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)