"

Hi. The issue here is very simple.  The article currently states there is ""NO"" evidence that ECT causes brain damage in humans or animals.  The article also states that there are ""NO"" recent reviews that found such evidence.  Both of these claims in the article have been proven to be grossly incorrect. Yet a paragraph is devoted to it.  Because such fallacious claims are made often however, a paragraph was written pointing out an example of a mouse study pointing to the contrary, and also cited a new study that found that ECT compromises normal cerbral blood flow in humans, possible evidence pointing to brain dysfunction.  The information is sound, supported, and appropriate given the subheading and the preceding paragraph that promotes gross misstatements of fact by saying that there is ""NO"" evidence of brain damage in humans or animals, and ""NO"" modern reviews pointing to such evidence. (And yes, there are reviews, as has been proven.)   

The progression of arguments to the contrary here is quite odd and revealing:

1) First the paragraph was too long and was trimmed down and a study removed.
2) Then there's an argument that the two studies don't directly relate to one another and shouldn't therefore be in the same paragraph, even though it's abundantly obvious why they are (to contradict previous paragraph finding ""NO"" evidence in humans or animals, and provide an example of study finding brain damage in mice, and an example study finding compromised, abnormal cerebral blood flow in humans)
3) Then an argument that this mouse study should only be a minor footnote that no one will read (even though the reason it's there is to provide an example that yes, there IS evidence)
4) Then an attack is made on the design of the study, apparently suggesting that it isn't evidence because of the mouse strain chosen. (which I disagree with, and regardless it's not a wiki editor's place to challenge the mouse strain choice of expert neuroscientists who make this stuff their life's work  it's their study. Moreover, it isn't the superiority of the study that got it here, it was listed as an ""example"" that YES THERE IS EVIDENCE IN ANIMAL MODELS OF BRAIN DAMAGE).
5) Then the claim is made that the mouse study struggles to support the paragraph.
6) Then the mouse study is called trivial until it's replicated (even though again it was added as an ""example"" that YES, there is evidence, not because of overriding importance)
7) Then I pointed out in the talk page that one of the ""NO"" evidence claims made in the preceding paragraph in the article is that there are no modern reviews finding evidence of brain damage. I proved this claim to be false, and cited to Peter Breggin, a very well-known MD who has written a book on the topic and a recent comprehensive review of the literature citing close to 200 references and finding numerous evidence of brain damage in animals.
8) Then Breggin is personally attacked, apparently suggesting that his published review isn't good enough to disprove the ""no evidence in recent reviews"" claim, because he's not a ""reliable source."" (I also point out that there are other reviews finding evidence, including one done in the Russian mouse study).
9) Then in response to me writing that there there either IS evidence of brain damage in animals or humans or there is not, and that a single study stating that brain damage was found in a modern study can defeat the harsh claim of ""NO"" evidence of brain damage in animals, it's argued that ""that's not the way that science works"", and ""several studies also can mean squat"". 
10) Then it's argued I can't negate ""secondary"" sources that found no evidence of brain damage in animals or humans with direct ""primary"" sources of published experimental studies which found such damage as part of their experiment. (This is not to mention that there are also other published reviews finding evidence of brain damage in others' work).
11) etc.

In addition to this, it's claimed that this single paragraph briefly showing a couple studies pointing to possible adverse effects (the subheading IS Adverse Effects, btw), violates the Wikipedia policy of undue weight.  This is incredibly strange as the paragraph immediately before the new paragraph is entirely devoted to multiple claims of ""No evidence"" of braind damge in humans OR animals.  If a paragraph can be devoted to ""No evidence"" stating untruths, then one can and should be added afterwards to give a couple of examples of this evidence which is claimed not to exist. 

Of course, the real problem here is the paragraph boldly asserting ""NO EVIDENCE"" with regard to studies in humans OR animals of brain damage.  This has been proven to be false. The paragraph also asserts that ""NO"" mo