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   First the paragraph was too long and was trimmed down and a study removed  Then theres an argument that the two studies dont directly relate to one another and shouldnt therefore be in the same paragraph even though its 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  Then an argument that this mouse study should only be a minor footnote that no one will read even though the reason its there is to provide an example that yes there IS evidence  Then an attack is made on the design of the study apparently suggesting that it isnt evidence because of the mouse strain chosen which I disagree with and regardless its not a wiki editors place to challenge the mouse strain choice of expert neuroscientists who make this stuff their lifes work  its their study Moreover it isnt 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  Then the claim is made that the mouse study struggles to support the paragraph  Then the mouse study is called trivial until its replicated even though again it was added as an example that YES there is evidence not because of overriding importance  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 wellknown MD who has written a book on the topic and a recent comprehensive review of the literature citing close to  references and finding numerous evidence of brain damage in animals  Then Breggin is personally attacked apparently suggesting that his published review isnt good enough to disprove the no evidence in recent reviews claim because hes not a reliable source I also point out that there are other reviews finding evidence including one done in the Russian mouse study  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 its argued that thats not the way that science works and several studies also can mean squat   Then its argued I cant 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  etc   In addition to this its 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