LETTERS PROTESTING THE PSYCHIATRIC TORTURE OF REBECCA MERHAV :

3. LINDA RAPS



linda <lindaraps97@yahoo.com> wrote: Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 19:14:17 -0800 (PST)
From: linda <lindaraps97@yahoo.com>
Subject: Rebecca
To: s.wilkins@alfred.org.au
CC: lisa.neville@minstaff.vic.gov.au, jesse.martin@minstaff.vic.gov.au,
hsc@dhs.vic.gov.au, kuruvilla.george@dhs.vic.gov.au

Hello,

I am writing to you to let you know that the toxic dangerous drugs you are forcing Miss Merhav to endure into her body and brain appears to be an undisclosed experiment. Do you and all the "professionals" associated with Psychiatry/Pharmaceutical Racketeering really believe this young woman will live a longer and more fulfilling life due to these poisons?

Have you shown her father real orthodox PROOF that her brain is so defective she cannot be allowed to see or talk to her Dad? Do any of you who seem to be power tripping this man Ben know how it feels to not be allowed any information on his daughter? (Remember, he was her Dad and she was his baby or may be that doesn't mean a thing to any of you).

Capturing humans to experiment on and keep after you have damaged them is the most cruel and obnoxious form of captivity for any human! Haven't you read about the SIDE EFFECTS and the Permanent Damage these drugs create in humans never mind RATS.

Thousands upon thousands of allies and friends of Ben are watching and waiting for your mishap or death to happen as it happens all the time. Are you going to let Ben know when she dies or is it going to be a BIG SECRET! We are ashamed of all of you connected with poisons, captivity and deaths just because you all want the BIG BUCKS.

Linda

LETTERS PROTESTING THE PSYCHIATRIC TORTURE OF REBECCA MERHAV :

2. AMY PHILO

Under the title/subject LET REBECCA GO her letter is addressed to the treating psychatrist with copies to the Minister for Mental Health, the Chief Psychiatrist,and the Health Services Commissioner, Victoria, Australia.



To all those who currently have the power to influence the CTO placed on Rebecca Merhav:

I am a U.S. Citizen and survivor of Zoloft and psychiatry. In 2004 I was forcibly held in a psychiatric hospital for two days and separated from my newborn baby and my family for much of that time. I considered that to be the worst time of my life and I had no idea that I should have considered myself fortunate that the treatment was no worse. I took Zoloft for only 3 days before it made me suicidal and homicidal. I stayed on it for 5 months because of advice that I needed to give it time to work or raise my dose even higher to get a therapeutic effect, before going off of it against medical advice and discovering that I was indeed not mentally ill while not taking prescription mind-altering drugs.

For 30 years Rebecca has been subjected to these dangerous experiments and it is nothing short of a miracle that she has survived the torture of psychiatry. She definitely has a strong spirit and protection from God to be able to survive all this and it is probably divine intervention that keeps her going so she can fulfill her purpose. I pray that her life will not be cut short by your cruel treatments and that she will not become an example of the deaths often caused by Neuroleptic Malignant Syndrome.

I have struggled to understand for a long time why you have been allowed to force Rebecca Merhav to ingest and absorb these drugs that are so dangerous and toxic. Your forced treatment of her is endangering her life. It is her desire and that of her father that she be given an opportunity to taper off of the medications and restore her health through natural means. To refuse a patient the right to control the course of their own life is to take away their freedom, and taking away freedom when someone has committed no crime is unjustifiable torture.

Recent studies show that antipsychotic medications do not improve outcomes for patients and actually did worse than placebo. Therefore, the only logical justification you could possibly have to be forcing this woman to take these drugs is that you are either ignorant of evidence against the drugs, completely incompetent, or you are intentionally trying to hurt or kill her. This is a failed trial and the drugs are not helping Rebecca, all they are doing is hastening her death.

I have been tempted in the past to contact U.S. officials or international organizations to intervene. I have been urged not to do so by Rebecca's father Ben because all he wants for Rebecca is a chance at a normal life and not to be turned into a media target in the process.I am a mother of two and if this were to ever happen to my children I would be tempted to take much more severe and punitive actions against the people attempting to kill my children. Clearly Ben has been more than rational and patient with you and is following all of the normal protocol and appeal process put in place by your twisted system.

I can't imagine what it must be like to have to suffer this torture for so long or to have to see your own child go through this.

If you do not release Rebecca you will become the subjects of an international investigation and very likely held criminally liable for her death which will no doubt occur under your watch. The only chance she has at survival and the only chance you have to save face is to release her and let her make her own path before the drugs kill her.

I hope that you will choose the right thing and let her go.

I will be forwarding the information on your abuses to many people and if necessary I will alert the many media contacts that I have acquired over the past few years. Do the right thing and avoid a scandal and the dismantling of your career by the governments who will hold you accountable for your actions.

To have such power as to play with people's lives this way and let the torture continue for 30 years, I have to really wonder what kind of people you are. If you do not act now to free her, you are not good people. If you let her go you can have at least a semblance of a clean conscience.If I do not receive a reply from you indicating that Rebecca is being released within the next few days, I will assume that you want the attention of the international human rights community and cameras at your doorsteps.

Hopefully she will survive the next few days and live on to be enabled to have the freedom that we are all born expecting to have.

Sincerely,
Amy Philo
amyphilo@yahoo.com

THE PSYCHIATRIC TORTURE OF REBECCA MERHAV IS ONCE MORE INTENSIFIED TO THE DETRIMENT OF HER WELLBEING, AND SHE IS AT THE HIGH RISK OF BEING CRUSHED TO DEATH AS A RESULT !
by Justice Lover

Some 10 days ago Miss Rebecca Merhav, the daughter of Benjamin Merhav, was told by the state shrink ,who is in charge of her under a compulsory treatment order, to leave her home and stay at a psychiatric institution. Her father was not informed of that until about a week later, and then only following his phone call to the shrink.

Her detention address and the phone number to contact her were denied to him. Further inquiries by him revealed that she was ordered to take 400 mg of Serquel tablets per day, in addition to the 75mg Risperdal injections she was forced to take every 10 days.

This is a very dangerous, and very horrible setback for her, having endured the Clozapine torture for over 2 years and all the psychiatric experimentations forced on her for the past 30 years.

Benjamin's letter :

" To the treating psychiatrist,

I am alarmed, dismayed, distressed, disappointed and very worried about the new "treatment" you are forcing my daughter to take, as part of your experimentations with her. This is a sever case of misuse of your legal power given to you by the Mental Health Act, as the psychiatrist treating Rebecca. Are over 30 years of psychiatric torture and experimentations that she has endured so far not enough ?

In reply to my call you told me over the phone that she herself chose to go to that psychiatric institution where you arranged for her to stay and take more very dangerous psychiatric drugs. You also added that if she would not be happy there she would be free to go back home any time. You should know by now that no patient under CTO is free to do what they consider best for them to do. Rebecca sure knows that, as she had 30 years of very bad experience under CTO.

She knows, of course, that the treating psychiatrists and their psychiatric nurses do not like complaints, much less patient's disobedience, and she has been powerless against the psychiatric machine, which has both overt and covert punishments at its disposal (and in her case, with the full support of her mother).

As I phoned the clinic this morning I was told, in reply to my questions, that Rebecca is now forced to take another Atypical drug (Seroquel, 250mg tablets per day, to replace the old Clozapine poison). This in addition to the 10 day interval Risperdal 75mg injections. As you know, Serquel is a very dangerous neuroleptic, and with many adverse effects. Even the FDA in the USA states as follows (with my emphasis ) :

http://www.fda.gov/cder/foi/label/2004/20639se1-017,016_seroquel_lbl.pdf

"WARNINGS

Neuroleptic Malignant Syndrome (NMS) A potentially fatal symptom complex sometimes referred to as Neuroleptic Malignant Syndrome (NMS) has been reported in association with administration of antipsychotic drugs, including SEROQUEL. Rare cases of NMS have been reported with SEROQUEL. Clinical manifestations of NMS are hyperpyrexia, muscle rigidity, altered mental status, and evidence of autonomic instability (irregular pulse or blood pressure, tachycardia, diaphoresis, and cardiac dysrhythmia). Additional signs may include elevated creatine phosphokinase, myoglobinuria (rhabdomyolysis) and acute renal failure. The diagnostic evaluation of patients with this syndrome is complicated. In arriving at a diagnosis, it is important to exclude cases where the clinical presentation includes both serious medical illness (eg, pneumonia, systemic infection, etc.) and untreated or inadequately treated extrapyramidal signs and symptoms (EPS). Other important considerations in the differential diagnosis include central anticholinergic toxicity, heat stroke, drug fever and primary central nervous system (CNS) pathology."

At the same page the FDA has the following information :


"Post Marketing Experience:

Adverse events reported since market introduction which were
temporally related to SEROQUEL therapy include:

leukopenia/neutropenia. If a patient develops a low white cell count
consider discontinuation of therapy. Possible risk factors for
leukopenia/neutropenia include pre-existing low white cell count and
history of drug induced leukopenia/neutropenia.
Other adverse events reported since market introduction, which were
temporally related to SEROQUEL therapy, but not necessarily
causally related, include the following: agranulocytosis, anaphylaxis,
hyponatremia, rhabdomyolysis, syndrome of inappropriate
antidiuretic hormone secretion (SIADH), and Steven Johnson
syndrome (SJS)."

A law firm in the USA, which has vast legal experience in law suits against drug corporations, pasted the piece of information on its website as it is below . According to this information the drug manufacturer itself
changed the label on Seroquel to include the following (my emphasis ) :

"In January 2004, AstraZeneca changed the labeling on Seroquel^® to warn of the serious, increased risk of diabetes and related health complications such as hyperglycemia, ketoacidosis, coma and death."

http://www.kritzerzonies.com/drug_seroquel.htm

"Seroquel^® (quetiapine fumarate), manufactured by AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, is an atypical antipsychotic medication approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1997 to control the symptoms of schizophrenia and manic episodes associated with bipolar disorder. Although approved specifically for these limited purposes, some physicians have prescribed Seroquel^® for "off-label" use including sleep disorders, post-traumatic stress disorder, obsessive compulsive disorder and other anxiety disorders.
Not long after Seroquel^® was approved for use, evidence began to mount regarding the serious side effects associated with it and other similar medications. In January 2004, AstraZeneca changed the labeling on Seroquel^® to warn of the serious, increased risk of diabetes and related health complications such as hyperglycemia, ketoacidosis, coma and death. In April 2005, the FDA ordered AstraZeneca to add a "black box warning" to Seroquel^® labeling, informing consumers about the increased risk of death from the drug. The FDA also emphasized at that time that Seroquel^® was NOT approved to treat elderly patients with dementia. Although studies have linked Seroquel^® to diabetes, death and other serious side effects, the drug remains on the market.

In 2004, soon after the discovery of diabetes-related Seroquel^® side effects, a class action lawsuit was filed on behalf of all patients who had taken the drug. The lawsuit sought the establishment of a medical monitoring fund which would provide free, periodic testing for diabetes and related conditions for patients taking Seroquel^®. Other Seroquel^® lawsuits have been filed on behalf of individuals who allegedly have been seriously injured or killed by Seroquel^® side effects.

If you or a loved one is taking Seroquel^®, it is important to be aware of these risks and speak with your health care professional to learn more. It is also crucial to speak with your doctor before starting, stopping or otherwise modifying the use of Seroquel^®."
It is true that Rebecca suffers from chronic insomnia as a result of being forced to take Clozapine, Risperdal, Flupenthixal and other neuroleptics for many years. Her body badly needs detoxification, physical activities, community activities etc. - whatever else she thinks she needs - rather than forcing into her more psychiatric poisons. She is not a danger to the community nor to herself, and therefore the CTO should be lifted immediately to give her a chance to return to normal life !
Do not kill my daughter !


Sincerely, Benjamin Merhav"

"Lilly in Settlement Talks With U.S--But what about the death toll?

ALLIANCE FOR HUMAN RESEARCH PROTECTION
Promoting Openness, Full Disclosure,and Accountability
http://www.ahrp.org and
http://ahrp.blogspot.com

FYI

. . . And the band plays on and the body count continues to mount--

The New York Times reports that Eli Lilly is in negotiation talks with the
US Justice department to settle both civil and criminal investigations of
the company's marketing of its toxic diabetes-inducing antipsychotic,
Zyprexa. If the settlement is reached, the Times reports, Lilly would pay
the biggest fine in history.

In a recent study in The Lancet, compared Risperdal an antipsychotic in the same class as Zyprexa, to placebo in calming aggression--which is the
primary reason that Zyprexa and Risperdal are prescribed. They found the harmless placebo to be more effective:
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673608600720/abstract

The authors concluded: "Antipsychotic drugs should no longer be regarded as
an acceptable routine treatment for aggressive challenging behaviour in
people with intellectual disability."

Underscoring the total failure by the US government to take meaningful
action to protect the public health as well as the public wealth, The Times reports:

"But the company would be allowed to keep selling Zyprexa to Medicare and
Medicaid, the government programs that are the biggest customers of the
drug. Zyprexa is Lilly's most profitable product and among the worlds
best-selling medicines, with 2007 sales of $4.8 billion, about half in the
United States."

Indeed, Medicaid pays for about 70% go 80% of the antipsychotic drug
prescriptions.

All anyone involved cares about is money--as they lend their government seal of approval that leads the lambs to slaughter


Contact:

Vera Hassner Sharav
veracare@ahrp.org
212-595-8974

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/30/business/30cnd-drug.html?hp
THE NEW YORK TIMES
January 30, 2008
Lilly in Settlement Talks With U.S.
By ALEX BERENSON

Eli Lilly and federal prosecutors are discussing a settlement of a civil and
criminal investigation into the company's marketing of the antipsychotic
drug Zyprexa that could result in Lilly's paying more than
$1 billion to federal and state governments.

If a deal is reached, the fine would be the largest ever paid by a drug
company for breaking the federal laws that govern how drug makers can
promote their medicines.

Several people involved in the investigation confirmed the settlement
discussions. They insisted on anonymity because they have not been
authorized to talk about the negotiations.

Zyprexa has serious side effects and is approved only to treat people with
schizophrenia and severe bipolar disorder. But documents from Lilly show
that between 2000 and 2003, Lilly encouraged doctors to prescribe Zyprexa to
people with age-related dementia, as well as people with mild bipolar
disorder who had previously been diagnosed only as depressed.

Although doctors can prescribe drugs for any use once they are on the
market, it is illegal for drug makers to promote their medicines any uses
not formally approved by the Food and Drug Administration.

Lilly may also plead guilty to a misdemeanor criminal charge as part of the
agreement, the people involved with the investigation said. But the company
would be allowed to keep selling Zyprexa to Medicare and Medicaid, the
government programs that are the biggest customers for the drug. Zyprexa is
Lilly's most profitable product and among the world's best-selling
medicines, with 2007 sales of $4.8 billion, about half in the United States.

Lilly would neither confirm nor deny the settlement talks.

"We have been and are continuing to cooperate in state and federal
investigations related to Zyprexa, including providing a broad range of
documents and information," Lilly said in a statement Wednesday afternoon.
"As part of that cooperation we regularly have discussions with the
government. However, we have no intention of sharing those discussions with
the news media and it would be speculative and irresponsible for anyone to
do so."

Lilly also said that it had always followed state and federal laws when
promoting Zyprexa.

The Lilly fine would be distributed among federal and state governments,
which spend about $1.5 billion on Zyprexa each year through Medicare and
Medicaid.

The fine would be in addition to $1.2 billion that Lilly has already paid to
settle 30,000 lawsuits from people who claim that Zyprexa caused them to
suffer diabetes or other diseases. Zyprexa can cause severe weight gain in
many patients and has been linked to diabetes by the American Diabetes
Association.

Prescriptions for Zyprexa have skidded since 2003 over concerns about those
side effects. But the drug continues to be widely used, especially among
severely mentally ill patients. Many psychiatrists say that it works better
than other medicines at calming patients who are psychotic and
hallucinating. About four million Zyprexa prescriptions were written in the
United States last year.

Federal prosecutors in Philadelphia are leading the settlement talks for the
government, in consultation with the Department of Justice headquarters in
Washington. State attorneys general's offices are also involved. Lawyers at
Pepper Hamilton, a firm based in Philadelphia, and Sidley Austin, a firm
based in Chicago, are negotiating for Lilly.

Nina Gussack, who is representing Lilly at Pepper Hamilton, said she could
not comment on the case. Joseph Trautwein, an assistant United States
attorney in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, also declined to comment.

While a settlement has not been concluded and the negotiations could
collapse, both sides want to reach an agreement, according to the people
involved in the investigation. Besides the escalating pressure of the
federal criminal inquiry, Lilly faces a civil trial scheduled for March in
Anchorage, Alaska, in a lawsuit brought by the state of Alaska to recover
money the state has spent on Zyprexa prescriptions. A loss in that lawsuit
would damage Lilly's bargaining position in the Philadelphia talks.

While expensive for Lilly, the settlement would end a four-year federal
investigation and remove a cloud over Zyprexa. While Zyprexa prescriptions
are falling, its overall dollar volume of sales is rising because Lilly has
raised Zyprexa's price about 40 percent since 2003.

Federal prosecutors have been investigating Lilly for its marketing of
Zyprexa since 2004, and state attorneys general since 2005. The people
involved in the investigations said the inquiries gained momentum after
December 2006, when The New York Times published articles describing Lilly's
multiyear efforts to play down Zyprexa's side effects and to promote the
drug for conditions other than schizophrenia and severe bipolar disorder - a
practice called off-label marketing.

Internal Lilly marketing documents and e-mail messages showed that Lilly
wanted to convince doctors to prescribe Zyprexa for patients with
age-related dementia or relatively mild bipolar disorder.

In one document, an unidentified Lilly marketing executive wrote that
primary care doctors "do treat dementia" but leave schizophrenia and bipolar
disorder to psychiatrists. As a result, "dementia should be first message"
to primary-care doctors, according to the document, which appears to be part
of a larger marketing presentation but is not marked more specifically.
Later, the same document says that some primary care doctors "might
prescribe outside of label."

In late 2000, Lilly began a marketing campaign called Viva Zyprexa and told
its sales representatives to suggest that doctors prescribe Zyprexa to older
patients with symptoms of dementia.

The documents were under federal court seal when The Times published the
articles, and Judge Jack B. Weinstein of Federal District Court in Brooklyn
rebuked The Times for publishing them.

The settlement negotiations in Philadelphia began several months ago,
according to the people involved in the investigation.

Last fall, the two sides were close to a deal in which Lilly would have paid
less than $1 billion to settle the case, which at the time consisted only of
a civil complaint.

Then Justice Department lawyers in Washington pressed for a grand jury
investigation to examine whether Lilly should be charged criminally for its
promotional activities, according to the people involved in the
negotiations. A few days ago, facing the possibility of both civil and
criminal charges, Lilly opened new discussions with the prosecutors in
Philadelphia."

(Emphasis by Justice Lover)

MORE ON THE SIMILARITIES BETWEEN PSYCHIATRY'S PROPAGANDA METHOD AND THE PROPAGANDA METHOD OF ZIONISM
by Justice Lover

Both the dogma of psychiatry and the ideology of zionism are based on big lies. Both are megalomanical in their ambitions. Both are fascist oriented, rather than scientifically based in the case of psychiatry, and social justice in the case of zionism. It is no wonder, therefore, that their propaganda methods are very similar too. Essentially, their propaganda poisons are made up of lies : big lies and small lies, yet presented to the public as pure truth, and in very aggressive manners, and with totally outrageous impunity !

The following AHRP article/report provides very convincing evidence in regard to the outrageous torture method of electric shocks (ECT), used and advocated by top shrinks as an "effective therapy". The truth is ,of course, that not only are electric shocks to the brain a fascist form of brutal torture, but they are very harmful and very dangerous to patients. It was invented by an Italian shrink under the fascist regime of Mussolini, and those who advocate it today must be fascist torturers too !

ALLIANCE FOR HUMAN RESEARCH PROTECTION
Promoting Openness, Full Disclosure, and Accountability
http://www.ahrp.org and http://ahrp.blogspot.com

FYI

The history of psychiatry is a story of megalomania. A confounding problem
for psychiatry is the profession’s failure to examine its therapeutics from
patients’ perspectives or to put psychiatry’s therapeutics to a valid
scientific test to determine whether the benefit outweighs the risks from
patients’ perspective.

Suppose someone told you about a treatment for depression that was more
effective than anything else, virtually free of side effects, that is being
promoted as “the Penicillin of Psychiatry"—would you believe it or would you
be skeptical? This is what we are told in a new book, "Shock Therapy: A
History of Electroconvulsive Treatment in Mental Illness" (2007) by Edward
Shorter, PhD and David Healy, MD. To decide whether this book is describing
a scientific breakthrough or merely more propaganda, we should consider some
highlights from the contentious history of ECT.

Thomas Insel, MD director of the National Institute of Mental Health,
recently acknowledged on public television that psychiatry’s practices,
unlike other fields of medicine, are governed by the personal
preference--i.e., bias--of a psychiatrist: " the treatments that people are
given depends not so much on a thorough understanding of mental disorders,[but] much more on what it is the therapist is most comfortable in doing."
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/medicatedchild/interviews/insel.html


Indeed, history demonstrates that psychiatrists regularly prescribe invasive biological interventions--be they pharmacologic, magnetic, electric, or surgical—on the basis of conviction (faith) rather than evidence.

Sixty years after its introduction, electroshock (ECS) a.k.a. electroconvulsive
therapy (ECT), remains psychiatry’s most controversial intervention. ECT is
a polarizing symbol of authoritarianism that continues to be mired in both
moral and professional controversy. Practitioners are locked in a bitter
battle against patients who have been harmed and who are fighting for full
disclosure. ECT’s longevity—even as its adherents are fiercely divided over
the dosage of electricity and method of application (bilateral vs.
unilateral placement of electrodes) [1] confirms Dr. Insel’s observation.

What ECT does to the brain is best described by neurologists who describe
the measurable pathological changes that are recorded on the EEG, including
alterations in brain chemistry and physiology. Neuroscientist, Dr. Peter
Sterling, University of Pennsylvania, provides a detailed description of
what ECT does to the brain in testimony. [2]
http://retina.anatomy.upenn.edu/pdfiles/Oct2002NYC.pdf

1. The electric shock delivered by a standard ECS machine to the skull is
roughly comparable to what you would get from a common electrical outlet,
but the voltage is stepped up from 110 V to 150 V. The total power drawn is
about 60 Watts -- enough for a conventional light bulb.

2. ECS is designed to evoke a grand mal epileptic seizure. The seizure
causes an acute rise in blood pressure, well into the hypertensive range,
and this frequently causes small hemorrhages in the brain.

3. ECS ruptures the “blood-brain barrier”. This barrier normally protects
the brain from potentially damaging substances in the blood.

4. ECS causes neurons to release large quantities of the excitatory
neurotransmitter, glutamate, leading to “excito-toxicity” causing neurons
literally die from overactivity.

5. ECS releases myriad other neurotransmitters and hormones within the brain. The degree of damage consequent to ECS varies between individuals. It can be catastrophic in response to a single series, or it can appear more gradually following repeated series. http://retina.anatomy.upenn.edu/pdfiles/Oct2002NYC.pdf

ECT Background:

ECT was originally promoted much as lobotomy had been—as an expedient,
quick, easy, and cheap method of controlling mental patients’ behavior.

Early on leading US practitioner / researchers acknowledged that ECT
produces profound, lasting trauma. Lothar Kalinowsky, MD:

“All intellectual functions, grasp as well as memory and critical faculty, are impaired.” [2]

Abraham Myerson, MD:

“The mechanism for improvement and recovery seems to be
to knock out the brain and reduce the higher activities, to impair memory.”

[3] Max Fink, MD, acknowledged in 1958 that a single ECT treatment is akin to "severe head trauma," suggesting that “convulsive therapy provides an excellent experimental method for studies of craniocerebral trauma.” [4]

Despite its injurious effects on cognitive function and memory, ECT has
outlasted the other three “brain-damaging-therapeutics”

—insulin coma, Metrazol, and lobotomy.

In part, because anesthesia was introduced to moderate the physical vertebrae and bone-breaking force of the convulsions that patients undergo during electrically induced Grand Mal seizures.

However, as an authoritative systematic meta-analysis in Lancet (2003)
reports, neither anesthesia nor other newer methods for applying ECT have
resulted in an appreciable reduction in other adverse effects. [5]

Three other factors led to ECT’s survival after its eclipse in the 1960s and
1970s:

1. Psychotropic drugs did not prove to be the claimed wonder drugs—they also
caused debilitating neurological side effects, and failed to improve
patients’ long-term outcome.

2. ECT economics, which Leonard Frank succinctly outlined: “ECT is a
money-maker. An in-hospital ECT series can cost anywhere from
$50,000-75,000. Using a low figure of 100,000 Americans who are
electroshocked annually, most of who are covered by private or government
insurance, ECT brings in $5 billion a year.” [6] In the US especially, the
promoters of ECT-- including academic-affiliated practitioner / researchers,
device manufacturers, and hospitals—all have significant financial interests
in ECT.

3. The zealous advocacy of its practitioner-proponents—all of whom have
unacknowledged financial conflicts of interest. [7] ECT is dominated by a
small vocal group of powerful "authority" figures who exert inordinate
influence—indeed, control over ECT research, funding, publications and
practice policies on the basis of their conviction—not scientific evidence.
Although their financial stake in the business of ECT is rarely (if ever)
mentioned in their professional academic contributions, no doubt money plays
a role. Since ECT treatment approaches and outcome evaluations rely entirely
on practitioners’ own preference and assessment, their objectivity is highly
questionable.

Foremost among ECT’s influential proponents is Dr. Max Fink, a combative
octogenarian who has been applying bilateral ECT longer than anyone. Dr.
Fink wrote the first ECT textbook, and is credited with formulating the
theoretical foundation, ethical justification, practice guidelines, and
informed consent documents for ECT, actively contributing promotional
material for commercial use. [8]

In September 1978, amidst a heated debate, the first ECT Task Force of the
American Psychiatric Association surveyed the membership to find out whether
they thought that ECT was brain damaging. The response by 41% of APA
members affirmed the likelihood that: "ECT produces subtle or slight brain
damage”—only 26% said no. [9] The Task Force report outlined the ECT
research agenda to address patients’ complaints of memory loss. No such
research was carried out.

In 1979 the FDA classified shock machines as a Class III medical
device—indicating it had not been proven safe and effective. Despite
continuing controversy, ECT machines have never been put the test in
controlled trials because manufacturers and ECT practitioners were adamantly
opposed. The question is, WHY?

If ECT does not cause cognitive damage and memory loss, why have its
proponents failed to conduct a test that will prove them right?

The reason behind ECT practitioners’ fierce opposition to performing
controlled clinical trials may found in a 1978 article by Max Fink in the
official journal of the Psychopathological Association:

“The principle complications of EST [ECT] are death, brain damage, memory impairment, and spontaneous seizures. These complications are similar to head trauma to which EST has been compared.” [10]
Indeed, a cumulative body of evidence confirmed ECT’s brain damaging
effects. [11]

Ardent ECT promoters regularly go to battle when threatened with restricted
use:

By 1983, 26 states had passed statutes restricting ECT and 6 others
established regulations. In 1985, the National Institutes of Health (NIH)
issued a Consensus Statement confirming:

“It is well established that ECT produces memory deficits. Deficits in memory function, which have been demonstrated objectively and repeatedly, persist after the termination of a
normal course of ECT.” [12]

Threatened with restrictions, ECT’s torch bearers
began a propaganda campaign, vehemently denying evidence of lasting memory
loss, while resolutely avoiding an examination of the impact of ECT on
memory and cognition.

Dr. Fink’s pronouncements border on missionary zeal, if not megalomania.In 1983, he declared: “If there is no SUBSTANTIAL evidence of brain impairment, then there is NO evidence for brain impairment.” [13]In 1996, he stated: "ECT is one of God's gifts to mankind. There is nothing like it, nothing equal to it in efficacy or safety in all of psychiatry."[14]

He pronounced ECT an “effective treatment of patients with major depression,
delusional depression, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, catatonia,
neuroleptic malignant syndrome, and parkinsonism…. No age or systemic
condition bars its use.” [15]

“Adverse effects on memory have been minimized to the point of being
undetectable, by any means of assessment, six weeks after completion of
treatment." [16]

In 2002, Dr. Fink promoted the use of ECT for children, disregarding the
profound harm that he himself had documented but now vehemently denies:
“Until demonstrations of untoward consequences are recorded, we should not
deny the possible benefits of biological treatments to children on the
prejudice that these treatments affect brain functions.” [17]

Shock Waives in the Shock Community:

In 2000, the tightly knit ECT cottage industry was confronted with the most
serious challenge to their vehement public denials that persistent memory
loss is a risk of ECT. The central supporting stone was pulled from ECT’s
house of clay by Harold Sackeim, Ph.D., an equally prominent ECT advocate
arguably the most prolific ECT researcher. In an astonishingly candid
editorial in the Journal of ECT, he explicitly validated patients’ claims,
acknowledging that consistent evidence exists documenting that:

“virtually all patients experience some degree of persistent and
likely permanent amnesia… It has also become clear that for rare patients the retrograde amnesia due to ECT can be profound, with the memory loss extending back years prior to receipt of the treatment.” [18]

Sackeim further conceded that ECT causes frontal lobe damage significantly affecting the brain’s executive functions: including working memory, logical reasoning and abstraction, problem solving, planning and organizing.

Dr. Sackeim, who simultaneously headed the ECT divisions at Columbia
University and New York Cornell, was the recipient of tens of millions of
dollars in NIMH research grants collecting data on its effects for two
decades. He was, therefore, in possession of evidence demonstrating that the
profession’s failure to provide evidence of cognitive harm and memory loss
is not evidence that none exists.

“As a field, we have more readily acknowledged the possibility of death due to ECT than the possibility of profound memory loss, despite the fact that adverse effects on cognition are by far ECT’s most common side effects.” [18] [AHRP seeks an electronic copy of Dr. Sackeim's editorial]

In 2001, Sackeim and his Columbia University
colleagues reported in JAMA an 84% relapse rate, six months after ECT. [19]
Seven years after his editorial (2007), he and colleagues published the data
substantiating his editorial. [20]

"Shock Therapy: A History of Electroconvulsive Treatment in Mental Illness"
(2007) by Edward Shorter, PhD and David Healy, MD, is not so much a history
of electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) as it is an unreserved endorsement and
tribute to Max Fink. Oddly, although he is not a named author, Dr. Fink
states on his website that he is “now working on a book on a History of
Convulsive Therapy with Edward Shorter and David Healy.”
http://www.hsc.stonybrook.edu/som/psychiatry/fink_m.cfm

Whatever... The book is clearly written at the behest of Dr. Fink—whose
private foundation, Scion Natural Science Association, provided a $34,900
grant. http://dfcm.utoronto.ca/research/pdf/grants.pdf

The book serves to bolster Dr. Fink’s extreme position in his battle against
those who argue against the continued use of bilateral ECT because it has
been shown to cause more cognitive damage. Dr. Fink claims unilateral ECT
(confined to the non-verbal, right side) is not as effective. And the book
attempts to deflect the fall out from Dr. Sackeim’s confessional editorial,
which Drs. Shorter and Healy acknowledge, “flabbergasted” psychiatrists.

Chapter 1, “The Penicillin of Psychiatry?” sets the evangelical, revivalist
tone, and decidedly unscientific framework of the book.
“So clear are the benefits of ECT for patients who might otherwise commit
suicide, or languish for years in the blackness of depression, that there
should be little controversy over whether it is safe or effective.” [p. 3]

“Why, today, seventy years after its discovery, is ECT highly stigmatized,
both patients and many physicians? ECT is, in a sense, the penicillin of
psychiatry.” [p.3]

The authors even adopted Dr. Fink’s implausible promotional pronouncements
extolling the virtues of ECT by adamantly denying its previously
acknowledged, harmful effects. These unreferenced pronouncements are
unsupported by empirical evidence:

“Therapeutic convulsions induced by electricity…do not harm the brain and
can save lives” [p.9]
“There is no doubt that ECT is effective in the prevention of suicide” [p.
97]
“There is no known occurrence of brain damage associated with ECT.” [p. 104]

“ECT does not lend itself well to abuse because it is painless: the patient
is immediately unconscious.” [p. 94]
“No neurologic sequelae to treatment can be demonstrated.” [p. 212]

However, as neurologist, Peter Sterling, MD, noted in his letter in Nature
(2001),

“ECT damage is easy to find if you look for it.”
http://retina.anatomy.upenn.edu/pdfiles/5448.pdf

The credibility of the book is undermined by the authors’ heavy reliance on
Dr. Fink as a source—given his demonstrable bias—and their failure to
present the informed concerns of neurologists who have no stake in this war.

John Friedberg, MD, the author of Shock Treatment is Not Good for Your
Brain, (1976) was the first neurologist to raise objections against its use.
In 1977 he wrote in the American Journal of Psychiatry:

“Like other insults to the brain, ECT produces EEG abnormalities…The potency of ECT as an amnestic exceeds that of severe closed head injury with coma.”[21] He
reviewed the ECT data from six states that mandate reporting of adverse ECT
effects, and found evidence of brain damage and memory loss. He noted that
ECT proponents’ data frequently belie their claimed findings.

Rather than address the mounting empirical evidence documenting the case
against ECT—which hinges on its short-lived efficacy outweighed by long-term
memory loss and cognitive harm [11] [22]—Drs. Shorter and Healy employ
psychiatry’s time worn ploy.

They divert attention from evidence of its
damaging therapeutics. They frame the contentious controversy surrounding
ECT as an orchestrated political battle by 'anti-psychiatry' forces against
the profession—exactly as Dr. Fink has done. They blame Scientology, the
press / media, the movies, and they blame psychologists for “stigmatizing”
ECT:

"CCHR and the Church of Scientology have since consistently been the most
sustained critics of psychiatry and especially of ECT, within the United
States." [p. 184]

“There is no doubt that in its fantastical depictions of ECT, the movie
industry played a capital role in stigmatizing the procedure.” [p. 153]
Ken Kesey’s book / movie, “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest,” is cited 9
times.

Psychologists, the authors suggest, have sided with patients “as a tactic in
professional rivalry” using memory loss “as a wedge in battering down the
citadel of medical authority.” [p. 242]

A single controlled study is presented by the authors to substantiate their
efficacy claims. The study, by Drs. Tillotson and Sulzbach, was conducted in
1945 at McLean Hospital. Its reported positive recovery results are
described twice, [p. 80, p. 96] followed by the exuberant reaction of ECT
champion, Dr. Kalinowsky, who brought ECT to the US: “In this group, amazing
recoveries are achieved in the majority of all treated cases.” [p. 81]
“Shock Therapy” authors then claim: “Because of the extraordinary success of
ECT in medicine, by the late 1940s its curative value was understood in
other areas of American society.” [p. 81]

They cite malpractice cases judged on the basis of likelihood of ECT’s
curative effect, lamenting the good old days when “there were no anguished
worries about memory loss, no antipsychiatry groups…and no squeamish
psychologists and social workers shying away from a ‘brutal’ therapy.”
[p.82]

However, they fail to present any of the evidence—from scientifically valid
studies—that might explain why the protests came about. [11] [22]

How can a credible history of ECT fail to present documented evidence of
brain damage, memory loss, and cognitive deficits, most reported by
credentialed neurologists and psychiatrists, including ECT proponents?

For example, a 1986 controlled study comparing the brain scans of 101
depressed patients who had received ECT with the scans of 52 normal
volunteers. The study, not intended as an ECT evaluation, found a
significant relationship between ECT treatment with brain atrophy. The study
also showed that the brain abnormalities correlated only with ECT, and not
with age, gender, severity of illness, or other variables. [23]

As early as 1950, Dr. Irving Janis, (1950) of Yale University conducted a
series of well-designed, matched controlled follow-up studies. [24] These
studies are recognized as methodologically unique in the ECT scientific
literature: their importance is noted by neurologists, independent
scientists, and patients.

His method directly addressed the concern of the
patients and to date is considered the most sensitive and scientifically
valid. Janis studied the effects of ECT on depressed patients’ memory by
testing them before and after ECT—and by comparing their memory loss with
matched controls who had not undergone ECT. By examining patients’ memories
2 ½ to 3 ½ months after ECT—and following some of the patients in a year
long follow up study—Janis could determine whether an individual patient
showed changes in memory, and whether the ECT group differed from the
matched group of controls.

Janis reported that ALL ECT patients had
“profound, extensive” amnesia for at least 10 to 20 life experiences. The
controls, who had not been subjected to ECT, had no memory difficulties. No
one has raised serious criticism of the Janis studies. Despite the fact that
such tests are easy to carry out, no ECT researcher has attempted to
replicate them. Why?

Irving Janis is not even accorded a citation in the index--his findings are
misrepresented:

“One possibility was that patients actually learned a protective amnesia, as
opposed to having amnesia directly caused by the treatment.” [p. 209]

The authors dismiss patients’ testimonies and trivialize their concerns
about memory loss: “In informed circles, serious memory loss has seldom been
considered real.” [p.111] The arrogance betrayed by that statement mirrors
the dismissive indifference shown by FDA officials who characterized
concerns about an increased suicide risk linked to SSRI antidepressants as a
“public relations” problem.
http://ahrp.blogspot.com/2007/09/alison-bass-hits-bulls-eye-in-op-ed.html

Drs. Shorter and Healy attribute implausible political power and influence
to the victims of ECT while failing to discuss the evidence presented in
recently published authoritative reports. For example, the first-ever,
government sponsored, systematic review of patients’ views on ECT (2003)
[25] was so compelling, it led the UK National Institute for Health and
Clinical Excellence (NICE) to issue new guidelines recommending cognitive
assessment after each ECT for memory loss; that treatment be stopped if
adverse cognitive effects manifest; the use of validated psychometric
scales; and inclusion of user perspectives on the impact of ECT, and the
incidence and impact of important side effects such as cognitive
functioning. [26]

The review analyzed 26 studies, 19 conducted by scientists, 7 by former
patients. The findings confirmed other independent analyses: ECT’s efficacy
is short-lived while 30% of patients suffer lasting biographical memory loss
after ECT. The authors of “Shock Therapy” disparage the review because of
the presence of former patients on the NICE committee, suggesting: “the line
between research and advocacy can be a thin one.” [p. 249]
“it is not inconceivable that…the Mind representatives heavily influenced
the document.” [p. 250]

Instead of addressing the legitimate medical concerns and the evidence, the
authors invoke a mystery-shrouded faith: “Why convulsive therapy, giving
patients epileptic seizures, should be restorative in psychiatric illness
remains a mystery even today.” [p.6]

“The charge of brain damage from ECT is an urban myth, one first put forward
by the development of a rival therapy, Vienna’s Manfred Sakel, who tried
hard to subvert his competition.” [p. 3]

The book was launched on Oct. 24, 3007 at the New York Academy of Medicine
by Edward Shorter, Max Fink, and Lee Wachtel, MD, who comprised a panel
discussing: The History of Convulsive Therapy from Depression to Autism:
Past Uses, Future Possibilities.
http://www.nyam.org/initiatives/im-histearch.shtml

Dr. Wachtel is Medical Director and attending child psychiatrist of the
Neurobehavioral Unit at the Kennedy Krieger Institute, with particular
interest in the use of ECT for autistic children. So this book's launching
was a step toward market expansion with Dr. Fink leading the way by
targeting children for Shock therapy—just as psychiatry's other radical
practitioners are targeting children for expanded use of antipsychotics. Dr.
David Healy did not attend the book launching.

Accompanying articles to be posted on the AHRP blog:

1. Peter Sterling, MD. Testimony to: New York State Assembly Committee on
Mental Health Mental Retardation & Developmental Disabilities, July 18,
2001.
2. Sackeim, Harold A. Memory and ECT: From Polarization to Reconciliation.
Journal of ECT. 16(2):87-96, June 2000.


REFERENCES

1. Richard Abrams, MD Food and Drug Administration Action Is Required,
editorial, Arch Gen Psychiatry 2000; 57:445-446

2. Sterling, P. Testimony Prepared for the Standing Committee on Mental
Health of the Assembly of the State of New York. October 5, 1978.
http://www.ect.org/effects/testimony.html;

3. Kallinowsky, L. Cited by Whitaker, Mad In America, p. 99 Ref. 2.

4. Myerson, A. Borderline cases treated by Shock, Amer. J Psychiatry, 100
(1943): 355-357.

5. UK ECT Review Group (2003) Efficacy and safety of electroconvulsive
therapy in depressive disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Lancet, 361, 799–808

6. Fink, M. Effect of anticholinergic agent, Diethazine, on EEG and
behavior, Archives of Neurology and Psychiatry 80 (1958):380-386.
In 1966, Fink indicated that his research showed a positive "relation
between clinical improvement and the production of brain damage or an
altered state of brain function." See: Fink, M. Cholinergic aspects of
convulsive therapy, Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease 142
(1966):475-481. And in his 1979 textbook, Dr. Fink wrote: “A more prominent
neurological sequel to seizures is the change in mental state and the
development of an organic mental syndrome…an organic psychosis may occur
with few treatments.” See: Fink, M. Convulsive Therapy: Theory and
Practice, Raven Press, New York, 1979. Cited by Whitaker, R. Mad in America,
p. 102, Ref. 2.

7. For example, Richard Abrams, MD does not usually disclose in his academic
writings that he is President of Somantics, the manufacturer of the
Thymatron ECT device. See: Cameron D. ECT: Sham Statistics, the Myth of
Convulsive Therapy, and the Case for Consumer Misinformation, Journal of
Mind and Behavior Winter and Spring 1994, Vol. 15, Pages 177-198. See also:
Dukakis, K., & Tye, L. Shock: The healing power of electroconvulsive
therapy. (2006). New York: Avery. Furthermore, in sworn court testimony, ECT
proponents acknowledged their financial conflicts of interest—as will be
documented in a forthcoming book by Linda Andre.

8. Dr. Fink’s videotaped informed consent instructions for ECT are
distributed by Somantics, manufactures of ECT machines. Its owner, Richard
Abrams, is a close ally of Dr. Fink. [See Ref. 1 above] Given Dr. Fink’s
adamant denial that ECT efficacy is short lived, whereas memory loss and
cognitive impairments for as many as 30% of patients persist—his standard
for informed consent is invalid. However, such signed consents may serve as
liability protection for practitioners.

9. American Psychiatric Association. Report of the Task Force on
Electroconvulsive Therapy. 1978. Survey pp..1-6.

10. Fink M. “Efficacy and safety of induced seizures (ES) in Man.
Comprehensive Psychiatry 19, 1978. Cited by Peter Breggin MD, psychiatry’s
most dreaded, evidence-based critic, in: Toxic Psychiatry, p.199, Ref. 23.

11. Evidence of brain damage,1980+
See: Templer DI, Veleber DM. Can ECT permanently harm the brain? Clinical
Neuropsychology 1982; 4(2): 62-66; Calloway SP, Dolan RJ, Jacoby RJ, Levy R.
ECT and cerebral atrophy. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica 1981; 64: 442-445.
A retrospective CAT-scan and case review study of 41; Calloway SP and Dolan
RJ. Ect and cerebral damage Br J Psychiatry.1982; 140: 103a; Templer, DI and
Veleber, DM. Can ECT permanently harm the brain? Clinical Neuropsychology
(1982), 4(2): 62-66; Devinsky O, Duchowny MS. Seizures after convulsive
therapy: a retrospective case survey, Neurology. 1983 Jul;33(7):921-5;
Templer DI. “ECT and permanent brain damage.” In Preventable Brain Damage,
Templer DI, Hartlage LC, Cannon WG, eds. New York: Springer Publishing Co.,
1992; Yousseff and Yousseff Time to Abandon Electroconvulsion as a Treatment
in Modern Psychiatry, Advances In Therapy Volume 16 No. 1, 1999; Sha PJ,
Glabus MF, Goodwin GM, Embeier KP. Chronic, treatment-resistant depression
and right fronto-striatal atrophy. British Journal of Psychiatry 2002; 180:
434-440.

See also: comprehensive ECT bibliography on PsychRights Law Project:
http://psychrights.org/index.htm
See also: annotated bibliography by Linda Andre:
http://psychrights.org/Research/Digest/Electroshock/AndreBibliography.htm
See also: links to many ECT studies:
http://www.ect.org/resources/studies.html

12. Electroconvulsive Therapy. National Institutes of Health Consensus
Development Conference Statement June 10-12, 1985, 5 (11):1-23.

13. Fink M. ECT-Verdict: Not Guilty, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 7,
1984:26-27.
14. Fink quoted in Boodman, SG. Shock Therapy…It’s Back, The Washington Post
September 24 1996, Page Z14
15. Fink M, Convulsive therapy: a review of the first 55 years, J Affective
Disorders 2001 Mar;63 (1-3):1-15.
16. Fink, M. ELECTROSHOCK: Restoring the Mind. New York: Oxford University
Press, 1999.
17. Fink, M. Pediatric ECT: Electroconvulsive Therapy in Adolescents and
Children; Catatonia in Adolescents and Children, Psychiatric Times September
2002 Vol. XIX Issue 9.

18. Sackeim, Harold A. Memory and ECT: From Polarization to Reconciliation.
Journal of ECT. 16(2):87-96, June 2000.

19. Sackeim HA, Haskett RF, Mulsant BH, Thase ME, Mann JJ, Pettinati HM,
Greenberg RM, Crowe RR, Cooper TB, Prudic J. Continuation pharmacotherapy in
the prevention of relapse following electroconvulsive therapy: a randomized
controlled trial. JAMA. 2001 Mar 14;285(10):1299-307.

20. Sackeim H, Prudic J, Fuller R, Keilp J, Lavori P, Olfson M. The
Cognitive Effects of Electroconvulsive Therapy in Community Settings
Neuropsychopharmacology (2007) 32, 244–254.
http://www.ect.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/01/1301180a.pdf

21. Friedberg, J. Shock Treatment is Not Good for Your Brain, San Francisco,
Glide Publications, 1976; Friedberg, J. Shock Treatment, Brain Damage, and
Memory Loss: A Neurological Perspective, American Journal of Psychiatry,
134(9) September 1977. pp: 1010-1013.

22. Evidence of memory loss, 1980+
Freeman CP, Weeks D, Kendell RE. ECT II: Patients who complain. Br J
Psychiatry 1980; 137:8-16; Squire LR, Slater PC. Electroconvulsive therapy
and complaints of memory dysfunction: a prospective three-year follow-up
study. British Journal of Psychiatry 1983; 142: 1-8; Daniel WF, and Crovitz
H.F.. Acute memory impairment following electroconvulsive therapy, Veterans
Administration Hospital, Acta psychiatr. Scand. 1983:67:1-7; Weiner RD,
Rogers HJ, Davidson JR, Squire LR. Effects of stimulus parameters on
cognitive side effects. Ann NY Acad Sci 1986;462: 315-325; Squire LR,
Slater PC. Electroconvulsive therapy and complaints of memory dysfunction: a
prospective three-year follow-up study. British Journal of Psychiatry 1983;
142: 1-8; Weiner RD, Rogers HJ, Davidson JR, Squire LR. Effects of stimulus
parameters on cognitive side effects. Ann NY Acad Sci 1986;462: 315-325;
Squire LR, Zouzounis JA. Self-ratings of memory dysfunction: different
findings in depression and amnesia. Journul of CIIRICLII und Experimental
Neuropsychology 1988; I O(6): 727-738. Diehl DJ, Keshavan MS, Kanal E, et al
Post-ECT increases in T2 relaxation times and their relationship to
cognitive side effects: a pilot study. Psychiatry Res 1994 (November);
54(2): 177-184; Calev A, Gaudino E, Squires N.K, Zervas I.M and Fink M.
ECT and non-memory cognition: A review, British Journal of Clinical
Psychology 34 (1995), 505-515; Coleman EZ, Sackeim HA, Prudic J, Devanand
DP, McElhiney MC. Moody BJ. Subjective memory complaints prior to and
following electroconvulsive therapy. Biol Psychiatry 1996; 39:346-356.

See also: comprehensive ECT bibliography on PsychRights Law Project:
http://psychrights.org/index.htm
See also: annotated bibliography by Linda Andre:
http://psychrights.org/Research/Digest/Electroshock/AndreBibliography.htm
See also: links to many ECT studies:
http://www.ect.org/resources/studies.html

23. Dolan et al. The cerebral appearance in depressed patients.
Psychological Medicine 1986; 16: 775-779. See also: Freeman C.P.L., Basson
J.V., and Crighton A. Double-Blind Controlled Trial of Electroconvulsive
Therapy (E.C.T.) and Simulated E.C.T. in Depressive Illness, The Lancet,
April 8, 1978; Squire LR, Slater PC. Electroconvulsive therapy and
complaints of memory dysfunction: a prospective three-year follow-up study.
British Journal of Psychiatry 1983; 142: 1-8;

24. Janis, I. (1948) Memory loss following electric convulsive treatments.
J. Personality 17:29; Janis, I. (1950a) Psychologic effects of electric
convulsive treatments. I. Post-treatment amnesias. J. Nerv. & Ment. Dis
111:359-382; Janis, I. (1950b) Psychologic effects of electric convulsive
treatments. II. Changes in word association reactions. J. Nerv. & Ment. Dis
111:383-397; Janis, I. and Astrachan, M. (1951) The effects of
electroconvulsive treatments on memory efficiency. J. Abnormal & Soc.
Psychol. 46:501

25. Robertson H & Pryor R. Memory and cognitive effects of ECT: informing
and assessing patients, Advances in Psychiatric Treatment (2006), vol. 12,
228–238
http://apt.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/abstract/12/3/228

26. NICE ECT Guidelines, 2003: http://www.nice.org.uk/TA059

(Emphasis by Justice Lover)

Dr. Betty Martini, Founder of Mission Possible International, Exposing the Crimes Against Humanity by Big Pharma, and by the Shrinks
by Justice lover

In reply to my brief article,Did the Shrinks and Big Pharma Kill Heath Ledger ?, Dr. Betty Martini, emailed to me her comments in her very important article below. She gave me
permission to publish it and to disseminate it.

Here is her article :


The aspartame in diet soda can cause sudden death, and it interacts with drugs and vaccines. Heath Ledger didn't have a chance!

Justice Lover almost has the picture of why Heath Ledger
died. Maybe you could forward the report below to the writer. You
see on Friday there was a study that linked diet soda to heart
disease which I answered, and we've known for years. Aspartame
experts have written many reports, several listed below the article
on aspartame (NutraSweet, Equal/Spoonful/Canderel, E951, etc.) and
cardiac problems and sudden death. Perhaps you would like to read
them.

In Dr. H. J. Roberts medical text, Aspartame Disease: An
Ignored Epidemic, www.sunsentpress.com it explains that aspartame
interacts with all antidepressants. Aspartame is not an additive, its
an addictive excitoneurotoxic carcinogenic drug masquerading as an
additive, and it interacts with
drugs: http://www.wnho.net/aspartame_interacts.htm

From the reports that have been released I've heard he was on Zoloft
and Ambien CR for sleep and others. So as bad as Zoloft is, it
interacts with aspartame, a psycho drug itself.

I would like to see the autopsy. You might look for something with the heart like
enlargement, cardiomegaly, a fatty liver, pulmonary edema, etc. Read
the doctor's reports below for full understanding of the problem.

Justice Lover is right, if they had found Heath near some herbs the
media would have been in a frenzy with stories by the FDA. Look at
Pilcher, the athlete who dropped dead in West Palm Beach. They found
out he was using Ephedra and took it off the market. But what caused
Pilcher's death? Articles state his weight fluctuated so he would go
a couple of days without eating and then drink nothing but Diet Coke
all day.

That's why today you find the Athlete alerts below to try
and prevent it from happening to more athletes. Dr. John Olney
reviewed the ephedra complaints from the FDA and found ephedra to be
perfectly safe. http://www.wnho.net/ephedrastory.htm

Diane Fleming remains in a prison in Troy Virginia convicted of
poisoning her husband with methanol, even after taking and passing
three lie detector tests. She had no idea aspartame liberates free
methyl alcohol. It's classified as a narcotic. That's how victims
become addicted as it causes chronic methanol poisoning. This
effects the dopamine system of the brain and causes the
addiction.

Charles Fleming was an athlete who played a lot of
basketball, the most aerobic, was addicted to Diet Coke and used
other aspartame products and drugs.
http://www.namastepublishing.co.uk/Diane%20Fleming%20Story%20.htm

You can see Diane interviewed in prison in the aspartame documentary,
Sweet Misery: A Poisoned World, www.soundandfury.tv There was no
evidence, of course, and the only thing that could be found was a
bottle of sealed windshield wiper fluid in the garage which the
police tested and found to be the exact amount of methanol you would
expect in a sealed, unopened bottle. So the jury was asked how they
could convict a woman without evidence. They said because she could
show no emotion. Diane had been a basketcase over being indicted
since she was the one who called the police so the doctor put her on
Zoloft. That made her like a zombie because she too was using
aspartame, not realizing it interacts.

They just keeping dying, and the FDA, Big Pharma's Washington Branch
Office, continues to ignore the problem of mass poisoning of the
American public and more than 100 countries of the world.

How does chronic methanol poisoning become acute: Dr. James Bowen
says "Only after longer aspartame usage does liver damage cause blood
methanol levels to measurably rise because the liver mitochondria are
so damaged that the liver no longer quickly processes either methyl
or ethyl (drink) alcohol. Then the acute methanol poisoning is
directly measurable from lab results, as the blood methanol level
elevates. This entire sequence or "toxic axis" begins with your very
first dose of aspartame. Both acute and chronic poisonings from this
methanol toxic axis, and other additive and synergistic aspartame
poisonings, steadily accumulate in the aspartame consumer."

Fleming like Heath was an accident about to happen. Fleming had used
so much aspartame for so long think of him as standing on a
cliff. Then he drank three times the amount of creatine and it was
the "tipping point" that knocked him off the cliff. His body just
couldn't take anymore. Aspartame causes shortness of breath and the
autopsy admits he was having that problem 30 days prior to his death.
So he could have been dying then.

While I don't know how much Diet Coke Heath used I've certainly
received an abundance of emails that it was well known. Nor do I
know all the drugs he was using. But I can provide the aspartame
expert's reports below which tells you how aspartame can cause sudden
death, and list their material which discloses this poison interacts
with drugs. Adding 2 and 2 makes 4.

A citizen petition for ban was sent to the FDA 6 years ago and they
refuse to answer it. An amendment based on an imminent health hazard
was sent in October and they only have a couple of weeks to answer -
they have not. The Fatal Drugs Allowed folks serve above the law, so
the people keep dying. They prefer to protect Big Pharma and betray
the public's trust.

One last question would be why Heath was put on Zoloft or other such
drugs. Could it be because the phenylalanine in aspartame lowers the
seizure threshold and depletes serotonin triggering psychiatric
problems. http://www.wnho.net/aspartame_and_psychiatric_disorders.htm

All my best,
Dr. Betty Martini, D.Hum, Founder
Mission Possible International
9270 River Club Parkway
Duluth, Georgia 30097
770 242-2599

www.mpwhi.com, www.dorway.com and www.wnho.net
Aspartame toxicity Center, www.holisticmed.com/aspartame


Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 16:32:40 -0500
To: bettym19@mindspring.com
From: "Dr. Betty Martini,D.Hum." <bettym19@mindspring.com>
Subject: Meat, Diet Soda Linked to Heart Disease: Study (Reuters)


Meat, diet soda linked to heart disease: study (Reuters)
By Ed Stoddard Tue Jan 22, 7:26 PM ET

People who eat two or more servings of red meat a day are much more
likely to develop conditions leading to heart disease and diabetes,
U.S. researchers reported on Tuesday.
Eating two or more servings of meat a day increases the risk of
suffering from a cluster of risk factors known as metabolic syndrome
by 25 percent compared to those who had only two servings of meat a
week, the researchers reported in the journal Circulation.

The symptoms of metabolic syndrome include excessive fat around the
waist, high cholesterol, high blood sugar and high blood pressure.

The study also found that diet soda consumption was linked to these
elevated risk factors for heart disease and diabetes, echoing the
findings of a study published in July.

"When we found that diet soda promoted risk we were surprised," said
Dr. Lyn Steffen, an associate professor of epidemiology at the
University of Minnesota.

"But then we thought about other behavior patterns," she added in a
telephone interview.
"It may be associated with compensating for eating higher calorie
food. People may say, 'I can eat this cookie because I am drinking
this diet soda."'

Lots of meat, fried foods and diet soda add up to heart disease, the
researchers said, and the conclusions add to a swelling body of
evidence linking fast food with unhealthy lifestyles.
Steffen's team examined the diets of 9,514 people in a study funded
by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. In a departure from
related studies, this one went into a detailed look at precisely what
people were eating.

Most were aged 45 to 64.
Based on a 66-item food frequency questionnaire, the volunteers were
categorized into two groups: those with a "western-pattern" diet,
heavy on processed meat, fried foods, red meat; and a
"prudent-pattern" diet with more fruit and vegetables, with small
amounts of fish and poultry.

After nine years, nearly 40 percent of those involved developed three
or more of the factors linked to metabolic syndrome, they wrote. This
was clear even when smoking and exercise were factored in.
(Editing by Maggie Fox and Mohammad Zargham)

_________________________________________________________________________________

Note from Martini: The reason diet soda is linked to heart disease
is that aspartame causes an irregular heart rhythm and interacts with
all cardiac medication. It damages the cardiac conduction system and
causes sudden death. Below are the medical reports.

Aspartame Induced Arrhythmias and Sudden Death by H. J. Roberts,
M.D. http://www.wnho.net/aspartame_and_arrhythmias.htm

Athlete Alert: Sudden Cardiac Death by Russell Blaylock, M.D.,
http://www.wnho.net/aspartame_msg_scd.htm

Sudden Cardiac Death and Aspartame
(Martini) http://www.wnho.net/scdandaspartame.htm

Report by Dr. H. J. Roberts: Aspartame and Cardiac Symptoms and
Interaction with Other Drugs

From: betty martini <bettym19@mindspring.com
Subject: Aspartame and Cardiac Symptoms, and interaction with other
drugs by H. J. Roberts, M.D.

Statement of H. J. Roberts, M.D. Concerning Cardiac and CHEST Complaints
Attributed to Aspartame (NUTRASWEET (R))

Many patients and correspondents have asked whether products
containing aspartame can cause or aggravate symptoms relating to the
heart, blood pressure and chest. Based on my experience, as detailed
in multiple publications and books (see below), the answer is YES.

Hundreds of such instances have been documented in my database of
over 950 aspartame reactors. There was dramatic improvement after
avoiding aspartame, and a prompt and predictable recurrence of these
problems when the patient resumed aspartame products ... knowingly or
inadvertently.

ABNORMAL HEART RHYTHM

More than 120 individuals experienced a detectable change in their
heart rate and rhythm after consuming aspartame - including gum and
products that did not contain caffeine. This included "fluttering",
(palpitations) and rapid heart action (tachycardia). A number had
even undergone heart monitoring (Holter testing) and other studies,
especially for the associated weakness and faint.

One patient developed a slow pulse and complete heart block within
hours after consuming an aspartame drink for the first time. His
attack spontaneously subsided within a day without a pacemaker; and
there has been no recurrence.

This subject has obvious relevance to reports of unexplained sudden
death in persons who had been consuming considerable aspartame.

HYPERTENSION

Dozens of aspartame reactors without known hypertension were found to
have elevation of their blood pressure - systolic, diastolic or
both, Some were in their twenties. While aspartame products
unequivocally cause headaches, the superimposed hypertension probably
was a contributing factor.

Other patients who had been treated for hypertension could not be
adequately controlled on their maintenance medication as long as they
used aspartame. This reflects its interaction with various
drugs. Aspartame originally devised as a drug to treat peptic ulcer.

The rapid heart action and the elevation of blood pressure presumably
reflect the effects of phenylalanine (an aspartame component) and its
metabolic products. They include dopamine, norepinephrine and epinephrine.

ATYPICAL CHEST PAIN

More than 50 aspartame reactors experienced unexplained pain in the
chest. (Many others have atypical pain elsewhere in the body). A
number underwent stress tests and coronary angioplasty for suspected
coronary heart disease; they proved normal in the majority.

SHORTNESS OF BREATH

Over 70 aspartame reactors with "shortness of breath" promptly
improved after abstaining from these products, and predictably
suffered a recurrence on rechallenge. Clinical sleep apnea also dramatically
stopped in these patients when they avoided aspartame.

RELATED COMMENTS

These issues are elaborated in my two books on the subject: ASPARTAME
(NUTRASWEET):IS IT SAFE? (Charles Press) and SWEET'NER
DEAREST: www.sunsentpress.com

BITTERSWEET VIGNETTES ABOUT ASPARTAME (NUTRASWEET(R)) Sunshine Sentinel
Press, P. O. Box 17799, West Palm Beach, Florida 33416, 1 800 827
7991 They are also summarized in an updated discussion on two
cassettes, IS ASPARTAME (NUTRASWEET(R)) SAFE? A MEDICAL PUBLIC HEALTH
AND LEGAL OVERVIEW, Sunshine Sentinel Press, P. O. Box 17799, West
Palm Beach, Florida 33416.

I have asserted in my publications, testimony to Congress and in
letters to Congressmen and the FDA, that the current wholesale
ingestion of aspartame products by over half the adult population
constitutes an "imminent public health hazard." Yet this warning
continues to be ignored by the medical profession and the FDA. This
is particular
concern for high risk groups, most notably patients with diabetes and
hypoglycemia, pregnant women, children, patients with epilepsy,
liver, heart, kidney disease and eating disorders, older persons with
memory impairment, the relatives of aspartame reactors, and patients
having Phenylketonuria.

H. J. Roberts, M.D. (Dr. Roberts wrote this in 1998 and his data
base grew so there are more cases) He has since written the medical
text on the world epidemic of Aspartame Disease listed below.



Based on above reports was Heath Ledger's death caused by aspartame?
This well known actor was found dead on Tuesday. He was reportedly
using Ambien CR and Zoloft, and other drugs and he drank Diet Coke
with aspartame. Here again you have to consider aspartame and the
drug interaction as responsible for his death. Since sudden death is
well documented caused by aspartame this should be taken into
consideration during the investigation.

Resources:

Aspartame Disease: An Ignored Epidemic, H. J. Roberts, M.D.,
www.sunsentpress.com or 1 800 827 7991 Also: Protecting
Mankind: One Physician's Quest.

Excitotoxins: The Taste That Kills, Russell Blaylock, M.D.,
www.russellblaylockmd.com Also Health & Nutrition Secrets To Save
Your Life. "The Truth About Aspartame", CD, www.atavistik.com

Aspartame Documentary: Sweet Misery: A Poisoned World, www.soundandfury.tv

"What To Do If You Have Used Aspartame" by Russell Blaylock, M.D.,
www.sunsentpress.com

Dr. Betty Martini, D.Hum, Founder
Mission Possible International
9270 River Club Parkway
Duluth, Georgia 30097
770 242-2599
www.mpwhi.com, www.dorway.com and www.wnho.net
Aspartame Toxicity Center, www.holisticmed.com/aspartame
Aspartame Information List, www.mpwhi.com, click on banner

(Emphasis by Justice Lover)

"A Dramatic Case of Data Distortion
The Depressing Truth About Anti-Depressants
By STAN COX (counterpunch.com)

A paper published January 17 in a prestigious medical journal demonstrated in the starkest of terms how pharmaceutical companies tend to publish research that's favorable to their products and leave unfavorable results tucked away in their files. It's a problem that everyone outside the industry already recognizes, but the results of this most recent study should really set off alarms.

Led by Dr. Erick Turner of the Oregon Health and Science University in Portland and published in the New England Journal of Medicine [1], the study took the results of 74 Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-registered trials of antidepressant medications (trials done by the companies that developed the drugs) and compared them with the results that the drug companies published in peer-reviewed medical journals. The study involved 12 antidepressants approved between 1987 and 2004.

In seeking approval of new drugs, companies are required by law to register their clinical trials with the FDA before conducting them, and then report results to the agency when they're done. Of those 74 trials, the survey found 38 that showed antidepressants to be effective, and all but one of those was duly published. But stunningly, out of 36 trials that showed the drugs to be of questionable or no benefit, the results from only 3 trials were published accurately. Of the rest, 22 were not published at all. All of the other 11 that were published concluded that the drugs did have a positive benefit, in direct contradiction of FDA's conclusion.

So, in the authors' words, "studies that the FDA judged as positive were approximately 12 times as likely to be published in a way that agreed with the FDA as were studies with nonpositive results." And it wasn't just a matter of holding back results. Trial-by-trial, the beneficial effects of antidepressants as published in medical journals were 18 percent bigger than those recorded in the official FDA data. The authors don't speculate on how this effectiveness-inflation occurred, but combined with selective publication of positive results, it made antidepressants look a lot better than they really are.

Antidepressants are the most frequently prescribed class of drugs in the US, with about 60,000 prescriptions written every working hour. Encouraged by all those favorable journal papers, doctors tripled their prescription-writing for antidepressants between 1988 and 1998 [2], and prescriptions had shot up another 31 percent by 2005. The greatest increase has come among doctors who are not psychiatrists. The products have become a convenient way to deal with people who find themselves in rough situations. Soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq are reportedly being given "bags of antidepressants" and upwards of one-third of nursing-home residents are taking antidepressants at any given time.

FDA registration is designed to curtail the kind of deceptive publication practices that can boost unnecessary prescribing, and their data for more recently developed drugs are available on the agency's website. (But getting data for the eight older drugs examined by Turner and colleagues required use of the Freedom of Information Act). Most academics, journalists, and others looking to inform the public on a drug's overall usefulness rely on studies published in medical journals as being the "gold standard" for reliability. So biased publishing, coming on top of heavy advertising [pdf], overtesting [3], and close interaction between sales reps and doctors, is a highly effective way to improve the market for a drug.

Turner's study looked only for exaggeration of antidepressants' benefits, not at their often terrible side effects. But selective publication can also keep the public in the dark about serious harm that drugs can do. Most infamously, Merck & Co. was accused of leaving out some negative results and spinning others from trials of the pain-reliever Vioxx, when a study of the drug's association with an increased risk of heart attack was submitted to the New England Journal of Medicine. By the time Vioxx was withdrawn in 2004, FDA estimated that it had caused in the range of 25,000 to 50,000 fatal heart attacks.

Each year, the drug industry churns out enough product to fill more than 15 prescriptions per American, and that adds up to more than $200 billion in annual sales. An international survey of the medical literature showing that around 5 percent of hospital admissions result from avoidable adverse drug reactions [4]; that means about 2 million of the pharmaceutical industry's customers end up needlessly hospitalized each year. Countless other people are suffering side effects without even taking the drugs; they are simply living too close to pharmaceutical factories in India and other countries that export to the US.

It's a depressing situation, one that can be resolved only by taking drug testing out of the hands of the corporations themselves.

Stan Cox is a plant breeder and writer in Salina, Kansas. His book Sick Planet: Corporate Food and Medicine will be published by Pluto Press in April. They can be reached at: t.stan@cox.net.

Notes

1. E.H. Turner et al., 'Selective publication of antidepressant trials and its influence on apparent efficacy', New England Journal of Medicine, 358: 252 (2008)
2. S.M. Foote and L. Etheredge, 'Increasing use of new prescription drugs: a case study', Health Affairs, Jul-Aug, 2000
3. D. Studdert et al., 'Defensive medicine among high-risk specialist physicians in a volatile malpractice environment', Journal of the American Medical Association 293: 2609 (2005) and D. Merenstein et al., 'Use and costs of nonrecommended tests during routine preventive health exams', American Journal of Preventive Medicine 30: 521 (2006).
4. H.J.M. Beijer and C.J. de Blaey, 'Hospitalisations caused by adverse drug reactions (ADR): a meta-analysis of observational studies', Pharmacy World and Science 24: 46 (2002)

(Emphasis by Justice Lover)