Posted by BGB on July 5, 2008, at 15:59:37
In reply to Re: ECT response rate, posted by linkadge on July 5, 2008, at 9:14:51
> Well, think of it this way. The statistic that is commonly used for the incidence of memory loss with ECT is apparently just a random number. Sakiem himself said that the number often quoted for the incidence of memory loss is *not* based on research.
>
> I will look for the article....
>
> So, if the numbers often publicised for the incidence of memory loss are flawed, why is it so inconcievable that those statistics used for the effectiveness are flawed?
>
> LinkadgeI don't think that it is at all inconceivable that the statistics are flawed. I just wanted to re-iterate that I was told this figure by someone who is very highly respected in the mental health field. I realize that this has nothing to do with research and that he can be just as incorrect as any other human being.
I have also read the article where Harold Sakceim admitted that he just made the 20% figure up (it's available somewhere on the ect.org website, but I wasn't able to locate it quickly). I also realize that he is very well respected in his field, as my doctor is, so my doctor could be just as full of shi* as Sackeim is. As Sackeim is connected with Mecta, my doctor is probably paid very well for each ECT treatment, so I realize that he may also have a financial motivation to inflate the statistic.
I apologize for repeating what I realize now is probably an incorrect statistic. Believe it or not, I honestly was not trying to act in a malicious way when I did. However, I can tell you that I am glad ECT is still there for me as a last resort. I know people who have done very well with it, as well as people who have had horrible experiences.
poster:BGB
thread:836941
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20080626/msgs/838231.html