COLLEEN M. SPECHT
v102nq9f at ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu
Mon Oct 7 14:16:44 EST 1996
In article <3258F931.521F at postoffice.worldnet.att.net>, kenneth paul collins <KPCollins at postoffice.worldnet.att.net> writes:
>COLLEEN M. SPECHT wrote:
[lot's of stuff (which contains the point of this thread, which has since been
>> woah there. ECT is indeed a therapy for several psychiatric/psychologic
>> conditions. brian's point was a good one.
>>....I stand on what I posted
[more stuff deleted]
>> depression isn't just *one* thing. let me guess that you are not a student of
>> psychology or psychiatry. the fact is is that depression is the principle
>> psychological disorder.
>....I don't disagree that, currently, what's been referred to as "depression"
>does constitute a major problem... but, within my means to do so, I'll gladly
>go before any Scientists, anywhere, to demonstrate that what you've posted is
>incorrect... it is, in fact, the general failure to recognize what
>"depression" actually is that has artificially created a life-threatening
what is it, that i have posted that is incorrect? depression, as clinicians
who care for this disorder have defined it, is the most common psychological
disorder. further, the majority of people who suffer depression are not
suicidal, so i don't know who would call it, generally, life-threatening.
>>> while many people have and continue to study the
>> (obviosly several) underlying causes or otherwise 'etiologies', there are
>> millions of individuals in the u.s. that require care at present.
>> >ECT is no "therapy" at all...
>> this is simply a false statement.
>....I stand on what I've posted...
>> dr. or mr. collins, you should take care to note in your posts the difference
>> between your opinions and the current state of knowledge with regard to what
>> you are speaking to. many others who do not otherwise know could confuse your
>> opinions with fact. you seem to be somewhat frustrated with the current
>> treatments for depression and/or ECT in general. you're losing your objective
>> here, which disqualifies your posts as 'good news'.
>....I stand on what I've posted... if you're in a position to do so, I
>challenge you to make a formal presentation opportunity possible...
>if you don't, then, kindly, continue with me here until we have the matter
>sorted out completely... K. P. Collins
i am afraid you do not encourage a rigorous search for truth from me, k.p.
one cannot debate what one has not defined, anyway. for the record, i'll stick
with the DSM-IV definition, since basic scientific methodolgy requires that
we define our variables so that we can study them and have meaningful
conversations with other clinicians and/or scientist about
why is your attitude so contemptuous? are you having a bad day (or two)?
More information about the Neur-sci