4 ms·
So you're saying: 1. People thought they had stomach ulcers. 2. Then we learned a lot more about what stomach ulcers actually are and how to treat them. 3. With
by erentz 7y ago
So you're saying: 1. People thought they had stomach ulcers. 2. Then we learned a lot more about what stomach ulcers actually are and how to treat them. 3. With that improved knowledge it turned out a lot of those people didn't actually have stomach ulcers. 4. So naturally the incidence rate of stomach ulcers goes down, because people are no longer misdiagnosed as having stomach ulcers. 5. ... 6. Somehow jump to conclusion that all those who thought they had stomach ulcers were making it up and it was a psychosocial illness, for which no evidence is provided.
It seems like people had symptoms that were mistaken for stomach ulcers in the popular knowledge of the time. The incidence rate going down for stomach ulcers after learning more about stomach ulcers tells us nothing about what happened to those people. We don't know what they were really suffering from, what they might now-a-days be diagnosed with, etc. And we aren't told anything here about what other environmental factors may have led to a decline.
- interpenetrate 7y agostomach ulcers of course exist. these things are really messy and are a source of internal bleeding. no one was "making it up" (?). the question is one about etiology. the history suggests that the popular etiology (bacteria and probably also NSAIDs linearly cause stomach ulcers) is entirely insufficient. the questions you're asking ("we don't know what they were really suffering from") are important, but to most people these questions don't matter anymore. there is practically no medical research being done on these questions today. why bother? the "psychosomatic school" is the only school who takes the issue seriously anymore. their work is worth considering, that's my point.
- h0l0cube 7y agoMy cousin has being diagnosed formally with MCS and co-morbid CFS, both illnesses with some controversy. I've spent time with them, and learnt that the "psychosomatic school" has always been the prevailing school of thought on the subject, and this presents many hurdles to their every day life, and potential treatment. The possibility that there's at least a component of the illnesses that aren't psychosomatic is worth considering, but such a school of thought has always been on the fringes, and serious funding to examine actual causation has always been a challenge for illness communities that have offhandedly been thrown straight into the looney bin.
- interpenetrate 7y agoyes the most successful analytic practice would be the one that could successfully traverse the boundaries we've constructed between mind and body. the idea is that h. pylori, for example, has a role to play (one way or another) in the reproduction of stomach ulcers, but the bacteria is not linearly causal. rather, it is situated in a complex dialectic web that modern medicine (and the "psychosomatic school" for that matter) are mostly unequipped to analyze. this is reflected in the gross failure of the diagnostic taxonomy produced by the medical/psychiatric industry whose validity should be (but is rarely) continuously questioned. for what it's worth the "psychosomatic school" i'm most familiar with criticizes harshly the "psychosomatic school" that i believe you're familiar with. indeed there are many ineffective and harmful centers for the treatment of "chronic illnesses." it's really shameful
- H_Pylori 7y ago> the idea is that h. pylori, for example, has a role to play (one way or another) in the reproduction of stomach ulcers, but the bacteria is not linearly causal. Prove it