Body Reprogramming: Reframing the Fibromyalgia narrative and providing an integrative therapeutic model, 2022, Fitzdonald Davies et al

Abstract

We propose a theory known as the Hyland model to help conceptualise Fibromyalgia within a complex adaptive control system. A fundamental assumption is that symptom generating mechanisms are causally connected, forming a network that has emergent properties. An illness narrative has been developed which has a ‘goodness of fit’ with the lived experience of those with Fibromyalgia. The theory guides management within the clinical setting and incorporates current evidence-based therapeutic strategies, within a multi-modal intervention described as ‘Body Reprogramming’. This intervention focuses on non-pharmacological and lifestyle-based considerations. The theoretical framework also helps explain why modest therapeutic effects are gained from current pharmacological options.

Open access, https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2055102920971494

 

I read this article yesterday morning and it helped ruin my day.

At first this rehash of the Hyland model seems faintly interesting, possibly reasonable, but it soon degenerates into the same old psychs self-aggrandizing, self-congratulatory pompously stupid theorizing that it's all in your head, you nuts woman. They, in trying to 'simply' FM for the average doctor to use as a framework for thinking about FM, have just created another hornets nest.

How is it that psychs (who lack enough basic science courses in school) cannot say: we just don't know how FM develops. That would be telling the truth. Nonsense schema-generating is a form of lying, IMO.

The myriad of symptoms (gut, brain, musclo-skeletal) just stumps these guys. It is unknown.

I canceled my Stork app subscription yesterday (again) and I may refrain from reading FM meaningless and harmful psych-based articles on this adored site.

It's more than enough masochism to be doubted at the doctor's office (that attitude gets elicited quite easily), from relatives who read trash-drivel on the internet and express high and mighty doubt to my face, from anyone else who conflates distress generated by this female predominate illness with something that I have generated willfully. Fingers are always pointed. Blame the woman.

N=1 Fibromyalgia symptoms of pain began in two small locations began at age 46. I was doing well, better than ever before, in all areas of my life. Gradually it became worse and worse until I had to lie down at 9am break time at work, turn off fluorescent lights because they hurt my head, cold air from freezers in the grocery store caused intense pain the second I entered the store. Applied for disablity after mulitple attempts at some form of productive work.

I wish these psychs would do something productive.

I'm done reading FM porno.

 

Personally, I have a lot, a lot of imagination, and so I could invent a theory a day if I wanted. But that would always remain just an unproven theory, maybe attractive because it seemed logical, but still did not reflect reality. And worse than useless, damaging for those who suffer from FM.

Yes @shak8, take leave of these rantings and nonsense which seems to have no end, because it downright undermines the mood. It is therefore the opposite that is healthy, to not read them.

 

https://www.thebrspecialist.com/?fb...WDrRNrYMuBmJ0Iy7KGcr_hQbCaJciij22XRSu7-NDN0qE




https://www.plymouth.ac.uk/staff/michael-hyland

 

The stuff about "stop signals" lacks empirical basis, though a stop signal is a reasonable consequence of SEVERE pain, milder forms of pain, nor fatigue are not "stop signals", but the authors seem to assume this is still true.

Yeah, nah.

It sounds VERY dualistic. In general the software/hardware analogy is always put forth by people who neither have a deep understanding of neurology, nor computer science.

There has been previous discussion here:
https://www.s4me.info/threads/the-hardware-software-analogy-of-the-bps-theory.10678/ (with specific reference to Hyland)

and here: https://www.s4me.info/threads/body-...ide-for-recovery-using-the-hyland-model.8037/

 

Reminds me of my appointment with Dr Nixon at Charing X Hospital all those years ago. (He was the ME = hyperventilating Cardiologist)

Dr Nixon - software, hardware blah blah blah

Me - evidence, facts, working medical theories blah, blah, blah

Dr Nixon - I won't argue medicine with you unless you have a qualification in that

Me - well, i won't argue computing until you have a qualification in that then.

-----

 

Oh, this guy?

https://www.bmj.com/content/314/7093/1501.1.extract
Cardiologist admits research misconduct

Generally speaking, the best scientists are the ones that welcome debate and criticism, for they know the theories they promote are usually strong enough to hold up and should be replaced if not.

 

Oh there's going to be a few of those in the future, for all the "patient-hating charlatans" out there. They will end just the same.

 

Yes the software/hardware analogy is really bad. We all know brains are neural networks for a start, so not like computers at all but social media, facial recognition programmes etc. In relation to body function whichever aspect of the Central Nervous System (ie not even just brain, nevermind bringing in 'mind) is normally in a 'system' not 'just giving out orders'. But this paper seems to have somehow mimicked the idea of it being a neural network whilst claiming still the mind plays a great part in controlling it.

They've really gone to town. So many models, and so many illnesses they believe they've mapped. But, erm.. things like Addison's having primary and secondary versions underlines the flaw. In one the pituitary sends out the signal ACTH and adrenals don't produce enough cortisol etc in response. In the other the pituitary doesn't send enough ACTH. Both have similar end results. The mind would struggle to fix either.

At the cell level for example the eyes have cells that immediately detect speed (why particularly animals can react so fast), as well as rods and cones and so on. Properception involves sensors in tendons, muscles and whilst brain damage can cause issues here, so can issues at smaller levels they are only just getting to the bottom of e.g.: https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/12/propioception-body-parts-sense-research/420765/

All info isn't only processed through the brain and everything else must be fine. And yes all 'stressors or causes' of anything going wrong can't just be argued as due to 'the mind' and 'due to perception/internal processes' with no evidence. Why is his idea more likely than another little protein in a sensor as per the Atlantic article? No matter how complicated and extensive your diagrams are, surely you have to step back and acknowledge in your discussion such obvious alternative possibilities?

And surely biting off so many body parts and systems as being covered shows naivity in the rest of the parts that are involved in said systems - as noone is specialist in everything even on the bits already known to science. So how has it possibly been proven it isn't something other than the ethereal?

 

The book reviews say it all