OK - hint taken!
Nope! This is bigger than SMT!
Seriously, honestly, you are too binary, TJ. There is something in your personality which leads you into black and white answers and doesn't let you out again.
You seem to feel so comfortable about having made a decision, and so uncomfortable about the possibility of reconsidering that decision that you're not able to take on new information. You're literally blind to it.
The studies you linked to do not conclude what you think they do. Physiotherapists use SMT in much the same way as osteos. It's not universally condemned.
The news that the official body for education and registration for physiotherapists offers courses in SMT seems to have made no impact whatsoever to your belief that it's counter to the central tenets of physiotherapy, and that practitioners can be thrown off for using it. How can that be?
Allow yourself the faintest glimmer that you might be wrong and try and read through the thread again and the links again with an open mind. Seek out passages and indicators which show you might be wrong, rather than skimming for the odd sentence which says what you want it to say.
And in life generally, allow yourself the space to believe that there might be truth in a different perspective. You'll learn more. You might find it liberating. You'll certainly have fewer multipage tj-dominated arguments on here.
NOpe Ned( sorry Drac - direct question to me)
The point is no matter who does it spinal manipulation ( even the osto above agrees) has no significant benefits and causes minor harm frequently and major harm occasionally
The studies I linked to show this conclusively.
Therefore this is not a treatment anyone should be using.
BTW - the body the osteo above linked to is NOT the registration body
It really is that simple and that black and white. The fact that some physios may use it does not validate it, it invalidates those physios. It is counter to the central tenets of scientific medicine.
The facts are simple and black and white. spinal manipulation is proven to do no significant good and often causes harm. thats the science
If I or a doctor was using some treatment with no scientific basis, proven to do no good, proven to do harm then rightly we would be stuck off.
You're right TJ, physios register with the HCPC, the CSP is the professional, educational and trade union body for the UK’s 58,000 chartered physiotherapists, physiotherapy students and support workers. Sloppy typing on my part.
As such, they've got plenty of advice on registration with the HCPC, and yet they're still advertising courses by physios, for physios on SMT.
All these evidence based practitioners, the ones you like, all reading the same evidence and coming to a different conclusion to you? That's odd, isn't it? But no glimmer of doubt in your mind?
You're right that there's evidence of only marginal benefit from SMT, and you're right that there's evidence of some harm. What you're missing is the context that no other recommended treatments are much better, while carrying their own risk of harm, and that the risk from SMT is acceptable if care is taken and caution used about when and when not to use it and how and how not to use it based on the patient and the symptomatic areas.
That's why evidence based practitioners use it where appropriate, promote its use, teach it and learn it. Because they understand the evidence.
@nick1c thanks for your last few sentences of advice. With similar results for both I’ve decided to return to the physio after my Hols, and prior to winter training. The basis of this is that when I’ve asked my Osteo for exercises he’s provided a few stretches but seems reluctant to give advice. During physio we tried quite a few things which aggregated the issue so we stopped
I don’t have a great core, and have a bad posture so my intention is to walk into the physio with a dictat of treating the problem but providing me with some relevant winter exercises in association with my Coach to do as you say.