Rebutting Read, Again: Commentary in Psychological Medicine

 Out on PubMed, from authors in the UK and Ireland, is this commentary:

ECT is evidence-based - a commentary on depression: why drugs and electricity are not the answer.

Meechan CF, Laws KR, Young AH, McLoughlin DM, Jauhar S.Psychol Med. 2022 Jun 8:1-3. doi: 10.1017/S003329172200085X. Online ahead of print. PMID: 35674232 
The pdf is here.And the full commentary is here:

Rebutting Read and Moncrieff is a dirty job, but someone's gotta do it, and Meechan and colleagues do it very well. This point-by-point rebuttal is well-crafted and authoritative. 
It still defies explanation that reputable medical journals continue to publish Read and colleagues' diatribes. With hope that the back-and-forth ends here, I recommend a full and careful read (small "r") of the above (~8 mins) to all ECT healthcare personnel.
Kudos to the authors for setting the record straight.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

ECT vs Ketamine: NEJM Article Sets Up False Equivalency

RUL ECT vs Low Amplitude Seizure Therapy (LAP-ST)

ECT For Children at a University Hospital: New Study in JECT