OMM Blues

[NurWollen]

Sorry nurwollen, but nothing i have posted is "made up". If you want to explain how v spread isnt contraindicated in bradycardia, i am all ears.


In fact... What you just posted is actually the definition of trolling. You have added nothing to the conversation, and only are trying to stir the pot. Thats what trolling is.

As Shov said, V-spread is not contraindicated for patients with bradycardia because it doesn't actually have any measurable physiological effect... which is the same thing you're saying. Hence why you are arguing with people who agree with you.

What you made up is that nothing in OMM has any contraindications. I'm far from an OMM fan, but to say that OMM has no contraindications is untrue. Cervical HVLA on someone with RA, for example.

Interestingly enough, it's our most hard core OMM faculty that emphasize contraindications for things like cranial, because they actually think that it does have a physiological effect.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[shibby1111]

.

 

[touchpause13]

Are you really in medical school? It seems like everything you say is just general knowledge that can be gathered from these threads and there are no real original thoughts.

Uhhh wut

 

[SLC]

Uhhh wut

Sheesh, we need a dislike button around here don't we?

 

[hallowmann]

Are you really in medical school? It seems like everything you say is just general knowledge that can be gathered from these threads and there are no real original thoughts.

cant tell if srs...

Uhhh wut

Right? Also, TP since when are you on probation?

 

[touchpause13]

cant tell if srs...



Right? Also, TP since when are you on probation?

Since yesterday

 

[hallowmann]

Since yesterday

Well that sucks

 

[Mr Kenobi]

Are you really in medical school?

Naw, I'm in osteopathic school.

 

[NurWollen]

Naw, I'm in osteopathic school.

I spent about ten minutes analyzing that gif just to figure out how that chair works.

 

[NeuroLAX]

I spent about ten minutes analyzing that gif just to figure out how that chair works.

You're not the only one.

 

[Awesome Sauceome]

This about sums up everyone's OMM blues...

 

[CajunMedic]

Okay I don't want to bash OMM too much, but I heard sometimes on the written exams, it had rediculous q's like: what is this a picture of and where is it? And it's AT still's childhood cabin. Wtf. How is this conducive to helping treat people ?

Don't knock gimme test questions. And remember he flung the banner of osteopathy to the breeze in 1874.

I kid you not, question on first OP&P exam= In what year did AT Still "fling the banner of osteopathy to the breeze?"

Some of the easiest questions we get are either answered with Still, Littlejohn, or Lawrence Jones, D.O.

We only have one professor that seems to have drunk the Kool-Aid, but he's a great lecturer and reminds us of Mr. Rogers. All he needs is the cardigan.

 

[Mr Kenobi]

Some of the easiest questions we get are either answered with Still, Littlejohn, or Lawrence Jones, D.O.

Ya, Sutherland was an answer on our latest written exam--which I got an A on btw. So the vocal anti-cranial guy gets pimped hard on the practical but smashed the written. Smh. OMM is ridiculous.

 

[NurWollen]

Ya, Sutherland was an answer on our latest written exam--which I got an A on btw. So the vocal anti-cranial guy gets pimped hard on the practical but smashed the written. Smh. OMM is ridiculous.

At the end of each microbiology unit, we have a lecture on OMM correlations with micro... and on each unit exam, there are a couple of OMM questions. Nothing too difficult, free points basically, but it's just kind of weird, because the podiatry students are in that same class with us and take the same exams. They must have been like, "whoa, whaaaaaaaaat?"

 

[RollTide22]

So, I'm actually a fan of many of the MSK techniques we have learned in OMM during my time in school thus far. Aside from the cult aspect and A.T. Still adoration that takes place by some of the osteopath purists in the OPP department, OMT turned out (at the bare minimum) to be a great weekly anatomy review. I was previously involved in the rehabilitation of injured athletes before deciding to go to med school. I love MSK physical medicine and rehab. It's what originated my drive to continue on in medical academia. OMM techniques are used daily in a sports med rehab facility regardless of whether the therapists know what OMM is. A majority of OMM is MSK medicine..which is great and what I signed up for!

However, my munificence towards OMM has taken a drastic turn as we have been hurled into studying the disreputable "cranial" the past several weeks. I find myself questioning my fortitude every day. To make matters worse, they are simultaneously integrating it into our EENT systems lectures as well as our clinical medicine OSCEs and I just about can't take it anymore. I do not understand why they waited until we reached the most bogus material possible to start integrating it into EVERYTHING we do! I question how this (cranial) can even exist in modern medical curricula in the US. I've had professors tell me to "just believe" that I am feeling things during the past couple labs-- Not sure if the professors know (or care), but they are turning people so far off from OMM...even the ones who would like to use the MSK techniques in the future- like me. I am truly starting to feel animosity towards OMM. I legitimately attempted to come in to this year/block with an open mind but the techniques and the theories behind them are so disturbing.

One of the basic science PhDs (geneticist) gave a lecture on EBM the first semester of our first year and the stuff we are learning in OMM right now is not that. I fear my inability to cease from asking questions or inability to "just believe" that I am feeling things that I don't is going to significantly affect my subjective grade in OMM this semester and the last thing I'd want to have happen is to have a poor performance in OMM hold me back from progressing through my course of study. Seems many of the OMM profs don't take to kindly to students offering up valid questions in regards to some of the more fringy aspects ie. cranial.

Anyhow, I know I am not alone, even within my own class, but does anybody else in the SDN world have experience with this funk I am in?

-Kenobi.



TL;DR--I liked OMM, then cranial happened. Help.

A month of CRI + OSCEs? Yowza. I can feel your pain. ...It's going into flexion, right?

 

[MetalloBetalactamase]

OMM is ridiculous.

Gosh,diddly arn darn-it! I almost forgot to "like" your post. I have no plans to OMMit during my residency.

 

[Derivations]

I'm just a first year so I'm only a few months into OMM but I absolutely dread spending 3-4 hours in lecture/lab every week. The lectures are crappy and I feel like they just created fancy words to describe stretching and massaging (is myofascial release not just a goddamn massage???) and I can't help rolling my eyes at some of the material presented. When I'm having trouble finding "somatic dysfunction" in lab I'll ask one of the teachers to help me out, they'll find something in a few seconds and say "put your fingers right here it's rotated right". So then I try it and can't feel a thing except muscle. Never once have I actually ****ing felt a transverse process. Is this normal? I don't know if you have to pray to A.T. Still to actually feel this **** or what.

Maybe I'm too new and haven't developed a "feel" for OMM yet, but I am just completely frustrated with the whole class and reading this thread and seeing what nonsense there still is to come (e.g. cranial and Chapman's points) makes me question picking a D.O. school for my education.

 

[67552931811]

I'm just a first year so I'm only a few months into OMM but I absolutely dread spending 3-4 hours in lecture/lab every week. The lectures are crappy and I feel like they just created fancy words to describe stretching and massaging (is myofascial release not just a goddamn massage???) and I can't help rolling my eyes at some of the material presented. When I'm having trouble finding "somatic dysfunction" in lab I'll ask one of the teachers to help me out, they'll find something in a few seconds and say "put your fingers right here it's rotated right". So then I try it and can't feel a thing except muscle. Never once have I actually ******* felt a transverse process. Is this normal? I don't know if you have to pray to A.T. Still to actually feel this **** or what.

Maybe I'm too new and haven't developed a "feel" for OMM yet, but I am just completely frustrated with the whole class and reading this thread and seeing what nonsense there still is to come (e.g. cranial and Chapman's points) makes me question picking a D.O. school for my education.

Due to your longevity on this site I came to the brief conclusion that this seems legit.....

 

[Derivations]

Due to your longevity on this site I came to the brief conclusion that this seems legit.....

I created a new account more for anonymity reasons, so despite this being my first post I have been on this site for a while. Have you even entered your first year yet? I too came in with an open mind but have hated every second of it. I know others that love it so kudos to you if you do, I'm not saying you all have or all will have the same experience as me, that's just how I've felt. Again, I've just started and perhaps my post is a little premature, it's just my impressions of the class early on.

 

[wjs010]

I'm just a first year so I'm only a few months into OMM but I absolutely dread spending 3-4 hours in lecture/lab every week. The lectures are crappy and I feel like they just created fancy words to describe stretching and massaging (is myofascial release not just a goddamn massage???) and I can't help rolling my eyes at some of the material presented. When I'm having trouble finding "somatic dysfunction" in lab I'll ask one of the teachers to help me out, they'll find something in a few seconds and say "put your fingers right here it's rotated right". So then I try it and can't feel a thing except muscle. Never once have I actually ******* felt a transverse process. Is this normal? I don't know if you have to pray to A.T. Still to actually feel this **** or what.

Maybe I'm too new and haven't developed a "feel" for OMM yet, but I am just completely frustrated with the whole class and reading this thread and seeing what nonsense there still is to come (e.g. cranial and Chapman's points) makes me question picking a D.O. school for my education.

Lol. You didn't read the OMM atlas? Shame on you! Under the section entitled "hocus pokus," it clearly states praying to AT Still is required to feel the transverse processes and somehow not just spinal erectors.

 

[67552931811]

I created a new account more for anonymity reasons, so despite this being my first post I have been on this site for a while. Have you even entered your first year yet? I too came in with an open mind but have hated every second of it. I know others that love it so kudos to you if you do, I'm not saying you all have or all will have the same experience as me, that's just how I've felt. Again, I've just started and perhaps my post is a little premature, it's just my impressions of the class early on.

I was being pseudo sarcastic. Hard to relay that through a wall of text, for that I apologize.

 

[Mr Kenobi]

Again, I've just started and perhaps my post is a little premature, it's just my impressions of the class early on.

It gets worse...much worse. As I said before, the general musculoskeletal stuff (HVLA, muscle energy, counter strain, orthopedic tests and even soft tissue) has some utility and/or at least feels good to the pt, but beyond that I feel like I am wasting time. If you feel this way about OMM already you could be in trouble when the pseudoscientific topics start being covered later on in the course.

The start of our first year was when everyone had an open mind and the attitude of "oh lets just go with it". Poll my class a year and a half later and almost everyone is on the same page with OMM. Had a professor today tell me to let go of some of the things I learned in anatomy or it will hinder my ability to understand some of the concepts--Excuse me!? The deeper into the rabbit hole we go, the more disgruntled students become with OMM. It really is a shame. Could be a fantastic course if they just focused on the high yield stuff that people actually use today in practice or that have an iota of modern medical substance. Cranial-sacral therapy, Chapman's, ANS stimulation/inhibition and visceral manipulation need to be cut from the curriculum and licensing exams at least until they can reference some real science/studies to back them up. Besides 2 labs covering shoulder, elbow, wrist--this whole year so far for us has been spent on the fringe techniques in OMM.

 

[wjs010]

It gets worse...much worse. As I said before, the general musculoskeletal stuff (HVLA, muscle energy, counter strain, orthopedic tests and even soft tissue) has some utility and/or at least feels good to the pt, but beyond that I feel like I am wasting time. If you feel this way about OMM already you could be in trouble when the pseudoscientific topics start being covered later on in the course.

The start of our first year was when everyone had an open mind and the attitude of "oh lets just go with it". Poll my class a year and a half later and almost everyone is on the same page with OMM. Had a professor today tell me to let go of some of the things I learned in anatomy or it will hinder my ability to understand some of the concepts--Excuse me!? The deeper into the rabbit hole we go, the more disgruntled students become with OMM. It really is a shame. Could be a fantastic course if they just focused on the high yield stuff that people actually use today in practice or that have an iota of modern medical substance. Cranial-sacral therapy, Chapman's, ANS stimulation/inhibition and visceral manipulation need to be cut from the curriculum and licensing exams at least until they can reference some real science/studies to back them up. Besides 2 labs covering shoulder, elbow, wrist--this whole year so far for us has been spent on the fringe techniques in OMM.

Ouch. Sounds like a blast

 

[Derivations]

Had a professor today tell me to let go of some of the things I learned in anatomy or it will hinder my ability to understand some of the concepts--Excuse me!?.

 

[Mr Kenobi]

View attachment 186250

 

[hallowmann]

I'm just a first year so I'm only a few months into OMM but I absolutely dread spending 3-4 hours in lecture/lab every week. The lectures are crappy and I feel like they just created fancy words to describe stretching and massaging (is myofascial release not just a goddamn massage???) and I can't help rolling my eyes at some of the material presented. When I'm having trouble finding "somatic dysfunction" in lab I'll ask one of the teachers to help me out, they'll find something in a few seconds and say "put your fingers right here it's rotated right". So then I try it and can't feel a thing except muscle. Never once have I actually ******* felt a transverse process. Is this normal? I don't know if you have to pray to A.T. Still to actually feel this **** or what.

Maybe I'm too new and haven't developed a "feel" for OMM yet, but I am just completely frustrated with the whole class and reading this thread and seeing what nonsense there still is to come (e.g. cranial and Chapman's points) makes me question picking a D.O. school for my education.

It is definitely something that you develop with time. Give it time. At earliest I didn't have a very developed palpatory skill until the beginning/middle of the spring of MS1. You will actually feel this muscoskeletal stuff. You aren't really feeling the T-processes, you're feeling the muscle (paraspinals), but it should have less give due to the slightly off (rotated posteriorly) position of the transverse process. It really must be unbearable for you guys to hear from your profs that you should actually be feeling bone, that just doesn't make sense. I'm really amazed how different OPP is taught at different places.

As for cranial and chapman's...

It gets worse...much worse. As I said before, the general musculoskeletal stuff (HVLA, muscle energy, counter strain, orthopedic tests and even soft tissue) has some utility and/or at least feels good to the pt, but beyond that I feel like I am wasting time. If you feel this way about OMM already you could be in trouble when the pseudoscientific topics start being covered later on in the course.

The start of our first year was when everyone had an open mind and the attitude of "oh lets just go with it". Poll my class a year and a half later and almost everyone is on the same page with OMM. Had a professor today tell me to let go of some of the things I learned in anatomy or it will hinder my ability to understand some of the concepts--Excuse me!? The deeper into the rabbit hole we go, the more disgruntled students become with OMM. It really is a shame. Could be a fantastic course if they just focused on the high yield stuff that people actually use today in practice or that have an iota of modern medical substance. Cranial-sacral therapy, Chapman's, ANS stimulation/inhibition and visceral manipulation need to be cut from the curriculum and licensing exams at least until they can reference some real science/studies to back them up. Besides 2 labs covering shoulder, elbow, wrist--this whole year so far for us has been spent on the fringe techniques in OMM.

Wow, if any OPP professor tried to pull that here we'd all flip out. Its bad enough we have to learn what a left lateral strain of the CRI will "feel" like, but being told that what we learned in anatomy (you know, like down the hall) should be thrown out to learn OMM... yeah. If anything we're repeatedly told by our OPP professors that we need to know the anatomy better so we can understand what's going on.

I'm really feelin for you right now. Just like 1.5 semesters left though.

 

[MetalloBetalactamase]

 

[D4C]

View attachment 186278

I didn't know cloning was an OMM technique!

 

[MetalloBetalactamase]

I didn't know cloning was an OMM technique!

• You mock my tribute to the father of OMM (in tastefully chosen well executed "blue")? Do you / did you even come to Biochem lectures?

 

[D4C]

• You mock my tribute to the father of OMM (in tastefully chosen well executed "AZCOM blue")? Do you / did you even come to Biochem lectures?

Nope. I always figured class was for chumps. I can see now that I missed out on some serious shenanigans.

 

[Derivations]

It is definitely something that you develop with time. Give it time. At earliest I didn't have a very developed palpatory skill until the beginning/middle of the spring of MS1. You will actually feel this muscoskeletal stuff. You aren't really feeling the T-processes, you're feeling the muscle (paraspinals), but it should have less give due to the slightly off (rotated posteriorly) position of the transverse process. It really must be unbearable for you guys to hear from your profs that you should actually be feeling bone, that just doesn't make sense. I'm really amazed how different OPP is taught at different places.

That's just it, though. The inconsistency of the presentations (at my school at least) adds to that frustration. One OMM professor will say to us, "you won't really feel the transverse processes, you'll feel the muscle over it" and then in the next lab they're telling us "you should be feeling the actual transverse processes, don't confuse feeling the muscle with feeling the bone". I want to believe in the great A.T. Still, M.D. D.O., but my school sure is making it difficult.

 

[user3]

Have stated this before, but should be interesting to see how ACGME accreditation will affect OMM GME programs or "osteopathic" components of former AOA programs.

 

[Mehd School]

Could be a fantastic course if they just focused on the high yield stuff that people actually use today in practice or that have an iota of modern medical substance. Cranial-sacral therapy, Chapman's, ANS stimulation/inhibition and visceral manipulation need to be cut from the curriculum and licensing exams at least until they can reference some real science/studies to back them up.

Did we just become best friends?

 

[Mehd School]

That's just it, though. The inconsistency of the presentations (at my school at least) adds to that frustration. One OMM professor will say to us, "you won't really feel the transverse processes, you'll feel the muscle over it" and then in the next lab they're telling us "you should be feeling the actual transverse processes, don't confuse feeling the muscle with feeling the bone". I want to believe in the great A.T. Still, M.D. D.O., but my school sure is making it difficult.

I was talking to a new member of our OMM staff and he was telling me essentially how everything he learned when he was in medical school in the 80's is backwards from what they're teaching us now. He said he's basically relearning everything a night or two before it's taught to the medical students. I don't think our school is teaching it any different currently than any other school, because it seems we're following Savarese to a T.

It's this kind of consistency that is really winning me over.

 

[NurWollen]

I was talking to a new member of our OMM staff and he was telling me essentially how everything he learned when he was in medical school in the 80's is backwards from what they're teaching us now. He said he's basically relearning everything a night or two before it's taught to the medical students. I don't think our school is teaching it any different currently than any other school, because it seems we're following Savarese to a T.

It's this kind of consistency that is really winning me over.

Have you guys studied a technique called Still technique at your school? I seem to recall one of our faculty said it was barely introduced at our school in the last couple of years and that it's not on COMLEX yet. Apparently it's a recently re-discovered technique that AT Still himself used, as its name implies. When they introduced it as such, I was like, "Wait, we haven't actually been learning what Still taught this whole time?" It makes me wonder what DO schools were teaching post-still but pre-Sutherland, Chapman, Schiowitz, etc.

 

[Mr Kenobi]

Have you guys studied a technique called Still technique at your school? I seem to recall one of our faculty said it was barely introduced at our school in the last couple of years and that it's not on COMLEX yet. Apparently it's a recently re-discovered technique that AT Still himself used, as its name implies. When they introduced it as such, I was like, "Wait, we haven't actually been learning what Still taught this whole time?" It makes me wonder what DO schools were teaching post-still but pre-Sutherland, Chapman, Schiowitz, etc.

Ya we recently learned the Still technique for the shoulder. We watched a 15 second or so black and white clip of AT himself performing the technique like 10 times in a row during lab. After the first watch I stopped looking at the screen and started paying attention to the "purist" OMM faculty's faces as the clip was repeated. Looked like this:

 

[NurWollen]

Ya we recently learned the Still technique for the shoulder. We watched a 15 second or so black and white clip of AT himself performing the technique like 10 times in a row during lab. After the first watch I stopped looking at the screen and started paying attention to the "purist" OMM faculty's faces as the clip was repeated.

Wow, the curriculum really is the same.

 

[hallowmann]

Have you guys studied a technique called Still technique at your school? I seem to recall one of our faculty said it was barely introduced at our school in the last couple of years and that it's not on COMLEX yet. Apparently it's a recently re-discovered technique that AT Still himself used, as its name implies. When they introduced it as such, I was like, "Wait, we haven't actually been learning what Still taught this whole time?" It makes me wonder what DO schools were teaching post-still but pre-Sutherland, Chapman, Schiowitz, etc.

You guys are just now learning Still? We learned Still like 2nd week of first semester first year (we started with thoracics), and I'm pretty sure we watched the video in lecture. I don't remember doing it in lab, but definitely remember a black and white clip in lecture. We've learned Still all over the place. We've even had questions like who developed the Still technique? a) Still, b) Jones, c) Van Buskirk, etc. on exams.

Straightforward technique, but I never picture myself using it. Indirect-->Direct with lots of motion, but it has to be brisk/fluid. I don't see myself being able to pull this off. I'll stick with ME and HVLA.

 

[NurWollen]

You guys are just now learning Still? We learned Still like 2nd week of first semester first year (we started with thoracics), and I'm pretty sure we watched the video in lecture. I don't remember doing it in lab, but definitely remember a black and white clip in lecture. We've learned Still all over the place. We've even had questions like who developed the Still technique? a) Still, b) Jones, c) Van Buskirk, etc. on exams.

Straightforward technique, but I never picture myself using it. Indirect-->Direct with lots of motion, but it has to be brisk/fluid. I don't see myself being able to pull this off. I'll stick with ME and HVLA.

No, we learned it last year. I was just wondering because we were talking about inter-school uniformity in the OMM curricula and we had been told that Still techique was just added to the curriculum.

 

[hallowmann]

No, we learned it last year. I was just wondering because we were talking about inter-school uniformity in the OMM curricula and we had been told that Still techique was just added to the curriculum.

Yeah, that makes more sense. There's no reason not to learn it early, as its not particularly hard, since you can figure out what you need to do as long as you know the dx and that its passive and indirect-->direct.

 

[MetalloBetalactamase]

Ya we recently learned the Still technique for the shoulder. We watched a 15 second or so black and white clip of AT himself performing the technique like 10 times in a row during lab. After the first watch I stopped looking at the screen and started paying attention to the "purist" OMM faculty's faces as the clip was repeated. Looked like this:

Yeah, kinda like

 

[MetalloBetalactamase]

My OMM professors be like

it just works that way!!!!!!

 

[Derivations]

My BS meter rises after every lecture and lab...can't take it anymore. This **** is unbearable.

 

[bones]

I dunno, seems like you are missing the point. Anyone can just make up their own alternative tx that causes no harm (like randomly touching the patients head lightly) and say it fixes problems (anacdotal evidence). For some patients, yes, the placebo effect is a real thing...Seen it with my own eyes. The key is beings a good clinician and developing the ability to recognize them- Then treat them accordingly. Here it comes-The point is, we don't need to be wasting our time training in this types of "anacdote based medicine" in our schools or tested on it in our licensing exams when a simple pat of the head and a reassuring statement from the physician could potentially accomplish the same goal.

greetings,

Speaking as an NMM/OMM specialist in practice, you are right about a good many things. We need high quality research, which is sorely lacking. There are a lot of overblown claims. It is easy to pass off BS treatments as harmless therapy that "maybe" offers improvement- that stuff drives me crazy. The mysticism needs to be removed from the classroom and attendings should not expect students to believe any claims that cant be demonstrated live in front of the class with real patients. Anything short of immediate, massive and permanent results should be rejected as potentially (and probably) placebo, and all untested theories should be eliminated from med school testing and board testing until proper research and validation is done (cranial and chapmans points come to mind, but there are countless other examples). We need to place quality research training and the scientific method at the heart of all medical schools- including DO schools- and topics that are theory should be taught as theory and not passed off as "fact".

I am not prepared to say NMM/OMM should be eliminated from med school, for that would eliminate the reason to award a DO degree at all. Plus i get awesome results, I get paid well, and I'd like other DOs (at least those who are interested) to have the chance to do what I do. I havent done much to help the cause yet other than train a number of students- I haven't published research, mostly for selfish reasons (I love the clinical side/find research boring) plus i dont want to waste my time publishing in trash journals as many of my colleagues do. I'm working on building a team w some PhD's from the ivys, and perhaps start teaching NMM as an elective/CME through some of the top MD schools. I think thats where we need to go next if we want to be taken seriously in the scientific community- and believe it or not it seems MDs who seek this training out take it very seriously and are often very good at it... if we go this route there really will be no reason to get a DO degree. As the research comes out some aspects of manual medicine may start becoming mainstream- and will hopefully become a lot more effective in most practitioners hands as the BS is eliminated via good research. There will still be specialists in NMM i think, and hopefully far more effective ones.

thoughts?

 

[radkat101]

greetings,

Speaking as an NMM/OMM specialist in practice, you are right about a good many things. We need high quality research, which is sorely lacking. There are a lot of overblown claims. It is easy to pass off BS treatments as harmless therapy that "maybe" offers improvement- that stuff drives me crazy. The mysticism needs to be removed from the classroom and attendings should not expect students to believe any claims that cant be demonstrated live in front of the class with real patients. Anything short of immediate, massive and permanent results should be rejected as potentially (and probably) placebo, and all untested theories should be eliminated from med school testing and board testing until proper research and validation is done (cranial and chapmans points come to mind, but there are countless other examples). We need to place quality research training and the scientific method at the heart of all medical schools- including DO schools- and topics that are theory should be taught as theory and not passed off as "fact".

I am not prepared to say NMM/OMM should be eliminated from med school, for that would eliminate the reason to award a DO degree at all. Plus i get awesome results, I get paid well, and I'd like other DOs (at least those who are interested) to have the chance to do what I do. I havent done much to help the cause yet other than train a number of students- I haven't published research, mostly for selfish reasons (I love the clinical side/find research boring) plus i dont want to waste my time publishing in trash journals as many of my colleagues do. I'm working on building a team w some PhD's from the ivys, and perhaps start teaching NMM as an elective/CME through some of the top MD schools. I think thats where we need to go next if we want to be taken seriously in the scientific community- and believe it or not it seems MDs who seek this training out take it very seriously and are often very good at it... if we go this route there really will be no reason to get a DO degree. As the research comes out some aspects of manual medicine may start becoming mainstream- and will hopefully become a lot more effective in most practitioners hands as the BS is eliminated via good research. There will still be specialists in NMM i think, and hopefully far more effective ones.

thoughts?

It's refreshing hearing this from a practicing physician who uses OMM. While I agree that OMM shouldn't be eliminated from DO schools, I do think that it is time to do away with the DO degree, and that untested theories should be thrown out of the curriculum. I say this because the simple difference in letters continues to water down the applicant pool and creates perceptions of the route being a back-door into medicine. There's just no reason it needs to be this way. In just my first semester of school, I really can't believe that the little time I have spent in OMM is considered enough to justify an entirely different degree. We don't even master one skill before moving onto the next. It feels like I'm simply being introduced to a skill set that I could potentially pursue later on down the road, but that the school doesn't have enough time to teach me because of all the other non-OMM material that only continues to expand from year to year so we can keep the pace with MD schools and have a shot at competing with them on boards and in the match. I just don't see how this is sustainable for much longer, and the system is bound to collapse at some point. I like the idea of bringing the MD world on-board (as an elective) so that we can begin to mesh the two and move on from this silly distinction.

 

[costales]

greetings,

Speaking as an NMM/OMM specialist in practice, you are right about a good many things. We need high quality research, which is sorely lacking. There are a lot of overblown claims. It is easy to pass off BS treatments as harmless therapy that "maybe" offers improvement- that stuff drives me crazy. The mysticism needs to be removed from the classroom and attendings should not expect students to believe any claims that cant be demonstrated live in front of the class with real patients. Anything short of immediate, massive and permanent results should be rejected as potentially (and probably) placebo, and all untested theories should be eliminated from med school testing and board testing until proper research and validation is done (cranial and chapmans points come to mind, but there are countless other examples). We need to place quality research training and the scientific method at the heart of all medical schools- including DO schools- and topics that are theory should be taught as theory and not passed off as "fact".

I am not prepared to say NMM/OMM should be eliminated from med school, for that would eliminate the reason to award a DO degree at all. Plus i get awesome results, I get paid well, and I'd like other DOs (at least those who are interested) to have the chance to do what I do. I havent done much to help the cause yet other than train a number of students- I haven't published research, mostly for selfish reasons (I love the clinical side/find research boring) plus i dont want to waste my time publishing in trash journals as many of my colleagues do. I'm working on building a team w some PhD's from the ivys, and perhaps start teaching NMM as an elective/CME through some of the top MD schools. I think thats where we need to go next if we want to be taken seriously in the scientific community- and believe it or not it seems MDs who seek this training out take it very seriously and are often very good at it... if we go this route there really will be no reason to get a DO degree. As the research comes out some aspects of manual medicine may start becoming mainstream- and will hopefully become a lot more effective in most practitioners hands as the BS is eliminated via good research. There will still be specialists in NMM i think, and hopefully far more effective ones.

thoughts?

Good to hear from you. In 1st year I went to the library and checked the cranial content in OMM textbooks, and I remember it averaged around 2-3% in terms of page count. Any insight on when the AOA might put the Sutherland stuff in a museum?

 

[TheFuture_22]

greetings,

Speaking as an NMM/OMM specialist in practice, you are right about a good many things. We need high quality research, which is sorely lacking. There are a lot of overblown claims. It is easy to pass off BS treatments as harmless therapy that "maybe" offers improvement- that stuff drives me crazy. The mysticism needs to be removed from the classroom and attendings should not expect students to believe any claims that cant be demonstrated live in front of the class with real patients. Anything short of immediate, massive and permanent results should be rejected as potentially (and probably) placebo, and all untested theories should be eliminated from med school testing and board testing until proper research and validation is done (cranial and chapmans points come to mind, but there are countless other examples). We need to place quality research training and the scientific method at the heart of all medical schools- including DO schools- and topics that are theory should be taught as theory and not passed off as "fact".

I am not prepared to say NMM/OMM should be eliminated from med school, for that would eliminate the reason to award a DO degree at all. Plus i get awesome results, I get paid well, and I'd like other DOs (at least those who are interested) to have the chance to do what I do. I havent done much to help the cause yet other than train a number of students- I haven't published research, mostly for selfish reasons (I love the clinical side/find research boring) plus i dont want to waste my time publishing in trash journals as many of my colleagues do. I'm working on building a team w some PhD's from the ivys, and perhaps start teaching NMM as an elective/CME through some of the top MD schools. I think thats where we need to go next if we want to be taken seriously in the scientific community- and believe it or not it seems MDs who seek this training out take it very seriously and are often very good at it... if we go this route there really will be no reason to get a DO degree. As the research comes out some aspects of manual medicine may start becoming mainstream- and will hopefully become a lot more effective in most practitioners hands as the BS is eliminated via good research. There will still be specialists in NMM i think, and hopefully far more effective ones.

thoughts?

Thank you for sharing your thoughts! I absolutely agree with everything that you have said. I will say though that I have no problem with keeping the degree title, even if they eventually make OMM/NMM training widely available. I just think that we need to adapt our OMM curriculum to reflect the constantly evolving nature of scientific research. Basically, we need a Flexner-like movement within our profession as it pertains to OMM curriculum. I wish we had more NMM/OMM specialists out there like you to teach and influence decisions at our schools as well as in the higher ranks of our profession.

 

[user3]

Thank you for sharing your thoughts! I absolutely agree with everything that you have said. I will say though that I have no problem with keeping the degree title, even if they eventually make OMM/NMM training widely available. I just think that we need to adapt our OMM curriculum to reflect the constantly evolving nature of scientific research. Basically, we need a Flexner-like movement within our profession as it pertains to OMM curriculum. I wish we had more NMM/OMM specialists out there like you to teach and influence decisions at our schools as well as in the higher ranks of our profession.

heck, fwiw- some people might argue we need a flexner-like movement for all of osteopathic education.

 

[midweststudent1]

Our school recently had a program director (MD herself) for the pain fellowship at an MD university over to our DO school as a guest lecturer.....she said that with a significant portion of her patients that she sees long term that she asks (perhaps requires?) them to see a chiropractor or a particular DO in our city while they're coming to her clinic.....she pointed out that the results are there for it

 

[bones]

In just my first semester of school, I really can't believe that the little time I have spent in OMM is considered enough to justify an entirely different degree.

AT Still truly believed that what he was teaching was entirely different than the snake oil and arsenic/mercury MD treatments of his day- enough to warrant a different degree. He wanted his school to be based on science, anatomy and reason. Truth was his highest mission, and urged his students to reject any and all untested theories. In the absence of modern scientific methods, he labelled success as the stamp of truth... and he held himself and his students to the very highest standards of success (no less than immediate cure of whatever disease was before him). If the patient wasn't immediately and obviously better, he said the practitioner wasn't smart enough and needed to go back to the books and the cadavers. If he had access to the modern scientific method I believe he would have been all for it. He railed against drugs because the drugs of his day didnt work (except for small placebo improvements) and carried horrible side effects. He insisted his students learn surgery because it is sometimes needed, but told them to use it as a last resort, unlike how it was used by many MDs of his day. His rule was to use aggressive symptom based intervention when necessary to save life or limb, or to alleviate suffering. In all other cases he recommended using reason to figure out the cause of disease- and if there was an anatomic contribution that could be fixed (and often there is)- cure the patient.

This is in stark contrast to what we see from our profession today. You will see his face in every school, and see quotes on every wall, but the core teachings have been forgotten. AT Still was a scientist at his core. He would be rolling over in his grave if he saw what his creation has become.

There is no inherent conflict between what AT Still taught and modern medicine. Modern medicine is now very advanced, but it is almost entirely focused on symptom oriented practice (great for saving lives and alleviating acute suffering, but terrible at curing disease and making the patient truly feel well). AT Still would have embraced it to save lives- including those of his children who died of meningitis. in fact I think he would have taught his students pharmacology right next to surgery (and warned them of overprescribing just as he warned them in his day of using surgery inappropriately or unnecessarily). He would have been ecstatic about the advances in the scientific understanding of physiology and pathophysiology of so many diseases. I think if more DOs knew this stuff our schools would be very different.