A guide to functional disease for a trauma conscious generation, 2021, Whitfield

ABSTRACT

In part due to a greater understanding of trauma and its manifestation as disease, the field of functional neurology has seen rapid development over the past decade with the inauguration of the Functional Neurological Disorder Society. Recent developments in our understanding of functional neurology are translatable to other functional disorders and have laid the groundwork for future research opportunities that foundation trainees can contribute towards. At the very least, trainees have a responsibility to be aware of the involuntary nature of these conditions and direct patients towards appropriate help. This guide to functional neurology aims to clear the fog on this collection of poorly recognised conditions so that empathy and understanding can shine through.

Open access, https://www.rcpjournals.org/content/clinmedicine/21/5/e519

 

I accept that trauma may manifest as disease e.g. give someone a severe shock and they might have a heart attack - see Takotsubo cardiomyopathy. But, personally, I think it would be far more likely that untreated disease would cause trauma, rather than the other way around.

 

Yes, except they found that many of their patients did not have any trauma so it is not a requirement any more. They move the goalposts so often they must be chronically fatigued ...

They have a theory and they are going to twist everything into it because they are not quitters!

 

"Recent developments in our understanding of functional neurology are translatable to other functional disorders and have laid the groundwork for future research opportunities that for foundation trainees can contribute towards." to board the unfalsifiable gravy train.

 

Which development? Which groundwork?

Apart from BPS-blabla lacking any honest empirical evidence there are only very few, minor and completely inaccurate hypotheses on dysfunctions (in the brain).

 

Ironic but it's basically sooth-saying, telling themselves they're right and good even though they're complete failures, or probably more accurately because they are failing. You can go back decades and read the same thing and those "developments" are never spelled out, it's always speculative potential. In recent years Wessely was asked and Chalder and Crawley wrote an article on those "developments" and they literally could not name a single one, all speculation and hopium.

Ironic because of a recent paper on soothing in CFS. Because every damn thing they say about us is pure projection. They just never seem to know when something applies to the circumstances so they just say generic fluff like this to reassure themselves.

 

There is also the sociological knowledge on institutions which are re-iterating themselves (ie their existence), regardless how unsuccessful they are. All these fluffy words though may be successfully trying to evade proper controlling.