Just to put a new spin on an old (but still interesting) discussion is it
not equally possible to have a large number of people who have "anatomical
reason" to have pain but do not suffer any more pain than those who are in
this non anatomical pain group. I have a significant scoliosis and do not
feel that I have a huge amount of pain and I am sure a large percentage of
people are in a similar position (or may be I am a freak!!!).
In this case who has the pathology, the person with structural problems or
the person with pain?
Anyway I guess I am just trying to be awkward really!!
John Willenbruch.
>I've been hearing this "80%" figure for as long as I can remember and I
>doubt it will ever change. Bigos' classic study of thousands of workers at
>Boeing concluded that the same percentage of patients had "no anatomical
>reason" to hurt.
>
>I honestly think that this figure is a reflection of the percentage of
>people who hurt without displaying any *pathology*. As long as the notion
>that painful problems must include a positive finding for relevant disease
>processes or visible breaks in normal tissue continuity, the "80%" figure
>will continue to haunt us. When are we going to consider the non-pathologic
>problems of neural tension (which undoubtedly include pain and restricted
>mobility) that will never coincide with a frank lesion demonstrated with
>traditional testing?
>
>As far as I'm concerned, this is not so much a psychological issue as it
>is an issue of ignorance on the part of those doing the diagnosing.
>
>Barrett L. Dorko P.T.
><http://qin.com/dorko>
>
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|