Asa
Senior Member
- Messages
- 179
Disgusting @ 11:43.
Can't bring myself to watch/listen to video at this time, but noticed after the time quote above, the speaker says patients should attend a pain clinic Mon-Fri 8-4.30!
Welcome to Phoenix Rising!
Created in 2008, Phoenix Rising is the largest and oldest forum dedicated to furthering the understanding of and finding treatments for complex chronic illnesses such as chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), fibromyalgia (FM), long COVID, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS), and allied diseases.
To become a member, simply click the Register button at the top right.
Disgusting @ 11:43.
Eric Kandel is the father of sensitization research, and studied its neural basis in the 1960s and 1970s.
I'm not at all bothered by the concept, as they're not suggesting it's a psychological condition.
Yes, a "non-psychological" illness that can only be "cured" with "psychological" treatments and the ever-ready exhortation to "exercise more" and "reduce stress".
You don't need to disprove CSS. It's blatant quackery on par with using positive thinking to cure cancer.I keep on looking for reasons against CSS as it applies to ME
You don't need to disprove CSS. It's blatant quackery on par with using positive thinking to cure cancer.
Don't know what to tell you. Patients currently gets diagnosed with this in BC. Our options areYou don't need to disprove CSS. It's blatant quackery on par with using positive thinking to cure cancer.
It does not requires science in order to diagnose this. All you need is pain and a collection of symptoms showing ssensitivity. With that, you are all set for CBT and GET. Further, all future symptoms you may report will be explained by CSS and does not warrant investigation.Why do you say central sensitization is quackery? As a field it seems underdeveloped, but that is not in itself quackery.
See the slippery slope?
There might be something to this idea of heightened sensitivity, however I see it as an outcome, and not a cause.
My experience is, you don't even need pain. I don't have pain but still I have had doctors tell me my illness is CSS, and I should take SSRI's to fix my overactive pain signaling system. The fact that I almost never experience pain didn't seem to matter at all. They told me I'm in pain so I'm in pain. 'Now please leave my office, you're a nuisance and I quite frankly just couldn't give a ****.'All you need is pain and a collection of symptoms showing sensitivity.
My experience is, you don't even need pain. I don't have pain but still I have had doctors tell me my illness is CSS, and I should take SSRI's to fix my overactive pain signaling system.
I am sorry, @Effi it's not right.My experience is, you don't even need pain. I don't have pain but still I have had doctors tell me my illness is CSS, and I should take SSRI's to fix my overactive pain signaling system. The fact that I almost never experience pain didn't seem to matter at all. They told me I'm in pain so I'm in pain. 'Now please leave my office, you're a nuisance and I quite frankly just couldn't give a ****.'
This is what i am saying, it's happening now in British Columbia.That is something that would concern me: that doctors start using CSS as a convenient diagnosis and label for a whole array of diseases — a label that gives the impression that the diseases are understood, when in reality, central sensitization is still a speculative and very underdeveloped hypothesis.
As an area of research, central sensitization might bear fruit; but it is far to early to start definitively labeling diseases like IBS and ME/CFS as central sensitivity syndromes.
Yes, that was rich. After acknowledging that we "push crash", we should attend a full time workshop for weeks. If we were able to do this we wouldn't need the "treatment" in the first place.Can't bring myself to watch/listen to video at this time, but noticed after the time quote above, the speaker says patients should attend a pain clinic Mon-Fri 8-4.30!
this is already happening! It doesn't matter in the least what symptoms you have or don't have. Every MUS is now being labeled CSS. The patient gets an explanation about 'what is going wrong with your pain system', patient believes the doctor because he's supposed to be the one in the know. Patient then follows the treatment (SSRI, exercise, CBT - sound familiar?) which doesn't turn out to work at all (or worst case scenario makes patient sicker) because the hypothesis is nothing more than a hypothesis about a mechanism that isn't yet understood. The way they are using this hypothesis as if it's an absolute truth is a real problem that is already negatively affecting patients' lives in various countries around the world.that doctors start using CSS as a convenient diagnosis and label for a whole array of diseases — a label that gives the impression that the diseases are understood, when in reality, central sensitization is still a speculative and very underdeveloped hypothesis.
I think what @Valentijn is trying to say is that this should be attacked from the angle that there is literally no scientific evidence to back up this theory. It's not like trying to fight PACE where there is "evidence", there is no evidence here and we should only have to point this fact out.Don't know what to tell you. Patients currently gets diagnosed with this in BC.
You should be concerned now because this is already happening, which was why I started the thread. I'm trying to get in touch with the patient on reddit that claimed to receive this diagnosis from Mayo to get more detail, but I have to imagine that others going to Mayo for ME or CFS symptoms might end up with a diagnosis of CSS.That is something that would concern me: that doctors start using CSS as a convenient diagnosis and label for a whole array of diseases
I totally agree, I just don't think they'll be impressed with this argument. At least not the doctors I've tried to argue with. In their mind this theory is scientifically sound. It just becomes a question of authority of doctor vs. patient. I keep thinking of a way to thoroughly debunk this, but you know how these people love cherry picking...I think what @Valentijn is trying to say is that this should be attacked from the angle that there is literally no scientific evidence to back up this theory. It's not like trying to fight PACE where there is "evidence", there is no evidence here and we should only have to point this fact out.