Decrease font size
Increase font size
Topic Summary: Research?
Created On: 19 November 2006 06:39 PM
Status: Read Only
Linear : Threading : Single : Branch
Search Topic Search Topic
Topic Tools Topic Tools
View similar topics View similar topics
View topic in raw text format. Print this topic.
 19 November 2006 06:39 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Posts: 519
Joined: 08 June 2003

I am trying to find information regarding research literature which goes some way in lending evidence that treating patients with psychiatric disorders with a electric current throught the head is actually beneficial!

After reading about, Freud, "the father of psychiatry", I regard psychiatry as the most unprincipled and unprofessional product sold to the utterly bewildered and I'm interested, (and appalled), as to who was the crackerjack who thought it might do some good!
 20 November 2006 01:46 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Posts: 51
Joined: 14 July 2003

I believe that you'll find that it was Ugo Cerletti who initially suggested using electric shock therapy as treatment.
If you look through the literature you'll undoubtly find literature to support the use, just as you would find support for frontal lobotomy.

Such methods can have the desired result (from Authorities viewpoint), but usually detrimental to the patient.
 10 January 2010 09:44 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Posts: 24
Joined: 25 July 2008

Sorry about late response, having resigned from IET, walked away in disgust regards lack of support.

dvaldr, a good source of stock footage be found on electric shock. Indeed mstab, discovered by one or two Italian psychiatrists. Some how they found a slaughter house using a system, that system believe still standard use in some. The animals in this instance were pigs: very basic two prong approach was given. Unit connected direct to wall current, electrodes upon temporal area and "bang" Down went the swine.

They were then safely able attain the animal (far attain majority, never died, doubt held 100% record). From the shock would as we all expect from our training - any body could succumb into a seizure, except this one satis knock you to the ground and you on this instance like the animal remain there, ready for the slaughter man.

Psychiatry thought this be a great route patient management [believe did claim cure], walking patients now shocked into a state of compliance, the pain enough frighten anyone into somber mood if not then the actual damage to the brain. This however could never be seen, no single institution will fund research; why would any corporation want too when millions of dollars be at stake. These guys saw this route to cure, or maybe that just early PR marketing.

Then taken out of the slaughter house and tested on just about any-thing on four legs, until final able test on humans. Mean while Adolf Hitler arrived, found Psychiatry, gifting him ability kill any-body of distaste, Jews, disabled, homosexuals, gypsies name a few. So shocking patients was now without doubt a therapy, after all expectant result was not to "kill the patient."

Only took a few decades before Americans woke up this alleged treatment and as the threat law suites got bigger and more realistic, shocking patients of those hospitals could make 100% of profit, as shock only consumed probable less half a cent - new way had be found keep making a killing from this cheap, claimed effective, although only terms of profit driven therapy treatment.

After too many accidents, and deaths decided change was in-order, this achievable from introduction of anti-seizure application. So now they shock patients and the fundamental effect, that of removal induce a seizure was applied.

What is now Electroconvulsive Therapy Treatment all about, if original design specification was induce a patient into a seizure, what has changed in the design? Is absolutely no actual change machine, meaning if now not about seizure, what was application all about in the first place?

Plain and simple, all about torture, all about installation of fear, hurt and driving that into a human being attain compliance. Most certainly isn't about health care, nor helping people who suffer emotional issues, stresses in life. If cannot find an illness, or disease, then wheres your target apply treatment?

Well you know, thinking maybe if you point that radiation at my eye ball, might drive away the cancer! Psychiatry killed more than both world wars, that is a fact!

Good source of documentary stock footage, actual original material, most health professionals confirm want be lost for ever, found at CCHR 0134 - 231 3926. Brian Daniels is specialist on finding the evidence decent people and professionals want.

Almost given this treatment, yet I never suffered from depression, unless 2 of 4 months in hospital would get you down? Walked out of Psychiatry 2003, never did agree, yet forced into a treatment programme, injected with mind altering drug, then forced onto a chemical cocktail, has no science for safety, and yes I have damage. 2010 and since I "fled the country late 2003" escape this nazi legacy of a fascist front, never had a single issue make me want return psychiatric health care treatment(s).

Help me help another, abolish a barbarbic treatment, has no place within any professional body. We are all some ones child, some ones daughter or son. I ask the question, would you? Could you apply ECT?

Edited: 14 January 2010 at 06:43 PM by Leesome
 27 January 2010 09:39 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Posts: 24
Joined: 25 July 2008

Has enclosed plenty of researchable material including books.

Stop a Nazi legacy, abolish brutal health care applications. Would you smack your child, beat your partner? Then why apply this shock tactic?
 27 January 2010 01:44 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Posts: 1918
Joined: 28 May 2002

You need to be careful about quoting CCHR as a source, both because of their associations with scientology and for other reasons you may find that they are not considered a credible source of information.

Andy Millar CEng MIET CMgr MCMI

"The aim of argument, or of discussion, should not be victory, but progress." Joseph Joubert
 29 January 2010 09:00 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Posts: 32
Joined: 18 January 2003

Hi Andy.
Do you have any experience in the use of ECT?
Ian Darney
 29 January 2010 11:56 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Posts: 24
Joined: 25 July 2008

Andy, understand that many people arrive at a narrow-minded view. Spent years researching, writing and in 2009, found no way of obtaining the data, mind was locked and distant from those who claimed professional, those claiming knowledge. Check out google, go to the libraries of Britain, this if done would all takes a lot of time and could put a major financial strain on someone already on low income.

Found CCHR, several years prior, thought the web site came over be too slick, too professional, too American, and walked away. Focus on a word, or, what that word stands for was and is of no concern. Checking dictionary meant known be "study of facts."

Having worked in the media & within live entertainment tell you all, aware of facts, aware of fictitious story telling for means most unbelieve and, deny belief they the audience do. Trouble for any mind when that brain is forced to buy something, compulsion twists your mind, no one want to disbelief that a product is unsoothful. All about holding those minds, that is simple marketing, and holding people is what a license is all about.

Focus on study is about "facts," facts are stock footage, actual use of the machine, events - that what is happening or has happened.
They events are facts. The cost of obtaining stock footage would be prohibitive. The cost via the named source is free, just pick up the phone and the death roles in, that death is making new graves as I write.

Thus, answer your question Mr Miller, for a credible knowledge networker you must first examine, then test, then in place is proof. Is sadly so history has already carried that out, evidence exists. If our NHS, was fully integrated with Great Britain, instead of isolated, those facts could be evidence within satis prevent further harm from a machine this IET, knows worthless & ineffectual about. Where is ECT, knowledge network? Since when did subjectivity become evidence of safety or worthy of IET, praise.

Mr Miller, how do you substantiate the statement within your post, when you have no actual knowledge? If you claim knowledge, do you care to quote your source(s)?

Edited: 29 January 2010 at 12:30 PM by Leesome

See Also:

FuseTalk Standard Edition v3.2 - © 1999-2016 FuseTalk Inc. All rights reserved.