‘Nobel-worthy’ MEDICAL BREAKTHROUGH: Antibiotics could cure 40% of back pain patients

page: 1
12
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 7 2013 @ 12:01 PM
link   




‘Nobel-worthy’ medical breakthrough: Antibiotics could cure 40% of back pain patients

Up to 40% of patients with chronic back pain could be cured with a course of antibiotics rather than surgery, in a medical breakthrough that one spinal surgeon says is worthy of a Nobel prize.

Surgeons in the UK and elsewhere are reviewing how they treat patients with chronic back pain after scientists discovered that many of the worst cases were due to bacterial infections.

The shock finding means that scores of patients with unrelenting lower back pain will no longer face major operations but can instead be cured with courses of antibiotics costing around £114.

...

“This is vast. We are talking about probably half of all spinal surgery for back pain being replaced by taking antibiotics,” said Peter Hamlyn, a consultant neurological and spinal surgeon at University College London hospital.



This is an amazing discovery.


I know many on ATS will welcome this news.


Just goes to show how little we still know about the world and our bodies...
edit on 7-5-2013 by loam because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 7 2013 @ 12:19 PM
link   
I'm sure they already knew this, but curing someone of back pain for under $500 compared to tens of thousands on surgery isn't good "business" to the healthcare industry.

It's profits over patients. They don't really cure anything these days, they just patch you up and send you on your way.

Remember, they cure AIDS and cancer every week.

If I had a dime for every "breakthrough" and "possible cure" -- I'd be as rich as Bill Gates. The problem is, the research never goes beyond just that -- research.



posted on May, 7 2013 @ 12:29 PM
link   
reply to post by MystikMushroom
 


Not sure I fully agree.

The point is that now patients can bring the study to their physicians and give it a shot.

Time will tell.



posted on May, 7 2013 @ 12:49 PM
link   
How is this a new discovery?(rhetoric)

I mean, we always knew Antibiotics are effective against bacteria...

Back pain isn't always bacterial infection either. Actually i will be more worried if a bacteria was near my spinal column.

That spells death.



posted on May, 7 2013 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by luciddream
 



Originally posted by luciddream
How is this a new discovery?(rhetoric)

I mean, we always knew Antibiotics are effective against bacteria...

Back pain isn't always bacterial infection either. Actually i will be more worried if a bacteria was near my spinal column.

That spells death.


The discovery is that it may well be that 40% of all lower back pain is caused by infection.

Antibiotics are merely the treatment.
edit on 7-5-2013 by loam because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 7 2013 @ 09:26 PM
link   
reply to post by loam
 


This sounds like the break through that two scientists from Australia were ridiculed for years after stating that ulcers were caused by a bacteria known as H. Pylori. They eventually were awarded the Nobel prize for medicine.

How could something that sounds so simple be overlooked? You have to wonder how many more devastating diseases can be cured easily with antibiotics or over the counter medication that scientists have yet to discover.

I'm still waiting for a hair loss cure.



posted on May, 7 2013 @ 09:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by MystikMushroom
I'm sure they already knew this, but curing someone of back pain for under $500 compared to tens of thousands on surgery isn't good "business" to the healthcare industry.


If your claim were true, why would they suddenly decide now is the time to "reveal" what they already knew? There are more painkillers under patent (and thus more expensive) than antibiotics, currently, so it would benefit "them" (whomever "they" are, since neither me nor my colleagues receive a dime for any prescription we write for you). to keep people on the more expensive, patented drugs, wouldn't it?


They don't really cure anything these days


Sure we do, but patients don't like when we tell them that their high cholesterol, high blood pressure, back pain, diabetes, and various other conditions can be cured by getting off their butts and eating fewer calories. Most people just want a pill (and someone to blame when that pill isn't a magic bullet).


Remember, they cure AIDS and cancer every week.


No, the media claims that scientists have "cured" those diseases because they don't know how (or don't care) to actually READ the scientific article. I have never, in my career or LIFE, read an article written by any scientists claiming to have cured AIDS or cancer.



posted on May, 7 2013 @ 09:47 PM
link   
reply to post by loam
 


ehhh.....not so much to be honest, something like this should have been figured out a long time ago.

Hard to tell how soon it'd be implimented and just how effective it'd be but time will tell.



posted on May, 7 2013 @ 10:31 PM
link   
Well, first of all this is information from Europe and Doctors here in the USA are bound to only use practices that are approved by the AMA. They cannot give you antibiotics for backpain until this time.

It would be bad for the Medical community to start allowing the use of antibiotics for this. There are a real lot of jobs that would be lost because of a cure. I don't see it happening in the near future.



posted on May, 7 2013 @ 10:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by rickymouse
Well, first of all this is information from Europe and Doctors here in the USA are bound to only use practices that are approved by the AMA. They cannot give you antibiotics for backpain until this time.


This is 100%, without a doubt, completely and utterly NOT TRUE. The AMA has no jurisdiction over what I do and prescribe as a doctor. If I feel like the research for using antibiotics for backpain is compelling enough, I am free to do it. The only caveat is that, should the patient decide to sue me for something relating to that treatment, I have to defend in court the use of something outside of current "standard of care:' (not as defined by the AMA, but by the larger medical bodies like ABIM and so on).



posted on May, 8 2013 @ 01:41 AM
link   
If this pans out............some very new and far more thorough look must be taken at bacterial infection as a whole.....that these many people could be sufering an infection rather than damage is worrying.
What other things would we learn about chronic pain....



posted on May, 8 2013 @ 05:42 AM
link   
reply to post by loam
 


I often get a bad back. The pain is always kinda there getting ready to spring on me and make me a cripple for a week or so. I thought I had it licked with regular exercise.

Now I think I'll have to try eating more garlic. It's a bit hard to fined echinacea, collodial silver, Pau D' Arco, and Manuka Honey where I live.



posted on May, 8 2013 @ 07:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by InternalMedDoc

Originally posted by rickymouse
Well, first of all this is information from Europe and Doctors here in the USA are bound to only use practices that are approved by the AMA. They cannot give you antibiotics for backpain until this time.


This is 100%, without a doubt, completely and utterly NOT TRUE. The AMA has no jurisdiction over what I do and prescribe as a doctor. If I feel like the research for using antibiotics for backpain is compelling enough, I am free to do it. The only caveat is that, should the patient decide to sue me for something relating to that treatment, I have to defend in court the use of something outside of current "standard of care:' (not as defined by the AMA, but by the larger medical bodies like ABIM and so on).



Well, I forgot to mention that as being a part of it. You can prescribe the treatment but have no protection from the medical society when doing so. Since it is not approved than it is doubtful that your medical insurance may cover legal fees also. Is this correct? I suppose a doctor has some flexibility to treat someone they trust. I surely wouldn't risk my future on someone I did not know well myself.

So is my statement 100% not true? I have had a half dozen doctors as friends over the years. I do personally know doctors who had their lives ruined by using treatments utilizing special diets and natural meds and supplements to treat things instead of medicines. The hospital one worked for didn't see it as appropriate treatment. Another one I know had every questionable thing he ever did blow up in his face and had his license taken away. He was too nice, giving pain pills to people who were in pain too frequently. I don't think pain pills are the right thing myself, they have too many side effects if used long term. The funny part is that his trying alternative treatments is what got him initially investigated not the pain med prescriptions..

Be careful of things. Don't lose your license or your future by doing things that aren't considered appropriate even though they may be real.



posted on May, 8 2013 @ 07:44 AM
link   
reply to post by loam
 


Personally i think this is stupid REALLY STUPID, If anyone here wants to try this i HIGHLY suggest you actually check if you have an infection first, abusing antibiotics can have horrible effects in the future, our immune system quickly adapts to antibiotics which in the future if you actually have a horrible bacterial infection the antibiotics would have no effects

I know a lot about medicine just take it for that. Don't rush in into this.



posted on May, 8 2013 @ 10:09 AM
link   
reply to post by WeRpeons
 



Originally posted by WeRpeons
How could something that sounds so simple be overlooked?


I think much of it has to do with how research is funded.

The prevailing views, however wrong, often get studied first. I suspect the notion that infections in the back, assumed to be relatively rare, took a back seat to the more mechanical explanations for lower back pain, like discs...bone...muscle...nerves...etc.

It is interesting to me, like the ulcer example, that infectious agents really are responsible for far more physical and mental ailments than previously realized.

In a related article, I read something about "back mice" causing lower back pain. Apparently, they too are fairly common, yet relatively unknown by most physicians. Almost no studies have been conducted upon the subject- yet these "masses" clearly exist.

In truth, I think our understanding of the body is still in its infancy. We may be light years from the dark ages, but I think we have a long way to go.



posted on May, 8 2013 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by loam
reply to post by WeRpeons
 



Originally posted by WeRpeons
How could something that sounds so simple be overlooked?


I think much of it has to do with how research is funded.

The prevailing views, however wrong, often get studied first. I suspect the notion that infections in the back, assumed to be relatively rare, took a back seat to the more mechanical explanations for lower back pain, like discs...bone...muscle...nerves...etc.

It is interesting to me, like the ulcer example, that infectious agents really are responsible for far more physical and mental ailments than previously realized.

In a related article, I read something about "back mice" causing lower back pain. Apparently, they too are fairly common, yet relatively unknown by most physicians. Almost no studies have been conducted upon the subject- yet these "masses" clearly exist.

In truth, I think our understanding of the body is still in its infancy. We may be light years from the dark ages, but I think we have a long way to go.




Could just be that nobody thought of it too
I wonder how they discovered it might actually have an effect to start testing it. A person wouldn't actually think to relate the two, antibiotics and back pain, so it got overlooked for a long time. People aren't so aware as most think, usually they don't put two and two together if they aren't thinking there is a connection. What we think we know is our worst enemy sometimes.

Edit....I guess we are saying the same thing, I was seeing something different when I first read it.
edit on 8-5-2013 by rickymouse because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 8 2013 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by loam
 


Bacterial infection makes sense. I had incredible back pain following projectile vomiting from some bacterial infection that began with a rash over my entire lower back after a tick bite. My Dr. at the time told me the pain was from torn muscles from projectile vomiting and prescribed muscle relaxers. They helped but it took 5 years for the pain to go away entirely and I was constantly catching one bug or another the entire time. After 5 years when my back pain disappeared I quit getting sick and haven't been once since. Could have been Lymes, but he never tested for it he assumed Rocky Mtn. Spotted tick bite fever at the time.



posted on May, 8 2013 @ 03:15 PM
link   
First, this is bull. 40 percent of back problems aren't related to an infection. If you have an infection in your spine your CNS is infected and you get meningitis or worse. The only way to determine it would be to spinal tap everyone with back pain and this DOES NOT happen.

Second, why not post which peer reviewed journal this is from and the data?

Third, trying to get everyone with back pain to take antibiotics is not only non effective but also dangerous because you're going to increase bacterial resistance in the population and resistant bacteria will emerge.

The headline is good and sensational though since many ATS people might have back pain.
edit on 8-5-2013 by LastStarfighter because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 8 2013 @ 03:17 PM
link   
edit on 8-5-2013 by LastStarfighter because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 8 2013 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by rickymouse
You can prescribe the treatment but have no protection from the medical society when doing so.


Your "medical society" doesn't provide protection of any kind, no matter what you do. All they are is a group that helps write the "standard of care" (the general first-line, second-line, and so on, treatments for conditions) that are then up to the physician's judgement on how to use.

When you are sued for malpractice, your job, as a physician, is to hire an attorney who knows a decent amount about medicine who can then convince a judge that what you did made sense, scientifically, or at least that what you did caused no harm relating to what you are being sued for.

The medical societies play absolutely no role here, so I don't know why you keep blaming them for random things. They're about as much to blame as your local tee-all league.

[quote[Since it is not approved than it is doubtful that your medical insurance may cover legal fees also. Is this correct?

It depends. If there is science to back up your claim, and other people are using the treatment you used (maybe just not in your area or region), then it's likely covered. If you're going around giving people colloidal silver (which has zero supporting evidence), then of course your malpractice insurance won't cover it. Then they would have to cover literally anything, which is silly.


I surely wouldn't risk my future on someone I did not know well myself.


It's not really a risk if you have evidence a therapy will work.


I have had a half dozen doctors as friends over the years.


I have a few friends who are pilots. Does that mean I know how a jet works, or that I can fly a plane?


I do personally know doctors who had their lives ruined by using treatments utilizing special diets and natural meds and supplements to treat things instead of medicines.


Well, I would certainly hope their careers were ruined if they used unproven, ineffective natural remedies in place of actual science. There's no place for unproven therapies in medicine, it puts patient safety at risk.


The hospital one worked for didn't see it as appropriate treatment. Another one I know had every questionable thing he ever did blow up in his face and had his license taken away. He was too nice, giving pain pills to people who were in pain too frequently. I don't think pain pills are the right thing myself, they have too many side effects if used long term. The funny part is that his trying alternative treatments is what got him initially investigated not the pain med prescriptions..


All of things are explicitly explained to physicians as revokable offenses.

Giving herbs and honey instead of actual medicine and then billing someone for it? Revoked.
Going above and beyond a reasonable opiate/painkiller prescription rate? Revoked (most of the time).

Why would you think it's okay to let a doctor sell you essentially a placebo (natural medicine)? It's unethical, and if you have a developing health issue, it could jeopardize your health.

[quote[Don't lose your license or your future by doing things that aren't considered appropriate even though they may be real.

There are only two types of medicine: proven and unproven. There's no such thing as "alternative" or "natural", just proven and unproven therapies.

If something is proven, you will have no problems from the medical boards for using it.
If it's unproven, you don't belong in medicine.






top topics



 
12
<<   2 >>

log in

join