Talk:Bipolar disorder/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

A note from the frontline

EFS, speaking as someone with personal experience of bipolar disorder, I can assure you that it is very real, painful and disabling. It can, however, in many cases be controlled very effectively with the right drugs. It may take years to find the right drug combination; but when the right treatment is found, the results can be dramatic, with more or less complete remission of bipolar symptoms. (You may also be interested to know that before I found the right treatment, I was actively considering ECT as a treatment option if drugs failed to work; and, yes, I know about the side-effects of ECT in great detail.)

In my opinion, your efforts to "bring truth to the mentally ill and their families" are not only unhelpful and misleading, they risk harming people by preventing them from seeking effective medical help. -- Karada 08:31, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure anecdotal evidence is that helpful; I have my own anecdotal evidence I could use to argue that psychiatric treatment of bipolar disorder harms more than it helps. I'd say we should probably stick to summarizing the (very large) debate from all sides. --Delirium 08:33, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

I agree, not all treatment is effective, and everyone's experience is different, so I can speak only for myself. I found both depakote and lithium quite ineffective, and the side-effects of each were seriously unpleasant. However, I'm now stabilized on lamotrigine, which -- quite suddenly and to a quite extraordinary degree -- stopped my previously treatment-resistant ultrarapid cycling dead in its tracks. What's more, I am stabilized "above the waterline", without any trace of lingering depression, or any progression to hypomania. Note: this is my personal experience only, and is not to be taken as medical advice, medical treatment should only be undertaken under the supervision of a properly qualified physician.

I also agree with you that this article should not be based on anecdotal reports, and we should stick to reporting documented information in an NPOV style. However, NPOV does not mean giving equal weight to all viewpoints; the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence for the physical reality of bipolar disorder certainly means that the mainstream account of bipolar disorder should be the main narrative in this article, with anti-psychiatry given its place as a dissenting view (after all, it has its own article where its arguments are expressed at length). However, I am more than pleased to enter into dialogue with EFS here, both from a personal viewpoint, and also to discuss the evidence-based medical and scientific issues involved. (I studied biochemistry and biology in my undergraduate degree, so although I'm not holding myself out as a scientific expert, I do have some familiarity with the concepts involved.) -- Karada 09:00, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, it depends on who you're considering to be "mainstream". In mainstream psychiatry, the psychiatric orthodoxy is of course the mainstream view, pretty much by definition. In mainstream psychology, there is a wider range of views on what precisely bipolar disorder is, and what should be done about it. In particular, many psychologists would narrow the definitions, and diagnose much more conservatively (there are many who argue that only a portion of people diagnosed with "bipolar disorder" actually suffer from any scientifically-identifiable disorder). In mainstream philosophy of mind, there is also considerable disagreement over the status of mental illnesses in general, and bipolar disorder in particular. Not disagreement with the scientific conclusions in general, but more fundamental disagreement over labelling and treatment---e.g. even if there is some identifiable pattern of behavior, some philosophers of mind would object to labelling such patterns "mental illnesses", especially if the person in question is aware of them and doesn't wish to change them. Basically the argument over homosexuality, which the anti-psychiatry folks won, is still continuing everywhere else, in a fragmented sort of way.

As for what this article in particular should be like, I think it's currently biased a bit too much to the psychiatry viewpoint, e.g. the DSM orthodoxy. The DSM is accepted as gospel truth in psychiatry, but is not nearly as widely-respected by non-MD scientists (e.g. psychologists with PhDs in psychology). There is a range of politics involved in the psychiatry vs. psychology debate, but there are also more fundamental disagreements over the science involved (many scientists allege that the DSM is more of a consensus political document than a document that reflects any sort of solid science). --Delirium 09:31, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you about the DSM. The DSM lags some distance behind the latest research, and, as you say, there's an element of politics involved. I think the way forward, as in other fields of medicine, is the rigorous use of evidence-based medicine techniques. See this Google search for "evidence-based bipolar" for some examples. I do my best to keep up-to-date on the latest research and meta-reviews so I can be as informed as possible in working with my doc to guide my treatment. I also think that having experienced mental illness puts one in a privileged position with regard to assessing theories of mind; observing broken systems can give you an insight into how functioning systems work. -- Karada 10:25, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

By the way, I'm musing about illustrating this article with Image:Munch The Scream lithography.gif; several sources, including this [1], cite Munch as having been bipolar, and it's a pretty good evocation of some of the feelings associated with BP. -- Karada 11:53, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, I think the illustration might be hairy. Van Gogh is also cited by some as bipolar, and I think some might object if I were to illustrate this article with "Starry Night", although I think it's also appropriate in some ways. As for the philosophy of mind, you seem to be assuming that there is a scientific/objective way of defining "functioning". As the history of the psychiatry of homosexuality shows, I think it's fairly clear that saying "[x] is illness, and [y] is health" is a subjective decision. Science can tell us what a particular thing is, but it can't tell us if it's good or bad, unless you define "good" or "bad" to mean something specific, like "raises risk of suicide is bad" or "damages the traditional family is bad". --Delirium 12:31, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Feel free to delete the illustration if you want: I just thought it might help illustrate the article in a way that text could not.

On the illness/health front, the "good/bad" distinction reminds me of Ghostbusters:

Egon: There's something very important I forgot to tell you.

Venkman: What?

Egon: Don't cross the streams.

Venkman: Why?

Egon: It would be bad.

Venkman: I'm fuzzy on the whole good-bad thing. Whattya mean "bad?"

Egon: Try to imagine all life as you know it stopping instantaneously and every molecule in your body exploding at the speed of light.

Ray: Total protonic reversal....

Venkman: Right, that's bad...OK.. important safety tip. Thanks, Egon.

I think there is now pretty clear evidence of organic brain damage as part of bipolar disorder. Similarly, severe cognitive deficit is clearly a bad thing. As is the perception of severe anguish not associated with any external circumstances. I think those can all be described pretty unequivocably as "bad", for all normal values of "bad". Now, I'll not deny that there are good things there in the mix with the nasties, like heightened creativity, energy and sexuality in the hypomanic upswings. However, I'm fortunate in that my -- now effective -- treatment has left me with most of the good BP things intact whilst turning off most of the bad things. Yes, I hardly believed it at first, either. -- Karada 12:48, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I may have missed it, but I don't remember seeing studies confirming organic brain damage. I've seen a lot of stuff about relative levels of various neurotransmitters, and different MRI patterns, but that's not the same thing at all, since both of those things can be easily influenced by "mental" factors (giving people placebos visually changes their MRIs, for example, as obviously do things like exciting them). --Delirium 14:12, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

You might want to start off with this: [2]. and this: [3] -- Karada 15:31, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

---

Karada, I also have firsthand knowledge of bipolar disorder and I've also been diagnosed with schizophrenia and schizophrenic affective disorder. I would never deny that mental illness is real, frightening and disabling. In fact, bipolar disorder almost killed me before I got effective treatment. Drugs are only one option and it is negligent of psychiatry to ignore the work that legitimate researchers have done on alternatives. I'm sorry you find my work unhelpful and misleading. Others have told me I've profoundly changed their lives for the better. And if I'm doing ANYTHING to steer people away from biomedical psychiatry, then that's the biggest compliment you could ever have given me so thank you. As for the pretty clear evidence of organic brain damage, let's hear it. What's the evidence? -- EFS

Well, here are a few references on the correlations between various types of depression and brain shrinkage and/or changes in function: see [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]: and in borderline personality disorder: [9]. And here's a reference on brain metabolites and bipolar disorder: [10]. -- Karada 15:19, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Delirium, thanks for your post. Many people have in fact been harmed more than helped by psychiatry. Many have been killed and many suffered a worse fate: a lifelong sentence of a psychiatric label, stigma, government housing, an agreement with psychiatry that their brains are diseased, that they can't be normal, that they can't live happy and productive lives. -- EFS

---

Karada, correlations don't equal cause and effect. Nobody would argue there aren't correlations between various brain chemicals and mental illnesses. The issue is: How do we determine whether chemical imbalances cause the mental illness or the other way around? There is lots of good research out there showing that environmental changes and psychotherapy have positive effects on brain chemicals. Think of it this way, if it helps: Do you believe adrenaline causes fear? Because, using this analogy, biomedical psychiatry would want to treat the excessive level of adrenaline, whereas the anti-psychiatry movement would prefer to remove the person from danger. It is dangerous and expensive (in every sense of the word) to ignore the causes of mental illness and focus merely on the symptoms. -- EFS

---

Correlation between A and B can imply:

• mere coincidence (but this becomes less likely as the number of coincidences gets greater)
• that A causes B
• that B causes A
• that A and B share a common cause

Modern research is finding more and more correlations between bipolar disorder and various forms of cognitive, emotional and biochemical phenomena. As it becomes less likely that these correlations are mere coincidence, it becomes more likely that one or more of the three lower explanations may be true. What the actual explanation for bipolar disorder remains to be seen, but the fact that, for example, some people with a different version of a serotonin transporter gene, are much more likely to become depressed, is highly suggestive of at least a partial biochemical explanation for bipolar disorder. Similarly, the well-known kindling effect also strongly suggests that stress plays a significant part in the process. As a matter of interest, what do you think causes bipolar disorder? -- Karada 22:43, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

---

Karada, your simplistic and childish "analysis" is utterly out of place here. We hear a lot about serotonin pathways but that is only one player in brain chemistry. Psychiatry hasn't even determined what "A" and "B" are here. They don't know what chemicals are critical, nor can they agree on what symptoms constitute bipolar disorder or any other mental illness. "Modern research," as you put it, has pretty much focused on semi-measurable biochemical phenomena. If they actually did care about cognitive, emotional and environmental factors, we wouldn't be having this argument. And you really didn't read what I said. Who knows whether serotonin and bipolar disorder or causally linked? Psychiatrists don't. The basis for SSRI type antidepressants is the theory that low serotonin equals depression. But that flies in the face of a lot of evidence. Many suicide victims are later found to have EXCESSIVE levels of serotonin. Suppose they find down the road that a mutated serotonin transporter gene makes a person 50% more likely to become bipolar. Would it follow that serotonin is the major player in bipolar? No, it would not. And as for stress playing a part in illness, of course it does. MOST illnesses are more problematic when people are under stress. Uh, that's not news. I don't think there is a single cause for bipolar disorder or any other mental illness. The quest to find a simple chemical answer for the problem of living is futile.

Cease fire?

As someone who has not yet been diagnosed with bipolar disorder and is actively researching it before seeking help I would like to ask that we please stop all this POV fighting on both sides. Wikipedia is not the place for point of view no-matter-what. It is near impossible to find unbiased information when both sides edit eachothers edits mercilessly at the drop of a hat. Even more so when it's done a dozen times in the space of a weekend. Please take extreme care to keep everything in context, cite all assertions, and take extreme pains not to introduce your own point of view into the article. A good policy is to post your ideas in discussion before making an edit so you can get feedback. Another is, if in doubt, don't post it!

What is good for one person is not good for everyone. If you have evidence of a cause or harmful side effect by all means cite it and add it. Just make sure it doesn't have a slant. If you wish to make your opinion known there are innumerable forums for that out on the net, this is simply not the place. Wikipedia exists to provide a repository for unbiased knowledge, not a battleground between differing points of view.

I would love to be able to look at this article as a reference of what research has been done on BD, what its symptoms officially are, and current treatments that are in use. Assertions that one method is better or worse than another outside the scope of documented research only obfuscate the truth and pollute the article regardless of which point of view they are, for OR against the issue. Can't we all just get along and let the wiki do what it's supposed to do? --KrisWood 14:13, 2 Aug 2005

Ok I'm going to follow my own advice and propose some edits here, let's see if we can get everyone to agree some some things before wantonly editing the article:

The third paragraph has been butchered completely and is gramaticly incorrect in that the first sentence is no longer supported by the rest of the paragraph:

"Bipolar disorder, as with all mental disorders, is now generally considered to be a biochemical disorder of the brain and its associated hormonal systems. There is no definitive biochemical test for the disorder, nor is there any test for its absence, although there has been some success in identifying blood flow patterns in the brain using brain imaging. Critics (including a minority of psychiatrists and scientists) assert that there is no compelling scientific evidence for the biochemical imbalance theory for bipolar disorder or any other mental illness, and point to the well-established link between pharmaceutical manufacturers and the rise of psychiatric diagnoses in North America."

Proposed edit:

"Bipolar disorder is now generally considered by the psychiatric community to be a biochemical disorder of the brain and its associated hormonal systems. Without proper treatment bipolar disorder can effect families, friendships, careers, and even lives. Bipolar disorder can be so profoundly distressing for those that suffer from it that tragically, roughly 15% of people with bipolar disorder commit suicide.

There is no definitive biochemical test for the disorder, nor is there any test for its absence, although there has been some success in identifying blood flow patterns in the brain using brain imaging. Critics assert that there is no compelling scientific evidence for the biochemical imbalance theory for bipolar disorder or any other mental illness, and implicate a link between pharmaceutical manufacturers and the rise of psychiatric diagnoses in North America."

I had to dig through old edits to get some useful information for the first part of the paragraph. The second part really stood on its own. A few minor changes to that paragraph were made to adjust POV back to neutral; "(including a minority of psychiatrists and scientists)" can be taken as a slant in either direction, and is inferred by the word "Critics" and context anyway. The phrase "and point to the well-established link between pharmaceutical manufacturers" is extremely slanted as well as uncited. I'm not saying this is not an acceptable viewpoint, I'm saying that if you want this viewpoint to be represented you should cite which link you are referring to and its documented source as well as choosing an more anti-inflammatory wording. I chose "and implicate a link between pharmaceutical manufacturers" because it means the same thing without a need for citation until people start questioning exactly which critics and which links are in question here.

Perhaps a split or some sort of arbitration from higher up is required here? I think an article on this anti-psychiatry movement in general might be a better place for many of the more unbiased assertions rather than an article that is apparently supposed to be about the mainstream definition of bipolar disorder. --KrisWood 15:03, 2 Aug 2005

Not all critics of the biochemical imbalance theory are believers in conspiracy theories, so you might want to decouple "critics assert..." from "some anti-psychiatry campaigners believe...". Still, I like the general tone of what you are proposing. NPOV is the only way forward, but as the policy article suggests, NPOV is not the same as giving equal weight to all opinions: minority and fringe beliefs can still be labeled as such, mentioned in passing, and dealt with fully in their own articles. -- Karada 22:32, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

---

Karada, your paragraph above is a perfect example of how POV your own contributions are. Questioning the "science" of psychiatry and acknowledging the devastating harm that it has caused does not make one a conspiracy theorist. Psychiatry has some very serious issues and probably the most important one is that there is no objective diagnostic test for any of these so-called brain disorders. Despite this lack of solid science, people across North America are incarcerated and force drugged and electroshocked. In response to this sorry state of affairs, the Mad Movement was born. We are not "campaigners" nor do we hold "fringe beliefs." Why do you have to be so offensive and so hypocritical? You say "NPOV is the only way forward" but what you actually appear to mean is only pro-psychiatry's bizarre and distorted version of NPOV. -- Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC

---

KrisWood, if you're looking for mainstream psychiatry stuff, I really think you should go right to the websites of organizations like Canada Mental Health or National Alliance for the Mentally Ill. There are tons of mainstream psychiatry organizations. I'm alarmed that you'd choose to inform yourself via Wikipedia on such an important issue to you. But if you're really interested in the truth about psychiatry, check out MindFreedom.org or PsychRights.org. Both of these organizations are devoted to getting people REAL help.

Karada, your condescending "analysis" on cause and effect was a big waste of time. Please just consider what I said because it's the truth -- brain chemical imbalances may be caused BY or may be a cause OF mental illness. Mainstream psychiatry has yet to determine the chemical make-up of a "healthy" brain, let alone try to peg various diagnoses to varying chemical levels. The chemical imbalance theory is just that -- a THEORY. Might be true, might not be true, yet to be proven. Based on everything out there right at this moment, it looks like it's more likely NOT to be true.

There have been recent articles in the New Yorker and in Mother Jones on the problem of Big Pharma financing the FDA and effectively running medicine. That's not conspiracy theory. Read about the Texas Medication Algorithm Project and associated flowcharts. You will see that in virtually every case, the most expensive medicines are tried first. Many of the atypical antipsychotics have not been around long enough to be tested for safety. It's in psychiatry's interests to convince people that they have a brain disease that requires lifelong treatment. I reject that point of view and I am joined by thousands of people in that rejection. If mental illness were TRULY a chemical issue, how would it be possible for it to be cured WITHOUT chemicals? Yet thousands of us do it -- we turn our backs on psychiatry and find our own way to health. Why is that so threatening to you? The World Health Organization reports that psychiatric treatment does more harm than good. Do you believe the WHO is also a victim of conspiracy theory? That must be one hell of a conspiracy.

As to your question of what causes bipolar disorder, your question is unanswerable. Bipolar disorder, just like schizophrenia, is a huge spectrum of symptoms, ranging from trifling to life-threatening. I find it very humourous that you are asking for NPOV while you slyly refer to me as a conspiracy theorist. What is so threatening to you about anti-psychiatry that you can't just read the articles for yourself without exhibiting such obvious rage?

If you have a vested interest in believing in a chemical imbalance that cannot be proved, that's up to you. But I hope that at some point you get less personal and more discerning. Good luck and you're going to need it. -- EFS

Fascinating. An actual look at the TMAP algorithms and physician's manual for bipolar disorder [11] shows that the first-mentioned mood stabiliser recommended for bipolar disorder is good old lithium carbonate; the cheapest. non-proprietary. drug in the entire psychiatric pharmacopeia. Whichever branch you follow for bipolar, TMAP starts off with mood stabilization, and lithium is the first-mentioned mood stabilizer. Based on my reading of recent medical research, the choice of drugs looks pretty much what might be expected based on the results of recent clinical trials. Did you actually read the TMAP algorithm before you wrote your comments above? -- Karada 00:58, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

By the way, to the best of my knowledge, lamotrigine came off-patent in the UK in May 2005. Valproate is also available as a generic. -- Karada 01:02, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

---

Indeed I did. Keep researching TMAP (specifically, the new "atypical" antipsychotics), Karada, if you can't understand where the problem lies. And, generally, how do you feel about medicine via flowchart? -- EFS

---

Despite Karada's offensive comments, the anti-psychiatry movement includes many brilliant psychiatrists, other medical doctors, researchers, scientists, writers, activists and advocates. We are not a "fringe group." We represent a legitimate alternative to the oppression of psychiatry and we will eventually prevail. What you are laughably calling NPOV (mainstream psychiatry) is anything but. Mainstream psychiatry is a nasty, hurtful profit-driven industry. Psychiatry is a sham and forced psychiatry is a human rights violation. If Wikipedia users prefer to go with them, feel free. There are thousands of psychiatrists ready to welcome you, with their prescription pads at the ready. -- EFS

"Mainstream psychiatry is a nasty, hurtful profit-driven industry"? I'll have to tell that to my underpaid NHS psychiatrist. Now, I agree that the biochemical theories of bipolar disorder are only that, theories, until they can be demonstrated to be both falsifiable, and to pass tests that risk disproving them. We only report the majority view that most workers in the field believe that these theories are increasing likely to be true, whilst acknowledging that no proof exists, only (quite a lot of) suggestive evidence. A question: if demonstrable scientific proof (in the sense given above) was available for these theories, would you change your views at all? -- Karada 01:08, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I was referring to the entire field, not any particular psychiatrist. The majority in the field do indeed believe in the theory but that's thanks to the massive marketing power of the pharmaceutical industry. There is no compelling evidence for the chemical imbalance theory. If demonstrable scientific proof came along (and I don't think for a second that it will), that would certainly change my view on etiology. However, it would NOT make me support involuntary treatment. The issue of involuntary treatment is entirely separate from the issue of cause/treatment of mental illness. -- EFS

---

Ok ok, this seems to be getting carried away. I think both of you have adequitely made your positions on the topic known to yourselves and everyone else and have gone over to arguing with eachother over your viewpoints rather than discussing civilly what should or should not be in an unbiased article.

EFS, your comments seem more often than not to be intentionally inflammatory. Whether or not that's how you intend it that IS how you are coming accross. If you cannot post without insulting, belittling, or otherwise provoking a fight perhaps you should take your posts somewhere other than a repository of knowledge such as wikipedia where they might be better recieved. WP is not a platform for debate, it is a place to put documented and generally accepted knowledge. To assert that something which is not generally accepted is indeed fact requires some sort of substantiated proof, and furthermore should indeed be noted as a minority view.

Kadara, while your arguments do show sympathy to those who suffer from BD, they do seem to be egging EFS on and encouraging him to become a bit of a troll on the subject. Sometimes the best way to win a fight is to abstain from the fight itself, and let the agressor show his true nature where everyone can see it. Pushing back with more aggression seems to be adding fuel to the fire as it were.

Both of your views seem to equally biased, and if anything illustrate how clearly controversial this topic is. In such situations would it not be best to stick ENTIRELY with documented sources and the driest, most impartial wording possible in an effort to provide the most information possible with the least amount of spin? The goal of any article on WP should not be to steer a reader toward a conclusion, but rather to inform the reader of existing research so they can make their own conclusions.

If this argument, and the now absolute disarray of the article itself cannot be resolved peacefully and academicly, I again suggest that we seek arbitration from whatever higher powers be here at a WP. --KrisWood 03:48, 8 Aug 2005

Ok I did a little wandering around wikipedia and quite accidentally stumbled upon this lovely page which precisely illustrates my point: Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not. Specificly, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Any number of other rules and guidelines on that page and linked to from that page also come into play in this argument. The article is not about the good or evil of psychiatry as a whole, it's a collection of encyclopedic knowledge about a medical condition. I'm going to go find a template now for "this article needs to be cleaned up to adhere to a higher level of standards" or whatever it is and stick it at the top of the article. --KrisWood 04:47, 8 Aug 2005

KrisWood, thanks for your input, but I had a question about something that you posted:

"To assert that something which is not generally accepted is indeed fact requires some sort of substantiated proof, and furthermore should indeed be noted as a minority view."

Try looking at it another way. The generally accepted biochemical theory has no substantiated proof. That hasn't slowed down psychiatry from actively promoting it. The lack of scientific evidence behind this theory is a critical problem - psychiatry kills and maims, all based on an unproven theory. -- EFS

Yes but you are still preaching from your soapbox. Regardless of how right or wrong you are such communication of viewpoints does not belong in WP. Can you think of a way to show documented sources to back this up in direct relation to Bipolar Disorder? It's not what is said so much as how it's said. NPOV is a must, and is a golden rule of WP. -- Kris

No, actually, I'm not preaching -- just pointing out that simply because something is generally accepted does not make it true. I could certainly provide you with references to Internet resources that discuss the utter lack of evidence for the chemical imbalance theory, but I fear that you wouldn't consider those NPOV either. Pretty much what I'm hearing from you is that the only way to be NPOV is to follow the herd. Contrary to your assertion, this article (and much else on Wikipedia) is absolutely riddled with point of view. -- EFS

WP is not the place to argue that the orthodox view is false. It's not the place for arguing a point at all. You're bound to see WP as biased against your viewpoint, simply because the articles refuse to dismiss the biochemical imbalance theory as a myth. You'll notice that it doesn't dismiss your viewpoint either. It presents them both, with weight given according to how widely accepted the viewpoint is. That's NPOV. If you continue to feel that th article is biased, then the best plan is probably if we take it to arbitration or other external authority, as suggested above.-- ascorbic 06:47, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

WP also refuses to acknowledge the truth -- that there is no credible evidence for the biochemical imbalance theory. I agree that you haven't dismissed my viewpoint, however, I don't feel you've represented it fairly, either. Do you remember me being informed that electroshock wasn't as scientific a term as ECT? Good grief! Your definition of NPOV is absurd and inaccurate. True NPOV would be a presentation of the available facts with no regard at all as to how many people choose to ignore those facts. I'm not interested in arbitration as I'm satisfied with containing my comments in the "discussion" section rather than trying for equal weight in the actual article. -- EFS

I thought you were going to contain your POV to the talk page. Your recent edits were once again POV-pushing. Either leave the page alone, or go for arbitration. Please don't continue to add these slanted passages to the article. Thank you. --ascorbic 19:37, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

So your definition of "slanted" would be another way of saying "not in agreement with everybody else"? Okay, got it. I feel as an electroshock survivor, that I actually have more to contribute than anyone who doesn't know firsthand about this barbaric "treatment." I provided a great source and I've got the facts to back me up. What exactly is POV about my recent edit on the electroshock section? Your hypocrisy is astounding. -- EFS

No, my definition of slanted would include adding "cure" in scare quotes, and especially describing studies as "completely unsupported by an analysis of the facts". You cannot simply make this assertion. The fact that you believe that is is unsupported is not enough. The fact you provided a source is not enough. Even if it's true, it's not enough. It's a contentious topic, so you can't just dismiss the studies like that: you need to acknowledge both points of view. This is especially important as the opinion you're presenting is a minority view. Over and over you add your point of view as fact, and even if it is in the context of something like "critics say...", you will present it in a form such as "critics point out that this is not true". The problem I have is not with your point of view, it's with the way that you present it in the article. I would feel exactly the same if your view were the complete opposite, and you added something like "Critics of ECT claim that it causes long-term damage and offers little benefit to the patient, but these views are completely unsupported by clinical studies". Either way, it's one-sided. I'm not expecting you to be "in agreement with everybody else", I'm just asking that you don't present your POV in a way so as to dismiss all others. Yes, your experience of electroshock gives you an insight into it, but it's also clear that it makes it hard for you to remain neutral, as perhaps you're too involved - and angry. Either way, I've removed the section, as I don't think it's really useful to the article, and certainly not worth such disagreement. The treatment is relatively rare for bipolar, and the only content in there was not specific to its use for bipolar disorder, and belonged in the main ECT article if anywhere. --ascorbic 22:27, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Really not sure what you mean by "'cure' in scare quotes." The fact is that the mainstream studies are extremely flawed. If it's a contentious topic, then why is my material dismissed so easily but, as you say, opposing material can't just be dismissed because ... well, because it's a contentious topic. Do you not see the double standard here? The bulk of this article IS ALREADY one-sided and I'm trying to remedy that insofar as I am able. Much of the language within the article makes it very clear that dissenters must be non-scientific flakes. That is simply not the case. We've got some great doctors and researchers on our side. I agree that being an electroshock survivor adds an element of emotion that isn't helpful. On the other hand, when I read people saying that electroshock is harmless then it TAKES an electroshock survivor to point out the truth. Contrary to what you say above, electroshock is a very common treatment for both phases of bipolar disorder. You are doing me and the viewing public a great disservice. -- EFS

I have a question , call me stupid or whatever makes one feel better about my question , but it is a serious one . I , myself do not have any bipolar disorder , but a friend of mine does . I came to this site in prayers that I might find some help understanding how I could help her . I have , instead , experienced all these people fighting with one another instead of trying to help one another . My question , is the site built to give people the oppurtunity to share experiences in order to help one another or am I misled and is this site a place to act out bipolar behaviour by arguing with one another and running each others opinions down??????????? justme