The FDA wants to reclassify shock treatment machines as safe and effective.
Shock treatment “works” by causing brain damage. This is not a matter of controversy in psychiatry, indeed many shrinks consider brain damage to be theraputic for depression.
Shock is what you use when you want to neutralize someone but don’t want to deal with the hassle of killing them or disposing of their bodies. Medicine is an ideal cover for such political and domestic abuse crimes. People who think of themselves as humane and compassionate healers can be persuaded to run house current through other people’s brains at least as easily as they can be persuaded to tie down infants and cut off pieces of their genitals without even so much as providing pain relief. These predator drone people are everywhere.
Russian and german shrinks were no more robotic or barbaric than the typical american psychiatrist. And if this sadistic instrument of terror is unleashed for widespread use under color of medicine, there will literally be no place to hide. The damage is invisible, and it’s quick and cheap for insurance companies. But your innermost sanctum can be turned into a smoldering ruin. All your loved ones can fade into an amnesic fog. Precious memories and talents disappear. Thinking becomes difficult. Mind rape is a descriptive term. You can be made to wish you were dead, and to live your life as if you were.
The irony is that brain damage is linked to trauma, which is linked to PTSD, which is linked to depression, which is precisely the “diagnosis” for which shock has been most frequently used. Psychiatry is practicing munchausen by proxy for profit.
No corrupt predator government in history could resist the temptation to use shock as a political weapon. And the USA is no different, as any student of US foreign policy already knows well. The FDA is pushing hard for this precisely because the permanent government knows it’s an excellent tool of subjugation and control which will be needed under the coming crackdown.
Don’t think for a minute that it can’t happen here. Look around and see what has already happened since the permanent government did 9/11. The nightmare has already begun.
Dr. Peter Breggin on the brain damaging effects of shock:
Shock Device Safe As Eyeglasses? 89 Days to Say No
The electroshock device, the actual machine that is used to deliver shock treatment (electroconvulsive treatment/ECT), is currently a Class III device as categorized by the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act of 1976. The FD&C Act requires all medical devices to be placed into one of three categories: Class I (general controls); Class II (special controls); and Class III (premarket approval)” (FDA, 2015, p. 81,224i).
Under FDA standards, a medical device is placed into Class III when its risks and benefits have not been assessed to a degree that allows it to be placed into Class I or Class II, and thus there is potential that its risks outweigh its benefits. A Class III device is one that either was in existence prior to 1976 and is therefore referred to as a preamendments device, or if it has come onto the market since 1976 and its manufacturer claims it is similar to a pre-1976 device, it is referred to as a postamendments device. …
As discussed by Andre (2009) and the FDA (2015), over the decades there have been multiple attempts to down-classify the shock device to a Class II device, which would classify the shock device as safe and effective. This would put the shock device in the same category as eyeglasses or wheelchairs—other medical devices that are Class II, requiring “special controls.”
The most recent open comment period and meeting on the shock device was held in Gaithersberg, Maryland, January 27 – 28, 2011. Many people, including Dorothy Dundas, John Breeding, Loretta Wilson, Dan Fisher, and Vince Boehm on behalf of Leonard Roy Frank, testified about the horrors of shock and the immense damage it does to the physical body, mind, and spirit. At the 2011 hearings, I was privileged to stand with shock survivors as an ally, and someone who likely would have been shocked if not for the incredible work of the activists of the 1980s. I presented to the FDA an analysis of the comments of over 80 people, mostly shock survivors, who sent letters of opposition to the FDA via The Opal Projectiii. There is videoiv of people who were at the 2011 meeting, discussing afterward how important it was that the panel heard their testimonies, and how their testimonies informed the decisions of the panel.
According to the FDA (2015), the Neurological and Medical Devices Panel who heard the testimony and were given access to all of the research reached “consensus for recommending the device remain Class III for Schizophrenia, Bipolar manic states, Schizoaffective, and Schizophreniform disorder. The panel did not reach consensus on the classification of ECT for depression (unipolar and bipolar) and catatonia” (p. 81226v).
After nearly four years of silence, the FDA has the audacity to speak in a way that defies the calls of 80% of the respondents from the last time public comment was sought. 80% of the respondents were in oppositionvi to the down-classification of the shock machine that would classify the device as being as safe and effective as eyeglasses or wheelchairs (FDA, 2015, p. 13). FDA specifically stated:
“FDA received over 3,000 submissions to the docket, with the majority of respondents, approximately 80 percent, opposing reclassification of ECT. The majority of those opposing reclassification of ECT cited adverse events from ECT treatment as the basis for their opposition. The most common type of adverse event mentioned in the public docket were memory adverse events, followed by other cognitive complaints, brain damage, and death” (p.81226)….
The FDA is calling for comments on its plan to down-classify the shock device to a Class II device. Despite seeing limited evidence for any long-term benefits, the supposed short-term benefit—“(e.g. 3 months)” (p. 81228)—is grounds for this bold move that sets back human rights work. ….
It is also suggested in the document that since there was a meeting in 2011, they do not need to hold another meeting to hear from people wanting to discuss their testimony. …
However, not one person who was on the panel in 2011vii is on the panel now in 2015viii. Therefore, the whole idea that because they held a meeting in 2011 they do not need to hold a meeting in 2015 is ludicrous, since the panel that would make this decision is not the panel who made the recommendation to not down-classify the device in 2011 after the meeting. …