Disclaimer/Caveat
I have previously mentioned a number of conditions to treat here that most people would perhaps be suprised to see associated with Osteopathic treatment. For my own protection, it is necessary to point out that research is very thin on the ground in terms of validating Osteopathy. This is not because it is not effective, it is because of various historical reasons and the fact that we are a small industry.
So all claims as to the helpfulness of the work, I am in no position to prove scientifically and am relying only on my own experience. However, all I have expressed here I sincerely believe and I am passionate about the wonderful potential of Osteopathy. So, I refuse to be inhibited by the increasingly ominous litigiousness of our society and will continue to communicate information that I feel may be helpful to the general public. If in doubt as to whether to consult an Osteopath, please consult your GP. We are very lucky to have them!
Politics
Since I wrote this website the political situation with CAM [complementary and alternative medicine] has become rather more heated. So much so that I have had to go back on my "refusal to be inhibited" pledge in the previous paragraph. I dont fancy being a martyr. Not while I still love my work and according to my patients am still being helpful to them.
Some rather tedious self-censorship has been the result.
Fundamentally, Osteopaths are not allowed to even mention conditions that they have been treating effectively for many years for fear of litigation and censure. In particular there are some individuals operating from blogs who seem too be actively out to cause trouble. Techniques used include trawling Osteopathic websites for mention of specific words relating to ailments and them alerting the Advertising Standards Authority or the General Osteopathic Council. I cant mention one here even in this context for fear that I will fall foul of this.
If these individuals are genuinely motivated by the protection of the public then I feel they are misguided. They have very likely had no personal experience of Osteopathic treatment. I would encourage them to inform themselves a little in this way. Perhaps they are motivated like the mischevious spotty teenage computer hacker of popular legend, in his bedroom in his mum's house, throwing cleverly crafted electronic rocks to produce maximum disruption for the purposes of risible self agrandisment. I prescribe a few good cranial sessions. This is often helpful when people are inappropriately obsessive or have anger issues.
Of course I would not seek to defend an environment where any charlatan could say anything and prey on vulnerable people. But where is the balance? I know from my own experience that the vast majority of my colleagues are hard working, honorable, and realistic in their assessments of how useful and effective their ministrations are. Osteopathy is a wonderful tool and has real and tangible benefits. However it is also quite subtle and subjective in its application. Different practitioners will have different strengths and use different techniques. Ask any group of surgeons working within a specialized area and to achieve the same ends they will use a variety of techniques too. So to subject us to the kind of blunt instruments like double blind trials that are suitable to asses the effectiveness of, for example, a drug will not be useful.
I await more enlightened times, and more research, to rectify the situation.