Back spasms/sciatica

[Nefarious]

I agree. Your data would be having an actual non-black cat or a fully documented, corroborated sighting of said non-black cat.

However, you wouldn’t dismiss the theory because someone says “oh hey, I once saw a non-black cat”, you’d wait for the evidence.

No. What your talking about there is reliability of evidence.
If the anecdotal report is from a questionable source, then sure, you can object to your black cat theory being blown out of the water on the basis that the person providing the evidence is a liar.
Having a photo increases your confidence that the person isn't lying and reduces your ability to dismiss their claim.

However, if we work on the assumption that nobody is lying about their experiences, then my point stands - a single counter example is enough to disprove a theory but a weight of evidence is required to support it.

[NotoriousREV]

I agree. Your data would be having an actual non-black cat or a fully documented, corroborated sighting of said non-black cat.

However, you wouldn’t dismiss the theory because someone says “oh hey, I once saw a non-black cat”, you’d wait for the evidence.

No. What your talking about there is reliability of evidence.
If the anecdotal report is from a questionable source, then sure, you can object to your black cat theory being blown out of the water on the basis that the person providing the evidence is a liar.
Having a photo increases your confidence that the person isn't lying and reduces your ability to dismiss their claim.

However, if we work on the assumption that nobody is lying about their experiences, then my point stands - a single counter example is enough to disprove a theory but a weight of evidence is required to support it.

No scientist would declare a theory disproven without the weight of evidence. If one scientist claimed to have witnessed a particle exceeding the speed of light, no one would dismiss Einstein’s Theory of Relativity until the weight of evidence supported it.

I’m talking about actual scientific theories, not John down the pub saying that dogs can’t look up, ffs.

[Explosive Newt]

Words from a medically trained person you should probably take as sound advice

Nonsense. Don't believe it for a second. They're all in the pockets of big business. What you need is s twice daily infusion of a strong tincture of eye of newt mixed 50/30 with adder spit following the homeopathic rules of fortifying a treatment.

You'll be fine in no time.

Selling nonsense to idiots is massive healthcare business. You can literally charge people £400 for a saline drip https://theelixirclinic.com/

[Rich B]

Enjoy your Reiki healing

It isn’t “my Googled knowledge”, it’s the collected scientific evidence.

Yet on the other hand, there is a body of scientific evidence that proves the positive effects of a placebo.

Absolutely. And as I’ve already pointed out, chiropractic and osteopathy are no more effective than a placebo when tested, whereas physiotherapy is more effective than a placebo.

Why is this so hard for people to understand? I feel like Father Ted explaining something to Dougal. “Less effective...more effective...less effective...more effective”

What was the placebo in the testing?

[NotoriousREV]

Yet on the other hand, there is a body of scientific evidence that proves the positive effects of a placebo.

Absolutely. And as I’ve already pointed out, chiropractic and osteopathy are no more effective than a placebo when tested, whereas physiotherapy is more effective than a placebo.

Why is this so hard for people to understand? I feel like Father Ted explaining something to Dougal. “Less effective...more effective...less effective...more effective”

What was the placebo in the testing?

I posted the link on page 3:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/12838090/

METHODS: This trial was conducted in a university-based clinic from 2000 through 2001. Of the 199 subjects who responded to recruitment procedures, 91 met the eligibility criteria. They were randomized, with 82 patients completing the 1-month follow-up evaluation, 71 completing the 3-month evaluation, and 66 completing the 6-month evaluation. The subjects were randomized to osteopathic manipulative treatment, sham manipulation, or a no-intervention control group, and they were allowed to continue their usual care for low back pain. The main outcomes included the SF-36 Health Survey, a 10-cm visual analog scale for overall back pain, the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire, lost work or school days because of back pain, and satisfaction with back care.

RESULTS: As compared with the no-intervention control subjects, the patients who received osteopathic manipulative treatment reported greater improvements in back pain, greater satisfaction with back care throughout the trial, better physical functioning and mental health at 1 month, and fewer cotreatments at 6 months. The subjects who received sham manipulation also reported greater improvements in back pain and physical functioning and greater satisfaction than the no-intervention control subjects. There were no significant benefits with osteopathic manipulative treatment, as compared with sham manipulation.

[Rich B]

Absolutely. And as I’ve already pointed out, chiropractic and osteopathy are no more effective than a placebo when tested, whereas physiotherapy is more effective than a placebo.

Why is this so hard for people to understand? I feel like Father Ted explaining something to Dougal. “Less effective...more effective...less effective...more effective”

What was the placebo in the testing?

I posted the link on page 3:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/12838090/

METHODS: This trial was conducted in a university-based clinic from 2000 through 2001. Of the 199 subjects who responded to recruitment procedures, 91 met the eligibility criteria. They were randomized, with 82 patients completing the 1-month follow-up evaluation, 71 completing the 3-month evaluation, and 66 completing the 6-month evaluation. The subjects were randomized to osteopathic manipulative treatment, sham manipulation, or a no-intervention control group, and they were allowed to continue their usual care for low back pain. The main outcomes included the SF-36 Health Survey, a 10-cm visual analog scale for overall back pain, the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire, lost work or school days because of back pain, and satisfaction with back care.

RESULTS: As compared with the no-intervention control subjects, the patients who received osteopathic manipulative treatment reported greater improvements in back pain, greater satisfaction with back care throughout the trial, better physical functioning and mental health at 1 month, and fewer cotreatments at 6 months. The subjects who received sham manipulation also reported greater improvements in back pain and physical functioning and greater satisfaction than the no-intervention control subjects. There were no significant benefits with osteopathic manipulative treatment, as compared with sham manipulation.

So that scientifically proves osteopathetic and sham manipulation are more effective than no intervention, but where’s the placebo testing you keep referring to? (And how would they conduct that test?)

[NotoriousREV]

What was the placebo in the testing?

I posted the link on page 3:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/12838090/

METHODS: This trial was conducted in a university-based clinic from 2000 through 2001. Of the 199 subjects who responded to recruitment procedures, 91 met the eligibility criteria. They were randomized, with 82 patients completing the 1-month follow-up evaluation, 71 completing the 3-month evaluation, and 66 completing the 6-month evaluation. The subjects were randomized to osteopathic manipulative treatment, sham manipulation, or a no-intervention control group, and they were allowed to continue their usual care for low back pain. The main outcomes included the SF-36 Health Survey, a 10-cm visual analog scale for overall back pain, the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire, lost work or school days because of back pain, and satisfaction with back care.

RESULTS: As compared with the no-intervention control subjects, the patients who received osteopathic manipulative treatment reported greater improvements in back pain, greater satisfaction with back care throughout the trial, better physical functioning and mental health at 1 month, and fewer cotreatments at 6 months. The subjects who received sham manipulation also reported greater improvements in back pain and physical functioning and greater satisfaction than the no-intervention control subjects. There were no significant benefits with osteopathic manipulative treatment, as compared with sham manipulation.

So that scientifically proves osteopathetic and sham manipulation are more effective than no intervention, but where’s the placebo testing you keep referring to? (And how would they conduct that test?)

The sham manipulation is the placebo.

[Rich B]

I posted the link on page 3:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/12838090/

So that scientifically proves osteopathetic and sham manipulation are more effective than no intervention, but where’s the placebo testing you keep referring to? (And how would they conduct that test?)

The sham manipulation is the placebo.

Ok (my query was that I don’t see how it can be true test if the placebo actually involves manipulation as well, but anyway), where’s the test of physio/osteopathic/chiropractic?

[NotoriousREV]

The sham manipulation is basically a back rub whereas you would expect a trained medical professional to be using a specific technique to target the injury.

[Rich B]

The sham manipulation is basically a back rub whereas you would expect a trained medical professional to be using a specific technique to target the injury.

Is it though, or is that just your words?

Where’s the physio/osteo/chiro test though, that’s what matters in this discussion.

[NotoriousREV]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5021904

Physiotherapy vs Sham Manipulation

Results

Nine randomized controlled trials were included in the systematic review, and 4 were found to be eligible for inclusion in a meta-analysis. Participants in the SM group had improved symptoms compared with participants receiving sham treatment (standardized mean difference = − 0.36; 95% confidence interval, − 0.59 to − 0.12). The majority of studies were of low risk of bias; however, several of the studies were small, the practitioner could not be blinded, and some studies did not conduct intention-to-treat analysis and had a high level of dropouts.

[Swervin_Mervin]

I wish I cared this much about stuff.

No you don't. Look what happens!

[Rich B]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5021904

Physiotherapy vs Sham Manipulation

Results

Nine randomized controlled trials were included in the systematic review, and 4 were found to be eligible for inclusion in a meta-analysis. Participants in the SM group had improved symptoms compared with participants receiving sham treatment (standardized mean difference = − 0.36; 95% confidence interval, − 0.59 to − 0.12). The majority of studies were of low risk of bias; however, several of the studies were small, the practitioner could not be blinded, and some studies did not conduct intention-to-treat analysis and had a high level of dropouts.

So physiotherapy = Spinal Manipulation? This is all getting very confusing.

Can you just post a scientific test of physiotherapy Vs Chiropractic. You say they are both totally different so someone should have done the test.

[Mito Man]

The only loser on this thread is Rev because he’s spent the whole of his weekend so far googling this shit.

[NotoriousREV]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5021904

Physiotherapy vs Sham Manipulation

Results

Nine randomized controlled trials were included in the systematic review, and 4 were found to be eligible for inclusion in a meta-analysis. Participants in the SM group had improved symptoms compared with participants receiving sham treatment (standardized mean difference = − 0.36; 95% confidence interval, − 0.59 to − 0.12). The majority of studies were of low risk of bias; however, several of the studies were small, the practitioner could not be blinded, and some studies did not conduct intention-to-treat analysis and had a high level of dropouts.

So physiotherapy = Spinal Manipulation? This is all getting very confusing.

Can you just post a scientific test of physiotherapy Vs Chiropractic. You say they are both totally different so someone should have done the test.

Of course physiotherapy can include spinal manipulation. Who said it didn’t?! The difference is that Chiropractic claims to use spinal manipulation to treat a variety of health issues, including asthma, colic, period pains, autism and other stuff, whereas physio will use it when there’s a problem with the spine.

[NotoriousREV]

The only loser on this thread is Rev because he’s spent the whole of his weekend so far googling this shit.

30 seconds. Big whoop.

[JLv3.0]

Dave - do us a favour mate - just list out things you're OK with

[NotoriousREV]

Dave - do us a favour mate - just list out things you're OK with

Physiotherapy for starters
The Scientific Method
Logic
Data lead decision making
Critical thinking
Probably some other stuff

[JLv3.0]

The last entry there might need expanding upon there!

[DeskJockey]

Words from a medically trained person you should probably take as sound advice

Nonsense. Don't believe it for a second. They're all in the pockets of big business. What you need is s twice daily infusion of a strong tincture of eye of newt mixed 50/30 with adder spit following the homeopathic rules of fortifying a treatment.

You'll be fine in no time.

Selling nonsense to idiots is massive healthcare business. You can literally charge people £400 for a saline drip https://theelixirclinic.com/

I know. My wife shares your profession and I've heard plenty of stories.