Osteopaths - Who's used these miracle workers?

I now follow his advice and wearing a wedge in all my left shoes, and haven't had any problems for over 18 months.

WTF? A sports physio gave you acupuncture and then sold you to wear a wedge in your shoe?

I'd ask your doctor to refer you to a specialist. If other treatments are inappropriate or ineffective, you can get a special insole (moulded specifically to your foot) made for you. Expensive - process + first insole will set you back £50-£100. But a wedge sounds dodgy - imagine the inbalanced strain on your ankle/leg muscles. One foot will be flat and the other will be pointing down.

Obviously, I'm not a specialist in this area, but having been through similar treatment in the past, this account has set the alarm bells ringing.
 
No. I would not accuse an osteopath of "mumbo jumbo" if he is employing methods already proven by orthodox medical science. However, I would feel compelled to point out that by doing so, he is resorting to conventional medicine - not osteopathy.
laff. So it can't be osteopathy if it's proven.
 
I associate them with homeopaths and chiropractors because they are all part of the "alternative medicine" industry.

As I already indicated, Osteopathy is no more 'alternative' than physio.

No. I would not accuse an osteopath of "mumbo jumbo" if he is employing methods already proven by orthodox medical science. However, I would feel compelled to point out that by doing so, he is resorting to conventional medicine - not osteopathy.

Osteopathy *is* conventional medicine. What part of it do you not believe? There are no chants or incantations. No magical stones, crystals or potions. Just manipulation of the musculo-skeletal system combined with identical exercises to those recommended by a physio or sports therapist.

ironing.jpg

Oops. Fail.
 
WTF? A sports physio gave you acupuncture and then sold you to wear a wedge in your shoe?

I'd ask your doctor to refer you to a specialist. If other treatments are inappropriate or ineffective, you can get a special insole (moulded specifically to your foot) made for you. Expensive - process + first insole will set you back £50-£100. But a wedge sounds dodgy - imagine the inbalanced strain on your ankle/leg muscles. One foot will be flat and the other will be pointing down.

Obviously, I'm not a specialist in this area, but having been through similar treatment in the past, this account has set the alarm bells ringing.

A wedge is an insole. It's probably not suitably designed for the individual but it's a step in the right direction for correcting a curvature in the spine.
 
Have you any idea how it was utterly impossible for it to be the placebo effect, at least in my case? :confused:

You clearly do not have even the slightest understanding then. Yes in your case the placebo effect can be 100% successfull , objective measures (e.g. Range of movement, strength, gait, posture) can all be positively effected by the placebo effect as well as subjective measures (eg. pain).

Every treatment has a placebo effect - you are not weak, foolish or gullible for gaining benefit from placebo so there is no need to be so defensive. If you had a little more knowledge/understanding of the placebo effect I am sure you would not take this discussion so personally.
 
As I already indicated, Osteopathy is no more 'alternative' than physio.

Osteopathy was invented by a quack who denounced mainstream medicine. The government classifies it as "complementary medicine", as do health insurance providers.

Osteopathy *is* conventional medicine. What part of it do you not believe?

I will grant that osteopathy has come a long way since its inception, and is now very close to conventional medicine in many ways. Amusingly, it has done this by largely abandoning its roots and redefining its principles and practices in an attempt to meet the stringent demands of modern medical science. This is very promising.

However, it still places an inordinate emphasis on the body's musculoskeletal system and its relationship with common health problems. It even goes so far as to teach that problems with the organs can be diagnosed and treated by the manipulation of the muscles, joints and spine. This is a load of bouillon.

There are no chants or incantations. No magical stones, crystals or potions. Just manipulation of the musculo-skeletal system combined with identical exercises to those recommended by a physio or sports therapist.

I don't know of any physio or sports therapist who uses cranialsacral therapy, but I'm open to correction.
 
link to the study that showed this?

I've never heatrd of placebo being able to adjust posture/movement or strength.

When pain is restricting movement if you reduce that pain then movement will improve, same with posture as that is just a sustained movement/position. Muscle activity is also inhibited by pain so reduce the pain and strength is no longer inhibited. These are secondary effects of the placebo effect/pain reduction. An example of primary effect of the placebo on movement is given in the studies on patients with Parkinsons disease (where in this case placebo surgery was used)
 
You clearly do not have even the slightest understanding then. Yes in your case the placebo effect can be 100% successfull , objective measures (e.g. Range of movement, strength, gait, posture) can all be positively effected by the placebo effect as well as subjective measures (eg. pain).

Every treatment has a placebo effect - you are not weak, foolish or gullible for gaining benefit from placebo so there is no need to be so defensive. If you had a little more knowledge/understanding of the placebo effect I am sure you would not take this discussion so personally.
So the muscles in my back, that were constantly in spasm, causing me *severe* pain, and even difficulty breathing because of the muscle spasms, and no matter what I tried at home, including but not limited to, stretching for my toes, trunk twists, arching my back (and arching it over say the arm of my sofa) having my girlfriend (who has had masseuse training - no puns please) massage me and walk on my back (after I begged her to) it still not relieving, then a visit to the chiropractor, an examination and a few clicks it completely relieves it self. I'm sorry, but that's not placebo.

BTW - I'd never been to the chiropractor before the above, and I'll also admit to not even knowing what one was until I arrived. Didn't know what to expect, and certainly didn't expect him to make my back click.
 
Last edited:
.... I'm sorry, but that's not placebo.

I'm sorry but it IS. As I have stated previously. The BEST, MOST HIGHLY REGARDED MEDICAL REASEARCH states it is no more effective than placebo.
This is as factual as it gets and you can argue with the authors of that research all you like but it does not change anything.

any more than that and I'll just be going round in circles.
 
A wedge is an insole. It's probably not suitably designed for the individual but it's a step in the right direction for correcting a curvature in the spine.

If you trust the sports therapist that this is a problem, I'd still recommend you seek advice froma specialist.

Evangelion said:
Osteopathy was invented by a quack who denounced mainstream medicine. The government classifies it as "complementary medicine", as do health insurance providers.

Sources?

Mine differ. [1] [2] [3] [4]

Not only do my sources resoundingly fail to indicate any 'denunciation of mainstream medicine', but they do indicate that most of Dr Stills observations have been wholly accepted by 'mainstream medicine'.

I will grant that osteopathy has come a long way since its inception, and is now very close to conventional medicine in many ways.

I would suggest that difference in thinking and approach in osteopathy since 1874 is far, far less than the differences in 'mainstream medicine' since that time. Not least because 'mainstream medicine' accepts the principles behind osteopathy - that the body is and complex and integrated system and that the need for invasive surgery or drug use can sometimes be avoided through the treatment of various ailments through the manipulation of bones, muscles and joints.

Amusingly, it has done this by largely abandoning its roots and redefining its principles and practices in an attempt to meet the stringent demands of modern medical science.

As I've already indicated, 'mainstream medicine' has redefined its principles and practices in line with osteopathy. Osteopathic knowledge has increased since 1874, but it is still fundamentally the same system.

However, it still places an inordinate emphasis on the body's musculoskeletal system and its relationship with common health problems. It even goes so far as to teach that problems with the organs can be diagnosed and treated by the manipulation of the muscles, joints and spine.

Osteopathy claims to be a potential treatment for:
  • Lower & upper back pain
  • Neck pain
  • Whiplash
  • Disc injuries
  • Joint pain
  • Arthritis
  • Sports injuries
  • Tennis Elbow
  • Headache and migraine
  • Digestive disorders
  • Asthma and chest complaints

Which do you disagree with, and why?

This is a load of bouillon.

WTF? Broth?

I don't know of any physio or sports therapist who uses cranialsacral therapy, but I'm open to correction.

Happy. To. Oblige.

To be honest, I'm not entirely convinced by Cranial Osteopathy myself. It's almost at odds with conventional osteopathy, but it has been proven to be effective on young babies (because the cranium isn't fully formed).


To paraphrase Linus Torvalds:

"There are literally several levels of [you] being wrong. And even if we were to live in that alternate universe where [you] would be right, [you] would still be wrong."
 
Last edited:


After the Civil War and following the death of three of his children from spinal meningitis in 1864, Still concluded that the orthodox medical practices of his day were frequently ineffective and sometimes harmful. He devoted the next ten years of his life to studying the human body and finding better ways to treat disease.

Wiki.

Mine differ. [1] [2] [3] [4]

Not only do my sources resoundingly fail to indicate any 'denunciation of mainstream medicine', but they do indicate that most of Dr Stills observations have been wholly accepted by 'mainstream medicine'.

Since your sources are completely subjective, that's exactly what I'd expect them to say.

In Still's own autobiography (which you can read online here), he claimed that he could "shake a child and stop scarlet fever, croup, diphtheria, and cure whooping cough in three days by a wring of its neck".

Does that sound plausible to you?

I would suggest that difference in thinking and approach in osteopathy since 1874 is far, far less than the differences in 'mainstream medicine' since that time. Not least because 'mainstream medicine' accepts the principles behind osteopathy - that the body is and complex and integrated system and that the need for invasive surgery or drug use can sometimes be avoided through the treatment of various ailments through the manipulation of bones, muscles and joints.

No, that is merely a modern reinterpretation of the principles behind osteopathy, which actually look like this:


These are the eight major principles of osteopathy and are widely taught throughout the international osteopathic community.

The body is a unit.
Structure and function are reciprocally inter-related.
The body possesses self-regulatory mechanisms.
The body has the inherent capacity to defend and repair itself.
When the normal adaptability is disrupted, or when environmental changes overcome the body’s capacity for self maintenance, disease may ensue.
The movement of body fluids is essential to the maintenance of health.
The nerves play a crucial part in controlling the fluids of the body.
There are somatic components to disease that are not only manifestations of disease, but also are factors that contribute to maintenance of the disease state.

Wiki.

Of course, most of the above is simply tautological fluff. ("The body has the inherent capacity to defend and repair itself"; gee, who'da thunk it?)

As I've already indicated, 'mainstream medicine' has redefined its principles and practices in line with osteopathy.

Er, no. Any proof for this assertion? Didn't think so.

Osteopathic knowledge has increased since 1874, but it is still fundamentally the same system.

Er, no. It has evolved - by necessity - to gain greater acceptance within the modern medical fraternity.

Osteopathy claims to be a potential treatment for:
  • Lower & upper back pain
  • Neck pain
  • Whiplash
  • Disc injuries
  • Joint pain
  • Arthritis
  • Sports injuries
  • Tennis Elbow
  • Headache and migraine
  • Digestive disorders
  • Asthma and chest complaints

Which do you disagree with, and why?

Off the top of my head: digestive disorders, headache and migraine, asthma and chest complaints. I see no basis for the belief that joint and muscle manipulation can properly treat the symptoms and causes of these conditions. How can you treate digestive disorders by manipulation of exterior body parts? :confused:

Osteopathy can probably offer short-term pain relief and limited treatment for the other ailments, but that's about all.

WTF? Broth?

For want of a word that would get me banned... yes.


These people are osteopaths offering physiotherapy. They are not physiotherapists offering cranialsacral therapy. The Woodside Clinic website doesn't even work properly; most of the links are inactive.

To be honest, I'm not entirely convinced by Cranial Osteopathy myself. It's almost at odds with conventional osteopathy

Which should tell you something...

but it has been proven to be effective on young babies (because the cranium isn't fully formed).

Can you direct me to the relevant scientific studies and peer-reviewed documentation?

To paraphrase Linus Torvalds:

"There are literally several levels of [you] being wrong. And even if we were to live in that alternate universe where [you] would be right, [you] would still be wrong."

How pithy! :)
 
Last edited:
Unfortunately, because NHS provision for physio and osteopathy is poor at best, and non-existent at worst (and because it earns them more money!), most Osteopaths and Physiotherapists set up private practices. When a physio offers 'alternative therapies' such as reflexology, we compliment them on offer a comprehensive set of services to the community, but if an Osteopath offers similar services, they are labelled 'snake oil salesmen'.
It's ok I'm happy to label them as snake oil salesmen as well, reflexology and reiki? Seriously? Quacks.
To be honest they are probably offering it because people are willing to pay for it, that doesn't mean any of these are efficacious treatments.
 
I'm sorry but it IS. As I have stated previously. The BEST, MOST HIGHLY REGARDED MEDICAL REASEARCH states it is no more effective than placebo.
This is as factual as it gets and you can argue with the authors of that research all you like but it does not change anything.

any more than that and I'll just be going round in circles.
I've been going round in circles with you already. It is not placebo. I fully understand what placebo means, and this was certainly not a placebo.
 
I've been going round in circles with you already. It is not placebo. I fully understand what placebo means, and this was certainly not a placebo.

So to set things straight - you accept that there is no evidence that this works but you do not accept that the benefit you had was no better than placebo?
 
No, I am fully satisfied that it works. I do not care for the studies; I have first hand evidence that it works. Not had the same back problem for 10 years now.
 
Back
Top Bottom