Aaron Traffas

dear aaron
i am a UK trained osteopath - 30 years ago. Trained to treat patients with musculoskeletal complaints, not fevers, infections etc. I am trained to take a proper case history and examin the patient so i do not treat spinal metastses, anuerysms etc, but refer these on. Neither do we call ourelves Dr ( the chiros here do).
E did not seek the CAM label - the media put us in that camp. I think we are no more CA M than dentistry.
""It it works its medicine, not CAM". I have no problem with that, Our profession is currently commiting more resources to trying to find out which cases respond best to what we do. Surely some is placebo, but we need to find out how much.

Dentistry is certainly an accepted science-based practice. Orthropedics is the branch of science-based medicine that deals with musculoskeletal complains. If you're not a doctor, how can you offer to "treat patients"?

In UK osteopaths are regulated by the General Osteopathic Council set up by the Osteopaths Act 1993, Many non doctors treat patients - dentists, chirpodists, opticians.

Orthopaedics is a mostly surgical discipline. It deals with some musculo-skeletal complaints (so do rheumatolgists) but their approach does not always suit for example soft tissue injuries or conditions involving alterations of normal joint function, postural problems, RSI and others.

In the US, dentists, podiatrists and optometrists are absolutely doctors who practice legitimate, science-based medicine. They receive advanced education and board certification in their specialties, similar to other medical professions and unlike CAM practices of chiropractic, reflexology and acupuncture.

There is a difference between manipulative therapy and medicine. If a massage makes you feel better, get one but get one from someone who isn't trying to bamboozle you into thinking it's medicine.

Just because politicians pass a law sanctioning something doesn't mean that it can be accepted by the medical community. The UK has problems with quackery being sanctioned by the government and the libel laws there are absurdly hindering evidence-based reform.

http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/index.php/s...

I can't find any reference by the global science-based medical community regarding the General Osteopathic Council that says it's legitimate. Can you point me to something in a peer-reviewed, scientific journal that lends credibility to the GOC?

I think that you fail to understand the differences in training between the States and the UK. In the States most people can call themselves "Dr.". MD's, DO's, dentists, vets, chiros, naturopaths etc.

In the UK, training is different. Chiros, however do call themselves "Dr".

Mostly, if you are medically trained or have a PhD, then you would use the designation Dr, however, some dentists in the UK have started using the title too, although wrongly in my opinion.

Osteopaths in the UK do not use the title Dr and the old DO degree is no longer available, osteopathic training having been University based for many years now.

UK osteopaths study for at least 4 years and sometimes 5 years where anatomy, physiology, pathology and differential diagnosis are covered fully. They treat musculoskeletal complaints and not fevers as you refer to in your post which I have to say I feel is extremely misguided - you need to get out there and do your research properly if you are going to write coherently on any subject!

UK osteopathy is more accepted as part of mainstream medicine and not CAM as you seem to suggest. Many GP practices regularly refer to osteopaths and some even have them on staff. There are also some medical doctors in the UK who are also osteopaths.

"shake a child and stop scarlet fever, croup, diphtheria, and cure whooping cough in three days by a wring of its neck." (Andrew Taylor Still, Autobiography, New York, 1972, Arno Press)

The founder of osteopathy claimed to stop a fever by shaking a child. That was my source for the "curing the fever" comment. I didn't claim that modern osteopaths list fevers as something they cure - though many references seem to make a big deal about it being a "natural healing process" of the body.

I admit I'm not an expert. All I know is that there are a ton of CAM practices, and osteopathy - as Still found it and taught it - is absolutely CAM. As I said in the article, osteopathic medicine in the US isn't CAM since it's not practiced as Still taught it. I'd love to know more about the UK. Here's the source for my understanding of osteopathy in the UK. Please tell me what is incorrect with the following few paragraphs.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osteopathy#United_...

--
The first osteopathic college was established in the UK in 1917 by John Martin Littlejohn, a Scot who had studied under Andrew Taylor Still. Littlejohn altered the osteopathic curriculum to include the study of physiology. The UK school he founded, the British School of Osteopathy, was the first osteopathic education institution outside the USA, and it still exists today, now located in Borough High Street, Southwark. British osteopaths use manipulative techniques based on the philosophy of Andrew Taylor Still, but do not receive medical or surgical training and are not physicians. Some medical doctors do undertake osteopathic training as a postgraduate interest. The profession is subject to statutory regulation following the passing of the Osteopaths Act in 1993. The General Osteopathic Council (GOsC) was established by the act to regulate the profession. Most medical services in the UK are delivered through the state funded National Health Service, osteopathy is largely excluded from this with most osteopaths working in private practice. Several large studies in the UK have produced evidence that demonstrates positive clinical and cost effectiveness of manipulation in the management of lower back pain, the latest being the UK Back pain Exercise And Manipulation (UK BEAM) trial.[32][33] The physical manipulation condition of the UK BEAM trial involved "... a package of techniques representative of those used by the UK chiropractic, osteopathic, and physiotherapy professions."
Some UK osteopaths are also naturopaths, with one osteopathic college offering a dual training in osteopathy & naturopathy (the British College of Osteopathic Medicine) and another offering a post-graduate programme (the College of Osteopaths).
In 2005 the General Medical Council of Great Britain announced that U.S.-trained DOs would be accepted for full medical practice rights in the United Kingdom. This decision was an important departure from the United Kingdom's long-standing tradition of exclusively manual, or "traditional" osteopathy.
In the United Kingdom, courses in Osteopathy have recently become integrated into the university system. Instead of receiving a Diploma in Osteopathy (DO), with or without a Diploma in Naturopathy (ND), graduates now become Masters of Osteopathy, or Bachelors of Osteopathy, or Bachelors of Science in Osteopathy, according to the institution attended:[34] but these degrees do not lead to prescribing rights and in this case Osteopathy and Osteopathic Medicine are synonymous. There is one "cross-over" institution, the London College of Osteopathic Medicine[35], which teaches osteopathy only to those already qualified in medicine. Before using the title of "osteopath," graduates have to register with the UK regulatory body by statute; the General Osteopathic Council.

--

Well, actually a fever is the body's natural response to a lot of viral or bacterial infections. Pyrogens are are fever inducing. Heat tends to kill, which is why when you get flu your temperature rises as a response - your immune system is working.

As for the other, yes, UK osteopaths are not doctors in the same way that US trained osteopaths are, however they are still independent practitioners. They do have a vast training in anatomy, physiology, pathology and differential diagnosis and know when it is appropriate to refer elsewhere and not to treat.

Osteopathy is sometimes available on the NHS - but not always and most GP practices will refer for low back pain etc. when they are ill equipped to deal with it.

There are several osteopathic colleges in the UK, but the training is based in science and all osteopathic students learn science and research methods. Osteopathy is not just about manipulation either, although that is taught - they do learn other soft tissue techniques too - a lot are the same as I use as a physiotherapist.

In the UK, osteopaths are generally accepted as mainstream and not CAM, as homeopaths, herbalists and even chiros are.

The training is not still based on Still's concepts, but the teaching is scientifically based and is up-to-date, not based in the past.

There is a training school also - The London College of Osteopathic Medicine which teaches osteopathy exclusively to medical doctors in the UK. A lot of doctors do learn osteopathy so that they are able to help their patients more.

Aaron,

You are failing to look at the scientific facts of the impact that the skeletal system has on the central nervous system. As an example, if the 1st or 2nd vertebrae are compromised in their alignment, they can impact circulation and nerve function as well as brain stem function, and not only affect muscle function in the body, but systems as well.

I have no experience with Osteopathic medicine, so I am not really sure what their approach is, and would certainly agree that shaking babies is indeed quackery, but there are very specific methods of chiropractic techniques that have a dramatic effect on many people.

In a previous career, I have seen many people benefit from one specific technique. Here is a site to consider researching, http://www.nucca.org/

Your friend,

I've been reading about the NUCCA. Here's a good article from sciencebasedmedicine.org that discusses this branch of chiropractic. http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=606

I recognize that spinal injuries can occur, but I'm going to go to a neurologist or orthopedic surgeon and avail myself of science-based medicine rather than go to a chiropractor and avail myself of pseudoscience-based placebo. Chiropractic uses the same marketing techniques and wholistic-mumbo-jumbo practiced by homeopathy, naturopathy, faith healers and the like. Chiropractors do a better job of making it sound like science, but if it were somehow science-based you would see an acceptance from the medical community. I've never been nor have I heard of anyone who was referred to a chiropractor by any reputable doctor.

I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one.