This episode was originally released as an exclusive Patreon video, but in the current climate, we believe it is too important to keep behind a paywall.

Pain patients are increasingly being told their pain is “centralized,” “neuroplastic,” “psychological,” or simply “in the brain.” But what does that actually mean? And if a clinician claims someone’s physical pain is psychological, what diagnostic criteria are they using?

In this conversation, Bev and Brandy speak with Asaf Weisman, a physiotherapist, researcher, PhD candidate, and lab manager at the Tel Aviv University Spinal Research Lab, about nociception, chronic pain, imaging, immune-system involvement, pain reprocessing claims, phantom limb pain, and the growing problem of dismissing patients when standard testing does not show a clear structural cause.

Asaf explains why the absence of visible tissue damage on standard imaging does not prove the absence of a biological process, why pain cannot simply be labeled “psychological” without clear criteria, and why patients deserve better than gaslighting, abandonment, and one-size-fits-all narratives.

Originally shared with our Patreon community. Released publicly because pain patients need to hear this.

The Doctor Patient Forum:
https://www.thedoctorpatientforum.com/

Support our work on Patreon:
https://patreon.com/thedoctorpatientforum

Disclaimer: This episode is for education, commentary, and advocacy purposes only and is not medical advice. Please consult your own medical professional for care decisions.

After years of hearing the same opioid presentation from Andrew Kolodny, something changed — kratom suddenly became the “next crisis.”That wasn’t random.In this video, I break down:• How mass-tort litigation narratives are built• How experts, media, and parent groups align• How settlement money shapes policy messaging• Why kratom is being framed like opioids were• And who gets harmed when the machine movesWe’ve seen this before.First tobacco.Then prescription opioids.Then JUUL.Now cannabis and kratom.When lawsuits start shaping medicine, patients become collateral damage.Pain patients were erased the first time.Will it happen again?At The Doctor Patient Forum, we document the harm — because when history asks who knew, there will be a record.💜 We see you. We are fighting with you.—🌐 Website: https://www.thedoctorpatientforum.com/📌 Patreon: patreon.com/thedoctorpatientforum

#PublicHealth #MassTort #medicalethics Fair Use DisclaimerThis video contains excerpts of copyrighted material used for purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.All clips, images, and audio are used under the “fair use” provisions of Section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Act. The material is transformed through commentary, analysis, and fact-checking. The use is non-substitutive and does not replace the original works.

This episode breaks down ACEs (Adverse Childhood Experiences) and the Opioid Risk Tool (ORT) — what these tools were actually designed for, and how they’re often misapplied in pain care to flag patients as “high risk” and deny treatment.

We walk through:
• what ACEs really measure
• how the Opioid Risk Tool was created
• where the sexual trauma question came from
• why these tools were never meant to be used to deny care
• and how trauma history screening is being used against pain patients in practice

The misapplication of these tools is what pushed me to become an advocate in the first place, and we’ve spent years documenting and raising awareness about this issue.

This recording was originally shared privately with our Patreon community in 2024. I’ve now made it public so anyone can hear the full explanation directly, with the research and context included.

If I reference documents or screenshots during this episode, you can find the full video version on our YouTube channel.

—

🌐 Website: https://www.thedoctorpatientforum.com/
📌 Support our work on Patreon: https://patreon.com/thedoctorpatientforum

Patreon support helps fund:
• patient advocacy
• policy research
• FOIAs and petitions
• educational content
• and direct support for patients navigating care

—

Fair Use Notice:
This episode may include brief quotations, clips, or references to third-party materials for purposes of commentary, criticism, education, and public interest reporting. Such use is made under the Fair Use provisions of Section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Act.