You've made the diagnosis of functional neurological disorder: now what? (2018) Perez et al

I am posting this because I think it clearly shows that FND is just a rebranding of the old conversion disorder with a touch of the PACE trial approach.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29764988

But now they're trying to show, with what appears to be poor quality studies, that this idea has a scientific basis.

 

It is very helpful of them to indicate that they regard functional neurological disorder and conversion disorder as synonymous. I tremoves the confusion of the possibility that "functional" might be descriptive rather than aetiological.

 

I think there is intentional ambiguity that serves the purpose of making their idea harder to attack.

 

I think they would argue that in the past conversion disorder described the same patient population but that this label had wild theoretical assumptions that are not supported by evidence. So, therefore, the term functional neurological disorder is preferred.

 

Hi, I'm Troy McClure. You may remember me from such educational films as Biopsychosocial Bonanza! and When Wombs Wander.

 

I think it would be for them to argue whatever they like. It is not for us to "second guess" their clear use of language.

The rule is "first, define your terms".

 

Question: You've made the diagnosis of functional neurological disorder: now what?
Answer: Make it someone else's problem!

Alternatively, you could blame the patient!

Is the patient still resistant to the diagnosis? Don't worry, blame it on psychological stress. Only don't call it stress!

Patients not improving, despite psychotherapy? Don't worry, there is no true Scotsman! Wait, I mean the psychotherapy has not been done correctly.

Likewise, for occupational therapy, because the neurologist always knows better than the occupational therapist!

Conclusion, if you cannot work out what is wrong with a patient, make it someone else's problem with a FND diagnosis. If the patient is reluctant to accept this diagnosis, simply blame the patient. If the treatments don't work, just blame the therapists. Remember, fixing FND is not your job as a neurologist, it is someone else's problem!

 

When talking among themselves, there is zero ambiguity that this is what FND means. It's when communicating with the public and patients that they raise the wall of deceit where they pretend they mean something else. That's been the "innovation": deceit, it's hysteria with a transparent plastic wrapping.

It's one of the world's worst-kept secret and it's really disappointing that people pretend otherwise, will talk all day about the print, color and texture of the transparent plastic wrapping. Made worse off that there is a pretense of listening to the patient, when in truth it's about gaslighting them, making them reject their own life experience as invalid.

Dishonest medicine, one of the worst ideas ever but all the rage lately. Many professionals are not allowed to lie to their clients. By law they could be stripped of their professional title. Not medicine, they can lie all they want as long as the lie is widely accepted.

 

One more for the file of "do they even read the stuff they write about? no, they do not":

Heads they win. Tails they win. Sideways they win. No coin they win. A rock instead of a coin they win. A coin with two identical sides they win.

I'm bothered that so few people find problem with a thought process that yields the same outcome no matter what the input is, even when there is no input at all. Basically it's like a psychic with a thingamajig that they tell the client that if it lights up it means they are right and the thingamajig is always lit so they are always right. That's not even close to be how any of this should work, in fact it's pretty much perfectly representative of exactly how not to do anything, in all circumstances ever.

As far as I am aware, actual psychiatric patients rarely deny the reality of their psychiatric symptoms. Even other psychiatric patients are very good at telling fakers apart. This should tell them something. Actually, it is screaming something at them. But reality plays no role whatsoever in this belief system, they begin by not listening and end by still not listening.

 

I think there is intentional ambiguity to hide that they essentially failed,
and now they want to hold as much as possible to the former approach, for being justified in their existence.

 

Trial By Error: Shaky Evidence for Signs of Functional Neurological Disorders

http://www.virology.ws/2019/12/30/t...r-signs-of-functional-neurological-disorders/
________________-

Moderator note: New thread on David Tuller's article about FND here:
https://www.s4me.info/threads/trial...nal-neurological-disorders.13050/#post-228230

 

So what exactly are these signs, what is their history in the medical literature and what have these signs previously denoted prior to MRI machines, xrays and scans?

It seems to me they are about to take the neurological examination that has a hundred years or more of validity in spotting neurological organic causation and are about to do a history revision on them and claim that they always in the past pointed at a functional disorder.

Or do they have some magic power to claim that a separate list of signs upon neurlogical examination prove a functional disorder? In which case what scientific validity do they have for such a claim?


What happens if you have their magical functional signs and also the organic neurological signs upon examination do they just ignore the organic neurological signs or not even bother doing them?

How many autopsies etc have proven no organic causation matched against people diagnosed with functional disorder using such signs upon their death?

How often do they review such people with these magical functional signs they claim using PET scans x-rays and MRIs etc?

Or is it the obvious get out once they claim their magical diagnosis you are never real worthy of a test again?

I wonder how they match this up and ever wonder why in the UK we have the worst rate of cancer detection in Europe and one of the worst rates in the whole world?

 

Really? I didn't know that.

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...om-cancer-survival-league-tables-two-decades/

https://www.theguardian.com/society...ehind-those-of-other-european-countries-study

 

They've largely solved the problem of autopsies showing up that the doctor was wrong and the patient was really ill by cutting down dramatically on the number of autopsies that are done in the UK. I'm sure that someone diagnosed with FND would be bottom of the pile for an autopsy if they had apparently died of natural causes with no suspicious circumstances.

 

I see that FND Portal overcomes his/her lack of replies to his/her tweets by replying to him/herself over and over and over again.