Phantoms in the Brain - BBC radio programme on 'Functional Neurological Disorder'

[MeSci]

This was broadcast on Tuesday - sorry it's taken so long to notify. I haven't listened to it.

"In this episode, we meet Kirsty, a young, fit and healthy mum, who is suddenly paralysed and incontinent. Multiple tests are unable to find any obvious cause. She is eventually diagnosed with functional neurological disorder (FND) - where the structure of the brain is entirely normal, but the way it functions goes awry. Its origins are in her childhood and more recent psychological trauma.

We also hear from Callum, who, almost overnight, develops seizures and walking difficulties. Again, no clear neurological cause can be found. His symptoms have been triggered by a viral illness. We learn how FND is not always associated with stress or trauma, but can be related to physical illness.

And we speak to Daljit, whose memory issues, jerking and stuttering lead to his wife's discovery of his dark and traumatic past experiences.

We’ll hear from psychiatrists and neurologists about what we understand about the nature and origins of FND, and how these symptoms are not "psychosomatic" or "all in your head". And how early recognition and diagnosis can lead to full recovery.

Presenter: Professor Guy Leschziner (He's been featured here before)
Producer: Sally Abrahams"

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001g8rm

 

[Jonathan Edwards]

So the problem is due to childhood and other psychological trauma affecting brain function but the condition is not psychosomatic or in the head.

It must take quite a bit of mental gymnastics to come up with something that oxymoronic.
What seems to have changed is not so much that the medical profession re happy to swallow old wives' tales but that they are now happy to present them like 'alternative facts' in a way that quite clearly makes no sense.

It is very much like what you would expect a bot to come up with.

 

[Hoopoe]

It is tactical ambiguity. Things are defined so that multiple interpretations can be made, even opposing ones. Then you can pretend to have a theoretical framework without having to admit that you don't have one, and say whatever is convenient at the time. The lack of clarity will be carefully preserved.

This kind of dishonest behaviour is going to bring the term FND in disrepute, like all its predecessors, but they can just make up a new term in a decades or two.

 

[NelliePledge]

Yes @strategist tactical ambiguity but they take it to such levels that ambiguity is a default setting.

 

[Lilas]

Well, this "ambiguity" is the essence of their nonsense ! But how can they not feel embarrassed saying such incoherent things !! This is the height of absurdity and incompetence... I can't believe smart, sane people will swallow this.

 

[rvallee]

IMO this is why Hubbard invented Scientology, he made it a parody of psychosomatics, literally ghosts of dead aliens causing illness in the body, that is simply a difference of narrative, the basic idea is still the same. Here it's used as a figure of speech but there is no substance to their claims, it's just as valid to blame actual ghosts for this process, there is exactly as much evidence for either fiction.

But it made him a fortune so the original lesson kind of lost to yachts and mansions.

What's even more amazing is that it completely contradicts the idea of neuroplasticity, as it's the way the brain is structured that defines how it functions. It's the wiring that defines the function, and of course that's structural in the generic sense. But of course structured is not what they mean, they mean injured, visible injury even.

In the end the guilty tell is that no one ever says what they mean or mean what they say, it's described metaphorically, it's defined in the most possibly vague and generic way and it's built out of narratives instead of evidence. And it's never the patients' narratives, always the physicians'. This is well-documented in their own literature, that they have to reattribute everything and manipulate the patient to believe the narrative they are selling. No honest person ever does that.

 

[DokaGirl]

So basically, the structure of the brain is OK, but it doesn't function properly.

Therefore, the brain is OK, but not OK...

And, where is this objective proof of brain dysfunction?

 

[rvallee]

So basically, the structure of the brain is OK, but it doesn't function properly.

Therefore, the brain is OK, but not OK...

And, where is this objective proof of brain dysfunction?

They don't need any proof, one Victorian era cokehead died for their sins, or something like that.

 

[DokaGirl]

They don't need any proof, one Victorian era cokehead died for their sins, or something like that.

Yep.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

So the problem is due to childhood and other psychological trauma affecting brain function but the condition is not psychosomatic or in the head.

They don't need any proof, one Victorian era cokehead died for their sins, or something like that.

Quantum Medicine

 

[Woolie]

What's even more amazing is that it completely contradicts the idea of neuroplasticity, as it's the way the brain is structured that defines how it functions. It's the wiring that defines the function, and of course that's structural in the generic sense. But of course structured is not what they mean, they mean injured, visible injury even.

Yea, the hardware vs. software narrative is the most dualistic thing I've ever heard. Its saying "if we can't see any actual brain tissue damage, then the problem is psychological".

Imagine if the whole of medicine worked like this - doctors would simply do MRI scans of the relevant organ or body part to determine whether medical treatment was required. If nothing on the scan, then no medical treatment needed! Just send the person off to the psyc clinic...

 

[ToneAl]

Quantum Medicine

Or bring out the voodoo dolls. We approaching the era of voodoo medicine.
Just a small needle prick here.

 

[rvallee]

Or bring out the voodoo dolls. We approaching the era of voodoo medicine.
Just a small needle prick here.

Meh, been there for a while. Nocebo, voodoo, same idea really. One person wishes you ill and does a ritual vs you have thought yourself ill so you must do a ritual to ward it off. The difference is entirely in the believer.

At this point it's like the difference between the East non-denominational church of Noodlism vs West non-denominational church of Noodlism. All the difference of stringy pasta vs sheet pasta. Sure, it feels different, still made of the same stuff modelled in a slightly different way.

 

[Gradzy]

“Multiple tests were unable to find any obvious cause”

Perhaps there was a less obvious cause then? Even possibly a much less obvious cause?

Why is ruling out (some) obvious causes always treated as ruling out definitively all possible causes?

I feel so, so sorry for all of the people described above.

 

[Peter T]

Why is ruling out (some) obvious causes always treated as ruling out definitively all possible causes?

Worse it is treated as definitively ruling in a psychosomatic cause.