Referred Symptoms and ‘Nerve Misbehaviour’
On the understanding that I am exploring approach overviews for neurological conditions, particularly Cervical Spondylosis, I think there’s one issue which creates a tendency for overview error. Most ‘normal’ injuries/diseases manifest as symptoms which are referred to an ‘emergent’ perception in the mind. There is usually a direct correlation between perceived symptoms and actual injury/disease. This correlation, alone, is very reassuring for the patient....it insists on applying treatments to enable and assist healing. The mindset, which accompanies the perceptions, is usually non-contradictive and determined in organising a response.
When it comes to neurological conditions, particularly where there may be a trapped, or even a threatened nerve, what is observed is, first, a referral of symptoms (and their perception) to a different location than the threatened site, before a confused ‘emergent’ perception is created in the mind. The correlation between injury/disease and perception is broken, as perceived intuitively, the subsequent mindset is confused about ‘cause and effect’, and it becomes difficult to construct a meaningful response. I’m also inclined to think that operators have considerable difficulties defining (and treating) referred symptoms in a meaningful way, and have a tendency to write-off referred symptoms as ‘nerve misbehaviour’. Referred symptoms simply don’t react as one would expect from more ‘normal’ injury symptoms. This , of course, carries over to the patient in a ‘best to ignore’ sub-text.
My problem with all that is simple. If we can’t define what proper nerve behaviour ought to be, then we can’t assume that there is any such thing as ‘nerve misbehaviour’. The referred symptoms, and their perceptions, are meant to happen. They happen consistently over the global population, and they are anything but nerve misbehaviour. They most likely are the nervous system’s least threatening method of response to a threat to itself....i.e. a trapped or threatened nerve. By giving a ‘purpose’ to the referred symptoms, which we should be obliged to do for science reasons alone, we would also help settle the patient mindset into a more constructive mode, to help with coping and treating. Any overviews, reflected back onto the patient, because of lack of understanding of unusual nerve behaviour, will undoubtedly have an opposite unsettling effect.
Obviously, the science hasn’t yet caught up with the difficult to define referred symptoms associated with trapped and threatened nerves. The symptoms must have a ‘purpose’....but their behaviour seems to contradict normal nervous system behaviour, and that creates an anomaly in the thinking, which then reflects onto a patient’s consideration of treatment options. Referred symptoms are probably best treated with programmes which enhance and assist normal coping mechanisms....but that option is perhaps being unintentionally undermined by reflected misunderstandings of nerve behaviour when a nerve is, itself, threatened.