I appreciate your taking on the job of fixing the horrible RSI entry. I have RSI, and I find the current article offensive and inaccurate. Fixing the RSI entry is a difficult job because it requires a nuanced understanding of the existing theories. It's very easy for an article on RSI to end up implying like it says that RSI sufferers are either (i) hyper-sensitive (ii) frauds (iii) hypochondriacs (iv) psychologically inferior. For instance, the current page says, "A good way to understand this is that they have a strong "pain alarm"--pain tends to be accepted as a sign of danger and they have difficulty modulating this intuitive uneasiness with pain (e.g. turning down or turning off the "pain alarm")." This seems to imply that the pain endured by RSI sufferers results from their hyper-sensitivity. However, the referenced paper <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15687162?ordinalpos=2&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum> says nothing of the sort. It does say that RSI sufferers report more severe pain at rest among other things, but another obvious explanation for this statistic is that RSI sufferers are actually *in* more pain at rest. i.e. hyper-sensitivy is not the *cause* but in some sense a *result* of the RSI (although calling it a result is also misguided).
Your explanation of Sarno's theories are much better than the currently existing one. For instance, you clarify, "...RSI is psychosomatic is nature. The pain experienced by a sufferer of RSI is very real." Unfortunately, the next 2 sentences, "However, it is not caused by structural problems. It is stress/emotion related," can, and sadly almost certainly will, be misunderstood, b/c it sounds like you are saying that Sarno says there is no physical phenomenon causing the pain. However, Sarno *does* believe that there is a physical phenomenon (restriction of oxygen) causing the pain. That phenomenon isn't caused by overuse but rather, by emotions/stress; however it's still both real and physical. Anyway, you clearly already understand everything I'm saying and my point is not to educate you (you don't need it) but to ask that you be very careful.
By the way, these two articles might be of interest to you:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2895831?dopt=Citation
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2239160?dopt=Citation
Thanks 18.87.1.139 (talk) 18:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)