Talk:Da Costa's syndrome

message: I've expanded the Soldier's heart disambigation page - it's a popular title - which makes the single-article disambiguation hatnote redundant. Problem solved? Gordonofcartoon (talk) 15:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops (as I said at WP:HATNOTE). I am way out of date (years, in fact) on developments at WP:HATNOTE, and wasn't aware of WP:NAMB. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 19:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Disambiguated

message: The second line of the Da Costa's syndrome article page contains another mistake because Da Costa’s syndrome does not “mimic” the symptoms of heart disease. it is more correct to say that the symptoms are so “similar” that many doctors were unable to recognise the differences until Da Costa and other researchers clearly identified and distinguished them, so it is understandable that many patients might think the samePosturewriter (talk) 07:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, for once; although it's a fairly common phraseology even in scholarly publications  it's a definite example of pathetic fallacy. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 12:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Da Costa symptoms do not 'mimic' those of heart disease, but are 'similar to' them; re - 2nd line

message: Re this  :   here's the Health Psychology Update issue  (PDF): see pp 46-52. It's merely a description of pacing: no mention of DCS. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 18:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Then it should be removed or -tagged. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

text: As you've been asked before, please assume good faith. I have no idea what goes on at the CFS page, and I answered the reference point now purely because Whatamidoing drew attention to it by tagging it. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 16:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well done, Gordonofcartoon: articulating the honest motives behind your actions in order to help Posturewriter assume good faith; as recommended here. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 16:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Source verification

message: :JFW - About 7 months ago, at 22:19 on 18-12-07 you responded to a question on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine page  with the words “The condition . . . could be described as "Irritable bowel syndrome, irritable heart syndrome or somesuch”. here .
:I agree with you, given that the ‘irritability’ or ‘over-responsiveness’ of the colon or heart are related, and commonly occur together. 
:I followed your link to IBS 4.1 on the same day here  and noted that it was described as being in the same category as  Peptic ulcers where the ‘learned illness behaviour’ and ‘psychosomatic’ theories had been discredited by the discovery of Helicobacter pylori bacterial infection, which was found to be the real scientifically proven cause. I then checked those pages and noted that there were no lengthy descriptions of somatoform, anxiety, or psychosomatic factors being causes, or being put in prominent positions at the start and end of the page. Why didn’t you remove the descriptions of those factors on the Da Costa page - given that you have previously provided your links which show that all three ailments are in the same category?Posturewriter (talk) 09:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be surprised to find that this page is on JFW's watchlist.  Did you leave a note at his talk page to let him know about your question?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Da Costa's syndrome same category as Peptic Ulcers

message: has information about how the disease has been reinterpreted over time.  Table 1 on page 127 may be particularly useful.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Much of the relevant chapter is accessible via Google Books: see Psychiatric and Respiratory Aspects of Functional Cardiovascular Syndromes. 00:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New source 

message: OK, here it is: http://heart.bmj.com/cgi/reprint/58/4/306. Do we all have access?
Re-reading, the thrust of Paul's summary appears to be a) "The aetiology is obscure" (which is in the abstract); b) "it probably exists much as before but is more often identified and labelled in psychiatric terms such as "anxiety state" or "anxiety neurosis"; c) there's no harm in those diagnostic labels "as long as the essential importance of the syndrome, its prognosis, and treatment are properly appreciated". Gordonofcartoon (talk) 13:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's how I read it:  Etiology unknown, Medical classification psychiatric/anxiety.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Oglesby Paul