Fibromyalgia and the Dr Sarno connection

Some additional comments, including one by Dr. Quintner calling Dr. Sarno's theories outdated and unsupportable, have been posted on this thread.
http://www.fmperplex.com/2016/06/14/fibromyalgia-and-the-sarno-connection/#comment-25479 (FIBROMYALGIA AND THE SARNO CONNECTION – The Fibromyalgia Perplex)

This could be a good opportunity to take the message to a different audience, perhaps one of the authors, or doctors, who follow this board would be so inclined.

 

That's a great idea, hopefully someone on the PPD network sees this thread.

 

I don't know if Steve Ozanich is a regular reader here but a dialogue between him and Dr. Quintner would certainly be interesting.

 

More from Dr. Quintner.

"A scientific theory is only useful if it can generate testable hypotheses. According to Dr Sarno’s theory, psychic (emotional) stressors can generate “aberrations of soft tissue” that act as foci of nociceptive input and thereby be the source of muscular pain. However, such “aberrations” have never been demonstrated, which puts his theory into the same category as that which postulated the existence of “myofascial trigger points”. In both these instances, the respective theories have been exposed as mere conjecture rather than established knowledge. In my opinion, as I have argued above, Dr Sarno’s theories are implausible. Anecdotal evidence supporting his treatment methods does not validate his theory. This type of fallacious argument is known by the name of “post hoc ergo propter hoc”."

 

I'm going to have get out my Web MD and Latin dictionary before I will be able to deduce what Dr. Quinine is trying to convey into simpleton English. I'm guessing that he is not a big fan of the Good Doctor's TMS theory. Wait until he gets chronic back-ache, he may want to take another look-see at Sarno.

 

Dr. Quintner is saying that it's a logical fallacy to conclude that when someone gets better after using Dr. Sarno's methods, they got better BECAUSE of those methods.

 

Well pspa, who do you believe in Quintner or Sarno?

 

@pspa, Quintner's site makes for interesting reading. What I most appreciate is his acknowledgement that the times they are a'changing. The internet has loosened the stronghold on the dissemination of information and I admire his efforts to create a salon of discussion in the web's Wild West. For the benefits of those who wish to stay here and not venture there, from the About page:

"The traditional model of medical publications is changing. In place of formal print journals run by specialty societies, open access electronic journals are appearing everywhere. There is much to like in this change. Page limitations that prevent the full dissemination of research are being relaxed in this new model, and more research can be published. Open access also means that the heavy financial support and quid pro quo provided to dominant specialty societies by pharmaceutical companies, in the journal advertising and reprints model, will also lessen.

Missing in all of the publication models, however, is frank discussion about the meaning and consequences of the research and ideas it generates. Article introductions are boiler-plate bland. Letters to the editor are limited and circumscribed. It is rare that one can really comment meaningfully. There is much to be liked about the peer review model, but there is also much wrong with it, particularly when it reinforces the current dominant idea and suppresses alternative views.

This blog is designed to facilitate open, vigorous discussion about fibromyalgia and fibromyalgia-related issues.
Say here what you think. We want to open up frank discussions of the full spectrum of fibromyalgia-related ideas and consequences. But do keep in mind Niels Bohr’s admonition, ‘It is not enough to be wrong, one must also be polite.’


Quintner accepts submissions from 'official' defenders of the faith. Perhaps @Steve Ozanich will take the time to parry...


Here are the guidelines:

Rules about posting and articles:

About comments. We want this blog to be about research and discussions concerning fibromyalgia. To post to this blog you should be a published author, have other academic credentials, or would be welcomed as a discussant in an academic journal. We make these somewhat arbitrary rules to try to exclude the general, non-scientific public. We welcome comments by all scientists and social scientists, not just those who are physicians. This blog is moderated, meaning that the editors decide what will appear. In general, we will not censor on-topic scientific posts provided authors meet the above guidelines. If you don’t fit our guidelines and think you have something to contribute, send the editors an email at fmperplex@gmail.com.

About articles. We welcome submissions of articles. By articles we mean new subject posts of varying length. They can be long. In fact, we might even publish short academic articles. If you want to submit a new-subject post, write and discuss this with the editors first at fmperplex@gmail.com.

 

Hi All,

Sorry, I did receive some updates but just haven't had the time to share these:

I spoke to Steve about this some days ago, and he informs me he promised Dr Sarno long ago, that he would steer clear of fights on his behalf. Dr Sarno believes success stories will help push the message along faster.

This was a reply from Dr Schubiner...

Yes, I know about Dr Quintner. He's a prolific writer and a clear skeptic.

He mentions that we need to do a larger, Fully controlled randomized trial, what he calls an "impossible and tantalizing effort."

Well, we have done just that. We are submitting this research study for publication soon and hopefully we will get people to look at how the modern science is now validating Dr. Sarno's theories (although not every single facet of them, for example the loss of blood supply hasn't been shown, nor is it always rage or repressed emotions either). Best, Howard

 

Mike, thanks so much for putting pen to paper. I'm not surprised to hear Steve's response. It makes complete sense. Actually I edited the following out of my initial reply but it kinda circles the same sun so I shall pop it here for what it is worth:

Speaking personally I have reached a place of surety where I no longer feel the need to confirm, prove or validate anything. I delayed my own healing with years of endless searching for 'the truth' in the quagmire of endlessly contradictory theories. These days I embrace what works and the rest can go fish. I also know absolutely nothing about fibromyalgia beyond what sufferers have written on this forum.

As for Dr. Schu, that is great news. I believe Sarno was describing a process that is now being validated by neuroscience. Recent debates here have highlighted that the exact mechanisms by which emotions interact with the autonomic nervous system are yet to clarified but it is clear that pure emotional work is enough to rewire the board. Sarno aside, there are legions of people who have healed using inner work techniques such as those inspired by Louise Hay. The difference is (aside from creating a global empire), Hay and her ilk had no desire to prove or disprove anything. The healing sufficed.

Onward and upward.

Edit: Here is a link to a recent post where I clumsily attempted to connect a few dots. The following post by @pspa is fascinating and good to read on the back of this discussion.

Dr. Sarno has succeeded, but he shall not prevail.

 

Thanks for directing me to those post, they make fascinating reading.

I agree fully, I like to pick and choose the golden nuggets of information that resonate with me. There is a wealth of information available, but being blindsided can lead to frustration and anger or being disheartened. I personally, think the truth is in ones belief, everything else is just noise or clouds one from logical, sensible and rationale thinking. A distraction from finding ones own healing truth.

 

Not everyone will "heal" and lose their bodily pain(s). One of Dr. Sarno's contributions to psychosomatic medicine is that TMS pain is a PROTECTOR and NOT a punisher as some psychologists before him postulated. Dr. Sarno evaluated for this in his patient interviews. He selected patients who would be open-minded and amenable to accepting that TMS pain emanated from the mind . He did not take on as patients those that NEEDED their pain as a shield--a psychological defense mechanism--from feeling the greater emotional pain that their sub-c's decided on their behalf. He did not want to waste their time on pursuing a course that they were not ready for and likely never would be.

I've given out a slew of TMS books, but there were some people I knew would go to their grave with TMS pain and would NEVER want to look inward for the source. Other's I thought had a chance to accept the Good Doctor's theory and use it. Out of those there's only been a handful who actually read it and got it. Most returned it, probably reading the covers and never opening it. I had a tennis buddy who was going to NYC on business who had hip pain. I told him to see Dr. Sarno while there. He did and told me that "He had quite an operation there.", and proceeded to go forward with a hip-replacement, and a second by now. Some people I gave Sarno to were people one would think should know better--like yoga teachers in pain--they don't seem to teach the other seven limbs of Yoga here.

If TMS isn't abolishing ALL the structural pain on the planet, it doesn't mean it isn't working. It IS working! It is PROTECTING those who need it for PROTECTION from the even bigger emotional pains in the brains. The problem with "scientific proof" for TMS is that current "science" is physical and the regulars in the waiting rooms are "mentals". Modern medicine does not have time to interview patients for two hours. But it does have time to refer to PT's, chiros, accus, pill mills, etc. A generation ago it would have been unheard of for an MD to refer to such extra-curricular modalitities--now they are part of the practice and just down the hall. It is further proof for Dr. Sarno's pain epidemic. Modern medicine is not ready to deal with the biggest contributor to the pain equation, the mind and refer patients to TMS talk therapy. They're whistling in the dark while ringing the cash register--talk IS cheap.

 

I am sorry to hear that about Steve. Discussions between proponents of competing views are often a better place to learn than one-sided presentations by a lone advocate for his or her own viewpoint. For example I read a very intelligent (and completely respectful) back and forth between Dr. Quinter (who doesn't believe in trigger points) and one of the leading advocates for trigger points and it was very enlightening and thought-provoking. It's one thing to preach to the converted, or to control the narrative, it's quite another to defend one's viewpoint against a smart skeptic.

 

pspa, who do you think is right, SteveO or Dr. Quinine?

Dr. Sarno and Steve Ozanich, both learned long ago to not engage in endless debates with those who will never get it--I'm still working on that--TMS is NOT that complicated! Does one need instructions on how to put on a Band-Aid?--although, whoever invented the wrapper for it should be shot. Dr. Sarno and SteveO spent and spend their time healing people and writing about it. Engaging in endless debates that get reduced to psycho-babbling with scientific types, hasn't helped anyone heal. There are enough TMS books out there. By this time people should have read one--maybe a couple of times and caught on, or thank their TMS pain for being their PROTECTOR from the emotional pain their sub-c has decided for them is more dangerous to their egos.

 

Dr. Quinine LOL too funny. Tom I am a firm believer in psychophysiological disorders, though admittedly not a strict believer in Dr. Sarno's particular slant on them. But as I have said, I don't think those quibbles matter.

I think people like (as I read him) Dr. Quintner who look at things from a purely neurological/biochemical perspective, and demand double-blind controlled studies to validate any theory, are missing a big part of the picture and are sometimes capturing effect not cause. For example, people in pain might have areas lit up in brain scans that aren't lit up in other people, but that hardly means that the cause of their pain is something wrong in that area of the brain. Or people who are depressed might have low serotonin (probably not based on what we now know, but just an example), but that hardly means low serotonin is causing their depressed state. Those things could just be how the body shows the underlying psychological state, more effect than cause.

I disagree about the value of debates though, for the reasons I gave before. In general, someone who can defend his or her ideas against a skeptic or opponent or whatever word fits has a better chance of convincing me than a one-sided presentation, however coherent.

 

I'm in total agreement with Steve's stance here. One could get into debate with a skeptic, but their defence will always be there's no scientific weight. There's only so much information you can exchange in a post and sometimes one has to be very careful that the right message is conveyed. Or, it can damage the good Dr's work.

I would never say Steve preaches to the converted. He helps those who have been failed by the medical system and want to try TMS healing as a last option. Dr Sarno rightfully points out, the key focuss should be on success stories. Numbers don't lie.

 

Mike, you must have changed your mind, because a few posts ago you said you thought it would be a great idea?

"That's a great idea, hopefully someone on the PPD network sees this thread."

Anyhow, I still think a discussion would be interesting and valuable, but I do understand the other side of it. And "preaching to the converted" was not directed at Steve, it was more of a general observation about one sided vs two sided discussions, did not mean to imply anything about Steve but I probably didn't express myself well.

 

Yes I have. I thought it was a good idea at the time but having a clear understanding of Dr Sarno's wishes, puts things into new light. It's his message we are championing, so I respectfully honor his wishes.

Perhaps the discussion may gain steam when Dr Schubiner's research study is published, who knows...

 

Yeah, I look forward to that study. I would think given the subjectivity of the symptoms, and more importantly the individually-tailored nature of the treatment, and the difficulty of controlling for other influences, it would be real hard to design a controlled study in this context, but I am sure Howard and his colleagues gave a lot of thought to those issues.

 

I fully agree with this point.

I can imagine designing that study must have been very complicated because of the variables at play.

Like you've mentioned, I'm sure his Team has given it alot of thought.

On another note, I'd really like to see a database of success stories, similar to that of the spontaneous remissions project. Who knows maybe someone in the TMS world is collating these success stories in a central repository.