This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
The structure and wording of the intro bites, it reads horribly. -- scuro 11:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
The adverse effects section of this article needs to reflect a more rounded approach to Sackheim's 2007 study of cognitive effects of ECT. A careful analysis of the study shows that Sackheim found that ECT routinely increased cognitive function, except for autobiographical memory, choice reaction time, and simple reaction time, on all the major cognitive tests he devised after 6 months, compared to the patients baseline level. The simple reaction time slowing was only showed in the patients who recieved bilateral sine wave ECT, which by and large is an outdated approach and given to a very small minority of patients in the United States; almost never in private hospitals. The choice reaction time was the only test that showed a clear decrease from the baseline with no indications of improvement. More study should be taken to see how it was affected. However, it should be noticed that even simple reaction time function was improved from the immediate post-ECT time period, and can be predicted to return to baseline levels in time. One should also note that in right, unilateral pulse ECT, all major cognitive functions, including memory were increased compared to pre-ECT levels.
You are new to wikipdeia. I have moved your post down to the bottom of the page. May I suggest that you cut and paste the adverse effects section from the article, then make improvements, and finally post it here. I agree that many have misinterpreted Sackheim. But, this is a contentious topic so it would be wise to post corrections here first. -- scuro 12:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC).
BTW, it's "Sackeim", not "Sackheim". It's been spelled wrong numerous times throughout this page. This person has published at least 200 papers on ECT. Everyone who's well-read with the literature should know how to spell his name. And no, he has not been misinterpreted. He has made published follow-up comments and previous video-taped comments about his study, and he does indeed believe that pulse unilateral ECT causes long-term cognitive dysfunction, and within the study itself in the concluding comments he warns people not to misinterpret the data into thinking otherwise. In a video-taped presentation, he also noted that in a professional conference with ECT researchers and ECT pracitioners that over 2/3 of the audience when polled believed that ECT can cause long-lasting cognitive dysfunction other than memory loss or confusion from around the time of treatment which he called a quote, "watershed moment". He does state that electrode placement and technique may play a role in "minimizing" the damage to cognitive function. Also, the type of cognitive battery used was more demanding on what is believed to be left-brain activity. Different tests other than what was administered would be necessary to fully evaluate right-brain function. Danrz 09:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
If one were to look at the actual study by Sackeim he has the data clearly mapped out on bar graphs. If you check out the bar graph for cognitive function after 6 months on unilateral ECT, you will notice that all graphs point to higher results on all of the major tests compared to pre-ECT levels. This is the evidence I have regarding unilateral ECT actually IMPROVING cognitive function.
User 67.172.92.54, it would be nice if you could follow the conventions of Wikipedia and give yourself a name. I have provided instructions on how to do so in a welcome post on your talk page. It's nice to put a name to ideas.
Reading the summary of the rCBF study I fail to see how it relates to the previous Russian study of your addition in the article. Specifically you quote the Russian study's finding of neuron death and it looks like the rCBF study has nothing to do with that. Why should these two studies be quoted in the same paragraph? I suggest that the rCBF study be given better context be moved, or failing that, be deleted.
I have only read the summary of the Russian study. While some may see this as highly important evidence in reality it is a single study done with mice. At best the findings are a minor footnote of recent directions of research into adverse effects and consequently should receive a brief mention WP:NPOV#Undue weight such as the sentence that the previous study in that section received. I suggest that this study be trimmed to the length of the previous edit. I can access some studies at work but this is not an easy process. Could you post the conclusions of both studies and the methodology of the Russian study also? Thanks.-- scuro 13:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
No. I added this paragraph to show that there ARE studies providing direct evidence that ECT can cause brain damage or abnormal brain function in animals or humans. The paragraph was intended to make this point and then provide a couple quick and recent examples, one in lab animals and one in humans. The paragraph is already of good length and only gives the amount of detail necessary to prove the point and to make the gist of the studies clear to the reader. I also consider it to be of utmost importance. The paragraph immediately preceding this one states that a number of mental health institutions have concluded that there is NO evidence that ECT causes brain damage. "No" evidence is a strong assertion, and it is completely and entirely false, and this can be stated as a fact and proven. The relevance of this new paragraph for inclusion in this section does not rest upon the precise details of the studies, such as whether the best choice was made for rodent strain (which was the choice of the expert neuroscientists whom most editors here are not). I'm not going to get into a lengthy debate with you on rodent strain, etc, because I feel you've completely missed the boat as to the reason this paragraph was even added. I could have substituted other studies in their place. As far as I'm concerned, this paragraph is crucial in this section and cannot be ommitted while maintaining neutrality. And if you think about it, for patients considering ECT or doctors looking for information, it's really not fair for them to read this page and see that institutions and researchers have concluded there is "no" evidence that ECT can cause brain damage or abnormal brain function in either animals or humans when it simply isn't true. But given that this statement is made in many other places on the web other than Wikipedia, it should be included nonetheless along with evidence disputing this claim. I guess I don't understand what's so hard to understand about this. It's already been explained above more thoroughly and clearly. Justin997 20:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
There either "is" evidence that ECT may cause abnormal structural and functional changes in the brain of animals or humans, or there "is not". It's that simple. It only takes one study to disprove such an assertion. However, there are many such studies. The Russian study is just "one" of them in animals. A person cannot overcome such evidence by referring to secondary sources claiming that no such evidence exists when there is direct primary sources proving that it DOES that we are looking at right now! For that matter, the Russian study reviews the literature and cites other studies showing that ECT causes abnormal structural changes in the brains of animals. The question here is not whether a minority or majority of studies conclude that ECT can cause brain damage. The assertion that was made is that there is "NO" evidence that ECT causes brain damage in humans or animals. This is just plain false, and this has been proven to be false.
Here's another new study. What was that about "no" evidence of brain damage again?
Neurochem Res. 2007 Mar;32(3):389-94.
Effects of maintenance electroshock on the oxidative damage parameters in the rat brain.
Jornada LK, Feier G, Barichello T, Vitali AM, Reinke A, Gavioli EC, Dal-Pizzol F, Quevedo J.
Laboratorio de Neurociências, Programa de Pós-Graduação em Ciências da Saúde, Universidade do Extremo Sul Catarinense, 88806-000 Criciuma, SC, Brazil.
Although several advances have occurred over the past 20 years concerning refining the use and administration of electroconvulsive therapy to minimize side effects of this treatment, little progress has been made in understanding the mechanisms underlying its therapeutic or adverse effects. This work was performed in order to determine the level of oxidative damage at different times after the maintenance electroconvulsive shock (ECS). Male Wistar rats (250-300 g) received a protocol mimicking therapeutic of maintenance or simulated ECS (Sham) and were subsequently sacrificed immediately after, 48 h and 7 days after the last maintenance electroconvulsive shock. We measured oxidative damage parameters (thiobarbituric acid reactive species for lipid peroxidation and protein carbonyls for protein damage, respectively) in hippocampus, cortex, cerebellum and striatum. We demonstrated no alteration in the lipid peroxidation and protein damage in the four structures studied immediately after, 48 h and 7 days after a last maintenance electroconvulsive shock. Our findings, for the first time, demonstrated that after ECS maintenance we did protocol minimal oxidative damage in the brain regions, predominating absence of damage on the findings.
Publication Types: Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
PMID: 17268857 [PubMed - in process]
A secondary issue here is whether any modern published reviews of the literature have found evidence of brain damage in animals or humans, because there is also a claim in this article that none have. The answer is "Yes". Aside from Breggin, there are other published papers reviewing the literature and finding evidence of abnormal structural changes in the brain of animals after ECT (case in point, the Russian paper that reviews the literature). And while I am not going to defend Breggin's motives, like it or not your claim that he hasn't done a systematic review of the literature is false. In a recent published review he cites over 170 references, a good chunk of them by the opposing side.
The material is supported. They are primary sources of information from published, peer-reviewed studies, and references and references were provided along with study abstracts. The material should stay as is. Danrz 23:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
These studies have been used to prevent bias in the article. The paragraph immediately preceding the new paragraph in the article states that there is no evidence that ECT causes brain damage in humans or animals, and also states that there is no evidence of recent reviews pointing to any such evidence. Both of these claims have been most thoroughly debunked with direct evidence to the contrary and I find your arguments to be specious at best. It is very appropriate to follow-up such sweeping claims with an example from primary sources pointing to brain damage in mice given ECT, and the functional brain scan study in humans showing significantly increased abnormal cerebral blood flow in post-ECT patients. It is not only appropriate, it is necessary for the sake of balanced and unbiased presentation. I might also point out that there are other studies aside from these that could substitute for what's here. These two were chosen because they are so recent and utilized advanced technologies. No undue weight has been placed here by any stretch of the imagination, especially given the preceding paragraph making very bold claims that there is no evidence, no evidence, no evidence, and that the title of the subheading is ADVERSE EFFECTS! I dismiss your assertion as false that there "is no support" for the new human SPECT scan study showing abnormal, compromised cerebral blood flow in post-ECT patients under the heading of "Adverse Effects." In my opinion, it's strange logic to maintain a full paragraph incorrectly professing no evidence when such assertions have been completely debunked with direct evidence, and then attempt to argue that any possible evidence to the contrary "warrents[sic] no more than a sentence." The new paragraph will remain. Justin997 04:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi. The issue here is very simple. The article currently states there is "NO" evidence that ECT causes brain damage in humans or animals. The article also states that there are "NO" recent reviews that found such evidence. Both of these claims in the article have been proven to be grossly incorrect. Yet a paragraph is devoted to it. Because such fallacious claims are made often however, a paragraph was written pointing out an example of a mouse study pointing to the contrary, and also cited a new study that found that ECT compromises normal cerbral blood flow in humans, possible evidence pointing to brain dysfunction. The information is sound, supported, and appropriate given the subheading and the preceding paragraph that promotes gross misstatements of fact by saying that there is "NO" evidence of brain damage in humans or animals, and "NO" modern reviews pointing to such evidence. (And yes, there are reviews, as has been proven.)
The progression of arguments to the contrary here is quite odd and revealing:
1) First the paragraph was too long and was trimmed down and a study removed.
2) Then there's an argument that the two studies don't directly relate to one another and shouldn't therefore be in the same paragraph, even though it's abundantly obvious why they are (to contradict previous paragraph finding "NO" evidence in humans or animals, and provide an example of study finding brain damage in mice, and an example study finding compromised, abnormal cerebral blood flow in humans)
3) Then an argument that this mouse study should only be a minor footnote that no one will read (even though the reason it's there is to provide an example that yes, there IS evidence)
4) Then an attack is made on the design of the study, apparently suggesting that it isn't evidence because of the mouse strain chosen. (which I disagree with, and regardless it's not a wiki editor's place to challenge the mouse strain choice of expert neuroscientists who make this stuff their life's work -- it's their study. Moreover, it isn't the superiority of the study that got it here, it was listed as an "example" that YES THERE IS EVIDENCE IN ANIMAL MODELS OF BRAIN DAMAGE).
5) Then the claim is made that the mouse study struggles to support the paragraph.
6) Then the mouse study is called trivial until it's replicated (even though again it was added as an "example" that YES, there is evidence, not because of overriding importance)
7) Then I pointed out in the talk page that one of the "NO" evidence claims made in the preceding paragraph in the article is that there are no modern reviews finding evidence of brain damage. I proved this claim to be false, and cited to Peter Breggin, a very well-known MD who has written a book on the topic and a recent comprehensive review of the literature citing close to 200 references and finding numerous evidence of brain damage in animals.
8) Then Breggin is personally attacked, apparently suggesting that his published review isn't good enough to disprove the "no evidence in recent reviews" claim, because he's not a "reliable source." (I also point out that there are other reviews finding evidence, including one done in the Russian mouse study).
9) Then in response to me writing that there there either IS evidence of brain damage in animals or humans or there is not, and that a single study stating that brain damage was found in a modern study can defeat the harsh claim of "NO" evidence of brain damage in animals, it's argued that "that's not the way that science works", and "several studies also can mean squat".
10) Then it's argued I can't negate "secondary" sources that found no evidence of brain damage in animals or humans with direct "primary" sources of published experimental studies which found such damage as part of their experiment. (This is not to mention that there are also other published reviews finding evidence of brain damage in others' work).
11) etc.
In addition to this, it's claimed that this single paragraph briefly showing a couple studies pointing to possible adverse effects (the subheading IS Adverse Effects, btw), violates the Wikipedia policy of undue weight. This is incredibly strange as the paragraph immediately before the new paragraph is entirely devoted to multiple claims of "No evidence" of brain damage in humans OR animals. If a paragraph can be devoted to "No evidence" stating untruths, then one can and should be added afterwards to give a couple of examples of this evidence which is claimed not to exist.
Of course, the real problem here is the paragraph boldly asserting "NO EVIDENCE" with regard to studies in humans OR animals of brain damage. This has been proven to be false. The paragraph also asserts that "NO" modern reviews of the literature have found such evidence by others. This is also false. Ideally, this paragraph should be deleted and both paragraphs should be re-written to point out that the majority of studies find no objective evidence of organic brain damage or dysfunction in humans OR animals, but there are a minority of studies that have found this, including recent studies, and then references should be given. At this point, there is a unreasonable refusal to acknowledge that there is ANY published evidence pointing to brain damage or organic brain dysfunction in animals OR humans. And a whole paragraph is devoted to multiple claims of "no evidence." Because of this, the new paragraph will remain for the time being in order to preserve the quality of the article and educational value of the "Adverse Effects" section. It will also be retained to maintain neutrality, fairness, and balanced perspective. Danrz 20:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
With regard to the re-draft, I'm going to point out some of the problems. First of all, the studies finding adverse effects in animals have not been tallied, and when quantified with the number 2, it may give the impression that these are the only ones, and there are more. Also, I see no reason to expand beyond the two original studies that were included, aside from providing references for them in brackets. For instance, at the end of the paragraph we can include a sentence like "Other studies have also documented brain damage or dysfunction in humans or animals", followed by numbers in brackets that can bring the reader down to the reference section.
It was complained earlier that this section was too long, with undue weight, etc. Moreover, a number of misrepresentations were made with regard to the study finding oxidative damage. Where it was written that "the animal brain is especially sensible to oxidative damages in virtue of its high consumption of oxygen", this was actually one of the reasons WHY they checked for this type of damage. Oxidative damage to cells actually involves the transfer of electrons, and hyperoxygenation is known to increase oxidative stress. Also, people are animals. When they said the animal brain is especially sensible to oxidative damage, this was inclusive to humans, not exclusive. What they were talking about is the animal brain vs. other organs in the body. For example, when people stop breathing, the major concern is brain damage and death, because it starts to occur several minutes after cessation of oxygen whereas other areas of the body can endure for much longer intervals and recover where the brain often cannot. The animal brain is particularly ill-equipped to fully heal from many types of damage. It's been argued that evolution led to the blood-brain barrier and extra thick skull rather than a brain that is more resistant to assaults and/or has better regenerative capabilities. Furthermore, when I mentioned this study on the talk page, I was not demanding that it be included in the article, nor did I think it was the best choice for an example to contradict the claim of "No evidence." The point of it was that brain damage was documented in this study, whether minimal or not. Again, it's all about the preceding paragraph that states over and over again that there IS NO EVIDENCE. This is false.
Finally, the original draft was much better written and more accurately respresented the findings of the studies in a concise and easy-to-read format. So, I restored it while editing the topic sentence and specifying the mouse strain used in the spirit of cooperation and collaberation with other editors. Danrz 22:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Danrz. I'm frankly not interested in repeating myself over and over again a thousand times, especially in response to circular, specious arguments which have already been responded to with very lengthy screeds, and most all of the claims in the criticisms being debunked. In addition to what was written above about the proposed new redraft, I might also mention that the SPECT scan study was ALSO misrepresented in the new draft. The researchers explicitly stated that rCBF was quote "largely normalized" in patients responding to medication but that ECT-treated patients showed significant increases in abnormal rCBF and followed a different path, and the original draft used their own words. The timeline posted above by Danrz really does tell a lot about all this. I'm glad it was posted. When editing material on Wikipedia it is possible for critics to "shoot themselves in the foot" so to speak, by throwing up a thousand different arguments to counter one paragraph, and then expecting hard-working contributors to spend hours and hours responding to never-ending arguments, many of which are nonsensical and not worthy of response. Justin997 23:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'm not fooled by any of this. I've visited the ECT page numerous times over the last few months and just noticed the neutrality-disputed banner in the "Adverse Effects" section and then saw the new paragraph. I just spent almost two hours of my time examining this excellent new paragraph, looking at the full text of the studies referenced, and going through the endless sophistry on this talk page. Somehow I doubt many others will be willing to actually go through this endless charade of an exchange on this talk page to see what really transpired here behind the scenes. And that's too bad. Because if they did, there's a good chance they would be as disgusted as I am. Every imaginable (and unimaginable) type of attack has been made on this new inclusion, and a lot of the criticism makes no logical sense whatsoever. I can't believe people actually took the time to respond to all of this empty and perpetual rhetoric. It kind of reminds me of how small children like to play a game by asking a parent "why", and when the parents carefully explain and respond, the child asks "why" again and giggles and the process keeps going..... Only this is MUCH WORSE!! The saying "if you can't win, confuse the issue" comes to mind. Far be it from anyone to actually take a step to make at least a small portion of this article fair, balanced, and truthful.
With regard to the new material itself as added by Danrc, I wouldn't change a thing. And I wouldn't change the studies, either. The real controversy here is with the paragraph preceding the new one which makes multiple claims that there is zero studies showing brain damage in humans or animals, and zero published reviews saying so. People here have went out of their way to show these claims are completely and utterly false. And they have won the argument. The evidence is right in front of us. I've looked at it. So have others. And there's nothing wrong with the sources. The debate is whether there is "any" evidence showing brain damage in animals or humans, and there is. And the mouse study is a good one, and very recently published, and very clear in its conclusion that brain damage was caused by the procedure. Someone actually had the audacity to claim that this study by Russian neuroscientists is not a good source and therefore doesn't constitute evidence. The researchers were accused at one point of intentionally picking a bad rodent strain, etc. It is the opinion of the experts who conducted the study that evidence reveals brain damage. And as far as the false statement that there are no modern reviews finding brain damage in animals or humans, that's also false. Breggin is all that's necessary (even though there are others), and he has published in professional journals and has a doctorate and Harvard education. No one cares what someone's "personal opinion" is of him. The debate is whether or not there is evidence of brain damage in animals or humans, and whether or not there are any recent reviews pointing to any such evidence. And there are multiple studies, and more than one review. These are proven facts at this point. And as far as the SPECT study goes, the paragraph doesn't directly state that the study shows definitive proof of brain damage. It states that it shows a type of brain dysfunction (rCBF) considered to be abnormal by the expert researchers. They DID use the word "normalized" in reference to the medicated patients responding, and said that ECT patients went in the opposite direction. And the whole reason why brain damage is relevant to begin with is because it can cause "brain dysfunction". So, if there is a study showing that abnormal cerebral blood flow can be significantly elevated in patients after a course of ECT, it belongs here in this paragraph as an example. The new text should remain as submitted most recently by Dan.
This article has historically been accused of being grossly biased, and the topic itself is controversial. Looking over the history of contributions and edits to this topic, I can see that there has been possible over-domination by two or three users in particular. Without naming anyone, I'm going to have to put a watch on certain editors to watch what they're doing here and elsewhere. Someone has to. Ali del mundo 05:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
You're not fooling anyone. The questions as to your query requesting proof of reliable sources have already been answered, making this query inappropriate. The "reliable sources" for the new inclusion are studies from professional, peer-reviewed medical journals and have been listed in the references from the very beginning with inline citations linking to the list of references at the bottom of the page. Moreover, you yourself contributed to a sloppy, misrepresentative rewrite of this same paragraph posted by NMG20 utilizing the same two sources!!! In effect, you republished these sources for the same purposes yourself! So what you are claiming right now doesn't make the slightest bit of sense, and once again you and NMG20 (as Justin put it) "shot yourselves in the foot", so to speak, by republishing the same two sources for the same purpose. This really is ridiculous. This is not to mention that earlier the two of you were making complaints about undue weight, and then preceded to add yet another study to the two that were already there and make the paragraph even longer! Yet again, you shot yourselves in the foot, contradicted yourselves, and as if that is not bad enough, you forced people to once again respond to nonsensical criticisms. Danrz 11:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Very well put. LOL! Look, Dan, there's really no reason to continue responding to these two. They no longer have any credibility. And every time you or I or someone else thoroughly responds to one of their typically fallacious arguments and debunks it, they just ask it back over again. There never was any central argument to their criticisms. They basically threw up a thousand different arguments to try and keep one small chunk of text out of the article, hoping that at least one of their arguments would stick. I'm tired of this silliness. Justin997 11:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
User:Ali del mundo - you're too convenient. Please don't any of you take it personally - see WP:SOCK for why - but I've listed the three of you under suspected sock puppets. Once again, please don't take this personally - I will be quite happy for you to list me there with scuro, for instance - but I have had my time wasted by sock puppets in the past, and do not wish to have the current episode drag out longer than it needs to.
Oh, the mediation cabal now, eh? It only makes sense that you'd request that after you've attacked the new short inclusion in every other possible way conceivable: from format, to placement, to length, to content, to the studies listed in the paragraph, the integrity of the researchers, the methodology used by the researchers, etc, etc. Then when you fail to make any progress on these, you start going after the contributors themselves, and flagging all manner of miscellaneous wikipedia policy doctrines like the ones for undue weight, reliable sources, synthesis, reliance on primary sources, etc. And now after all of this (which is plainly revealed in the histories and on this page), you want mediators to dive into this bottomless pit that you created? One of the most amusing arguments here are the arguments of undue weight and unreliable sources, because as Danrz said earlier, you yourself rewrote the entire paragraph and lengthened it, keeping the same conclusions and the very same sources and even added an extra source. Mediation is appropriate in cases where each side has non-frivilous, opposing, justified and genuine concerns. Mediation is not appropriate for dealing with people who will go to any length simply to have their way, no matter what it takes or whether or not they're justified. Justin997 22:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Paragraph in question from Adverse Effects section on main page:
WP:SYN
Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research.[2] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article.
and...
Although most articles should rely predominantly on secondary sources, there are rare occasions when they may rely on primary sources. An article or section of an article that relies on a primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Contributors drawing on primary sources should be careful to comply with both conditions.
The cited primary sources have several obvious Wikipedian flaws.-- scuro 20:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
1) There was no synthesis in this new paragraph. The topic sentence of the paragraph simply states that there is evidence in the literature of X and Y, and then gives an example each of X and Y. That is not synthesis. X= brain damage (in animals), Y = abnormal cerebral blood flow (in humans).
2) The second policy copied above is about articles or sections as a whole "relying predominantly" on primary or secondary sources. You do know what "relying predominantly" means, don't you? Moreover, multiple secondary sources regarding the same issue of evidence in the literature for brain damage in animals were listed in the previous paragraph.
Justin997 21:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Warning to editors and readers at large regarding sophistry:
Please read the "modern usage" section of the page sophistry to understand the basis of my position here with regard to these character(s). Sophistry has many variations and levels of expertise, and in this case involves the intentional crafting of deceptive and illogical claims that put the opponent in a perpetual state of defense. The fallacious logic is often immediately recognized by the opponent, but often not by outsiders not deeply involved with the exchange. The sophist does not concede to the superiority of logic made by the opposing party in response, but rather continues to make further logically deceptive remarks in response along with demanding and unnecessary queries, which typically infuriates the opponent with the hope that the opponent will get himself into trouble due to his own outbursts. Sophistry in this particular case also involves intentional misrepresention and equivocation of the results of scientific studies, forcing the opponent to exhaustively correct and defend. On Wikipedia, sophistry can be used as an ultimate means to unjustly prevent what's loosely referred to around here as "consensus", and to also create what looks to be a genuine, good-natured hot debate on the surface where there really is none. In short, people with no proper justification for changes they want made to a page can use sophistry and abuse the mediation process into either forcing an exhausted opponent to concede or to force an unreasonable compromise, such that they ultimately are allowed to publish disinformation to the community. It has been suggested that this page is at high risk for industry-funded manipulation of page content given the recent developments and publications in this area, and the sheer number of visitors to Wikipedia. (See the above argument about synthesis, etc, for one of seemingly countless examples. (Of course this is not synthesis, as Justin pointed out with logical analysis, and as anyone with a formal education in writing could tell you). Many more examples in the talk page section of "2005 Russian study and 2007 rCBF study".) Danrz 00:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh, no.... You're the one making the one making the claims here. If you claim the addition of the new paragraph violated the above policy then make out your case and explain why and show how. Justin997 03:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
"It has been suggested that this page is at high risk for industry-funded manipulation of page content given the recent developments and publications in this area, and the sheer number of visitors to Wikipedia". You are violating the Wikipedian policy of good faith. Funny that earlier you accused me of not being well read enough to even know how to spell the ECT researcher Sackeim's name, yet now I am an industry funded manipulator of Wikipedia? Persist with this sort of weasely name calling and I shall take action. -- scuro 04:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi folks! Here's a great example of sophistry along with misrepresentation! If you have not already, please read my explanation of sophistry above.
The complainant is asserting that I have engaged in "weasely name calling", by calling him an "industry funded manipulator."
However, if you read quoted the sentence itself, you'll notice that the sentence simply states that the "page" is at "high risk" for something. I never said anyone did anything in this sentence. I never even said anything happened to the page either, for that matter. I said the page is at "high risk." And I never called a name in this sentence. Moreover, I said "it has been suggested", meaning that it's ambiguous as to who even suggested this to begin with.
Please note how this process works through the crafting of deceptive and illogical assertions, and how it is intended to place the opponent in a perpetual state of defense in order to refute the fallacious argument. Now, see, after the fallacious argument is debunked/refuted, the process starts right back over again with more fallacious claims! We should invite the editors from the logic and philosophy pages over, and get some popcorn! :-) Danrz 06:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Strange logic. The whole point of sophistry is to prevent useful discussion by forcing the opponent to respond to circular, deceptive, fallacious assertions. There is no building useful discussion with a sophist, which is why it must be exposed where there is clear evidence of it occurring and others warned so they don't fall victim to it. Sophistry is a particularly nasty form of social incivility. And the civil thing for a person to do is to warn everyone else where he has clear and convincing evidence that it is occurring, as is the case here.
And might I point out that we have three usernames on this page, all of whom appear to be supporting one another, and all employing the continuous use of fallacious logic in most every posting they make to this page? What are the chances?? This includes you, Nmg20, Scuro. Chris Dubey stated above, "you seem to be continuing to engage in a flawed defense of logical fallacies." And he was correct. Justin997 17:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
That is what it says. And that's not what "may follow a different course" means. It states directly in the abstract that, "A response to medication was associated with normalization of rCBF deficits, whereas a response to electroconvulsive therapy was associated with an additional rCBF decrease in the parietotemporal and cerebellar regions bilaterally." In the full text, it calls the reduced rCBF after the ECT series a quote, "finding of reduced brain function." "[M]ay follow a different course" refers to the uncertainty of the future, and they suggest that researchers may wish to repeat and expand on the results of this study by checking to see if the rCBF improves or gets worse months down the road and "document the course of rCBF changes"; i.e. check to see if the reduced brain function gets better worse, or stays the same over the long term. Justin997 21:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
More sophistry. You are inentionally making false claims with the attempt to get readers to accept your claims without verifying them. Justin didn't speak for anyone, he quoted someone. And he made no representations outside of the meaning of the direct quotation. Justin also quoted from the full text of a study right before your reply, and you know this. And you tried to publish a pargraph to the page that was full of either ignorant or deliberate misrepresentations of the oxidative damage rodent study. And I thoroughly disproved and exposed your ridiculous representations of this material. And you're the one posting bluff and bluster here. You're the one making the claims, as Justin noted. You're not fooling anyone except yourself and whatever other usernames you may have on this page. Sophistry is a game often played by very intelligent but disreputable people. However, you miss out on the first of these attributes, and thus lack the skill to do it effectively. Danrz 04:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I have heard nothing from Danrz. I'll delete the passage to see if still wants to take this to a mediation cabal.-- scuro 19:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
David Helfgott (pianist portrayed in the film "Shine") Janet Frame (author of "An Angel at my Table")
Hello user 124.177.108.153. Additions to the list are welcome. Since this new information is about people it is best if you find a reliable citation that supports these claims.-- scuro 11:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
This is just a laundry list that doesn't add much to the article. Anything of value in this section should be moved into the main article, and the section should be deleted.-- Mumia-w-18 ( talk) 13:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
The fictional depictions of ECT section is a list and Wikipedia doesn't want lists. What should happen to this section is that either it be trimmed to a few notable depictions as in the nonfictional section, or it should be the basis of a new article and the information should be moved there. -- scuro 20:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Any preference...skim it down into paragraph form of notable depictions or move it?-- scuro 04:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
What are the most notable depicts of ECT?-- scuro 16:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
In a 2006 critical article, in the journal founded by Peter Breggin, and the officical ICSPP journal, Ethical Human Psychology and Psychiatry, psychiatrist and researcher Colin A. Ross, the author reviewed the placebo-controlled literature on ECT and found that, 1 month following treatment, ECT was not shown to be more effective than placebo in any studies. Further, many studies also failed to show ECT as being more effective than placebo during treatment.
Question: how in the hell do you design/administer a placebo ECT? Or were they comparing it to a pill/shot/whatever form placebo? -- Lode Runner 09:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
The big clue here is that the study was published in Peter Breggin's "scientific" journal. Take a look at Breggin and all becomes clearer. Then one also has to ask, what is Ross doing publishing in Scientology's Freedom Magazine? http://www.freedommag.org/english/vol36I2/page16.htm. Ross was also the one who defended scientology from the recent BBC expose. http://digg.com/world_news/BBC_Scientology_documentary_Watch_it_in_full_online?t=6685752 I believe he has also received an award from Scientology. Have I made the point that the study could be biased?-- scuro 13:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
So the "placebo", then, is an inert pill? If the passage is retained, I think this needs to be made clear, because placebo-controlled studies are meant to duplicate the superficial aspects of the tested treatment as closely as possible. Obviously, taking a "sugar pill" isn't ANYTHING like being shocked into having a seizure. I'm not saying that the comparison is *entirely* without merit, but at the very least it's pretty misleading. Saying that the ECT is more effective than medication (which in turn is more effective than placebo medication) is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from saying that the ECT has been shown to be more effective than a placebo, because a placebo ECT would have to trick the patient--and ideally the doctor as well (hence the term "double-blind" study)--into believing he/she had been severely shocked. (For comparison, the term "placebo" has also been used to describe "fake" surgery, where the patient is put under anesthesia and cut open but not operated on--and yes, with placebo surgery there is a significant improvement over patients who've had no surgery at all.) In this case, it would probably be impossible to achieve (how on earth do you convince someone they've been severely shocked without actually shocking them?) thus a true placebo-controlled ECT study isn't actually possible, and the article shouldn't imply otherwise.
I have no opinion on any other issues that might remain, such as whether or not the entire passage should be stricken. The term "placebo-controlled", however, is blatantly false unless someone actually constructed a placebo-ECT experiment. -- Lode Runner 18:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
The paragraph beginning with "In 1976 Dr. Blatchley demonstrates the effectiveness" suddenly switches from the previously used past tense to the present tense which seems wrong to me. The following paragraph also uses the present tense while it seems to me that most of it should be past tense. Scatteredpixels 02:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Previously NMG had suggested this structure for the article. No one had questioned it.
I have attempted to make the article conform to this structure by moving information into the the proper subsections and removing excess titled subsections so that the article does not appear too cluttered. This is a work in progress and I hope that other editors will help with further organization of the material. -- scuro 13:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
What about a section (or at least mention) on alternatives, such as transcranial magnetic stimulation or vagus nerve implants?-- Gloriamarie 18:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
ECT is not a first line treatment. Typically it is used when medication fails or can't be used. You could call ECT an alternative treatment to medication. As I understand it the treatments mentioned above are fringe treatments and as such should warrent no mention in this article. Do they not warrent their own article?-- scuro 11:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
hi, my name is jon. ive had 72 treatments 71.192.55.220 15:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC) i guess people dont post too often. anyway, ECT has helped me immenseley & as time goes by, i get memories back. ive also learned how such a contaversial & often misunderstood procedure, can help so much. if people educated themselves, they wouldnt be such skeptics. Cheers & positive thinking. 71.192.55.220 15:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
There have been a number of different types of ECT offered over the years and at present there are still several types of ECT used. They have different outcomes and side effects. Mention of the different subtypes is made throughout the article. I'd like to create a new subsection about this but don't know what to call it or where to put it in the article. Does anyone else feel that this topic deserves a subheading and have further input?-- scuro 11:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Mark v1.0 has now twice deleted this statement from the into: "It is widely accepted that ECT does not cause brain damage". He has now personally been asked to discuss the issue in talk. The issue has been previously discussed at length and is supported with numerous citations from excellent secondary sources further down in the article which is included below. The intro should be a synopsis of important information from the article.
A number of national mental health institutions [1] [2] have concluded that there is no evidence that ECT causes structural brain damage. A report of the United States Surgeon General states, "The fears that ECT causes gross structural brain pathology have not been supported by decades of methodologically sound research in both humans and animals". [3] All of the recent scientific reviews on this topic which reviewed the body of ECT research using autopsies, brain imaging, and animal studies of electroconvulsive therapy, have also concluded that there is no evidence that ECT causes brain damage. [4] [5] Current research is examining the possibility that, "...rather than cause brain damage, there is evidence that ECT may reverse some of the damaging effects of serious psychiatric illness" [6]
Do you have something to share with us Mark that would warrant the deletion of the sentence in the intro?-- scuro 15:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
The problem now is the definition of the term/phrase "brain damage". Can we agree memory is in the brain? Can we agree what damage is? I will be reverting Scuro's choice. -- Mark v1.0 13:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Nice to see you on the talk page Mark.
What we agree upon:
Possible points of disagreement:
Disruptive editing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing#Dealing_with_disruptive_editors The third step in the disruptive editing process is to seek input from other editors. Their input would be welcome now.
We have a statement that now has been removed for the third time by Mark v.1.0. The statement is supported by text in the article which is supported by highly esteemed national health institutes from the US and the UK. The statement is also supported by the most recent scientific reviews on the subject.
If two editors disagree on a subject consensus should be sought WP:CONS and unilateral editing should be avoided. I look forward to your response and the response of other editors.-- scuro 14:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Dr.John M. Friedberg.
ok forget Friedberg. I am sure you don't aprove of ect.org either. Electroconvulsive Therapy Causes Permanent Amnesia and Cognitive Deficits
[ Brain_damage]defined here at wiki.Brain damage or brain injury is the destruction or degeneration of brain cells.
You personally admit [ memory] can be lost from ECT? Memory is some kind of brain cell and ECT does something to the cell. What does ECT do to the cell? -- Mark v1.0 02:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Memory is a very complicated process of encoding, storing and retrieving information which involves multiple areas of the brain. Forgetting the name of a person one just met five minutes ago is the consequence of failure to transfer that information from working (short-term) memory into long term memory. There's an extremely brief period known as sensory memory where information is coming in, but it must also be attended to in order to go into working (short-term) memory, aka "conscious awareness". But even then, memories do not stay in working memory unless you keep them there or move then into long-term memory- forgetting is rapid with working memory- within 15-20 seconds actually. When we meet a new person, hear their name for the first time and continue on with conversation, or some other activity without continuing to attend to or use that name, new incoming info tends to interfere and push that info out of consciousness where it is lost. That is a normal memory process not due to brain damage, and not at all comparable to the memory loss involved with brain damage due to ECT. -- Mark v1.0 02:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Reports of memory loss are "characterized as somatoform disorders,rather than as evidence of brain damage" [ Complaints of Loss of Personal Memories] With psychiatrists controlling the definition of what constitutes brain damage, there is little documented "credible support", but you knew this already.-- Mark v1.0 04:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
This is pointless. Conspiracy theories don't cut it on Wikipedia and neither does original research WP:OR / WP:SYN. You can't talk about the process of memory and then plunk brain damage down right after and hope that the reader will accept the connection of the two ideas. You are connecting two things together without any supportable citations. That is called synthesis. Worse, there is no expansion of the idea of brain damage to logically connect it to memory. Even the synthesis lacks any sort of support. More bothersome is the innuendo that you project upon other editors and the whole field of Psychiatry also goes against one of Wikipedia's five pillars which is assume good faith. WP:AGF.-- scuro 11:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Don Weitz, David Oaks, Juli Lawrence, Judi Chamberlin, Bonnie Burstow, Gary Moore, Peter Lehmann, Peggy S. Salter, Sue Clark-Wittenberg, Leonard Roy Frank, Chris Dowling, Jonathan Cott, Anne B. Donahue, Jackie Mishra, charles H. Kellner, Jacqueline Guest, Jan Wallcraft, G. Christiane Starks, Bertram P. Karon, Wendy Funk, Timothy W. Kneeland, Sally Clay, Sheila Gilhooly book"still sane" 1985, Nira Fleischman, Pat Gabel, Linda Andre, Elizabeth Plasick, Frank Adams, Ted Chabasinski, Jody A. Harmon, Janet Gotkin, Lou Reed, Gail Larrick, Marilyn Rice, Barbara Richer, Una Parker, Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson, Karen Whitehead, Dianna Loper, Sue Ann Kulcsar, Jeanne Claytor, George Ebert, Dorothy Oimette, Laurel J. Hodkin, Suza Gaudino, Gary Blackburn, Ronald Bassman, Carla McKague, Linda MacDonald, Steven Sears, Dorothy Washburn Dundas
It IS necessary to specify it is psychiatrists do not think ECT causes brain damage. I am working on a list of "excommunicated" certified doctors and nurses who think it causes brain damage. Undoubtedly you will discount these professionals second opinions. -- Mark v1.0 05:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I just inserted a small mention of the influence of duress in involuntary patients' reports about the effects of electroshock. I am placing this section in the talk page because of my own desire to discuss it and the likelihood that this insertion will be contentious. I'm not trying to detract from the other debates that are occuring about this article, which are probably more important, but this is an issue that is being ignored in experimental evaluations of ECT and it should be considered somehow.
Put simply, suppose a patient is forced to take involuntary electroshock, and that patient understands that continued expression of the traits that her psychiatrist dislikes, such as depression, will encourage more of the electroshock. A probability exists that, in order to prevent more electroshock, the patient will start to claim the electroshock makes her feel good, even if this is false and even if the electroshock causes the patient detrimental emotions. I know of some cases in which this occured. If someone can find a scientific study that investigates this phenomenon, it would help. If not, then neglect or bias likely exists in the way researchers are treating this issue. Chris Dubey 19:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't know of any study that looked at the different results for voluntary vrs. involuntary. If there was such a study it would have most likely have been done in the US or UK. That being the case the people receiving the ECT would be the people who are very high at risk of dying if left to their own means. You can't really do a correlational study because your populations wouldn't be at all the same. One group would be typically older ladies of means with Depression and the other group would be suicidals and those with catatonic depression.-- scuro 01:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
You don't have to be actively suicidal to be a victim of involuntary electroshock. It happened to me after being drugged into oblivion. "What you read" doesn't trump what I experienced. Involuntary treatment is a crime against humanity. 208.181.100.36 05:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to ask ya to show us what is up yer sleeve. If you have been hidin' dem citations up there your going to have a lot of angry people at this table.-- scuro 03:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
The sentence should be "It is widely accepted by psychiatry that ECT does not cause brain damage".-- Mark v1.0 19:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
This user does repeatedly reverts and deletes material.
Should a complaint be made?-- scuro 15:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Translation; People who think ECT causes brain damage . I qualify them as experts as they have experienced the effects of ECT, or studied and wrote of ECT for the past 20 years or longer. (edit to alphabetical order, etc) Linda Andre, ECT survivor, Director of The Committee for Truth in Psychiatry (CTIP) Pat Butterfield, ECT survivor, founder of "ECT Anonymous" Gary Blackburn, ECT survivor Judi Chamberlin, ECT survivor, author book "On Our Own" Sue Clark-Wittenberg, ECT survivor, blog and youtube testimony against ECT Sally Clay, ECT survivor, editor Jeanne Claytor, ECT survivor, Jonathan Cott, ECT survivor, author of 16 books Chris Dowling, ECT survivor, Dorothy Washburn Dundas, ECT insulin survivor, BA in sociology from Boston University Clover Smith-Greene ,ECT survivor ,author "Escape from Psychiatry",www.escapefrompsychiatry.org Don Weitz, insulin shock survivor, book "Shrink Resistant: The Struggle Against Psychiatry in Canada" (additional coming)
Professionals Ronald Bassman Ph.D., ECT survivor, author "A fight To Be" Bonnie Burstow, Ph.D.,author "Radical Feminist Therapy: Working in the Context of Violence" Ted Chabinski, ECT survivor, Attorney Anne B. Donahue, ECT survivor, Attorney Harold Sackeim, Ph.D., pro ECT Kenneth W. Thomas RN, B.S., website www.nurses4humanrights.org/about/ (additional coming) -- Mark v1.0 02:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I want to fix a listed reference that has a bad URL link. I found the correct URL link and was intending to replace it, but when I go to edit references, the edit page appears to be nearly blank. How do I fix it?-- Mark v1.0 04:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
You go back to the text where the reference was placed and fix it there.-- scuro 20:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok thanks Scuro, I am begining to understand. You can delete this "HELP" when you recieve the thank you (delete to clean up talk page)-- Mark v1.0 03:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Although many sources (most of them concerning the movie) seem to think Nash received ECT, more authoritative biographies state that he received insulin shock therapy, but that his family refused to allow ECT to be performed. The reason was that they feared damage to his brain (perhaps to his mathematical ability).
I therefore removed him from the list of famous persons who have received ECT. Apollo 21:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Recent ECT review in NEJM JFW | T@lk 02:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
The intro is biased. ECT is not controversial, at least not in medicine, it is as valid - and often as life-saving - as cardioversion. Electroshock is an old name... is like saying "Surgeons, also known as barbers, are the professionals who cut holes in people in order to get them cured." There is an excelent review on the NEJM (Volume 357:1939-1945 November 8, 2007 Number 19) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elrafael ( talk • contribs) 01:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
this page could use a controversy section. the discussion page speaks for itself; there is clearly much controversy surrounding ECT, and controversial topics should include "controversy" sections (i can think of a million articles that do). i mean, cmon, this is ECT, a process that seems rather primitive and dangerous. there's loads of controversy surrounding this. a google search for ECT controversy turns up 201,000 results. and we've all seen it in the movies. let's be honest about this: the controversy, as it stands, is like a huge elephant in the room on this page. 160.39.130.95 ( talk) 04:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
Rudorfer
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
The structure and wording of the intro bites, it reads horribly. -- scuro 11:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
The adverse effects section of this article needs to reflect a more rounded approach to Sackheim's 2007 study of cognitive effects of ECT. A careful analysis of the study shows that Sackheim found that ECT routinely increased cognitive function, except for autobiographical memory, choice reaction time, and simple reaction time, on all the major cognitive tests he devised after 6 months, compared to the patients baseline level. The simple reaction time slowing was only showed in the patients who recieved bilateral sine wave ECT, which by and large is an outdated approach and given to a very small minority of patients in the United States; almost never in private hospitals. The choice reaction time was the only test that showed a clear decrease from the baseline with no indications of improvement. More study should be taken to see how it was affected. However, it should be noticed that even simple reaction time function was improved from the immediate post-ECT time period, and can be predicted to return to baseline levels in time. One should also note that in right, unilateral pulse ECT, all major cognitive functions, including memory were increased compared to pre-ECT levels.
You are new to wikipdeia. I have moved your post down to the bottom of the page. May I suggest that you cut and paste the adverse effects section from the article, then make improvements, and finally post it here. I agree that many have misinterpreted Sackheim. But, this is a contentious topic so it would be wise to post corrections here first. -- scuro 12:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC).
BTW, it's "Sackeim", not "Sackheim". It's been spelled wrong numerous times throughout this page. This person has published at least 200 papers on ECT. Everyone who's well-read with the literature should know how to spell his name. And no, he has not been misinterpreted. He has made published follow-up comments and previous video-taped comments about his study, and he does indeed believe that pulse unilateral ECT causes long-term cognitive dysfunction, and within the study itself in the concluding comments he warns people not to misinterpret the data into thinking otherwise. In a video-taped presentation, he also noted that in a professional conference with ECT researchers and ECT pracitioners that over 2/3 of the audience when polled believed that ECT can cause long-lasting cognitive dysfunction other than memory loss or confusion from around the time of treatment which he called a quote, "watershed moment". He does state that electrode placement and technique may play a role in "minimizing" the damage to cognitive function. Also, the type of cognitive battery used was more demanding on what is believed to be left-brain activity. Different tests other than what was administered would be necessary to fully evaluate right-brain function. Danrz 09:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
If one were to look at the actual study by Sackeim he has the data clearly mapped out on bar graphs. If you check out the bar graph for cognitive function after 6 months on unilateral ECT, you will notice that all graphs point to higher results on all of the major tests compared to pre-ECT levels. This is the evidence I have regarding unilateral ECT actually IMPROVING cognitive function.
User 67.172.92.54, it would be nice if you could follow the conventions of Wikipedia and give yourself a name. I have provided instructions on how to do so in a welcome post on your talk page. It's nice to put a name to ideas.
Reading the summary of the rCBF study I fail to see how it relates to the previous Russian study of your addition in the article. Specifically you quote the Russian study's finding of neuron death and it looks like the rCBF study has nothing to do with that. Why should these two studies be quoted in the same paragraph? I suggest that the rCBF study be given better context be moved, or failing that, be deleted.
I have only read the summary of the Russian study. While some may see this as highly important evidence in reality it is a single study done with mice. At best the findings are a minor footnote of recent directions of research into adverse effects and consequently should receive a brief mention WP:NPOV#Undue weight such as the sentence that the previous study in that section received. I suggest that this study be trimmed to the length of the previous edit. I can access some studies at work but this is not an easy process. Could you post the conclusions of both studies and the methodology of the Russian study also? Thanks.-- scuro 13:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
No. I added this paragraph to show that there ARE studies providing direct evidence that ECT can cause brain damage or abnormal brain function in animals or humans. The paragraph was intended to make this point and then provide a couple quick and recent examples, one in lab animals and one in humans. The paragraph is already of good length and only gives the amount of detail necessary to prove the point and to make the gist of the studies clear to the reader. I also consider it to be of utmost importance. The paragraph immediately preceding this one states that a number of mental health institutions have concluded that there is NO evidence that ECT causes brain damage. "No" evidence is a strong assertion, and it is completely and entirely false, and this can be stated as a fact and proven. The relevance of this new paragraph for inclusion in this section does not rest upon the precise details of the studies, such as whether the best choice was made for rodent strain (which was the choice of the expert neuroscientists whom most editors here are not). I'm not going to get into a lengthy debate with you on rodent strain, etc, because I feel you've completely missed the boat as to the reason this paragraph was even added. I could have substituted other studies in their place. As far as I'm concerned, this paragraph is crucial in this section and cannot be ommitted while maintaining neutrality. And if you think about it, for patients considering ECT or doctors looking for information, it's really not fair for them to read this page and see that institutions and researchers have concluded there is "no" evidence that ECT can cause brain damage or abnormal brain function in either animals or humans when it simply isn't true. But given that this statement is made in many other places on the web other than Wikipedia, it should be included nonetheless along with evidence disputing this claim. I guess I don't understand what's so hard to understand about this. It's already been explained above more thoroughly and clearly. Justin997 20:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
There either "is" evidence that ECT may cause abnormal structural and functional changes in the brain of animals or humans, or there "is not". It's that simple. It only takes one study to disprove such an assertion. However, there are many such studies. The Russian study is just "one" of them in animals. A person cannot overcome such evidence by referring to secondary sources claiming that no such evidence exists when there is direct primary sources proving that it DOES that we are looking at right now! For that matter, the Russian study reviews the literature and cites other studies showing that ECT causes abnormal structural changes in the brains of animals. The question here is not whether a minority or majority of studies conclude that ECT can cause brain damage. The assertion that was made is that there is "NO" evidence that ECT causes brain damage in humans or animals. This is just plain false, and this has been proven to be false.
Here's another new study. What was that about "no" evidence of brain damage again?
Neurochem Res. 2007 Mar;32(3):389-94.
Effects of maintenance electroshock on the oxidative damage parameters in the rat brain.
Jornada LK, Feier G, Barichello T, Vitali AM, Reinke A, Gavioli EC, Dal-Pizzol F, Quevedo J.
Laboratorio de Neurociências, Programa de Pós-Graduação em Ciências da Saúde, Universidade do Extremo Sul Catarinense, 88806-000 Criciuma, SC, Brazil.
Although several advances have occurred over the past 20 years concerning refining the use and administration of electroconvulsive therapy to minimize side effects of this treatment, little progress has been made in understanding the mechanisms underlying its therapeutic or adverse effects. This work was performed in order to determine the level of oxidative damage at different times after the maintenance electroconvulsive shock (ECS). Male Wistar rats (250-300 g) received a protocol mimicking therapeutic of maintenance or simulated ECS (Sham) and were subsequently sacrificed immediately after, 48 h and 7 days after the last maintenance electroconvulsive shock. We measured oxidative damage parameters (thiobarbituric acid reactive species for lipid peroxidation and protein carbonyls for protein damage, respectively) in hippocampus, cortex, cerebellum and striatum. We demonstrated no alteration in the lipid peroxidation and protein damage in the four structures studied immediately after, 48 h and 7 days after a last maintenance electroconvulsive shock. Our findings, for the first time, demonstrated that after ECS maintenance we did protocol minimal oxidative damage in the brain regions, predominating absence of damage on the findings.
Publication Types: Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
PMID: 17268857 [PubMed - in process]
A secondary issue here is whether any modern published reviews of the literature have found evidence of brain damage in animals or humans, because there is also a claim in this article that none have. The answer is "Yes". Aside from Breggin, there are other published papers reviewing the literature and finding evidence of abnormal structural changes in the brain of animals after ECT (case in point, the Russian paper that reviews the literature). And while I am not going to defend Breggin's motives, like it or not your claim that he hasn't done a systematic review of the literature is false. In a recent published review he cites over 170 references, a good chunk of them by the opposing side.
The material is supported. They are primary sources of information from published, peer-reviewed studies, and references and references were provided along with study abstracts. The material should stay as is. Danrz 23:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
These studies have been used to prevent bias in the article. The paragraph immediately preceding the new paragraph in the article states that there is no evidence that ECT causes brain damage in humans or animals, and also states that there is no evidence of recent reviews pointing to any such evidence. Both of these claims have been most thoroughly debunked with direct evidence to the contrary and I find your arguments to be specious at best. It is very appropriate to follow-up such sweeping claims with an example from primary sources pointing to brain damage in mice given ECT, and the functional brain scan study in humans showing significantly increased abnormal cerebral blood flow in post-ECT patients. It is not only appropriate, it is necessary for the sake of balanced and unbiased presentation. I might also point out that there are other studies aside from these that could substitute for what's here. These two were chosen because they are so recent and utilized advanced technologies. No undue weight has been placed here by any stretch of the imagination, especially given the preceding paragraph making very bold claims that there is no evidence, no evidence, no evidence, and that the title of the subheading is ADVERSE EFFECTS! I dismiss your assertion as false that there "is no support" for the new human SPECT scan study showing abnormal, compromised cerebral blood flow in post-ECT patients under the heading of "Adverse Effects." In my opinion, it's strange logic to maintain a full paragraph incorrectly professing no evidence when such assertions have been completely debunked with direct evidence, and then attempt to argue that any possible evidence to the contrary "warrents[sic] no more than a sentence." The new paragraph will remain. Justin997 04:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi. The issue here is very simple. The article currently states there is "NO" evidence that ECT causes brain damage in humans or animals. The article also states that there are "NO" recent reviews that found such evidence. Both of these claims in the article have been proven to be grossly incorrect. Yet a paragraph is devoted to it. Because such fallacious claims are made often however, a paragraph was written pointing out an example of a mouse study pointing to the contrary, and also cited a new study that found that ECT compromises normal cerbral blood flow in humans, possible evidence pointing to brain dysfunction. The information is sound, supported, and appropriate given the subheading and the preceding paragraph that promotes gross misstatements of fact by saying that there is "NO" evidence of brain damage in humans or animals, and "NO" modern reviews pointing to such evidence. (And yes, there are reviews, as has been proven.)
The progression of arguments to the contrary here is quite odd and revealing:
1) First the paragraph was too long and was trimmed down and a study removed.
2) Then there's an argument that the two studies don't directly relate to one another and shouldn't therefore be in the same paragraph, even though it's abundantly obvious why they are (to contradict previous paragraph finding "NO" evidence in humans or animals, and provide an example of study finding brain damage in mice, and an example study finding compromised, abnormal cerebral blood flow in humans)
3) Then an argument that this mouse study should only be a minor footnote that no one will read (even though the reason it's there is to provide an example that yes, there IS evidence)
4) Then an attack is made on the design of the study, apparently suggesting that it isn't evidence because of the mouse strain chosen. (which I disagree with, and regardless it's not a wiki editor's place to challenge the mouse strain choice of expert neuroscientists who make this stuff their life's work -- it's their study. Moreover, it isn't the superiority of the study that got it here, it was listed as an "example" that YES THERE IS EVIDENCE IN ANIMAL MODELS OF BRAIN DAMAGE).
5) Then the claim is made that the mouse study struggles to support the paragraph.
6) Then the mouse study is called trivial until it's replicated (even though again it was added as an "example" that YES, there is evidence, not because of overriding importance)
7) Then I pointed out in the talk page that one of the "NO" evidence claims made in the preceding paragraph in the article is that there are no modern reviews finding evidence of brain damage. I proved this claim to be false, and cited to Peter Breggin, a very well-known MD who has written a book on the topic and a recent comprehensive review of the literature citing close to 200 references and finding numerous evidence of brain damage in animals.
8) Then Breggin is personally attacked, apparently suggesting that his published review isn't good enough to disprove the "no evidence in recent reviews" claim, because he's not a "reliable source." (I also point out that there are other reviews finding evidence, including one done in the Russian mouse study).
9) Then in response to me writing that there there either IS evidence of brain damage in animals or humans or there is not, and that a single study stating that brain damage was found in a modern study can defeat the harsh claim of "NO" evidence of brain damage in animals, it's argued that "that's not the way that science works", and "several studies also can mean squat".
10) Then it's argued I can't negate "secondary" sources that found no evidence of brain damage in animals or humans with direct "primary" sources of published experimental studies which found such damage as part of their experiment. (This is not to mention that there are also other published reviews finding evidence of brain damage in others' work).
11) etc.
In addition to this, it's claimed that this single paragraph briefly showing a couple studies pointing to possible adverse effects (the subheading IS Adverse Effects, btw), violates the Wikipedia policy of undue weight. This is incredibly strange as the paragraph immediately before the new paragraph is entirely devoted to multiple claims of "No evidence" of brain damage in humans OR animals. If a paragraph can be devoted to "No evidence" stating untruths, then one can and should be added afterwards to give a couple of examples of this evidence which is claimed not to exist.
Of course, the real problem here is the paragraph boldly asserting "NO EVIDENCE" with regard to studies in humans OR animals of brain damage. This has been proven to be false. The paragraph also asserts that "NO" modern reviews of the literature have found such evidence by others. This is also false. Ideally, this paragraph should be deleted and both paragraphs should be re-written to point out that the majority of studies find no objective evidence of organic brain damage or dysfunction in humans OR animals, but there are a minority of studies that have found this, including recent studies, and then references should be given. At this point, there is a unreasonable refusal to acknowledge that there is ANY published evidence pointing to brain damage or organic brain dysfunction in animals OR humans. And a whole paragraph is devoted to multiple claims of "no evidence." Because of this, the new paragraph will remain for the time being in order to preserve the quality of the article and educational value of the "Adverse Effects" section. It will also be retained to maintain neutrality, fairness, and balanced perspective. Danrz 20:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
With regard to the re-draft, I'm going to point out some of the problems. First of all, the studies finding adverse effects in animals have not been tallied, and when quantified with the number 2, it may give the impression that these are the only ones, and there are more. Also, I see no reason to expand beyond the two original studies that were included, aside from providing references for them in brackets. For instance, at the end of the paragraph we can include a sentence like "Other studies have also documented brain damage or dysfunction in humans or animals", followed by numbers in brackets that can bring the reader down to the reference section.
It was complained earlier that this section was too long, with undue weight, etc. Moreover, a number of misrepresentations were made with regard to the study finding oxidative damage. Where it was written that "the animal brain is especially sensible to oxidative damages in virtue of its high consumption of oxygen", this was actually one of the reasons WHY they checked for this type of damage. Oxidative damage to cells actually involves the transfer of electrons, and hyperoxygenation is known to increase oxidative stress. Also, people are animals. When they said the animal brain is especially sensible to oxidative damage, this was inclusive to humans, not exclusive. What they were talking about is the animal brain vs. other organs in the body. For example, when people stop breathing, the major concern is brain damage and death, because it starts to occur several minutes after cessation of oxygen whereas other areas of the body can endure for much longer intervals and recover where the brain often cannot. The animal brain is particularly ill-equipped to fully heal from many types of damage. It's been argued that evolution led to the blood-brain barrier and extra thick skull rather than a brain that is more resistant to assaults and/or has better regenerative capabilities. Furthermore, when I mentioned this study on the talk page, I was not demanding that it be included in the article, nor did I think it was the best choice for an example to contradict the claim of "No evidence." The point of it was that brain damage was documented in this study, whether minimal or not. Again, it's all about the preceding paragraph that states over and over again that there IS NO EVIDENCE. This is false.
Finally, the original draft was much better written and more accurately respresented the findings of the studies in a concise and easy-to-read format. So, I restored it while editing the topic sentence and specifying the mouse strain used in the spirit of cooperation and collaberation with other editors. Danrz 22:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Danrz. I'm frankly not interested in repeating myself over and over again a thousand times, especially in response to circular, specious arguments which have already been responded to with very lengthy screeds, and most all of the claims in the criticisms being debunked. In addition to what was written above about the proposed new redraft, I might also mention that the SPECT scan study was ALSO misrepresented in the new draft. The researchers explicitly stated that rCBF was quote "largely normalized" in patients responding to medication but that ECT-treated patients showed significant increases in abnormal rCBF and followed a different path, and the original draft used their own words. The timeline posted above by Danrz really does tell a lot about all this. I'm glad it was posted. When editing material on Wikipedia it is possible for critics to "shoot themselves in the foot" so to speak, by throwing up a thousand different arguments to counter one paragraph, and then expecting hard-working contributors to spend hours and hours responding to never-ending arguments, many of which are nonsensical and not worthy of response. Justin997 23:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'm not fooled by any of this. I've visited the ECT page numerous times over the last few months and just noticed the neutrality-disputed banner in the "Adverse Effects" section and then saw the new paragraph. I just spent almost two hours of my time examining this excellent new paragraph, looking at the full text of the studies referenced, and going through the endless sophistry on this talk page. Somehow I doubt many others will be willing to actually go through this endless charade of an exchange on this talk page to see what really transpired here behind the scenes. And that's too bad. Because if they did, there's a good chance they would be as disgusted as I am. Every imaginable (and unimaginable) type of attack has been made on this new inclusion, and a lot of the criticism makes no logical sense whatsoever. I can't believe people actually took the time to respond to all of this empty and perpetual rhetoric. It kind of reminds me of how small children like to play a game by asking a parent "why", and when the parents carefully explain and respond, the child asks "why" again and giggles and the process keeps going..... Only this is MUCH WORSE!! The saying "if you can't win, confuse the issue" comes to mind. Far be it from anyone to actually take a step to make at least a small portion of this article fair, balanced, and truthful.
With regard to the new material itself as added by Danrc, I wouldn't change a thing. And I wouldn't change the studies, either. The real controversy here is with the paragraph preceding the new one which makes multiple claims that there is zero studies showing brain damage in humans or animals, and zero published reviews saying so. People here have went out of their way to show these claims are completely and utterly false. And they have won the argument. The evidence is right in front of us. I've looked at it. So have others. And there's nothing wrong with the sources. The debate is whether there is "any" evidence showing brain damage in animals or humans, and there is. And the mouse study is a good one, and very recently published, and very clear in its conclusion that brain damage was caused by the procedure. Someone actually had the audacity to claim that this study by Russian neuroscientists is not a good source and therefore doesn't constitute evidence. The researchers were accused at one point of intentionally picking a bad rodent strain, etc. It is the opinion of the experts who conducted the study that evidence reveals brain damage. And as far as the false statement that there are no modern reviews finding brain damage in animals or humans, that's also false. Breggin is all that's necessary (even though there are others), and he has published in professional journals and has a doctorate and Harvard education. No one cares what someone's "personal opinion" is of him. The debate is whether or not there is evidence of brain damage in animals or humans, and whether or not there are any recent reviews pointing to any such evidence. And there are multiple studies, and more than one review. These are proven facts at this point. And as far as the SPECT study goes, the paragraph doesn't directly state that the study shows definitive proof of brain damage. It states that it shows a type of brain dysfunction (rCBF) considered to be abnormal by the expert researchers. They DID use the word "normalized" in reference to the medicated patients responding, and said that ECT patients went in the opposite direction. And the whole reason why brain damage is relevant to begin with is because it can cause "brain dysfunction". So, if there is a study showing that abnormal cerebral blood flow can be significantly elevated in patients after a course of ECT, it belongs here in this paragraph as an example. The new text should remain as submitted most recently by Dan.
This article has historically been accused of being grossly biased, and the topic itself is controversial. Looking over the history of contributions and edits to this topic, I can see that there has been possible over-domination by two or three users in particular. Without naming anyone, I'm going to have to put a watch on certain editors to watch what they're doing here and elsewhere. Someone has to. Ali del mundo 05:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
You're not fooling anyone. The questions as to your query requesting proof of reliable sources have already been answered, making this query inappropriate. The "reliable sources" for the new inclusion are studies from professional, peer-reviewed medical journals and have been listed in the references from the very beginning with inline citations linking to the list of references at the bottom of the page. Moreover, you yourself contributed to a sloppy, misrepresentative rewrite of this same paragraph posted by NMG20 utilizing the same two sources!!! In effect, you republished these sources for the same purposes yourself! So what you are claiming right now doesn't make the slightest bit of sense, and once again you and NMG20 (as Justin put it) "shot yourselves in the foot", so to speak, by republishing the same two sources for the same purpose. This really is ridiculous. This is not to mention that earlier the two of you were making complaints about undue weight, and then preceded to add yet another study to the two that were already there and make the paragraph even longer! Yet again, you shot yourselves in the foot, contradicted yourselves, and as if that is not bad enough, you forced people to once again respond to nonsensical criticisms. Danrz 11:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Very well put. LOL! Look, Dan, there's really no reason to continue responding to these two. They no longer have any credibility. And every time you or I or someone else thoroughly responds to one of their typically fallacious arguments and debunks it, they just ask it back over again. There never was any central argument to their criticisms. They basically threw up a thousand different arguments to try and keep one small chunk of text out of the article, hoping that at least one of their arguments would stick. I'm tired of this silliness. Justin997 11:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
User:Ali del mundo - you're too convenient. Please don't any of you take it personally - see WP:SOCK for why - but I've listed the three of you under suspected sock puppets. Once again, please don't take this personally - I will be quite happy for you to list me there with scuro, for instance - but I have had my time wasted by sock puppets in the past, and do not wish to have the current episode drag out longer than it needs to.
Oh, the mediation cabal now, eh? It only makes sense that you'd request that after you've attacked the new short inclusion in every other possible way conceivable: from format, to placement, to length, to content, to the studies listed in the paragraph, the integrity of the researchers, the methodology used by the researchers, etc, etc. Then when you fail to make any progress on these, you start going after the contributors themselves, and flagging all manner of miscellaneous wikipedia policy doctrines like the ones for undue weight, reliable sources, synthesis, reliance on primary sources, etc. And now after all of this (which is plainly revealed in the histories and on this page), you want mediators to dive into this bottomless pit that you created? One of the most amusing arguments here are the arguments of undue weight and unreliable sources, because as Danrz said earlier, you yourself rewrote the entire paragraph and lengthened it, keeping the same conclusions and the very same sources and even added an extra source. Mediation is appropriate in cases where each side has non-frivilous, opposing, justified and genuine concerns. Mediation is not appropriate for dealing with people who will go to any length simply to have their way, no matter what it takes or whether or not they're justified. Justin997 22:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Paragraph in question from Adverse Effects section on main page:
WP:SYN
Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research.[2] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article.
and...
Although most articles should rely predominantly on secondary sources, there are rare occasions when they may rely on primary sources. An article or section of an article that relies on a primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Contributors drawing on primary sources should be careful to comply with both conditions.
The cited primary sources have several obvious Wikipedian flaws.-- scuro 20:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
1) There was no synthesis in this new paragraph. The topic sentence of the paragraph simply states that there is evidence in the literature of X and Y, and then gives an example each of X and Y. That is not synthesis. X= brain damage (in animals), Y = abnormal cerebral blood flow (in humans).
2) The second policy copied above is about articles or sections as a whole "relying predominantly" on primary or secondary sources. You do know what "relying predominantly" means, don't you? Moreover, multiple secondary sources regarding the same issue of evidence in the literature for brain damage in animals were listed in the previous paragraph.
Justin997 21:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Warning to editors and readers at large regarding sophistry:
Please read the "modern usage" section of the page sophistry to understand the basis of my position here with regard to these character(s). Sophistry has many variations and levels of expertise, and in this case involves the intentional crafting of deceptive and illogical claims that put the opponent in a perpetual state of defense. The fallacious logic is often immediately recognized by the opponent, but often not by outsiders not deeply involved with the exchange. The sophist does not concede to the superiority of logic made by the opposing party in response, but rather continues to make further logically deceptive remarks in response along with demanding and unnecessary queries, which typically infuriates the opponent with the hope that the opponent will get himself into trouble due to his own outbursts. Sophistry in this particular case also involves intentional misrepresention and equivocation of the results of scientific studies, forcing the opponent to exhaustively correct and defend. On Wikipedia, sophistry can be used as an ultimate means to unjustly prevent what's loosely referred to around here as "consensus", and to also create what looks to be a genuine, good-natured hot debate on the surface where there really is none. In short, people with no proper justification for changes they want made to a page can use sophistry and abuse the mediation process into either forcing an exhausted opponent to concede or to force an unreasonable compromise, such that they ultimately are allowed to publish disinformation to the community. It has been suggested that this page is at high risk for industry-funded manipulation of page content given the recent developments and publications in this area, and the sheer number of visitors to Wikipedia. (See the above argument about synthesis, etc, for one of seemingly countless examples. (Of course this is not synthesis, as Justin pointed out with logical analysis, and as anyone with a formal education in writing could tell you). Many more examples in the talk page section of "2005 Russian study and 2007 rCBF study".) Danrz 00:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh, no.... You're the one making the one making the claims here. If you claim the addition of the new paragraph violated the above policy then make out your case and explain why and show how. Justin997 03:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
"It has been suggested that this page is at high risk for industry-funded manipulation of page content given the recent developments and publications in this area, and the sheer number of visitors to Wikipedia". You are violating the Wikipedian policy of good faith. Funny that earlier you accused me of not being well read enough to even know how to spell the ECT researcher Sackeim's name, yet now I am an industry funded manipulator of Wikipedia? Persist with this sort of weasely name calling and I shall take action. -- scuro 04:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi folks! Here's a great example of sophistry along with misrepresentation! If you have not already, please read my explanation of sophistry above.
The complainant is asserting that I have engaged in "weasely name calling", by calling him an "industry funded manipulator."
However, if you read quoted the sentence itself, you'll notice that the sentence simply states that the "page" is at "high risk" for something. I never said anyone did anything in this sentence. I never even said anything happened to the page either, for that matter. I said the page is at "high risk." And I never called a name in this sentence. Moreover, I said "it has been suggested", meaning that it's ambiguous as to who even suggested this to begin with.
Please note how this process works through the crafting of deceptive and illogical assertions, and how it is intended to place the opponent in a perpetual state of defense in order to refute the fallacious argument. Now, see, after the fallacious argument is debunked/refuted, the process starts right back over again with more fallacious claims! We should invite the editors from the logic and philosophy pages over, and get some popcorn! :-) Danrz 06:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Strange logic. The whole point of sophistry is to prevent useful discussion by forcing the opponent to respond to circular, deceptive, fallacious assertions. There is no building useful discussion with a sophist, which is why it must be exposed where there is clear evidence of it occurring and others warned so they don't fall victim to it. Sophistry is a particularly nasty form of social incivility. And the civil thing for a person to do is to warn everyone else where he has clear and convincing evidence that it is occurring, as is the case here.
And might I point out that we have three usernames on this page, all of whom appear to be supporting one another, and all employing the continuous use of fallacious logic in most every posting they make to this page? What are the chances?? This includes you, Nmg20, Scuro. Chris Dubey stated above, "you seem to be continuing to engage in a flawed defense of logical fallacies." And he was correct. Justin997 17:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
That is what it says. And that's not what "may follow a different course" means. It states directly in the abstract that, "A response to medication was associated with normalization of rCBF deficits, whereas a response to electroconvulsive therapy was associated with an additional rCBF decrease in the parietotemporal and cerebellar regions bilaterally." In the full text, it calls the reduced rCBF after the ECT series a quote, "finding of reduced brain function." "[M]ay follow a different course" refers to the uncertainty of the future, and they suggest that researchers may wish to repeat and expand on the results of this study by checking to see if the rCBF improves or gets worse months down the road and "document the course of rCBF changes"; i.e. check to see if the reduced brain function gets better worse, or stays the same over the long term. Justin997 21:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
More sophistry. You are inentionally making false claims with the attempt to get readers to accept your claims without verifying them. Justin didn't speak for anyone, he quoted someone. And he made no representations outside of the meaning of the direct quotation. Justin also quoted from the full text of a study right before your reply, and you know this. And you tried to publish a pargraph to the page that was full of either ignorant or deliberate misrepresentations of the oxidative damage rodent study. And I thoroughly disproved and exposed your ridiculous representations of this material. And you're the one posting bluff and bluster here. You're the one making the claims, as Justin noted. You're not fooling anyone except yourself and whatever other usernames you may have on this page. Sophistry is a game often played by very intelligent but disreputable people. However, you miss out on the first of these attributes, and thus lack the skill to do it effectively. Danrz 04:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I have heard nothing from Danrz. I'll delete the passage to see if still wants to take this to a mediation cabal.-- scuro 19:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
David Helfgott (pianist portrayed in the film "Shine") Janet Frame (author of "An Angel at my Table")
Hello user 124.177.108.153. Additions to the list are welcome. Since this new information is about people it is best if you find a reliable citation that supports these claims.-- scuro 11:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
This is just a laundry list that doesn't add much to the article. Anything of value in this section should be moved into the main article, and the section should be deleted.-- Mumia-w-18 ( talk) 13:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
The fictional depictions of ECT section is a list and Wikipedia doesn't want lists. What should happen to this section is that either it be trimmed to a few notable depictions as in the nonfictional section, or it should be the basis of a new article and the information should be moved there. -- scuro 20:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Any preference...skim it down into paragraph form of notable depictions or move it?-- scuro 04:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
What are the most notable depicts of ECT?-- scuro 16:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
In a 2006 critical article, in the journal founded by Peter Breggin, and the officical ICSPP journal, Ethical Human Psychology and Psychiatry, psychiatrist and researcher Colin A. Ross, the author reviewed the placebo-controlled literature on ECT and found that, 1 month following treatment, ECT was not shown to be more effective than placebo in any studies. Further, many studies also failed to show ECT as being more effective than placebo during treatment.
Question: how in the hell do you design/administer a placebo ECT? Or were they comparing it to a pill/shot/whatever form placebo? -- Lode Runner 09:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
The big clue here is that the study was published in Peter Breggin's "scientific" journal. Take a look at Breggin and all becomes clearer. Then one also has to ask, what is Ross doing publishing in Scientology's Freedom Magazine? http://www.freedommag.org/english/vol36I2/page16.htm. Ross was also the one who defended scientology from the recent BBC expose. http://digg.com/world_news/BBC_Scientology_documentary_Watch_it_in_full_online?t=6685752 I believe he has also received an award from Scientology. Have I made the point that the study could be biased?-- scuro 13:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
So the "placebo", then, is an inert pill? If the passage is retained, I think this needs to be made clear, because placebo-controlled studies are meant to duplicate the superficial aspects of the tested treatment as closely as possible. Obviously, taking a "sugar pill" isn't ANYTHING like being shocked into having a seizure. I'm not saying that the comparison is *entirely* without merit, but at the very least it's pretty misleading. Saying that the ECT is more effective than medication (which in turn is more effective than placebo medication) is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from saying that the ECT has been shown to be more effective than a placebo, because a placebo ECT would have to trick the patient--and ideally the doctor as well (hence the term "double-blind" study)--into believing he/she had been severely shocked. (For comparison, the term "placebo" has also been used to describe "fake" surgery, where the patient is put under anesthesia and cut open but not operated on--and yes, with placebo surgery there is a significant improvement over patients who've had no surgery at all.) In this case, it would probably be impossible to achieve (how on earth do you convince someone they've been severely shocked without actually shocking them?) thus a true placebo-controlled ECT study isn't actually possible, and the article shouldn't imply otherwise.
I have no opinion on any other issues that might remain, such as whether or not the entire passage should be stricken. The term "placebo-controlled", however, is blatantly false unless someone actually constructed a placebo-ECT experiment. -- Lode Runner 18:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
The paragraph beginning with "In 1976 Dr. Blatchley demonstrates the effectiveness" suddenly switches from the previously used past tense to the present tense which seems wrong to me. The following paragraph also uses the present tense while it seems to me that most of it should be past tense. Scatteredpixels 02:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Previously NMG had suggested this structure for the article. No one had questioned it.
I have attempted to make the article conform to this structure by moving information into the the proper subsections and removing excess titled subsections so that the article does not appear too cluttered. This is a work in progress and I hope that other editors will help with further organization of the material. -- scuro 13:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
What about a section (or at least mention) on alternatives, such as transcranial magnetic stimulation or vagus nerve implants?-- Gloriamarie 18:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
ECT is not a first line treatment. Typically it is used when medication fails or can't be used. You could call ECT an alternative treatment to medication. As I understand it the treatments mentioned above are fringe treatments and as such should warrent no mention in this article. Do they not warrent their own article?-- scuro 11:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
hi, my name is jon. ive had 72 treatments 71.192.55.220 15:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC) i guess people dont post too often. anyway, ECT has helped me immenseley & as time goes by, i get memories back. ive also learned how such a contaversial & often misunderstood procedure, can help so much. if people educated themselves, they wouldnt be such skeptics. Cheers & positive thinking. 71.192.55.220 15:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
There have been a number of different types of ECT offered over the years and at present there are still several types of ECT used. They have different outcomes and side effects. Mention of the different subtypes is made throughout the article. I'd like to create a new subsection about this but don't know what to call it or where to put it in the article. Does anyone else feel that this topic deserves a subheading and have further input?-- scuro 11:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Mark v1.0 has now twice deleted this statement from the into: "It is widely accepted that ECT does not cause brain damage". He has now personally been asked to discuss the issue in talk. The issue has been previously discussed at length and is supported with numerous citations from excellent secondary sources further down in the article which is included below. The intro should be a synopsis of important information from the article.
A number of national mental health institutions [1] [2] have concluded that there is no evidence that ECT causes structural brain damage. A report of the United States Surgeon General states, "The fears that ECT causes gross structural brain pathology have not been supported by decades of methodologically sound research in both humans and animals". [3] All of the recent scientific reviews on this topic which reviewed the body of ECT research using autopsies, brain imaging, and animal studies of electroconvulsive therapy, have also concluded that there is no evidence that ECT causes brain damage. [4] [5] Current research is examining the possibility that, "...rather than cause brain damage, there is evidence that ECT may reverse some of the damaging effects of serious psychiatric illness" [6]
Do you have something to share with us Mark that would warrant the deletion of the sentence in the intro?-- scuro 15:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
The problem now is the definition of the term/phrase "brain damage". Can we agree memory is in the brain? Can we agree what damage is? I will be reverting Scuro's choice. -- Mark v1.0 13:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Nice to see you on the talk page Mark.
What we agree upon:
Possible points of disagreement:
Disruptive editing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing#Dealing_with_disruptive_editors The third step in the disruptive editing process is to seek input from other editors. Their input would be welcome now.
We have a statement that now has been removed for the third time by Mark v.1.0. The statement is supported by text in the article which is supported by highly esteemed national health institutes from the US and the UK. The statement is also supported by the most recent scientific reviews on the subject.
If two editors disagree on a subject consensus should be sought WP:CONS and unilateral editing should be avoided. I look forward to your response and the response of other editors.-- scuro 14:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Dr.John M. Friedberg.
ok forget Friedberg. I am sure you don't aprove of ect.org either. Electroconvulsive Therapy Causes Permanent Amnesia and Cognitive Deficits
[ Brain_damage]defined here at wiki.Brain damage or brain injury is the destruction or degeneration of brain cells.
You personally admit [ memory] can be lost from ECT? Memory is some kind of brain cell and ECT does something to the cell. What does ECT do to the cell? -- Mark v1.0 02:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Memory is a very complicated process of encoding, storing and retrieving information which involves multiple areas of the brain. Forgetting the name of a person one just met five minutes ago is the consequence of failure to transfer that information from working (short-term) memory into long term memory. There's an extremely brief period known as sensory memory where information is coming in, but it must also be attended to in order to go into working (short-term) memory, aka "conscious awareness". But even then, memories do not stay in working memory unless you keep them there or move then into long-term memory- forgetting is rapid with working memory- within 15-20 seconds actually. When we meet a new person, hear their name for the first time and continue on with conversation, or some other activity without continuing to attend to or use that name, new incoming info tends to interfere and push that info out of consciousness where it is lost. That is a normal memory process not due to brain damage, and not at all comparable to the memory loss involved with brain damage due to ECT. -- Mark v1.0 02:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Reports of memory loss are "characterized as somatoform disorders,rather than as evidence of brain damage" [ Complaints of Loss of Personal Memories] With psychiatrists controlling the definition of what constitutes brain damage, there is little documented "credible support", but you knew this already.-- Mark v1.0 04:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
This is pointless. Conspiracy theories don't cut it on Wikipedia and neither does original research WP:OR / WP:SYN. You can't talk about the process of memory and then plunk brain damage down right after and hope that the reader will accept the connection of the two ideas. You are connecting two things together without any supportable citations. That is called synthesis. Worse, there is no expansion of the idea of brain damage to logically connect it to memory. Even the synthesis lacks any sort of support. More bothersome is the innuendo that you project upon other editors and the whole field of Psychiatry also goes against one of Wikipedia's five pillars which is assume good faith. WP:AGF.-- scuro 11:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Don Weitz, David Oaks, Juli Lawrence, Judi Chamberlin, Bonnie Burstow, Gary Moore, Peter Lehmann, Peggy S. Salter, Sue Clark-Wittenberg, Leonard Roy Frank, Chris Dowling, Jonathan Cott, Anne B. Donahue, Jackie Mishra, charles H. Kellner, Jacqueline Guest, Jan Wallcraft, G. Christiane Starks, Bertram P. Karon, Wendy Funk, Timothy W. Kneeland, Sally Clay, Sheila Gilhooly book"still sane" 1985, Nira Fleischman, Pat Gabel, Linda Andre, Elizabeth Plasick, Frank Adams, Ted Chabasinski, Jody A. Harmon, Janet Gotkin, Lou Reed, Gail Larrick, Marilyn Rice, Barbara Richer, Una Parker, Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson, Karen Whitehead, Dianna Loper, Sue Ann Kulcsar, Jeanne Claytor, George Ebert, Dorothy Oimette, Laurel J. Hodkin, Suza Gaudino, Gary Blackburn, Ronald Bassman, Carla McKague, Linda MacDonald, Steven Sears, Dorothy Washburn Dundas
It IS necessary to specify it is psychiatrists do not think ECT causes brain damage. I am working on a list of "excommunicated" certified doctors and nurses who think it causes brain damage. Undoubtedly you will discount these professionals second opinions. -- Mark v1.0 05:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I just inserted a small mention of the influence of duress in involuntary patients' reports about the effects of electroshock. I am placing this section in the talk page because of my own desire to discuss it and the likelihood that this insertion will be contentious. I'm not trying to detract from the other debates that are occuring about this article, which are probably more important, but this is an issue that is being ignored in experimental evaluations of ECT and it should be considered somehow.
Put simply, suppose a patient is forced to take involuntary electroshock, and that patient understands that continued expression of the traits that her psychiatrist dislikes, such as depression, will encourage more of the electroshock. A probability exists that, in order to prevent more electroshock, the patient will start to claim the electroshock makes her feel good, even if this is false and even if the electroshock causes the patient detrimental emotions. I know of some cases in which this occured. If someone can find a scientific study that investigates this phenomenon, it would help. If not, then neglect or bias likely exists in the way researchers are treating this issue. Chris Dubey 19:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't know of any study that looked at the different results for voluntary vrs. involuntary. If there was such a study it would have most likely have been done in the US or UK. That being the case the people receiving the ECT would be the people who are very high at risk of dying if left to their own means. You can't really do a correlational study because your populations wouldn't be at all the same. One group would be typically older ladies of means with Depression and the other group would be suicidals and those with catatonic depression.-- scuro 01:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
You don't have to be actively suicidal to be a victim of involuntary electroshock. It happened to me after being drugged into oblivion. "What you read" doesn't trump what I experienced. Involuntary treatment is a crime against humanity. 208.181.100.36 05:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to ask ya to show us what is up yer sleeve. If you have been hidin' dem citations up there your going to have a lot of angry people at this table.-- scuro 03:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
The sentence should be "It is widely accepted by psychiatry that ECT does not cause brain damage".-- Mark v1.0 19:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
This user does repeatedly reverts and deletes material.
Should a complaint be made?-- scuro 15:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Translation; People who think ECT causes brain damage . I qualify them as experts as they have experienced the effects of ECT, or studied and wrote of ECT for the past 20 years or longer. (edit to alphabetical order, etc) Linda Andre, ECT survivor, Director of The Committee for Truth in Psychiatry (CTIP) Pat Butterfield, ECT survivor, founder of "ECT Anonymous" Gary Blackburn, ECT survivor Judi Chamberlin, ECT survivor, author book "On Our Own" Sue Clark-Wittenberg, ECT survivor, blog and youtube testimony against ECT Sally Clay, ECT survivor, editor Jeanne Claytor, ECT survivor, Jonathan Cott, ECT survivor, author of 16 books Chris Dowling, ECT survivor, Dorothy Washburn Dundas, ECT insulin survivor, BA in sociology from Boston University Clover Smith-Greene ,ECT survivor ,author "Escape from Psychiatry",www.escapefrompsychiatry.org Don Weitz, insulin shock survivor, book "Shrink Resistant: The Struggle Against Psychiatry in Canada" (additional coming)
Professionals Ronald Bassman Ph.D., ECT survivor, author "A fight To Be" Bonnie Burstow, Ph.D.,author "Radical Feminist Therapy: Working in the Context of Violence" Ted Chabinski, ECT survivor, Attorney Anne B. Donahue, ECT survivor, Attorney Harold Sackeim, Ph.D., pro ECT Kenneth W. Thomas RN, B.S., website www.nurses4humanrights.org/about/ (additional coming) -- Mark v1.0 02:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I want to fix a listed reference that has a bad URL link. I found the correct URL link and was intending to replace it, but when I go to edit references, the edit page appears to be nearly blank. How do I fix it?-- Mark v1.0 04:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
You go back to the text where the reference was placed and fix it there.-- scuro 20:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok thanks Scuro, I am begining to understand. You can delete this "HELP" when you recieve the thank you (delete to clean up talk page)-- Mark v1.0 03:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Although many sources (most of them concerning the movie) seem to think Nash received ECT, more authoritative biographies state that he received insulin shock therapy, but that his family refused to allow ECT to be performed. The reason was that they feared damage to his brain (perhaps to his mathematical ability).
I therefore removed him from the list of famous persons who have received ECT. Apollo 21:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Recent ECT review in NEJM JFW | T@lk 02:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
The intro is biased. ECT is not controversial, at least not in medicine, it is as valid - and often as life-saving - as cardioversion. Electroshock is an old name... is like saying "Surgeons, also known as barbers, are the professionals who cut holes in people in order to get them cured." There is an excelent review on the NEJM (Volume 357:1939-1945 November 8, 2007 Number 19) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elrafael ( talk • contribs) 01:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
this page could use a controversy section. the discussion page speaks for itself; there is clearly much controversy surrounding ECT, and controversial topics should include "controversy" sections (i can think of a million articles that do). i mean, cmon, this is ECT, a process that seems rather primitive and dangerous. there's loads of controversy surrounding this. a google search for ECT controversy turns up 201,000 results. and we've all seen it in the movies. let's be honest about this: the controversy, as it stands, is like a huge elephant in the room on this page. 160.39.130.95 ( talk) 04:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
Rudorfer
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).