Drugs / Pills Vs. NS3 Spinal Wellness ProgramTM

Drugs & Pills

  • Temporarily mask the pain
  • Doesn't address the underlying problem(s)
  • Serious side-effects such as kidney & liver damage
  • Risk of further injury
  • Risk of addiction with opioids.

NS3 Spinal Wellness ProgramTM

  • Successful long term pain relief
  • Addresses the actual underlying problem
  • No side effects
  • Little risk of further injury.

Injections Vs. NS3 Spinal Wellness ProgramTM

Cortisone Injections

  • Temporary relief, Epidural Steroid Injection. Not ideal for long term.
  • Possible side effects; Osteoporosis, Cataracts, Elevated blood sugar levels.
  • Can increase the destruction of the joint.
  • Diminishing effectiveness - multiple injections have lower levels of effectiveness.
  • Does not reduce the rate of subsequent surgery in most cases.

NS3 Spinal Wellness ProgramTM

  • Successful long term pain relief
  • No side effects
  • No increase in damage to joints
  • No limit to the number of treatments (as you need them)
  • No painful injections
  • Successful in up to 94% of patients

Surgery Vs. Non-surgical NS3 Spinal Wellness ProgramTM


  • Risks include: infection, down-time, scars.
  • 41% increase in the use of painkillers in those who had surgery.
  • It is focused on symptoms, not on the reversal & restoration.
  • Success rate: 40% to 60%.
  • Failed back surgery syndrome no relief or worse. Chances for FBS is high.
  • 72% may need further surgery.
  • Very Expensive.
  • Recovery can be very painful.

NS3 Spinal Wellness ProgramTM

  • Successful long term pain relief
  • Almost no risks, and no side effects.
  • Affordable.
  • No painful injections, recovery time, or scars.
  • Successful in upto 94% of patients.
  • Address the root cause of the problem & aims at reversing & restoration.

Contraindications in spinal wellness

  • Spinal Tumors
  • Acute Spinal Fractures
  • Recent Spinal Surgeries (less than six months).
  • Surgical Fusions/Hardware in the spine such as plates, screws, and rods.
  • Spondylolisthesis.
  • Severe Spinal Osteoporosis
  • Stage IV (end-stage/severe) Spinal Arthritis.
  • An abdominal Aneurysm.
  • Moderate to High Doses of Blood Thinners.
  • Pregnancy.

Spinal Decompression Vs. Traction

Many clinicians specializing in lumbar spine pathology have criticized traditional traction. In 1998, the Scientific American Research unit rated traction to be of little or no value in the examination of efficacious therapies for lower back pain. This finding is consistent with many studies.

Traction fails in many cases because it causes muscular stretch receptors to fire, which then cause para-spinal muscles to contract. This muscular response actually causes an increase in intradiscal pressure. On the other hand, genuine decompression is achieved by gradual and calculated increases of distraction forces to spinal structures, utilizing various degrees of distraction forces.

A highly specialized computer must modulate the application of distraction forces in order to achieve the ideal effect. The system uses applies a gentle, curved angle pull which yields far greater treatment results that a less comfortable, sharp angle pull. Distraction must be offset by cycles of partial relaxation.

The system continuously monitors spinal resistance and adjusts distraction forces accordingly. A specific lumbar segment can be targeted for treatment by changing the angle of distraction. This patented technique of decompression may prevent muscle spasm and patient guarding. Constant activity monitoring takes place at a rate of 10,000 times per second, making adjustments not perceived by the eye as many as 20 times per second via its fractional metering and monitoring system.

Genuine decompression also involves the use of a special pelvic harness that supports the lumbar spine during therapy. Negative pressure within the disc is maintained throughout the treatment session. With genuine decompression, the pressure within the disc space can actually be lowered to about -150 mmHg. As a result, the damaged disc will be rehydrated with nutrients and oxygen.

Distraction, a term used to describe a flexion distraction technique, attempts to reposition the spine from the offending lesion. This technique has been shown to be very effective, even though potentially damaging to the person performing the technique and largely dependent on the skill of the technician. Like traction, distraction procedures are limited in the ability to reduce the intradiscal pressure or produce a negative pressure within the disc imbibing fluid, nutrients and creating an environment for repair.

Decompression is an event - a combination of restraint, angle position and equipment engineering. One can experience traction without decompression, but not decompression without traction. Traction is a machine - Decompression is an event.

In other words, Traction is helpful at treating some of the conditions resulting from herniated or degeneration. Traction cannot address the source of the problem. Spinal Decompression creates a negative pressure or a vacuum inside the disc. This effect causes the disc to pull in the herniation and the increase in negative pressure also causes the flow of blood and nutrients back into the disc allowing the body's natural fibroblastic response to heal the injury and re-hydrate the disc. Traction and inversion tables, at best, can lower the intradiscal pressure from a +90 to a +30 mmHg. Spinal Decompression is clinically proven to reduce the intradiscal pressure to between a -150 to -200 mmHg. Traction triggers the body's normal response to stretching by creating painful muscle spasms that worsen the pain in affected area.

How does spinal decompression compare to Other Methods?

Recent studies comparing spinal decompression to standard physical therapy including traction, exercise, muscle stimulation, ultrasound, massage, and heat and ice found spinal decompression to be twice as effective in perceived pain reduction, debilitating pain reduction, cumulative strength index and overall outcome.