Fluctuation of functional somatic disorders in a population-based cohort. The DanFunD study 2024 Schovsbo, Fink et al

Abstract

Background
Evidence of incidence of functional somatic disorders (FSD) is hampered by unclear delimitations of the conditions and little is known about the possible interchangeability between syndromes. Further, knowledge on remission and persistence of FSD in the general population is limited. We aimed to assess the natural course of various FSD over 5 years in the general population.

Methods
A follow-up study (Danish Study of Functional Disorders—DanFunD) was conducted in a random sample of the general population comprising 5,738 participants aged 18–76 years at baseline. Both at baseline and five-year follow-up, participants filled in validated questionnaires on symptoms to delimitate two approaches of FSD, the bodily distress syndrome (BDS) and four functional somatic syndromes (FSS): irritable bowel (IB), chronic fatigue (CF), chronic widespread pain (CWP), and multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS).

Results
Both BDS and FSS showed a five-year incidence around 11%. Incidence of the individual FSS varied from 0.8% (MCS) to 5.7% (CF). BDS and FSS showed a remission proportion close to 50%. We found a high degree of interchangeability between each FSS varying from 15.0% to 23.4%.

Conclusion
We identified a marked fluctuation pattern of FSD during a five-year period, with a high degree of interchangeability between each FSS. The study stresses the importance of large population-based cohorts with transparent delimitation of FSD in future research to understand these complex conditions.

Open access, https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0312031

 

They're actually using the fact that they don't know a damn thing and made this all up to argue that they should be doing more of that. Which they recognize plainly in the abstract, but it has never stopped them from making very specific claims for decades, none of which have any actual evidence. Impressive scam they got going on here.

But at least they identified a "marked fluctuation pattern". Which was known a long time ago, because this is what patients have been reporting for over, well, centuries actually. Even more so having chosen the most generic constructs they could get away with. But they did identify it, which actually makes this slightly above average for this type of research. They also identified overlap between them, but seem ignorant of the fact that it's also long been reported, that in fact the overlap is itself part of many definitions and an obvious artifact of their arbitrary choices of definitions, but as usual miss the point entirely. They prefer to think of this as interchangeability, for some bizarre reasons that are totally not ideological and self-serving.

I could not possibly even suggest a potential use for this kind of research. It is entirely useless pseudointellectual masturbation. Other than that it's easy work where no one seems to care that they make it all up. It does have the benefit of having zero oversight, no one breathing down their necks for results and infinite funding despite never delivering a damn thing.

Believed is accurate. The citation is to a discussion paper co-authored by Fink. So basically "some people are saying". Which people? Literally them, citing themselves. As brilliant as any Ponzi scheme where money gets shuffled around on accounts they all own.

All of this is quite similar to biology studies doing species classifications where somewhat look-alike species are lumped together but later on, using scientific technology, they get properly classified. They are at the stage where they can't tell the difference between insects, bats, birds and even managed to put in flying fishes in there as well, but pat themselves on the back for noting how their arbitrary definitions are confusing. This is completely unserious, but they keep getting money anyway so who's the clown here?

Not even sure what to make of this:

"Strengths and limitations", they open with this gem:

See, this study about X is strong because it studies X. This is basically the biggest strength of this study according to them, listed first, because it studied what they studied. Real groundbreaking stuff right there.