FND : NOT a Functional Etiology - another step in the right direction

[Crypto127]

Another interesting piece of research that is finally asking the right questions - looking at the role of cytokines and microRNA and inflammation in this distressing and disabling condition.

It's time the scientific community challenged a priori assumptions about FND. There needs to be more rigorous research and patient-driven.

sciencedirect.com/science/a...

Thanks Mic67 for sharing the paper : Functional Neurological Disorders and Psychogenic Nonepileptic Seizures: Neurological Disease NOT a Functional Etiology:

scienceinquest.com/open-acc...

[Mic67]

OOh great find, Cryto. This is promising isn't it, even if it was scuppered a bit by Covid! I'd love to take part in one of these studies. I've always felt inflammation was involved in my case as I ended up under rheumatology for inflammatory issues that started at the same time as my neuro issues! Being the UK, or indeed the West...we end up under two depts with doctors who don't communicate with each other...and one section dealing with my arms and another with my legs...you couldn't make it up!

And yes, I completely agree about the prior assumptions, we currently have new wine in old bottles, the language has changed but little else..... I reject this dx until someone can explain to me WHY it has happened. It has also destroyed my trust in health professionals.

[Crypto127 in reply to Mic67]

Hi Mic67 and 210272

I agree that it seems to be only certain "experts" who get published and despite all their papers, there doesn't appear to be any rigorous diagnostic procedure for FND. Consequently, a lot of the statistics and science seem to be built on sand and that worries me.

[210272 in reply to Crypto127]

Hi Crypto127 - great find, thank you Not sure why I can't make the 'heart' button clock up to 2 here but I found the paper very interesting and helpful. Agree re the lack of rigour re the diagnosis of FND. If people are able to ascribe their symptoms to either another condition (eg migraine) or medication side effects then I think they are not considered to have FND but since it can take ages for patients to get diagnosed with other conditions, an FND diagnosis seems to be a default dx for some neurologists and primary care doctors.

[210272]

I notice there is no mention of this in the recent article about 'FND' in The Times (UK newspaper). I wonder why??

[Mic67 in reply to 210272]

I've not dared look at that article. But again, seems strangely timed with adverse reactions to vaccines..

[Mic67 in reply to 210272]

Oh god, just read it. The world of FND is regressing. I'm out!

[210272 in reply to Mic67]

The thing that struck me about The Times article (other than the use of the word 'psychosomatic' which sucks) is that the journalist (I'm using the term loosely) didn't seem to have spoken to any patients about this medical model. Neither did he mention Catherine Carson's paper or papers like "the function of 'functional'", 'limits to truth telling' or 'what is functional doing in neurology and psychiatry?' (I could be paraphrasing with the last one and am too knackered to check). Old wind (hah - that was a typo for 'wine' but I'm keeping it) in new bottles with new labels doesn't help anyone.

[Mic67 in reply to 210272]

Discussion on the horrific article on the Science 4 ME forum.

s4me.info/threads/let%E2%80...

Also archive link to get past paywall if anyone can be arsed reading such shite. archive.is/

thetimes.co.uk/article/lets...

[artmom in reply to Mic67]

I’ve just skim read (without glasses!) a lancet article which was on the s4me thread (I haven’t come across this before so not sure what it is).

The article is talking about non-somatic syndromes and how people who present with them are all v connected. It says women predominantly affected. It says childhood maltreatment and abuse is found with women with functional pelvic pain. But then says this association isn’t specific and is found in women with other functional syndromes. Does it not occur to the authors, even in 1999 when this was written, that these histories might be found in any snapshot group of women anywhere?? Maybe it’s our current age that is, unfortunately, providing us with that knowledge. The article concludes with citing research/papers, from the 30s, 40s, and 60s in support of their hypothesis. Now I know this article is old. But has anything changed?

[Mic67 in reply to artmom]

Sadly, I think the only thing that's changed is terminology and a few advocacy organisations. I believe 'women' or 'women's issues' will always be tinged with patriarchal ideas and suffer from medical gaslighting.

[210272 in reply to Mic67]

Mic67 - sorry to be so tardy regarding my responses to all this. Sometimes, for the sake of my mental health, I have to take a break from the Stone Age and do this century science instead That Spectator article was terrible and I think the one in The Times was too but because the latter was dressed up in newer, less offensive clothes/language, people might buy into it more easily which bothers me.

People who look into all the bad science around M.E. have suggested that The Times article is 'well intentioned' which it may be. But the road to hell is paved with good intentions and the article is worrying on so many levels and for so many reasons that I've lost count ...

[Mic67 in reply to 210272]

Hey no worries at all, I only pop back on here occasionally myself.