request good review article (ECT)

kkollins at kkollins at
Sun Nov 15 22:58:41 EST 1998

F. Frank LeFever wrote:

> Again, kccheng shows his ignorance in a most embarassing way (if he
> were capable of shame, that is).  MRI involves a powerful
> electromagnetic force, but ECT involves direct electric current
> passage.

Frankly, Frank, your response is worth less than the one you ridicule... E
without B... come on.

> There is no need to invoke electromagnetic storage notions
> here,

EM is in-there... unless you "discount" all of Chemistry and all of
Physics... it's just that saying "it's all EM stuff" says =nothing=,
because the entire Physical Universe can be "translated" into "just" EM
stuff... to get all the vectors right, it's necessary to describe the
topology in which the EM stuff is embodied... else there's a big nothing
in-there, that can do nothing, let alone, "Remember".

> because any hippocampal damage done by such means would be easily
> explained in terms of excitotoxic lesions, i.e. by excess production of
> EAAs (excitatory amino acids)--does not require metabolic stress in the
> sense of demand excceeding oxygenation (as previously thought until my
> former colleague, Robert Sloviter did the appropriate experiments). dropping... did you read the _New York Times Magazine_ today? :-)

> Let me hasten too say, however, that the neuropsychololgical data do
> NOT support the idea of a massive permanent loss of memory (either in
> the sense of losing old memories or in losing capacity to form new
> ones) in therapeutically applied ECT.

Yeah, ECT "just" scrambles "caringly"... "just a little 'fog' is 'good'",

No "fog" is "good"... especially not, when it's in the "pilot-house". ken

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list