Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site unc.UUCP Path: utzoo!decvax!mcnc!unc!fsks From: fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) Newsgroups: net.med Subject: Re: Fake treatment shown to relieve back pain. Message-ID: <479@unc.UUCP> Date: Mon, 24-Jun-85 01:29:03 EDT Article-I.D.: unc.479 Posted: Mon Jun 24 01:29:03 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 25-Jun-85 02:53:01 EDT References:Reply-To: fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) Distribution: na Organization: CS Dept., U. of N. Carolina at Chapel Hill Lines: 36 Summary: Since when is heat treatment "the real thing" or "conventional treatment" for chronic lower back pain? The books I read said that the ONLY known effective treatment for for simple backache is 1) First rest until the pain goes away. 2) Then cautiously begin a special exercise program designed for back patients (the Williams Exercise Program or a variation). 3) Continue this exercise program every day for the rest of your life. Whether or not you can speed up the first step by a few days is inconsequential. The measure of the effectiveness of a treatment is how long the pain STAYS away and how vigorously you can use your back between pain episodes without undo danger of reinjury. Making the pain go away for a little while by whatever means is NOT an effective treatment. The need is for rehabilitation and better health habits (posture and exercize). Frank Silbermann In article werner@aecom.UUCP (Craig Werner) writes: > >A British study looked at 3 kinds of treatment for backache. > 1) Manipulation as practiced by an osteopath, > 2) Conventional Heat Treatment (diathermy), > 3) Fake Diathermy Treatment. >Quotes: > "When it comes to treating back pain, fake treatment works as well as >the real thing and unorthodox therapy is as effective as the established kind." > > "Two lessons can be drawn from the experiment, the doctors report in >Lancet, a British medical journal. The first is that claims for effectiveness >of unorthodox treatment should get close scrutiny. The second is that 'our >results almost certainly attest th the magnitude of the placebo response >which may be acheived when harmless treatments are applied with conviction.' "