José L. Ochoa
Oregon Nerve Center, USA
Title: The IASP’s nick-“diagnosis†of CRPS-I, together with its attempted divination in Budapest, must be interred.
Biography
Biography: José L. Ochoa
Abstract
Our current IASP President led a distinguished group, who based on science and courage, redefined “neuropathic pain” in 2008, but were reminded that such transparency excluded CRPS-I. Current authorities who agreed on this are Past President; rejuvenated IASP taxonomists; (the AMA always agreed) and now, the E.N.S. CRPS-I hypothesis (former “RSD” and “SMP) features include that there is no structural pathology; no diagnostic test; the “objective signs” are non-specific, often reflect disuse or self-infliction; and some are willful behaviors. Pain experts admit that “for diagnosis we don’t use Evidence, we use our default criterion #4” because such perversion of the falsifiability principle (the one that allows scientific diagnosis (Popper)) is unfalsifiable (alternative diagnoses are not eliminated) i.e., it cannot be proven false and this is termed as Pseudoscience. The default position, one that cannot be proven false, also fits the null hypothesis which can never be proven correct (the data can only reject or fail to reject it (Fisher)). Topics that will be presented are: Symptoms, signs and laboratory in RSD/CRPS; S.W. Mitchell excludes the great sympathetic” from “Causalgia; The invention of “RSD” by Evans; R.Verdugo exposes placebo in faulty “diagnostic sympathetic blocks”: SMP and RSD die; M.Campero rules out sympathetic activation of C nociceptors in CRPS (microneurography); Science of abnormal human nerves as impulse generators; Neurologists sort true versus Pseudoneurological display which are Psychogenic; The nick-“diagnosis” of “CRPS-I”, as applied by non-neurologists to pseudoneurological patients: iatrogenic harm; Hysterical versus malingered CRPS; and what is wrong with the Budapests? This lecture outline will survey sensation, receptor to brain, where psyche lives.