It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is Electro-Convulsive Therapy (ECT) safe?

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 03:25 AM
link   
I am not here to mince words. My answer is a resounding NO!

Bur here’s the story:

According to a briefing I just attended, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) just completed public hearings regarding the safety of ECT. The FDA has “overlooked” reviewing the safety of ECT up until now. Finally, various advocacy groups have forced hearings to be held on this subject. But these hearings are only the beginning of what could be a long process to get the use of ECT banned in the US.

Should this be successful, psychiatry has backup plans, according to the briefing I attended. They are working on a new set of “therapies” that use different equipment to stimulate the brain in different ways. One I read about is called “ultrabrief pulse ECT.” Another is called Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS). And there are several others.

What those of us interested in the activities of the “cabal” should be aware of is the extent of their complicity in the subject of psychiatry. There is considerable evidence and testimony that psychiatry, especially when it is practiced in for-profit or state-run institutions, is nothing more than a public action wing of the cabal. Under the guise of legitimate medicine, psychiatry provides a way to eliminate or silence dissenters and other able people. For decades psychiatry has been pushing for more power to decide who is socially “dangerous.” The benefits to the cabal of having a control mechanism of this type should be obvious. I advise all who value their freedom to keep an eye on what organized psychiatry is up to.

Find more data on this issue at these links:

endofshock.com...

Medical News Today article:
www.medicalnewstoday.com...

A psychiatrist who opposes the use of ECT:
www.huffingtonpost.com...




posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 03:40 AM
link   
It's definitely another power grab, ECT is neither a food nor a drug, the FDA has no business involving itself.



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 09:27 AM
link   
reply to post by l_e_cox
 



psychiatry provides a way to eliminate or silence dissenters and other able people


How so? No one can be "forced" to go to a psychiatrist for dissenting. In fact, the only situations that result in mandatory psychiatric evaluation are those in which the person has harmed others. I see no problem with this.



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 11:05 AM
link   
reply to post by l_e_cox
 

According to what i have read on the subject the so called benefits are from brain damage.
Personally i see this nearly as barbaric as lobotomy procedures of the past.



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 11:31 AM
link   
[Mental health professional here]

NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ECT is NOT safe - I've seen mental health clients who've voluntarily opted for ECT literally fry their brains. They end up with memory loss, speech problems and more f 'd up than the mental illness itself.

There are a few wingnut psychiatrists (who don't really practice, just write articles for prestigious professional journals) who put fourth all kinds of kooky ideas. I can guarantee that the vast majority of us "on the ground" mental health professionals don't pay any attention to them. We empower the clients to make their own goals and decisions and work with them to help make that happen, and no one I know in the business would encourage any client to opt for ETC.
edit on 1/29/11 by Rockerchic4God because: (no reason given)

edit on 1/29/11 by Rockerchic4God because: characters caused part of line to be missing - fixed that.



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Rockerchic4God
 


Actually, most of the problems you mention (memory loss, etc.) were solved when practices switched from bilateral to unilateral ETC. That's not to say there aren't other issues related to the therapy, but the ones you've cited are outdated.



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 02:58 PM
link   
Is getting hit by lightening safe? ECT uses voltages as high as 600 volts at up to1 amp. That is 600 watts of power running though the brain. ECT is the most stupid thing they have been since the middle ages. When your computer acts up do you run high voltage though the CPU? No you do not. ECT should be ban.



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
reply to post by l_e_cox
 



psychiatry provides a way to eliminate or silence dissenters and other able people


How so? No one can be "forced" to go to a psychiatrist for dissenting. In fact, the only situations that result in mandatory psychiatric evaluation are those in which the person has harmed others. I see no problem with this.


wow you are really living in a bubble, aren't you? have corrupt police or spooks visit you at 4 am and take you for a ride and return you home before six am completely brain fried/wiped and say that again-- if you can.

can't be forced tell that to all those african-americans who got diagnosed and locked up as dangerous schizophrenics back in the sixties for being in the civil rights movement all it took was a rewrite of that "big book of mental illnesses" that the psych's use nowadays there is supposedly a mental illness called confrontational something or other got diagnosed with it once. a bit of NLP and some judicious use of hypnosis made that so called doctor forget to
record it, so as far as TPTB/authorities know i'm completely sane with no records of M.I.


it used to be my understanding that this was banned in "civilized countries" guess not

a friend of mine whose only problem was an extreme case of being self-conscious/easily embarrassed

had this done to him, he was kinda kooky,but functional 4th in our class;
now it's as if he's possessed by Legion ["we are many"]
and is now permanently institutionalized.

definitively a form of lobotomy

S&F
edit on 29-1-2011 by DerepentLEstranger because: added edit & additional comment

edit on 29-1-2011 by DerepentLEstranger because: spellcheck



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by EssenSieMich
 


True! But look at what they did to Wilhelm reich! He also was not producing a food or drug he did advocate a therapy which mayhave been pure quakery.



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
reply to post by Rockerchic4God
 


Actually, most of the problems you mention (memory loss, etc.) were solved when practices switched from bilateral to unilateral ETC. That's not to say there aren't other issues related to the therapy, but the ones you've cited are outdated.


I see...

my bad you're all in favor of this.

noted.



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by DerepentLEstranger

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
reply to post by l_e_cox
 



psychiatry provides a way to eliminate or silence dissenters and other able people


How so? No one can be "forced" to go to a psychiatrist for dissenting. In fact, the only situations that result in mandatory psychiatric evaluation are those in which the person has harmed others. I see no problem with this.


wow you are really living in a bubble, aren't you? have corrupt police or spooks visit you at 4 am and take you for a ride and return you home before six am completely brain fried/wiped and say that again-- if you can.

can't be forced tell that to all those african-americans who got diagnosed and locked up as dangerous schizophrenics back in the sixties for being in the civil rights movement all it took was a rewrite of that "big book of mental illnesses" that the psych's use nowadays there is supposedly a mental illness called confrontational something or other got diagnosed with it once. a bit of NLP and some judicious use of hypnosis made that so called doctor forget to
record it, so as far as TPTB/authorities know i'm completely sane with no records of M.I.


it used to be my understanding that this was banned in "civilized countries" guess not

a friend of mine whose only problem was an extreme case of being self-conscious/easily embarrassed

had this done to him, he was kinda kooky,but functional 4th in our class;
now it's as if he's possessed by Legion ["we are many"]
and is now permanently institutionalized.

definitively a form of lobotomy

S&F
edit on 29-1-2011 by DerepentLEstranger because: added edit & additional comment

edit on 29-1-2011 by DerepentLEstranger because: spellcheck


Any source for any of this?

Or are you just rambling to hear yourself talk, and to justify paranoid delusions?



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 04:23 PM
link   
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa
 


when you get to know me better you'll know I never talk out of my ass despite it being completely unobstructed by my head.

"paranoid" this,
since it seems you have no google skills at all it seems

How Schizophrenia Became a "Black Disease"



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 07:44 PM
link   
reply to post by DerepentLEstranger
 


So you have NO evidence, then, other than a blog?



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 08:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
How so? No one can be "forced" to go to a psychiatrist for dissenting. In fact, the only situations that result in mandatory psychiatric evaluation are those in which the person has harmed others. I see no problem with this.


Sure you can. You don't need to have to "hurt" others. You can be placed under a 5150 hold for a variety of reasons and confined to a psych facility if determined that its appropriate.


The criteria for writing requires probable cause. This includes danger to self, danger to others together with some indication, prior to the administering of the hold, of symptoms of a mental disorder, and/or grave disability—as noted below. The conditions must exist under the context of a mental illness.

1) Danger to self: The person must be an immediate threat to themselves, usually by being suicidal. Someone who is severely depressed and wishes to die would fall under this category (though they generally have to have expressed a plan to commit suicide and not just a wish to die).
2) Danger to others: The person must be an immediate threat to someone else's safety.
3) Gravely disabled: ..............
en.wikipedia.org...


While you have the right to refuse ECT it can be ordered upon you by a court.
edit on 1/29/11 by FredT because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 08:34 PM
link   
reply to post by FredT
 


You can certainly be held at a psych facility, or at a normal hospital under the advisory of a psych consult, but only because you have lost competence to make medical decisions. A spouse/next-of-kin can easily sign you out, assuming you haven't shown signs of suicidal ideation, self-harm, or have harmed others.



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 08:36 PM
link   
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa
 



Jonathan M. Metzl, MD, PhD, is a psychiatrist who also has a Ph.D. in American Studies. He is Associate Professor of Psychiatry and Women's Studies and Director of Program in Culture, Health, and Medicine at the University of Michigan. In this capacity he works as a Senior Attending Physician in the adult psychiatric clinics and teaches courses in the areas of history of psychiatry, gender, and health at the undergraduate and graduate levels. He is the author of "Prozac on the Couch: Prescribing Gender in the Era of Wonder Drugs" (Duke University Press, 2003), and of "The Protest Psychosis: How Schizophrenia Became a Black Disease" (Beacon Press, 2010).


what part of the above don't you understand?
or did you just not bother to follow the link as is SOP for you?
[as a cursory examination of your posting history shows]

tell you what, why don't you post a thread of you having ECT therapy done on you at your job and show us what a wonderful thing it really is. oh wait, you can't do that, T&C forbids you to advertise your business here. awww, to bad.

i prefer to "Deny Ignorance" by ignoring people who have their heads up their anus, they never listen any way.

consider yourself "Denied".
edit on 29-1-2011 by DerepentLEstranger because: added underline for emphasis



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
A spouse/next-of-kin can easily sign you out, assuming you haven't shown signs of suicidal ideation, self-harm, or have harmed others.


That's pretty much what I quoted above hence the 5150 hold. You have to have one of the above to get a 5150 on you. Under California law you do not need a medical background to impose a 5150 on a person. you can be a "peace officer" as well. If under a 5150 a spouse or parent (my experience BTW is with Pediatric 5150's) cannot sign the person out unless the hold is lifted or they go to court



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 08:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by DerepentLEstranger

what part of the above don't you understand?


I don't understand the part where one person, writing their view of medical history, suddenly becomes fact.


or did you just not bother to follow the link as is SOP for you?


Can you link me to a post where I didn't "follow the link"? To the best of my knowledge, I've looked at every link I've been given, and have even pointed out piece by piece why those links tend to be silly.


T&C forbids you to advertise your business here. awww, to bad.


Luckily, I'm not a psychiatrist (hint: one of the titles under my name tells you what sort of medicine I practice).


i prefer to "Deny Ignorance" by ignoring people who have their heads up their anus, they never listen any way.


It's so frustrating, isn't it? I mean, what's next? People are going to claim they "hypnotized" their doctor and removed medical records? How ridicul-....oh, wait.


edit on 1/29/2011 by VneZonyDostupa because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 08:48 PM
link   
reply to post by FredT
 


Hm, it must vary much more than I thought state-by-state. Where I practice (Tennessee) you have to be a medical professional who has witnessed or suspects self-harm or violence in order to hold someone under psych evaluation, and even then it can be fairly difficult.

Though, as I said above, I'm not a psychiatrist, so they may have access to some "channels" that I don't as a hospitalist.
edit on 1/29/2011 by VneZonyDostupa because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 09:50 PM
link   
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa
 


actually there was an article on here a while ago where this happened.
A man in New Hampshire was place in custody of the state because he had too many guns and riot gear.
I hope someone here remembers what I'm talking about.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join