Comments for Tenterden Osteopath

Comment on Osteopaths say – Bye Bye BUPA by nina manston

nina manston — Fri, 13 Jul 2012 14:27:54 +0000

I am an osteopath of many years standing and would endorse all of the above.
Do Bupa wish to alienate the whole osteopathic profession?
Who needs protecting from whom? …
95% of my patients are by recommendation by other patients. I would like to keep it that way.
This is regimentation, not regulation.
Where is the patient’s choice of how, type, of treatment they would like? They are mostly over eighteen and can decide quite well for themselves.
Sincerely
Nina Manston.

Comment on Massage oil: a fire hazard by Shivaun Riley

Shivaun Riley — Sat, 18 Feb 2012 09:43:00 +0000

I find that using a mixture half washing powder, half washing soda helps to remove oily residues from towels and clinic coats even at 40C and it is less harmful for the environment and cheaper than washing powder.
Washing soda (sodium carbonate) is available from larger supermarkets and hardware stores.
Shivaun Riley
Osteopath

Comment on First Aid: The modern way to do CPR by Justin Nelson

Justin Nelson — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 09:04:50 +0000

and it’s a TV advert, Bill, but you won’t know that (yet)

Comment on Mueller Foot Arch Support for Plantar Fasciitis by Christina Wyeth

Christina Wyeth — Sat, 04 Jun 2011 10:55:05 +0000

If this does indeed stop the pain in my heel where do I get one from please?

Comment on Review Merrell Mens Sprint Blast Leather Trainers – Earth Brown by Rohn Barton

Rohn Barton — Thu, 03 Feb 2011 20:41:19 +0000

Excellent Shoe! I like the tip about the lacing, very good. I like Merrell shoes very much. My Sprint Blasters are blk w/ tan M and border. Although called a Casual shoe,to me they are a long lasting Tennis or Trainer shoe. For the first time, now that I saw your accompanied picture, I like the look of those tan leather blasters.
In an age when most mens shoes tend to be rather “clunky” or square toed or have that flat crocodile look. The Merrell Blasters are a breed apart, a man’s shoe. In fact I just bought some blk/blk Merrell Jungle sliders. Name not withstanding, they are leather “clogs” for men.
My wife wears sketcher D’lites (tennis shoe w/out backs,they do have a “collar”)I would like your thoughts on that type of shoe sometime.
She is a trauma nurse and wears them 14hrs at a stretch. I wanted to get away from laces and thought I would try some. Merrell has several men’s styles. Sketchers design dept lost out here;they had no men’s design. I now find out that some clog type shoes have a more pronounced arch, heel and deeper collar than others. This holds the foot in place.
One thing is certain I won’t give up my Merrell Sprint Blaster shoes. Pound for pound, the best shoe all around. Comfort, looks and durability. They last foralmostever.
Thank you for your article.

Comment on Osteopaths told to be careful by Skeptic Barista

Skeptic Barista — Wed, 02 Feb 2011 13:02:39 +0000

Research into Cranial Osteopathy has been carried out …. and although much of it has been poorly conducted, the most reliable evidence reviews show there is no reliable evidence to support the claims being made.

Osteopaths have NCOR to assess the research and even they cannot come up with anything remotely convincing. It’s not that no research exists, just that it’s either rubbish or shows Cranial Osteopathy doesn’t work!

http://skepticbarista.wordpress.com/2011/02/01/osteopathya-question-of-evidence-part-1/

…….. It was a good idea to remove those claims. Pity more haven’t followed suit!

Comment on Osteopaths told to be careful by Richard

Richard — Tue, 14 Dec 2010 04:31:57 +0000

The eminent Prof Edzard Ernst, an expert in CAD (complementary and alternative medicine) has mentioned trials for Osteopathy here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21053038

The analysis seems to indicate that there is, so far, no benefit to your treatments, other than placebo. As mentioned above, you would expect that your governing association could afford to do more unbiased trials. If you believe in it so much, what’s stopping you?

Comment on Osteopaths told to be careful by Emty

Emty — Mon, 13 Dec 2010 10:07:08 +0000

If you make public claims about the efficacy of your treatment, the onus is on you to provide satisfactory evidence. In this age, we should all be held fully accountable for our publicly advertised claims. Why should you be otherwise privileged? Taking your claim, for example, to have ‘treated lots of colicky babies who seemed to get better after one or two treatments’, we have nothing more than unsubstantiated anecdote- indeed, it is rather less, since you do not provide the accounts of those patients. We cannot therefore know the validity of your claim, because you do not provide evidence for it.

If I claim to have seen a brace of flying pigs on my way to work this morning, nobody gets hurt. However, claims about the efficacy of treatment have consequences that include the possibility of patients’ interests being harmed. For this reason, there is an ethical obligation to err on the side of patient protection in these things.

Of course, the fact that you make these claims in context of advertising for paid work indicates an element of self interest- which may very easily conflict with patients’ interests- and for this reason above all I feel the GosC and BOA are getting the regulation right.

Comment on Osteopaths told to be careful by Richard

Richard — Mon, 13 Dec 2010 03:47:44 +0000

Is it really so unreasonable to ask you to demonstrate that your treatments were the CAUSE of the colicky babies’ recovery? You must admit, it’s quite possible they would have got better anyway. Colic is unpredictable like that. I’m sorry you feel that properly administered clinical trials are such a nuisance. Far better that you should be allowed to continue gambling with your patients’ health by making claims that are based on guesswork and supposition.

Comment on Osteopaths told to be careful by GerryC

GerryC — Sun, 12 Dec 2010 23:52:53 +0000

Just a question.
You said in your article: “In fact our treatments are so individual and personal that it would be nearly impossible to design a meaningful trial that would satisfy everyone.”

If this is the case, how can you make generalised statements about Osteopathy and Colic for example?

You say in the article: “…I have treated lots of colicky babies who seemed to get better after one or two treatments…”, so the conclusion from these anecdotes should be that “Osteopathy can help with Colic” – is this correct?

If so, that is a medically testable statement. If not, then you can’t advertise it on your website.
Have I got this wrong?