The embrace of biochemical approaches meant the corresponding rejection of psychogenic theories. … That the efficacy of a medication should erode a psychosomatic theory is not surprising. This is a fairly common phenomenon. Several disorders understood to be psychosomatic (depression or stomach ulcers, for example) were reframed as somatic with the discovery of effective medication. Yet in the case of migraine, ergotamine derivatives had been used successfully to treat the disorder for thirty-five years, yet had given a boost to theories of migraine as psychosomatic. Why did ergotamine promote psychosomatic theories, while methysergide eroded them? The answer is that methysergide worked as a preventative, eliminating migraines without changing the temperament of the patient. Raskin suggests this was an unexpected outcome when he says, “within a week they were headache free. No change in their internal milieu.”
What does this say about a migraine patient today who cannot be cured, who doesn’t get better on preventative medications?
I think this idea of migraine patients causing their migraines does linger.