“Somewhere Between an Actual Disease and a Disease”: A Grounded Theory Study on Diagnosing FNDs From a Multi-Informant Perspective 2023 Sireci et al

[Sean]

They have retreated to the position they don't need to claim the entire disease is psychological, just some of it,

Which, according to them, is every single disease, current and future.

It is little more than a massive blatant power grab.

 

[SNT Gatchaman]

It's probably also worth commenting on the title.

“Somewhere Between an Actual Disease and a Disease” makes no logical sense. Which is to say makes as much sense as the entire paradigm: it's all functional, everything's fine, there's nothing structurally wrong - oh wait actually there is structural abnormality - aahhh so yes that's because of the functional disorder. See also various definitions for and convoluted explanations of mind/body dualism/monoism.

Where did that quote come from?

Complementarily, a patient reported, "I do not remember the term they used .. A problem that is somewhere between an actual disease and a disease …" (PZ01).

So a patient was bamboozled and summarised their explanation as: so I've got a problem that's between a disease and ... a disease. This is then cyclicly returned by the experts as the descriptor that precedes their paper on "a grounded theory study on diagnosing FNDs".

From Wikipedia, a grounded theory study is —

A study based on grounded theory is likely to begin with a question, or even just with the collection of qualitative data. As researchers review the data collected, ideas or concepts become apparent to the researchers. These ideas/concepts are said to "emerge" from the data. The researchers tag those ideas/concepts with codes that succinctly summarize the ideas/concepts. As more data are collected and re-reviewed, codes can be grouped into higher-level concepts and then into categories. These categories become the basis of a hypothesis or a new theory. Thus, grounded theory is quite different from the traditional scientific model of research, where the researcher chooses an existing theoretical framework, develops one or more hypotheses derived from that framework, and only then collects data for the purpose of assessing the validity of the hypotheses.

So there we have it. Case closed M'lud.

 

[boolybooly]

Which, according to them, is every single disease, current and future.

It is little more than a massive blatant power grab.

Sure and its an unreasonable proposition.

Its probably worth saying, to the imaginary audience of whoever reads this thread or discussions arising from it, that there is a difference between saying that physiological neurological illness can cause difficulties with a psychological aspect which can benefit from appropriate advice etc and saying that psychology is causing the illness.

BPS holds that illness is caused by a psychological dysfunction which creates physiological disease, without any evidence base, simply a self proclaimed "expert" hunch, which happens to fit neatly with the cost cutting agenda of insurance companies.

They try to pass it off as science but its not, its PR influencing, like Freud and tobacco marketing, thoroughly unscientific disreputable blaggery.

It is a more reasonable proposition that there are many neurological conditions which can occur, which we dont know much about and are still only beginning to understand because medical science is still in its infancy. We don't have explanations for many of them and the best we can currently do is help people cope until we know more.

Which does not include making stuff up and incorrectly blaming them for causing it in the first place to save money for shareholders.