ECT Effects Brain Functions and Cognition,

ECT Effects Brain Functions and Cognition, so says Dr. Max Fink

As I mentioned in my previous blog post, Dr. Edward Shorter was kind enough to supply me with a paper by Dr. Max Fink, The Seizure, Not Electricity, Is Essential in Convulsive Therapy: The Flurothyl Experience, to demonstrate that the amount of electricity used in electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is “irrelevant” because it is only the seizure induced by ECT that is of any relevance. I hope I made it quite clear from the perspective of scientific studies concerning the damaging effects of electricity that the amount of electricity is far from irrelevant. However, I’m sure Dr. Shorter was referring to the “therapeutic” effects of ECT, which is attributed to the grand mal seizure.

Every physician and scientist involved with a branch of medicine that deals with seizures knows that seizures cause neurological damage. This, in fact, was the reason psychiatrists conceived of the idea of inducing epileptic like seizures in their patients. Psychiatrists observed that with the damage of successive epileptic seizures, the problems that disturbed their patients became less and less of a problem. Thus, if the same neurological damage could be induced in a patient who didn’t have epilepsy, the problems this patient has should also disturb him or her, or at least others, less and less. 

Causing neurological damage was also the goal of the drugs developed for psychiatric use, to which Dr. Shorter and the coauthor of the book Shock Therapy: A History of Electroconvulsive Treatment in Mental Illness, Dr. David Healy, are bringing public attention. This is why “antipsychotic” drugs were first called neuroleptics. Although neuroleptics do not cause neurological damage through the same means as ECT, that is, through a grand mal seizure, the goal of both antipsychotic drugs and ECT is to cause enough neurological damage so that the problems the patient has are no longer a problem, particularly for those who have to deal with the patient.

The first neuroleptic drug, chlorpromazine, was regarded as a non-permanent "pharmacological lobotomy," just as ECT is often referred to as an "electrical lobotomy."

It seems that Drs. Shorter and Healy like to suggest that the grand mal seizure induced by ECT is somehow different, and therefore not damaging, than seizures induced by epilepsy, diabetic hypoglycemia, traumatic brain injury, and other medical conditions. Such a suggestion could only be due to criminal deception or ignorance of scientific knowledge concerning seizures. Since I wouldn’t want to imply Drs. Shorter and Healy are involved in anything criminal, I will only assume that they are idiots when it comes to medicine concerned with seizures. As a professional train in dealing with electricity, I have already demonstrated in my last blog post that they are idiots when it comes to electricity, so it seems safe to assume that they are also idiots concerning other aspects of ECT. 

Dr. Shorter’s idiocy is clearly demonstrated with the paper he supplied me with by Dr. Max Fink. The reason he sent this paper to me was to show that it is the seizure and not the electricity that produced the “therapeutic” effects of ECT. This paper does in fact do this. However, the object of the paper is to convince psychiatrists to induce “therapeutic” seizures by some means other than electric shock to avoid the damage caused by electricity. (e.g. “[T]he electricity path did directly affect brain functions,” i.e. “the impact of electricity on the brain’s memory and speech centers.”) Since the main point was to suggest that the electricity does not cause any damage, only an idiot would provide a paper that demonstrates the very opposite. 

As with research into diffuse electrical injury (DEI), research into ECT, such as that done by Dr. Max Fink, acknowledges that the electricity used in ECT does cause damage. The very research that is the basis of the book written by Drs. Edward Shorter and David Healy fully acknowledges this. The question is: why do Drs. Shorter and Healy say ECT does not cause damage? As stated above, the only logical conclusion I can come to is that they are either criminals or idiots. Since it would be unjust to ignorantly attribute evil intent, I will only conclude that Dr. Edward Shorter and Dr. David Healy are idiots unless it can be proven that they are criminals.