Posted by Elroy on February 22, 2005, at 22:27:19
In reply to RE: cranial electrotherapy stimulation » Elroy, posted by Larry Hoover on February 22, 2005, at 16:11:05
Good to hear from you... have read a number of your posts in doing my various researches.
I was very skeptical myself also - another Quack gadget was my first thought - but then as I read more and more, I got to thinking.... hmmmm.
What I have found interesting is that some insurance companies are in fact starting to approve CES devices - but mainly for pain control purposes. The one rep advised me that he felt that was because medical MDs have been more pro-active than psych docs in getting that approval.
A rep from one of the companies (Alpha-Stim) sent me the name of one doc in my area who uses the device (as far as who they have sold to) - he is about an hour away. And he is a medical doc and not a psych doc.
In fact, if you e-mail Alpha-Stim, they will send you a major packet of material on their product (they are probably the top of the line model - at least as far as costs go!).
I have also been very impressed by the book "The Edge Effect" by Dr. Braverman as relates to explaining brain neurotransmitters, etc. and was quite surprised to find out that he favorably mentions CES in his book... AND that he uses the CES devices in his practice.
The only problem that I have with Dr. Braverman is that he doesn't have any clinics in NE Ohio!
> > Wondering why there's such a lack of information on all of the relevant forums concerning cranial electrotherapy stimulation (CES)?
>
> My first impression of this therapy was in the form of heightened sensitivity of my BS detector. However, it appears that there may be something to this protocol:
>
> http://www.healingpeople.com/ht/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=357&Itemid=152
>
> I'd be very interested in hearing of any person's experience with one of these devices.
>
> > It is (supposedly) FDA approved for depression, anxiety and insomnia and appears to have had a considerable amount of clinical testing as to some degree of effectiveness.
>
> With respect to FDA approval, I'd like to make clear that this type of device is approved only because a substantially equivalent device was already in use prior to the enactment of medical device regulations in 1976. As such, the vendors of these devices only need to show that their product is not a novel type of device, and they circumvent proper oversight via a grandfather clause loophole. These devices are Class 3, which have the greatest likelihood of adverse effects or injury to the patient. That said, it's hard to tell just what these devices do, let alone how they could hurt.
>
> Here's what the FDA has to say about Class 3 devices:
> http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/devadvice/3132.html
>
> Lar
poster:Elroy
thread:458455
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20050222/msgs/462070.html