Is Physiotherapy a Science?

<< < (3/5) > >>

GCG (April 30, 2010, 15:58:13 PM):
i think, its really cool and normal to be skeptic about stuff, and since that is what we do here, kinda expected. but to be skeptic about EVERYTHING, is a bit much.
so chill out bra. if you think you are so hardcore that you dont need a therapist to get your broken body back on track, go for it. in my experience, athletes are, in general, quite narcissistic, and you believe yourself to be right. all. the. time.
that's why my ex is still without a medical aid. or a decent job. or a house. or a car....... coz he's right, and everybody else is wrong. but go run it off, while i chomp down on a chocolate while playing medal of honour on my ps2.
benguela (April 30, 2010, 19:34:21 PM):
As GCoe has pointed out, there is a lot of woo in physiotherapy and not just the usual suspects like acupuncture, even some of thee "mainstream" treatments are on a very flaky foundation. That is not to say that it's all flim-flam. But just because they are currently perceived to be on the "allopathic" side of the fence does not make it right for them to throw in some woo, and charge for it. What they are doing could even be life-threatening and should be considered malpractice.

In much the same way that a GP who dispenses allopathic medicine should not be dispensing homeopathic remedies, a physiotherapist should not be providing therapy that is not evidence based.

I know I probably won't convince you guys no matter how much evidence I present, but I hope to sow the seeds of doubt that may, in-time, germinate. Who knows, there could be a libel case one day in the future like Simon Singh's case against the chiropractors.














cyghost (April 30, 2010, 21:21:57 PM):
I know I probably won't convince you guys no matter how much evidence I present
That is simply bullshit. If you provide the evidence, people here will look at it and critically examine it. If it holds up to scrutiny, it will be accepted. That is the skeptic way.
benguela (May 01, 2010, 08:52:59 AM):
If you provide the evidence, people here will look at it and critically examine it. If it holds up to scrutiny, it will be accepted. That is the skeptic way.


I completely agree, I have produced the evidence, please look at it and reply. Would you say the evidence is poor or flawed? Have the replies so far from the skeptics been exemplary? They have seemed to dismiss it.
The arguments so far are accounts of their personal experience, second hand experiences of their boyfriends, some speculative hypotheses and the stunningly conclusive,"you can't be skeptical of everything"! Is that the best this forum has to offer?

When I read things like this

"Until further evidence is available, current practice and widely published rehabilitation protocols cannot either be supported or refuted." this is from Rehabilitation for hamstring injuries (Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2007;Issue 1)

then I conclude that some of the treatments that physios do is ethically wrong and should at this stage not be called science. We have to be skeptical of what they are doing and take them to task.










Peter Grant (May 01, 2010, 11:05:29 AM):
I'd like physiotherapy to become a bit more standardised. Some physiotherapists swear by manipulation whist others judge the practise too dangerous as the risk of injury to the spine is too high. Some consensus in the field would be nice.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Skeptic Forum Board Index

Non-mobile version of page