Fibromyalgia?
The article describes the need for an examination to exclude other causes and "can identify symptoms that are typical of TMS, such as certain tender points that become painful when pressed." Is this not part of the diagnostic criteria for fibromyalgia (see Fibromyalgia#Diagnosis: 11 of 18 possible tender points need to be painful) ? Or to rephrase the question how does this syndrome differ from fibromyalgia - is it just that this syndrome covers just what is conventionally termed back pain ? David Ruben Talk 10:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Dr. Sarno includes Fibromyalgia in his definition of TMS, and has cured many cases of Fibromyalgia. See his new book, The divided Mind: The Epidemic of Mindbody Disorders, or his previous book, The Mindbody Prescription: Healing the Body, Healing the Pain, for his discussions of Fibromyalgia as an extreme form of TMS.
- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.160.102.26 (talk • contribs) 1 June 2006
- In which case, is there an case for merging this topic into fibromyalgia as an alternative viewpoint (with then TMS page redirecting to that article) ? David Ruben Talk 00:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- I don't believe so, as from Dr. Sarno's point of view, Fibromyalgia is a subset of TMS, that is, an extreme form of TMS, but requiring the same treatment methods.--Ralphyde 20:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- Hmmm.. Ok, so would it be worth adding this clarification then to this article to help readers understand where his views fit in the spectrum of back pain to fibriomyalgia ? David Ruben Talk 01:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Scientific?
Looks to me like TMS has no basis in science. Would be happy to be shown I'm wrong. Mccready 10:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- perhaps this can be worded as establishing a history of empirical evidence?Nastajus 23:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- I suggest you read Dr. Sarno's new book, The Divided Mind: The Epidemic of Mindbody Disorders, in which he includes a history of psychosomatic medicine, as well as his own history of highly successful clinical treatment of TMS for over thirty years at the Howard A Rusk Institute of Clinical Rehabilitation Medicine at the New York University Medical Center. He is also a Professor of Clinical Rehabilitation Medicine at New York University Medical School. For you to say arbitrarily that his diagnosis of TMS has no basis in science is absurd and POV. From your history of posts on other topics, you are obviously a POV warrior.
- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.160.102.26 (talk • contribs) 1 June 2006
NPOV?
The first paragraph makes the following claims with no citation. "He has successfully cured tens of thousands of patients at the Howard A. Rusk Institute of Rehabilitation Medicine, New York University Medical Center, and hundreds of thousands more through his books during his long career. At age 83, he is still seeing and curing patients at the Rusk Institute." Other than a bit at the very end, there seems to be little to suggest there is another point of view. Not sure exactly how I would fix this; but put the POV tempate at the top of the page so that others who stumbled across it would not assume they could take the article at face value. Davedrh 03:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC) (Also, upon reviewing it I see there is also a claim for a "high rate of success" with no cite.) Davedrh 04:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Everything in the statements are true, and are well known by anyone familiar with Dr. Sarno and his pioneering work over the past thirty years. But I have modified the claims you objected to and provided a citation. I have read seven books on TMS over the past two years, three by Dr. Sarno, and have been studying this condition intensively. Dr. Sarno estimates a 90% cure rate with his patients in the article cited.
- I suggest you read his latest book, The Divided Mind: The Epidemic of Mindbody Disorders, if you want his most recent formulations, including those on Fibromyalgia and other TMS equivalents, as well as the chapters by six other doctors who have adopted his theories and put them into practice with great success.Ralphyde 07:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that the good Dr's estimation that 90% of the patients he sees is necessarily the best evidence for the efficacy of his treatment - even the worst quacks think that they have a good success rate. .Gil-Galad