Discussion in 'General Discussion Subforum' started by BeWell, Sep 24, 2016.
[Deleted at BeWell's request]
I don't understand your argument. From purely anecdotal experience I have noticed that often times as one symptom decreases in pain, another symptom begins to manifest. The theory of the 'symptom imperative' is the best and most simple explanation for this phenomenon. How else could you explain this?
The TMS healing program is based on 'knowledge therapy;' knowledge is of course a matter of the mind. There are obviously going to be structural changes as a consequence of the syndrome and these changes can be observed in any part of the body including the brain. However, the treatment relies on the patient's knowledge of the mechanism and the process of TMS and the process is fundamentally psychological. Knowledge of neurochemistry is irrelevant and possibly counterproductive for the patient receiving TMS therapy.
I just caught this thread on a quick break from the hot-tub to top-off my Pimms Cup, speaking from a slight buzz--you two are in COMPLETE AGREEMENT that, TMS/Dr. Sarno's version of it, states that the SYMPTOM IMPERATIVE is psychosomatic/emotionally induced and NOT structural. I think the disagreement--if any-- is being cause by not enough band-width on Al Gore's internet. Next time I'm in Santa Barbara playing tennis, I'll pay him a visit at his sea-side nine bedrm. bachelor villa and tell him to up the memory in his servers. I believe SteveO agrees that Hanscom's and Schubiner's takes on TMS are somewhat different then the Good Doctor's but at least they are not knife happy. There was a push a while back to change the nomenclature of TMS to some other acronym to make it sound more allopathic like and a "real dis-ease", but it doesn't seem to have taken off at least at the TMS boards. Modern psychiatry has tried to blame chemistry for emotional dis-ease, and write an RX for it rather then talking about what's going on with the patient--you can squeeze a lot more customers into 50 minutes curing them with a pill then finding out what's going on in their emotional lives. Most psychotherapists have gone along with the plan, none of the many I've asked about Sarno have ever heard of him and you would think if they did a minimum of homework they should be familiar with his TMS theory. Bottom line, reading both of your posts, you agree on the origin of the SYMPTOM IMPERATIVE--"it's all in your head"--or at least emanates from there and works it's way outward to the body or the affective equivalents.
Even Dr. Sarno posits an ultimately physiological explanation for pain of psychogenic origin, namely reduced blood flow to an area. It isn't some mystical phenomenon taking place outside the physical realm in his view. You are in my opinion focused on minutiae and inappropriately criticizing Dr. Schubiner who has studied and taught psychophysiological disorders for many years. He definitely believes these disorders have emotional roots and that is what is important, not the mechanics. From my experience mostly on the other TMS forum, these types of debates about one psychophysiological explanation versus another divert people from the main message.
Dr. Sarno had a psychological explanation for pain and treated the syndrome psychologically. Dr. Sarno theorized that the 'unconscious mind' or the 'brain' uses the autonomic nervous system to reduce blood flow and thus cause pain to the patient. The origin is in the emotions and the reduction of blood flow is a strategy to distract the patient from unconscious feelings of anger and rage.
I won't comment on Schubiner because I haven't read much from him. But in my own recovery it was necessary to focus solely on psychology. However, Steve O does mention that he found it beneficial to meditate on blood flow.
I agree with pspa that this topic probably isn't beneficial for newcomers. I do think it is potentially beneficial and of use to some of us because it forces us to think about this issue and thus can be an exercise in reinforcing certain TMS principles.
Howard also has a psychological explanation and treats the problem psychologically. He just has a more neurological than circulatory hypothesis about the mechanics but his far bigger point is that psychological treatment works. I think the OP does him a tremendous disservice to characterize his approach as structural. Read his book, watch his videos.
You clearly don't understand what Howard is saying. The entire focus of his book and other writings is how emotions and stress cause pain. The neural pathway part is just mechanics. I can't speak to Hanscom, although to me what he said about anxiety on his blog which I reacted to has nothing to do with what Howard has said. Howard has written a book on anxiety he clearly considers it a psychological phenomenon/problem, look on Amazon.
In any event, in my opinion the theories about HOW at a biological level psychogenic issues are metabolized through the nervous and other systems is unimportant. It's all just essentially theory anyhow including Dr. Sarno and seems to have not much to do with treatment.
To me, the similarity among the various people trying to explain and help those with psychophysiological disorders far outweighs points of difference. The Sarno vs. Schubiner vs. Weekes vs. whomever debates are meaningless. Take from any and all of them whatever resonates, and don't get caught up in what I call TMS "flavor wars."
Central sensitization/augmentation is a pretty well-documented phenomenon, assuming that is what you are referring to. Do you know better than the neuroscientists who have done that MRI research? Howard's point is that the brain is plastic and that these changes can be reversed through psychological treatments. E.g.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2955480/ (Sustained Pain Reduction Through Affective Self-awareness in Fibromyalgia: A Randomized Controlled Trial)
Dr. Schubiner has written extensively on how in almost all cases ordering an MRI is a bad idea. What's your point? His is simply that all the advances in neuroscience are fully compatible with mind-body theories.
Most of what you have said on this thread is a complete straw man argument -- setting up Dr. Schubiner as somehow an advocate of structural explanations and tests which he most decidedly is NOT.
I don't even know what you are saying now, honestly. If you think the world began and ended with Dr. Sarno, that's fine. To me, lots of people before after and including him, and most certainly Howard Schubiner, have many valuable ideas to contribute. In any event, it seems to me this has run its course.
Separate names with a comma.