Posted by Larry Hoover on December 16, 2005, at 9:22:47
In reply to Re: Tracy, Breggin, and other quacks..., posted by linkadge on December 15, 2005, at 19:13:43
> Like I said, there are other studies. It is necessary to look at each piece of evidence at a time. Are his coments about the dangers of neuroleptics untrue? Are his comments about the dangers of ECT all inacurate?
I don't know, but if you'd like me to predict, based on his work re: SSRIs, then I would say that he has likely used the same sorry tricks.
> Wasn't it you who requested a "Do not ECT" affixed to medical information? What are you reasons for being against ECT? Who else will people listen to. "Good" doctors don't warn against its detremental effects.
The decision was personal, and is quite the reason why informed and consent are part of the procedure before a major medical intervention. It matters not what other doctors thought, in the end. It matters what I thought. And my identity, such as it is, has formed alongside a fairly competent and powerful intellect. Any threat to that access, to recall, to partake of that identity was an unreasonable risk, for me. I would rather remain depressed than take that risk, even if later judged incompetent to make such a decision. My wishes were in writing, and enforceable. Just like a "do not resuscitate", I drew up a "do not ECT". My brain. My call.
> >If you've got the time, you can take Breggin >apart, too.
>
> YOu may be able to pick at parts of their arugments but you can never dismatle the whole.I disagree. Good science stands quite vividly, on its own. Bad science screams and dances and uses flashing lights. But when the people with the magnifying glasses show up, it just isn't there, at all. Bad science can be deconstructed using its own language. Its own logic. And its failure to show why other competing conclusions are not as reasonable, or are less reasonable, than is the bad science.
It can be a large to task to reverse the effect of well-publicized bad science. We're swamped with it. Like dietary cholesterol being a health risk. Or sodium being a heart unfriendly ion. In limited cases, these arguments hold, but for most people, health deteriorates on these guidelines.
I simply wish I had the health to do some deconstructing, and go public with the challenges that deconstruction uncovers. As I've said many times, I'm an empiricist. Show me the data. Show me how you collected them. Show me what you did to derive your stats/pattern/what have you. The science is the data. All else is human ego waving its hands to the curious or the frightened.
It is human nature to jump to conclusions. It is a scientist's job not to do so. On good data, any competent scientist will reach a fairly similar conclusion. But even competent scientists make mistakes. And I don't care if you won the Nobel prize, I'll start at your data, and your methodology, and take a look for myself.
And I play devil's advocate a lot. I don't express my own opinions, a good part of the time. That's because the deconstruction process itself reveals serious problems. I point out those problems, without even needing to reassess and come to conclusions of my own.
And, Ian, that's why I didn't listen to the whole taped interview of Dr. Tracy. I'll grant her that conceit, that honorific, one last time. When a building is constructed on weak foundations, gravity will bring it down. When a scientific theory is founded on weak (or nonexistent) data, it takes thinking people to bring it down. I challenge people to think. And I mean never to hurt feelings, though I know that I do. I'm not a perfect debater.
So, I apologize if I have crept into the personal. As I keep saying, good science stands for all to see. I needn't embellish any of that.
> That is why these individuals have lasted this long, because a portion of what they are saying is absolutely true.
>
>
> LinkadgeNo. These individuals have lasted this long because they give comfort to people who are hurt. But in the end, they do more harm than they have done good. Like the boy crying wolf. Or Chicken Little. They dishonour that core truth, by wrapping it in false clothes. And when the discrediting comes, the core truth may fall in the wasteheap, as well.
The reason I looked into the science of adverse effects of SSRIs arose from my own experience. I experienced psychotic dysphoric mania on an SSRI. My complaints fell on deaf ears. My repetitive cries that sleep grew harder to obtain, until I stopped sleeping altogether, were ignored. And then Serzone, nearly killed me in just 11 days.
But when I looked at the "science" presented by the Tracy/Breggin crew, there was a sheep in wolf's clothing. (note the inversion)
And no matter how much credit people want to give to the Tracys and Breggins, it was the Healys who did the job. They lobbied with real data, hard science, and the re-examination began.
My experience teaches me. I don't blame the drugs. I asked for them. And they were provided to me, in good faith.
I don't expect anyone to agree with my position. I do ask that it be considered. I join in the debate.
And the chips fall, hopefully, with nothing more revealed, at the end, than the science. The empirical evidence.
Have you heard the phrase, "the more you know, the less you know", or some variant? I think it's from the awareness of how much of what we collectively think we know is no more than a tissue of conjecture. It makes me want to be back in the lab, recording data. <sigh>
I didn't know I was going to ramble on, so. Realizing that I have, I now close.
Lar
poster:Larry Hoover
thread:587690
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20051211/msgs/589546.html