Talk:Tension myositis syndrome

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

"Dr. Sarno's book" is not scientific evidence. The plural of anecdote is anecdotes, not data. I find it strange that the article says

"Most physicians know little or nothing about Sarno's work, as it has received relatively little attention in recognized, peer-reviewed medical journals. Nevertheless, his critics in mainstream medicine argue that neither the theory of TMS nor the effectiveness of the treatment has been proven in a properly controlled clinical trial"

This is a bizarre way of phrasing this and seems to reflect a basic misunderstanding of how scientific publication works. The fact that there are no clinical trials of Dr. Sarno's hypotheses is not a failing of the journals, it is a failing of Dr. Sarno. He is making the claims, and so it is up to him to support them with evidence if he wishes to be accepted by real science. I'm sure he could afford to have a series of proper trials done if he was actually interested in testing his hypotheses. But, he either doesn't care or realizes that this is a potentially impossible task, since he seems to employ all kinds of meaningless Freudian psychobabble that has no basis in science. Unfortunately, you don't need evidence to sell a book. Ψαμαθος 22:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe that there is scientific evidence for the theory of TMS and oxygen deprivation. Candace Pert, scientist and author of Molecules of Emotion has demonstrated in the laboratory the restriction of blood/oxygen flow to muscle and nerve tissue. This restriction in Pert's work was caused by underlying tension and carried out through the nervous system. I wrote about Pert's scientific work and my successful reversal of TMS in my book Get Rid Of The Pain In Your Butt NOW! Sarno's theory is real and I am living proof of that. If you would like to read testimonials from a different source and more in-depth discussion on how to reverse the mental and emotional patterns that cause TMS, please go to: http://www.runningpain.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monte Hueftle (talk • contribs) 00:48, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View?

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

I agree, this article needs much work. I've already discussed this a bit at Talk:John E. Sarno because I marked it as POV which was taken down after a slight change. It needs valid sources. Two commercial alternative-health websites aren't acceptable. Dr. Sarno's books aren't a neutral source and the chapters mentioned by Ralphyde above would be anecdotal. The way this article is written also isn't right. First of all, some paragraphs start with "Dr. Sarno claims" this or that which is acceptable, but then they slip into blank assertions of Dr. Sarno's claims, which isn't acceptable.

The claims of his sucess need to be deleted, qualified or backed up with neutral, valid citations. The explanatory sections need to be rewritten to make clear that they are describing his claims, or changed to include verified information with solid sources. There should be information on what if any studies have examined the validity of his claims or methods, and there should be sources relating to the controversy and criticisms as well.--Howdybob 05:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The line "Nonetheless, Sarno has had success with many patients who have exhausted every other means of treatment, seemingly flying in the face of theories that the placebo effect or regression to the mean is at work." makes little sense to me. The placebo effect pretty much by definition works to alleviate symptoms through the power of belief. Dr. Sarno apparently works much harder than other doctors/therapists to harness belief, and only recruits patients who are open to the idea that belief in this process will be effective. I am not arguing on the merits of this treatment. The placebo effect is an unwanted distraction in research when attempting to quantify the therapeutic benefit of an experimental treatment. Because the placebo effect is unwanted in most research some equate it with being worthless. However, in standard medicine/therapy, where the alleviation of pain/discomfort is the often major objective, the placebo effect would presumably be desirable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.16.153.180 (talk) 22:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree...I remember that in Sarno's book, when he argues that it's not the placebo effect, he uses a weird, incredibly-narrow definition of "placebo effect". The placebo effect is a really powerful thing, if someone has a systematic way to bring it about, more power to them. --Steve (talk) 07:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Flagged for POV-check & sources

I flagged this for POV-check because I have concerns as I discussed above but I don't have the info to rewrite it properly now. I also flagged it for sources because it needs more and the existing ones are dubious, also discussed above. I'm hoping for help with this article from other editors. --Howdybob 06:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I think this article could use at least a citation or example of those arguments of people opposed to it. In the intro it states:

"Sarno's theories and management plan for back pain and other TMS equivalents are not widely accepted by the conventional medical community" But there is no example or quote in the text. perhaps a section "criticisms" or something like that would help. Trcrev 18:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Since this topic was arbitrarily flagged for POV back in July 2006, many citations have been added. I therefore removed the POV flag today. Ralphyde 05:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The entire article is an advertisement in style and content. Prepending every paragraph with "Dr Sarno claims" is no remedy. Needs a complete rewrite.

Books at Amazon

I've removed the direct to Amazon book listings as this can be construed as advertising, but to maintain neutrality I've replaced them with link to Dr Samo's own publications list page. This will give people enough information to purchase the books should they wish to. Likewise should Dr Samo want to point his page directly at the relevant Amazon pages then of course that's his prerogative and beyond the purview of any WP editor. Hopefully this should be a compromise suitable to all editors. --WebHamster 22:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I moved the list to Sarno's page, seems more appropriate there. References to the actual books should be as references, not EL in my mind. WLU 22:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I concur. I was treading on eggshells so as not to trigger another sparring match whilst keeping to the rules :) --WebHamster 22:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Seligman SPAM

Given the controversy surrounding this article, I'm pointing out this spam rather than immediately removing it:

However, late in 2003, the Seligman Medical Institute was established to do just that.

Referenced with http://www.smi-mindbodyresearch.org. This should be removed per WP:SPAM, WP:NPOV, and WP:RS. This information is promotional, not supported by a reliable source, and needs to be supported by a third-party reference to be presented in a balanced manner. --Ronz 17:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The http://www.mindbodymedicine.com/doctors.html reference is a similar, if not identical situation. Most of the paragraph is poorly sourced and poorly balanced. --Ronz 17:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I've tagged the section with NPOV. While the last paragraph is the worst, the entire section has sourcing and balance problems. This is a fringe theory and should be treated as such (if the article is not deleted altogether). --Ronz 22:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The whole topic has been a hot potato lately, but I think things have calmed down a bit (and the concept of "ownership" better understood all around) enough that (I hope) nobody is going to get attacked for trying to clean this mess up - though I still think it's beyond salvaging myself. That said, as "fringe" as the topic may be, it does have some merit in my opinion, and is notable enough to deserve mention - though perhaps not a whole article, and definately not this evangelical mess. :) I would love to be proved wrong however - if somebody managed to get this article into an acceptably neutral and verifiable state, I'll be the first to change my vote on the matter. - Pacula 22:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Spam links

I've removed the link to "Sarno's Treatment" on the grounds that it flagrantly breaches WP:LINKS#Links normally to be avoided #2,#5 and #6 --WebHamster 00:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I've also removed the superfluous external link to Sarno's website. There is already a wiki link in the article to Sarno's own article and there is a link to the website there. This article is about TMS, not about Sarno, as such any external links should be specifically relevant to the subject as per WP:LINKS. --WebHamster 14:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Why did you add the link to the NCBI homepage? PenguinEatingAnApple 15:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• because you can't link to a specific search. It's relevant for people who want to do their own search on any of the topics within the article. It's a reputable source of reliable info. --WebHamster 16:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The first time I looked at it, it came across as a genetic resource. I see now it's more general than it appeared. PenguinEatingAnApple 16:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The word "genetic" refers to heredity. Did you mean "generic"? David Spector (talk) 22:06, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Original research section

Based on what I've read of the references, it appears that this section is the area where WP:SYNTH is violated - I'd like it flat-out deleted unless it can be shown to be not OR. WLU 22:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Back pain as a general complaint

Main article: Back pain

Back pain is one of humanity's most frequent complaints. In the U.S., acute low back pain (also called lumbago) is the fifth most common reason for all physician visits. About nine out of ten adults experience back pain at some point in their life, and five out of ten working adults have back pain every year.

The most common diagnoses of back pain, lumbar disc herniation or degenerative disc disease, have not been shown to be more prevalent among those in pain than among the general population. The mechanisms by which these conditions might cause pain are not known. Much back pain (an estimated 85% of cases) has no known physiological cause.

A few studies suggest that psychosocial factors such as on-the-job stress and dysfunctional family relationships may correlate more closely with back pain than structural abnormalities revealed in x-rays and other medical imaging scans. One non-blinded observational study suggests that back pain peaks at midlife and diminishes to the point of being relatively rare among the elderly.

References

• Given that this TMS is one man's theory (regardless of how many support it) isn't the whole thing original research? --WebHamster 23:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Not really - the real problem is that none of the citations I looked up mention TMS except for Sarno's. To place them into a single paragraph with the appearance of a conclusion, even one that is 'arrived at' rather than stated, is a WP:SYNTH, though I need to re-read the policy to be sure. WLU 23:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, what I meant was that TMS itself is original research. It's Sarno's theory with nothing else to back it up from a medical research standpoint in that no-one else is working on making it scientific fact. So anything written in the article on TMS will either be Sarno's original research or a synthesis of existing data on such things as fibromyalgia or myofascial pain syndrome etc. Now if Sarno was writing this article it would definitely be OR, so is it still OR if someone else writes what he would have written (or paraphrased it)? This is the problem, as you've highlighted with the references, whatever is quoted or referenced is going to be somewhat incestuos in nature as it all comes back to one man's opinion. It's late here, my blood sugar is low, I hope I'm making sense :) --WebHamster 23:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

In reply to WebHampster... The term WP:OR on Wikipedia does not refer to the research done by people on topics being reported in Wikipedia, it refers to OR being done on Wikipedia itself, in connecting the dots where other sources have not connected them. That's not what's happening here; this article is simply reporting what other people have written, and that's what WP policy calls for. WP does not call for us to prove that a theory is correc or even that others consider it correct; the job of Wikipedia is simply to report what other people have said about the topic, if it is WP:Notable and WP:Verifiable. It can be flat-out wrong and still fit that criteria, for example, see Flat Earth theory. --Parsifal _Hello 23:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that, it's all rather confusing if taken literally. I'm still not sure I can see what the difference is but I'll take your word for it :) --WebHamster 00:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreeing with Parsifal - it's not OR if it happens off wikipedia, though it would have to be documented in a WP:RS. WLU 00:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

In reply to WLU... OK, I see what the problem is. This section is not intended to be about TMS directly. I removed much of the previous information that was in this section that was OR, and I left information as background information about back pain in general, showing that back pain in general is a topic that even mainstream medicine does not understand well. It was not my intention to use this section to imply that Sarno's solution solves the problem.

That's why you don't see TMS in the references for this part.

It's valuable to have background sectioons in articles for context. In that sense, this part os not OR, it's just reporting what sources have written about back pain. For example here is a direct quote from the New England Journal of Medicine reference:

Conclusions On MRI examination of the lumbar spine, many people without back pain have disk bulges or protrusions but not extrusions. Given the high prevalence of these findings and of back pain, the discovery by MRI of bulges or protrusions in people with low back pain may frequently be coincidental.

That quote has nothing to do with Sarno at all.

Also, the first sentence of this section came directly from the Wikipedia article on Back pain, so if you feel that's original research, you might want to check out that whole article, maybe it needs some improvement too.

The Sarno parts of this section are not original research because they are based on what he has said or written, and what others have written about his work. His work may be original research by him, outside of Wikipedia, but this text is just reporting what has been written about it, and that's not OR, that's what Wikipedia does.

We can make that more clear in the text though, so it does not appear that the background information implies the Sarno conclusion, as you noted. --Parsifal _Hello 23:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

If it's not about TMS directly, it shouldn't be in the page, though it could be in Back pain. To leave it here makes it a SYNTH I think. A single reference saying that backpain is poorly understood would be sufficient I think, to leave the rest there is to imply that somehow TMS has something valuable or useful to say or do about back pain (which, to date, we can't even say if it does or doesn't as it's go no actual research on it). A useful alternative could be a {{main}} to back pain, though a wikilink is sufficient to me. I think it's only OR if left on this page, otherwise it's irrelevant.

The best solution might be to simply say "Back pain is poorly understood[1], though Sarno claims that ..." There's no real need for a back pain section or any background, that's why we have the wikilinks - my opinion, but I think it's a good one. WLU 00:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually I'm in agreement here. It should be purely about TMS with a passing nod to back pain, there's a perfectly good article there, no need to duplicate it. --WebHamster 00:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I think Parsifal's changes (this version) are perfectly adequate - the're the exact sentences I would have replaced in the article. WLU 00:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Oops, my mistake. I think the section should still be removed. I'll have a go at editing and see if it's agreeable. WLU 00:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

After I made that version, I found some more weasel words in that section and tightened it up further. The referenced studies "suggest", but they don't "prove" or even "show" that the results are for sure. So I re-edited that section again to use more precise wording. Check it out and see what you think. --Parsifal _Hello 00:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I see you removed it again. I don't agree about that, but it's not a big problem. I thought it was useful because it showed that, while the medical mainstream does not support the TMS diagnosis, back pain is not well understood and actually is quite a mystery.

I'm not going to revert and add the section back in as a whole for now, but I think we need something for background on the topic, and perhaps an inline wikilink to the Back pain article. Can you think of a way to add one or two sentences, perhaps at the end of the intro, or in the symptoms section? --Parsifal _Hello 00:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I moved that version to the talk page (replaced the old version on this page with the previous edit from the main page before my edit that removed it. I'd rather tighten the page here before putting it back, and I still think it doesn't really deserve to be on the main page. A discussion of back pain should be on the back pain page, not here. All those references without a link to TMS still puts it as a SYNTH for me. Let's see if we can get a final version here so we're not reverting back and forth. For me, the best solution would seem to be integrating the information that is worthwhile into the remaining article - this should be a discussion of TMS, not back pain in general. WLU 01:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

That's fine with me. The section on its own is not a SYNTH, but I see what you mean, that it might imply those references are supporting the topic.

Back pain in general actually is a medical mystery; medical science doesn't understand chiropractic treatments either - sometimes they work, sometimes not, and science can't explain it (yet). There have been lots of studies on that and it's still unknown. So it seems reasonable to mention the mysterious nature of back pain in this article but I agree it should be short, with maybe one reference. Another option would be just to add a "see also" section, with a link to back pain. I don't have time to work on it now, I'll check in later. --Parsifal _Hello 01:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Howard Stern

Here's a link to Howard Stern's claim that Sarno helped him. I don't konw if it can be used 'cause it's amazon. [1] - search for Stern and it pops up. WLU 09:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The Amazon link looks OK to me, though others might not like it; I've seen Amazon links used when other sources aren't available. It would be better to use non-commercial ones though.

I found a couple other that might be usable. Here's a quote from Howard Stern that's listed in the Harvard RSI Action student group handout that's already referenced in the article:

“I know that to people who listen to this conversation, they’re saying ‘Oh gee, this must be a placebo, this sounds like a cult or something.’ This is just – when you read this book, there is such medical evidence supporting Dr. John Sarno that I just – I guess I kind of feel like wow, this guy could really save the world.” -Howard Stern on a Larry King Live show devoted to Dr. Sarno.

Google Books link: Howard Stern A to Z: The Stern Fanatic's Guide to the King of All Media By Luigi Lucaire -- it includes a paragraph starting with:

"Tension Myositis Syndrome - The ailment that Dr. John Sarno said caused Stem's back problems. Basically it is a psychosomatic problem" ...

--Parsifal _Hello 09:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's a short bit from the New York Times - [2]. It's a short mention, but it's at least a reliable source. WLU 13:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

2005 and 2007 studies

Why are we presenting, in detail no less, the 2005 study which is not peer-reviewed? Where's the reference the the 2007 study? --Ronz 03:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering the same thing about the 2005 study. Unless someone else has a good reason to keep the reference, I think we could delete it. As far as your second question, the 2007 study is currently number 2 in the "Notes and references" section. If future edits move the 2007 study out of that position, you could do a text search for "Azen or part of the article title: "Outcomes of a Mind-Body Treatment". JTSchreiber 02:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The 2005 study was not peer-reviewed, but it was presented at a symposium of the American Psychosomatic Society, which is a reliable source. There are very few peer-reviewed studies of this condition, so it's worthwhile to present the information we do have, as long as we are clear to indicate it was not peer-reviewed. The people who performed the study are professionally respected enough to report their results to a respected organization, so it seems worthwhile to mention it. If we can find more peer-reviewed studies, this could be dropped but since there appears to be only one, it seems this one should be kept.

Maybe a good solution would be to rewrite that paragraph to give more prominence to the peer-reviewed study and mention the 2005 study in a secondary position. --Parsifal _Hello 02:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

You make a good point, but I'd still like to hear what others might have to say. If the decision is to rewrite with more emphasis on the 2007 study, I could help with that. JTSchreiber 04:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that a rewrite based upon the 2007 study, with passing mention of the 2005 study, would be more appropriate. --Ronz 15:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, let's go ahead with a re-write to emphasize the 2007 study. If no one else wants to make the change, I will do it in a week or two. JTSchreiber 04:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

"Notable patients" section

I re-wrote the "notable patients" section, adding some more detail and references. It comes across, I think, as a little bit "cheerleading", perhaps reflecting my pro-Sarno personal biases. Nevertheless, I think a sentence or two of "success story" (per celebrity) qualifies as "notable", and if I failed to keep it balanced, feel free to add in whatever I omitted. By the way, I added an (almost) identical section to John E. Sarno (apparently no one famous has been treated for TMS by anyone but Sarno himself), so any big errors in the section ought to be corrected in both places. Thanks, and happy holidays! --Steve (talk) 06:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

John Stossel's quote

This statement as currently written, does not really reflect what John Stossel said:

"John Stossel stated he felt that Sarno's protocol helped reduce his previously chronic debilitating back pain[12]."

The exact quote from the 20/20 segment is: "With one lecture, Sarno cured me of twenty years of back pain." This can be found at minute 7:20 on the referenced 20/20 segment.

He did not say that he felt that Sarno's protocol helped reduce his pain. I think this statement in the lead should be strengthened to reflect what he really said. Ralphyde (talk) 01:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I was planning to delete the Stossel detail from the lead. His story is covered in the notable patients section, though the wording there should be changed, as the use of "claimed" is frowned upon in WP:WEASEL.

Second, the current wording in the lead was chosen because (a) Stossel was speaking as a patient, not an expert, and (b) Stossel admits that he still gets relapses. As a result, WebHamster thought that Stossel used the word "cured" inappropriately. --JTSchreiber (talk) 05:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, continue with your planned changes. Ralphyde (talk) 01:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Tension myoneural syndrome

Sarno has apparently renamed the condition from myositis to myoneural and a couple people have suggested changing it. Until a reliable source can be found stating the two conditions are the same, the page, the lead and the page name shouldn't change. Paper sources are fine, so if Sarno has published a new book saying he re-named it, that'd be a great addition and we can put both in the lead. Since the topic is fringy, it'll be twitchy to work this change in or decide to move the page, but let's try for a good source before changing anything. WLU (talk) Wikipedia's rules^(simplified) 16:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Sarno used the term "Tension Myoneural Syndrome" in an interview on WBAL TV to refer to the same condition as tension myoneural syndrome. He said, "By the way, was I specific? I now call it 'Tension Myoneural Syndrome,' and anything that I’m writing now and of course for what we are doing now I want it to be known that it is 'myoneural.'" Of note is that there is some evidence that he has changed the name again and will use "psychophysiological disorder" in his upcoming book (you have to admire his tenacity; he's at least 86). A link to the video as well as additional context (including several links) can be found at the TMS Wiki's page on the name of Tension Myositis Syndrome. Forest4Trees (talk) 02:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:COMMONNAME, I think that the article should still be called Tension myositis syndrome. This is still the most widely used name in general and is much more widely used in the article's references. Also, it's not clear that Sarno is going to stick with the newer name (Tension myoneural syndrome), as Forest4Trees wrote above. I will change the opening sentence to use the myositis version as the main name, with the myoneural version as an alternate name. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:16, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Request for help with proper citation format

Hello, all (From a Wikipedia newbie). Well known alternative and complementary medicine doctor, Andrew Weil, MD, devotes a chapter in his book, "Spontaneous Healing," to the success story of someone who recovered from terrible back pain by reading a book about TMS written by John Sarno. The current TMS article contains citations of a number of figures who have endorsed the TMS approach, and given the controversial nature of the TMS approach, I believe that citations such as these are very helpful, especially when they can be checked online. I'd like to add a citation of Dr. Weil's book, but I was wondering if I could get help with the proper protocol. I could cite the book directly, but the relevant portions of the book are reprinted in the TMS Wiki's page on TMS In The Media, and I think that it might be more use to include a link to them as well. Is it possible to include a link to those online passages along with the citation of the book, or should I only include the book's bibliographic information? (Full disclosure: I am an administrator at the website on which the material is reprinted.) I believe that the material is worthy of a very short citation in the Wikipedia article (as similar sources have been cited), and want to make sure that I follow the rules correctly. Incidentally, the website on which the material is reprinted is a Wiki, and it is possible to link directly to a specific version of the page: revision 8 of TMS In The Media. This way, we wouldn't have to worry about the page being changed afterward. Forest4Trees (talk) 16:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! I am looking into your idea. I think that a short statement about Weil's endorsement of TMS treatment would be good, because Weil's notability would re-inforce the notability of TMS. Where would you put the statement about Weil?

I am not sure about the appropriateness of having the tmswiki link be part of the reference to Weil's book. If no one else objects within a week, I could help you put the link in. Just be aware that someone might come along later with a good reason to take it back out. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 06:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome! The second paragraph of the article mentions several notable figures who have endorsed the approach, so I thought of including it there. Ideally, we would find something more concise, but I was considering something like, "Well known alternative and complementary medicine doctor, Andrew Weil, MD, devotes a chapter in his book, "Spontaneous Healing," to the story of someone who recovered from severe back pain by using a TMS approach." However, I've also found online references to endorsements by Dr Oz and author and Harvard lecturer Tal Ben-Shahar. Citations for both can be found at (that same page) Perhaps we could break the text out to a section on notable endorsements?

The "no objections within a week" criteria sounds good regarding including the link. Since getting one's own copy of the book can be a pain, I do think that it would be a helpful service to those who wish to check the sources. If someone comes along later who wants to remove it, then we can listen to their reasons. :-) Forest4Trees (talk) 02:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The second paragraph of the article has its problems already and needs to be reworked, so I'd like to see the Weil sentence go somewhere else. I think the Controversy section would be appropriate. This section discusses the degree to which TMS has been accepted in the medical community, so listing notable doctors who accept TMS is relevant. I think that the patient's story used by Weil is too detailed for this article so I would not mention the patient at all. Oz could be mentioned right after Weil. Oz's view of TMS is somewhat different than Weil's. Oz views TMS treatment as one of a few plausable treatments for back pain, while Weil sees TMS treatment as the best treatment. For both of these doctors, please avoid using "Dr." and "M.D." per WP:CREDENTIAL. (I am going to remove the existing occurences in the article.) I don't think that Tal Ben-Shahar really belongs in the article. Although Ben-Shahar earned a PhD in and now lectures on psychology, he doesn't specialize in psychotherapy.

It's been a week w/o anyone complaining about referencing the TMSWiki site's Weil quotation, so we could go ahead with it for now. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Good point about the second paragraph of the article needing to be reworked. I agree that the controversy section seems like a better place for it.

I don't have much experience with Wikipedia's editorial standards, so I'll defer to your judgement on this, but note the following: (1.) Ben-Shahar is notable enough to have his own Wikipedia page (2.) He has published an article in multiple sources in which he writes, "The prescription Sarno offers to thousands of his patients is to acknowledge their negative feelings, to accept their anxiety, anger, fear, jealousy, or confusion. In many of the cases, the mere permission to experience one’s emotions does not only make the physical symptom go away, it alleviates the negative feelings as well." This suggests to me that Shahar believes that "the mere permission to experience one’s emotions" makes the physical symptoms go away. His mention of Sarno in the previous sentence suggests that Sarno's theories offer a credible explanation of why the physicial symptoms go away when a person gives themselves permission to experience their emotions. One could argue that a published endorsement of the TMS approach by a notable figure is relevant to the controversy section of the article, but I'm happy to let it go if need be. Forest4Trees (talk) 02:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Although Ben-Shahar has his own article, I'm not sure whether he is notable enough for his article to survive if someone proposed an article deletion. Also, I stand behind my statement that he shouldn't be mentioned in the TMS article because he's commenting on something that's outside his specialty. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 06:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Clarification for reason peer reviewed studies removed

I added references to a number of peer reviewed studies which show the benefit of meditation and journalling. Given that this is what is exactly what is recommended by Dr Sarno, then surely this warrants some sort of comment on this page? It seems strange that studies which give scientific credence to the methods of TMS are removed simply because they don't refer to "TMS" by name. The TMS theory is basically just "doing x, y and z leads to a reduction of chronic pain," and there is peer reviewed evidence that doing x, y and z does indeed lead to a reduction of chronic pain along with improvements in health. And yet, whilst "peer reviewed journal says x" seems inadmissable, "famous person says y" seems ok....this seems a strange inversion of editorial quality control....!

Would it be possible to include the studies in a section labeled "evidence that meditation and journaling can be beneficial for chronic pain and health", to distinguish the fact that they don't provide scientific evidence for the underlying TMS theory itself? Indeed, it could be prefaced with an introduction saying as much. Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tangerinedream1000 (talk • contribs) 14:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Your comments are discussing different subjects that are governed by different aspects of our WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:NPOV, WP:MEDRS and WP:RS policies, which explains why one source might be allowed, another source might not, and why a seemingly less important matter like a person's POV might be allowed, while a serious and important piece of scientific research might not be allowed IN THIS ARTICLE, but would be allowed in another.

Your problem is related to SYNTH and OR violations. If a RS doesn't mention the research in connection with TMS, then it's likely not allowed in this article. Since editing here is governed by collaboration and consensus, and you're getting flack from other editors, then you need to either bow out or take this further in the dispute resolution process. Doing otherwise (edit warring) can get you blocked. You can also try the reliable sources noticeboard and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine. Good luck. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Hiya

Thanks for reply. I've had a look at the links in question re editorial process, it seems fair enough that you can't say "evidence A and evidence B, therefore conclusion C". However, would it not be possible to mention "evidence A and evidence B" whilst making it clear that this does not therefore necessarily imply conclusion C? In an article on TMS surely one could discuss the evidence that meditation and journaling have proven medical benefits, without implying therefore that the underlying theory of TMS must be true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tangerinedream1000 (talk • contribs) 23:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

That would be a violation of SYNTH. If a connection isn't mentioned, then its inclusion would be editorializing and introduction of an editor's POV. We aren't allowed to do that. If you don't believe me (and I'm not the final authority, the community is), ask your question(s) at the reliable sources noticeboard. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that there's (1) Sarno's diagnosis of the cause of chronic back pain, (2) Sarno's treatment of chronic back pain. The title of the article suggests that it should be focused on (1). An article about journaling or whatever is directly relevant to (2), but only indirectly relevant to (1). But really, (1) and (2) are sort of inseparable. I wish we could rename the article "Sarno's diagnosis and treatment of chronic back pain" to make the scope clearer, or something like that...I can't think of a good way to do so. --Steve (talk) 00:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Steve, that would not solve the problem. Because the peer-reviewed articles do not mention Sarno or his diagnosis, using those articles as references for an article on Sarno's diagnosis and treatment would still be original research (WP:OR). Also, the way the TMS article is currently titled and structured is a good match for the way that medical articles are handled on Wikipedia. For example, the article on Alzheimer's disease, which is rated FA (highest article quality classification), discusses the the theories of what causes Alzheimer's, as well as the diagnosis and treatment of it. Another problem with trying to separate the theory and the treatment of TMS is that education about the theory is part of the treatment for TMS, according to both Sarno and Schechter. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 06:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Tangerinedream1000, the appropriate place on Wikipedia for peer-reviewed studies on the benefit of journaling is Writing_therapy#Research_into_the_therapeutic_action_of_writing. That is the place where such studies are discussed without bringing up issues of original research. You might still run into other issues there, though. For example, if you put Schechter's studies in, people might complain that you are giving undue weight to Schechter, who may not be well-known to most people in this field. I added a link from the TMS article to the one on writing therapy, so readers can follow the link to see more discussion of the benefits of journaling. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 06:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

hiya everyone, i do appreciate people taking the time to reply. I don't suppose it's possible to have a new page "treatment of chronic pain conditions" - where discussions of cognitive behavioural therapy, rest, meditation, journaling etc etc. are laid out? Or indeed "psychosomatic root to chronic pain" - which could discuss the evidence around that idea. Both pages would therefore not be based around TMS or john sarno.... If I add studies to the relevant pages - back pain studies to the back pain page, fibromylga studies to the fibromylga page, meditation studies... etc etc. are these likely to escape the editor's axe? I don't want to spend an hour or so doing it only for it all to disappear! And thanks JT for adding a link re journaling...--Tangerinedream1000 (talk) 09:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

In general, it sounds like you will have trouble writing about the intersection of medicine and psychology on Wikipedia. If you want to be successful, you need to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. A good starting place would be the list of policies and guidelines in Brangifer's first response above. WP:V (verifiability) is also a very important policy.

If you create a new article, other may say that there's no need for a new article, since the content could be merged into an existing article. To avoid the merge, you will need to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's guidelines and defacto standards for avoiding a merge. I don't have much knowledge in this area, so I can't make a list of guidelines to study, but I do know that WP:POVFORK is worth looking at.

In addition, if you plan to work on the back pain and fibromyalgia articles, you should be aware that these articles already have some discussion of psychological issues in general and Sarno/TMS in particular. This psychology content has been controversial in the past, with some editors wanting the existing text removed. If you add new text to these articles, you will be bringing up this controversy again. Not only could your new text be removed, but the old text could end up being removed too.

Finally, I wanted to let you know that I will be taking your remaining text out of the TMS article. A press release is basically advertising (in this case, by the Seligman Medical Institute), so it cannot be considered a reliable source on Wikipedia. I will see if I can find something else (from a reliable source) to use as a replacement. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 06:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

hiya I'm not sure which is my "remaining text" I can't remember which bit i put in! But i've replaced a dead link to the peer reviewed study to the actual abstract. Hope this helps. Thanks for your time in responding to my queries....--Tangerinedream1000 (talk) 20:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome, Tangerinedream1000. Thanks for pointing out the dead link. Your replacement link did not show that Schechter's article was peer-reviewed, so I fixed that. I also took out the remaining text of yours, which was the Schechter quote from the press release. To make up for this, I added info from the peer-reviewed article, comparing the risks of surgery & drugs to that of TMS treatment. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 06:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Psychosomatic

In the lead section, Rose McGee added the following clarification to the word psychosomatic: "though the pain is very real and can be very severe". Her edit comment was "next to psychosomatic-though the pain is very real and can be very severe-this illness isn't all in the mind Dr Sarno states it's not psychosomatic the pain is very real".

I find this edit problematic and have reverted it. If other editors think the word psychosomatic is confusing, we could look into rewording the sentence to avoid that word. Here are the issues I have with Rose McGee's edit:

(1) The edit makes the article text awkward. Any new clarification should flow better.

(2) The edit seems to violate Wikipedia's policy on neutrality. This policy says that articles covering minority points of view must not give the appearance that Wikipedia considers them to be true. Saying that pain is very real implies that Wikipedia considers TMS to be a real condition. The wording needs to make it clear that TMS is Sarno's opinion, not Wikipedia's.

(3) The following statement in the edit comment is false: "Dr Sarno states it's not psychosomatic". Actually, Sarno states repeatedly that TMS is psychosomatic. For example, on pages 3-4 of The Divided Mind, he states that his previous books were mostly focused on "tension myositis syndrome (TMS), a painful psychosomatic disorder".

I realize that the edit comment does not affect the text of the article, but this still needs to be cleared up before it causes misunderstanding in this talk page discussion. I think that the problem is a misunderstanding of the word psychosomatic, which means physical symptoms with a psychological cause. For example, see the Wiktionary definition. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 06:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC)