You can’t just ignore patients anymore in medicine. Patients long since stormed the barricades of authoritarian, expert doctors, demanding pesky things like a balanced understanding of the actual benefits and risks of treatments.
Undeniably, patient voices have been massively under-represented in the debate around electroconvulsive therapy (ECT; you know, the electricity-induces-seizures to-treat-mental-health one). ECT is a very important issue: Around a million people worldwide get ECT every year and, at least in the UK, about a third of them are forced to receive it against their will.
People who still see a place for ECT are trying to help a group in great distress who are deemed very difficult to help; they think ECT works really well, perhaps better than anything else. However, those with serious concerns think it doesn’t work for most individuals, and is extremely damaging for many (as in “life-changing damage”).
Why the disparate positions? It’s partly because ECT was “grandfathered” in from psychiatric antiquity, without going through the rigorous testing and evaluating it would otherwise have had. From its origins in 1938, ECT was given to millions each year without ever having had its empirical chops tested. For example, ECT machines have never been assessed by the UK’s Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) or the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The machine was only tested on “two dogs” before widespread use internationally, as testified by the manufacturer recently in court: “Abrams testified that his company has never performed any clinical trials, studies, or tests to analyze the long-term side effects associated with ECT because ‘that’s not our business’”.
Many psychiatrists feel strongly ECT works, but how do we know they haven’t just been “fooled by randomness”, seeing patterns in random variation? Of course, only empirical studies can demonstrate this. There have been some, but nearly all of terrible quality. Crucially, there have been no randomised placebo-controlled trials (RCTs) since 1985, and the 11 tiny studies prior just did not meet today’s methodological standards.
If we stick to only independent evaluations of the research, the conclusions are concerning: The Cochrane Collaboration (accepted as the leading international high-quality reviewers of healthcare evidence) found in 2009 there was no RCT evidence at all that ECT was effective for catatonia, despite ECT being widely accepted within psychiatry as the best and only treatment for catatonia. They said in 2019 the same applies to schizophrenia as a whole.
For ECT treating depression, the UK’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) judged there are only two studies, one from Germany and one from Iran (in which ECT didn’t even show any statistically significant benefit). Each study had approximately 20 people in each group and was ranked by NICE as “very low quality” and “very high risk of bias”. For example, both used the psychiatrist’s judgement of outcome, and not the patient’s. Neither study measured outcome beyond the day of the final session of ECT. This means that exactly nothing can be said with any confidence about ECT’s effectiveness or safety. It may work. Or it may not.
I have not even included the argument about long-term damage, including memory damage and heart problems, which is a lot more concerning than ECT simply not working; there is a lot more to be said about this at another time.
Is this strong enough evidence to justify giving the treatment to people who explicitly do not give or cannot give consent?
Clearly, “more research is needed”. A prospective randomised study would be ideal, but getting access to people who receive ECT is difficult unless you are working within a service. The professional body of psychiatrists who administer ECT in the UK, ECTAS, has so far declined to involve independent researchers in a proper evaluation (well-respected academics such as Professor Richard Bentall have offered repeatedly).
So, how to research? The voices barely represented in the debate are those of the people who actually had ECT, their relatives, and their friends. There are a few studies of patients themselves, but the number of people asked are generally small (again, most are less than 20 participants), and the questions are extremely brief and limited, asked only in passing (e.g. after 27 questions about the setting in which they received ECT, they are asked “any side effects?”). These studies weren’t at all aimed at capturing the complexity of patient outcomes and experiences; you might as well ask “Are you in a coma (yes/no)?”. And there are nearly no studies reporting carer or friends’ perspectives on ECT treatment. None of these small studies were independent; they were all conducted by psychiatrists themselves.
What is needed is larger-scale work, independently conducted, in-depth surveys of the entirety of the ECT experience, from patients, relatives, and friends (and particularly the longer-term perspective, and not just those of people who are just stepping out of the clinic).
Which brings us to:
The largest-ever international survey of people who have had ECT, and their relatives and friends. In a two-year project conducted online, we have collected the views of 1144 people from 44 countries (46% USA, 14% UK, 11% Australia, 8% Canada, and more) on every aspect we could think of including long-term effects (positive and negative), experiences of receiving ECT, what they were told in advance and more. Eight hundred fifty-eight ECT recipients and 286 relatives and friends took the time to complete the survey, most of whom (73.0%) had their last ECT between 2010 and 2024 (so they are talking about modern ECT and not ECT in the seventies). ‘Depression’ was the main reason people were given ECT (74.3%), then ‘Psychosis/schizophrenia’ (17.2%), ‘Bipolar disorder/mania’ (15.3%), ‘Catatonia’ (7.8%), etc.
We are still analysing the data, but we can let you know that the results are not surprising; if anything, they are even more moving and powerful than you might expect. They paint a picture of some people experiencing positives, but also many more with life-changing injuries from ECT. Patients disclosed being altered forever in ways they were never warned might happen, such as in areas of memory and jobs and relationships. Many patients and relatives describe being furious; many are glum and resigned to this as if it couldn’t have been any different. But could it?
The first two papers, out of a series (there is a lot of data), have just been published. One covers the crucial topic of what patients and carers were told before agreeing to ECT. Informed consent is fundamental to modern medicine; patients (or failing that, carers) have to be given a balanced picture of the risks and benefits of a treatment before they can legally agree to it. Without it, treatment is legally a sort of medical assault. Anyone who starts chemotherapy knows the possible benefits and risks; even paracetamol comes with a huge list of rare but important-if-you-get them side effects. This is best practice: “Any risk of serious harm, however unlikely it is to occur” should be warned about, according to the UK’s regulator of doctors, the GMC (para 23d).
Yet a clear picture emerges in the ECT survey in which benefits have been systematically overplayed: 63% of patients and family/friends remembered being told “ECT is the most effective treatment for severe depression” (as discussed earlier, the evidence for efficacy is non-existent, especially when compared to the extensive investigations of other medical treatments). Nearly all family/friends remembered being told “ECT can be life-saving/ prevents suicide” (78%); there is no shred of evidence for that either. Does this suggest balanced, non-pressuring consent, given it appears clinicians are misleadingly telling them “This is the best treatment, and it may save your life”?
By contrast, people felt the risks were downplayed: only 17% of recipients remember being told ECT can cause long-term or permanent memory damage. Only 12% of recipients were told “ECT can cause heart problems”. Yet within the literature both are well-within the range of reasonable opinion. That ECT can cause permanent memory problems is accepted by the American Psychiatric Association and FDA. A study recently estimated between one in 15 and one in 30 patients who got ECT had a cardiac event. Only 13% remembered being told there is no evidence of any long-term benefits (there are no even-slightly-scientific trials beyond end of treatment).
Forty percent of friends and family could not say they were given adequate info about the treatment.
In the other paper, also out now, they tell us perhaps what people should actually be told when considering ECT. This paper reports very simply: “Did ECT work?” Did it help the problem it was meant to help? And importantly, moving away from the idea that it is OK to help in one area of their lives while taking a sledgehammer to other areas: “Did it improve your quality of life overall?”
Sixty percent of respondents (and family/ friends) said it “was not at all helpful”, and the same said it “made their quality of life worse”. Nearly a third said it made their lives much worse. That should be in the information sheets.
Of course, it is important to say some people (20-30%) liked the treatment and felt it helped; the fact that much larger numbers did not does not alter this, and these results are not contradictory. People differ. It’s worth noting that there are some influential psychiatrists and charity leaders who are also ECT recipients themselves, and they have been vocal in their support of ECT. (I don’t know of anyone who feels damaged by ECT having a comparable platform.) I don’t mention this to attack or shame them (I respect that they’re trying to help), but to suggest that maybe this is where the confusion comes from. As another point, it is also worth noting that only a few of those that liked ECT felt the effects lasted longer than a month or two (6-9% of overall sample). (How many people would go through a series of 6-10 general anaesthetics for a month or two of improvements? Again, this should be in the information sheets.)
Our papers give voice to people who, by their own account, were given an extraordinarily one-sided account of ECT to base their decision on, raising some important legal and political issues. They were told it worked, when 60% of people who get ECT say it doesn’t and made everything worse, often much worse. In the next papers, to be published shortly, they tell us what actually happened to them, and the many ways their quality of life was improved or harmed (teaser: some very severe memory problems are often involved).
You might think that this survey will lead to some outrage, but it is certain that the first outrage will come from people who support the use of ECT. They will, it is predicted, try to ignore it and carry on. They will dismiss the work out of hand, discredit it any way they can, mainly by “playing the man, not the ball”, ad hominem—claiming the authors are biased ideologues (“They just hate psychiatry”), strangely left- or right-wing or religious (none of that is true); the journals are rubbish or should have known better.
They will attack the survey and, of course, no study is perfect. Certain critics have already said that the survey is meaningless because it has been circulated via charities that are biased against ECT. But anticipating this, we contacted the largest possible range of mental health organisations, in all continents except Antarctica. For example, all 44 national group members of Mental Health Europe, an independent non-governmental network organization, were emailed and asked to disseminate the survey to their members and other mental health groups in their countries. In the UK, MIND, the UK’s largest mental health charity (certainly not known for any particular opposition to psychiatry), commented on a draft and circulated the survey.
The survey was also disseminated on social media. This might mean it was more exposed to people inclined to be sceptical of ECT. To minimise this, social media posts included phrases like ‘Positive, mixed and neutral experiences all equally valued’. And at the start of the survey, it is made clear that positive experiences are equally valid as negative. What else could we have done? It seems to us these critics are basically saying it is impossible to research ECT at all, except through their control.
Or critics will complain that people who had ECT were weird anyway, and were weird after ECT, so they can’t be believed when they complain. They usually phrase this in terms of “depression biases or alters your memory anyway”, but that is what they are saying (in fact they are actually equating a slightly unusual pattern of responding on a computer-based memory test, to not being able to remember whole years of your life or recognise loved-ones).
They are saying that the voices of 1144 people who experienced ECT are meaningless compared to the opinions of the two or three psychiatrists who marked their own work in the two original ECT studies.
Both papers now released show that relatives, friends, and carers of ECT recipients largely agreed with the recipients’ opinions. This surely makes it nearly impossible to ignore them. It makes it pretty unlikely it is “Just depression speaking”.
And crucially, medical regulators say to warn about “Any risk of serious harm, however unlikely it is to occur”. Does the information given to ECT recipients match up to the quality of the warning in a packet of paracetamol? If hundreds of people who had chemo complained of new side effects, would they be dismissed as a bunch of cranks? You can’t just ignore patients anymore in medicine. People who have chemo who say they develop horrific side effects are treated for them. Why do people who have ECT get dismissed when they say they need memory clinics/physiotherapy/speech therapy?
Our hope for this survey is that those voices are finally heard and accepted, and reasonable psychiatrists, anaesthetists, and nurses no longer feel it is acceptable to mislead patients on the grounds that “If they knew the truth, they might not have the treatment”. I think most doctors do accept that they do not always know best, and would reject that stance. They have themselves been misled by the “official” information about ECT (people who decided that they “just knew” this treatment worked), as has everyone who has had ECT: millions of people and their relatives over several decades.
Our hope is that if reasonable clinicians can accept that our results are in any way representative of people who had ECT, the inescapable truth is that vast numbers of people feel damaged in life-altering ways by a well-intentioned treatment. Perhaps the reasonable majority will be less easily dismissed by those who continue to assure them the studies are there and are bulletproof, when the whole field is so profoundly scant.
They might feel that “don’t ask, don’t listen” isn’t an acceptable policy, and that research following up after treatment has stopped is actually needed. Or that electrical brain injury is highly specialist and most psychiatrists haven’t been trained to investigate it. Maybe reasonable psychiatrists can point out that the pro-ECT group should stop fruitlessly attacking people who want an actual evidence base, and set about actually providing one.
And maybe we can start to talk about rehabilitation for vast numbers of people, and legal redress/compensation (admittedly, that may involve annoying adverts “Were you damaged by ECT?”).
My close friend had ECT. He said it didn’t help and messed up his memory. He has since killed himself.
Report comment
To add to this – I think my friend and his family were desperately seeking a “cure” to his “disease” of depression. After ECT didn’t work, there was this sense that they truly had tried everything- “even ECT!” His parents threw their hands up. If ECT didn’t work, nothing would.
The truth is that my friend’s depression was probably never going to go away completely. They were never going to “fix” him. I will never understand the depths of his suffering – of his pain and despair – but if I know one thing about feelings it’s that they can’t be dealt with by pushing them away. He needed to somehow find a way to feel them, cope with them, accept them and move through them. He wasn’t ever going to be able to drink them away, medicate them away, or shock them away.
It was easier for his parents to believe that he had something wrong with his brain than for them to believe that his feelings were a result of emotional trauma from events that had happened under their roof.
My friend, however, knew it was trauma. He tried to open up but could only do so when heavily intoxicated. He knew what he needed but just couldn’t ever get there. Maybe he needed to find the right person to guide him. Maybe I needed to show up for him in a bigger way. I don’t know, but it’s incredibly clear to me that alcohol, drugs, medicine, and electrocution were never the answer.
Report comment
A very moving and accurate portrayal of the roots of depression, and the equivalence of medication and drugs/alcohol, and the fact that it suits family members to believe that something was wrong with the person rather then the persons life, central to which is always the family, and it tends to be central in most of our deep trauma. I wouldn’t blame yourself for not being there: you obviously cared because here you have observed and understood what happened to him very well, and are able to express it vividly and self-effacingly. It is true that an encounter with the feelings and the trauma is absolutely necessary and medicating the emotion is not addressing the trauma, but this black hole of a society has sucked up all our living energy. If we had our lives back we’d be able to give space, time and support to each other and conquer the enervating consequences of socially conditioned anomie and isolation.
Report comment
I agree, denial of trauma by the so called “mental health professionals” is the problem, and I agree to some extent with No-one, too. Since I had to walk away from my husband’s highly dysfunctional family. And I won’t let any dysfunctional family, including a highly dysfunctional religious “family,” divide me from my real family, which is why I had to leave my childhood religion forever.
My mom was recently “hospitalized” for over two months, and her “religious family” never even came to visit her once. I think she got one card, from a friend of ours, within that highly dysfunctional “religious family.”
I agree with Steve’s comment below, “How anyone imagines that inducing a seizure through electrocution can be anything but harmful to the brain is truly beyond comprehension!”
So does that mean we “need more research funding” for ECT research? Or should we just – utilizing common sense – end ECT? I personally think the latter is the wiser approach. Especially given the intentional lack of research into ECT, by the well funded, but scientifically “invalid” psych industries, at this point.
Report comment
I’m so sorry that happened. When I used to work in the mental health field, I worked with a client who was undergoing ECT. If I remember right, I seem to recall being a bit taken aback that such a medieval-level treatment is still available. I wish your friend had learned of the healing Jesus can bring. I myself learned how to do deliverance on myself about a year after I got saved. In 2020, I did deliverance on myself for maybe 1-3 months for depression, and that brought amazing freedom — praise Jesus!
Report comment
Renowned shock survivor, activist and author Linda Andre killed herself.
https://www.madinamerica.com/2023/09/remembrances-of-linda-andre-leader-in-the-fight-against-ect/
ECT should not be used on any living being. ECT machines should be retired and relegated to museum collections showcasing psychiatry’s gruesome history.
https://therealjannaweiss.blogspot.com/2011_01_01_archive.html
Hard to believe we’re still having this conversation in the 21st century.
Report comment
I wonder how someone can heal after such. I have an anecdotal story, anecdotal but not hearsay.
There are other forms of electricity, such as the spaceship that according to the Catholics trying to shut down the real people’s knowledge, and even the real appearance of what was called Mother Mary (and further more, well I forget further more). The other form is like water off of a Duck’s back, or why when you’re swimming the water doesn’t hit you back like a rubber band would. It rides on the non scalar part of the waves that even present “science” will tell one move at a speed where time has stopped.
My friend Josef Hassid had shock therapy, you can look it up in Wikipedia which STILL might list that the effects of it were signs of “schizophrenia.” That he couldn’t recognize his friends. Since he’s where he is, I noticed that resonance with lightning caused at one point extra credit on a digital bin. Also there’s math involved where negentropy allows changing from positive to negative. And so I noticed from buying what I bought (bananas) which actually then was all they had somewhere, this occurring. More recently I was talking with a lady from Vienna, who I had followed then, because I could, and noticed she worked as a maid for Constanze’s (Who became fortunately Constanze Nissen after being “Mozart”), her husband or to be when not being yet. He wouldn’t allow her to see the records he was keeping, and all she was was curious. I encountered him again as a stupid judge, STILL keeping records that end up in a book that does little good, this regarding the city’s history. Anyhow. Talking to this nice maid, who was dressed as such: open shirt, no frills, just black and white, changing to these times, I was acting as if a creature the same size as the one said to be a Marian apparition (about the height of a youngster before the last grow spurt, bald, no body hair), although I was just acting as if the bananas in the bag I had put down on the other side of the counter where she couldn’t see them, that this was whoever or whatever was there. Then I just left, after whatever interaction officially was finished, and noticing the bananas weren’t with me, found they had left this dimension. [follows investigation] Recently, digital credit allotted me for healthy stuff, which is digital on a card, the card showed up on the computer as having paid for bananas again, but not online at all.
Well, I see now what’s going on. The store, and “whoever” is running things, regarding people I have to go to the police about regarding CITY WIDE slander, from “Meijer” corporation. It was delayed a day. Would it show up on my tally online. And this same month the stuff that should have been registering as covered, was, for me to find it wasn’t. [investigation finished, will be part of police report] Regardless.
https://www.ancient-origins.net/opinion-guest-authors/miracle-sun-1917-ancient-angels-fatima-possible-common-origins-star-gods-021106#:~:text=Getting%20your%20Trinity%20Audio%20player,are%20just%20two%20of%20them.https://www.ancient-origins.net/opinion-guest-authors/miracle-sun-1917-ancient-angels-fatima-possible-common-origins-star-gods-021106#:~:text=Getting%20your%20Trinity%20Audio%20player,are%20just%20two%20of%20them. That linking explains what really was going on with the same energy that shut down because who knows what (lumberjacks wouldn’t have to cut down trees for electrical wires to be high enough, who knows what else. So, there are other wave patterns that aren’t locked into this cause and effect people ALSO lock onto as in this, this nonsense that time is ticking along, confines people to what they can trap it into repeating, according to these ridiculous experiments where you REPEAT something a quantity of times and start getting percentages, as if people are such……..
Happens. Even with what’s now made out to be electricity. Jesus showed up from the free energy, just when lines were lined up to blow down here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Fire which of course ALSO isn’t mentioned in wikipedia. Nor that God is so playful that when you act like the neighbor’s horse left something behind, to be able to stomp into wherever you want to share baked goods resembling such, slam it down in “disgust” as if their horse left it there, and leave what one isn’t allowed to share in “communism,” that just mentioning “the horse,” you can perhaps get the “authorities” to think you aren’t sharing something but trying to maintain “order.” I had such an act going on, ready for the transfer, and Jesus having wanted to know regarding the same location how his brother was doing (from another time, and his brother is Shakespeare), and the line “My Kingdom for a Horse,” ….. So here we go……(did I spell their correctly!?) I never have seen someone so happy, so happy thought the curl of hair I have from him was first, after spending time with anyone one is allowed to and getting married to him, I thought it was his beard or lower. But no, it was from his childhood. But that’s how I recognized him. Thought it was his great grandfather from the brother he referred to. I thought “so and so” is working there…… but no, he had the same hair. Recently, because of a shirt I bought for him, that is a clean as Heaven, he’s quietly showing up, having outgrown the shirt, maintaining the same fashion. And I got to talk with his mother regarding how beautiful we both find him now.
OK!?
Don’t worry about the Horse. The neighbors feed it so badly that it takes hours for it to expel what’s left from the digestion: literally hours! And by the time such poor toxic compressed remains comes pelting out, before it even hits the ground having been expelled, the jet power emitted has lifted the Horse so high into the ozone layer that it must have had wings to get there…..
Some people call that “thrust” or talk about “the big bang,” but no: wings are wings.
Report comment
I thought my friend Boyd, Josquin’s beautiful son was working there. Maybe his cousin who died of AIDS they would say was the one that came fluttering in like a maple seed twirling in the wind, or maybe it was Pegasus to pick up Jesus, from that kingdom. Maybe it was Jesus maybe his cousin didn’t die. Maybe Josquin’s son didn’t even have Aids although the hospital said so, maybe he had taken Pegasus and flown into a meeting with the gods and having been Friday Kahlo got them so confused that when they were finished banging their heads together about him they were all unconscious and bullets and rules were suspended. Maybe because he was little mischief when his father said it would be funny if he grabbed the goblet of Jesus blood during mass and gulped it all down that then such an ejaculation into his mind cleared out whatever the hospital was going on about or caused. Maybe because he was Jesus’ father’s grandfather when Jesus was Menasseh that he was there and it was his little spring of hair curled up in a prayer doll container after I put the dolls in a resort and made little new ones from plastic and twisty ties? I couldn’t tell the difference once already and I had to go to the other side so my left eye was closer to his right. Then Frida kahlo’s mother convinced me she was his father but younger than him, which kind of strange because we’re both older than I thought she was although I thought she was his father, and he’s only two years younger and I’m his father? Stuff does get mundane of course and then both Frida’s parents showed up at a store where they were carrying a child that was suspiciously completely not Latino. Then I realized that was the child that the girl’s sister who the boy was trying to abduct back into you know where had because of her father who then I was told killed the child with a knife just in case they thought they could get out of the cult was none of them are in anymore, which I haven’t told you because it’s in the next few sentences. Then I ran into Jesus thinking he was this poor boy that fell in love with me, was supposed to abduct his sister back into a satanic cult and instead said: “I’ll just sit on the hood,” time will pass but love never fails. So that’s all healing or healed, and Jesus got a chance to talk to and be with the father he never had on the Earth but once. And the first was not one too many! But for Christ’s sake who is going to pay for the bananas!? I mean really like they grow on trees or something!? Don’t you know that [they] come from outer space? Go to any supermarket and there they are down from on high…. I mean people talk about banana republics but those people aren’t civilized they don’t even have enough money for psychiatric drugs, let alone shock therapy!
Report comment
Shock therapy isn’t “therapy” it’s the same as the other “medical” therapies at large called psychiatric interventions, it’s for the “doctor” or the “medical institution,” it’s to bully the patient into submission. What’s sad is when a person believes there’s something wrong with them do they not adhere to “whatever” the “doctor”or the “medical establishment” or the “society” would try to imprison them into because they worship fear and trauma.
I ran into someone who I found had herself put into an asylum, given shock therapy, and this was only because… because of what? As a child she at one pointed started talking a lot, and the parents didn’t like it, she was put on drugs that caused her to gain weight (her father then chased her around with a belt blaming it on her), she was in a school at the asylum, and would fall asleep because of the meds, where upon the doctors told her father to punish her, she knew all of this, shared it with me…. Knew all sorts of stuff, how when they supposedly emptied the asylums (because SSI was started, and they found out that so many of the people, which is what they said as if anyone belongs in such a place, that they weren’t “crazy” they just had lost sight of how to be in society having been in an asylum so long; and one could have anyone committed for 500 dollars back then), and when they let so many people out of the asylums they had just come up with their lies regarding chemical imbalances so touted this as the “miracle” cure. She with others, one guy whose father was somehow head of who knows what in the system, we sat at a restaurant and they told me all of this and more. But then, only because she had been talking about getting married with a guy, and he told her father, and her father was the guy that already had done what he did in the past when she only needed someone to talk to, so she put herself in the asylum for shock “therapy.”
And it I go on about this one person, what all happens at other levels when she has no one to talk to, including bigotry against homosexuality as if its compassion, well, lets just not get into that. But I wrote about her here https://oelte.wordpress.com/2013/01/ But she had to learn not to try to harness what isn’t there for such to her ideas of what should be there for her. Pythagorus had refused to compromise his following for such means, and she had the whole school building with all of the followers in it burned. The same she thought shock therapy would…….
Last I saw her, she was staying with her mother, who I think got a divorce, and had someone to talk to.
When I went to visit her in the asylum, there was guy standing there I’d talked to. I asked him what he was doing there, and he had no idea anymore, was so doped up. I told him to just do as he was told and he’d get out. Then I heard from the girl I went to visit and another that the doctors couldn’t figure out whether he thought he was female, or just thought he was pregnant, so he’d been in there for a month. 1,000 dollars a day for these aces to…… The hospital that sent him there, because he went in saying he was pregnant, I’d called them a few years ago, rather bored with chatting online at a gay site, wanted to do something crazy and asked them whether they had pregnancy tests for males. I was told no, by someone sounding so mundane, I later thought I might have informed her it was a serious question rather than auditions for Pagliacci.
He got out, I met him at a park and started feeding the seagulls by throwing pellets of bread in the air. Found a discarded loaf along a place where I later teleported to the other side of a building, having let go of fear to just do something good rather than even would I have done the “same” thing I would have out of fear of “consequences.” The loaf I kept, and made pellets out of for just whatever moment, which arrived, and at another portal location I fed or rather played with a whole flock of seagulls that caught each pellet one by one, never fighting about it whatsoever. The lion called Elsa whose life was depicted in Born Free, the movie, she popped out of nowhere there once, before this; another time a few years later, when I was in the habit of other crazy stuff (I made a joke about Mother Theresa having her way with me that I won’t get into); when repeating this bad joke, I stepped through a block of wet cement without it leaving any residue, so she did have her way with me, and helped in other ways. That’s several outlet locations: a big retail store, the other where a mall and other outlets are.
There’s another such location where I guess a cat popped out nowhere, also. I had read of a cat being offered for I think 26 or 35 thousand. A cat that was a mix of different breeds including wild ones. You could get the cat, and then have someone in your place for a week teaching you how to take care of your cat. The ad didn’t say (as bad jokes go): Get a pure bred pussy with pedigree plus someone for a week teaching you how to take care of it. The one that popped out of nowhere, pouncing around like Djokovic the tennis player, that was just in the reeds among some water outside of an even bigger mall. Either it was an angel among us, or someone let their……
Healing happens, you just have to pay attention to life, it isn’t sane.
Report comment
The continued to be used of ECT in the mental health system is simply mind-boggling. Mind and mental illnesses are not in the brain, but in the individual’s psyche. For decades, neither psychiatric medications, which are toxic chemicals, nor electric shocks, which involve administering electricity to the brain, have ever been able to treat mental illnesses (which do not occur in the brain). For this reason, even today, attempting to seek and treat mental illnesses in the brain is utterly illogical; it is also stupidity, ignorance, madness, brutality, genocide, and tyranny. The mainstream medical world’s inaction on this genocide… means that mainstream medical doctors are also complicit in this atrocity and genocide. Politicians, states, and local governments are also complicit in this atrocity and genocide. When will societies and states see the brutality and genocide committed by mainstream psychopath psychiatry? When will mainstream psychopath psychiatry be held accountable in the courts? The mental health system… must be redesigned.
Thank you, Chris Harrop… Best regards.
With my best wishes. 🙂 Y.E. Research blog writer (Blogger)
Report comment
How anyone imagines that inducing a seizure through electrocution can be anything but harmful to the brain is truly beyond comprehension!
Report comment
Imagine the IT guy trying to fix your computer with random electro shocks.
It would be laughable, if it didn’t harm people…
Report comment
“How anyone imagines that inducing a seizure through electrocution can be anything but harmful to the brain is truly beyond comprehension!”
You’re absolutely right. When he said that… a logical story came to mind, not unlike this one. I’ve actually been thinking about this from a ‘legal /law’ perspective for a long time.
Here’s the story. “If someone were to pick up a rock from the road and throw it at someone’s head (which is actually a crime)… and cause that person to suffer brain damage (which is a second serious crime)… The person who threw the rock would likely be tried for “attempted assault and/or murder,” then arrested, and perhaps even executed.
Let’s imagine that psychiatrists were doing the same “brain damage” thing, but by “different means,” such as using psychiatric medications and other harmful and lethal psychiatric treatments like ECT. Probably, like other psychiatrists… that psychiatrist will not be punished… for doing (the work of causing brain damage) under the name of ‘mental health/mental illness treatment’. Because what he did was completely LEGAL.
So… in short… If you throw a stone at someone and cause brain damage… you will be punished, arrested, and perhaps even executed. Because throwing a stone is a very bad act, a crime, and can lead to punishment.
But if you cause “brain damage” under the guise of “mental health/treatment of mental illnesses” under the title of “doctor psychiatrist”… you won’t be punished, imprisoned, or executed.
Because “mental health/treatment of illnesses” is a very good act, not a crime, and doesn’t warrant any punishment. (Of course, if you buy these lies!) Even if it causes millions of hidden brain injuries every year.
If someone develops brain damage under the guise of “mental health/illness treatment” (through harmful psychiatric medications and treatments like ECT), it’s not the psychiatrist’s fault, but the patient’s own fault. They may face similar accusations, such as, “There was probably… an underlying cause, which is why you developed brain damage!” Psychiatric medications and ECT are not to blame. There’s no evidence that psychiatrists, psychiatric medications, and other psychiatric treatments like ECT ’cause brain damage!'” (Of course, if you buy these lies!)
The difference between the two… is that the person who probably caused the “brain damage” (throwing the stone) lacks LEGAL AUTHORITY… while the other has LEGAL AUTHORITY under the title of “doctor psychiatrist” and the title of “mental health/disease treatment.” However, they have the same common feature. (They cause brain damage.) One is punished, the other is not—on the contrary, the psychiatrist receives PRAISE for “causing someone’s brain damage.”
One causes brain damage OPENLY, in plain sight, in ways no one accepts (throwing rocks), while the other causes brain damage SECRETLY.
WHO IS THE LAW FOR? WHO DOES THE LAW WORK FOR?
***
As a final note… Now, let me explain something that no one has known or noticed until now. Do you know what the best evidence is of the physical and chemical brain damage caused by psychiatry? Shouldn’t it be difficult to uncover the physical and chemical brain damage caused by psychiatric medications and ECT? In fact, in the hands of people who have suffered chemical and physical brain damage have very clear and compelling evidence.
“Mental retardation health reports…”
The common characteristic of these reports is… they have rates.
All rates between 1% and 100%… these health reports are the best evidence that psychiatry is damaging people’s brains.
If you are receiving psychiatric treatments such as psychiatric medication and ECT, and you have suffered physical and/or chemical brain damage during these treatments, there is a high probability that you will receive a medical report from a hospital stating that you are mentally retarded. These medical reports are proof that you suffered physical and/or chemical brain damage during psychiatric treatments. (At least, that’s how we see it. Honest psychiatrists and other honest doctors need to expose this.)
People they can take it to court psychiatrists and psychiatrists based on these reports. They can file a lawsuit for compensation. They probably won’t be able to prove it, and they won’t have a chance of winning in court. But it’s actually very important evidence.
Why do mainstream psychiatry and mainstream psychiatrists issue mentally retarded medical reports to their patients? Why do they put rates on these health reports?
Because they know they are causing physical and chemical brain damage to their clients, and they are enabling the state to collect social welfare benefits from the brain damage they have suffered. By doing this, they are attempting to cover up the brain damage they themselves have inflicted.
In fact, from this perspective… mental retardation medical reports are another way to “cover up” the physical and chemical brain damage caused by psychiatrists. This has been the case for decades. And no one has realized that these medical reports… are the best evidence of permanent physical and chemical brain damage caused by psychiatrists.
Here’s the most beautiful and important piece of evidence. Could there be a better argument to sue mainstream psychiatry and psychiatrists? Even if you lose in court… I believe this evidence will always remain valid. Best regards… Y.E.
Report comment
Not to mention, those receiving neuroleptics die decades before the average person. They are actually killing people slowly with their “treatments.”
Report comment
Absolutely, I agree. And I believe in there’s more… Thanks. 🙂
Report comment
Does the author really believe the picture she is creating here: “You can’t just ignore patients anymore in medicine. Patients long since stormed the barricades of authoritarian, expert doctors, demanding pesky things like a balanced understanding of the actual benefits and risks of treatments.” Wow. There was me thinking that actually, psychiatry proves that you CAN just ignore patients – and research studies like this one – and continue to make an enormous profit at the destruction of people’s brains and understanding of life without any measurable counter-response from society, politics, medicine or any of the institutions of government.
Report comment
Here’s our new website to enlighten folks about the dangers of ECT:
http://www.banelectroconvulsivetherapy.com
Report comment
Reading MIA articles is all the ECT I need. Please don’t tell them I said that or else Steve McRea and Robert Whittaker might come after me with an invoice. Naturally I’m joking, but I really do think though that MIA articles on the whole are comparable to benzodiazepines, ECT, and the lobotomy. Naturally they disorder routine operations in the brain, but so too does sex, drugs and rock and roll, with a far greater degree of merriment and efficacy. Naturally computer brained academics who designed psychiatry and psychopharmacology have no experience of these principle treatment modalities and offer an appallingly inferior version of their own, but nobody is going to their party, except zombies, vampires, and the living dead.
Report comment
I had ECT decades ago when I was 21 after I had been misdiagnosed with depression and the antidepressants made me very sleepy and the sleepiness was misinterpreted as super severe depression. The psychiatrist who did this had just met me.
I was told there might be some memory loss around the treatment time. Obviously, since I didn’t have depression nothing positive was gained from that and I ended up having huge memory loss that went back about 8 years.
Eventually I got off the antidepressants and miraculously the “depression” went away. But my memory hasn’t returned.
Report comment
I am so sorry you had to go through that!
But don’t imagine that “having depression” would have meant any different result. Brain damage is brain damage, regardless of one’s “diagnosis.”
Report comment
When I worked in a mental health inpatient unit, I was asked to see a person who had many “maintenance” ECTs and complained about circles of memory loss that would elevate just a few days before the next electroshock.
After talking with him, I became very concerned about profound memory loss. He couldn’t tell me what he liked to eat for breakfast or recall essential facts about his daughter’s life milestones.
I then approached his treating doctor and told her, “This doesn’t look like short-term memory loss to me. This is biographic memory!” She, however, responded with a blank face. She didn’t offer or reflect on any cognitive screening or other assessment. The discussion was over.
Based on that, I am not at all sure that doctors know how to manage this treatment.
The Australian College of Psychiatrists (2019), which massively promotes ECT as b , recommends routine cognitive monitoring before, during and after ECT. But there was no indication that such monitoring was done in my workplace.
I think that not monitoring such a thing and not thoroughly discussing it beforehand is a clinical crime.
Report comment