ME may be caused by retrovirus. This could be some hope for ME sufferers. I've had my say though underneath the article. The journalist has lumped ME with Yuppie flu and chronic fatigue. I had to point out that Myalgic Encephaalomyelit is classed as a neuro disorder by the World Health Organistaion.
This is autoimmune and can cause optic neuritis and myleopathy. Sometimes it can look like primary progressive MS. They have also found people with PPMS can also have Sjogren's. Main symptoms are dry eyes and mouth. It can also be seen with systemic lupus and arthritis.
I just read this site - http://www.neurosymptoms.org/
It's about functional/dissociative disorders, the sorts of things many Limbolanders are supposed to have. I.e. not organic illness but symptoms arising from 'inorganic' causes (hold that thought...a bodily disorder that is 'inorganic': tell me how that makes any rational sense?)
As I read through the site's pages, I felt that almost anything could be classified as 'inorganic', functional,dissociative etc. I'm struggling, for example, to see how Irritable Bowel Syndrome is classed as 'functional' when tests clearly show physical inflammation of the bowel lining. That inflammation had to have been created by something ORGANIC!
It's all a very convoluted mystery to me. The clincher and massive flaw in this elaborate 'somatoform' hypothesis is that the author gives a picture of an MRI SHOWING a 'functionally' symptomatic patient's brain - the scan is notable for highlighting a brain area that is demonstrably ORGANICALLY dysfunctional or diseased....
In other words, this doctor is saying that MRIs can show actual physical, detrimental changes which give rise to bodily symptoms yet somehow these are not considered 'real' physical disease. Huh? This simply is not logical. And the author gives no explanation for this paradox yet blithely claims such scan results as an explanation and proof of the neurological profession's rectitude!
So they seem to have a cut-off line between which diseases are 'real' and which are 'not real'. The actuality or reality of these diseases/disorders does not depend on their evidenced physical nature - it seems to depend entirely on other factors which are largely to do with the body of neurological thinking/philosophy.
Are you with me...? Remember, this confusing mess of gobsmacking convolutions is actually *theirs*, not mine.
Off the top of my head, I'll try and sum the problems with this mess as I see them:
1. The vast majority of doctors understand 'functional' as psychological symptoms.
2. Psychiatric patients are routinely treated poorly and routinely dismissed or bludgeoned with the chemical cosh and/or cognitive behavioural therapy.
3. Most diseases throughout history were first ascribed to 'inorganic', ethereal even demonic affects. As science progressed, many diseases have been found to have clear physical genesis.
Here's a simple one - stomach ulcers were thought to be due to the effects of stress until relatively recently when a courageous doctor infected himself with the heliobacter pylori bug, developed stomach ulcers and thus showed conclusively that these ulcers were caused by an easily eradicable agent and thus curable.
Similarly, malaria (literally mal aria = bad air) was thought to be caused by, yep, being in a place where the air was somehow prejudicial to health. So the cure was to avoid bad air hotspots and to move sufferers to a place with 'good' air. It's no coincidence that the 'good air' places were those where mosquito infestation was nil or minimal! But the good doctors never cottoned on to this connection for centuries.
Epilepsy and migraine were for centuries thought of as visitations from Satan!
4. The sheer ludicrousness of showing a brain scan with tangible and coloured-in areas of 'misfiring' and yet calling it an 'inorganic' disorder is breathtaking in its convolution! No doubt many people with stomach ulcers were once shown xrays of their tangible problem whilst being told it was 'stress'. I always look for the simple, straightforward explanations: this current diagnostic methodology is far from simple.
5. Thus I am confident that science will at some point redefine these carefully coloured-in 'not physically diseased' brain bits as formally identifiable physical and treatable disease (this will probably be when Big Pharma invents the drugs! It'll then be lucrative and satisfying for clinicians to be able to cure their previously 'dysfunctional' patients.)
6. Until then, these 'functional' disorders will continue to be swept under the carpet - much to the suffering and distress of patients and their families.
7. Just as the physicks of old were so utterly convinced of their rectitude so it seems our contemporary doctors are convinced that they are so right. Plus ca change ce la meme chose...
8. Such ad hoc definitions of disease seem to be far more dependent on prevailing opinion rather than hard science. 'Opinion' calls up the spectre of ego and its need to dominate over another's opinion.
As an interesting, yet tangential, aside I'm very interested in how a new generation of researchers is redefining the autistic spectrum. Autism was also thought to be caused by all sorts of demons and then psychological influences (e.g. the 'refrigerator mother'). Now a new, more open-minded cohort of scientists are looking at autism and identifying this different neurology as just that - a different and physically-based neurology. There are still those professionals ('experts') who cling to their old opinions with ferocity though. That's ego and not science though.
9. We patients get caught in the crossfire of ego and opinion and the 21st century medical world's equivalent of Stone Age trepanation - where they used to drill holes in their skulls to let out the 'demons'!!
10. Now we mostly get metaphorically holed and sunk by all this convoluted thinking which is never clear and explanatory, rarely transparent. So this is my last point: the profound level of confusion we experience from our doctors is unhealthy in itself. The lack of transparency is pathological and generates distrust and fear.
But the medics will not ever be able to be honestly upfront with patients until they're upfront and honest with themselves.
I am tired of having *their* confusions and convolutions foisted upon me and adding to my illness.
BTW - Anecdotally, I can't ever remember meeting anyone who has been formally diagnosed with a 'functional' illness and sent for treatment for the 'dysfunction. I do however know scores, even hundreds, of people who've been told that their illness was 'stress', psychosomatic, 'functional' and who have then gone on to be diagnosed with one of those illnesses on the neurologist-approved 'real' list. Or who have suffered badly or, tragically, later died as a result of this chronic misdiagnosis as 'functional' patients.
Thanks for posting this. It mirrors my thoughts very well. I'm thinking of starting a thread on this specific topic. I'd like to know how many people here in this corner of limboland have had their doctor, family or friends think this is "just stress" or a psychiatric disorder as opposed to a physical problem.
I don't know if this has already been posted. If it has, my apologies for not being more vigilant. It's a great site on all the symptoms and diagnosing problems they have for Lyme's Disease. Hope it's able to help someone out in Limbo Land.
I like the first one, because it is more detailed and really helps clarify definitions of some medical terms. The format is to divide the exam into sections and then explain each test within the section. There is a link to normal and abnormal results and a way to correlate findings of different tests as well as the parts of the CNS that are targeted with individual tests.
I included the NYU link because its been around for a while and is a common reference.
Study both links and there will be an pop quiz sometime next week.
There is an over reliance on the utility of neuro-imaging (e.g. CT, MRI). These studies provide an evaluation of anatomy but not function. Thus, while extremely helpful, they must be interpreted within the context of exam findings. Careful examination may make imaging unnecessary. Also, exam findings can make a strong case for the presence of a pathologic process, even if it is not seen on a particular radiological study (i.e. there are limits to what can be seen on even the most high tech imaging).
I believe this has happened with me.
My first MRI head showed a LARGE cluster of HIGH SIGNAL FOCI in the deep white matter of my brain..................
DISMISSED as my age......
RUBBISH. I have since found out that these Foci do not occur in aging, or high blood pressure ......... they show up only as white spots........not HIGH SIGNAL.
Now really in the grand scheme of things with my presenting symptoms I should have been diagnosed with MS and also the fact I could not bathe in hot water, and have Utoffs syndrome and had OPTICAL NEURITIS in BOTH EYES.
Bah humbug. Stupid medical exams.
And I loved reading that a lot of people performing these exams unless they are experts will have no clue as to the results.
What chance have we got really..........................................
WHY LYME DISEASE IS NOT JUST A TICK-BORNE DISEASE
I'll try this again. Just lost what I had ready to send.
Please do not miss this interview and article at Dr. Mercola's website
It refers to many things I've been telling people for years.
This is becoming an epidemic!
Don't miss it!
Love, Strength, Courage!
Copyright 1994-2016 MedHelp International. All rights reserved.
MedHelp is a division of Aptus Health.
This site complies with the HONcode standard for trustworthy health information.
The Content on this Site is presented in a summary fashion, and is intended to be used for educational and entertainment purposes only. It is not intended to be and should not be interpreted as medical advice or a diagnosis of any health or fitness problem, condition or disease; or a recommendation for a specific test, doctor, care provider, procedure, treatment plan, product, or course of action. Med Help International, Inc. is not a medical or healthcare provider and your use of this Site does not create a doctor / patient relationship. We disclaim all responsibility for the professional qualifications and licensing of, and services provided by, any physician or other health providers posting on or otherwise referred to on this Site and/or any Third Party Site. Never disregard the medical advice of your physician or health professional, or delay in seeking such advice, because of something you read on this Site. We offer this Site AS IS and without any warranties. By using this Site you agree to the following Terms and Conditions. If you think you may have a medical emergency, call your physician or 911 immediately.