Tim Trevail

Officially published💥 A reboot to the pain field! The aphorism that “nociception is neither necessary nor sufficient for pain” has caused a lot of damage to patients and set back the field. This paper was not easy to publish and was rejected by all the major pain journals for obvious reasons of bias and suspected vested interests. Eventually, BRAIN which has more than double the impact of any pain journal identified the true potential and implications of the paper 💪🏻 The paper is a systematic and critical review. The systematic part identified that all those who cited the aphorism had no references to back this claim and they mostly just cited themselves circularly. The critical part covers EVERY piece of supposed empirical evidence that was ever presented as evidence for pain without nociception and shows that none stand critical scrutiny. The main and most important implication of the paper is that if we accept that “Nociception is necessary but not sufficient for pain”, then all pain states are fundamentally explainable and have somatic basis. The notion of “psychological pain” or “brain pain” should be shunned and binned. Free link in the comments. *The Supplementary Table of the systematic search results is not available in the free version

3. Dawkins’ Law of the Conservation of Difficulty: The easier an academic field, the more it will try to preserve its difficulty by using complex jargon. Physicists use simple terms if possible, while postmodern theorists try to complexify their discipline by writing like this: