Sunday, July 5, 2020

Comments by Husserl

Showing 3 of 3 comments.

  • The notion of somatoform (a.k.a. somatizing) disorder has a long, sad but interesting history. Part of it resulted from efforts in the United Kingdom to avoid public and private insurance compensation, to sufferers of ‘invisible illnesses.’ Here is a focussed conceptual history of the work of Gordon Waddell and its effects in the UK. I wrote this in my own capacity, but am a member of the organisation you will see. The full story is quite complex. http://dpac.uk.net/2014/09/gordon-waddells-biopsychosocial-attack-on-disabled-people/

  • I had forced ECT without anaesthesia but with curare, in January 1962. To keep this brief, I’ll just say that the round consisted of two ECTs per week, for four weeks. I am now a retired university teacher of philosophy, with specialism in mathematical logic and later neuroscience. Last year I read the article by Perrin et al, quite carefully, together with a highly critical and sharp logician. He came to the same conclusion I did: that if Perrin et al’s descriptions are correct, brain damage results. Lobotomy might not be the best way to describe it; I suggest pre-frontal neuronal connectivity loss (most likely permanent).
    This brings me to several remarks and questions.
    1. I was not depressed when I had that ECT.
    2. What is the current status of the hyperconnectivity hypothesis that Perrin et al base their
    reasoning on?
    3. If that hypothesis is correct in any sense, and if the writers’ interpretation that reduced
    connectivity relieves depression is true, *then* a non-depressed person (e.g. me)would most
    likely experience no valuable effects.
    4. If the hyperconnectivity hypothesis is false, then the conclusions of Perrin et al are not
    warrented.
    5. Finally, note that 3 and 4 do not concern people with any sort of depression.

    These points comprise our conclusions, after having read the article. Any comments would be most helpful. Thank you.