In Response: From Manchikanti et al

Abstract

We appreciate the lengthy letter by Chou entitled "Critiquing the Critiques." At the outset, the letter reminded us of an exchange between Bogduk and Carragee in 2007 (1) criticizing each other-Bogduk claiming that Carragee et al utilized sophistry to discredit the study, whereas Carragee described Bogduk's argument as "inflated albeit entertaining rhetoric". Bogduk elaborated that the defense to sophistry is to inform the listeners of the fallacy of the argument, and to point out the opposite when it applies. In contrast, Carragee borrows Aristotle's caution in The Art of Rhetoric, that when one hears bombastic and exaggerated styles of argument, the substance is likely deficient (2). Here, it appears that Chou's argument could qualify for sophistry, and the art of rhetoric by rehashing the same arguments over and over again while leaving the substance out. ASIPP rigorously supports peer-reviewed and bias free research including evidence synthesis, as well as government funding of such efforts. The criticism is extremely important, especially when the work is generously supported by taxpayer funds or even membership dues as in the case of the American Pain Society (APS).

Multi‐Functional Small Molecule Alleviates Fracture Pain and Promotes Bone Healing

“…[ 17 ] Targeting pain at the origin of noxious stimuli by local delivery of analgesics could reduce side effects while providing pain relief. [ 18 ] In this study, we demonstrate that local delivery of adenosine at the fracture site reduces the functional activity of dorsal root ganglion (DRG) neurons through ADORA1, and promotes osteogenic differentiation of mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) through ADORA2B. Although adenosine has a rapid clearance and some potential for off‐target, adverse effects when administered systemically, we overcome these drawbacks by employing a biomaterial‐assisted sustained and local delivery of adenosine.…”