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.' "