Steve the Hypothetical Gerbil says: This one’s about a €86.95 device that claims to fix spinal stenosis. There’s fake urgency, borrowed science, and a Dutch testimonial. Paul didn’t buy it. The money went on a trowel.

Facebook recently informed me that spinal stenosis can now be fixed for €86.95.

The sale ended tonight.

It always ends tonight.

I was scrolling through Facebook the other day looking for material for this blog, and Facebook, as always, rose magnificently to the occasion. At 71 I suffer from back pain now and again myself, mostly caused by gardening and the persistent delusion that I can still lift things the way I did in 1987.

The advertisement was for something called ReliveX.

“Finally Get Instant Relief from Spinal Stenosis & Nerve Pain,” it promised. “62% OFF ends tonight. This is your last chance.”

I don’t have spinal stenosis. But I do have an interest in things that promise too much and deliver too little.

So I clicked.

What followed was 3,000 words of medical theatre.

The Story

The landing page was written by someone called Diana Westfield, who appears to be a medical journalist specialising in spinal conditions.

Or perhaps she’s a copywriter working on commission.

The page doesn’t specify.

Diana explained the “Relief-and-Relapse Cycle,” a cruel loop in which spinal stenosis sufferers wake up stiff, manage flare-ups, and dread the next morning. This part, unfortunately, is believable. Chronic pain does exactly that.

What came next was less convincing.

According to the page, the real problem isn’t ageing, degeneration, or narrowing of the spinal canal. The real problem is something called “Core Muscle Lockout.”

Apparently, when your spine is injured, your brain shuts down your deepest core muscles as a survival mechanism. This is explained using an extended metaphor involving tents and anchor ropes that would have earned solid marks in GCSE English coursework.

The solution is ReliveX: an “Adaptive Correction System” using “Dual-Action Adaptive NMES™ Technology.”

Regular price: €172.95.

Today’s price: €86.95.

Sale ends tonight.

The Science (Sort Of)

NMES stands for Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulation. This is real. Physiotherapists use it. TENS units are real too, and you can buy them online for about €30.

ReliveX, however, is apparently different.

It’s not just a TENS unit. It’s a “Dual-Action Correction System” with an “adaptive pulse” that “penetrates deeper” and “resets the Core Muscle Lockout.”

How much deeper?

The page doesn’t say.

What makes the pulse adaptive?

Unclear.

Where are the clinical trials?

Good question.

So I clicked the “Certifications and Research” link at the bottom of the page expecting testimonials in lab coats and stock photos of chiropractors pointing at spines.

What I found was more sophisticated than that.

The Research Page: Where Real Science Meets Marketing

The page is titled:

“Built on science. Backed by clinical research.”

It lists:

• an FDA clearance number

• CE certification

• RoHS compliance

• and a claim of “150,000+ Customers Worldwide”

Then come five studies.

All real.

All peer-reviewed.

All linked to the US National Institutes of Health.

One study found NMES improves activation of spinal stabilising muscles and reduces pain. Another showed electrical stimulation activates deep lumbar muscles. Others looked at chronic lower back pain, sciatica, and exercise therapy.

The science is real.

The product is not the subject of the science.

And this is the trick.

Cite legitimate research about a broad technology, place it beside a branded product, and allow the reader to mentally connect the dots themselves.

It’s not lying.

It’s contextual sleight of hand.

Then, buried in smaller print, comes the important disclaimer:

“The research below is referenced for educational purposes. ReliveX did not fund or conduct any of the studies cited.”

Which means none of the studies actually tested ReliveX.

The Depth Claim

The page includes a helpful diagram claiming ordinary TENS devices only reach 5-8mm beneath the skin, while ReliveX’s “Adaptive NMES” reaches 30-50mm to target the multifidus muscle.

The multifidus is real. It matters for spinal stability. Research does suggest it can become inhibited after injury.

But the specific claim that ReliveX reaches 30-50mm while conventional devices stop at 8mm isn’t sourced anywhere I could find.

No study is cited.

No evidence is shown.

It’s presented as fact because diagrams feel scientific, especially when arrows are involved.

The FDA Clearance

The FDA clearance number is genuine. I looked it up.

What it means is that the device is considered “substantially equivalent” to another electrical stimulation device already on the market under the FDA’s 510(k) pathway.

This does not mean the FDA evaluated ReliveX as a treatment for spinal stenosis.

It means it resembles other stimulation devices already being sold.

“FDA cleared” is not the same as “FDA approved.”

The distinction is technical, legal, and extremely important.

Most consumers won’t know the difference.

The page relies on that.

What This Actually Means

If you suffer from chronic lower back pain, NMES may help.

The research suggests it can reduce pain for some people under some circumstances. The underlying mechanism is plausible. Electrical stimulation has legitimate medical uses.

But none of the cited studies tested ReliveX specifically.

None compared it against cheaper devices.

None concluded it “stops spinal stenosis at its source.”

The page never quite says that directly.

It simply creates the impression.

That’s the business model.

The Red Flags

1. The Urgency Engine

“62% OFF ends tonight.”

“ONLY 5 LEFT.”

“Sale expires at midnight.”

I checked the page at 2pm.

Five left.

I checked again at 8pm.

Still five left.

Either ReliveX has discovered quantum inventory management, or the countdown timer exists mainly to make frightened people panic-buy pain gadgets.

2. The Testimonial Tell

The testimonials are emotional and highly specific.

One customer was supposedly facing fusion surgery. Another had been told surgery was “inevitable.” A third can now walk the dog again.

Maybe they’re genuine.

Maybe they’re written by a marketing team in a fluorescent office park somewhere outside Rotterdam.

One review appeared as “1 dag geleden,” which is Dutch for “1 day ago.”

The site itself mixed euros, English, Dutch phrasing, American references, and “Trending Across the USA.”

This is not so much a red flag as a large illuminated sign reading:

DROP-SHIPPED.

3. The Price Theatre

Regular price: €172.95.

Sale price: €86.95.

Save 50%.

I strongly suspect the actual price is €86.95 and the higher number exists purely to trigger bargain psychology.

This is extremely common online.

It is also dishonest.

4. The Disclaimer Cascade

At the bottom of the page, hidden in smaller print, we eventually discover:

“This website is an advertisement and not a news publication. Persons appearing on this site may be compensated brand representatives or actors unless otherwise stated.”

So Diana Westfield may not be a journalist.

The smiling patients may not be patients.

The heartfelt testimonials may have been workshopped by someone called Kevin in affiliate marketing.

Further down:

“ReliveX™ does not intend to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease and does not constitute medical advice.”

Meanwhile the headline promises to:

“Finally Stop Chronic Spinal Stenosis at Its Source.”

And then:

“The statements on this website have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration.”

Despite the prominent references to FDA clearance.

These are not contradictions if you’re a lawyer.

They are contradictions if you’re a person with a bad back looking for relief.

What You’re Actually Buying

As far as I can tell, ReliveX is essentially a wireless NMES/TENS unit.

That doesn’t make it fake.

These devices can help some people. They can reduce pain temporarily. Physiotherapists sometimes use similar technologies as part of broader treatment programmes.

But this is not a revolutionary medical breakthrough.

It does not “reset” your core muscles.

It does not “unlock” spinal function.

It sends electrical impulses into muscles and nerves.

That’s it.

You can buy similar devices elsewhere for considerably less money.

The extra cost appears to pay for:

• the marketing funnel

• the dramatic copywriting

• the countdown timers

• the Facebook ads

• the testimonials

• the shopify template used in countless websites like this

• and the three “FREE bonus gifts,” which appear to be PDFs and access to a Facebook group

  ---

The Question

If you’re living with chronic pain, frightened of surgery, exhausted by discomfort, and desperate for relief, how much is hope worth?

€86.95?

Maybe.

Pain changes how people think. It narrows the world. It makes certainty attractive.

And that is exactly what these pages sell.

Not electrical stimulation.

Certainty.

What I Would Do Instead

If you’re living with chronic back pain, talk to your doctor. See a physiotherapist, a real one with a qualification rather than an ebook. If you want a TENS unit, buy one from a reputable supplier with transparent specifications and an address that doesn’t resolve to a mailbox in Wyoming. Keep moving, carefully and consistently, and spend the €86.95 on something with a guaranteed return. A decent meal. A massage. A new gardening kneeler. Possibly wine.

The Final Word

ReliveX is not technically a scam.

It’s a real device using a real technology wrapped in extremely aggressive marketing.

The science cited on the page exists.

The problem is that the page quietly encourages readers to believe the science specifically validates ReliveX itself.

It doesn’t.

What you’re looking at is a very polished machine designed to convert pain, fear, and hope into online sales.

And unfortunately, it’s very good at it.

There’s also an €86.95 wireless TENS unit with a very good marketing team.

It’s a TENS unit with a marketing budget.

Your choice.

Paul is 71, writes from the Italian Alps, and has a back that clicks ominously when he stands up too quickly. He is not a medical professional. He is, however, increasingly experienced at spotting internet nonsense. The €86.95 was ultimately spent on espresso, a new trowel, and sunflower hearts for the bird feeder. All three produced measurable positive outcomes.

Facebook recently showed me an ad for a device that claims to reverse Type 2 diabetes using a copper patch applied to the wrist.

Then one for a supplement that dissolves kidney stones while you sleep.

Then one for a shoulder massager endorsed by a doctor who doesn’t appear to exist, and a spinal stenosis cure that’s been on sale “tonight only” for the past several months.

I know about these products because I’ve been writing about them. I know about them because Facebook keeps showing them to me. I know about them because Facebook’s advertising system approved every single one, targeted them at people most likely to be suffering from the relevant condition, and served them millions of times to people who were frightened, in pain, and looking for help.

This is not an accident.

This is the product.

The Mission

“Give people the power to build community and bring the world closer together.”

This is Facebook’s stated mission. It appears in annual reports, investor presentations, and the kind of carefully worded public statements that get read out at parliamentary hearings.

It does not appear in the ad approval algorithm.

The ad approval algorithm has a different mission. It asks one question: will this ad generate clicks? If the answer is yes, the ad runs.

The mission statement is aspirational. The algorithm is operational. These are not the same document, and only one of them runs the platform.

The Technology

Facebook possesses sophisticated content moderation tools: artificial intelligence, human reviewers, automated flagging systems, entire departments dedicated to Trust and Safety.

These tools are real. They are also selectively applied.

Hate speech is removed, eventually. Misinformation is labelled, sometimes. An ad claiming that a herbal patch dissolves kidney stones while you sleep is approved in minutes.

The reason is not technical limitation. It is financial incentive.

Hate speech generates outrage. Outrage generates bad press. Bad press affects the share price. The kidney stone patch generates revenue. Revenue affects the share price in the other direction.

The algorithm understands this distinction perfectly. It has been designed to understand it.

The Claims

“97% of hate speech is removed before user reports.”

The statistic is precise. The methodology is opaque. What counts as hate speech is defined loosely. What counts as removal is defined loosely. The number is real. Its meaning is negotiable.

“We are committed to fighting misinformation.”

The commitment is stated quarterly. The enforcement is inconsistent daily. Political misinformation is contested and visible. Health misinformation is profitable and targetable. The distinction between the two is not ethical. It is financial.

“We protect our community.”

The community is protected from some things. It is not protected from an ad that has run 340,000 impressions this week claiming that dissolving a tablet under your tongue each morning will eliminate visceral fat without diet or exercise.

That ad is not a failure of the system. That ad is the system working.

The Enforcement Loop

An ad is submitted. It claims that a weight loss patch worn on the wrist for eight hours dissolves up to 60 kilograms of excess body weight in three weeks.

This claim violates the Advertising Policies. The Advertising Policies prohibit claims that are false, misleading, or medically unsubstantiated.

The ad is approved.

A user reports it. Facebook reviews it. Facebook finds no violation. The user reports it again. Facebook finds no violation again. After fourteen reports over a fortnight, the ad is removed.

The advertiser creates a new ad. New brand name. New logo. New video with different background music. Same patch. Same claim. The new ad is approved in minutes.

This is not a bug. It is the feature. The reporting system exists to give users the impression of recourse. The approval system exists to give advertisers a reliable pipeline. Both are functioning exactly as designed.

I have reported ads on Facebook. Most people who use the platform regularly have reported ads on Facebook. The experience is consistent: you report, Facebook reviews, Facebook finds no violation, the ad continues running, and eventually you stop reporting because nothing changes and you have other things to do.

That attrition is also part of the design.

The Economics

Facebook’s revenue in 2025 was approximately $200.97 billion. The majority came from advertising. A significant and carefully unquantified portion came from categories that depend on misleading claims for their conversion rates.

Weight loss supplements. Miracle cures. Financial opportunity schemes. Crypto investments. Affiliate marketing funnels. Wellness devices that claim to decompress the vagus nerve, reset your core muscles, or restore blood flow to suffocating shoulder tissues.

These are not edge cases. They are core revenue streams.

Removing them would require defining misleading claims in a way that actually excluded misleading claims. That definition would cost money. The current definition does not cost money. It is the product of careful legal and financial calculation, and it is working.

The Meta-Irony

Facebook claims to build community. The community is the product.

Facebook claims to fight misinformation. Misinformation generates engagement. Engagement generates revenue.

Facebook claims to protect users. The users are sold to the people they need protecting from.

This is not a contradiction. It is the business model.

The mission statement exists to be quoted at hearings. The algorithm exists to generate revenue. The 27,000-word Community Standards document exists so that someone has something to point to when asked whether standards exist.

An ad promising 60 kilograms of weight loss in three weeks was approved in minutes. Both of these things are true simultaneously.

What This Site Is About

The ads I’ve been writing about, the spinal stenosis cure, the fictional Italian orthopaedic surgeon, the copper patch, the vagus nerve collar, the face-lifting tape, and the rest, none of them would reach you without a platform willing to approve them, target them, and serve them to the people most likely to be vulnerable to them.

Facebook is not the only such platform. But it is the largest, the most sophisticated, and the most practised at presenting this arrangement as something other than what it is.

The products I write about here are symptoms. Facebook is the condition.

The patch is not the grift. The pill is not the grift. The platform that approves the ad, targets it at people who recently searched for weight loss solutions, serves it 340,000 times, and takes the money is the grift.

Understanding that distinction is the starting point for everything else on this site.

The Alternative

Report the ads by all means. Re

What is a template?

Templates are reusable content blocks you can insert into any post. Use them for content you repeat often, like:

• Standard disclaimers or disclosures

• Calls to action (subscribe, share, etc.)

• Custom dividers or recurring sections

• Post templates or boilerplate

To create a template, click "Template" in the editor toolbar and select one to insert. You can organize templates into groups by using "/" in the name (e.g. "Email/Welcome").

porting may remove a specific ad. It will not change the system, because the system is not broken.

The exit, as always, is free. It has always been free. Fewer than 3% of users find it.

Paul is 71, writes from the Italian Alps, and has been scrolling Facebook for material since before it had a News Feed. He is not a medical professional, a tech journalist, or a platform policy expert. He is, however, persistent. The copper patch was not purchased for review. The money was spent on espresso and sunflower hearts. The birds, as always, delivered.