![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 14 to 38 of 41. Go back in thread:
Posted by linkadge on August 25, 2003, at 10:27:06
In reply to Re: rTMS sucess » linkadge, posted by rod on August 25, 2003, at 9:09:02
Here is what I am doing. (what I know)
Each session is about 10 minautes long.
I am using a coil of diameter 7.5 cm
placed over the left prefrontal cortex just behind the forehead (diagonally up/back from the temple area)I am not shure of the exact waveform of the scientific studies. I believe some use a square wave - which would be more of a pulse type stimulation. I chose the sinusoidal wave because it is smoother.
I don't know too much about the telsa coil feild strength as my physics teacher basically did the work for me.
He just needed to know things like, what telsa coil feild strength I wanted (I said 1.0)
How much wire was in my coil, what were the specifications of the amplifier I was using.
He told me the voltage I would need to output.
I used a carrier wave and an multimeter to find the right voltage on the amplifier.I will try to find out the specifics, but after I got it set up I've just left the amp volume where its at and left it.
I am the one who's got to do the research. If I want to go back to my teacher to ask questions I'm going to get a little more informed about the theory.
Linkadge
Posted by Psychquackery on August 25, 2003, at 12:39:38
In reply to Re: rTMS sucess, posted by linkadge on August 25, 2003, at 10:27:06
> Here is what I am doing. (what I know)
>
> Each session is about 10 minautes long.
>
> I am using a coil of diameter 7.5 cm
> placed over the left prefrontal cortex just behind the forehead (diagonally up/back from the temple area)
>
> I am not shure of the exact waveform of the scientific studies. I believe some use a square wave - which would be more of a pulse type stimulation. I chose the sinusoidal wave because it is smoother.
>
> I don't know too much about the telsa coil feild strength as my physics teacher basically did the work for me.
>
> He just needed to know things like, what telsa coil feild strength I wanted (I said 1.0)
> How much wire was in my coil, what were the specifications of the amplifier I was using.
> He told me the voltage I would need to output.
> I used a carrier wave and an multimeter to find the right voltage on the amplifier.
>
> I will try to find out the specifics, but after I got it set up I've just left the amp volume where its at and left it.
>
> I am the one who's got to do the research. If I want to go back to my teacher to ask questions I'm going to get a little more informed about the theory.
>
>
>
> Linkadge
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Be very careful as you could accidentally give yourself a seizure using homemade rTMS. That would be unfortunate and would most likely land you in the hospital.
Better yet, why bother with "homemade" rTMS at all and go straight to ECT. Are you a coward? Homemade rTMS is hitting rock bottom...pretty pathetic.
Igor
Posted by BarbaraCat on August 25, 2003, at 13:03:21
In reply to Re: rTMS sucess, posted by linkadge on August 25, 2003, at 10:27:06
Hats off to you, Linkadge. I was looking at making my own but couldn't find enough info. Would appreciate detailed specs or references to them. Please keep us posted and in the loop, or should I say 'coil' - heh, heh. - BCat
Posted by linkadge on August 25, 2003, at 13:17:21
In reply to Re: rTMS sucess » linkadge, posted by BarbaraCat on August 25, 2003, at 13:03:21
Lets not get snappy now.
Dangerous yes, but pathetic,
not If it works. Anything
that works is worthwile in
my mind.
And so far it is.
Linkadge
Posted by Caleb462 on August 25, 2003, at 13:30:18
In reply to Re: rTMS sucess, posted by Psychquackery on August 25, 2003, at 12:39:38
> > Here is what I am doing. (what I know)
> >
> > Each session is about 10 minautes long.
> >
> > I am using a coil of diameter 7.5 cm
> > placed over the left prefrontal cortex just behind the forehead (diagonally up/back from the temple area)
> >
> > I am not shure of the exact waveform of the scientific studies. I believe some use a square wave - which would be more of a pulse type stimulation. I chose the sinusoidal wave because it is smoother.
> >
> > I don't know too much about the telsa coil feild strength as my physics teacher basically did the work for me.
> >
> > He just needed to know things like, what telsa coil feild strength I wanted (I said 1.0)
> > How much wire was in my coil, what were the specifications of the amplifier I was using.
> > He told me the voltage I would need to output.
> > I used a carrier wave and an multimeter to find the right voltage on the amplifier.
> >
> > I will try to find out the specifics, but after I got it set up I've just left the amp volume where its at and left it.
> >
> > I am the one who's got to do the research. If I want to go back to my teacher to ask questions I'm going to get a little more informed about the theory.
> >
> >
> >
> > Linkadge
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> Be very careful as you could accidentally give yourself a seizure using homemade rTMS. That would be unfortunate and would most likely land you in the hospital.
>
> Better yet, why bother with "homemade" rTMS at all and go straight to ECT. Are you a coward? Homemade rTMS is hitting rock bottom...pretty pathetic.
>
> IgorHmm... what exactly is your problem bud? Why are you so obsessed with ECT? Guess what... not everyone wants or needs ECT. Coward? Pathetic?
My aren't you a compassionate one. I say way to go and congrats, linkadge.
Posted by mattdds on August 25, 2003, at 13:58:16
In reply to Re: rTMS sucess, posted by Psychquackery on August 25, 2003, at 12:39:38
Hello Igor,
I'm a bit put off by what I see as a condescending tone to a lot of your posts. It is pretty apparent that you are a big proponent of ECT, and that is perfectly fine. Everyone has their treatment of choice. I don't think anyone is disputing that ECT is effective. So in a lot of your posts you seem to be beating up a straw man. The problem comes when we tell others that what they are doing isn't as good as what we are using. You seem to be doing this, for whatever reason.
As you have mentioned, ECT is a valid choice for severe depression. But I find it offensive when you imply that nothing else besides ECT is worthwhile. I had severe, drug resistant depression as measured by every type of scale currently used in research (HAM-D, the Beck Depression Inventory, etc.), which responded very nicely to Cognitive Therapy and moderate-dose clonazepam (panic attacks were a large part of the problem).
Now you could argue that my depression wasn't severe, because it didn't necessitate ECT. But that sets up a very arbitrary definition of "severe depression", saying that severe depression only responds to ECT. In my opinion, that would sound a little silly (the statement, not you).
I take it that you had good success with ECT. I am very happy for that. But just because someone does not go straight to ECT when they get depressed does not mean they are "cowards" or "pathetic", as you put it. Even the biggest proponents of ECT will concede that other strategies should be tried first. And sometimes, ECT is just not indicated (panic, social anxiety, dysthymia, schizophrenia). Also, what about the folks with moderate or even mild depression? Let's not minimize their suffering, just because it's not an indication for ECT.
Remember, we're trying to support each other here, not tell them the treatment they're using (and having success with) is worthless.
Thanks,
Matt
Posted by Psychquackery on August 25, 2003, at 14:11:33
In reply to Re: rTMS sucess, posted by mattdds on August 25, 2003, at 13:58:16
> Hello Igor,
>
> I'm a bit put off by what I see as a condescending tone to a lot of your posts. It is pretty apparent that you are a big proponent of ECT, and that is perfectly fine. Everyone has their treatment of choice. I don't think anyone is disputing that ECT is effective. So in a lot of your posts you seem to be beating up a straw man. The problem comes when we tell others that what they are doing isn't as good as what we are using. You seem to be doing this, for whatever reason.
>
> As you have mentioned, ECT is a valid choice for severe depression. But I find it offensive when you imply that nothing else besides ECT is worthwhile. I had severe, drug resistant depression as measured by every type of scale currently used in research (HAM-D, the Beck Depression Inventory, etc.), which responded very nicely to Cognitive Therapy and moderate-dose clonazepam (panic attacks were a large part of the problem).
>
> Now you could argue that my depression wasn't severe, because it didn't necessitate ECT. But that sets up a very arbitrary definition of "severe depression", saying that severe depression only responds to ECT. In my opinion, that would sound a little silly (the statement, not you).
>
> I take it that you had good success with ECT. I am very happy for that. But just because someone does not go straight to ECT when they get depressed does not mean they are "cowards" or "pathetic", as you put it. Even the biggest proponents of ECT will concede that other strategies should be tried first. And sometimes, ECT is just not indicated (panic, social anxiety, dysthymia, schizophrenia). Also, what about the folks with moderate or even mild depression? Let's not minimize their suffering, just because it's not an indication for ECT.
>
> Remember, we're trying to support each other here, not tell them the treatment they're using (and having success with) is worthless.
>
> Thanks,
>
> MattMatt, I find it VERY skeptical that you had "severe" depression that in turn responded well to CBT and some klonopin. That doesnt jibe with the kinds of people who have real depression.
Severe depression is the kind of depression that causes severe insomnia, severe weight loss without trying, severe cognition decline and oftentimes is accompanied by high blood cortisol levels. It causes chronic disability.
Severe depression fixed by CBT and klonopin? LOL HAH! You gotta be joking here old boy.
Igor
Posted by Psychquackery on August 25, 2003, at 14:17:47
In reply to were not talking about ECT, posted by linkadge on August 25, 2003, at 10:03:22
> I don't really want to get into a debate again about which is better. I am just just stating my experiences with rTMS.
I do, because I dont like seeing mistruths, lies and misinformation about major depression being spread all over the Internet. A person with severe depression may read these discussions of rTMS and hoping to avoid those "dangerous shock treatments" may decide to enroll in an rTMS trial somewhere, spend all kinds of money living in a hotel and traveling and get total shit for results. That was my personal experience with rTMS.
>
> You can say it's inneffective, or not as good as ECT and thats ok. I'm just stating my experiences (trying to without bias) take them or leave them.It is ineffective. Or at the least its NOWHERE as effective as ECT. Not for the severe forms of depression. Maybe your definition of severe depression is a lot different from mine, I dont know. But I do know that all the data says that rTMS has marginal clinical value for severe, much less psychotic depression. Mainly, rTMS exists for the small group of researchers who are investigating this modality. Its basically their baby...their plaything for which they can write up all kinds of studies in scientific journals.
As for clinical value...where the rubber meets the road, only ECT has any value for combatting the real deal. And all the studies back that up to.
Igor
PS: Creating your own "rTMS machine" is both dangerous and stupid. You are risking your life...you dont know what you are doing. It could also arguably be a sign of mania IMO.
Posted by Psychquackery on August 25, 2003, at 14:32:03
In reply to Re: rTMS sucess, posted by mattdds on August 25, 2003, at 13:58:16
> Hello Igor,
>
> I'm a bit put off by what I see as a condescending tone to a lot of your posts.Just telling the truth
> It is pretty apparent that you are a big proponent of ECT, and that is perfectly fine.
Only because its the only thing that actually works well for a specific type of severe depression
>
> As you have mentioned, ECT is a valid choice for severe depression. But I find it offensive when you imply that nothing else besides ECT is worthwhile. I had severe, drug resistant depression as measured by every type of scale currently used in research (HAM-D, the Beck Depression Inventory, etc.), which responded very nicely to Cognitive Therapy and moderate-dose clonazepam (panic attacks were a large part of the problem).
>Panic attacks are an anxiety disorder, not a mood disorder. ECT is not effective for panic attacks Matt.
> Now you could argue that my depression wasn't severe, because it didn't necessitate ECT.
It didnt necessitate ECT because it sounds like the core of your problem was more anxiety disorder, rather than major depression.
>But that sets up a very arbitrary definition of "severe depression", saying that severe depression only responds to ECT. In my opinion, that would sound a little silly (the statement, not you).
There are certain subtypes of major depression such as severe melancholia and psychotic depression which studies have shown respond poorly to drugs alone. Both severe melancholia and psychotic depression have been shown in many studies to REMIT best with bilateral ECT. Many have trouble accepting this basic fact, probably because of an inherent deepseated fear of ECT and electricity. However, its still the basic fact regarding severe depression.
>
> I take it that you had good success with ECT. I am very happy for that. But just because someone does not go straight to ECT when they get depressed does not mean they are "cowards" or "pathetic", as you put it. Even the biggest proponents of ECT will concede that other strategies should be tried first. And sometimes, ECT is just not indicated (panic, social anxiety, dysthymia, schizophrenia). Also, what about the folks with moderate or even mild depression? Let's not minimize their suffering, just because it's not an indication for ECT.People who avoid ECT because they are scared and continue on endless medication augmentation trials ARE cowards. Medication augmentation trials are poorly studied and have not been proven to be very effective. ECT on the other hand has been proven to work effectively. rTMS as well has not been proven to be clinically of value after all these years of serious research. In the end, when all the dust and hype clears, ECT still reigns supreme.
>
> Remember, we're trying to support each other here, not tell them the treatment they're using (and having success with) is worthless.I call a spade a spade. If you call that not being supportive, then youre not an honest person. If you want to get better, get ECT (providing your main problem is a mood disorder). If you want to keep playing games and hanging out on psychobabble, continue avoiding ECT and trying silly medication augmentation trials that dont work and seeking out "experimental" treatments for depression. Which dont work either.
BTW my definition of severe depression is the following:"Also treat those with melancholia, inanition, severe weight loss and insomnia, concentration and memory difficulty, stupor, or suicidal ideation as if they had psychotic depression. These symptoms and signs are evidence that the patient’s neuroendocrine system is disturbed, an indication of severe depression that responds poorly to antidepressant drugs alone."
The above was taken from the Max Fink article I posted below and it jibes exactly with my personal experiences.
Igor
Posted by linkadge on August 25, 2003, at 14:40:10
In reply to Re: were not talking about ECT, posted by Psychquackery on August 25, 2003, at 14:17:47
Actually I've been pretty meticulous about this. It's taken me the last few months trying to pull things together. The idea, the support etc.
I suppose this *could* be on a manic high, it could also be the placebo effect, but I am still going to report what I have found.
As far as dangerous, there is a slim chance of seizure, thats why I always ask my parents to watch incase anythings happens. The probability of seizure in regular rTMS is very low, not to mention that my felid intensity is on the low end of rTMS standards as well.
Please listen to me. I understand that you want to start the ol' ECT vs. rTMS argument but you will notice that nowhere did I even mention ECT. This post was in no way meant to infringe upon the efficacy of ECT. Also, it was in no way meant to boast the superiority of rTMS.The purpose of the post was to simply present my findings.
I don't really think it is stupid because it does seem to work, and I've taken all the necessary precautious to make sure that I am safe.
Linkadge
Posted by linkadge on August 25, 2003, at 14:48:11
In reply to Re: were not talking about ECT, posted by Psychquackery on August 25, 2003, at 14:17:47
Some people find it necessary to feel that they've suffered the worst depression of all.
We are not trying to get into a competition about who's depression is the worst. Nor are we trying to *rate* the sevarity of one's depression by the means which brought them out of it.
A simple vitamin/mineral deficiancy can cause *severe* depression, and perhaps a vitamin pill could ameliorate that. Are we saying that a person's depression was not bad because it was cured by a vitamin pill?
When it comes to the mind, generalization is
often totally useless.
Linkadge
Posted by mattdds on August 25, 2003, at 15:03:56
In reply to Re: rTMS sucess, posted by Psychquackery on August 25, 2003, at 14:11:33
>>Matt, I find it VERY skeptical that you had "severe" depression
I'm confused here. Do you mean to imply that I'm lying or somehow "imagined" the whole thing? Why would I want to feign these symptoms?
>>That doesnt jibe with the kinds of people who have real depression.
Oh, I must have had the "fake" kind then? Again, my HAM-D and BDI scores were off the charts! I don't know how else to measure depression than by the same methods that are used to study depression in clinical research (yes, even the highly esteemed ECT). Do you? You should publish it and win the Nobel Prize! If you have some special knowledge, please share it with the rest of us here, because we could all benefit from this great diagnostic tool. Perhaps we are *all* just "faking it", since the majority of us didn't receive ECT?
>>Severe depression is the kind of depression that causes severe insomnia, severe weight loss without trying, severe cognition decline and oftentimes is accompanied by high blood cortisol levels. It causes chronic disability.
I'm quite familiar with the definition of severe depression. I experienced ALL the things you mentioned. Weight loss? How about going from 175 to 139 in less than 6 months (I'm not a small guy, at 139 I looked like a skeleton). And no, this wasn't the Atkins diet, I just couldn't get myself to eat. I had severe insomnia, and the times that I did sleep I was dreaming about being in bloody wars and other creepy things. And yes, I had hypercortisolemia too, and failed to suppress with the dexamethasone test. At one point I was referred to an endocrinologist to be evaluated for Cushing's syndrome, and pheochromocytoma. I had an intense, constant malaise, and was convinced I was dying of some strange illness (delusions?). Furthermore, my sister has experienced the same symptoms, suggesting a genetic or familial disposition.
Tell me, Igor. Why would I waste my time making these things up?
>>Severe depression fixed by CBT and klonopin? LOL HAH! You gotta be joking here old boy.
First of all, it seems unbelievably cruel and insensitive that you would laugh at me and belittle my suffering as you did, and accuse me of lying. And I'm not joking. There is good science that has been done that CBT works well for severe depression. Clonazepam was for Panic Disorder, which was comorbid with depression. I may be wrong, but I'm not aware that ECT does much for panic. So what's so odd about clonazepam working for panic disorder?
I find 2 things very disturbing. First, that you continuously minimize other people's suffering if they required anything less than ECT, rather than showing compassion. Second, the narcissistic tone of all your posts. It's as if you think you're the only one suffering here, and that since only ECT worked for you, that is how it is for everyone else.
Matt
Posted by crazychickuk on August 25, 2003, at 15:54:26
In reply to pathetic ?, posted by linkadge on August 25, 2003, at 13:17:21
ok this may be sill but can someone tell me what is this ?
Posted by Psychquackery on August 25, 2003, at 17:02:38
In reply to The depression competition , posted by linkadge on August 25, 2003, at 14:48:11
First of all I would like to say that at one time years ago I was just as enthusiastic about rTMS as some of you are. When I did it, back in 1999, it wsa being touted as a possible "replacement" for ECT. Basically ECT without a convulsion, without electricity, without anesthesthia, etc. Boy did that sound good to me. So I did it. And it did have a little AD effect but nothing remotely what was needed. In short it pooped out just like the antidepressants did. In fact, I thought plain old Effexor XR had more antidepressant effect than rTMS did.
Several of the workers at the rTMS site made some offhand comments to me about "rTMS not working good" and "Id still need ECT." Well at the time I blew that off but over time I thought about it. I wasnt getting any better.
Those rTMS researcher people know rTMS doesnt work good. They know it. Yet they continue to keep pushing it. They keep pushing it as some sort of possible futuristic replacement for ECT. Thats bull. It will never achieve the efficacy of ECT.
You tell me how something that only stimulates the outer cortex of the brain is going to significantly help severe depression, much less treatment resistant depression?!? I will tell you...it wont. And the latest article by Dr. Mark George in Scientific American even admits this shortcoming of rTMS.
I am just acting as a backstop for all the bad rumors and misinformation on the Internet regarding treatments for major depression. Magnets have been touted as a cure for everything at one time or another and frequently been associated with quackery. Unfortunately, I believe rTMS will go down in history as another aberration in psychiatric experiments...as another psychiatric quackery tool. Psychiatry by its very nature is full of quackery...the whole field has been heavily associated with quackery since its inception.
ECT on the other hand has been proven to clinically work. Thats my point. I am concerned naiive individuals may attempt to do rTMS and waste valuable time and money when they should really be biting the bullet and doing ECT.
ECT might not be as palatable but it DOES work. rTMS does NOT work. The studies show this.
Igor
Posted by BarbaraCat on August 25, 2003, at 17:25:04
In reply to Re: Explain this, posted by Psychquackery on August 25, 2003, at 17:02:38
Dear Igor,
You're the most enthusiastic proponent of ECT I've ever come across. Not everyone has had the positive experience as you, at least from the posts on this board. Could you please give us your experiences of it? How many treatments you had? Did you experience any memory loss or other negative effects? Did you have prior anxiety that was helped by it? How and when did you know it helped you? How long did/have the positive effects last?I think we're all looking for something that will help us. Maybe stimulating the outer cortex is very helpful in some kinds of depression and not in others or with some people and not others. You never know how someone will react to anything. The idea of ECT intrigues me but of course the possibility of memory loss and other dangerous outcomes is frightening. The idea of rTMS also intrigues me mainly because of the supposed lack of these serious side effects. It sounds pretty benign and if it helps, great, but I certainly wouldn't be so naive as to pin all my hopes on it. I'd say the majority of us here feel the same way.
At this point, ECT still has that scariness to it that may not be warranted with the new methods of treatment. It would help all of us if you could weigh the pros and cons of ECT that you experienced along with your experience of other meds/methods, your diagnosis, etc. You'll be providing excellent info for us. Thanks. - BarbaraCat
Posted by Caleb462 on August 25, 2003, at 17:42:49
In reply to Re: Explain this » Psychquackery, posted by BarbaraCat on August 25, 2003, at 17:25:04
We get your point.
But trust me, if you are trying to be a proponent for ECT, your bad attitude is NOT helping one bit. I'd expect you'll be getting a warning from Dr. Bob anytime now...
Posted by linkadge on August 25, 2003, at 18:00:59
In reply to Psychquackery, posted by Caleb462 on August 25, 2003, at 17:42:49
You cannot say that rTMS doesn't work,
you see I could just as easily say that
ECT does not work.
You must understand that the 'science' behind
these treatments is really secondary to
their effect. All of the drugs, and other
AD treatments were made before the 'science'
behind them was understood. And yes, even
ECT was used before anyone knew what the heck it did for the depressed brain.
Anyhow, can you see how you are perhaps being
a little dogmatic. I mean even the scientist
who are proposing these mechanisms aren't as
assertive as you seem to be.
I mean all you can really say is that
rTMS didn't work for you. You don't really
know how it effects others. And if you
think you have some sort of telepathic power
that enables you to sense what others are sensing
then I'd say there is a little more wrong
on your side of the coin - no offense.
Linkadge
Posted by Psychquackery on August 25, 2003, at 18:33:47
In reply to Re: Psychquackery, posted by linkadge on August 25, 2003, at 18:00:59
> You cannot say that rTMS doesn't work,
> you see I could just as easily say that
> ECT does not work.
>
>
> You must understand that the 'science' behind
> these treatments is really secondary to
> their effect. All of the drugs, and other
> AD treatments were made before the 'science'
> behind them was understood. And yes, even
> ECT was used before anyone knew what the heck it did for the depressed brain.
>
>
> Anyhow, can you see how you are perhaps being
> a little dogmatic. I mean even the scientist
> who are proposing these mechanisms aren't as
> assertive as you seem to be.
>
>
> I mean all you can really say is that
> rTMS didn't work for you. You don't really
> know how it effects others. And if you
> think you have some sort of telepathic power
> that enables you to sense what others are sensing
> then I'd say there is a little more wrong
> on your side of the coin - no offense.
>
>
> Linkadge
>
>
>
>
>
>Linkadge, rTMS DOES NOT work across the majority of people with severe depression! The studies done by rTMS researchers conclude that a meek antidepressant effect is there, but its not "clinically" relevant." Do you know what "clinically relevant" means? It means that its not strong enough to be considered a real tool for major depression. Its fine for the lab and whatnot, but for clinical use...say in a hospital on severely depressed inpatients it doesnt cut the mustard. The FDA has refused to approve it for depression and they have tried to get it approved at least once for depression that I know of. The FDA wont let it go thru as of yet. I predict it will never get FDA approved because I dont believe it will ever be proven to work good enough to be clinically relevant.
Furthermore, this new article in Scientific American, written by none other than famous rTMS researcher Mark George, does not say rTMS is effective for depression. Do you know who Mark George is Linkadge? He is probably the most famous rTMS researcher in North America. He has some very good credentials. And even he is now saying rTMS isnt very effective for severe depression.
I have gotten the impression you are in Canada and I know rTMS is already approved there. Things are approved faster in Canada. VNS is already approved there as well for refractory depression. Either they must do things differently up there or you must have some pushover people in the Canadian equivalent of the FDA.
The science behind it is everything and the science behind rTMS is weak. It sounds good on paper, but in the real world it barely works.
As a final note if you had rTMS and it worked so great, why are you posting on psychobabble? If it worked good this ought to be the last place you should be hanging out. If its legal in Canada, why are you having to construct your own rTMS machine...an act of desperation in my opinion.
Igor
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 25, 2003, at 19:43:18
In reply to Re: rTMS sucess » Psychquackery, posted by mattdds on August 25, 2003, at 15:03:56
> I the narcissistic tone of all your posts.
Please respect the views of others even if you think they're wrong and be sensitive to their feelings even if yours are hurt. Please don't post anything that could lead them to feel accused or put down. Thanks,
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 25, 2003, at 19:45:48
In reply to Re: rTMS sucess, posted by Psychquackery on August 25, 2003, at 12:39:38
> Are you a coward? Homemade rTMS is hitting rock bottom...pretty pathetic.
Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down. The last time you were blocked, it was for 2 weeks, so this time, it's for 6.
Bob
PS: Follow-ups regarding posting policies, and complaints about posts, should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration; otherwise, they may be deleted.
Posted by stjames on August 25, 2003, at 20:16:36
In reply to Psychquackery, posted by Caleb462 on August 25, 2003, at 17:42:49
> But trust me, if you are trying to be a proponent for ECT, your bad attitude is NOT helping one bit.
My thoughts, also. I can't help but wonder
if ECT is so great for this person could it also
play a part their recient behavior on this list.
If one is trying to prove that a treatment is effective, consider that some my draw conclusions
based on their behavior here.
Posted by Larry Hoover on August 25, 2003, at 22:13:09
In reply to Re: blocked for 6 weeks » Psychquackery, posted by Dr. Bob on August 25, 2003, at 19:45:48
Posted by linkadge on August 26, 2003, at 7:25:18
In reply to Re: blocked for 6 weeks...thanks! (nm) » Dr. Bob, posted by Larry Hoover on August 25, 2003, at 22:13:09
First off, for anyone to say that a treatment which is only in its stage of infancy (rTMS)
is not effective, sounds kind of silly to me.You can say it's not effective at say 15hz or
perhaps not effective at this coil strength
etc. But to trash the whole thing because
of some failures doesn't make sense.For instance, there is a group of scientist that
think the coil should be placed right at the
top of the spine, around the thalymus (back of head, after all these are the 'deeper routed' structures, and where new brain cells originate.Anyhow, these are just all the ideas that have not yet been tested, and how can you trash something that has not yet been fully tested.
Personally I am interested in any treatment that performs better than the placebo. I think it is worth further investigation.
Linkadge
Posted by rod on August 26, 2003, at 15:09:40
In reply to rTMS sucess, posted by linkadge on August 24, 2003, at 11:51:34
The US Patent Office has lots of goodies. just for information purpose... just in case you want to know how they look from inside...
And if you want to buy one ;-)
http://www.neuronetics.com/
http://www.magstim.com/
enjoyRoland
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 26, 2003, at 23:35:54
In reply to General comments, posted by linkadge on August 26, 2003, at 7:25:18
> to say that a treatment which is only in its stage of infancy (rTMS) is not effective, sounds kind of silly to me.
Keeping in mind that the idea here is not to post anything that could lead others to feel put down, could you please rephrase that? Thanks,
Bob
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Medication | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.