There’s a site that I’ve been watching in horror for a while now. It’s called “Migraine Symptoms Guide,” and is described as “Information on migraine causes, symptoms and treatments.”
One of the articles on it is “What is an Ocular Migraine?” I think we’ve covered before that the term “ocular Migraine” is used fairly commonly around the Internet, BUT when you see it, you’ll never know just by seeing the term what people are talking about. You see, it’s one of those “types of Migraines” that uninformed people talk about, but it’s not an “official” form of Migraine. For the sake of clarity, the gold standard for diagnosing and classifying the various headache disorders, including Migraine, is the International Headache Society’s International Classification of Headache Disorders, Second Edition (ICHD=II).
I held off on writing about this particular article because Teri Robert had posted a couple of comments, and I wanted to see what the response might be. The first time she commented, Teri explained about the classification system and pointed out another error in their article. They had stated that “there is no treatment for these Migraines. The author posted a reply thanking Teri for the clarification and saying, “We have updated the article accordingly. Indeed, they had NOT. All they had done was add a couple of sentences about preventive treatment, preventive treatment without any research to support it at that.
Teri patiently posted a second comment that not only said that they’d missed her main point about “ocular Migraine,” but went so far as to give them a listing of the types of Migraine outlined in the ICHD-II. As I write this, their article remains unchanged.
Enter Teri’s colleague at MyMigraineConnection.com, Nancy Bonk. On Wednesday, Nancy wrote a fantastic post, “Ocular Migraine” – Not, and Why Not. Nancy wrote quite clearly and unequivocally that there really is no such thing as “ocular Migraine” and why using the term is such a bad idea. Yours truly went to the Migraine Symptoms Guide site/blog and posted a comment with a link to Nancy’s blog post.
Now, here’s the kicker! I just read the comments posted to Nancy’s blog. There’s one from the person who wrote the ocular Migraine article! Because of Nancy’s post, she’s “totally reworking the article.” Yes! Good job, Nancy!!
There is, however, something a bit sad about her comment to Nancy. It’s sad that she didn’t heed the TWO comments Teri left her. It’s sad that she totally ignored those, and she only felt moved to do something after I posted the link to Nancy’s blog post. Was it ego that made her ignore Teri’s comments? Is it such ignorance of the leaders in the field that she didn’t recognize Teri? Whatever the reason was, it’s sad that this article is still online. I can’t tell when it was first written, only that the first comment on it was posted on January 16. If Scarlett, who wrote the article, were genuinely concerned about its inaccuracies, she’d take it down until it was reworked and corrected. AND, if she’s serious about wanting it to be accurate, she’ll do better research this time. Oh, Scarlett, maybe you should try talking to Teri OR reading her book.
Now, I’ve spent a good bit of time talking about ONE article on Migraine Symptoms Guide. When you go to the main page of the site/blog now, you find the article, “Different Types of Migraine.” I wish I could say that article is better, but it’s not. It lists more types of Migraine that aren’t accurate diagnostic terms:
- Exertion Migraine: That’s not a type of Migraine. Exertion can trigger ANY form of Migraine.
- Ophthalmoplegic Migraines: Nope. Check the ICHD-II. It’s not there.
- Basilar Artery Migraine: Has been called Basilar -Type Migraine for 10 years or so now, and the description is inaccurate.
- Abdominal Migraine: Description is wrong. Says, “This is the only kind of Migraine that doesn’t involve pain in the head.” Absolutely wrong. You can have lots of different types of Migraine without the headache. When that happens, the DESCRIPTIVE term is “acephalgic” or “silent.”
If the people who write this site/blog were docs, we might call them “quacks.” I don’t think they are, so let’s just say they’re pathetically misinformed and don’t know good research from well… I won’t go there.
Read Full Post »