A complex operation called spinal fusion has emerged as the treatment of choice for many kinds of back pain. But a number of researchers say there is little scientific evidence to show that for most patients, spinal fusion works any better than a simpler operation, the lamineetomy (椎板切除术). Some people would be better off with no surgery at all. Even doctors who favor fusions say that more research is needed on their benefits. In the absence of better data, critics point to a different reason for the fusion operation’s fast rise: money. Medicare can pay a surgeon as much as four times more for a spinal fusion as for a laminectomy. Hospitals also collect two to four times as much. "We all cave in to market and economic forces," said Dr. Edward C. Benzel. Though doctors, as a rule, should favor the least complicated treatment—with surgery being the last resort — Dr. Benzel estimated that fewer than half of the spinal fusions done today were probably appropriate. Doctors and hospitals are not the only players with a financial stake in fusion operations. Critics blame the companies that make the hardware for promoting more complex fusions without evidence that they are significantly more effective. Some sort of hardware is used in almost 90 percent of lower-back fusions and the national bill for the hardware alone has soared to $ 2.5 billion a year. The hardware makers acknowledge giving surgeons millions of dollars for consulting and researches, but say the money promotes technical and medical advances that improve back care. But a lawsuit brought by Scott A. Wiese, a former sales representative of Medtronic-the biggest maker of spinal hardware, accused the company of trying to persuade surgeons to use its products with offers of first-class plane tickets to Hawaii and nights at the finest hotels. Medtronic said it did nothing wrong, and it denied the accusations in the lawsuit. But the company disclosed earlier this year that the federal government was investigating charges that it paid illegal kickbacks to surgeons. Federal officials declined to comment on the investigation, and Medtronic said it would vigorously defend itself. Still, between the allure of money and the quest for breakthroughs in treatment, some prominent spinal surgeons say that back care has gone astray. Which of the following statements on the treatment of back pain is true
A. Spinal fusion provides a better cure than other treatments.
B. Spinal fusion is no good to patients suffering from back pains.
C. There is limited evidence as to which treatment is better.
Doctors have great confidence in the benefits of spinal fusion.
Few foods are more alluring than chocolate. "Chocolate is a drug of abuse in its own category," jokes Dr. Louis Aronne. "It’s ahnost as if people have chocolate receptors in their brains. " That may not be too far off the mark. In a recent book called "Breaking the Food Seduction," Dr. Neal Barnard contends that certain foods—including chocolate, cheese, red meat and practically anything combining sugar and fat—are just plain addictive. " It’s not that you lack willpower. These foods stimulate the release of chemicals in the brain’s pleasure center that keep you hooked. " Besides tapping the brain’s own "feel good" chemicals, Barnard says, some of these foods contain drug-like molecules (分子) of of their own. Cheese delivers casomorphins, the same compounds in a mother’s milk that help an infant bond during nursing, he says, but cheese is even more powerful, because it delivers casomorphins in an undiluted form. The result: "We’re bonding to our refrigerators. " Other scientists doubt these drug-like compounds have enough force to make the foods addictive. But no one denies that fat and sugar exert a strong appeal. The brain is designed to reward eating and other behaviors that promote survival. And throughout history, with food relatively hard to come by, what prmnoted survival better than calorie-dense foods packed with fat and sugar Besides, fat and sugar also calm the brain, lowering levels of stress hormones. "That’s why we call them comfort foods," says physiologist Mary Dallman. But comfort is different from addiction. In classic addiction, the brain grows less sensitive to a pleasurable substance, and the addict requires higher and higher doses to derive the same rewards. Can food cause that kind of change Perhaps. In a new study, Ann Kelley offered rats either plain water or a high-calorie chocolate drink. Over a two-week period, the animals drank more and more chocolate, but produced fewer brain opiates(镇静剂) in response. "You see the same thing in rats on morphine or heroin," she says. Admittedly, some foods can be hard to stop eating. But these foods are less habit-forming than alcohol—and most people can enjoy a drink without becoming alcoholic. The real problem today may be that we’re constantly surrounded with food—and can’t undo millions of years of evolution. The rat experiment is used to prove that chocolate ______.
A. is a typical comfort food
B. is no better than plain water
C. fits in the classic addiction theory
D. has nothing in common with drugs