their art and intelligence, transform a
> yellow spot into the sun." --Pablo Picasso
Unzap My Brain
<jim.p...@silvaco.com> wrote:
> If you were so inclined, you
>could find sources to support ECT as a valuable treatment for mental
>illness.
Sure, and ALL of them come from those who do it for a living, or
university psychiatry departments who get government grants for "ECT
research".
The leading 'textbook' on ECT is written by Richard Abrams, also
president of a leading shock machine manufacturing company.
UMB
Victor Romero
> Sure, and ALL of them come from those who do it for a living, or
> university psychiatry departments who get government grants for "ECT
> research".
>
> The leading 'textbook' on ECT is written by Richard Abrams, also
> president of a leading shock machine manufacturing company.
Unzip, and just where do you want people to get information about ECT?
From the Nike Shoe Company? Of course most of the credible information
on ECT comes from people who are professionals in the field of psychiatry
or from major universities. But if you would rather call Exxon Oil and
ask them for information on psychiatric treatments, go right ahead. I
doubt that they will have much.
Graeme Bacque
<vro...@writeme.com> wrote:
>Unzip My Brain wrote:
>
>
>Unzip, and just where do you want people to get information about ECT?
>From the Nike Shoe Company? Of course most of the credible information
>on ECT comes from people who are professionals in the field of psychiatry
>or from major universities. But if you would rather call Exxon Oil and
>ask them for information on psychiatric treatments, go right ahead. I
>doubt that they will have much.
>
The only information given by these so-called 'credible sources' is
usually no information at all.
Elizabeth
writes:
> Hmmmmm, let me see.... respiratory or cardiac arrest, permanent
> neurological damage (from protracted seizures), injuries from contact
> with surroundings... how's that for a start?
Yes, so where is your evidence that any of these actually _happens_ with ECT?
As far as I know, the first three things happen only with status epilepticus,
which is not mimicked by ECT. The fourth is easily preventable, and, as has been
pointed out, is prevented during ECT by the use of restraints and anaesthesia.
(During a regular seizure the best way to prevent injuries is to just move any
hard or sharp objects out of the seizing person's way. Unless it is a first
seizure or is status epilepticus, a seizure usually doesn't merit an ER trip.)
-elizabeth
Elizabeth
rites:
> On 21 Jul 1998 04:25:18 GMT, shapere@*nospam*.mit.edu (Elizabeth)
> wrote:
> >I really think that calling any statement a "fact" which begins with "It is
> >totally unnatural and barbaric...." is...misguided.
>
And odds are, a blanket generalization of any kind probably isn't true.
-elizabeth
Elizabeth
writes:
> How does it make ECT 'safer' when the drugs given along with it do not
> change the shock's impact on the brain?
If they prevent you from flailing around and injuring yourself, that's safer.
Also, because the drugs used are anaesthetics, they make it a relatively easy
experience.
> It seems to me that the only thing that would reduce this negative
> effect would be to BAN ECT - not merely give the patient (victim?)
> drugs which make the procedure prettier to watch for medical
> personnel.
(See above about the purpose of using anaesthesia in ECT.)
I'm for informed consent, myself. That includes the right to utilize a medical
procedure if one chooses to. This isn't what you're advocating - you're
advocating *less* choice.
A patient is only a victim if he allows himself to be, with the exception of
forced psychiatric treatment (ECT is not used without a person's consent,
although neuroleptics such as haloperidol are - it just isn't practical).
As it happens, in the case of ECT, causing a seizure is not strictly a harmful
thing. In fact, ECT has been known to end seizure disorders, without having to
resort to neurosurgery.
-elizabeth
norse...@my-dejanews.com
shapere@***.mit.edu (Elizabeth) wrote:
---snip,snip,snip---
> A patient is only a victim if he allows himself to be, with the exception of
> forced psychiatric treatment (ECT is not used without a person's consent,
> although neuroleptics such as haloperidol are - it just isn't practical).
---snip,snip---
> -elizabeth
>
You may think you really know what you're talking about regarding something
you've willingly swallowed concerning ECT, but you don't have a clue.
What you state above is totally false.
I've had it done to me involuntarily, it does happen. I also know of other
cases that have happened more recently than mine as well. When they want to
do it, they find a way, nothing stands in their way. Also, way back in 1986,
(before I got shocked) on a psych unit of a general hospital in Marlboro,
Mass. (the same hospital that shocked me) they were shocking a nice older
quiet man who was pleading for them to stop, but his family had given their
permission and he had no way out, so one evening he skipped out and was found
dead the next day. He walked down the hill to a lake where he drowned
himself.
Ernest Hemingway was shocked as well and then blew his brains out with a gun
because he found that the shock treatments were harmful to him and his
profession.
So don't profess to know that shock is safe or not harmful or that somehow it
has been improved. And please do not insult our intelligence by stating "A
patient is only a victim if he allows himself to be,...", because you have no
clue, you really don't.
Morgan W. Brown
Montpelier Vermont
Norsehorse's Home Turf: http://members.tripod.com/~Norsehorse/
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
norse...@my-dejanews.com
learning more about what ECT really does and is about visit the
misc.activism.progressive discussion at DN and read the post "Shock
Treatment: A Crime Against Humanity" which was posted By Rich Winkel on July
21, 1998. The piece "Psychiatry's Electroconvulsive Shock Treatment: A Crime
Against Humanity" was written by Lawrence Stevens, J.D. and can also be
visited at:
Other great online sites to visit are:
MadNation: http://www.madnation.org
and, Support Coalition International:
just to name a few and to get you started, if yyou are not yet aware of these
sites.
norse...@my-dejanews.com
If anyone is truly interest in any of the other information available out
there regarding shock treatment, here is an offering from:
Psychiatry's Electroconvulsive
SHOCK TREATMENT
A Crime Against Humanity
by Lawrence Stevens, J.D.
What used to be called electroshock or electric shock treatment
(EST) is now usually called "electroconvulsive therapy", often
abbreviated ECT. The term is misleading, because ECT is not a form
of therapy, despite the claims of its supporters. ECT causes brain
damage, memory loss, and diminished intelligence. An article in
the March 25, 1993 New England Journal of Medicine says "ELECTRO-
CONVULSIVE therapy is widely used to treat certain psychiatric
disorders, particularly major depression" (p. 839). The March 26,
1990 issue of Newsweek magazine reports that "electroconvulsive
therapy (ECT) . . . is enjoying a resurgence. . . . an estimated
30,000 to 50,000 Americans now receive shock therapy each year" (p.
44). Other recent estimates go as high as 100,000 per year.
In his textbook Psychiatry for Medical Students,
published in 1984, Robert J. Waldinger, M.D., says "ECT's mechanism
of action is not known. . . . As with the other somatic therapies
in psychiatry, we do not know the mechanism by which ECT exerts its
therapeutic effects" (pp. 120 & 389). Psychiatrists claim
unhappiness or so-called depression is sometimes caused by unknown
biological abnormalities in the brain. They say by some unknown
mode of action ECT cures these unknown biological abnormalities.
There is no good evidence for these claims. Other than by causing
mental disorientation and memory loss, ECT does not help eliminate
the unhappy feeling called depression. This is true even though
currently unhappiness or "depression" is the only "condition" for
which ECT is a recognized "therapy". Indeed, rather than eliminat-
ing depression, the memory loss and lost mental ability caused by
ECT has caused some subjected to ECT so much anguish they have
committed suicide after receiving the "treatment".
ECT consists of electricity being passed through the
brain with a force of from 70 to 400 volts and an amperage of from
200 milliamperes to 1.6 amperes (1600 milliamperes). The electric
shock is administered for as little as a fraction of a second to as
long as several seconds. The electrodes are placed on each side of
the head at about the temples, or sometimes on the front and back
of one side of the head so the electricity will pass through just
the left or right side of the brain (which is called "unilateral"
ECT). Some psychiatrists falsely claim ECT consists of a very
small amount of electricity being passed through the brain. In
fact, the 70 to 400 volts and 200 to 1600 milliamperes used in ECT
is quite powerful. The power applied in ECT is typically as great
as that found in the wall sockets in your home. It could kill the
"patient" if the current were not limited to the head. The elec-
tricity in ECT is so powerful it can burn the skin on the head
where the electrodes are placed. Because of this, psychiatrists
use electrode jelly, also called conductive gel, to prevent skin
burns from the electricity. The electricity going through the
brain causes seizures so powerful the so-called patients receiving
this so-called therapy have broken their own bones during the sei-
zures. To prevent this, a muscle paralyzing drug is administered
immediately before the so-called treatment. Of course, the worst
part of ECT is brain damage, not broken bones.
Electricity is only one of several ways psychiatrists
have induced seizures in people for supposedly therapeutic
purposes. According to psychiatrists, seizures induced by
chemicals or gas inhalants are just as effective, psychiatrically
speaking, as ECT. In September 1977 in the American Journal of
Psychiatry, psychiatry professor Max Fink, M.D., said: "Seizures
may also be induced by an anesthetic inhalant, flurothyl, with no
electrical currents, and these treatments are as effective as ECT"
(p. 992). On the same page he said seizures induced by injecting
a drug, pentylenetetrazol (Metrazol), into the bloodstream have
therapeutic effects equal to seizures induced with ECT.
It's interesting, to say the least, that any of these
three very different seizure producing agents - flurothyl gas
inhaled through a gas mask, Metrazol injected with a hypodermic
needle, or electricity passed through the head - could be equally
psychiatrically "therapeutic". Psychiatrists say that it is the
seizure that is "therapeutic", not the method of inducing the
seizure. But why would seizures induced by any of these three very
different methods be equally "therapeutic"?
One theory is they are all equally horrifying to the
victim (the "patient") who receives the "treatment". In his book
Against Therapy, published in 1988, psychoanalyst Jeffrey Masson,
Ph.D., asks: "Why do psychiatrists torture people and call it
electroshock therapy?" (p. xv). In his book Battle for the Mind:
A Physiology of Conversion and Brain-Washing, William Sargant said
"The history of psychiatric treatment shows, indeed, that from time
immemorial attempts have been made to cure mental disorders by the
use of physiological shocks, frights, and various chemical agents;
and such means have always yielded brilliant results in certain
types of patient" (p. 82). In his book Breakdown, psychologist
Norman S. Sutherland points out that in his observations ECT "was
widely dreaded", and he says "there are many reports from patients
likening the atmosphere in hospital on days when ECT was to be
administered to that of a prison on the day of an execution" (p.
196).
Defenders of ECT say that because of the addition of
anesthesia to make the procedure painless, the horribleness of ECT
is entirely a thing of the past. This argument misses the point.
It is the mental disorientation, the memory loss, the lost mental
ability, the realization after awaking from the "therapy" that the
essence of one's very self is being destroyed by the "treatment"
that induces the terror - not only or even primarily physical
suffering. ECT, or electroshock, strikes to the core personality
and is terrifying for this reason. As was said by Lothar B.
Kalinowsky, M.D., and Paul H. Hoch, M.D., in their book Shock
Treatments, Psychosurgery, and Other Somatic Treatments in
Psychiatry: "Fear of ECT, however, is a greater problem than was
originally realized. This refers to a fear which develops or
increases only after a certain number of treatments. It is
different than the fear which the patient, unacquainted with the
treatment, has prior to the first application. . . . 'The
agonizing experience of the shattered self' is the most convincing
explanation for the late fear of the treatment" (p. 133). One way
ECT achieves its effects is the victims of this supposed therapy
change their behavior, display of emotion, and expressed ideas for
the purpose of avoiding being tortured and destroyed by the
"therapy". Refusing to take ECT doesn't always work, because ECT
is often administered against the "patient's" will. In The Powers
of Psychiatry, published in 1980, Emory University Professor Jonas
Robitscher, J.D., M.D., said "Organized psychiatry continues to
oppose any restrictions by statute, regulation, or court case on
its 'right' to give shock to involuntary and unwilling patients"
(p. 279). Even now in the 1990s only one state in the United
States - Wisconsin - prohibits all involuntary administration of
ECT.
Since the "patient's" fear of ECT is one of the things
that makes ECT "work", psychiatrists often get results by merely
threatening people with ECT. As psychiatrist Peter R. Breggin,
M.D., says in his book Electroshock: It's Brain Disabling Effects:
"For patients who witness these [brain disabling] effects without
themselves undergoing ECT, the effect of ECT is nonetheless
intimidating. They do everything in their power to cooperate in
order to avoid a similar fate" (p. 173).
Another way ECT achieves its effects is by damaging the
brain. In the words of Lee Coleman, M.D., a psychiatrist: "The
rationale for electroshock was formerly couched in psychoanalytic
terms, with punitive superegos sometimes requiring repeated shocks
of 110 volts for appeasement. Only then could guilt be assuaged
and discontent be relieved. It is much more common now to hear
equally absurd neurophysiological explanations, this time the idea
being that these electrical assaults somehow rearrange brain
chemistry for the better. Most theorists readily agree, however,
that these are speculations; in fact, they seem to take a certain
satisfaction in shock treatment's supposedly unknown mode of
action. . . . The truth is, however, that electroshock 'works' by
a mechanism that is simple, straightforward, and understood my many
of those who have undergone it and anyone else who truly wanted to
find out. Unfortunately, the advocates of electroshock
(particularly those who administer it) refuse to recognize what it
does, because to do so would make them feel bad. Electroshock
works by damaging the brain. Proponents insist that this damage is
negligible and transient - a contention that is disputed by many
who have been subjected to the procedure. Furthermore, its
advocates want to see this damage as a 'side effect.' In fact, the
changes one sees when electroshock is administered are completely
consistent with any acute brain injury, such as a blow to the head
from a hammer. In essence, what happens is that the individual is
dazed, confused, and disoriented, and therefore cannot remember or
appreciate current problems. The shocks are then continued for a
few weeks (sometimes several times a day) to make the procedure
'take,' that is, to damage the brain sufficiently so that the
individual will not remember, at least for several months, the
problems that led to his being shocked in the first place. The
greater the brain damage, the more likely that certain memories and
abilities will never return. Thus memory loss and confusion
secondary to brain injury are not side effects of electroshock;
they are the means by which families (perhaps unwittingly) and
psychiatrists sometimes choose to deal with troubled and
troublesome persons. Many of us would question such a dubious
means of obliterating, rather than dealing with, emotional
distress" (From the Introduction, The History of Shock Treatment,
edited by L. R. Frank, p. xiii.)
Advocates of ECT falsely claim there is no evidence of
brain damage from ECT. For example, in his book Overcoming
Depression, Dr. Andrew Stanway, a British physician, says "People
often worry that ECT might be damaging their brain in some way but
there is no evidence of this" (p.184).
In fact, it didn't take long after ECT was invented in
1938 for autopsy studies revealing ECT-caused brain damage to begin
appearing in medical journals. This brain damage includes cerebral
hemorrhages (abnormal bleeding), edema (excessive accumulation of
fluid), cortical atrophy (shrinkage of the cerebral cortex, or
outer layers of the brain), dilated perivascular spaces in the
brain, fibrosis (thickening and scarring), gliosis (growth of
abnormal tissue), and rarefied and partially destroyed brain
tissue. (See Peter R. Breggin, M.D., Electroshock: It's Brain
Disabling Effects for references.) Commenting on the extent of
physical brain damage caused by electroconvulsive "therapy", Karl
Pribram, Ph.D., head of Stanford University's Neuropsychology
Laboratory, once said: "I'd rather have a small lobotomy than a
series of electroconvulsive shock. . . . I just know what the brain
looks like after a series of shocks, and it's not very pleasant to
look at" (APA Monitor, Sept.-Oct. 1974, pp. 9-10). Dr. Sidney
Sament, a neurologist, describes ECT this way: "Electroconvulsive
therapy in effect may be defined as a controlled type of brain
damage produced by electrical means. No doubt some psychiatric
symptoms are eliminated...but this is at the expense of brain
damage" (Clinical Psychiatry News, March 1983, p. 4). Although he
is a defender of ECT, Duke University psychiatry professor Richard
D. Weiner, M.D., Ph.D., has admitted that "the data as a whole must
be considered consistent with the occurrence of frontal atrophy
following ECT" (Behavioral & Brain Sciences, March 1984, p. 8). By
"frontal atrophy" he means atrophy (reduced size) of the frontal
lobes of the brain, the frontal lobes being the parts believed to
be responsible for higher mental functions. The frontal lobes get
most of the electricity in ECT. Dr. Weiner also admits "Breggin's
statement that ECT always produces an acute organic brain syndrome
is correct" (ibid., p. 42). Organic brain syndrome is organic
brain disease.
Psychological testing of those who have had ECT also
indicates ECT causes permanent brain damage. For example, in an
article in the British Journal of Psychiatry, three psychologists
said "The ECT patients' performance was also found to be inferior
on the WAIS [Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale]" and "The ECT
patients' inferior Bender-Gestalt performance does suggest that ECT
causes permanent brain damage" (Donald I. Templer, Ph.D., et al.,
"Cognitive Functioning and Degree of Psychosis in Schizophrenics
given many Electroconvulsive Treatments" Brit. J. Psychiatry, Vol.
123 (1973), p. 441 at pp. 442, 443).
In 1989 in his book The Exercise Prescription for
Depression and Anxiety, psychology professor Keith W. Hohnsgard,
Ph.D., says "Some who receive ECT appear to suffer both serious and
permanent memory loss" (p. 88, emphasis added). A woman who had
ECT described these effects ECT had on her memory: "I don't
remember things I never wanted to forget - important things - like
my wedding day and who was there. A friend took me back to the
church where I had my wedding, and it had no meaning to me" (quoted
in: Peter R. Breggin, M.D., Electroshock: It's Brain Disabling Ef-
fects, p. 36). Professional people who have sought treatment for
depression and had ECT have lost a lifetime of professional knowl-
edge and skill to this so-called therapy. (See, for example, Berton
Rouche's article in Suggested Reading, below). In one state,
Texas, a state law requires those considering ECT be warned about
ECT caused memory loss. But in most states those undergoing ECT
voluntarily do so without any warning of the brain damage and
associated memory loss and intellectual impairment to which they
are about to be subjected - the psychiatrist suggesting ECT usually
being the person least likely to give this warning.
ECT advocates sometimes claim the addition of anesthesia,
a muscle paralyzing drug, and oxygenation (making the "patient"
breath air or 100% oxygen) prevent ECT-caused brain damage. But
neither anesthesia nor muscle paralyzing drugs nor breathing oxygen
stop what the electricity does to the brain. Autopsy study, EEGs,
and observation of those who have received ECT indicate those given
ECT with anesthesia, a muscle paralyzing drug, and forced breathing
of air or oxygen experience the same brain damage, memory loss, and
intellectual impairment as those given ECT without these modifi-
cations.
Some ECT advocates say the newer brief pulse ECT devices
cause less harm than the sine-wave ECT devices that predominated
until the 1980s. In contrast, one prominent ECT supporter,
psychiatry professor Richard D. Weiner, M.D., Ph.D., cites studies
that "demonstrated sine wave and bidirectional pulse stimuli pro-
duced equivalent amnestic changes" (Behavioral & Brain Sciences,
March 1984, p. 18). According to University of Chicago psychiatry
professor Richard Abrams, M.D., in his textbook Electroconvulsive
Therapy, 400 volts is a typical peak voltage produced by the newer
brief-pulse ECT devices (p. 113). This is more than double the
highest voltages produced by the older sine-wave machines,
suggesting the newer brief-pulse ECT devices do greater harm.
Claims that the new "unilateral" ECT in which the
electricity is run through only one side of the head is less
damaging are also false. The idea is to spare the parts of the
brain responsible for verbal and mathematical skills (non-emo-
tional, computer-like intellectual functions). These functions are
believed to be located in what is misleadingly called the dominant
side of the brain. One problem is the difficulty of determining
which side of the brain this is in any particular individual.
Sometimes psychiatrists inadvertently shock the side of the brain
they are trying to spare. The side of the brain intended to get
the electricity in unilateral ECT is deceptively called the non-
dominant side. This supposedly non-dominant side of the brain is
primarily responsible for our emotionality and sexuality, artistic,
creative, and musical ability, visual and spatial perception,
athletic ability, unconscious mental functions, and some aspects of
memory. In the words of neurology professor Oliver Sacks, it is
"of the most fundamental importance" because it provides "the
physical foundations of the persona, the self" without which "we
become computer-like" (The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat and
Other Clinical Tales, pp. 5, 20). The side of the brain electro-
shocked in supposedly non-dominant hemisphere unilateral ECT is at
least as important to us as the other parts of our brains.
Psychiatrists who use ECT are violating their Hippocratic
oath to not harm patients and are guilty of a form of health care
quackery. Unfortunately, most psychiatrists have administered ECT,
and government has failed to live up to its responsibility to
protect us from this harmful and irrational "treatment". It is
therefore left to you to protect yourself and your loved ones from
quackery such as ECT by keeping yourself and your loved ones away
from practitioners who use it.
Suggested Reading
Peter R. Breggin, M.D., Electroshock: Its Brain Disabling Effects
(Springer Publishing Co., New York, 1979).
Peter R. Breggin, M.D., Toxic Psychiatry: Why Therapy, Empathy, and
Love Must Replace the Drugs, Electroshock, and Biochemical Theories
of the "New Psychiatry" (St. Martin's Press, New York, 1991).
Leonard Roy Frank (editor), The History of Shock Treatment (self-
published, San Francisco, 1978). Available directly from the
author for $12 postpaid: 2300 Webster St., San Francisco,
California 94115.
John Friedberg, M.D., "Electroshock Therapy: Let's Stop Blasting
the Brain", Psychology Today magazine, August 1975, p. 18.
John Friedberg, M.D., Shock Treatment Is Not Good For Your Brain:
A Neurologist Challenges the Psychiatric Myth (Glide Publications,
San Francisco, 1976).
John Friedberg, M.D., "Shock Treatment, Brain Damage, and Memory
Loss: A Neurological Perspective", American Journal of Psychiatry,
Vol. 134, No. 9 (September 1977), p. 1010.
Berton Rouche, "Annals of Medicine As Empty as Eve", New Yorker
magazine, September 9, 1974, p. 84. This biographical article
describes in horrifying detail the extent and permanence of memory
loss caused by electroshock "therapy".
THE AUTHOR, Lawrence Stevens, is a lawyer whose practice has
included representing psychiatric "patients". His pamphlets are
not copyrighted. Feel free to make copies.
~~~~~~~
Other Web site include:
MadNation:
and, Support Coalition International (SCI):
These may get you started if you're really interested.
In support of Graeme and my many other peers,
Jim Powell
norse...@my-dejanews.com
The piece "Psychiatry's Electroconvulsive Shock Treatment: A Crime
> Against Humanity" was written by Lawrence Stevens, J.D. and can also be
> visited at:
>
> http://www.anitpsychiatry.org
The correct URL is:
norse...@my-dejanews.com
While I will not attempt to speak for Graeme, since he can well speak for
himself, maybe Jim, if you're really looking for so-called credible sources,
you can begin with the following:
Shock Treatment, Brain Damage, and Memory Loss: A Neurological Perspective by
John M. Friedberg, M.D. AMJ;9/97:
at: http://www.idiom.com/~drjohn/amjpsych.html
and, also at:
Peter Breggin's site:
I hope that may help get you started.
Morgan W. Brown
norse...@my-dejanews.com
Jim Powell <jim.p...@silvaco.com> wrote:
> Where are your 'credible sources', Graeme?
Here is one regarding shock treatment from the Breggin site, if you're truly
interested:
Shock Treatment--Its Brian Damaging Effects:
http://www.breggin.com/electroshock.html
There is also more literature on the subject which YOU yourself could
research if you really wanted to open your own mind rather than be a
proponent of shock, when you have no clue, or an indifferent arm-chair critic
or expert of everything and nothing all in the same small package.
That's if you consider anyone who either is not a shock doctor or other wise a
proponent of shock a "credible source" in your way of thinking about this
hideous "treatment".
Morgan W. Brown
Montpelier Vermont
Norsehorse's Home Turf: http://members.tripod.com/~Norsehorse/
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
Victor Romero
> To follow up on that, I recommend that anyone who is really interested in
> learning more about what ECT really does and is about visit the
> misc.activism.progressive discussion at DN and read the post "Shock
> Treatment: A Crime Against Humanity" <snip>
Well, norsehorse, but what about those of us who have first hand experience
with the great benefits of ECT? Why would we need to go to some sensationalized
site which quotes claims from only a *few* people? If ECT is so terrible,
wouldn't more people than Peter Breggin know about it? Ok, ok, so you are going
to tell me that there is a couple of more doctors and a couple of news
journalists. But news journalists aren't qualified to make judgements on the
benefits of ECT. And their paper sales or television viewership depends on how
well they can sensationalize their stories. But like I say, if you don't like
ECT, then don't get it. I don't like Scientology, so I don't read Dianetics.
Its really that simple.
Pseu...@my-dejanews.com
norsehorses@#t...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> Ernest Hemingway was shocked as well and then blew his brains out with a gun
> because he found that the shock treatments were harmful to him and his
> profession.
Norsehorseshit: (sorry, I couldn't resist, I know, I know)
Hemingway's main complaint was his memory had gone to pieces, which as we
both know, it both a side-effect of ect, and a symptom of depression itself.
However killing oneself is not a side-effect of ect, but only a symptom of
uncured depression.
FWIW one of his daughters recently killed herself after a long struggle with
schizoaffective disorder.
Have you ever heard of Art Buchwald, a former Marine and fellow journalist in
post war Paris. He's a poster boy for those who have benefited from ect, and
would do it all over again.
pet...@my-dejanews.com
Pseu...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <6p4vo8$nkg$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> norsehorses@#t...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> > Ernest Hemingway was shocked as well and then blew his brains out with a gun
> > because he found that the shock treatments were harmful to him and his
> > profession.
>
> Norsehorseshit: (sorry, I couldn't resist, I know, I know)
>
> Hemingway's main complaint was his memory had gone to pieces, which as we
> both know, it both a side-effect of ect, and a symptom of depression itself.
> However killing oneself is not a side-effect of ect, but only a symptom of
> uncured depression.
>
> FWIW one of his daughters recently killed herself after a long struggle with
> schizoaffective disorder.
>
Hem only had one stepdaughter. It was a granddaughter.
Hth
Pjk
norse...@my-dejanews.com
>
>
You believe that Shock has benefited you, fine. That is your choice. But, if
you feel so, then why are you so defensive about it and need to ridicule
those of us with direct first experience with shock who personally know of
its brain damaging effects. Some of us have been lied to, while others, like
myself, had it done to us forcibly. I'm not talking about 20 or thirty years
ago either. I was shocked forcibly more recent than that with the so-called
new and improved version of shock. I know of others wh more recently are
being shocked against their will. So don't go attacking me and others who
have a different experience than you and don't pretend to know what I will
say or what my experience is or what I think, because as your post shows, you
haven't got a clue.
It really isn't ever that simple; it only is for those that are willing to
swallow something, like for example, since you mentioned it, Scientology and
Dianetics. But some people believe it in those, just as you believe in shock,
that's a right you and they have, and I can repsect that even though I can't
understand why, just don't push shock on me and others because you believe it
works for you.
Morgan W. Brown
Montpelier Vermont
Norsehorse's Home Turf: http://members.tripod.com/~Norsehorse/
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
toce
> Hmm. I wonder if Hemmingway blowing his brains out had anything to do with
> the facts that he was a lifelong untreated BPI and a RAGING ALCOHOLIC!!!!!
>
> Come on you people, do a little research before posting speculative crap
> like this!
>
> GaryO
>
Okay, so where is the proof that it is one way and not the other?
Cheryl
toce
Kinda like the misinformation you spread?
>
>
>
> Anon
>
So are you saying there are no problems with electric shock?
Cheryl
Unzap My Brain
wrote:
>On Fri, 17 Jul 1998 18:34:39 GMT, du...@email.not (Graeme Bacque)
>wrote:
>>FACT: It is totally unnatural and barbaric to subject the human body
>>to an electrical charge which is actually sufficient to cause death or
>>serious injury. (A jolt from a wall socket in your home can kill - the
>>maximum charge utilized for the purposes of ECT is up to 50% greater
>>than what you'd receive from a wall socket.)
>
>I really think that calling any statement a "fact" which begins with "It is
>totally unnatural and barbaric...." is...misguided.
Perhaps in this case calling facts facts is GUIDED by common sense
and intelligence. It would be MISGUIDED to trust psychiatric industry
"professionals" who make a good living shocking brains.
Tell the truth, and they're looking for a new job....
UMB
Graeme Bacque
>
>Hmm. I wonder if Hemmingway blowing his brains out had anything to do with
>the facts that he was a lifelong untreated BPI and a RAGING ALCOHOLIC!!!!!
>
>Come on you people, do a little research before posting speculative crap
>like this!
>
>GaryO
What about Hemingway's own words - 'it was a terrific cure but we lost
the patient'? (something to that effect anyway) Are you so quick to
discount his own words on the subject? (Or maybe you like most people
hold to the misguided notion that a diagnosis of 'mental illness'
means someone's words are to be summarily dismissed... at least if
they disagree with the psychiatrist's point of view.)
This attitude is proof positive that psychiatric protocol is a rigged
game.
Graeme Bacque
>
>Kinda like the misinformation you spread?
>
>Anon
And you consider it it valid information that frying someone's neurons
with an electrical charge is supposed to be beneficial? Yeah, right...
while we're at it, my uncle in Florida has a really attractive deal on
some swampland for you. (Just watch out for the alligators).
What was it that P.T. Barnum said regarding the extraordinarily high
birthrate among suckers.......?
keith hardwick
considered ECT the last alternative to long term involuntary
commitment to a psychiatric holding facility where people
with serious mental illness that does not respond to medical
treatment are kept. Guess what? Your ECT worked! You are
free to attack a valuable medical procedure on the internet.
I am not x-posting to asmh. I urge ECT for all X-posters.
Keith
Jim Powell
ECT. I can't recall Victor posting and saying, "Hey, you're depressed? Get
shocked!" I myself had this done as a means of last resort. Nothing else worked.
While we are the subject of being defensive, when I have posted of having a
positive ECT experience, someone always pops up and says ,"you don't know what
you're talking about!You're deluded! The placebo effect! It can't be possible to
have a positive ECT experience!" Who is being defensive here? When you say you've
had a horrible ECT experience, I believe you. Why don't you believe me when I say
it worked for me? Can anyone who says they had good ECT be trusted? Are you
capable of accepting that this worked for me without suggesting that I am a
mental defective or a straight-out liar? Maybe I am just a brain-zapping
psychiatrist trying to lure more flies into my web. The practices that you abhor,
such as forced ECT, I can't condone. I believe that in the right conditions ECT
is a very valuable treatment for severe depression, and it may well have saved my
life.
toce
The powers that be?! And does this mean you feel that one individual
should have that type of power over another, especially in a profession
as wishy washy and controversial as psychiatry?
What of those who don't have ECT but end up with the same result?
Cheryl
James D. Milton
On Thu, 23 Jul 1998 10:47:47 +0100, Jim Powell <jim.p...@silvaco.com>
wrote:
>I don't think Victor is pushing shock. He is responding to posts that demonize
>ECT. I can't recall Victor posting and saying, "Hey, you're depressed? Get
>shocked!" I myself had this done as a means of last resort. Nothing else worked.
>While we are the subject of being defensive, when I have posted of having a
>positive ECT experience, someone always pops up and says, "you don't know what
>you're talking about! You're deluded! The placebo effect! It can't be possible to
>have a positive ECT experience!" Who is being defensive here? When you say you've
>had a horrible ECT experience, I believe you. Why don't you believe me when I say
>it worked for me? Can anyone who says they had good ECT be trusted? Are you
>capable of accepting that this worked for me without suggesting that I am a
>mental defective or a straight-out liar? Maybe I am just a brain-zapping
>psychiatrist trying to lure more flies into my web. The practices that you abhor,
>such as forced ECT, I can't condone. I believe that in the right conditions ECT
>is a very valuable treatment for severe depression, and it may well have saved my
>life.
I believe the situation with ECT is somewhat analogous to that of using
psychoaffective meds for the treatment of depression, bipolar disorder,
etc. What proves to be a miracle for one person may be a disaster for
another. The potential adverse side effects with ECT appear to be much
more severe than an adverse drug reaction for some people. AFAIK there is
no way of predetermining which individuals will have a positive
experience and which ones won't. Consequently I personally would only
consider using ECT as a last resort measure where all other medical
approaches and psychotherapy have failed.
The fact that many of the proponents of ECT (the manufacturers of the
machines, the doctors who administer it, and the hospitals that provide
such services) have a definite financial incentive definitely troubles
me. Pharmaceutical companies admittedly have a vested interest in pushing
their meds. But hopefully no psychiatrists or psychopharmacologists are
profiting (via kickbacks) from prescribing a particular med.
I believe that double-blinded studies of the efficacy and risks
associated with ECT are called for and are long past due. These studies
should be done by competent organizations and investigators with no
financial stakes in ECT. Short term and long term followup should be
included.
Of course I am in favor of full written disclosure of all the known pros
and cons of ECT be included as a part of the informed consent process.
The procedure should be performed only upon a voluntary basis.
I suggest that we do not continue to knock people for having either a
positive or negative ECT experience. There are dangers, yes. But there
are also potential benefits to be gained. Let each person decide for
themselves as to whether or not it is in their best interests to accept
the risks involved.
Best regards to all from,
James
ferret
wrote:
>On Thu, 23 Jul 1998 06:20:32 -0500, an...@anon.edu (Anon) wrote:
>
>>
>>Kinda like the misinformation you spread?
>>
>>Anon
>
>And you consider it it valid information that frying someone's neurons
>with an electrical charge is supposed to be beneficial? Yeah, right...
>while we're at it, my uncle in Florida has a really attractive deal on
>some swampland for you. (Just watch out for the alligators).
>
>What was it that P.T. Barnum said regarding the extraordinarily high
>birthrate among suckers.......?
short point before i run on to another thread,
would you consider it valid information that poisoning someone's body
is supposed to be beneficial?
how about chemotherapy as a treatment for cancer?
simplifications are wonderful things, oversimplifications are
wonderful combinations of comedy and tragedy.
cheers,
ferret ("i drank what?")
Elizabeth
> Anon wrote:
>
> > Kinda like the misinformation you spread?
>
This is sooooooooo distorted. Nobody said that. What some people have said is
that sometimes the benefits of electric shock outweigh the harms, and sometimes
the potential benefits outweigh the risks. It is for this reason that some
people are willing to consider ECT as a viable treatment for their depression
despite the possible things that can go wrong with it. This doesn't mean you
have to do ECT if you don't want to. But get off other people's backs.
Banning ECT is NOT pro-patients' rights. It is anti-choice. Giving us fewer
choices is the opposite of empowering.
-elizabeth
Elizabeth
If someone is cured of bone marrow cancer and then dies of lung cancer, that
isn't considered a failure of the bone marrow transplant.
ECT most likely won't save you if you drink like a fish.
-elizabeth
Elizabeth
writes:
> with an electrical charge is supposed to be beneficial? Yeah, right...
I can't help it that you're not a bioelectrical engineer and in fact don't
actually know much of anything about this sort of thing, but someone already
explained why describing ECT as "frying someone's neurons" isn't accurate.
-elizabeth
Elizabeth
this thread is that it has inspired me to go find some people who know what
they're talking about (a local psychopharmacologist and neurologist) and ask them
where I can read something unbiased and factual about ECT. Certainly that's not
going to be something easy to find.
I am sincerely interested in hearing what effects ECT had on people here who have
actually had it. Please try to stick to your own experience. Thank you.
-elizabeth
Elizabeth
> The effect can be compared to turning someone's cranium into a
> microwave oven - and I'm sure you are aware of what such devices do to
> objects which are placed inside them.
I dunno, my sister and I used to put roaches in the microwave and it never did a
damn thing to 'em!
-elizabeth
James D. Milton
But what did your mother do to you?
>-elizabeth
James
Elizabeth
I think people were knocked down for trying to jam their ideas about ECT down
other people's throats.
-e
Elizabeth
> The powers that be?! And does this mean you feel that one individual
So are psychiatric patients powerless, helpless "nuts" who can be manipulated
easily by the evil doctors because we are too stupid to know any better? Or are
we competent individuals who can and do make decisions for ourselves?
I am really sorry that anyone felt so helpless that they felt they couldn't keep
someone from doing ECT on them. I don't think anyone should feel that helpless.
At the same time, I am glad that, even in my worst moments, I've always been
completely autonomous...I can take advice from other people, but they can't force
me to believe them. I'm glad I had an upbringing and an education that taught me
to be able to discern good reasons for doing something from bad ones, and to
demand reasons rather than blindly doing what I'm told. It's a real shame that
some people don't have these advantages.
> ...especially in a profession as wishy washy and controversial as psychiatry?
Would you prefer that psychiatry be extremely rigid in its views, rather than
wishy-washy? It's a field that, like any true science, is constantly questioning
itself, and that looks at things in terms of benefits and harms rather than good
and evil.
-elizabeth
Graeme Bacque
No, but they've sure been knocked down when they try to speak the
truth about their experiences in forums such as this. If you don't
want this 'jammed down your throat' I suggest you don't read the
messages. No one's twisting your arm.
Unzap My Brain
wrote:
>In article <35b78e6f...@n3.idirect.com>, du...@email.not (Graeme Bacque)
>writes:
>> And you consider it it valid information that frying someone's neurons
>> with an electrical charge is supposed to be beneficial? Yeah, right...
>
>I can't help it that you're not a bioelectrical engineer and in fact don't
>actually know much of anything about this sort of thing, but someone already
>explained why describing ECT as "frying someone's neurons" isn't accurate.
I've heard an "explanation" recently by the pro-ect camp that goes
something like this: the electrical jolts knock loose the sickly brain
cells so that they can then find "new and better homes".
Perhaps maybe also with gardens? <snicker>
The zapping profession alternates between saying they don't know how
it 'works' and preposterous theories like that.
Actually its been known for decades how it 'works'. It works by
damaging the brain!
Accurate, smackurate... I'd say "frying someone's neurons" is as
accurate as saying rain is wet...
UMB
Brain Pudding
wrong-thinking brain pudding that was grown in place
by blood vessels feeding empty space
in this case there was no improvement, no
over what had not been there before
only a dessert for psychiatric quacks
a snack to follow their filet-o-macs
'twas put together, then cooked nice and dull
they will dine finely, but forgot
and left their pudding in my skull
Ellen Shumate
there was some memory loss, but it wasn't permanent. it was like going from night
into daylight. i had been very suicidal and my life had no meaning. the meds that
help me now were not at that time in existence, and i felt that ect was my only hope.
it was not used coercively or as a punishment, but was done appropriately and
entirely with my written and verbal permission.
anna
>
> I am sincerely interested in hearing what effects ECT had on people here who have
> actually had it. Please try to stick to your own experience. Thank you.
>
> -elizabeth
i had ect treatments in march of this year. i posted my experience of
them to asd. if you go to dejanews and do a powersearch using my email
address and keywords ect diaries, you should be able to find them.
alternatively, i believe bizshop (nancy) is putting the diaries up on
her website today.
or, email me and i'll send em to you.
bottom line for me, it saved my life. it's an unpleasant treatment,
makes you feel like shit for the whole day, but if i was feeling as bad
again, i'd do it again. like i say, it saved my life.
anna xxx
Unzap My Brain
Storm) wrote:
>On Tue, 21 Jul 1998 08:46:37 +0100, Jim Powell <jim.p...@silvaco.com> wrote:
>
>>paper at face value without heeding the words of Koop? Unzap and his/her
>>colleagues can dig and find sources to demonize ECT and the "evil
>>psychiatrists who zap brains for a living". If you were so inclined, you
>>could find sources to support ECT as a valuable treatment for mental
>>illness. You can find research to back just about any point of view.
>
>Not *good* research. The tobacco research done by tobacco companies, for example,
>has never been recognized as good research.
>
Yes, and someday the psychiatric industry, just like the tobacco
industry, will be forced to admit that they've known all along that
shock is harmful.
UMB
Unzap My Brain
<an...@autoscopia.ndirect.co.uk> wrote:
>bottom line for me, it saved my life. it's an unpleasant treatment,
>makes you feel like shit for the whole day, but if i was feeling as bad
>again, i'd do it again. like i say, it saved my life.
If they could speak, I'd bet there are even more people who would
stand up and say that they killed themselves because of what shock did
to them. I wish to god that I had!
UMB
Unzap My Brain
among depressed patients given ECT were slightly
higher at the 1 year mark. By 5 years the suicide rate was the same
for depressed patients who got ECT as those who didn't.
Babigian, H., et al, 'Epidemiologic considerations in ECT' Arch Gen
Psych 1984;41:246-253
In a University of Iowa study of treatment effectiveness, 1,076
depressed patients were categorized according to whether they received
ECT, or high doses of anti-depressant medications, or low doses of
anti-depressant medications, or neither (ECT nor meds). Long term
follow up revealed that all groups had the same suicide rates,
indicating that the incidence of suicide is not affected by treatment.
The authors conclude: "Therefore, active biological treatments, such
as ECT, may not be deemed as 'lifesaving' now as in the past." Black,
et al 'Does treatment influence mortality in depressives?' Ann Clin
Psych 1989;1:165-173
The same findings are documented in three other studies: ECT does not
prevent suicide in depressed patients.
Eastwood, et al 'Seasonal patterns of suicide, depression, and ECT' Br
J Psych 1976;129:472-475
Babigian, et al 'Epidemiological considerations in ECT' Arch Gen Psych
1984;41:216-253
Milstien, et al 'Does ECT prevent suicide?' Convulsive Therapy
1986;2:3-6
Elizabeth
I'll look that up, yes. Thank you.
Is it really the ECT that makes you feel zonked all day when you have a
treatment, do you think, or is it the anaesthetics they use?
-elizabeth
Elizabeth
writes:
> Not *good* research. The tobacco research done by tobacco companies, for
> example, has never been recognized as good research.
Who do you propose do the research on ECT?
-elizabeth
Graeme Bacque
wrote:
Even in the days before anaesthesia became part of the procedure the
jolt would render the victim instantly unconscious. This reveals two
unpleasant facts about ECT: one, that it served (serves?) the function
of basically decomissioning 'troublesome' patients for a period; and
two, thet the only real purpose of the anaesthesia is to make the
procedure more bearable for the observers rather than benefitting the
victim. The consequences for the 'patient' are the same with or
without the knockout shots... it's the electricity which does the
damage. The drugs may prevent a few broken bones but not the long-term
consequences.
The 'physicians' who administer this torture can't seem to internalize
this basic physical reality - or if they have they are choosing not to
share the info with anyone else. Funny, that even after all the years
of education required, there are medical professionals who haven't
figured out that it is destructive to send an electrical charge
through the human brain. D-UH...
Stewart/sna
>Even in the days before anaesthesia became part of the procedure the
>jolt would render the victim instantly unconscious. This reveals two
>unpleasant facts about ECT: one, that it served (serves?) the function
>of basically decomissioning 'troublesome' patients for a period; and
>two, thet the only real purpose of the anaesthesia is to make the
>procedure more bearable for the observers rather than benefitting the
>victim. The consequences for the 'patient' are the same with or
>without the knockout shots... it's the electricity which does the
>damage. The drugs may prevent a few broken bones but not the long-term
>consequences.
I think there is some confusion here concerning what is considered an
"anesthetic". I think that sometimes (maybe always??) they use a
fast-acting barbituate, like thiopental (the kind of drug your dentist
might give you before removing a molar). In addition to this, some kind
of neuromuscular blocking agent would always be given. Probably
succinylcholine, but sometimes maybe one of the more rapidly acting
curare-like drugs. These neuromuscular blocking drugs are often given as
adjuvents to anesthesia during sugery, but they do NOT affect the
perception of pain (they are not anaesthetics). They simply block all
"voluntary" skeletal muscle contractions, and this is important for
instance if a surgen is cutting through muscles. They are given during
ECT to block the ECT-induced contraction of all voluntary skeletal muscles
that would otherwise occur in their absence. The "consequnces" of ECT
with or without anesthesia and a neuromuscular blocking agent are NOT the
same for the person getting the ECT. The procedure can produce quite a
lot of anxiety, and a rapidly acting barbituate can alleiviate some of
that. In addition, it is quite physically painful to have all of your
skeletal muscles contract strongly, and the neuromuscular blocking agents
prevent that.
/pharmacology lecture mode off
Sincerely
Stewart
--
The Metaphor Man *and* The Great Defender of the Self
metaphor...@usaor.net or anon...@anon.twwells.com
(remove the SPAMBLOCK)
Bev Thornton
>The same findings are documented in three other studies: ECT does not
>prevent suicide in depressed patients.
Inferences cannot be made from a population to individuals in that
population.
All that can be stated from this data is that across a population ECT
does not make a statistically significant change in suicide rates. All
that indicates is that ECT does not work for portions of the
population - nothing more.
It is good data to give to a politician or bureaucrat, they work with
populations. It is meaningless data to give to a physician, they work
with individuals.
As we work with this we must be very careful how we present and
interpret the data. Any errors are weapons that the ECT interests can
use to make us appear unknowledgable or in error. They are better
organized, better funded and more widely supported than we are. We
have to be more careful, more precise and more appropriate than they
are.
--
bev . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . http://members.tripod.com/~Veb
Mercer Blues
> I tried to commit suicide a few days after my final treatment. Guess
> it was
> a raging success, eh? LOL. (I don't remember doing it, but I've heard
> all
> about it, plus the other weird things I did)
>
> I was just reading the new report out from the UK about ECT. (Huge
> document) In the little list they give out there to patients
> undergoing
> treatments, one of the things they warn about is suicide
> attempts....the
> indication was that for some reason, the ECT may precipitate this (and
> they
> insisted on the patient staying with a friend or something during the
> course of treatments if they're doing outpatient ECT).
>
> I was also reading all of the studies on suicide and ECT, and the
> general
> consensus is that ECT offers absolutely no protection from suicide.
>
> Just interesting things....
>
> Juli
Hi Juli!
In varying degrees the effectiveness of almost all psychothropic
medications differs from bipolar individual to bipolar individual.
Conversely the effectiveness of ECT is niether universally good or
universally bad. While you had a very negative experience, others have
had more postive experiences.
My first experience getting shocked was in 1968. It was forced. I was
scared. Over the ensuing months at the state institution I recieved 3
series of ECT treatment. They did help me. I am convinced that I would
not have been able to go or finish college had I not had received that
intensive electroshock therapy. So for me it worked, I was off
medications, and therapy of any kind for about 3 years, now I call that
a success.
I not all that sure I would do it again, in that forced state hospital
envioroment, but if push comes to shove I would consider ECT very
seriously.
I am not an advocate of ECT, I am merely pointing out that there are a
fair amount of bipolar folks who have been helped by ECT. To me help is
where I find it, I am an oppportunist.
regards,
dan emmett
winter...@my-dejanews.com
Bev Thornton
>In article <6pggjq$8...@newsops.execpc.com>, ios...@execpc.com (Eye of the Storm)
>writes:
>> Not *good* research. The tobacco research done by tobacco companies, for
>> example, has never been recognized as good research.
>
>Who do you propose do the research on ECT?
Independent labs.
Graeme Bacque
Milton) wrote:
>
><A whole lot of snipping going on!>
>
...OUCH!
Unzap My Brain
wrote:
>Anna,
>
>I'll look that up, yes. Thank you.
>
>Is it really the ECT that makes you feel zonked all day when you have a
>treatment, do you think, or is it the anaesthetics they use?
Wise up and try to get some GENUINE health care; won't you??
UMB
Unzap My Brain
<dan_e...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Conversely the effectiveness of ECT is niether universally good or
>universally bad. While you had a very negative experience, others have
>had more postive experiences.
Let's see: you're saying here...?
It's important that the electrode be at the plus terminal of the
brain. Then you get a positive experience; but if they mess up and
stick the positive-hot lead on the negative pole of the brain, for
example, it will screw up the brain, like jumpstarting a car battery
with the black colored end on the pos(red) post? Did I understand that
right?
>My first experience getting shocked was in 1968. It was forced.
Bit too totalitarian for my tastes.
I was
>scared.
Understanble.
Over the ensuing months at the state institution I recieved 3
>series of ECT treatment. They did help me. I am convinced that I would
>not have been able to go or finish college had I not had received that
>intensive electroshock therapy. So for me it worked, I was off
>medications, and therapy of any kind for about 3 years, now I call that
>a success.
Maybe you were just born with a wire up your spine that collected all
the high voltage and spared your brain? Lots of different answers to
lots of different questions. A mind/brain that can absorb 100 to 400
volts repeatedly has got to be built uncommonly stout and I suppose
there has to be lots of potential left for accomplishments.
Unfortunatly my poor brain was not made of such stern stuff..
UMB
Stewart/sna
>shapere@*nospam*.mit.edu (Elizabeth) wrote:
>>Anna,
>>I'll look that up, yes. Thank you.
>>
>>Is it really the ECT that makes you feel zonked all day when you have a
>>treatment, do you think, or is it the anaesthetics they use?
cgr...@linknet.kitsap.lib.wa.us (Unzap My Brain) wrote:
>Wise up and try to get some GENUINE health care; won't you??
>UMB
Of course you are more than welcome to post all you like to ASD. There is
really nothing that I can do to prevent others from being rude to you, nor
is there anything that I can do to prevent you from being rude to others.
But here is where *I* bow out, and with a little assistance, protect
myself from having to read either.
Since it is my personal opinion that, at least here on ASD, you are the
one who is leaning and then asking others to stop pushing, you are the one
I will no longer read directly. I suppose I will still see threads you
start that others respond to, and I suppose I will still see what you have
to say if others quote you in their response. But I will no longer read
you directly. One step removed. I'll see how that goes for me.
I am honestly sorry to see you go. I enjoyed the banter back and forth.
A reasonably useful discussion in many ways I thought. But you leaned too
far into me with this response. It should be no surprise that I have both
stepped back, and pushed back.
Take care.
Sincerely
Stewart
*plink* (that's a kinder, gentler sort of *plonk*).
toce
> You and your Scientologist friends are as transparent as a fucking
> window. Shut the hell up.
>
> Anon
>
I don't know about anyone else, but I definitely vote this a--hole gets another
1200 volts.
Cheryl
julila...@my-dejanews.com
Anon something wrote:
>>
Yeah, sure, you were reading all of the studies on suicide and ECT. <<
Excuse me? I'm not sure what your little problem is, but don't cop your
attitude with me, Spike.
I've been scanning and reading the ECT/suicide studies. If you cannot imagine
reading journal studies, then that's your stupidity problem. And it's
apparently a big problem you have. Sad, but true.
>>Let me tell you something that's even better documented: people who
have depression and have not had ECT also commit suicide. FAR
MORE OFTEN than people who have had ECT.<<
When people talk about documentation, I always like to read the original
sources. Could you provide the studies you're referring to, please. Thank you
in advance for what I'm sure will be some interesting reading.
Since I'm in the process of scanning and HTML'ing, I thought I'd post an
excerpt of the study I was referring to, fyi, which refutes your little
outburst above.
The reason I find it interesting is that it challenges the commonly-held
notion that ECT is effective in preventing suicide. According to this study,
and several others, it's a fallacy. Not based on fact. (However, I am certain
that if a person is in bad shape, and opts for ECT with great success, then
that is all that's important to that person...and rightly so. I would not
suggest to anyone not to have ECT. Such a decision is a very individual
choice, and not mine - or yours - to make.) A saved life is a statistical
non-event. (GE Murphy)
The article is from the Journal 'Treatment and Mortality in Depression,' by
Dr. Donald Black, et al. July 1989. The sample size is 1,076 patients.
begin quoted material---------
All patients in the sample had an increased risk for an early death. A high
risk for suicide was found for patients within each individual treatment group
during the follow-up, especially the first 2 years when 69.4% (n= 25) of total
suicides occurred. There were no significant differences in the risk for
suicides, or deaths from all causes combined, among patients in the four
treatment groups.
Expected and observed numbers of deaths were compared using the
Freeman-Tukey- corrected chi square. The Freeman-Tukey correction was used
because it is more conservative than the regular chi square and many of our
expected numbers were so small. Standardized mortality ratios (SMRs) were
calculated and represent the ratio of observed to expected mortality. An SMR
greater than I means that observed death exceeds expectation. Ninety- five
percent confidence limits were calculated for the SMRs using Byar's method
[26].
The purpose of this study was to determine whether specific treatment
categories were associated with a differential risk for suicide, which had
been suggested by early studies.
Furthermore, mortality did not differ between patients having a lifetime
history of ECT and patients never having had ECT. We conclude from a
short-term follow- up of depressives that mode of therapy received in the
hospital has minimal influence on subsequent mortality, including suicide.
end quoted material----------
>>You and your Scientologist friends are as transparent as a fucking
window. Shut the hell up.<<
I answered this before, but since then, someone emailed me a series of your
postings.
Apparently the most intelligent thing you know how to say is 'shut up.'
That's pitiful that you cannot discuss the topics with a minimum of acumen.
Instead, you simply tell people to shut up when it threatens your narrow
world view.
I'd suggest doing some learning on your own instead of whining to me. But of
course, that's your choice. :-) If you prefer to entertain us with 'shut
up,' we'll sit back with some popcorn and watch you make an ass of yourself.
:::passing the popcorn:::
Juli
julila...@my-dejanews.com
julila...@my-dejanews.com
The Anon thing wrote:
>>
On Tue, 28 Jul 1998 16:50:46 -0600, ju...@Isuk.i1.net (Juli Lawrence)
wrote:<<
LOL.
>>So it's not enough to make fun of depressed people, now you have to
make fun of retarded people too?<<
I have never made fun of the mentally ill. However, I *am* making fun of you.
>>Get a life and stop trying to force your anti-mental health beliefs
on other people.<<
ROFL. When someone says 'get a life,' that's my cue they can't think of
anything more clever to say. Even though it appears to me that you're
watching me, (some might even go so far as to say stalking), you obviously
haven't read all of my posts over the last several years. If you had, you
would know that I am not anti mental health. But you have a right to your
opinion...if you are so insecure about things that you must paint me with a
very trite brush, then that's your problem, not mine.
>>>I think I'll be sending a complimentary copy of all of your newsgroup
postings, which I've saved to my hard drive, to Pfizer. I'm sure
they'll be plenty interested in everything you've had to say over the
last couple months. Don't you think? <<<
Well, I do realize that newsgroups are not the safest places to post
anything, and when I post, I do so with that understanding. However, I do
not take kindly to threats of any kind, especially someone who is obsessed
enough with me to save "all" of my newsgroup postings. Your hard drive must
be pretty big to have done so, since I've been posting in Usenet since its
beginning.
You're welcome to send whatever you like to Pfizer....write me an email, and
I'll give you my uncle's name so you can make sure he sees it. It's not like
it's going to be a huge surprise to him to read this stuff....he hears it from
me all the time.
Reminds me of the time a few years ago, a man who became obsessed with me
decided to seek some revenge (I admit I screwed him over, even if
unintentional). He worked for MCI, so had (illegal) access to my phone
records. He threatened to call all of the numbers on my records and say
things about me, if I wouldn't take him back. I didn't, and he did. He told
them (my mom, 85-yr- old grandmother, etc.) some pretty wicked sexual things
about my private life...but the thing is, intelligence runs in the family.
They can smell petty revenge tactics a mile away. And they knew what he was
doing and blew him off.
Anyway, I'm amazed at your obsession with me. Anyone who has saved all of my
postings over the last years has to be obsessed. It's actually kinda creepy to
know there's someone who has nothing better in life to do than to catalog your
Usenet stuff.
But that's the risk we take in posting here. I suppose it should be a lesson
to everyone...you never know when someone is following you, watching you,
archiving your communications. Watch your backs, people....especially around
Anon.edu
>>>Now FOAD, Sweetie, and take the rest of your trolls with you.<<<
You obviously don't mean that. Not if you're watching me, and saving my posts.
You wouldn't have the object of your obsession anymore, now would you?
You're very creepy, AnonThing. I can't imagine doing what you've done. It's
either extremely sad, or just plain bizarre. Probably both.
I hope you can find a new hobby soon.
Juli
p.s. It might serve you better to use a real name when you contact Pfizer.
Anonymous packets from unknown sources don't have much credibility. BTW, that
sounds like a Scientology tactic....are you sure *you're* not a
Scientologist? I believe you must be.
Stewart/sna
-snipped some discussion with someone else-
>The reason I find it interesting is that it challenges the commonly-held
>notion that ECT is effective in preventing suicide. According to this study,
>and several others, it's a fallacy. Not based on fact. (However, I am certain
>that if a person is in bad shape, and opts for ECT with great success, then
>that is all that's important to that person...and rightly so. I would not
>suggest to anyone not to have ECT. Such a decision is a very individual
>choice, and not mine - or yours - to make.) A saved life is a statistical
>non-event. (GE Murphy)
experience and choices of others even while they may differ from your own.
>The article is from the Journal 'Treatment and Mortality in Depression,' by
>Dr. Donald Black, et al. July 1989. The sample size is 1,076 patients.
>begin quoted material---------
-snip-
>The purpose of this study was to determine whether specific treatment
>categories were associated with a differential risk for suicide, which had
>been suggested by early studies.
>Furthermore, mortality did not differ between patients having a lifetime
>history of ECT and patients never having had ECT. We conclude from a
>short-term follow- up of depressives that mode of therapy received in the
>hospital has minimal influence on subsequent mortality, including suicide.
If this was a "retrospective" study, then it could be that those
people who elected to have ECT were "a priori" already a very specific
subset of the larger group of those depressed people in this study who did
or didn't elect to have ECT. As such, it could be that the specific
subset of people who elected to have ECT actually would have exhibited a
significantly higher suicide rate except that this was actually decreased
and brought back to the range of the larger group by the ECT treatments
that they received.
The only way to test this hypothesis would be to perform a
"prospective" study in which a group of people who elect to have ECT are
randomly separated into two groups, one group receiving ECT, and the other
group being denied ECT. (For a more complete prospective study, one could
also have other groups of people who elected to have ECT, but were denied
ECT, be given something else instead, including various meds, therapies,
placebo, etcetera,)
Of course, in a prospective study, one never knows how the
construction of the study has affected the outcome. For instance, it
could be that the suicide rates are not affected by the ECT treatments
themselves, but rather, by being denied the desired ECT treatment. So for
instance, it may be that ECT had no effect whatsoever on the subsequent
suicide rate, but instead, that those people who chose ECT and were
subsequently denied it have a significantly higher suicide rate. Thus
making it appear that giving ECT to people has decreased the suicide rate,
when in actuality it does nothing. It is just an experimental artifact
that being denied ECT increases the suicide rate, (and that perhaps other
substitute treatements do or do not suffice as substitute treatments.)
Life is messy, science is more so.
Sincerely
Stewart
Graeme Bacque
>So it's not enough to make fun of depressed people, now you have to
>make fun of retarded people too?
I think the comment was directed at one individual fool who seems
unable or unwilling to use what god put between his ears. Have a nice
day... fool!
>Get a life and stop trying to force your anti-mental health beliefs
>on other people.
Since when do you dictate which opinions have a right to be aired
here?
>I think I'll be sending a complimentary copy of all of your newsgroup
>postings, which I've saved to my hard drive, to Pfizer. I'm sure
>they'll be plenty interested in everything you've had to say over the
>last couple months. Don't you think?
Fine... on that note yours will be forwarded forthwith to your ISP,
your telephone company, the D.A's office in your state... (No, sorry,
scratch that last one...unfortunately it's still perfectly legal to be
willfully, catastrophically dumb.)
>Now FOAD, Sweetie, and take the rest of your trolls with you.
>
Who DARES to cross my bridge............?
Unzap My Brain
>On Tue, 28 Jul 1998 16:50:46 -0600, ju...@Isuk.i1.net (Juli Lawrence)
>wrote:
>
>Get a life and stop trying to force your anti-mental health beliefs
>on other people.
Coerced Antipsychiatry? What a novel idea...
umb
CLIFFORD CATALANO
issue, and who cares about studies?? We the people who suffer are the
ones who should have the say. Not some one who gets paid to be studied!!
electroshock is like some really radical way for scientists to try to
prove some thing.. has it really helped anyone?? $$$ for reseach on
bipolar should come from 'us' and we can ask the questtions, cause we
have ansewers.. why made other peole suffer ...electroshock JOKE!!!
SUICIDE IS NOT!!
CLIFFORD CATALANO
have. you can not say that it is the only treatment to help someone!! as
for my ignorant response to it -only experience has made me dislike it.
Sorry if any one was offended that was not my purpose for the
response!!! I hope that some one has had success with it because every
one who learns to live again is very lucky indeed.
Bev Thornton
> The only way to test this hypothesis would be to perform a
>"prospective" study in which a group of people who elect to have ECT are
>randomly separated into two groups, one group receiving ECT, and the other
>group being denied ECT. (For a more complete prospective study, one could
>also have other groups of people who elected to have ECT, but were denied
>ECT, be given something else instead, including various meds, therapies,
>placebo, etcetera,)
There are at least two of those. I can't remember the refs but that is
exactly what was done. The patients who didn't receive the treatment
got all of it except the actual shock to the brain. They didn't know
they weren't being shocked. The treatments and sham treatments were
administered by a separate set of personnel so the people who treated
and observed the subjects didn't know who was in which group.
I think Unzap once presented the ref to one of the experiments,
recently.
>Life is messy, science is more so.
And then there is business.
Victor Matveev
> On Mon, 27 Jul 1998 11:28:32 -0600, ju...@NAMIsux.i1.net (Juli
> Lawrence) wrote:
>
> >I was just reading the new report out from the UK about ECT. (Huge
> >document) In the little list they give out there to patients undergoing
> >treatments, one of the things they warn about is suicide attempts....the
> >indication was that for some reason, the ECT may precipitate this (and they
> >insisted on the patient staying with a friend or something during the
> >course of treatments if they're doing outpatient ECT).
>
> People with depression attempting suicide? OH MY GOD! What's next?
>
> >I was also reading all of the studies on suicide and ECT, and the general
> >consensus is that ECT offers absolutely no protection from suicide.
> >
> >Just interesting things....
> >
> >Juli
>
> Yeah, sure, you were reading all of the studies on suicide and ECT.
>
> Let me tell you something that's even better documented: people who
> have depression and have not had ECT also commit suicide. FAR
> MORE OFTEN than people who have had ECT.
>
> You and your Scientologist friends are as transparent as a fucking
> window. Shut the hell up.
>
> Anon
Now this is completely uncalled for. You were replying to the post of a
person who
had undergone ECT herself, so her opinion is certainly more trustworthy than of
anybody
who's judging from the outside (granted that one can still argue about the
validity of the
mentioned studies on the correlation between ECT and suicide, but on a more
civilized
level preferably). Now, if you have undergone ECT yourself and it has helped
you (like
several people here have reported), your opinion is very valuable; however,
given your
bahavior, I assume it didn't do much good. Calling a person a scientologist
isn't a very
strong discussion argument. So give your mouth a break yourself and listen, you
might
learn something.
I am also somewhat upset about UMB attacking people who claim that ECT has
helped them,
and making a blanket statement that since ECT causes brain damage it's bad, no
matter
what. My personal opinion is that it must cause certain degree of brain damage
(memory
problems, other evidence), but the thing is, the brain is already damaged due
to depression,
even if not in the sense of physical damage, but because it doesn't function
properly, and if
the shock helped to relieve the dysfunction, minor damage could be a reasonable
price to
pay (I mean, I know good part of my brain is barely functioning because of the
mental illness,
even though an MRI would show no abnormalities). So I think there would be no
good
argument against ECT if all patient had positive experiences, apart from the
fact that nobody
knows how it works, and even in theory it's not likely anybody can predict an
effect of such
indiscriminate disturbance to such a complex system.
But that's certainly not so; a lot of people regret having been subjected to
ECT, and it's
regrettable that subjective reports are often overlooked. As if there were more
important
critera than subjective feelings of well-being or feeling terrible. While I
certainly believe
that it does help some patients, the question is, what are the odds that it
will help, and what
are the odds that you'll feel disoriented but functional enough so that your
doc can claim that
it helped. Say, if it's 60% chance that it will make you feel better, and 30 %
chance you'll have
an extensive memory loss and have other unpleasant side effects, and remaining
10 % somewhere
in between, would you subject yourself to this? Numbers are hypothetical, of
course, but the
problem is, nobody can give you trustworhty information about the risks
(correct me if I'm wrong),
since doctors aren't interested in documenting adverse effects, and I'm not
sure anybody collects
this information at all, not in a systematic way.
The bottom line is, it can help you, it can screw you up, and you have no
idea what are the exact
risks, and people who administer ECT have no idea about what ECT actually does
to the brain.
At this point, it's a question of getting trustworthy statistics about the
outcome, and I certainly wouldn't
trust the medical establishment with that, having had tons of experience with
it because of my
own struggle with depression.
-- Victor.
Graeme Bacque
wrote:
>In article <35bf5a0c...@n3.idirect.com>, du...@email.not (Graeme
>Bacque) wrote:
>
>(first quoting girlie)
>
>> >Now FOAD, Sweetie, and take the rest of your trolls with you.
>> >
>>
>> Who DARES to cross my bridge............?
>>
>
>
>ROFLMAO!!!!!!
>
>I've laughed too hard today. It's good for the soul.
>
>Juli
Like I said - trivia can be a very handy thing. <Ha-ha!>
Unzap My Brain
>I'm for informed consent, myself. That includes the right to utilize a medical
>procedure if one chooses to.
If electroshock is a bona fide medical procedure, then we're better
off if we lived 2000 years ago and trusted shamans and witchdoctors to
heal us.
Ulitmately, if "civilization" endures, electrically shocking the
brains with from 100 to 400 volts as a medical treatment will be
considered something technologically 'advanced' savages did. Nothing
enlightened in it.
I guess I'm just "ahead of my time" in my revulsion of it, eh?
This isn't what you're advocating - you're
>advocating *less* choice.
I suppose one should be free to chose all the self-destructive
tortures they want, but they should not be called medical treatments
with doctors doing them.
Free to chose or not, any procedure used by psychiatrists can
potentionally be FORCED on a person. Allowing them to utilize a
procedure known to cause irreversible brain changes without consent
(even the deceptive ones commonly in use) in such a manner is not
ethical.
Psychiatrists PRETEND to ethics, no more.
UMB
Mark Hartong
Dan gives you a straight forward account of his experience with ECT with
both the good and bad that happened. For him the outcome was a positive
one. All you can do is belittle his experience because it was different
than yours.
Julie L was right about me being unqualified to call you paranoid. You're
well beyond that. You've made it perfectly clear that you don't like ECT and
psychatrity. Unlike Julie L, who at least presents rationale arguments for
her positions, all you do is blather!
I don't know what your problem is, but I hope for your sake that you get
some sort of help soon.
Unzap My Brain wrote:
> Let's see: you're saying here...?
> It's important that the electrode be at the plus terminal of the
> brain. Then you get a positive experience; but if they mess up and
> stick the positive-hot lead on the negative pole of the brain, for
> example, it will screw up the brain, like jumpstarting a car battery
> with the black colored end on the pos(red) post? Did I understand that
> right?
>
> Bit too totalitarian for my tastes.
>
>
>
> Understanble.
Mark Hartong
Graeme Bacque wrote:
>
> ... This reveals two
> unpleasant facts about ECT: one, that it served (serves?) the function
> of basically decomissioning 'troublesome' patients for a period; and
> two, thet the only real purpose of the anaesthesia is to make the
> procedure more bearable for the observers rather than benefitting the
> victim.
>
> The 'physicians' who administer this torture can't seem to internalize
> this basic physical reality...
Where do you get the idea
1. that the majority of doctors who admister ECT do it to for the
purpose
of "decomissioning 'troublesome' patients for a period"?
2. "thet the only real purpose of the anaesthesia is to make the
procedure more bearable for the observers rather than benefitting the
victim"? Under your standards what possible difference could it make
to the observers?
After all they are just " 'physicians' who administer this torture"
Why couldn't you just have given an answer to Elizabeth's question without
all the propaganda?
Unzap My Brain
<vic...@ariel.ccs.brandeis.edu> wrote:
> I am also somewhat upset about UMB attacking people who claim that ECT has
>helped them,
>and making a blanket statement that since ECT causes brain damage it's bad, no
>matter
>what. My personal opinion is that it must cause certain degree of brain damage
>(memory
>problems, other evidence), but the thing is, the brain is already damaged due
>to depression,
>even if not in the sense of physical damage, but because it doesn't function
>properly, and if
>the shock helped to relieve the dysfunction, minor damage could be a reasonable
>price to
>pay
The mental health profession does not even officially ADMIT that brain
damage often if not nearly always results from the electrical insult
to the brain which is ECT.
How then do you think they are going to fairly warn patients about it?
No consent form will mention this; hence no patient is likely to be
warned of possible brain damage.
If they were making the freely informed choice to trade some brain
damage for 'better function' that is one thing, but they are not.
UMB
Unzap My Brain
<vic...@ariel.ccs.brandeis.edu> wrote:
> The bottom line is, it can help you, it can screw you up, and you have no
>idea what are the exact
>risks, and people who administer ECT have no idea about what ECT actually does
>to the brain.
>At this point, it's a question of getting trustworthy statistics about the
>outcome, and I certainly wouldn't
>trust the medical establishment with that, having had tons of experience with
>it because of my
>own struggle with depression.
>
> -- Victor.
>
Exactly my point: the medical establishment and specifically the
psychiatric medical establishment is betraying our trust.
Rebecca Hartong
Mark Hartong wrote in message <35C05E93...@lmco.com>...
>Graeme Bacque wrote:
>
>>
>> ... This reveals two
>> unpleasant facts about ECT: one, that it served (serves?) the function
>> of basically decomissioning 'troublesome' patients for a period; and
>> two, thet the only real purpose of the anaesthesia is to make the
>> procedure more bearable for the observers rather than benefitting the
>> victim.
> 2. "thet the only real purpose of the anaesthesia is to make the
> procedure more bearable for the observers rather than benefitting
the
> victim"? Under your standards what possible difference could it
make
>to the observers?
> After all they are just " 'physicians' who administer this torture"
This is just plain silly, anyway. It's well documented that in the
bad-old-days before ECT was done with muscle relaxants and general
anesthesia, people receiving it used to sometimes actually break bones
during the seizure. The muscle relaxants prevent that. It's also well
documented that ECT is usually a pretty frightening procedure for someone
who's awake to undergo. The general anesthesia helps with that.
Victor Matveev
I'm touched you agree with my point UMB, but for the record I want to say that
I don't
subscribe to your blanket statements about psychiatry being some kind of
"punishment"
imposed on mentally ill. I just meant that doctors aren't very good scientists in
general due
to very limited experience they have as far as scientific research goes, and they
can't be
trusted as very objective judges of treatments they push, although I certainly
don't
beleieve in any vile intentions on their part: sounds too much like paranoya to
me.
-- Victor.
Unzap My Brain
<har...@erols.com> wrote:
>> After all they are just " 'physicians' who administer this torture"
>This is just plain silly, anyway.
Hardly! We're talking about a procedure used on unconsenting elderly
and women who may have been given only a short trial of a drug or two
with no other alternative theries proposed or discussed. Or even
offered Electroconvulsive Brainwashing first! 100,000 people a year
are zapped 'silly' by a 'therapy' that works by damaging the brain.
Those who call this disgraceful and criminal state of affairs "silly"
are only trying to minimize an important issue.
> It's well documented
So are Stalin's purges. This doen't put a pretty bow on it..
that in the
>bad-old-days before ECT was done with muscle relaxants and general
>anesthesia,
The brain is still the brain. The brain operates on a 12 volt system
and a tiny current. ECT is 200-700 volts, enough current to run a
light bulb. NOTHING has changed, where it matters, in the effect on
the brain.
Why do you apologize for quackery?
UMB
Rebecca Hartong
Unzap My Brain wrote in message <35c0ef88...@news.cjnetworks.com>...
>The brain is still the brain. The brain operates on a 12 volt system
>and a tiny current. ECT is 200-700 volts, enough current to run a
>light bulb. NOTHING has changed, where it matters, in the effect on
>the brain.
You are desperately in need of a lesson in the principles of electricity,
Unzap. Volts does NOT equal current. You can get zapped by FAR more than
700 volts just by shuffling your feet across the carpet in a dry house and
then touching a doorknob. What makes electricity dangerous (*when* it's
dangerous) is amperage-- not voltage.
Come back to discuss this subject again when you understand it better.
Unzap My Brain
<mark.h...@lmco.com> wrote:
>Christ all mighty..
>
>Dan gives you a straight forward account of his experience with ECT with
>both the good and bad that happened. For him the outcome was a positive
>one.
People who have suffered a brain injury are not going to be the best
judge of what has happened to them. ECT "cures" depression (nearly
always only temporarily) by replacing it with a euphoria induced by
the iatrogenic closed-head injury of shock.
Any neurologist will tell you that someone who has been in a car
wreck, for example, can feel quite good and think they're in the best
possible shape, though the doctor knows this is not accurately
reflective of their true condtion.
All you can do is belittle his experience because it was different
>than yours.
That is not all I'm doing. That is not what I'm doing. That is only
your interpretation.
>
>Julie L was right about me being unqualified to call you paranoid. You're
>well beyond that.
Well you haven't taken to heart her revulsion to psycho-babble name
calling, have you?
> all you do is blather!
Then I guess you and I have a lot in common.. ;-)
>
>I don't know what your problem is, but I hope for your sake that you get
>some sort of help soon.
Thanks, but no thanks.
UMB
Stewart/sna
>You are desperately in need of a lesson in the principles of electricity,
>Unzap. Volts does NOT equal current. You can get zapped by FAR more than
>700 volts just by shuffling your feet across the carpet in a dry house and
>then touching a doorknob. What makes electricity dangerous (*when* it's
>dangerous) is amperage-- not voltage.
>
>Come back to discuss this subject again when you understand it better.
You know, in all of this "tastes great versus less filling" discussion, I
mean "current versus voltage" discussion, nobody has yet actually
presented Ohm's law. That is what you all are discussing isn't it?? I
forget, Ohm's law exactly, but I recall that it relates three separate
measures; current, voltage, and resistance. In it, as in any
"realationship", it is not any one measure that is more important, it is
the three values in that particular situation. In other words, you cannot
have one measure without the others.
Given that, I want to hear more discussion about resistance. In other
words, I could argue that it is not the current nor the voltage that is
important, but rather the resistance of your brain. Ahhh well, I suppose
that is in fact what all the fuss is all about here anyway. Everyone has
resistance to the other's point of view. :-)
Sincerely
Stewart
Sorry, I know I could have formulated this metaphor MUCH better, but I
gotta get going and I couldn't resist at least trying.
Isn't Ohm's law current = voltage X resistance ?? Damn I should know it
off the top of my head......