Quote:

Many studies documenting the efficacy of ECT for depressive illness have been published, finding ECT superior to "sham" ECT and to medications in the treatment of patients with severe depressive illness. Two multisite collaborations—the Consortium for Research in ECT (CORE) and Columbia University Consortium (CUC)—studies are illustrative. Both were designed to examine relapse prevention after successful ECT involving patients with major unipolar depression. The  patient groups were similar in mean age (55 and 59 years), sex ratio (70% female), and pretreatment severity (mean Hamilton Depression Scale scores, about 34). Index episode duration was 24 to 31 weeks (CUC study) and 45 to 49 weeks (CORE study). At remission, the mean Hamilton scores were 5 to 6 (±3).

Remission rates were 55% (159 of 290 patients completing the CUC study) and 86% (341 of 394 patients completing the CORE study). These results compare favorably to the initial 30% remission rate with citalopram and the remission rates of about 23% with bupropion, 21% with sertraline, and 25% with venlafaxine for patients who did not respond to citalopram in the Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression (STAR*D) trial of outpatients with nonpsychotic major unipolar depression.

---

YawningAnus said:

wiki is not a credible source. plain and simple.

---

Quote:

YawningAnus said: STFU because the grown ups are talking now.

---

Quote:

Diaboleros said:

Wiki is the most credible source of sources. It links you to the entire internet, the content is only a summary, the bottom of the page links you to scientific articles and scientific sources. It is the most reliable and the most extensive encyclopedia in the history of mankind. Everyone can add, everyone can edit it. Too bad people like keep trashing it, just because you don't agree with the truth.

---

Um yeah.  How about instead of giving us a source of sources, as you say, you just demonstrate your claims to be true?



How the hell is it trashing wikipedia to acknowledge that its contents is not to be relied upon for accuracy in all cases?  You don't even claim that- you just say its a source of sources (which you've not demonstrated anyways, apparently just presuming it to be true).


Nobody cares if you use wikipedia, they care that your claiming stuff and refusing to establish it as true.  Why don't you look at your "source of sources" and find one instead of making the ridiculous claim that wikipedia is a reliable because you can sometimes find sourced claims?

Diaboleros said:

Ok, so basically, we agree, and you are just wasting my time? Nice. Some studies do say 95%, I'm not going to lie because people are skeptical.

---

lol


You say something you can't back up and then people are "wasting your time" when they ask you to demonstrate the accuracy of your claims?



When you base conclusions upon made up premises you get some weird stuff.  I'd hardly call correcting unsupported claims to be "wasting time"




In the future you could avoid this by saying accurate things or being prepared to demonstrate the accuracy of something you claim

Otherwise your just making shit up to support whatever conclusion you want to reach.

Diaboleros said:

Good job!  But like I said, I prefer not to give people fish, i rather learn them how to fish.

---

Diaboleros said:

Yeah sorry about that misunderstanding, I wasn't talking about you, I was talking about these other guys who are asking for sources while google is at their fingertips!  IMO, you put way too much emphazis on numbers instead of the point behind them tho. 95%, 86%, 60% or whatever, all those numbers make the exact same point, that psychology is bullshit because people can get cured by mere electricity. 

---

Quote:

Also, putting 5 enters between each line is not making your post more convincing, nice try tho.

---

Diaboleros said:

Yeah sorry about that misunderstanding, I wasn't talking about you, I was talking about these other guys who are asking for sources while google is at their fingertips!  IMO, you put way too much emphazis on numbers instead of the point behind them tho. 95%, 86%, 60% or whatever, all those numbers make the exact same point, that psychology is bullshit because people can get cured by mere electricity. 

---

Diaboleros said:

Good job!  But like I said, I prefer not to give people fish, i rather learn them how to fish.

---

Look, this is a debate oriented forum. You don't have to "reach people to fish" and other crap like that.
Stand behind your claims or stop posting senseless stuff.
There's a difference between all google search results which can mean nothing, and reliable sources.

Also, you never actually showed me how psychology fails, and not people who want to escape from their responsibility.

Diaboleros said:

Ignoring a source doesn't make it go away, try again.

---

Diaboleros said:

Actually it does. If you ignore a reliable source, it means you admit being wrong. Game over, you lose.

Your next reply will be "but it's not fair! it's not a reliable source, this is the internet!" too predictable.

---

Ok, we're done talking until your posts will make sense and won't be completely retarded.

YawningAnus said:

mad_cow said:

That doesn't make sense. If he had symptoms that made the doctor think she was bipolar, how was she fine? How she reacts to her diagnoses is not the fault of psychology.

I like energy psychology.

---

I think it is just as illogical to blame the doctor for your mothers reaction as it is for her to blame her actions on some made up isease.

but to address the first part about "if she had symptoms"... there are no real symptoms... go take any online test to see if you have a mental illness and no matter what you will be told you have some disorder.
This aspect of psychology and psychiatry is what first started my interest in the fallacy of the entire field... when i was in 6th grade my teachers had a meeting with my mother to try and put me on ritalin. they cited the 8 "symptoms" of ADD.
which i doubt i could find if i looked for but a quick google search brought up these basic ones:
    *  Often fidgeting with hands or feet, or squirming while seated.
    * Having difficulty remaining seated.
    * Having difficulty awaiting turn in games or group activities.
    * Often blurting out answers before questions are completed.
    * Having difficulty in following instructions.
    * Having difficulty sustaining attention in tasks or play activities.
    * Often shifting from one uncompleted task to another.
    * Having difficulty playing quietly.
    * Often talking excessively.
    * Often interrupting or intruding on others.
    * Often not listening to what is being said.
    * Often forgetting things necessary for tasks or activities.
    * Often engaging in physically dangerous activities without considering possible consequences.
    * Being easily distracted by extraneous stimuli.

every single one of those is symptomatic of being a child, not of having a mental disorder.
you get how that works? if you can blanket the made up symptoms (i dare you to try and say they arent made up... so help me god i will bust out so much DSM history on your ass) across a wide enough emotional spectrum then you can label anyone with any range of disorders.

here is a link and a quote i came across a while back and posted in a very old thread... kind of relevant to this discussion...

Quote:

    Confronted with children whom psychologists, psychiatrists and teachers claimed had ADHD, I have not been able to find any abnormality�no disease whatsoever!

    Dyslexia (or Specific Reading Disability), we are told, is an abnormality in the language parts of the brain, not manifest until the child fails to gain literacy in the early grades of school. What parents and teachers are usually not told, however, is that over sixty years of research have failed to confirm that a defect of any sort exists in the brain of a child who has been labeled dyslexic. Sadly, maintaining this condition to be a fact is doing incredible damage to these individuals. These made-up disorders, along with others including �Severe Emotional Disorder� or �Dyscalculia� (special arithmetic disorder), have never been validated as brain diseases. And believe me, I�ve asked the �experts.�

    I wrote to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), to Ciba-Geigy (manufacturer of Ritalin), to Children and Adults with Attention Deficit Disorders (CH.A.D.D.) and four times to leading ADHD researchers at the NIMH, requesting that they direct me to one or a few articles in the peer-reviewed, scientific literature that constitutes proof of a physical or chemical abnormality in ADHD, thus making it a �disease.�

    Paul Leber, M.D., of the FDA wrote in response: �...as yet no distinctive pathophysiology for the disorder has been delineated.� Gene Haislip of the DEA responded: �We are also unaware that ADHD has been validated as a biologic/organic syndrome or disease.�

    I have yet to receive anything which would constitute proof of an abnormality�one that can be tested for patient-by-patient�one proving that we are not drugging entirely normal children. Even the APA admits in its DSM-IV that there are �...no laboratory tests that have been established as diagnostic� for �Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder.�

    Lawrence Diller, M.D. of the University of California, San Francisco, who was a conferee at the 1996 DEA Conference on Stimulant Use in the Treatment of ADHD, wrote: �The reason why you have been unable to obtain any articles or studies presenting clear and confirming evidence of a physical or chemical abnormality associated with ADHD is that there is none.�



here is the link By Fred A. Baughman, Jr., M.D.

http://groups.msn.com/DebateCriticalThin...482622601008312

---

---