Physiotherapy

(1/3) > >>

benguela (October 01, 2008, 08:29:01 AM):
It really irks me that physiotehrapists who are "scientifically" trained easily succumb to the fringe therapies. And then they try give acupuncture credibility under the guise of "dry needle therapy". To my physio's credit he calls a spade a spade, he does acupuncture. I didn't let him stick those needles in me, we stuck to manipulation of the muscles and ligaments and strengthening exercises, my recoveries have always been better than the average. I attribute the success to doing the recovery exercises several times a day with the right intensity to build strength but not cause further injury.

How come they are getting away with it? Maybe I'll pop off an email to SGU as a research suggestion.








benguela (October 03, 2008, 22:04:22 PM):
"Dry needling" has now become my pet pseudo science. I updated the wikipedia page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dry_needling, adding a line to sow the seeds of doubt. ;D

I have asked several of my friends who have visited a physio in RSA, they say their physio uses dry needling.

AcinonyxScepticus (October 03, 2008, 23:17:51 PM):
Hi Benguela,

I notice the one brief moment of critical thinking that you added to the article - highlighting that the source itself concedes that it is based on studies performed with poor quality methodologies and therefore doesn't make great evidence. I would like to think that it would stay that way because it is accurate and honest.

Unfortunately, looking at the history of the page and the "Talk" section, I have no doubt that Fyslee will undo the changes very soon. Fyslee probably thinks that he/she owns the page and is the only person who can make valuable contributions.

I would be happy about this victory for reason if you come back here in two months and point out that I was wrong, that is if the article retains the spirit of the line that you added for those two months (without having been removed at some stage).

This is the face of the enemy; far gone into delusion and has a personal need, a crusade, to censor the "lies".

These are some of the articles that Fyslee started:
Chiropractic treatment techniquesJoint manipulationAll centred around his or her income, most likely, and so has a vested interest in suppressing criticism. From the article on Chiropractic treatment techniques we learn that Chiropractic (the word is an adjective as well as a clumsy noun for some reason) is kind of a gateway drug to all forms of alternative "medicine".

Quote
A modern chiropractor may specialize in spinal adjustments only, or may use a wide range of methods intended to address an array of neuromusculoskeletal and general health issues.

...

Chiropractors may also use other complementary alternative methods as part of a holistic treatment approach.

What concerns sceptics about these people is their claims of "addressing general health issues" (James Randi is quite vocal about this flummery). If they limited themselves to only claiming efficacy in treating musculo-skeletal issues then nobody would bat an eyelid.

Now that is how you piss on a parade - I'm sorry benguela, nothing personal, I'm just rather cynical today. :-\
AcinonyxScepticus (December 01, 2008, 20:58:03 PM):
I would be happy about this victory for reason if you come back here in two months and point out that I was wrong, that is if the article retains the spirit of the line that you added for those two months


Unfortunately your edit was removed.  However, I'm willing to concede that I was wrong because "in spirit" the article has retained a sceptical slant ever since you edited the article.  I see that the editor who removed your quote did so while commenting about removing unnecessary quote mining - I thought that was a bit harsh.  But at the same time he removed a quote that Fyslee added from the same source.

If you're in Joburg, drop me a line and I'll buy you a drink.  I'd prefer to do so at a Sceptics in the Pub but its your choice.

James
Wandapec (December 02, 2008, 10:26:38 AM):
It really irks me that physiotehrapists who are "scientifically" trained easily succumb to the fringe therapies.
It also bug me. I went to a physio in the Boskruin area and went through the dry needling thing - I won't do it again. I don't remember looking at the bill, but it probably added 10%! While I was in the waiting room I noticed a whole wall of certificates of "qualification" for things like acupuncture, iridology, reiki etc. - all the ancient techniques that have "been used for thousands of years". I would like to think it is a business decision (not that I am saying that it is right), like pharmacists selling homeopathy. There is a market out there that believes such things - literally "money for nothing"! It is probably wishful thinking though to think that it was a business decision.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Skeptic Forum Board Index

Non-mobile version of page