![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 76 to 100 of 129. Go back in thread:
Posted by fires on July 23, 2004, at 11:32:32
In reply to Re: somatoform disorder(s) » fires, posted by Larry Hoover on July 23, 2004, at 8:22:41
I don't think you attacked me in the near past with ad hominem messages, so I will repond.
>>What sets somatoform apart (there are a number of different sub-types, but you don't further specify) is that following a series of diagnostic tests and assessments, no underlying disease state can be found.<<
You so eloquently stated above the problem with Somatoform: It assumes that there are tests and assessments currently available for all disorders/diseases. That's an incorrect assumption!!
Stomach and duodenal ulcers were once considered to be of "psychosomatic" etiology, but along came "better" science, and a bacteria was demonstrated to be the cause of ulcers. So all the ulcer victims were suddenly no longer victims of their own psyches.
Perhaps you aren't too familiar with the medical field, so I will give you another example of how one can test/be assessed neg. for a med. problem yet still have one/it.
My sister (ECG tech) has told me many stories of people who have come into the ER with MI symptoms, only to test negative for MI. Then they die of a massive MI on the way home.
Thank you
Posted by fires on July 23, 2004, at 11:34:44
In reply to Re: Fires....too hot to handle?, posted by Larry Hoover on July 23, 2004, at 8:24:42
>>> Don't read posters who trouble you, maybe?<<
Good advice to those who feel the need to attack me personally.
Thanks
Posted by AuntieMel on July 23, 2004, at 11:37:07
In reply to Re: I'm with TC and PC..., posted by JenStar on July 22, 2004, at 23:32:49
and start over. Or if you feel you can't start over right now, please don't help make things worse.
Posted by AuntieMel on July 23, 2004, at 11:39:09
In reply to Please everyone, let's take a deep breath, posted by AuntieMel on July 23, 2004, at 11:37:07
I feel like someone in a 50s movie. "can't we all just play nice"
I take no sides here. I just want peace in the family.
Posted by TexasChic on July 23, 2004, at 12:17:34
In reply to Please everyone, let's take a deep breath, posted by AuntieMel on July 23, 2004, at 11:37:07
I didn't mean my post as an attack, I was trying to reach out. I was honestly trying to help, not make things worse. But if that's what I did I apologize.
Posted by fires on July 23, 2004, at 12:42:16
In reply to Re: I'm with TC and PC... » fires, posted by TexasChic on July 23, 2004, at 9:28:41
I think you may be misinterpreting what I meant by **? Is that possible?
Also, I don't think that "fricken" is an acceptable euphemism. I don't know of any schools in my area that would allow students to use it on campus.
Thanks
Posted by fires on July 23, 2004, at 12:46:35
In reply to Re: I'm with TC and PC... » JenStar, posted by chemist on July 23, 2004, at 9:32:05
> > awesome, funny post! :) I love Catch 22 - one of my very favorite books. Good analogy! :)
> >
> > Chuckling...
> >
> > JenStar (Or...is it TexasChic....or it is AuntieMel? The possibilities, like the Yossarians, abound!)
>
>
> hello there, chemist chemist here...or am i? all the best...I don't find these types of posts are beneficial , or amusing. Why don't some of you just admit to using multiple names here, *if you are indeed doing so*. Messages like above only further cause me to believe that it is being done here.
Thanks
Posted by Larry Hoover on July 23, 2004, at 12:52:18
In reply to Re: I'm with TC and PC..., posted by fires on July 22, 2004, at 20:38:24
> I think everyone knows what "fricken" stands for.
Then why did you post a definition, one far more explicit than the original form?
> I would appreciate it if you would refrain from using it in any thread that I start.
I would appreciate if if you would refrain from claiming ownership of any thread to which others post.
Thanks
Posted by TexasChic on July 23, 2004, at 12:58:29
In reply to Re: I'm with TC and PC..., posted by fires on July 23, 2004, at 12:42:16
Why you would use ** instead of the real word if it weren't something offensive? It doesn't matter. I don't want to argue with you, I just didn't think that was a fair request.
Anyway, I think I'm just going to shut up now. I'm obviously not communicating effectively today, everyone keeps misunderstanding me.
I hope your day goes well.
Posted by Larry Hoover on July 23, 2004, at 13:07:02
In reply to Re: somatoform disorder(s), posted by fires on July 23, 2004, at 11:32:32
> I don't think you attacked me in the near past with ad hominem messages, so I will repond.
>
> >>What sets somatoform apart (there are a number of different sub-types, but you don't further specify) is that following a series of diagnostic tests and assessments, no underlying disease state can be found.<<
>
> You so eloquently stated above the problem with Somatoform: It assumes that there are tests and assessments currently available for all disorders/diseases. That's an incorrect assumption!!No, there is no such assumption. Doctors not finding anything that corresponds to their current state of knowledge is not the same thing as assuming they know everything and how to find it.
> Stomach and duodenal ulcers were once considered to be of "psychosomatic" etiology, but along came "better" science, and a bacteria was demonstrated to be the cause of ulcers. So all the ulcer victims were suddenly no longer victims of their own psyches.
Stress is still a factor, and treatment is still symptomatic. Knowing "why to do" is better than knowing "what to do", but apart from adding antibiotic therapy, what to do hasn't changed.
> Perhaps you aren't too familiar with the medical field,Careful, lest you stray into ad hominem land.
> so I will give you another example of how one can test/be assessed neg. for a med. problem yet still have one/it.
>
> My sister (ECG tech) has told me many stories of people who have come into the ER with MI symptoms, only to test negative for MI. Then they die of a massive MI on the way home.ECG is not 100% sensitive to AMI (false negatives are possible), nor 100% specific for AMI (false positives are possible). Cardiac enzyme levels (myocardial troponin T) are generally very sensitive and specific to ischemia. In any case, anecdote is not really of predictive value. "The exception proves the rule."
>
>
> Thank you
>
>You're welcome.
Posted by AuntieMel on July 23, 2004, at 13:56:08
In reply to Re: Please everyone, let's take a deep breath, posted by TexasChic on July 23, 2004, at 12:17:34
Of course you didn't mean it as an attack. I read it as explaining how you feel.
That wasn't directed at any particular person, just a plea in general.
Posted by fires on July 23, 2004, at 14:47:26
In reply to Re: I'm with TC and PC..., posted by TexasChic on July 23, 2004, at 12:58:29
> Why you would use ** instead of the real word if it weren't something offensive? It doesn't matter. I don't want to argue with you, I just didn't think that was a fair request.
> Anyway, I think I'm just going to shut up now. I'm obviously not communicating effectively today, everyone keeps misunderstanding me.
> I hope your day goes well.I seriously doubt that "everyone" is misunderstanding you.
Thanks
Posted by partlycloudy on July 23, 2004, at 14:49:28
In reply to Re: I'm with TC and PC..., posted by fires on July 23, 2004, at 14:47:26
> > Why you would use ** instead of the real word if it weren't something offensive? It doesn't matter. I don't want to argue with you, I just didn't think that was a fair request.
> > Anyway, I think I'm just going to shut up now. I'm obviously not communicating effectively today, everyone keeps misunderstanding me.
> > I hope your day goes well.
>
> I seriously doubt that "everyone" is misunderstanding you.
>
> Thanks
>
>Sarcasm is not an appreciated art form here.
Posted by AuntieMel on July 23, 2004, at 14:52:13
In reply to Re: I'm with TC and PC..., posted by fires on July 23, 2004, at 14:47:26
Actually TexasChic is having a very bad day today. And she, too, is a very nice person. I'm sure she didn't intentionally try to offend you.
I'm one of those that believe intent is just as or more important as the action itself.
Posted by fires on July 23, 2004, at 15:06:27
In reply to Re: somatoform disorder(s) » fires, posted by Larry Hoover on July 23, 2004, at 13:07:02
> > I don't think you attacked me in the near past with ad hominem messages, so I will repond.
> >
> > >>What sets somatoform apart (there are a number of different sub-types, but you don't further specify) is that following a series of diagnostic tests and assessments, no underlying disease state can be found.<<
> >
> > You so eloquently stated above the problem with Somatoform: It assumes that there are tests and assessments currently available for all disorders/diseases. That's an incorrect assumption!!
>
> No, there is no such assumption. Doctors not finding anything that corresponds to their current state of knowledge is not the same thing as assuming they know everything and how to find it.
>
> > Stomach and duodenal ulcers were once considered to be of "psychosomatic" etiology, but along came "better" science, and a bacteria was demonstrated to be the cause of ulcers. So all the ulcer victims were suddenly no longer victims of their own psyches.
>
> Stress is still a factor, and treatment is still symptomatic. Knowing "why to do" is better than knowing "what to do", but apart from adding antibiotic therapy, what to do hasn't changed.
>
> > Perhaps you aren't too familiar with the medical field,
>
> Careful, lest you stray into ad hominem land.
>
> > so I will give you another example of how one can test/be assessed neg. for a med. problem yet still have one/it.
> >
> > My sister (ECG tech) has told me many stories of people who have come into the ER with MI symptoms, only to test negative for MI. Then they die of a massive MI on the way home.
>
> ECG is not 100% sensitive to AMI (false negatives are possible), nor 100% specific for AMI (false positives are possible). Cardiac enzyme levels (myocardial troponin T) are generally very sensitive and specific to ischemia. In any case, anecdote is not really of predictive value. "The exception proves the rule."
>
> >
> >
> > Thank you
> >
> >
>
> You're welcome.Well. Where to begin? I do believe that you have contradicted yourself.
>>> No, there is no such assumption. Doctors not finding anything that corresponds to their current state of knowledge is not the same thing as assuming they know everything and how to find it.<<
Then why don't they consider that a patient might have such a disorder instead of Dxing Somatoform Disorder?? I had/have such a disorder.
Thank goodness I didn't buy into the Somatoform Dx!!>>> Stress is still a factor, and treatment is still symptomatic. Knowing "why to do" is better than knowing "what to do", but apart from adding antibiotic therapy, what to do hasn't changed.<<
I will refrain from posting links, but my research indicates that your statement contains errors. 1) Stress *may* be a factor in *some* patients with ulcers. If you have scientific data to the contrary I would like to see it.
2)What to do has changed. Not only are antibiotics given, but Pepto Bismol(sometimes), and the newer PPIs are also used (nearly always) for ulcers.
>>> ECG is not 100% sensitive to AMI (false negatives are possible), nor 100% specific for AMI (false positives are possible). Cardiac enzyme levels (myocardial troponin T) are generally very sensitive and specific to ischemia. In any case, anecdote is not really of predictive value. "The exception proves the rule."<<
Thanks again for so eloquently making my point !! Re-read the above , then apply that same logic to the Dxing of Somatoform. Is there a blood test for Somatoform? or do Pdocs rely on anecdotal and subjective info. to Dx it? "The exception proves the rule"
Thanks
Posted by TexasChic on July 23, 2004, at 15:13:20
In reply to Re: I'm with TC and PC... » fires, posted by AuntieMel on July 23, 2004, at 14:52:13
I knew you didn't direct that at me. It just made me want to reinforce my intent.
Posted by Dinah on July 23, 2004, at 15:29:04
In reply to Re: I'm with TC and PC..., posted by fires on July 23, 2004, at 14:47:26
Posted by Dinah on July 23, 2004, at 15:33:20
In reply to Re: Thanks Mel!, posted by TexasChic on July 23, 2004, at 15:13:20
Please don't feel that this is a problem with you. :) You're communicating just fine.
Posted by AuntieMel on July 23, 2004, at 15:38:42
In reply to Re: somatoform disorder(s), posted by fires on July 23, 2004, at 11:32:32
It's good to have you back, Lar.
I could be way, way off on this, and confused. It *is* friday.
It seems that we have an apple/oranges problem here. Or you are trying to say the same thing in different ways.
Ulcers and MI are things that can be tested for and diagnosed, notwithstanding false negatives. The theory of the *cause* of ulcers was found to be erroneous, but ulcers themselves could be diagnosed.
Somatoform Disorder, and others, are convenient labels that get applied when all other tests fail to show anything. There is a good chance that new technology will find, or help narrow down the diagnosis even further.
But the biggest point here, in my opinion, was that fires was diagnosed with it, without his (or is it her? please tell) knowledge. And that the diagnosis was done by a shrink, and without any testing to rule out other things first. That seems to me to be a HUGE assumption.
And putting it on a chart as if it was based in science seems totally irresponsible.
Fires set the record straight, and for that should be commended.
Posted by AuntieMel on July 23, 2004, at 15:46:19
In reply to Re: Off topic digressions, multiple ids » fires, posted by Larry Hoover on July 22, 2004, at 16:15:38
We don't want to lose you. You're far too valuable here.
Posted by AuntieMel on July 23, 2004, at 15:48:09
In reply to Re: Thanks Mel!, posted by TexasChic on July 23, 2004, at 15:13:20
Posted by Larry Hoover on July 23, 2004, at 16:35:24
In reply to Re: somatoform disorder(s), posted by fires on July 23, 2004, at 15:06:27
> Well. Where to begin? I do believe that you have contradicted yourself.
Nope.
> >>> No, there is no such assumption. Doctors not finding anything that corresponds to their current state of knowledge is not the same thing as assuming they know everything and how to find it.<<
>
> Then why don't they consider that a patient might have such a disorder instead of Dxing Somatoform Disorder??What disorder? When you say "such a disorder", what are you referring to? If a doctor looked, and didn't find anything, there is no diagnosis. Do you want me to copy and present the diagnostic characteristics of Somatoform Disorder? It can't be proven, but it can be diagnosed, according to the nosology in use today.
> I had/have such a disorder.
An undiagnosable disorder?
> Thank goodness I didn't buy into the Somatoform Dx!!
Why?
> >>> Stress is still a factor, and treatment is still symptomatic. Knowing "why to do" is better than knowing "what to do", but apart from adding antibiotic therapy, what to do hasn't changed.<<
>
> I will refrain from posting links, but my research indicates that your statement contains errors. 1) Stress *may* be a factor in *some* patients with ulcers. If you have scientific data to the contrary I would like to see it.I reiterate. Stress is still a factor, but I will go on to say....in the etiology and treatment of ulcers.
> 2)What to do has changed. Not only are antibiotics given, but Pepto Bismol(sometimes), and the newer PPIs are also used (nearly always) for ulcers.Acid reducing meds, all. There are newer categories (You left out H2 blockade.), but not novel treatments, apart from antibiotics. And even that category was actually in use, by serendipity, as bismuth salts are antibiotic.
> >>> ECG is not 100% sensitive to AMI (false negatives are possible), nor 100% specific for AMI (false positives are possible). Cardiac enzyme levels (myocardial troponin T) are generally very sensitive and specific to ischemia. In any case, anecdote is not really of predictive value. "The exception proves the rule."<<
>
> Thanks again for so eloquently making my point !! Re-read the above , then apply that same logic to the Dxing of Somatoform. Is there a blood test for Somatoform? or do Pdocs rely on anecdotal and subjective info. to Dx it? "The exception proves the rule"Nothing is 100% in medicine, or any scientific enterprise. Just because no one can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that you have somatoform disorder does not mean that you do not. You are committing the logical fallacy of denying the antecedent.
> Thanks
You're welcome.
Posted by Larry Hoover on July 23, 2004, at 16:36:07
In reply to Re: Please be careful » Larry Hoover, posted by AuntieMel on July 23, 2004, at 15:46:19
> We don't want to lose you. You're far too valuable here.
Thanks, but I've got a handle on things. ;-)
Posted by fires on July 23, 2004, at 16:46:26
In reply to Re: somatoform disorder(s) » fires, posted by Larry Hoover on July 23, 2004, at 16:35:24
I was DXed with Somatoform which was wrong. I have POTS. (Objective proof).
I suppose according to your logic: just because they failed to substantiate Somatoform doesn't mean I don't have it?
Maybe I also have MS, MD, ADD, ***MPD***, etc..
bye
Posted by chemist on July 23, 2004, at 16:47:41
In reply to Re: Please be careful » AuntieMel, posted by Larry Hoover on July 23, 2004, at 16:36:07
> > We don't want to lose you. You're far too valuable here.
>
> Thanks, but I've got a handle on things. ;-)
>
>
larry, just a quick hello...and that's all...be well, friend, tjm
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Psychology | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.