02-05-2013, 06:30 PM
I've actually never read a Merck study. I have read MANY studies conducted by research universities, however.
Electroneurophysiology is an interesting field. I work with the last institution in Washington State that was still using ElectroShock therapy for management of Depression and Anxiety. The records of treatment are above reproach, it was effective, there were very few side effects, and patients recovery was remarkably efficient in comparisons to medication, talk therapy, etc.
And yet, insurance would no longer pay for it, the State would no longer pay for it, and people themselves refused. I was able to actually watch multiple procedures in the mid 90's, and the patients all were very happy with the results.
You are proposing that a University did a study with profound medical implications, and now is suppressing that study? What would be their reasoning? A Doctor who found a better mousetrap for treatment of mental health would OWN the industry, since treatment of mental issues is so inconsistent. He wouldn't need Pharma money, because he could write his own check. And the institution that employed him would never need big Pharma money again!
My guess; that the peer review process found some rather gaping holes in the theory. I don't know a single MD Psychiatrist who would not love a chance at helping their patients any way possible. They ALL, to a man, recognize the weaknesses in current therapy.
Electroneurophysiology is an interesting field. I work with the last institution in Washington State that was still using ElectroShock therapy for management of Depression and Anxiety. The records of treatment are above reproach, it was effective, there were very few side effects, and patients recovery was remarkably efficient in comparisons to medication, talk therapy, etc.
And yet, insurance would no longer pay for it, the State would no longer pay for it, and people themselves refused. I was able to actually watch multiple procedures in the mid 90's, and the patients all were very happy with the results.
You are proposing that a University did a study with profound medical implications, and now is suppressing that study? What would be their reasoning? A Doctor who found a better mousetrap for treatment of mental health would OWN the industry, since treatment of mental issues is so inconsistent. He wouldn't need Pharma money, because he could write his own check. And the institution that employed him would never need big Pharma money again!
My guess; that the peer review process found some rather gaping holes in the theory. I don't know a single MD Psychiatrist who would not love a chance at helping their patients any way possible. They ALL, to a man, recognize the weaknesses in current therapy.
You seek escape from pain. We seek the achievement of happiness. You exist for the sake of avoiding punishment. We exist for the sake of earning rewards. Threats will not make us function; fear is not our incentive. It is not death that we wish to avoid, but life that we wish to live. - John Galt