Re: Reverse EEG

Raymond,

I think we're in agreement, mostly.  My intention is not to slander,
diminish, or discourage established medical devices or protocols that
use electrical current.  Medical value depends on outcomes.  I agree
with you about therapeutic value, but I have to insist on a point of
fact: even small amounts of electrical current can kill neurons.

I do want to discourage hobbyists, untrained (or scientifically
illiterate) people from using trans-cranial direct current stimulation
on themselves or others.  It's a disturbing trend.

Chuck

On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 9:11 PM, Raymond Chan <[email protected]> wrote:
> We do not put currents into the brain for fun. We do that for a purpose. In
> the case of CES, we do that to manage mental disorders such as insomnia,
> anxiety and depression. There are many studies on CES which one could browse
> on the Internet, read up and then make an informed decision as to whether to
> try this modality. CES is of course not alone. There are other established
> electrical devices in the medical industries such as TENS, Muscle
> Stimulators and Pacemakers etc.
>
> It is not my intention here to promote the use of any of these devices as it
> would be irrelevant to this forum. I just wanted to air my view that I do
> not agree that we should never put an electrical current into our brain.
> Raymond Chan
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 6:28 AM, Charles Z Henry <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Safety is always relative.  Each of our cells, neurons included, die a
>> natural death on their own, with a certain regularity or probability.
>> An increased frequency or probability of death is what we might call a
>> "cause" of death.
>>
>> Current in neurons is different.  There are no electrons exchanged in
>> neuron currents.  The potential difference across neuron membranes is
>> thanks to the well-known sodium-potassium pump.  There are several
>> different ions that make up neuron currents, including calcium,
>> potassium, sodium, magnesium, and chlorine.  The currents result from
>> variable conductances of each of those ions across the potential
>> difference.
>>
>> How does electron current work in an electrolyte solution, then?
>> Electron currents work by handing electrons between carriers (except
>> in conductors where the electrons travel freely in the conduction
>> band).  The negative charge carriers (Hydroxide ions, Chlorine ions)
>> migrate towards the cathode and the positive carriers ( Sodium,
>> Potassium, Hydrogen ions) migrate towards the anode.
>>
>> At the anode, an electron gets transferred to a positive ion, giving
>> it a neutral charge. Neutrally charged H atoms can bond to form
>> hydrogen gas H2.  If a sodium ion accepts an electron, it travels a
>> short distance before donating its electron to a hydrogen ion, with
>> the same net effect: splitting off neutral hydrogen and leaving
>> hydroxide ions in solution.
>>
>> At the cathode, electrons are donated from the negatively charged
>> ions.  Neutral oxygen is produced from hydroxide ions at the cathode.
>> The result is electrolysis.  This produces free radicals--reactive
>> compounds in the cell that can react with other more important
>> molecules in the cell to cause cell death (or malfunction).
>>
>> Back to the first point:  safety is relative.  I smoke and I have a
>> dark sense of humor.  When someone asks me for a cigarette, I give it
>> to them and tell them: "You might have saved my life.  That could be
>> the cigarette that kills me."  I get suspicious looks.  No amount of
>> smoking is actually safe.  The probability of harm does depend on the
>> magnitude, but even small sources carry some risk.
>>
>> So, I do believe that the outcome vs risk balance is what's important,
>> but I also don't think we need more people experimenting with
>> electrical current vis a vis brain function.  It's like conducting
>> studies on the therapeutic effects of tobacco.
>>
>> Chuck
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 11:15 AM, Raymond Chan <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>> > Hi Chuck,
>> >
>> > A high current kills cell. A low current does not. Here is my reasoning:
>> >
>> > (1) There are currents flowing naturally in the brain anyway. There are
>> > tiny
>> > electrical potentials maintained across cell membranes. Each cell
>> > produces a
>> > tiny current that flows in its immediate region but there are also
>> > currents
>> > produced throughout the brain due to a phenomenon known as volume
>> > conduction. In fact these are exactly the sources of current that
>> > produce
>> > the EEG signals.
>> >
>> > (2) According to the Occupational Safety and Health Academy (OSHA),
>> > current
>> > intensity of 1 mA gives the human body just a faint tingle.
>> > (http://www.oshatrain.org/courses/mods/715m2.html. Page 2.2).
>> >
>> > I would consider a CES device that uses a treatment current of less than
>> > 1
>> > mA at less than 20V dc safe.
>> >
>> > Raymond Chan
>> >
>> > P/S: It is mid-night my time here. I am calling it a day.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 11:09 PM, Charles Z Henry <[email protected]>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Hi all,
>> >>
>> >> I have plenty of respect for the process--the engineering, the studies
>> >> of patient safety, and the actual positive outcomes for patients that
>> >> justify FDA approval.
>> >>
>> >> But in principle, I can't support it: current can kill cells.  There
>> >> have been some folks (and the military) who have supposedly been
>> >> building electrical stimulators for enhancing learning and training,
>> >> which I find awful.
>> >>
>> >> There is, however, the mitigating circumstances of a non-invasive,
>> >> non-pharmaceutical therapy.  Like any therapy, it works for some
>> >> people and I would want them to be able to use it (voluntarily).
>> >>
>> >> Chuck
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 7:32 AM, Boštjan Barbiš <[email protected]>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > Hi group,
>> >> >
>> >> > FDA acceptance or not, there are hazards connected with prolonged use
>> >> > of
>> >> > CES. Many take FDA approval as a way to go for many things, but
>> >> > forget
>> >> > about
>> >> > how complicated form of creations we are and try simplistically mess
>> >> > with
>> >> > everything.
>> >> >
>> >> > The fact CES is effective can be viewed as the way of statin drug
>> >> > being
>> >> > effective. I am asking at what expenses? Imo the safest rote to
>> >> > improve
>> >> > brain work is through gentle chelation and nutrition regimen,
>> >> > combined
>> >> > with
>> >> > mental training such as EEG biofeedback. Dealing with emotional
>> >> > traumas
>> >> > that
>> >> > stored some damage is imo a way to best and fastest results,
>> >> > meanwhile
>> >> > TES
>> >> > can be used for a fix some situations, but not cure...
>> >> >
>> >> > Hope this helps.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > 2014-07-23 14:17 GMT+02:00 Raymond Chan <[email protected]>:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Hi Chuck,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I agree with you 100% that we cannot hope to simply take the kind of
>> >> >> reverse route that Nicolas Prat described to re-activate an EEG
>> >> >> pattern
>> >> >> by
>> >> >> applying voltages externally. And I agree with you 100% on the
>> >> >> reasoning why
>> >> >> this reverse route is not possible.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> However, I do not agree with you that we should never apply a
>> >> >> current
>> >> >> to
>> >> >> the head. Cranial Electrotherapy Stimulators (CES) have existed in
>> >> >> the
>> >> >> market for decades. The US FDA has been evaluating this modality for
>> >> >> three
>> >> >> decades and finally agreed to classify these devices as Class II on
>> >> >> June 12
>> >> >> this year because,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> quote,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> …(FDA) has determined that there is sufficient information to
>> >> >> establish
>> >> >> special controls, and that these special controls, together with
>> >> >> general
>> >> >> controls, will provide a reasonable assurance of safety and
>> >> >> effectiveness
>> >> >> for CES devices…
>> >> >>
>> >> >> unquote.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Refer to FDA Federal Register #33712.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Raymond Chan
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 10:50 PM, Charles Z Henry
>> >> >> <[email protected]>
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> See... this is dangerous.  You might spend time developing your
>> >> >>> idea,
>> >> >>> but it's almost certainly not worth your time.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Do not apply currents to your head.  Period.  Currents in the brain
>> >> >>> are the flow of ions across membranes.  They are not the same as
>> >> >>> currents in conductors.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> You could not hope to re-activate a pattern by applying voltages
>> >> >>> externally.  The pattern of activation is essentially lost in
>> >> >>> transmission.  EEG voltages are the sum of small dipoles that
>> >> >>> develop
>> >> >>> across dendrites from billions of neurons.  You're going from a
>> >> >>> very-high dimensional space to a low-dimensional space.  You can't
>> >> >>> re-create the details of the high-dimensional space from a
>> >> >>> low-dimensional space. Brainwave entrainment is possible--and there
>> >> >>> are some safe methods.  However, you will get nowhere close to
>> >> >>> inducing a repeatable, recognizable pattern.  Stimulating an area
>> >> >>> of
>> >> >>> the brain does not re-create its activity.  The temporal and
>> >> >>> spatial
>> >> >>> resolution of patterns of activation is much finer than what you
>> >> >>> can
>> >> >>> re-create from outside of the skull.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> If you're really into this idea, you should study a lot of
>> >> >>> cognitive
>> >> >>> neuroscience papers to learn the roles of regions of the brain in
>> >> >>> cognition.  You can't re-create a pattern of activation externally,
>> >> >>> but it is possible to influence the functioning of some regions of
>> >> >>> the
>> >> >>> brain (stimulate or inhibit).  This is an experimental science and
>> >> >>> by
>> >> >>> no means completely understood.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Chuck
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 9:09 PM, Nicolas Prat, PhD
>> >> >>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> >>> > In fact, this is not magnetic but purely electrical. Voltage gets
>> >> >>> > conducted to the surface of the skull, registered by electrodes.
>> >> >>> > The
>> >> >>> > reverse route applies voltage to the skull, which gets conducted
>> >> >>> > to
>> >> >>> > the
>> >> >>> > neurons and (this is the unknown part!) triggers a pattern that
>> >> >>> > might
>> >> >>> > be
>> >> >>> > recognized and (re)activated.
>> >> >>> > Seems like active electrodes are necessary for the recording
>> >> >>> > phase
>> >> >>> > and
>> >> >>> > passive for the playback part. 100mv at the skull both ways.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Want fast and easy access to all the code in your enterprise? Index and
search up to 200,000 lines of code with a free copy of Black Duck
Code Sight - the same software that powers the world's largest code
search on Ohloh, the Black Duck Open Hub! Try it now.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/bds
_______________________________________________
Openeeg-list mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openeeg-list
Go to the above address to change your
subscription options, e.g unsubscribe.