The role of Exclusionary Evidence

[Guest guest]

,

Your statements are compelling. But, in the last month the gene studies have

shown that is a gene that predisposed people to Type II diabetes. While the

diet and lifestyle have their important role in cause and treatment, the

common denominated of genetics has finally been found for adult onset

diabetes.

If what ails us had the type of funding for research and the backing of the

government for that research, CFIDS and all it sub-sets would also be coming

into this level of understanding. Sadly, this level of study is not

happening in CFIDS, Lyme or FMS. Add: Parkinson's and MS. As individual

groups the numbers of affected people has not risen to the level to command

the dollars for research that a disease like diabetes gets.

NOTE: Stress has been 'shown' as a factor in the development of Type II

diabetes but no one is claiming it to be cause or even a significant factor,

nor is it being pushed that diabetes and pre-diabetes can avoid this illness

by reducing stress. If it were I sure would like to see the list of which

stresses we can cut out and reduce to prevent the onset of diabetes. This is

just one of my tongue in cheek comments to this over use of stress as a

primary cause or the cause of such illnesses as CFIDS.

Shalom, W

-----Original Message-----

Hi !

> I agree that people have tried to degrade the illness down to a

> fatiguing illness consisting of anything and everything and caused

> by any combination of stress and stressors, but that doesn't

> represent the concurrent complaints of the cohort that brought the

> epidemic to public awareness.

>

None says that CFS was just exhaustion or normal fatigue.

I imagine two people with diabetes, discuss about the cause for their

illness. One is sixty years old, very fat, has eaten Mc s and

lots of sugary foods the past 30 years. The other a young female,

healthy eater etc. They will be unable to find the same cause, except

that now the same thing is going wrong in their bodies.

Both have the same disease, maybe not the same subgroup, and

definitely not the same cause for their illness. Whereas in one case

one can blame the diet, there is no cause visible in the other.

Best wishes

[Guest guest]

Hi !

Thanks for your answer.

This is

> just one of my tongue in cheek comments to this over use of stress as a

> primary cause or the cause of such illnesses as CFIDS.

I absolutely agree with you. When it comes to research then it's

ridiculous to talk about stress. Researchers shall have a look at what

is going wrong in our bodies. As in Diabetes, as Parkinson etc.

BW

[Guest guest]

Hi Mort,

My own cure fantasy--the one where I'm a multi-billionaire and can buy any

research I desire--now looks weak and ineffectual compared to your very

realistic, detailed fantasy. I especially like the part about the " 10-day

oral drug, which is a complete and permanent cure. "

Sue ,

Upstate New York

> Sometimes I fantasize about a multibillionaire industrialist who has a 17 year

> old child who is hit with sudden-onset CFS. He sets up a $10 billion CFS

> research foundation and tries to hire the best scientists in the world to

> develop a cure to save his child from an agonizing and 20% functional lifetime

> with CFS. But strangely enough, no top scientists want to work, for any

> amount of money, in the new CFS Research Foundation, due to the professional

> ridicule they would suffer working on this trivial fatigue disease, and tell

> him just that.

>

> So, the multibillionaire industrialist, who knows the power of semantics,

> rounds up some bagmen and packs $5 million in cash each into 20 big attaché

> cases, to be delivered to top NIH and CDC officials, with the understanding

> that another case of identical cash will be delivered to them if immediate

> action is taken to change the name of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome to a valid and

> serious scientific name, with none of the three present words in it.

>

> And so an emergency meeting is called, and the disease name is changed in two

> days. Immediately, applications pour into the new research foundation, and

> 100 top scientists are hired and a 10-day oral drug, which is a complete and

> permanent cure is developed within 18 months..

[Guest guest]

Since you have been in this research arena, what would YOU propose as an

alternate name? Something that would get more public awareness and more

funding interest?

My own opinion is that CFIDS is a slightly better name.

--Kurt

Re: Re: The role of Exclusionary Evidence

d -

It is true that Osler's Web was written more than 10 years ago, but

nothing

more definite has been found about CFS since then, due to lack of

adequate

NIH research funding for this disease.

You list three reasons why NIH funding is so low, and I agree only with

the

first one. The name, the name, the name, the trivializing, insulting

and

degrading name Chronic Fatigue Syndrome..

I worked in biomedical research for 33 years, and know the NIH research

grant funding process very well. To receive adequate research grants,

the

applicant's research topic must be judged important to finding new info

about fundamental biological processes that can be applied to a disease,

or

a new therapy for a disease. In either case, the disease must be well

recognized, and have a scientific name.

Sorry folks, the silly name Chronic Fatigue Syndrome will get your

research

grant application laughed out of the first screening.. Unless it is for

a

trivial amount, such as less than $50,000, as a secondary research topic

in

your lab. To be a main research topic in a university or drug industry

lab,

the grant funding needs to be at least $1,000,000 per year. The grant

has

to pay the Principal Investigator's salary and those of at least 6 other

people, such as technicians, grad students and postdoctoral fellows

working

on the main lab theme.

..

[Guest guest]

Don't forget that different people have different capacities for stress,

due to genetics and other factors. And I am not aware of anyone

disproving the General Adaptive Syndrome hypothesis, not ever. Have you

read the Selye research? I posted some links a few days ago. If you

stress animals or people enough they get sick with the disease they are

predisposed by their conditions/environment to have. Yes, there is

infinite variation in this, based on what the stressors are, genetics,

environment, etc. And probably the stress maladaption problem is just

one part of the CFS puzzle, it is not the whole picture any more than a

single pathogen, toxin, or injury is the whole picture.

Personally I would LOVE to find the silver bullet for this disease. The

single explanation, the one evil bug, bad gene, poisonous fish food, or

super toxin that is causing CFS. But when you look at people who have

gotten better, there are few consistent patterns. It seems that someone

from each 'camp' has gotten well, but others following that same

protocol fail. This is actually 'exclusionary' evidence as well, it

says that there is an underlying phenomenon that goes beyond the single

cause explanations and 'silver bullet' cures. Maybe we should be

finding the commonalities between these success story people.

And maybe the stress management approach is just like the other

treatments, maybe it will work for a small sub-group only.

So what is the commonality between the rare successes in the various

treatments? And I mean the REAL successes, not just the claims that

'85% note some improvement.' But people who are 95% functional again.

--Kurt

RE: Re: The role of Exclusionary Evidence

D,

I agree 120%. Every living being has stress. Without it there would be

no

life. Some people are wired differently by birth (genetics), from

environment and nurture for their response to stress by whatever form it

is

presented. Among them infection and illness are on the list. There is no

good scientific basis for measuring stress and stress response to the

business of ordinary living and exposures, social, environmental or

otherwise. As illness sets in, so does stress. Whether the stress is

from

the illness or part of the factors that set one up for illness, the

point is

you are now ill and a vicious cycle is more likely than not to

perpetuate

this cycle. Worn out adrenals from burnout (extreme and prolonged

stress(es)) may cause one type of stress related illness or be a factor

in

many illnesses. But there is always more happening here. There is the

real

trigger and the situation in which the trigger is presented. Then the

trigger may precede the illness but the stressors trip the switch. This

doe

not mean you were not already in a state of dis-ease but that you did

not

have symptoms until something else happened in your body and your life.

I think. And this is just my opinion that a dead horse is being beaten

to

death on this stress issue. No of the problems with CFIDS research and

our

understanding of the dis-ease that it is lies in the way old and

dis-proven

research is never disposed of. The old junk is just dug up and reused as

if

it is gospel by whoever needs it for support or whoever is not

knowledgeable

of the whole knowledge base out there. AND, no one is..

[Guest guest]

I agree with ph Lenz's position on stress as he states it in this

quote:

" Stress as a construct is a poor candidate for the cause of this (or

any) disease. It is implicated in nearly every illness imaginable,

yet is sufficient cause for approximately none. "

I can't make out what d and are saying about the role of

stress in this illness, but I believe they have the absolute right to

believe whatever they want, and they know their own illness much

better than I do.

My point is if you want doctors, the CDC, the NIH and the public in

general to take our illness seriously, and I think it's pretty clear

that they do not now, we have to change the perception that stress

causes CFIDS. As long as stress is considered to be the cause of our

illness, the perception will be that we have chronic fatigue and we

can only get well if we learn to deal with our stress. That's the

way it's been for 20 years.

Yes there are new discoveries like hypercoagulation and ciguatera

epitope, but government funding for CFIDS is going DOWN year after

year. The CAA is rapidly losing members. These are not signs that

things are getting better as far as understanding how serious our

illness is in my opinion.

For things to get better I think we have to convince people that

something other than stress is causing our illness.

Tom

[Guest guest]

> No one is going to fund the research we need if they think our

> problem is that we don't understand that emotional stress can

cause a headache.

> Tom

Or what if the physiological effect of metallo-enzymes released as a

normal consequence of emotional stress actually alter basal cell

membrane inflammatory responses at a level that formerly didn't

signal pain but now do.

In other words, what if there IS a physiological component but one

that didn't formerly result in debilitating symptoms until the

altered threshold of SUSCEPTIBILITY turned a formerly benign

response into a devastating neurological dysfunction.

Polly Matzingers immunological concepts of " pathos instead of

foreign " suggest that the immune system responds to signals sent

from distressed cells rather than simply going after any xenobiotic

intruder. When viewed in this way, the task is to separate normal

and known responses to " stress " * (ones that are well known not to

result in CFS) from the abnormal response.

People have always been under " stress " but it didn't cause CFS.

If it manifests the apparent capacity to do so now, the logical

thing is to identify what changed in the response to that " stress "

instead of trying to identify ways in which to stretch the subjective

effect of " stress " completely out of reasonable proportion.

As we have seen, there is simply no limit to how far Stressologizers

will stretch their conceptual model of the effects of " stress " to

try and make it fit a level of pathogenesis which it consistently

failed to achieve throughout the history of humankind.

-

*Damn, I hate that word - even more devilish than " fatigue "

[Guest guest]

Tom,

I am in total agreement with you. My post must not have been clear. I was

only arguing this point from a sarcastic prospective. If stress was the

cause of this illness or any other that affects millions of people, then by

now there would be an absolute cure for stress. Of course, the one cure we

know of is death. There is belief that we will feel nothing at that point.

There needs to be a moratorium on the use of research funds for psychic

studies in the group of illnesses. It is waste and it just deprives the

research into pathological causes of illness.

Shalom, W

Re: The role of Exclusionary Evidence

I agree with ph Lenz's position on stress as he states it in this

quote:

" Stress as a construct is a poor candidate for the cause of this (or

any) disease. It is implicated in nearly every illness imaginable,

yet is sufficient cause for approximately none. "

I can't make out what d and are saying about the role of

stress in this illness, but I believe they have the absolute right to

believe whatever they want, and they know their own illness much

better than I do.

My point is if you want doctors, the CDC, the NIH and the public in

general to take our illness seriously, and I think it's pretty clear

that they do not now, we have to change the perception that stress

causes CFIDS. As long as stress is considered to be the cause of our

illness, the perception will be that we have chronic fatigue and we

can only get well if we learn to deal with our stress. That's the

way it's been for 20 years.

Yes there are new discoveries like hypercoagulation and ciguatera

epitope, but government funding for CFIDS is going DOWN year after

year. The CAA is rapidly losing members. These are not signs that

things are getting better as far as understanding how serious our

illness is in my opinion.

For things to get better I think we have to convince people that

something other than stress is causing our illness.

Tom

This list is intended for patients to share personal experiences with each

other, not to give medical advice. If you are interested in any treatment

discussed here, please consult your doctor.

_____

[Guest guest]

Hi All.

's last post contained a quote from a post I made on

cfs_research. To understand what I was talking about, here is the

study that I was commenting on.

Note that the researcher uses chronic fatigue and chronic fatigue

syndrome interchangably. The original post follows:

More on s.

Suzy

http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/press/preleases/pr/pr_253.htm

10 minute therapy helps quell chronic fatigue and irritable bowel

Royal College of Psychiatrists

Annual Meeting

2001: A Mind Odyssey: Science and Caring

9th to 13th July 2001

Queen II Conference Centre

London SW1

A brief treatment helping patients to draw the links between

body and mind could help hospital doctors manage patients with

unexplained

physical symptoms such as chronic fatigue and irritable bowel and cut

the

costs of care, according to a paper presented today at the Royal

College of

Psychiatrists Conference.

Chronic fatigue syndrome and irritable bowel syndrome are

examples of what psychiatrists call functional somatic symptom

syndromes

(FSS) - for doctors they are the classic " heartsink " patients.

Treatment is

often particularly difficult with patients, convinced they have

serious

physical problems, being referred for test after test which simply

reinforce

the idea that they are seriously ill, and doctors increasingly at

their

wit's end.

Reattribution training is a simple technique that has been used

successfully to help patients to recognise that their minds play a

part in

causing their physical symptoms. " Somatisation disorders in their

various

forms are not imaginary; they do have real effects, " said Professor

s, of the University of Liverpool.

The treatment involves a structured 10 minute consultation,

which can be taught to doctors with no previous mental health

training. " It

is important to emphasise the reality of patients' problems - the

patient

has pain - and then explore the acceptance of the link between mental,

social and physical problems, " said Professor s.

" You've got to explain how it is they've got physical symptoms

if they've got this psychosocial problem for example by explaining

that

depression lowers the pain threshold or encouraging the patient to

see how a

headache always occurs after specific things. The explanation has to

be

compatible with people's beliefs. You've got to emphasise the

normality of

their experience. "

In a study conducted by Professor s two thirds of patients

needed no further treatment, others were encouraged to monitor the

condition

and come back for further discussion or to begin treatment for

depression.

Said Professor s. There is a significant reduction in secondary

care

costs. " He added, " We have to understand underlying biology and

psychology,

communication between patient and doctor and the most effective way of

changing the doctors and the patient's beliefs. "

[Guest guest]

Hi .

I'm sure the confusion was mine. I'm pretty easily confused these

days.

Tom

> Tom,

>

>

>

> I am in total agreement with you. My post must not have been clear.

I was

> only arguing this point from a sarcastic prospective. If stress was

the

> cause of this illness or any other that affects millions of people,

then by

> now there would be an absolute cure for stress. Of course, the one

cure we

> know of is death. There is belief that we will feel nothing at that

point.

>

>

>

> There needs to be a moratorium on the use of research funds for

psychic

> studies in the group of illnesses. It is waste and it just deprives

the

> research into pathological causes of illness.

>

>

>

> Shalom, W

>

>

>

> Re: The role of Exclusionary Evidence

>

>

>

>

> I agree with ph Lenz's position on stress as he states it in

this

> quote:

>

> " Stress as a construct is a poor candidate for the cause of this (or

> any) disease. It is implicated in nearly every illness imaginable,

> yet is sufficient cause for approximately none. "

>

>

> I can't make out what d and are saying about the role of

> stress in this illness, but I believe they have the absolute right

to

> believe whatever they want, and they know their own illness much

> better than I do.

>

> My point is if you want doctors, the CDC, the NIH and the public in

> general to take our illness seriously, and I think it's pretty

clear

> that they do not now, we have to change the perception that stress

> causes CFIDS. As long as stress is considered to be the cause of

our

> illness, the perception will be that we have chronic fatigue and we

> can only get well if we learn to deal with our stress. That's the

> way it's been for 20 years.

>

> Yes there are new discoveries like hypercoagulation and ciguatera

> epitope, but government funding for CFIDS is going DOWN year after

> year. The CAA is rapidly losing members. These are not signs that

> things are getting better as far as understanding how serious our

> illness is in my opinion.

>

> For things to get better I think we have to convince people that

> something other than stress is causing our illness.

>

> Tom

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> This list is intended for patients to share personal experiences

with each

> other, not to give medical advice. If you are interested in any

treatment

> discussed here, please consult your doctor.

>

>

>

>

> _____

>

>

[Guest guest]

Reattribution training is a simple technique that has been used

successfully to help patients to recognise that their minds play a

part in

causing their physical symptoms. " Somatisation disorders in their

various

forms are not imaginary; they do have real effects, " said Professor

s, of the University of Liverpool.

For my own protection (I would end up in jail:)) remind me never to go to

Liverpool, I might accidentally BUMP into Mr s, my mind might

immediately set itself into such a somatisation mode ( look, Mum, no hands) that

it might begin to play an undisputable part in causing HIS (future) physical

symptoms!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Pity, I always had it in the back of my mind to ... " penny Lane, the barber

shaves another customer " and... " Strawberry fields forever " and I wanted to

..... " Abbey Road " and cross the z-crossing

Nasty psychiatrist has taken this away from me, I hope he has the decency to let

me know when he gets a promotion and goes to Oxford, such brilliant research,

where else would they have him?

I was comtemplating dragging my husband to the Lyme conf in Sheffield and as we

migh drive (from Paris) we were thining of combining with a trip to Liverpool.

Now holiday ruined! thanking you Mr

s for this and all the rest!!!!!

quote Mr s: " We have to understand underlying biology and

psychology,

communication between patient and doctor and the most effective way of

changing the doctors and the patient's beliefs "

Mr s are your beliefs a-changing yet??!! )

Nelly (in France)

Re: The role of Exclusionary Evidence

Hi All.

's last post contained a quote from a post I made on

cfs_research. To understand what I was talking about, here is the

study that I was commenting on.

Note that the researcher uses chronic fatigue and chronic fatigue

syndrome interchangably. The original post follows:

More on s.

Suzy

http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/press/preleases/pr/pr_253.htm

10 minute therapy helps quell chronic fatigue and irritable bowel

Royal College of Psychiatrists

Annual Meeting

2001: A Mind Odyssey: Science and Caring

9th to 13th July 2001

Queen II Conference Centre

London SW1

A brief treatment helping patients to draw the links between

body and mind could help hospital doctors manage patients with

unexplained

physical symptoms such as chronic fatigue and irritable bowel and cut

the

costs of care, according to a paper presented today at the Royal

College of

Psychiatrists Conference.

Chronic fatigue syndrome and irritable bowel syndrome are

examples of what psychiatrists call functional somatic symptom

syndromes

(FSS) - for doctors they are the classic " heartsink " patients.

Treatment is

often particularly difficult with patients, convinced they have

serious

physical problems, being referred for test after test which simply

reinforce

the idea that they are seriously ill, and doctors increasingly at

their

wit's end.

Reattribution training is a simple technique that has been used

successfully to help patients to recognise that their minds play a

part in

causing their physical symptoms. " Somatisation disorders in their

various

forms are not imaginary; they do have real effects, " said Professor

s, of the University of Liverpool.

The treatment involves a structured 10 minute consultation,

which can be taught to doctors with no previous mental health

training. " It

is important to emphasise the reality of patients' problems - the

patient

has pain - and then explore the acceptance of the link between mental,

social and physical problems, " said Professor s.

" You've got to explain how it is they've got physical symptoms

if they've got this psychosocial problem for example by explaining

that

depression lowers the pain threshold or encouraging the patient to

see how a

headache always occurs after specific things. The explanation has to

be

compatible with people's beliefs. You've got to emphasise the

normality of

their experience. "

In a study conducted by Professor s two thirds of patients

needed no further treatment, others were encouraged to monitor the

condition

and come back for further discussion or to begin treatment for

depression.

Said Professor s. There is a significant reduction in secondary

care

costs. " He added, " We have to understand underlying biology and

psychology,

communication between patient and doctor and the most effective way of

changing the doctors and the patient's beliefs. "

[Guest guest]

" we have to change the perception that stress

> causes CFIDS. As long as stress is considered to be the

cause of our

> illness... "

>

Hi Tom,

I hear your argument when it comes to dealing with the CDC and

the NIH, etc., but again, I haven't seen anyone here say stress

caused their CFS. In fact I don't think I've ever seen someone

make that claim anywhere, at least online.

It may be a FACTOR though -- one of MANY, MANY factors,

especially when it comes to gradual-onset CFIDS.

And if stress isn't a factor at all, then perhaps someone could

explain why so many PWC's have recovered or are recovering

from their illness by following Bruce 's program

(endorsed by Lapp, M.D.).

As for CAA, they've lost members ever since the NCF exposed

the fact that they spend a minority of their donations on studies,

and most of the studies they fund are pointless, all the while

paying themselve hefty salaries. Plus, they were actively against

changing the name " CFS " ...

Respectfully,

Dan

> I agree with ph Lenz's position on stress as he states it in

this

> quote:

>

> " Stress as a construct is a poor candidate for the cause of this

(or

> any) disease. It is implicated in nearly every illness

imaginable,

> yet is sufficient cause for approximately none. "

>

>

> I can't make out what d and are saying about the role of

> stress in this illness, but I believe they have the absolute right

to

> believe whatever they want, and they know their own illness

much

> better than I do.

>

> My point is if you want doctors, the CDC, the NIH and the public

in

> general to take our illness seriously, and I think it's pretty clear

> that they do not now, we have to change the perception that

stress

> causes CFIDS. As long as stress is considered to be the

cause of our

> illness, the perception will be that we have chronic fatigue and

we

> can only get well if we learn to deal with our stress. That's the

> way it's been for 20 years.

>

> Yes there are new discoveries like hypercoagulation and

ciguatera

> epitope, but government funding for CFIDS is going DOWN

year after

> year. The CAA is rapidly losing members. These are not

signs that

> things are getting better as far as understanding how serious

our

> illness is in my opinion.

>

> For things to get better I think we have to convince people that

> something other than stress is causing our illness.

>

> Tom

[Guest guest]

Nelly,

I'm sorry for potentially ruining your vacation! You can't let Mr.

s do that to you. His ilk are causing far too much suffering as

it is. We PWCs need to enjoy whatever small pleasures are left to us.

Please go to Liverpool and have a lovely time. I'm sure that would

disappoint Mr. s greatly.

Tom

[Guest guest]

It must be a Universal and perpetual problem.

In 1975, I was taken to the ER 3 days in a row with an ever

expanding abdomen, severe pains and vomiting. This was MIS-diagnosed

as 'hysterical pregnancy' ( I had no psycosomatic history) and I was

sent home each day.

In FACT - adhesions (from a previous operation) looped 2 sections of

bowel and shut it off -

so of course by the 4th day, when I looked like a starved pregnant

stick of a woman and was thowing up feces... they read the Xrays

correctly and went in panic mode saying I had about 8 hrs to live.

SO there you have it - from hysterical pregnancy to a physical

condition close to death in 4 days.

The rest of the story is: I would not sign for a permanent

colostomy- which is what they wanted to do - so 2 lawyers wrote up

the operation release papers about 6 hrs before I went under -

the forms were altered to not allow any intestine to be removed, and

of course there was a clause that I wouldn't sue them. I lived,

intestines intact, and did not sue them.. but had I died, I'm sure

(my now X) husband would have. I suspect the blood transfusion from

this operation is where I contracted Lyme.

In any case - it set the tone for how intelligent I think most of

them are.

Barb

> Reattribution training is a simple technique that has been used

> successfully to help patients to recognise that their minds play a

> part in

> causing their physical symptoms. " Somatisation disorders in their

> various

> forms are not imaginary; they do have real effects, " said Professor

>

> s, of the University of Liverpool.

>

> For my own protection (I would end up in jail:)) remind me never to

go to Liverpool, I might accidentally BUMP into Mr s,

my mind might immediately set itself into such a somatisation mode (

look, Mum, no hands) that it might begin to play an undisputable part

in causing HIS (future) physical symptoms!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>

> Pity, I always had it in the back of my mind to ... " penny Lane, the

barber shaves another customer " and... " Strawberry fields forever " and

I wanted to .... " Abbey Road " and cross the z-crossing

>

> Nasty psychiatrist has taken this away from me, I hope he has the

decency to let me know when he gets a promotion and goes to Oxford,

such brilliant research, where else would they have him?

>

> I was comtemplating dragging my husband to the Lyme conf in

Sheffield and as we migh drive (from Paris) we were thining of

combining with a trip to Liverpool. Now holiday ruined! thanking you

Mr

> s for this and all the rest!!!!!

>

> quote Mr s: " We have to understand underlying biology and

> psychology,

> communication between patient and doctor and the most effective way

of

> changing the doctors and the patient's beliefs "

>

> Mr s are your beliefs a-changing yet??!! )

>

> Nelly (in France)

> Re: The role of Exclusionary Evidence

>

>

>

>

> Hi All.

>

> 's last post contained a quote from a post I made on

> cfs_research. To understand what I was talking about, here is

the

> study that I was commenting on.

>

> Note that the researcher uses chronic fatigue and chronic fatigue

> syndrome interchangably. The original post follows:

>

> More on s.

> Suzy

>

>

> http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/press/preleases/pr/pr_253.htm

>

> 10 minute therapy helps quell chronic fatigue and irritable bowel

>

> Royal College of Psychiatrists

> Annual Meeting

> 2001: A Mind Odyssey: Science and Caring

> 9th to 13th July 2001

> Queen II Conference Centre

> London SW1

>

> A brief treatment helping patients to draw the links between

> body and mind could help hospital doctors manage patients with

> unexplained

> physical symptoms such as chronic fatigue and irritable bowel and

cut

> the

> costs of care, according to a paper presented today at the Royal

> College of

> Psychiatrists Conference.

>

> Chronic fatigue syndrome and irritable bowel syndrome are

> examples of what psychiatrists call functional somatic symptom

> syndromes

> (FSS) - for doctors they are the classic " heartsink " patients.

> Treatment is

> often particularly difficult with patients, convinced they have

> serious

> physical problems, being referred for test after test which

simply

> reinforce

> the idea that they are seriously ill, and doctors increasingly at

> their

> wit's end.

>

> Reattribution training is a simple technique that has been used

> successfully to help patients to recognise that their minds play

a

> part in

> causing their physical symptoms. " Somatisation disorders in their

> various

> forms are not imaginary; they do have real effects, " said

Professor

>

> s, of the University of Liverpool.

>

> The treatment involves a structured 10 minute consultation,

> which can be taught to doctors with no previous mental health

> training. " It

> is important to emphasise the reality of patients' problems - the

> patient

> has pain - and then explore the acceptance of the link between

mental,

> social and physical problems, " said Professor s.

>

> " You've got to explain how it is they've got physical symptoms

> if they've got this psychosocial problem for example by

explaining

> that

> depression lowers the pain threshold or encouraging the patient

to

> see how a

> headache always occurs after specific things. The explanation has

to

> be

> compatible with people's beliefs. You've got to emphasise the

> normality of

> their experience. "

>

> In a study conducted by Professor s two thirds of patients

> needed no further treatment, others were encouraged to monitor

the

> condition

> and come back for further discussion or to begin treatment for

> depression.

> Said Professor s. There is a significant reduction in

secondary

> care

> costs. " He added, " We have to understand underlying biology and

> psychology,

> communication between patient and doctor and the most effective

way of

> changing the doctors and the patient's beliefs. "

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

I agree too, I'm not sure why we even talk about stress. How can one even

measure it? The most traumatic year of my life (death of someone close to me)

was my best year. Before I got CFS I didn't really " understand " what stress

was, no matter what was happening I didn't really feel it. OK, my life was

pretty good then, but still stuff happens to everyone, they have jobs and

bosses, etc. Maybe my body didn't send out stress hormones, maybe my attitude

was always positive, or maybe I just supressed it. How would anyone doing a

study of stress know? After I got CFS I got stressed at the tiniest things,

like having to be at an appointment at a certain time. It caused my brain to

get all confused and I couldn't even get myself ready. It is such a nebulous

thing, it is like saying " do people who are happy get MS? " How would you

measure happy?

Doris

----- Original Message -----

From: W Wiggins

To try to match ones stress to some one else's is a waste of time. We do not

all respond to nor do our stressors come in matching elements that can be

compared as less not at this level in this type of forum.