OllyK

There are a number of plates in the skull that fuse at different times, from my earlier post:
After this time it is physically impossible to move the plates, and yet the CO practitioners claim they can. Also read up on the principles upon which they claim it works, but to paraphrase; They claim they can feel pulses in the fluid round the brain and spine (except show 2 OC's the same patient and they don't report the same pulse frequency). These pulses are detected by very lightly touching the person's head, neck of back. They can even be detected through clothing, and yet the most sensitive medical equipment we have can't detect these "pulses" and their fingers can, through clothes.

Suresh

Good for you. You've made your point and are obviously getting a little wound up that nobody actually cares.

MattW

She is 20 months. I was told by the doctor that they are more effective up to 12 months old??

OllyK

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

Mark Miwurdz

Olly

You need to get out more.

Cheers
Kav

OllyK

It isn't me that feels the need to try and stop people from expressing an opinion by being insulting. From my perspective it's just water of a duck's back, but where people's health is concerned, I do feel it's important that people are made aware of the lack of effiacy when it comes to alt med treatments. You, B2Z and a few others have made up your minds and you are not interested in debate. I post for the benefit of those who may be lurking, undecided and would like to hear the other side of the arument, or indeed any argument.

OllyK

I get out plenty thanks.

Mark Miwurdz

Do you hold any medical qualifications?

Suresh

Interesting. An admission that you post just because you like to argue.
Not something that I would ever do of course.

Suresh

Jay m A

iTrader: (2)

Olly thanks for that. Please excuse the fact that I skimmed through most of the 'justification either way' posts with quotes and counter quotes

If that is reference to grommets then I suggest you ask to be referred to an ENT specialist.

In our daughters case fluid was becoming trapped and building up behind the eardrum, which results in her being more prone to ear infection, but also her hearing (and ability to pronounce words) being adversely affected. The tubes that link the ear to the throat is very small and in certain children prone to blockage. As they grow older the tubes increase in size etc hence lessening the chances. Grommets help with the drainage of the fliud and often we now see discharge from the ear, fliud that otherwise would have still been in the tube. In most cases the grommets naturally fall out of the ear after 12-18 months when hopefully she will be big enough not to need them. If not then another set will be put in. The other scenario is if the grommet stays in the ear, then it needs to be removed via a small op.

If you meant CO then ignore the above!

MattW

I meant grommets, she is being seen next week by the "better" dr. at the practice so we shall see.

OllyK

No, which is why I am looking to the experts in the field rather than concerned parents for the answers. I do however hold 2 science degrees which means I have a reasonable understanding of the scientific process and how effective it is at getting to the "truth" see the wikki link.

OllyK

I have tried to stay reasonably general throughout, that you choose to make my statements personal to you is your concern not mine.

The accounts posted are very vague. Without empirical evidence, before and after; Xrays, independant diagnoses, video and pictorial evidence etc, or DBPC studies, we have only the human memory to go on, and it's notoriously poor at detail and very happy to remember the bits it wants to, to suit its beliefs.

The problem with 1st hand experience is that I don't know people on here beyond what they type on here. They could just be making stuff up, I have no way or corroborating what they say. So I've been digging, and I can find nothing to corroborate what has been said.

Some studies have been done which show CO has no effect. Numerous highly qualified people have published papers stating that CO is bogus. I have yet to find one medical paper by somebody who does not practice CO that claims it has a significant effect, indeed a number of Osteopaths are distancing themselves from the practice claiming it is bogus. That to me speaks volumes.

I state there is very little evidence, based on the fact that I can't find much and that others have published reports saying the same. Not much does not equal none, however.

No not masses - just some, indeed ANY.

DazW

iTrader: (1)

Just thought the initial post was 'Anyone KNOW anything about Cranial osteopathy' ...& not, 'anyone post me up some stuff cut & pasted off the internet'?

...anyway, im done with my feeding & im off home to the little un, just in time for bed time where he'll sleep for 12hrs, as he has done for the last 10 months

OllyK

Knowledge doesn't have to be through practical experience you know, it can be learned.

Interestingly:
The unreliability of memory limits the certainty of knowledge about the past...

If you feel I'm trolling then so be it, but I'm not sure why posting facts and linking to papers on the lack of effiacy relating to CO should be considered to be inflammatory.

OllyK

Which is why half (or less) of a story, crafted to suit a specific point makes it useless as evidence. It called bias.

I don't want to know the specifics of your child's case, I haven't asked for them and in such a position all I can say is I don't have enough information to form an opinion, so I have looked to other sources. They consistently say CO doesn't work.

Suresh

LMFAO.
I did a Google search to find out what a DBPC study actually is and found this gem of a quote which tells us that modern medicine is also not scientifically proven either -

>> "Politics of Health; Evaluating Modern Medicine: How Scientific is
>> it?"
>>
>> "Only about 15% of all contemporary clinical interventions are
>> supported by objective scientific evidence that they do more good than
>> harm."
>
>He's right, you know. We checked into that when DCS had a
>broken hand, and there have been no double-blind placebo-controlled
>studies of fracture reduction. Shocked by this, we looked into
>it more and found that there are also no DBPC studies of cleaning
>and suturing open wounds! THAT got us really angry, and we found
>out that almost all of the office interventions that our FP did
>had no scientific basis, either.

http://www.alive.com/68a1a2.php?subject_bread_cramb=812

Mark Miwurdz

You're also a dreadful bore. I bet you clear rooms rapidly at social gatherings; assuming you get any invitations, of course.

Bubba po

OllyK:

All I said was: "There's very little evidence that cranial osteopathy works"!

Jay m A

iTrader: (2)

"Are there any women in this thread?"

OllyK

So, following your extensive research of DBPC testing please explain morally as well as practically how you could carry out a placeboed or even just a double blinded open heart operation?

OllyK

More ad hominems, but still no evidence.

Suresh

I'm sure you know I have absolutely no idea and actually just about as much interest in the answer to that question. The point is that your totally-scientific measure is apparently not achieved for 85% of clinical interventions. On that basis and given your immovable and totally correct stance on such things, I trust you have and will always refuse to have stitches or plaster casts. Won't you??

Suresh

Suresh

I little off topic, but I've figured out who Olly reminds me of:

Mr Logic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr_Logic

Mr Logic (first name Lawrence) is a character in Viz magazine who is humourless, friendless and emotionless. He takes everything said to him totally literally and is entirely unaware of what is intended when a metaphorical statement is made. His only purpose in life is to correct people in their grammar, knowledge or intention when they speak, often resulting in a violent reaction.

Here is an example; Mr Logic is in charge of the till at the local off-licence (liquor store):

Armed Robber: No nonsense. Just give me all your money.

Mr Logic: I shall commence by pointing out to you that my demeanour is not one which could be described as nonsensical. Consequently I can attest you have no cause to reprimand me on your first point. On to your second point: Bearing in mind the potentially lethal situation in which I find myself, to wit: your presence in conjunction with the presumably loaded firearm which is presently levelled at my cranium, I will comply with your request comprehensively, albeit reluctantly. Here, twenty-seven pence.

Armed Robber: Twenty-seven pence? Fluck off. There's more than that in the till.

Mr Logic: Indeed, undoubtedly so. However your request was for *my* money. The currency in the till belongs to a third party and is therefore not "my money". However, if you are still desirous of said money I would suggest that you re-phrase your original statement to recognise and incorporate this important distinction.

He lives at the Fulchester Community Housing For The Differently Tempered, and has had various housemates, all of whom have had severe anger management problems. For instance, one of his housemates threatened to "break every bone in [his] body", causing Mr. Logic to point out that given the number of bones in the Human body, it would be impossible for the housemate to carry out his threat. The housemate then proceeded to prove him wrong.


Classic.
Does it count as evidence though? Does it pass the DBPC tests though?? I think we should be told and I'm sure we will be!

Suresh

OllyK

In which case what follows is likely to be based on incorrect assumption

You know what I'm going to say...prove the figure please!

DBPC tests are not applied to all procedures becuase it isn't always practicle or ethical. To double blind a heart by pass would require that the surgeon doesn't know if the person they are operating on has a condition or not. That's going to be pretty difficult to as they'll see as soon as they open the patient up. It also requires that you have some patients with no condition that you put under general anesthetic and cut open - which is morally reprehensible.

Where DBPC trials are not practical, there are single blinded studies or clinical trials involving control groups. All scientific, just not as ideal as DBPC tests.

I don't think this requires an answer any more.

OllyK

Ho hum - duck's back, water off.

So have you found any evidence showing the effiacy of CO yet??