False "Fake" Treatments

There are a number of evidence-based treatment options for pelvic pain and pudendal neuralgia that are proven to work. Here is a link to the basic tenets of science that have advanced medicine so quickly in the last 150 years,

However, there are also fake treatments sold by doctors pretending to be pelvic pain specialists to exploit desperate people with severe, chronic pudendal nerve pain.

These “pretend” treatments are nothing more than trickery that pretend to be new, experimental, minimally invasive when in reality they are just scams being pushed by salespeople preying a patients. The doctor knows the treatments won't work. They will act as if they care as they take your cash. The doctors have to charge cash because the "treatments" are not FDA-approved and cannot be processed through any insurance.

We explain the following fraudulent ( (fake), scientifically unproven ineffective treatments, mostly injections paid in cash, for pudendal neuralgia in the dropdowns to this main menu item False Treatments. Examples of of fake PN treatments. Here is the list of the fake treatments:

Cryoablaion / Cryoneurolysis (ablation/destruction through freezing using probe)
Stem Cell Therapy / Rheo injections
Hydrodissection injections (water)
Platelet-Rich Plasma (PRP) Injections
Alpha-2-Macroglobulin (A2M) injections
Prolotherapy injections (dextrose/sugar water irritant)
Hyaluronic acid injections

Cash Payments

Medicare is the benchmark for FDA approved procedures. If it doesn't cover one, it is probably not a good idea to go forward. Always conduct research using studies, publications, clinical trials conducted by parties with NO CONFLICT OF INTEREST. For example, you would not research the safety of any of the above procedures via the site of a doctor or the medical practice that sells and profits from them. Their conflict is that they will benefit financially.

Understanding Research: PBS Frontline (Anecdotal vs. Double-blind controlled studies with control group (placebo)

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/altmed/snake/research.html

Why expensive, unproven stem cell treatments are a new

health care trend 1

Red Flags to Look Out For

In the burgeoning field of stem cell therapy, distinguishing between legitimate and fraudulent treatments is crucial for patient safety and efficacy. Unfortunately, the allure of stem cell therapy has also attracted unscrupulous providers offering fake treatments, which can pose significant risks to individuals seeking relief. Understanding the red flags of such fraudulent therapies is essential for navigating this complex landscape.

Fake stem cell treatments often come with exaggerated claims of a cure-all solution for a wide range of conditions, from orthopedic pain to neurological disorders, without scientific evidence or clinical trials to back up these assertions. Unlike genuine treatments, which are administered by qualified healthcare professionals in regulated facilities, fake therapies might be offered in non-medical settings or by practitioners without the appropriate credentials.

The differences between real and fake treatments are stark. Authentic stem cell therapies are based on rigorous research, involve a transparent process regarding the source and type of stem cells used, and provide a realistic outline of potential outcomes and risks. In contrast, fraudulent treatments lack this transparency and often use generic or unspecified stem cell products.

Opting for unverified treatments carries significant risks, including financial loss, health complications, and the potential for adverse reactions. Worse, these fake therapies can delay or interfere with receiving proper, effective medical care. The consequences extend beyond individual patients, undermining trust in legitimate stem cell research and applications. It’s imperative for patients to conduct thorough research, seek treatments from reputable clinics, and always consult with healthcare professionals before undergoing any stem cell therapy.

Unproven medical treatments cost us lives and money. Let research tell us what works. We shouldn't strong-arm insurers — and all of us who pay premiums and taxes — into paying for unproven treatments. Let research guide our health care.

Ezekiel J. Emanuel and Justin E. Bekelman

Opinion contributors

Should Americans, through health insurance companies or government programs, pay for costly treatments that have not been shown to be more beneficial or less harmful than standard treatment, just because a physician prescribes them or a patient wants them? At stake are the health of millions of Americans with complex and debilitating illness, billions in health care costs, the affordability of health insurance, and data-driven medical care.

Fringe treatments are expensive and harmful

Who was right? Ultimately, research showed that bone marrow transplantation did not extend life. The human and economic toll was profound: more than 30,000 women received the toxic treatment, some of whom died prematurely from it. The definitive studies were delayed because patients got transplants “off study” rather than as part of the research trials

Industry and government funders, doctors, patients, hospitals and payers must accelerate impactful research. In particular, doctors should strongly endorse enrollment in randomized clinical trials and should counsel patients about the possible benefits and harms of the latest medical technologies.

Unproven treatments can be a waste of money

Third, insurers should pay for unproven treatments only when received through studies. Specifically, while the intervention is being tested, insurers and government programs should set the price of new treatments equal to the current standard of care, a model known as reference pricing. The price should be reset only if research ultimately shows better (or worse) outcomes. This approach promotes both access and innovation.

Fourth, rather than just arguing that their technology is safe and effective, companies making proton centers, surgical robots and other novel therapies should fund trials to answer the question of whether their products are actually more effective. This is what drug companies do. Funding research is in their interest. When one manufacturer’s heart stent was shown to be better than another’s in a randomized trial published in 2008, there was a 1.7 billion movement in market share in a single year toward the better therapy.

Do research and get second

and third opinions

Do not read a doctor's website to research the efficiency or safety of safety of a procedure. You want to read studies published studies in reputable medical journals (a third party).

It is always good to get a second opinion especially regarding pudendal neuralgia and any other rare conditions

1 https://ispwscottsdale.com/real-vs-fake-pain-stem-cell-treatment-navigating-the-landscape/

_____

Pudendal Neuralgia Alliance

contact@pudendalneuralgiaalliane.org

Paid for by volunteer until 501c3 status granted by IRS