3 ms·

You know, it's really remarkable the lengths you guys are going to to push this narrative. Comical, actually. I see another comment of yours on this thread tha

You know, it's really remarkable the lengths you guys are going to to push this narrative. Comical, actually. I see another comment of yours on this thread that suggests neurologists don't train to identify neurological damage that results from psychosomatic disorders. Right. So, even the physical evidence that has been detected you write off as the result of psychosomatic damage. These people are showing up with detectable brain injuries and you're declaring here on the internet that they're psychosomatic and neurologists just aren't trained to understand it. Do you know how ridiculous that sounds? It's hard to imagine mere dupes pressing the agenda this hard. But maybe you're just trolling. Either way, I'm going to stop debating reality with you and your friend now.

boomboomsubban 5y ago
> that suggests neurologists don't train... That asks a question. I have no idea how much training neurologists have about psychogenic illnesses. All the study showed was the differences in the measurements, it does not mention any potential cause or really whether those differences explain the symptoms. >So, even the physical evidence that has been detected you write off as the result of psychosomatic damage. These people are showing up with detectable brain injuries First, psychosomatic illnesses can cause physical evidence. Besides that, something like three people had detectable injuries, the rest of the ~40 did not. There could be a very banal cause for that. Again, the US government's own report says that that a psychogenic cause completely fits the available evidence. Suggesting that is the cause isn't trolling nor have I been duped into this position. Your complete denial of it makes no sense, I fully admit further evidence may show me to be wrong but you refuse to see it as a possibility.

boomboomsubban 5y ago

> that suggests neurologists don't train... That asks a question. I have no idea how much training neurologists have about psychogenic illnesses. All the study showed was the differences in the measurements, it does not mention any potential cause or really whether those differences explain the symptoms. >So, even the physical evidence that has been detected you write off as the result of psychosomatic damage. These people are showing up with detectable brain injuries First, psychosomatic illnesses can cause physical evidence. Besides that, something like three people had detectable injuries, the rest of the ~40 did not. There could be a very banal cause for that. Again, the US government's own report says that that a psychogenic cause completely fits the available evidence. Suggesting that is the cause isn't trolling nor have I been duped into this position. Your complete denial of it makes no sense, I fully admit further evidence may show me to be wrong but you refuse to see it as a possibility.