F. Frank LeFever wrote:
> [...]
> ECT works by causing seizure activity in the nerve cells of the brain.
> What this seizure activity does that is beneficial in treating
> depression is not so clear, but changes in neurotransmitter balances
> seem likely. We are just beginning to understand some of the
> cellular-level changes involved,
Ho, ho, ho :-)
> but the answer may lie in IEGs
> (immediate early genes), HSPs (so-called "heat-shock proteins"),
> neurotrophin responses, etc. In other words, this is a therapy which
> has been developed and applied empirically (i.e. "it works") and the
> theory lags behind.
ECT only gives the =illusion= of "working"... might as well put on boxing
gloves and pummel one... they'd get "distracted" from their "depression"
that way, too, and it'd be a lot cheaper way of achieving the same
"results".
> However there is NO reason to invoke "memory erasure". If this were
> the basis, patients who recovered from depression after ECT would be
> amnestic.
To a degree depending upon current and its duration, they are... for
reasons I described in a prior post.
> Indeed, in an effort to AVOID even transient memory
> disruption, some use unilateral ECT rather than bilateral...
"Unilateral ECT"... do they send the patients in to have their brains
"split" first?
> And why do we not use MRI to treat depression? Because it apparently
> has NO effect on brain physiology. (I am open to correction on this.
> If someone knows of evidence of some subtle changes, I'd be interested.
> I believe some have been seen with deoxyglucose)(sp?) (not my area of
> expertise).
There has to be a smidgeon of altered-ness because MRI works by jacking up
"electron" "states" with a "radio" signal... the image is captured when the
jacked-up "states" return to "normal"... it's like a "hiccup" at the
neuronal level. I'm unaware of any detectable, enduring alterations... that
there aren't any is plausible because everything's "jacked-up", to the same
level, all at once... if there's any net effect, it's probably somewhat
like the stuff of the Relativistic "Twin Paradox" in Physics.
> Mr. Cheng: I repeat my suggestion to find a less critical newsgroup.
> No point (pun?) in "crossing swords" with worthy challengers if you are
> incapable of the intellectual honesty of acknowledging when you've been
> "hit".
>> F. Frank LeFever, Ph.D.
> New York Neuropsychology Group
>> >> =
> >> >> =
> >> >