I read through it twice. It's a very integrated approach. Did you like it? Have you read it before or seen it used anywhere?

I wish I knew the date that it was compiled as it illustrates to me at least, that the information reflects the data and the views at a particular time. The only dated item on it was a 2010 reference for a chart within it.

The other problem with not having a clear publish date (or an update) is that you don't know if some of those views are appropriate for the time that they wrote it or simply a dated view at this current time.

The format was awesome; super clear diagrams and organized lists, easy to read.

There is some specialized information and it was helpfully broken down and sub categorized.

The things I don't like beyond the lack of publish date is that it criticizes the use of opioids and even spells the word AVOID in large bright red capital letters next to opiods and gave the same red letter veto to canniboids, so that would have been a good place to know the date for example. The third questional inclusion states that there are some suspicious patients that are on the look out for financial gain and support. It also smacks of sexism and complete adversarial perspective toward women who are ill as they claim 3x more than men. The view was that doctors should be cautious and wary of people who claim that they are sick and are just looking for medical treatment for social monies to live on and they used the term "support" in a questionable context.

The fourth issue is that it listed the condition as befalling women that have anxiety rather than explaining that anxiety is usually a symptom that having the condition creates. It's a very significant medical statement and again goes back to this slanted suspicion on the view of women as being anxious (and mental) and just looking for social programme monies out of anxiety or worse, hysteria or truly worse, deceitfully lying.

Other than their psycho analyzing and undermining the moral characters the largest patient group (women) as anxious liars, the medical information was very interesting and I was glad to have read it. Thank you for sharing.

I know my interpretation is a little bit tongue in cheek but i truly was horrified to see some of those comments meant to GUIDE and FRAME a patient interface.

Thank you for sharing . This was an interesting read and I like how they presented it via slide show instead of a lengthly article to read. This is something I could pass on to someone else. I will read it again to see if I missed anything.

Margi _21 what do you think xx

@A MyFibroTeam Member... just a quick note... it does mention on page 20 the year 2013... aside from the obvious gender and socio-psycho nuances it does appear very in-depth and explains very well on a medical perspective, but also it explains why doctors are so negative in diagnosing this illness, because it is believed that the illness is used in order to obtain opioids and canniboids. I found it very difficult to talk with my doctor about the illness because the doctors in the area had been battling with the public/political climate of patients who did want canniboids to come to them and without pre-amble claiming fibromyalgia as an illness they had in order to get them... I wonder now if some of those will leave off and make it easier for us with the illness to get treatment that we need now that cannibis is legal in this state now... not only for medical marijuana, but for recreational use as well and therefore less expensive on the open market than through medical dispensing... in any case, thank you @A MyFibroTeam Member... for bringing this research and finding to our attention

Mentioned Users

A MyFibro...

A MyFibro...

Yeah I know I wish everyone took us seriously but at least it’s a good start and it’s heading in the right direction. Hopefully other universities will take this and run with it as they are highly respected.
If they (professionals)
Lived a day in our shoes....
Maybe It might be slightly different