Chiropractor or Osteopath

mididoctors

bikeav8or wrote:

Sciatic pain and lower back ache for 8 years on and off.

Saw 3 separate osteos during that time.

Saw a Physiotherapist who diagnosed me in 10 mins.

5 treatments and stretching advise

Result no more problems ....... ever

this

Ginjafro

+1 Physiotherapy

I trust my local PT to deal with any injuries, sports or work related (manual handling), whenever they arise. You do not even have to tell her what hurts, she will pin point and identify any problem and deal with it. It may take a few sessions for the worst injuries but well worth the money, in my opinion.

k-dog

I think you're thinking of dietician rather than nutritionist:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDYba0m6ztE

shouldbeinbed

ddraver wrote:

Sonny73 wrote:

I know people that think physio is rubbish, osteo is rubbish and chiro is rubbish.

Unfortunatly for chiropracters, we can prove that the first two work and prove that the last one does not...

Care to expand on this sweeping generalisation? You can prove these statements unequivocally?

ddraver

It would be great is Science was that easy is nt it

I can prove your question is pointless though - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence

gasman_dave

shouldbeinbed wrote:

ddraver wrote:

Sonny73 wrote:

I know people that think physio is rubbish, osteo is rubbish and chiro is rubbish.

Unfortunatly for chiropracters, we can prove that the first two work and prove that the last one does not...

Care to expand on this sweeping generalisation? You can prove these statements unequivocally?

Look, nobody can prove anything in this. While my point was that there is little proof for anything, ddraver is probably right to say that there may be more backing for the physios and osteopaths.

My original question was what was the difference. It just shows that everyone could be right in knowing what is best for them.

I can't prove anything equivocally even though I have been trying for years.

ddraver

OT

gasman_dave wrote:

opaths.

My original question was what was the difference. It just shows that everyone could be right in knowing what is best for them. rs.

And there lies another problem - Would nt it be great to work exactly what it is that helps people who see CATs and apply that alongside proper medical science...

...one day...

bobgfish

I say it all depends on how good each one is.

Pysio's in my opinion only look at the area you complain about.
Osteopaths take a much more Holistic approach and try and find the cause of the issue.

I know from expierence that Osteo's work for me. They also don't beat around and do say that if they can't make a difference within 3 visists then something more serous is wrong. I have learnt that Ostepaths in Britian are closer to Chiropractors. In Holland they also look at internal organs as well as muscles and bone structure etc. In France they only look at Internal organs. I know a few Osteo's that became dislusioned with Physio work and converted to Osteo's

I don't know much about Chiropractors but many years a go I had a friend who went to a conference for Chiros. One of the headline speeches put on at the conference was about how to get your clients to continue to come back. That in my opinion is not heathy and in the best interests of me and part of the reason I have stayed away from them.

shouldbeinbed

ddraver wrote:

It would be great is Science was that easy is nt it

I can prove your question is pointless though - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence

it was you that made the categoric comment that you're now backtracking on. you brought proof into it and are now saying wouldn't it be good if science was that easy.

I simply asked you to back up your own rather dogmatic choice of words.

wikipedia = proof :shock:

Anyway


Gasman Dave you have to work out what's best for you, as I inferred in my original post here. You may as well ask us what is the best bike. I would suggest an opinion forum full of cyclists isn't the best place for a medical discussion on the mechanics and practical application of each discipline. Contact their respective governing bodies and trade associations read their 'professional' literature and then if needs be make appointments to see which one you feel most at home with and you think will work for you.

The NHS choose to recognise Physio and Osteo more than Chiro, make of that what you will, but remember there's cancer patients get publicity for having to fund their own life saving medication that WORKS FOR THEM as the NHS don't recognise/fund it.
There is only so much the NHS can do, Tony Wilson (Factory records) was probably the highest profile case in point for this one.

My GP told me to go for Chiropractic after seeing me make little progress at all with NHS physiotherapy and getting sucked into a prescription solpadeine habit - He apologised that he couldn't prescribe Chiro for me and the first thing the Chiro's did was work damned hard to get me off the addictive painkiller drugs - My physio knew I was on the drugs and said nothing about it - go figure.

As for the 'how to keep 'em coming back' seminar. Chiro's have to operate on a business footing like this as they don't live inside the NHS/public funding umbrella - if they want to survive they have to encourage repeat custom - simple really.

BUT the primary way of doing this is by offering solid tangible 'proof' to the individual concerned that their money is being well spent and they are getting effective relief and treatment. There has to be a physical benefit outside of the marketing or no sane and sensible person would keep coming back paying their own cash over.

If you got food poisoning every time you shopped at Tesco, would you keep shopping at Tesco just because you like Fay Ripley and they give you a clubcard?

there are Chiropractors in pretty much every medium sized town and above these days, It can't all be down to ju-ju and clever marketing?

if you did pick chiroptactic, you will in all likelihood feel worse at first (see my 1st post) a decent one should tell you this up front. its the same as training yourself into any better level of health or fitness, overcoming old bad habits/postures/problems - lack of training etc hurts until your body gets used to the new regimen. Age old sports adage - No Pain No Gain.

But it really is each to their own. I've benefited a lot from Chiro, not at all from Physio & never seen an Osteo - that's is simply my experience. I've deliberately not sought to slate any of the disciplines like others have; without being able to provide foundation to their prejudice; simply tried to provide a counter view to some of the sillier or less well thought out comments.

gasman_dave

Shouldbeinbed - a very reasoned reply and I am glad that you've managed to cut the solpadeine.

I would like to think I now have much more to go on. Anecdotal evidence is supposed to be low, but if others have had your experience it works for me. I think that if I did a good job, people would come back to me so if these guys run a business, fair play.

Thanks for all your posts though.

ddraver

Sorry Gasman I have to disagree with the well reasoned reply comment.....

Secondly - my browser at work is doing something funny so I need to break this up - apologies....

it was you that made the categoric comment that you're now backtracking on. you brought proof into it and are now saying wouldn't it be good if science was that easy.

I simply asked you to back up your own rather dogmatic choice of words.

wikipedia = proof :shock:

Anyway

Did nt read the article didya! Ther point of it is that proving a negative is very difficult if not impossible, hence to argue that chiropracters "work" becasue one can't "prove that they dont work" is disengenuous, moreover, assuming that both sides are arguing sensibly with genuine points, it destroys the argument entirely...However, that does nt mean that the argument is therefore correct.

ddraver

Gasman Dave you have to work out what's best for you, as I inferred in my original post here. You may as well ask us what is the best bike. I would suggest an opinion forum full of cyclists isn't the best place for a medical discussion on the mechanics and practical application of each discipline. Contact their respective governing bodies and trade associations read their 'professional' literature and then if needs be make appointments to see which one you feel most at home with and you think will work for you.

OK, we re not on a scientific forum - but that does nt mean we should abandon all pretence of reasonable discussion either. There are plenty of anecdotes about chiropractitc therapy working, I dont dispute that, What i dispute is that it has been shown that much of what chiropracters do is rubbish.

What should be done next is that the practice is examined to work out which bits work and which bits don't, then those bits that worked can be incorporated in to standard medical practice. However, the response from chiropracters is usually hostile to this so nothing gets done..shame

It is not the same as asking what bike will fit...

ddraver

The NHS choose to recognise Physio and Osteo more than Chiro, make of that what you will, but remember there's cancer patients get publicity for having to fund their own life saving medication that WORKS FOR THEM as the NHS don't recognise/fund it.
There is only so much the NHS can do, Tony Wilson (Factory records) was probably the highest profile case in point for this one.

My GP told me to go for Chiropractic after seeing me make little progress at all with NHS physiotherapy and getting sucked into a prescription solpadeine habit - He apologised that he couldn't prescribe Chiro for me and the first thing the Chiro's did was work damned hard to get me off the addictive painkiller drugs - My physio knew I was on the drugs and said nothing about it - go figure.

The NHS has to make decisions as to what is cost effective for the population. If a cancer drug will work for 1% of the people but be useless for the other 99% then should it be made available for free - In an ideal world yes, but we re not in an Ideal world

Would you pay more National Insurance in order to fund better cancer drugs, more specialist hospitals etc etc? Would you pay more to fund homeopathy, Witch Doctors, psychic healers?

Yes, the NHS makes some mistakes or some wrong decisions - but it does nt therefore follow that everything it says it's wrong and "you can fill in the blanks with whatever fairy stories you like" (O'Brien, 200X - in k-dog's clip)

ddraver

As for the 'how to keep 'em coming back' seminar. Chiro's have to operate on a business footing like this as they don't live inside the NHS/public funding umbrella - if they want to survive they have to encourage repeat custom - simple really.

BUT the primary way of doing this is by offering solid tangible 'proof' to the individual concerned that their money is being well spent and they are getting effective relief and treatment. There has to be a physical benefit outside of the marketing or no sane and sensible person would keep coming back paying their own cash over.

If you got food poisoning every time you shopped at Tesco, would you keep shopping at Tesco just because you like Fay Ripley and they give you a clubcard?

This is the nub of the matter - a chiropracters job is to make people feel better, not to make money. That this topic even needs discussion should send up a massive red flag in everyones head - clearly the patient's well being is second priority! To use your cancer argument, that would be like a surgeon removing only half the tumour so that the patient would have to keep returning - seriously?!

ddraver

As for the 'how to keep 'em coming back' seminar. Chiro's have to operate on a business footing like this as they don't live inside the NHS/public funding umbrella - if they want to survive they have to encourage repeat custom - simple really.

BUT the primary way of doing this is by offering solid tangible 'proof' to the individual concerned that their money is being well spent and they are getting effective relief and treatment. There has to be a physical benefit outside of the marketing or no sane and sensible person would keep coming back paying their own cash over.

If you got food poisoning every time you shopped at Tesco, would you keep shopping at Tesco just because you like Fay Ripley and they give you a clubcard?

This is the nub of the matter - a chiropracters job is to make people feel better, not to make money. That this topic even needs discussion should send up a massive red flag in everyones head - clearly the patient's well being is second priority! To use your cancer argument, that would be like a surgeon removing only half the tumour so that the patient would have to keep returning - seriously?!

ddraver

there are Chiropractors in pretty much every medium sized town and above these days, It can't all be down to ju-ju and clever marketing?

if you did pick chiroptactic, you will in all likelihood feel worse at first (see my 1st post) a decent one should tell you this up front. its the same as training yourself into any better level of health or fitness, overcoming old bad habits/postures/problems - lack of training etc hurts until your body gets used to the new regimen. Age old sports adage - No Pain No Gain.

There are churches, mosques, temples, psychics, scientologists, Gillian Mckeith style nutritionists, evangilists, peoiple who believe the world is coming to an end next week etc etc in every town too - this does not mean they re all right!

But it really is each to their own. I've benefited a lot from Chiro, not at all from Physio & never seen an Osteo - that's is simply my experience.

I'm glad you recovered - but see second reply..

ddraver

I've deliberately not sought to slate any of the disciplines like others have; without being able to provide foundation to their prejudice; simply tried to provide a counter view to some of the sillier or less well thought out comments.

The proper science supporting Physio and Osteo is out there and readily available, that said, I'm not going to go looking for it for you - broaden your own mind!

Unfortunatly you won't find much (genuine!) science supporting chiropractice

(apologies again for the number of posts)

gasman_dave

Okay.

You have called what I say rubbish, what chiroprctors do is rubbish and you say we shouldn't abandon reasonable discussion.

I think you abandoned it long ago. I hope you have a better weekend.

You should respect other peoples' opinions, even if you disagree, or is there a Wikipedia page on that subject?

t4tomo

Late to this thread, I don't intend to comment on all teh mudslinging above.

Personal experience - I have use an Oesteopath on 3 separate injuries which all worked brilliantly, I couldn't recommend one enough.

Never used a Chiropractor. I just don't get the forcing things into line rather than gently manipulating.

ddraver

gasman_dave wrote:

Okay.

You have called what I say rubbish, what chiroprctors do is rubbish and you say we shouldn't abandon reasonable discussion.

I think you abandoned it long ago. I hope you have a better weekend.

You should respect other peoples' opinions, even if you disagree, or is there a Wikipedia page on that subject?

Show me I'm wrong - or point me in the direction so i can find it..

I think thus far we have been relatively polite, a few childish comments from both sides, but this is the cake stop....substitue "rubbish" for "shown to be innefectual" if you like. Apologies.

I do respect other people's opinions - but does that mean I can't argue with them? Watch the clip again and see the "carpet painted blue" comment

You have a good weekend too, I hope you solve your back problems quickly!

Tom Butcher

k-dog wrote:

Yeah, that's why there are no clinical or peer-reviewed studies in physiotherapy...

http://www.ijtr.co.uk/

That's how a grown up scientific profession decides what treatments work.

Nobody said there is no evidence for anything physios do - just that there is very little evidence for some of what they do - slapping an electrotherapy machine on you for starters. There is no real evidence for surgery shaving damaged knee cartilage either. I'm not saying they don't work - just there is no strong peer reviewed evidence they work.