I don't want to get into the MD vs DO debate here (its against site rules). If you would like to have it, PM me. The authors of the articles are authority figures on the subject (as I showed in a previous post). The difference between the allopathic and osteopathic medical blunders in the 1880s is that osteopathic schools still promote the use of theirs (in order to preserve their uniqueness from allopathic schools) while MD schools do not. As far as my "decision" about a professional degree, it was an easy one to make.
I look forward to hearing from you.
If the discussion from here on out continues, I will continue it via PM, but I feel pre-meds need to see a rational, civil answer to your point.
Authority figures how? One taught basic sciences at both an MD and DO school and spoke about a specific encounter to back up an opinion. For the one story about how a lecturer said "the osteopathic students can't handle this type of lecture", I can give you a story about an MD who lectures at our school and gives the same exact lecture to students at Cornell's medical school. So you see, anecdotal evidence and an opinion is not enough to call someone an authority on an issue. Sure he taught at both an MD and DO school so that makes him more qualified to speak about these issues than most, and I agree with some of his points but not all.
As far as your point about osteopathic schools still promoting the use of their "blunders," the practice and education of an osteopathic physician in this day and age is extremely different than one from the 1800s and this is why you need to get first hand information from actual students rather than the internet. First of all, throughout my 2 years of basic sciences, I hadn't heard anyone mention a word about chelation therapy and we had one 2-hour lecture about complimentary alternative medicine. Second, we had OMM a few hours per week. These few hours were the only difference between my education and the education my friends at an MD school got. In these labs, we learned some things that in my opinion are useful, some of which are used by physical therapists and even orthopedic physicians (MD or DO), and we also learned some nonsense such as cranial manipulations. But NONE of these techniques are a primary treatment for a serious condition that have proven therapies . For example, you don't use cranial manipulations to cure encephalitis or brain tumors. It's use is directed more towards tension headaches, migraines, etc.. Maybe a patient has a sensitive stomach and can't take NSAIDS and triptans are ineffective in treating their migraine. Could it hurt to try cranial therapy in this case if nothing else works? If someone has bacterial pneumonia, the absolute first treatment is antibiotics regardless of if you're an MD or DO. Once on antibiotics, some DOs talk about the benefits of rib-raising techniques to improve breathing and lymphatic techniques to improve lymphatic flow. Can I say for certain that these treatments make a big difference in the patients recovery? I personally cannot since I'm still at the medical student stage, but I know there are some residents and doctors out there who say they do. Regardless, performing these two techniques are not harming the patient in the least and the patients are getting the proven theraputic treatment as well. Same goes for sinus infections and otitis media. If viral, the patient can use decongestants and antihisamines, if bacterial, antibiotics. IN ADDITION, DOs have certain techniques that supposedly improve sinus drainage. Once again I stress to you that these techniques are IN ADDITION to the proven therapies.
How about the patient who was in a car accident a week ago? AFTER MRIs, CAT scans, and x-rays
all come back negative, there are certain manipulations that can relieve the residual muscle tightness. I'm not talking about high velocity thrusting techniques, I'm talking about low key techniques that target muscle spindles in the muscle fiber. Do they 100% work? I can't say. Some studies say yes, some say no. But again, at the very least these techniques are not hurting the patient.
So that's how we learned at my school and it's quite different from the conclusions you and other pre-meds draw from looking at internet sources and basing opinions on hearsay. I can't say it works exactly the same at every other school and obviously there are still DOs out there who claim OMM can treat any illness and these are the quacks. However, you need to look at the majority, not the minority. I can 100% absolutely assure you that no DO in this day and age of lawsuits will attempt to treat scarlet fever by shaking a child or performing OMM on it. The fact that you keep saying this in your signature removes all credibility from your opinion on the field of osteopathic medicine, however inexperienced and naive it may be to begin with.
)
