# Neuralizers



## PhotonGuy (Jan 19, 2019)

Neuralizers, those memory erasing devices from Men In Black as of right now are still pretend but they might be real someday. Imagine if they really did have stuff like that.
Scientists are a step closer to creating the memory eraser from “Men in Black”


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 19, 2019)

PhotonGuy said:


> Neuralizers, those memory erasing devices from Men In Black as of right now are still pretend but they might be real someday. Imagine if they really did have stuff like that.
> Scientists are a step closer to creating the memory eraser from “Men in Black”




Oh there has been a procedure for quite a while now that will make people lose their memories, it's a so called treatment for mental illness. it's called electroconvulsive therapy, look it up.


----------



## JR 137 (Jan 19, 2019)

PhotonGuy said:


> Neuralizers, those memory erasing devices from Men In Black as of right now are still pretend but they might be real someday. Imagine if they really did have stuff like that.
> Scientists are a step closer to creating the memory eraser from “Men in Black”


I think I got flashy-thinged several times in college. There’s quite a few nights I have no recollection of.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 20, 2019)

Tez3 said:


> Oh there has been a procedure for quite a while now that will make people lose their memories, it's a so called treatment for mental illness. it's called electroconvulsive therapy, look it up.


It's not a "so-called" treatment. It has clinical efficacy in some cases. It's not the same as it was decades ago, when higher currents (probably using the wrong electrical term here) were used. Retrograde amnesia is less of an issue than it was.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 20, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> It's not a "so-called" treatment. It has clinical efficacy in some cases. It's not the same as it was decades ago, when higher currents (probably using the wrong electrical term here) were used. Retrograde amnesia is less of an issue than it was.




It is still used in some countries as an instrument of torture, used without anaesthetic. According to MInd, the mental health charity here, memory loss is still a big issue.
_"This is the most important side effect of ECT, and the one which causes most concern._

_It is usually a short-term effect, and most people find their memories gradually return as they recover from ECT._

_However, for some people, memory loss can mean both losing personal memories, and having difficulty remembering new information. Some people have been so badly affected that they have lost key skills or knowledge, such as expertise needed to continue their professional work or career.
Longer term effects include:


apathy (loss of interest in things)
loss of creativity, drive and energy
difficulty concentrating
loss of emotional responses
difficulty learning new information"

_

It is a so called treatment because no one knows, still after all this time, how it works and the odds of it helping aren't huge. It's a last resort to be used, in the UK at east, only after everything else has.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 20, 2019)

Tez3 said:


> It is still used in some countries as an instrument of torture, used without anaesthetic. According to MInd, the mental health charity here, memory loss is still a big issue.
> _"This is the most important side effect of ECT, and the one which causes most concern._
> 
> _It is usually a short-term effect, and most people find their memories gradually return as they recover from ECT._
> ...


Where it is still performed without general anesthesia, and with higher current, the old issues still exist. It has a steady (though not entirely predictable) track record of helping where other treatments don't work, and of being highly effectacious for some individuals.

The exact mechanism isn't fully understood, though parts of it are much better understood than when it was more widely used (which says a lot about the early users).


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Jan 20, 2019)

Tez3 said:


> It is a so called treatment because no one knows, still after all this time, how it works and the odds of it helping aren't huge. It's a last resort to be used, in the UK at east, only after everything else has.



Just an FYI, this isn't entirely accurate.

First: It is a treatment. It is done in clinical settings to treat (among others) schizophrenia and severe depression.

Second: People don't know how it works, but there are hypotheses about it. That's how a lot of things in neuropsych work-the brain is too complicated to definitively state "this is what does it", but there are a couple well-studied ideas that likely contribute to it's effectiveness. Similarly, we don't know what definitively causes schizophrenia, but there are some well-studied ideas such as the dopamine hypothesis. It makes sense if the cause of a psychological disorder isn't known, neither are exactly why the treatment works.

Third: The odds of it helping are higher than most psycho-pharmaceuticals, when it comes to both schizophrenia and depression, and particularly is useful for people whom medications don't work for.

Fourth: The reason it is generally considered a last resort has nothing to do with it's efficacy as a treatment approach. It's a result of the side effects you mentioned, which are normally gone within six months, but not always. If they could find a way to prevent those side effects, and change the public's image about ECT, it would probably be used much more often.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 20, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> Where it is still performed without general anesthesia, and with higher current, the old issues still exist. It has a steady (though not entirely predictable) track record of helping where other treatments don't work, and of being highly effectacious for some individuals.
> 
> The exact mechanism isn't fully understood, though parts of it are much better understood than when it was more widely used (which says a lot about the early users).




Then you had better tell the psychiatrists at Britain's leading mental health charity they are wrong because that, as I said, is where the info is from. I have seen the effects on people who have had the treatment, they used it at the Military Psychiatric hospital here, I've seen it there and in the group of people with mental illnesses I used to volunteer with. 
The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence here recommends it is only used for severe depression that will not respond to other treatments, catatonia and mania, not schizophrenia. It also says there are memory issues. 'NICE' are a non departmental public body under the  Department of Health and Social Care.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 20, 2019)

Tez3 said:


> Then you had better tell the psychiatrists at Britain's leading mental health charity they are wrong because that, as I said, is where the info is from. I have seen the effects on people who have had the treatment, they used it at the Military Psychiatric hospital here, I've seen it there and in the group of people with mental illnesses I used to volunteer with.
> The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence here recommends it is only used for severe depression that will not respond to other treatments, catatonia and mania, not schizophrenia. It also says there are memory issues. 'NICE' are a non departmental public body under the  Department of Health and Social Care.


Nothing I said is in contradiction to the information you posted from them. I'm contradicting your categorization and implications.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 20, 2019)

Unless you have someone who has severe memory loss from ECT I guess you guys will still think it's wonderful, I will leave you to your opinions. It's on the rise in the USA with most use on females and the elderly, there's also no reputable studies that it actually is effective beyond four weeks and the suicide rate is high, look at Hemingway.


Btw it makes schizophrenia worse, hence why NICE say don't use it for that.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 20, 2019)

Tez3 said:


> Unless you have someone who has severe memory loss from ECT I guess you guys will still think it's wonderful, I will leave you to your opinions. It's on the rise in the USA with most use on females and the elderly, there's also no reputable studies that it actually is effective beyond four weeks and the suicide rate is high, look at Hemingway.
> 
> 
> Btw it makes schizophrenia worse, hence why NICE say don't use it for that.


So, your best example goes back to before current practices?

You know what, this isn't really worth the discussion. You believe what you do, and aren't likely to change your mind, nor to actually listen to what others believe (evidence your "wonderful" statement).


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Jan 20, 2019)

To the OP: I would freak out if I found out someone I knew had one of those. Unless I really trust that person's character, I would have a lot of trouble trusting their actions, simply by them owning that. In the same way I would not trust someone who had a supply of rohypnol.


----------



## skribs (Jan 20, 2019)

The older I get, the more I think neuralizers are real.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 21, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> So, your best example goes back to before current practices?
> 
> You know what, this isn't really worth the discussion. You believe what you do, and aren't likely to change your mind, nor to actually listen to what others believe (evidence your "wonderful" statement).




Sarcasm from someone who lives in a country where treatments and medicines are a business, great. The role of NICE here is to ensue we get value for money on the treatments and drugs that the NHS uses and we pay for as a people, so when they say ECT isn't worth the money paid for it because it is not an effective treatment for * just specific ones not including schizophrenia*, they have investigated thoroughly before making that decision. It is a literal last ditch effort for those whom everything else has failed and even then the effect last no longer than three to four weeks, hence the need for repeated 'treatment's and the side effects of memory loss. In the USA where the use of ECT is far more widespread than Europe it is not just used as a last resort but for many others mental conditions because of course it can be billed to patients, repeated treatments mean repeated bills. There is no unbiased proof coming from doctors who make money out of their profession.

"The evidence for the National Institute of Clinical Evidence's appraisal of electroconvulsive therapy was drawn from the two reviews commissioned by the Department of Health and a Cochrane review on electroconvulsive therapy in schizophrenia. The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) has recommended that electroconvulsive therapy *only be used to achieve rapid and short term improvement of severe symptoms, after an adequate trial of other treatments has proven ineffective or when the condition is considered to be potentially life threatening, in individuals with severe depressive disorders, catatonia, and a prolonged or severe manic episode*. *The institute was appropriately influenced by the review of patients' experiences* and the recommendations are clearly meant to restrict the use of the treatment. The Royal College of Psychiatrists appealed that the recommendations go beyond the evidence and will prevent patients who would benefit from the treatment from being able to receive it. *The appeal was rejected because the recommendations were considered to be sound in the face of uncertainty about long term adverse effects and the findings of the review of patients' experience."* 
 professor of epidemiological psychiatry. John Geddes.
Department of Psychiatry University of Oxford,


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 21, 2019)

Tez3 said:


> Sarcasm from someone who lives in a country where treatments and medicines are a business, great. The role of NICE here is to ensue we get value for money on the treatments and drugs that the NHS uses and we pay for as a people, so when they say ECT isn't worth the money paid for it because it is not an effective treatment for * just specific ones not including schizophrenia*, they have investigated thoroughly before making that decision. It is a literal last ditch effort for those whom everything else has failed and even then the effect last no longer than three to four weeks, hence the need for repeated 'treatment's and the side effects of memory loss. In the USA where the use of ECT is far more widespread than Europe it is not just used as a last resort but for many others mental conditions because of course it can be billed to patients, repeated treatments mean repeated bills. There is no unbiased proof coming from doctors who make money out of their profession.
> 
> "The evidence for the National Institute of Clinical Evidence's appraisal of electroconvulsive therapy was drawn from the two reviews commissioned by the Department of Health and a Cochrane review on electroconvulsive therapy in schizophrenia. The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) has recommended that electroconvulsive therapy *only be used to achieve rapid and short term improvement of severe symptoms, after an adequate trial of other treatments has proven ineffective or when the condition is considered to be potentially life threatening, in individuals with severe depressive disorders, catatonia, and a prolonged or severe manic episode*. *The institute was appropriately influenced by the review of patients' experiences* and the recommendations are clearly meant to restrict the use of the treatment. The Royal College of Psychiatrists appealed that the recommendations go beyond the evidence and will prevent patients who would benefit from the treatment from being able to receive it. *The appeal was rejected because the recommendations were considered to be sound in the face of uncertainty about long term adverse effects and the findings of the review of patients' experience."*
> professor of epidemiological psychiatry. John Geddes.
> Department of Psychiatry University of Oxford,


You're wandering, once again, into political territory.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 21, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> You're wandering, once again, into political territory.




The truth is political? Your country does not have social healthcare so you pay for treatment, we have free at point of use so of course your medical people are in business and ours aren't. It's quite simple and I'm surprised to see you now toe the political line now you're a mod, I suppose it's in the 'contract'. I was a mentor at one time, the owner decided he didn't like my, what he called, 'leftist' politics so binned me, so if I'm now abrasive you know why.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Jan 21, 2019)

Tez3 said:


> Oh there has been a procedure for quite a while now that will make people lose their memories, it's a so called treatment for mental illness. it's called electroconvulsive therapy, look it up.



I am familiar with that, Im not sure as to its effectiveness although I do know it is sometimes still used.


----------



## JR 137 (Jan 21, 2019)

Tez3 said:


> The truth is political? Your country does not have social healthcare so you pay for treatment, we have free at point of use so of course your medical people are in business and ours aren't. It's quite simple and I'm surprised to see you now toe the political line now you're a mod, I suppose it's in the 'contract'. I was a mentor at one time, the owner decided he didn't like my, what he called, 'leftist' politics so binned me, so if I'm now abrasive you know why.


If your healthcare pros are getting paid, it’s a business. Doesn’t matter if the government, private insurance, or patients directly pay out of pocket. It’s still a business. 

Our roadwork is done by private contractors paid by government. Trust me, it’s a business. No different than your healthcare. 

Our VA (Veteran’s Affairs) hospitals are free to veterans. No insurance, no payment by the patient. Trust me, it’s a business. 

We have free healthcare clinics. Yup, they’re a business too.

Whenever money’s exchanged, regardless of from whom, it’s a business.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Jan 21, 2019)

*ATTENTION ALL USERS:

Please, keep the conversation polite and respectful.

-Brian R. VanCise
-MartialTalk Moderator*


----------



## Steve (Jan 22, 2019)

I dont know anything about electeic shock therapy or neuralizers.  But i disagree with the definition of business.   USA healthcarw is busoness because it is "for profit." A very important distinction.

I've also looked into mental healthcare in the UK and think in some ways they are ahead of us and in others very far behind.   Not an expert though


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 22, 2019)

Steve said:


> I dont know anything about electeic shock therapy or neuralizers.  But i disagree with the definition of business.   USA healthcarw is busoness because it is "for profit." A very important distinction.
> 
> I've also looked into mental healthcare in the UK and think in some ways they are ahead of us and in others very far behind.   Not an expert though


Though it is increasingly for-profit, there are still large non-profit medical centers and systems. The for-profit are often larger, so are buying up the non-profits over time.


----------



## Steve (Jan 22, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> Though it is increasingly for-profit, there are still large non-profit medical centers and systems. The for-profit are often larger, so are buying up the non-profits over time.


There are public facilities, but our healthcare system at large is for profit.   It's inherently business.   Insurance companies are in it for profit.  Pharma is for profit.  Hospitals and healthcare facilities are for profit.  Unless they are public.  Medicaid and medicare are not for profit because they are public.  VA hospitals are not for profit because they are public.  But they don't change the fact that our healthcare system is "for profit".  Thats why we pay more for less than just about anyone else.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jan 22, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> Though it is increasingly for-profit, there are still large non-profit medical centers and systems. The for-profit are often larger, so are buying up the non-profits over time.



Non-profit systems are still businesses. Trust me. I work at a "non-profit" hospital.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 22, 2019)

Dirty Dog said:


> Non-profit systems are still businesses. Trust me. I work at a "non-profit" hospital.


Oh, I agree. I've served on the board of a start-up non-profit. It never got off the ground, mostly because the person starting it didn't accept she still had to deal with basic business realities. Non-profit is a somewhat different approach to business, but it still has many of the same concerns.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jan 22, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> Oh, I agree. I've served on the board of a start-up non-profit. It never got off the ground, mostly because the person starting it didn't accept she still had to deal with basic business realities. Non-profit is a somewhat different approach to business, but it still has many of the same concerns.



I suspect a small non-profit may be different, but large ones, with multiple sites around the country and billion dollar revenue streams are absolutely just as focused on the bottom line as "for profit" hospitals.


----------



## skribs (Jan 22, 2019)

Tez3 said:


> The truth is political? Your country does not have social healthcare so you pay for treatment, we have free at point of use so of course your medical people are in business and ours aren't. It's quite simple and I'm surprised to see you now toe the political line now you're a mod, I suppose it's in the 'contract'. I was a mentor at one time, the owner decided he didn't like my, what he called, 'leftist' politics so binned me, so if I'm now abrasive you know why.



You're assuming that your interpretation of the data is "the truth".


----------



## PhotonGuy (Jan 28, 2019)

Tez3 said:


> It is still used in some countries as an instrument of torture, used without anaesthetic.


Well that is the problem, I wouldn't want to torture anybody. With the neuralizer which currently only exists in fiction but could become real someday, it does not torture or cause any pain, it just causes people to forget stuff.


----------



## jobo (Jan 28, 2019)

Dirty Dog said:


> I suspect a small non-profit may be different, but large ones, with multiple sites around the country and billion dollar revenue streams are absolutely just as focused on the bottom line as "for profit" hospitals.


 well not the British health service, the main criticism of of which from "  right wingers" is it over pays for everything, takes on mind blowing expensive care for the chronically ill and is very inificiently run, in short it burns through a fabulous amount of money , which they commonly run out of before the year end,  whilst still managing to under pay most of their staff, it may fit the heading of a buesnrss, but there's no bottom line considerations


----------



## jobo (Jan 28, 2019)

PhotonGuy said:


> Well that is the problem, I wouldn't want to torture anybody. With the neuralizer which currently only exists in fiction but could become real someday, it does not torture or cause any pain, it just causes people to forget stuff.


well my life would possibly be better if I managed to forget a few things that happened to me, but then I wouldn't be me, as memories are a significant part of who we are stealing them seems again to stealing their identity, and us in many ways worse than torture


----------



## PhotonGuy (Jan 28, 2019)

jobo said:


> well my life would possibly be better if I managed to forget a few things that happened to me, but then I wouldn't be me, as memories are a significant part of who we are stealing them seems again to stealing their identity, and us in many ways worse than torture


Well in MIB the purpose of the nerualizer was to keep their secrets. When the wrong people have the wrong knowledge it can lead to big problems.


----------



## jobo (Jan 28, 2019)

PhotonGuy said:


> Well in MIB the purpose of the nerualizer was to keep their secrets. When the wrong people have the wrong knowledge it can lead to big problems.


judging by your last couple of posts you seem to be having a real problem telling Holly wood from reality,  
 government agents who aren't will smith having the ability to selectively wipe people's minds is the stuff of totalitarian night mares. it may well be possible to do in the not to distant future, that doesn't mean it's a good idea


----------



## JR 137 (Jan 28, 2019)

jobo said:


> judging by your last couple of posts you seem to be having a real problem telling Holly wood from reality,
> government agents who aren't will smith having the ability to selectively wipe people's minds is the stuff of totalitarian night mares. it may well be possible to do in the not to distant future, that doesn't mean it's a good idea


How do you truly know they haven’t been using a version of it for years?


----------



## jobo (Jan 28, 2019)

JR 137 said:


> How do you truly know they haven’t been using a version of it for years?


Only to the degree that it's a impossible to truly know anything


----------



## JR 137 (Jan 28, 2019)

jobo said:


> Only to the degree that it's a impossible to truly know anything


Exactly.

We had an employee at a college I used to work at who was pretty whacked out. First time I met him, he tells me “Don’t tell me anything you don’t want the government to know. They bugged me decades ago.” I looked at him and said “You too?” We had an unspoken understanding from then on 

My boss told me the first he met him the guy, he walked into the guy’s work area and before my boss could say anything, the guy says “Be careful, there’s a camera in that door lock. They’ve been watching me for years. Don’t do or say anything incriminating.” My boss tiptoed across the room, grabbed the package he was there to pick up, and tiptoed back, hiding his face.

We had fun with the guy. We just couldn’t resist.

We had our theories...

1. Mine was he was the sane one and we were all crazy.

2. My boss thought he was just a paranoid idiot.

3. The other guy who worked directly with us thought it was all a front so he didn’t have to talk to anyone.

2. was too easy. I wasn’t sure if I liked 1 or 3 better. It depended on the day. When I heard he passed away, several years after I stopped working there, the first thing I said was “Are we really sure he’s dead, or did the government finally take him?” Everyone said they were thinking the same thing.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 28, 2019)

JR 137 said:


> How do you truly know they haven’t been using a version of it for years?


Of what?


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Jan 28, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> Of what?


ECT. Those basterds


----------



## JR 137 (Jan 29, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> Of what?


The “flashy thing” as Will Smith called it.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Jan 29, 2019)

jobo said:


> judging by your last couple of posts you seem to be having a real problem telling Holly wood from reality,



Nope, if you've read my posts properly you will see that I say that stuff such as neuralizers are currently *fiction.*

I've also been saying it would be nice for them to be real. Not that they are real, just that it would be nice if they. What part don't you understand?



jobo said:


> government agents who aren't will smith having the ability to selectively wipe people's minds is the stuff of totalitarian night mares. *it may well be possible to do in the not to distant future*, that doesn't mean it's a good idea



The boldfaced part if your quite is my point exactly.

Now you might be asking why I would want a device like that. Well here is why. Lets say I say something I regret. I say something and I want to take it back. I could just do this-


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jan 29, 2019)

PhotonGuy said:


> Nope, if you've read my posts properly you will see that I say that stuff such as neuralizers are currently *fiction.*



Saying it and really grasping it are two different things. Maybe, if so many people are asking this question (and I seem to recall several people making the same observation recently) it's something you should think about.

Now you might be asking why I would want a device like that. Well here is why. Lets say I say something I regret. I say something and I want to take it back. I could just do this-[/QUOTE]

Or, you could just do what most adults have learned to do and think before you speak.


----------



## Steve (Jan 30, 2019)

Dirty Dog said:


> Or, you could just do what most adults have learned to do and think before you speak.


No need to be rude.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Jan 30, 2019)

Dirty Dog said:


> Saying it and really grasping it are two different things. Maybe, if so many people are asking this question (and I seem to recall several people making the same observation recently) it's something you should think about.


But I do really grasp it, although that might be hard to prove on an internet forum. 

But that doesn't mean stuff in fiction can't become real. Flying machines and pocket super computers at one time were pure fiction, now they're both real and in common use.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Jan 30, 2019)

Dirty Dog said:


> Or, you could just do what most adults have learned to do and think before you speak.


Especially with internet forums I've got lots of time to think before I speak, or in this case post, but even then I might still say stuff I regret and that I want to take back, nobody's perfect.


----------

