Why is it that so many of us assume that just because someone has some letters behind their name that they must automatically be right? Or even that they are half decently intelligent for that matter?
Why is it that just because I do not have any letters behind my name that it is assumed that I don't know what I am talking about? Or that what I have to say is less intelligent than the person with letters behind their name?
Is this something ingrained into us in our youth?
I recently had an experience where a multi lettered individual was espousing their own views on a subject. I got the impression that everyone else was taking what was said as "gospel" ... but I couldn't get past the knowledge that the person was vomiting forth a bunch of bull-funky.
How do I know it was pure crap? Okay ... may as well come out and say it ... he is a doctor and was counselling on treatments for Fibromyalgia. I have had 12 years of living with it ... I have researched it ... read hundreds of papers written on the medical research dealing with it. I know hundreds, if not thousands, of people who also have the disease whom I have met via the internet.
I will not name names ... nor will I allude to the protocol which he is pandering. That's all I need ... to leave myself open to a lawsuit hahaha.
I figure its all BS because ...
he feels even if a person doesn't meet all the diagnostic criteria for FM that the person should be treated for FM anyway. Doesn't that go against the reasoning behind having diagnostic criteria? If a person doesn't meet the diagnostic criteria of an illness ... then wouldn't a right thinking professional know then that the person probably has something else that has symptoms that mimic FM?
he feels that if he treats "Symptom A" or "Symptom B" ... and all the symptoms the person was experiencing disappear or dramatically improve then he has successfully treated or cured FM. And yet both Symptom A & B are diagnosable illnesses on their own and have diagnostic criteria with symptoms similar to FM. I would have thought then that it would be assumed that the FM diagnosis was made in error. Not so apparently.
he has set himself up as a self appointed expert on FM and seems to have geared an entire practice around that claim ... and yet much of the information he apparently bases his expertise on is outdated and no longer recognized as accurate medical fact by the researchers doing current studies.
I have no doubt this person believes he is helping people with FM. I also have no doubt he has helped many hundreds of people ... and that his protocols do successfully work for those people. But my "bone of contention" with him is that instead of saying that these people were probably misdiagnosed ... he insists on calling his treatments as beneficial for people with FM.
If it was beneficial for people with FM ... then isn't it logical to assume that it would be beneficial for all people with FM? That it would be an effective treatment to reduce or eliminate all the symptoms of all people with FM? I have tried his protocols ... apparently about 2 or 3 years before he jumped on the idea to open his own practice. Surprise .... they did not help me.
His ideas are not new, are not unique ... nor are they effective treatment for FM ... or at least the FM I know. I will always argue that if you are treated for Symptom A and the symptoms of FM are alleviated or they disappear ... then you were misdiagnosed in the first place.
