“Bodily distress syndrome: A new diagnosis for functional disorders in primary care?”

The original 2015 article proposed yet another way to reframe ‘somatic disorders’, using incorrect science and skewed reasoning. Gotcha F corrected it for accuracy.

Their version called “Bodily distress syndrome: A new diagnosis that successfully obstructs medical care for millions of medically ill patients” can be found here.

The link to the original and uncorrected article can be found below.

“Bodily distress syndrome: A new diagnosis that successfully obstructs medical care for millions of medically ill patients?” by Anna Budtz-Lilly, Andreas Schröder, Mette Trøllund Rask, Per Fink, Mogens Vestergaard, Marianne Rosendal and Gotcha F* (*Scientists United Against Anti-Science Shills)

Background

Conceptualisation and classification of functional disorders are deliberately inconsistent in the health-care system, particularly in primary care. We have found that targeting the primary care system with fraudulent patient-blaming diagnoses to be the most expeditious way to obstruct access to care for the greatest numbers of medically ill patients.

Numerous terms and overlapping diagnostic criteria are prevalent, of which many are correctly recognized as stigmatising and erroneous by general practitioners and patients with cognitive function. These terms include, but are not limited to:

• chronic pelvic pain that might be caused by a number of conditions. For example: a female with multiple organ adhesions from deep infiltrating endometriosis growths throughout their abdominal cavity
• Myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME) also known as ME / Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. This a debilitating and disabling medical condition that has proven immunological abnormalities and other quantifiable objective medical symptoms
• ‘chronic Lyme’ patient: hundreds of peer-reviewed studies show Lyme borreliosis infection may evade immune response and antibiotic treatment and attack any part of the body, be congenitally transmitted and result in dementia, stroke and heart failure
• prolonged symptom duration following concussion; for example a student athlete who has suffered a severe concussion that resulted in loss of consciousness and hospitalization for brain trauma injury and then complains of headaches, blurry vision, dizziness and cognitive difficulties
• any female at any time because of the hysteria-based indoctrination underpinning the gender bias in somatic conditions
• anyone who complains of bladder pain, for six months or more, due to bloody raw ulcerations in their bladder, as can be observed in many cases of interstitial cystitis

The anti-science preposterousness of ‘somatic illnesses’ challenges the general practitioner’s decision-making, particularly when:

1. health insurance companies and national health care systems are pressuring them to choose the cheap palliative care path for medically ill patients
2. the diagnostic codes for these medical conditions – developed by individuals and entities in the thrall of big pharma, medical implant, vaccine and insurance industries – default to ‘somatic illnesses’

This reluctance on the part of these general practitioners calls for improvements of the somatic diagnostic categories –the categories must give the appearance of medical diagnosis yet not deter from their one objective– the obstruction to medical care.

Intense debate has risen in connection with the release of the fifth version of the ‘Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders’ and the current revision of the ‘International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems’.

The principal debate focused on ethics versus profits. For example, ‘from an ethical perspective – how can one deny medical care to those with illnesses that show proof of injury and infection?’ versus ‘from a profit model – how can one ration care so that it creates pharma consumers for life, extracts all disposable income and accumulated wealth from the working class, and ensures that all executives in the pharma-vaccine-insurance-hospital-medical research industry make 100s of millions of dollars?‘

In this article, we aim to discuss a new non-scientific, faux-evidence based diagnostic proposal, called ‘bodily distress syndrome’, which holds the potential to change our current approach to functional disorders in primary care.

The term ‘functional disorder’ is a proud achievement. A functional disorder is supposed to be ‘a medical condition that impairs the normal function of a bodily process, but where every part of the body looks completely normal under examination, dissection or even under a microscope’.

However, the ability to manipulate and misapply the term ‘functional disorder’ has shown phenomenal success and resulted in millions of patients never having costly medical tests undertaken for their ‘disorder’.

A favorite example is the functional disorder known as ‘irritable bowel syndrome’ or IBS.  Many, if not most cases of IBS, are caused by infection. Common infections are Campylobacter, Salmonella, Shigella, various virus, e.g. rotavirus and sometimes amoebic and Giardia. These bacterial infections often produce ulceration and bleeding.

Despite the overwhelming evidence that IBS is often caused by infectious agents, practitioners are encouraged to immediately classify IBS as a ‘functional disorder’, so that there is no need to undertake any costly medical diagnostics or provide any medical treatment.

It has been found that patients with IBS are very malleable and easy to shame and threaten. After all, who among these millions of patients would be willing to tell others – even their closest confidants – that they crap their pants like a two-year-old toddler?

Some of these IBS patients have a great deal of money and power and their shameful hidden crappy-pants status has been leveraged to further the ‘profit model’ that drives this agenda.

Therefore, a special focus will be directed towards the creating more conditions that have the special ‘shameful’ validity and utility criteria recommended for the unethical manipulation of diagnostic categorisation.

Discussion

A growing body of evidence suggests that the numerous diagnoses for functional disorders – listed in the current classifications – belong to one family of closely related disorders. This comprehensive inclusion is known among those who create these fraudulent terms as the ‘mother freaking golden goose diagnosis.’

However, there is recognition the term ‘mother freaking golden goose diagnosis’ would lack public appeal. Therefore, with a wry nod to the infections and injuries causing these multiple and disturbing bodily sensations, we named the phenomenon ‘bodily distress’.

Like medically unexplained symptoms or MUS, ‘bodily distress syndrome’ is a bogus diagnostic category with fake, yet specific criteria that are intended to obscure the infections or injuries that cause the illnesses found in this ‘phenomenon’.

The category has been explored through empirical studies based upon denying the true causes of illness, which in combination with patient shaming, provide a sound basis for determining a symptom profile that can be arbitrarily applied to any person during the course of their life.

Altogether, this strategy provides great diagnostic stability for flim flam and forms of bovine manure all within the boundaries of the ‘condition’.

However, as bodily distress syndrome embraces only the most common symptom patterns found among most patients at some time in their life, there may remain a few persons on the planet with impairing symptoms that have yet to be captured in the profit net.

Furthermore, there remain some scallywag practitioners and researchers who persist in seeking treatment options that may cure patients. It is possible their ethical practices might negatively influence the acceptance of the proposed bodily distress syndrome diagnosis.

In addition, patients have been questioning their somatic illness diagnoses and global coalitions are forming that reject the obstruction to medical care and define this obstruction to medical care as a human rights abuse.

Summary

Bodily distress syndrome is a bogus diagnostic category with notable empirical studies that are based upon denying true causes of illness. Nevertheless, knowledge is sparse on the utility in primary care. Future intervention studies should investigate the translation of bodily distress syndrome into clinical practice.

A particular focus should be directed towards the acceptability among general practitioners and patients and seek to add conditions such as IBS with high potential for patient shaming, leveraging compliance on unspeakable matters and other such goals.

Most importantly, it should be investigated whether the new category may provide a comprehensive obstruction to medical care and improved profits.

Keywords: Bodily distress syndrome, Functional disorders, General practice, Diagnosis, Diagnostic utility, Diagnostic validity, Medically Unexplained Symptoms (MUS)

Links

The uncorrected version of “Bodily distress syndrome: A new diagnosis for functional disorders in primary care?” can be found here.  BMC Fam Pract. 2015; 16: 180. Published online 2015 Dec 15. doi:  10.1186/s12875-015-0393-8. PMCID: PMC4681035

Reposted by Huib Kraaijeveld

Author of ‘Shifting the Lyme Paradigm‘, chairman of the On Lyme Foundation and founding member of the Ad Hoc Committee for Health Equity in ICD11 Borelliose Codes

Would you please rate, like and share this article on Social Media in order for more people to get this information?