They certainly worded it poorly, but what they meant was "voodoo doesn't work". As in, educate your patient about their wacky home remedies, and try to get them to engage with realistic recovery outcomes.

From the paper:

> E for educate

> Therapists should educate patients on the benefits of an active approach to recovery. Passive modalities, such as electrotherapy, manual therapy or acupuncture, early after injury have insignificant effects on pain and function compared with an active approach, and may even be counterproductive in the long term. Indeed, nurturing an external locus of control or the ‘need to be fixed’ can lead to therapy- dependent behaviour. Better education on the condition and load management will help avoid overtreatment. This in turn reduces the likelihood of unnecessary injections or surgery, and supports a reduction in the cost of healthcare (eg, due to disability compensation associated with low back pain). In an era of hi- tech therapeutic options, we strongly advocate for setting realistic expectations with patients about recovery times instead of chasing the ‘magic cure’ approach.

It seems like a lot of folks have responded to conspiracy idiocy by going all-out anti-learning in favor of blind deferral to experts. Even if I thought that was wise, telling people not to research their injuries is like telling the tide not to come in. Better to focus on identifying trustworthy information.

Read them again. Where the guidelines say "you", they are clearly addressing the injured party.