Another thing that used to be on the site - don't know if it still is, as it's impossible to do a page search or other required searches due to the strange way it's set up - he spouts some pseudoscience about the 'interface between the mind and the brain' as though there was actually some knowledge of its existence or nature.
we can't even say that mind/brain are not the same. he also talks about hardware and software hinting behavioural psychotherapeutic intervention might re-programm your software(mind). At the same time he says the programming of the mind is so much more complicated than a computer. If this is true why do they recommend ultra-simplistic approaches such as CBT. Is this sophisticated re-programming?
Patients with functional symptoms do not have damage to their nervous systems so its not surprising you can't see it on a scan. Instead the nervous system is not functioning properly.
If you were a computer its like having a software problem rather than a hardware problem. If you have a software bug on your computer, it might keep crashing or work really slowly. You wouldn't solve that problem by opening up the computer and looking at the components. You wouldn't see anything if you did an x-ray of that computer.
You'd have to solve it by reprogramming the computer, working out which programs were causing the problem.
Human beings are obviously more complicated than computers. Our thoughts, behaviour, sensations and emotions are our programs.
I doubt that it is just this. All of what is mentioned is conscious. There are lot of processes which run on their own like heartbeat, breathing. Why would you believe that you can program all with emotions and thoughts?
what's even worse is that the brain structures that are mentioned would develop before words would exist in mammals or even reptiles!.
Do they believe they can access and re-program them with words?
Can these parts be re-programmed at all?
Is there anything scientific about it?
Could you re-program them into dysfunction? (If a primitive part of your brain doesn't work you might die.. )
Has anyone ever become disabled due to faulty re-programming with an unskilled CBT therapist?
As he said: the brain is so much more complicated than a computer. Even computer programmers have a hard time avoiding mistakes and can programm faulty software. Strangely CBT does work for everything. It does access all brain structures and re-programs them efficiently without adverse effects. Is that a realistic claim?
http://www.funktionellasymptom.se/download/i/mark_dl/u/4008025646/4534429360/Stone - Bare Essentials Functional Symptoms.pdf
He claims that 50%(!) of neurology outpatients have some kind of functional somatoform problem.
other claims:
Don’t believe all the physical diagnoses in the medical notes. They may not be correct. ‘‘Asthma’’ may be panic disorder, the appendix or uterus may have been normal even though surgically removed.
Explanation
This can go a long way. Sometimes a single good explanation is sufficient for recovery. However, the
way you say things is probably more important than the terminology you use. There is no ‘‘one size fits
all’’ and no ‘‘right way’’ to do it. Nonetheless, there do seem to be some important ingredients towards a
successful explanation (table 3). Like cooking or skiing though, you need to practise and to want to do it better next time
Why does he believe the brain can be re-programmed with a single explanation? Does this make any sense?
What is the patient’s understanding of the problem? What did they think of the clinic letter/leaflet? If they flatly disbelieve your diagnosis or have no memory of the letter or leaflet then further treatment is unlikely to be
worthwhile. If they are making some effort to understand it but need more help, then consider how you are going to supply this.
why wouldn't re-programming work if they don't remember the leaflet? Does this make any sense?
If this is not a superstition what is it?
Do not expect to help all patients; just because they have no disease does not mean they
‘‘should’’ get better. Perhaps only 1 in 4 severely affected patients will do well.
"Just because they have no disease does not mean they should get better". Does this make any sense at all?
1 in 4 is no better than nature taking it's course. So the treatment doesn't work for anyone except the mild cases that either get better on their own or learn to tolerate their symptoms.
