Science and Art
This medthodology is based upon the premise that there is nothing
meta-physically mysterious about back pain.
It is not only the result of fate but of function as well.
By and large, once the mystery is revealed, the "secret"
becomes common place and like all mysterious entities, it
then becomes less frightening and manageable.
I have attempted to make this website readable
for both the average person and referenced for the academic
or professional. Despite my credentials as a physician and
a University professor, I have elected an alternative method
of presenting this to the academic world and documenting
its success without controlled, peer-reviewed, "scientific"
studies. Many academic professionals would prefer that new
medical information originate from an orthopedist or neurosurgeon
at the University level. In practice, educated as well as
uneducated people fall into the intellectual trap of believing
that the state of human knowledge has risen to such complexity
that nothing can be of true value unless it originates from
teaching institutions where knowledge is codified, structured,
and monopolized. Such is not necessarily a fact.
Don't misunderstand, I have deep respect and
admiration for the theory and practice of science; however,
there arise situations wherein the scientific process, as
we have come to institutionalize it today, makes it sometimes
inadequate for the study of human phenomena by its demand
for absolute exactitude. If anything, the Heisenberg Uncertainty
Principle (a theory holding that the more one attempts to
study a phenomenon, the more one changes it simply by the
observational act's interfering with the true nature of
the phenomenon) applies to some of the demands made upon
the absolute adherence to scientific theory with respect
to back pain because the process of observation is neither
exact nor foolproof. I believe the manner in which back
pain has been approached in this century fell victim to
this reality.
The mechanically manipulative approaches taken
by massage therapists, chiropractors, and ancient healers
were often dispelled in their entirety by the medical establishment
without looking to see if they had any basis in reality
or attempting to discover the reason why they worked when
successful.
In truth, I carefully observed a human phenomenon,
acquired an in-depth understanding of the previously existent
information base, found it inadequate, proposed countless
hypotheses, tested those hypotheses, abandoned the non-reproducible
components, formulated a theorem, then compared my observations
and experiences against that theorem by testing, re-testing,
and re-working the details. Admittedly, the knowledge came
to me as much as by trial-and-error as what would be considered
pure scientific inquiry. In spite of that, I am to the point
where I feel I have arrived at a "truth" that
constitutes a competent solution to an age-old-problem.
It also so happens that I have been in the
unique position of having a population of back pain patients
upon whom I was able to practice my technique and modify
it accordingly without exposing patients to any mechanical
forces or risks greater than that which would be expected
from normal day-to-day activities. My own back also conveniently
provided me with a willing and ever-present study group
of one; but medical history is replete with major advances
coming from competent observation of a single patient. Unfortunately,
often, it seems, for anyone to be able to make even the
simplest medical statement, it has to have been the product
of a major, costly, project involving blinded study groups,
control groups, and rigorous examination for statistical
significance. I (as well as a large contingent of medical
experts) have arrived at the conclusion that back pain has
so many variables involved in its study that it is not always
amenable to the usual methods of scientific inquiry.
For instance, if one were to attempt to compare
so much as a single facet of The O'Connor Technique (tm)
with some other method in a controlled scientific fashion,
it would be nearly impossible to eliminate what is called
"bias." One could never be certain that the person
educating the patient populations did so properly and identically
nor that the recipient of the information absorbed it uniformly
or completely, was motivated to succeed, or remembered the
details sufficiently to be successful. In advance, the researcher
would have to have sufficient confidence in the method to
be convincing to the patient (or else the advice might not
be followed) and at the instant that was achieved, he would
be guilty of injecting bias into the study. His inherent
confidence in the method can be expected to alter his results
by a projection of sincerity; otherwise, one would have
to argue that patients could not be able to perceive nor
would be affected by insincerity when the researcher had
no idea whether his instructions would lead to benefit.
Such constitutes the "art" of medicine as it applies
to research.
I understand that, in medical science,
sometimes as much as a third of the people get better as
a result of the placebo effect. If another researcher were
to be firmly convinced in the superior efficacy of an alternative
method, a larger percentage of people might get better simply
upon the strength of that researcher's conviction that what
he is doing will work. Also, in those people who were destined
statistically to improve regardless of the treatment, they
would be more likely to attribute the improvement to the
alternative method regardless of its merit; otherwise the
researcher would have had to have pretended to be neutral.
Also understand that many patients throughout
medical history have gotten "better" despite therapies
that ultimately were shown to have done more harm than good.
Medical historians have ample examples of therapies that
were so "effective" that they lasted for centuries
only to be later shown to be worthless or actually more
damaging. One would have to be biologically arrogant in
the face of infinity to assume anything other than medical
"science" still being in it's infancy today. Future
historians will probably have a comedic field day with what
is currently acceptable medical practice.
Regardless, I can assure the reader of one
fact, my life and the lives of countless numbers of my patients
have been substantially bettered as a direct result of applying
the principles of The O'Connor Technique (tm). I have not
failed to keep documentation on those patients that have
walked into my clinic literally crippled with pain who achieved
instantaneous relief when guided through the method and
have been able to sustain that relief for prolonged periods.
Certainly, not everyone achieves this dramatic level of
relief; however, the overwhelming percentage of those people
who I can define as having herniated disc material as the
source of their pain do achieve remarkably favorable and
reproducible results.
So as to test whether or not some would have
achieved that relief anyway with a more well-established
therapy, I withheld my method from a number of people and
sent them through the usual orthopedic and neurosurgical
routes. When they returned without relief, I then used The
O'Connor Technique (tm), and they were able to become pain-free.
Now, I can't, in clear conscience, persist in this practice
because I would be denying them a valuable treatment for
no apparent gain. This situation is reminiscent of the experiments
that had to be stopped because the placebo control group
was suffering so much that it would have been unethical
not to give them the real treatment.
I have no doubt that The O'Connor Technique
(tm) can be superlatively effective in getting injured workers
back to work faster, alleviate pain and disability more
efficiently, and keep physically active people away from
surgery more often and for longer periods than any existing
back pain management program.
I have been developing this method for at
least eight years and have been enormously successful with
the patient population at my clinic. I know that the pain
relief is not coincidental because it is too often
dramatically immediate and most often in such close proximity
to the start of therapy that no other explanation is suitable.
I have followed these patients long enough to know that
the relief is sustainable and recognized by the patients
as valuable because they are so firm in their conviction
that the method worked.
If a demand arises for documentation of this
method's success, I can simply return to the medical records
for the appropriate analysis to prove my assertion. My records
would be open to any researcher who legitimately wishes
to verify or refute my claims. I am so convinced that The
O'Connor Technique (tm) works that I am reluctant to engage
in the standard, costly, and time-consuming effort it takes
to formalize the proof that is often demanded of others
similarly situated. In reality, however, the success of
this method will be demonstrated or refuted when large numbers
of people begin to be helped by the techniques and the demand
for the book or access to the website makes it obvious that
the principles are genuinely therapeutic.
It is understandable for the potential reader
to question the veracity of claims made by myself in this
website. I've met with this attitude from celebrities who
have back problems that are easily attributable to discs.
They understandably believe that there couldn't possibly
be a better method than that prescribed by their own highly
paid, University-affiliated specialist. Who can blame them?
Their condition has been described to them in articulately
specious terms, and they are convincingly reassured that
they will be better in a reasonable period of time because
the doctor is privy to the statistic that the majority of
back pain is resolved within two months regardless of the
method used. This statistic holds for The O'Connor Technique
(tm) as well; however, anyone using my method will find
that usually the relief is instantaneous. There is no reason
to wait weeks, months, or forever for random activity to
possibly accomplish what my method does immediately and
intentionally. Unfortunately, unless they have had the misfortune
of being previously treated with some other method; they
have nothing with which to compare my method.
For the individual or the study group, the
obvious criticism of my intellectual process here would
be: "How do you know that they wouldn't have gotten
better anyway just as rapidly with another method?"
The answer I must resort to is my personal and professional
experience both prior to my understanding the principles
and after. Before I could genuinely help them, I was occasioned
(like the over-whelming majority of doctors today) to watch
them heal at their own pace, go from neurologist, to neurosurgeon,
to physical therapist without definitive relief and continually
get the same non-answers, veiled but never spoken assumptions
of malingering, and with a frustrating inability to enjoy
life as they knew it.
I distinctly recall one of the first patients
upon whom I tried my method. He was a young man in his twenties
unable to stand without a cane who bitterly complained about
how his life was ruined and how he wanted to work but was
sentenced to poverty because he couldn't function with his
back pain. He had been denied surgical relief because of
no documentable nerve damage and his young age, but that
didn't change the fact that he was, for all intents and
purposes, crippled. We both figured that he had nothing
to lose. So, I gave my MANEUVERS a try on someone other
than myself for the first time, and he actually walked out
of the office without need of his cane. Within a month of
following my instructions, he was able to seek work again.
A few days later, I asked him if he thought my technique
was responsible for his recovery or if he thought he would
have recovered without it. He didn't attribute his relief
to chance nor consider his relief anecdotal (as I am certain
my skeptical colleagues might readily point out). He was
as convinced as I was that my method had achieved success
where all else failed him.
Since then, I have been utilizing The O'Connor
Technique (tm) on everyone in whom I can define a discogenic
(originating in the disc) source for back pain. I have made
numerous modifications, toyed with some mechanically assisting
devices, made certain that nothing posed a risk to the spinal
cord or nerves with numerous imaging techniques, and followed
numbers of people over long periods. The results have been
so favorable that I had to publish the method.
I predict that in a short time, the method
will become established therapeutic practice and evolve
as things like that do. A therapist-assisted modification
of this technique (like I do in my clinic) can be taught
to the orthopedist, the primary care physician, or, yes,
even the chiropractor so that within the space of an average
office visit, the MANEUVERS can be administered to patients
and immediate pain relief achieved where applicable.
I have evolved The O'Connor Technique (tm)
in the clinical/therapeutic environment to a point wherein
mostly what I do with patients is verbally give them directions
on the exam table and assist them in making their own movements
in a controlled and protective setting. Their retention
of the sequence allows them to practice the same techniques
in the privacy of their own home, on household surfaces,
at no cost, and whenever immediately necessary. I know this
can be accomplished and taught to patients rapidly and effectively
because I have repeatedly succeeded in this goal in my practice
too often to attribute their immediate or rapid recoveries
to happenstance.
I solidly understand that incorporating the
principles and practicing the techniques described herein
offers no guarantee that either I or the reader will not
eventually have to resort to surgery. I accept the potential
for my back to possibly get progressively worse as age-related
changes occur, and the reader should consider likewise.
Notwithstanding that concern, since I began using The O'Connor
Technique (tm), I have most certainly not gotten worse and
have decidedly improved at a number of spinal levels that
have to be considered "diseased." Even though
I have definitely improved, I accept that I have a good
chance of re-injuring my back. With the prospect of relentless
aging viewed as inevitable, I have every expectation for
the on-going process to worsen, but I can say that I am
certain that without understanding this method, my condition
would have already progressively worsened to the point of
surgery or incapacity. For nearly a decade, I have been
able to avoid surgery and significant disability. Even if
that were all this website could offer most back pain sufferers,
I would consider it a resounding success.
Needless to say, I believe this method can
do more than simply help people with existing back pain.
If this method is practiced early enough in the course of
disc problems, the relentless degenerative process can be
forestalled and suffering prevented to the point of elimination,
provided that the readers take personal responsibility for
their problem and make the necessary modifications in their
activities of daily living to positively affect their destiny.
Article Contents:
You are not alone
The Pain
Contemporary
Perspective on Back Pain
Historical
Perspective of Back Pain
Science and Art
Alternative
Therapeutic Modalities
Back Surgery
Comparative Programs
Not an Excercise
Program
Dismissing
the "Psychological" Contribution To Spinal Pain
Getting Better
as a Process
Become your own
Chiropractor
Hope
SUBSCRIBE
NOW !
PURCHASE
BOOK NOW ! |
