Can anyone out there explain to me what terms like that are supposes to mean? I understand that my fibro was caused by the chronic pain I've lived with for five years now. I was diagnosed with the fibro four years ago. So far I have seen twenty-seven doctors and specialists, and they still haven't diagnosed the source of my original pain. But each one of them seems to have a different perspective on fibromyaligia. Some say I have it, others say that it's a secondary condition, so it's not that important. And now I keep hearing that I don't have fibro at all, just "fibro-like reactions to living with pain all the time."

When a Rheumatologist first diagnosed me with fibromyalgia, I researched the condition very thoroughly, and one thing that I read over and over again is that this condition is usually unleashed by some type of physical or mental trauma in the patient's life. Does the fact that the trauma still exists mean that the fibro doesn't? It wouldn't bother me so much except for two reasons. One is that my disability is officially for fibro. And the other is that some of the specialists I go to seem to immediately view me differently when I use the word fibro at all.

Has anyone else had to deal with this problem? I know I can't be the only one who has fibro in conjunction with other illnesses. Have any of you been told that it's not important because something else is worse? I would really love to come up with some effective line to use with these doctors so they would quit making me feel like an idiot.

Thanks A Lot, Everyone,
Idealist