OMM used to shield sexual abuse

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

The few that do are *aggressively* professional about it, vigorously educating patients, using gloves, and using a chaperone - because they absolutely have to.

Except for Nassar.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[NontradCA]

If you are in medical school you should really learn what exactly an OBGYN does......... and wait you think there actually isn’t MDs that have committed sexual assault using their profession?

I asked for citation not your pretentious reply.

 

[NontradCA]

It’s hilarious that this entire thread is people defending OMM while simultaneously saying there’s no such thing as OMM apologists. The insecurities.

 

[QueenJames]

Ugh. See this annoys me. I’m literally 1000x better than you. Yes I’m a DO (unfortunately and technically) but if you’re gonna try and call me a nurse I’m gonna be forced to remind you that you literally are garbage compared to me as a medical student/residency applicant.

LOL GET HIM. GET HIS ASS! I LOVE IT! YES!

 

[Crayola227]

Oh, I hope we don’t have to do this in lab this semester.

Also, how do you pull or hurt those muscles? Horseback riding or an enthusiastic game of leap frog.

Childbirth is a common one. As people get older all sort of fun musculoskeletal imbalances develop. Back pain is exceedingly common, and the hip and pelvic floors muscles are all part of supporting that girdle. Also rape.

 

[Crayola227]

That seems like it's one finger slip away from sexual assault. I can certainly see why a sexual predator would be willing to do "medical" treatments like that.

same is true of the bimanual exam

 

[Crayola227]

Got some evidence and rationale , plus underlying scientific basis. Do these OMT techniques have the same?

Accuracy of the pelvic examination in detecting adnexal masses.

Padilla LA, Radosevich DM, Milad MP

Obstet Gynecol. 2000;96(4):593.

Actually the bimanual is crap for detecting adnexal masses at any stage that is really early enough to affect outcomes. So suspicion must be high and go for U/S sooner. At least that was the mantra when I did my ob/gyn rotation. It's been debated if it should be tossed entirely. It does catch uterine tenderness which is a huge for PID, but with the improvement in testing... again, utility has diminished. I imagine it's still done because aside from psychological trauma, it's a low cost procedure with some possibility of benefit (feeling a mass that ends up having something done about it)

 

[Crayola227]

Many DO schools across the country teach techniques that manipulate sensitive areas while patients are clothed. The teaching of these techniques takes place in OMM labs with as many as 100 students taking part. I have a friend at a DO school that tried to opt-out of participating in certain OMM techniques due to various reasons that I won't disclose here. The school didn't handle it well and only granted her request when she threatened legal action.

I think some might agree that DO schools should re-evaluate which OMM techniques are taught (obviously, those that are evidence based) and leave the bulk of OMM education to fellowships and electives so that students with an actual interest can opt-in, rather than creating barriers for students to opt-out.

I think students should be able to opt out. However, I don't think it should be an elective part of training a DO. What's the point of DO school at that point? If you don't want to be a DO and learn that style of medicine, don't go to a DO school.

 

[Crayola227]

Lol. That’s not from the article. That’s a quote by the MSU administration to dismiss the allegations of rape. SMH seems like a lot of you chip on the shoulder students don’t see what’s going on here. They need to be in prison too, not just stepping down.

A lot of you are undermining the implications of this. This sets OMM back 50 years. Have any of you ever heard of beneficence? OMM is a ****ty excuse for medicine.

The article was crap, and it's been misconstrued here.

Don't get me wrong, it's clear to me this guy is a pedo and a rapist and he should go to jail and never come out.

 

[jw3600]

I think students should be able to opt out. However, I don't think it should be an elective part of training a DO. What's the point of DO school at that point? If you don't want to be a DO and learn that style of medicine, don't go to a DO school.

It’s due to lack of options for 99% of people.

 

[Crayola227]

Thats the thing, we find something that doesnt work, we stop using it. Our societies issue guidance. We acknowledge doubt of efficacy. And eventually the practice does changes just like PSA. Do DO's do that with OMM? Is there any critical review of your own literature? or does it get taught and practiced like it is completely efficacious. They make cult members out of you.



Think of it like the PSA, first there was disbelief, then backlash, then acknolwedgement and then acceptance. We are atleast capable of apraising something and then saying . Nope, not doing it. Eventually it does trickle into practice. I dont think OMM recieves the same treatment from most DOs.

I'm an MD and I was made a cult member when OMM was used on me and felt good. And nothing dirty, gutterminds.

Every field needs to evaluate its practices for patient benefit, however, I think patients get some say on what they think is beneficial. Obviously not totally up to them what interventions their provider is willing to perform because they like it, but yeah.

 

[Crayola227]

Physical therapy is much more useful than OMM. And you know, has evidence behind it. Please don’t insult physical therapists by trying to minimize what they do to OMM.

Everyone knows there’s only one reason for OMM. To keep administrative jobs at DO schools. It’s a complete joke.

Lots of the moves DOs do, and quite a few that have helped me, a PT could never do. And some things they did were identical. That isn't to say that OMM = PT.

 

[Crayola227]

I think you are making an artificial and false distinction between MD and DO physicians. Why is OMM unique to DOs? What is preventing MD schools from making OMM an elective? Why can't sports medicine MD docs use OMM if OMM is so effective?

There is no artificial distinction. Look into it. Wikipedia does a decent job of covering the history that led to the two trains of thought.

OMM is unique to DOs because it is included in their curriculum, and like anything in medicine, it must be taught to you by someone who knows how to do it, who was similarly taught....

There are ways for MDs to learn OMM, but it usually requires some sort of out-facility education in a seminar or fellowship ran by DOs, usually at a DO institution.

Like so many things, it is not something you master even in a year training course. I was honing my patient interview techniques from week one of med school all the way to graduation, and still working on it as an MD. Same with physical exam skills, even listening to the heart and lungs and getting good at "knowing" what you are hearing takes hundreds of listens to the real deal.

 

[Crayola227]

What are the benefits in keeping the DO degree separate from MD?.​

So politics and AOA/COCA wealth interests are what's responsible for keeping the DO degree separate from MD. I can't disagree, but it's pretty depressing honestly.

I will get to answering this, I promise.

 

[Crayola227]

It’s due to lack of options for 99% of people.

So what? I still don't see that as a reason why the school should have to change its curriculum.

I went to medical school. I wore a short white coat. Them's the breaks.

I wanted a DO degree and to learn OMM, but I went to an allopathic school and didn't. I accepted the consequences of my choices. I get it, that around here it's med school or die. Just saying, no one makes you become a DO, so why bitch why you learn DO stuff?

 

[nlax30]

This is getting ridiculous.

There are many small studies showing improved clinical outcomes (such as reported pain) for OMT in acute low back pain. Most of OMT is based on accepted musculoskeletal anatomy and physiology principles. If you’ve reduced a nursemaid’s elbow in a toddler then you’ve applied some of these principles.

I’ll be the first to admit that there are some aspects of OMT That in my mind are ‘voodoo’... *cough* cranial *cough* and at least when I was taught it was presented as here’s this theory which you’ll need to know for the boards.

There’s never going to be large randomized trials as there’s not money to be made for some drug company. When we evaluate the cost effectiveness of a treatment then OMT basically has very low threshold for being used given low/no cost and low risk. A new drug or procedure with a high cost and higher risk has a much higher efficacy threshold to prove before it’s accepted for mainstream use.

How many here are using tPA for acute stroke? How about kayexalate for hyperkalemia? Have you examined the data behind both of those treatments?

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

same is true of the bimanual exam

lolwut? Big difference between an extremely common physical exam technique that has definite utility and an esoteric one with questionable efficacy at best.

 

[jw3600]

So what? I still don't see that as a reason why the school should have to change its curriculum.

I went to medical school. I wore a short white coat. Them's the breaks.

I wanted a DO degree and to learn OMM, but I went to an allopathic school and didn't. I accepted the consequences of my choices. I get it, that around here it's med school or die. Just saying, no one makes you become a DO, so why bitch why you learn DO stuff?

If they take out viscerosomatic reflexes, cranial, Chapman’s point, cervica HVLA, “tender points”, “Jones points”, or whatever horse**** there is and just focus on MSK and axial skeleton stuff, then I’m ok with keeping OMM. Otherwise it’s just too much pseudoscience crap. There’s gotta be a lot of compromise. We don’t give the same benefit of the doubt to tarot cards or Palm readers.

 

[Crayola227]

This article is right about some stuff. AT Still was a nut job, and his ideas were nonsense and have no basis in scientific literature. Unfortunately, the DO schools revere this guy for no reason. I'm a first year DO student, and the "Osteopathic Skills" class is like a cult gathering. We had a lecture on the history of osteopathic medicine, and had to memorize lots of "important" dates in AT Still's life and "important" dates and figures in osteopathic medicine. Guess what? These dates will be tested on the COMLEX. So yeah, sometimes I feel like I'm living in a nightmare.

MD schools have similar education. Both systems teach you their history. To my knowledge, though, stuff about Hippocrates, Galen, Dr. Mengele, the Flexner Report, Osler, etc etc weren't on the steps, but some was on our tests.

 

[Crayola227]

lolwut? Big difference between an extremely common physical exam technique that has definite utility and an esoteric one with questionable efficacy at best.

it was already covered earlier that the bimanual has very limited efficacy

 

[Crayola227]

If it was EBM, it would've already been a part of the MD curriculum.

No. The neuro and mskl exam are EBM and efficacious for a number of diagnostic purposes and are severely lacking in how well they are taught in many MD curricula. Allopathy has one big hole in it, and that's musculoskeletal medicine. We say that's OK because of how much gets farmed out to chiro, PT, massage, acupuncture, herbalists, but it's embarassing when mskl pain is in the top 3 most common complaints to the PCP. Still gotta farm a lot out, but what takes place in terms of management from the average MD is actually pretty shabby.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

it was already covered earlier that the bimanual has very limited efficacy

Sorry, it got lost in the crap. Are you referring to the ACP recommendation against screening pelvics in asymptomatic, non-pregnant adults?

 

[libertyyne]

first off, i hate omm, its a complete time suck in my life and too much of it is bogus (cranial, chapman points, etc). that being said, it is clear you really have no idea what MOST of omm is. as MOST of it is literally physical therapy. look, i get it, my sister is an MD and shes like "so do you guys just crack backs during that class or what." but, clearly you have no actual idea of what omm is or all the techniques within it.

so, i guess you dont thnk physical therapy is evidence-based...as that is literally 2/3 of the crap we have to do in those labs. f regaining mobility!

There are parts of PT that are not evidence based. Why not cite the studies that would end this conversation. Also if it is such great sensible stuff why do 95% of DO's not use it?

Don't give me that BS. A ton of us are against chapman points and other stupid aspects of osteopathy. It doesn't mean it's easy to change things with a reluctant leadership. Besides, I'm sure there are many allopathic things out there that they try to refuse to change. Usually it is anything that brings in money. Just look how long it took to accept H pylori as a cause for ulcers.

Lol. We do not define our profession by OMT, DO's do and then 95% dont practice. Plus any unevidence based stuff that is practiced by MDs is probably practiced by DO's as well in that field.

And I agree with you, that if the MSU admins were complicit they should absolutely be punished. I also agree that statements like the one you circled have the potential to do a ton of damage, which is all the more reason BS OMM needs to be vetted and the more legitimate and potentially helpful techniques need to have some actual solid research done. I'm not surprised it hasn't been done though, given the lack of research funding and research in general available to DO schools compared to MD schools.



Then why did the ACOG reject the recommendations of the USPSTF after their (well-backed) findings that manual pelvic exams should not be used as a screening tool in asymptomatic patients? They're still recommending it's use as a screening tool, and even went so far as to say there's inadequate evidence either way, so we're going to recommend OB's keep doing it. How about that kayexelate is still used in many hospital EDs when patients come in with hyperkalemia suspected to be acute despite it's known to be slow-acting and that the evidence that it even lowers total body K is dubious at best? Why is it still recommended that tPA be used as treatment for ischemic stroke within 4.5 hours of onset despite now having solid evidence that the number of people required to be treated to save 1 life is higher than the incidence of a patient who is treated developing permanent neurological damage or even dying? How about the lap band procedure or even gastric bypass for weight loss vs. sleeve gastrectomies? Let's not even get started on management of back pain and surgical interventions. So no, as physicians (both MD and DO) we don't always stop doing things that don't work even after solid evidence has come out.

I agree with you that there's an issue with the empirical research on OMM, but the same can be said about many treatments that are used regularly by MDs and DOs (like the lack of studies showing that using pressors for HTN actually improve long term mortality rates, as was mentioned by Psai in another thread recently). I'm not trying to defend OMM as a whole, or even most treatment modalities (though it's probably coming across that way). I'm just saying not to completely discredit every treatment modality because you hear that some are total crap or there aren't studies done yet. You also clearly haven't had an actual OMM lecture, our prof would tell us straight up beforehand which techniques he felt had legitimate efficacy and which ones we just needed to know for boards. Most DOs and DO students do have brains that we use, don't lump the very small minority who believe in crap like cranial or Chapman's points in with the vast majority of DOs who will never use OMM again after they graduate and think most of OMM shouldn't be used in almost any treatment plan.



Imo the most legitimate techniques that I'd like to see an actual body of research on is myofascial/soft tissue release, HVLA (specifically for acute issues), and muscle energy (also known as post-isometric stretching in the PT/OT world, where there is more research on it). I'd also like to see some legitimate studies for mesenteric release for the treatment of inpatient constipation (technique is literally "releasing" the ascending, descending, and sigmoid colon to help mobilize fecal matter). Idk if the last one would show much, but I've heard enough instances of it being very successful that it's peaked my curiosity. I also personally believe that effleurage and petrissage is a legitimate treatment modality for upper and lower extremity edema, but better outcomes can be achieved with devices like SCDs and imo it's more of a historical technique than anything at this point.



There are several physical therapy techniques that are literally exactly the same as OMM techniques. MR = soft tissue release. ME = post-isometric stretching. This post makes me question if you've ever actually studied any PT or been involved with that field outside of seeing patients getting walked around the wards.

I agree there's a huge administrative aspect to it, and personally wouldn't mind if COCA went away and DO medical education just merged with MD education with OMM as an elective or even just taught in certain fields of residency which focus more on the MSK system.



Lol, maybe in Cali, but 99% of the DOs I've talked to either laugh when I ask what they think of OMM or groan and say they wish there was more research but they'd never use it themselves. Imo most of it is irrelevant for most fields, but there are a few techniques that are very relevant to certain fields (PM&R, sports med, clinical ortho, some random cases for FM and peds, etc). Seriously, who are you hanging out with where the majority are OMM apologists? Agree that it's utility is at best limited though and that certain techniques have no business even existing.



I've been treated by MDs who used OMM in college. There are CME courses on OMM available for MD attendings and residents, Harvard even offered one and there are MD schools that have them for students.



To the bolded: *sometimes*. So do almost all DOs though, unfortunately there's a small number (mostly from the old guard) who hang on to it and continue to advocate for all modalities in the education model. Unfortunately chapman's points are still taught (for some reason), phrenology isn't OMM and has no relation, and I've never even heard of OMM techniques to treat derm conditions unless someone is implying treating edema can prevent some derm issues (which I'm guessing is not what was being presumed). Again, most of us don't believe in most of OMM and want actual research for the few modalities we feel would be useful. Your perspective on the field seems to be skewed by a lot of what is posted on SDN, which is not congruent with reality when it comes to the OMM discussion imo.

Osteopathic institutions literally define themselves for being MD plus OMT you should probably study OMT's efficacy. Any questionable practice that does not have evidence behind it is being practices in equal spades by MDs and DO's with the exception of OMT.

You wouldn’t have to look too hard to find examples (eg, fetal heart monitoring).

MD's and DO's would practice this equally. PLus the Fetal heart stuff is discussed openly at society meetings and data is published regarding the lack of the efficacy surrounding it. The real reason that most OBgyns still use that is because of legal pressures. That being said no MD i have known defines him/herself by being MD plus FHM.

Lol you are being an idiot. Do you know how many pharmaceuticals are proven to have little efficacy yet remain in use for decades. It is one of the major factors driving the cost of medicine. Need more examples look no further then proton therapy. Plenty of techniques in omm have plenty of literature backing them up most of them are just a varioation of physical therapy, but I guess you don’t think that is useful too. Is omm slow to adapt? yes. But to act like this is different from any other part of medicine is laughable. Learn a thing or two before trying to be an incessant troll. I don’t even like omm, but your assertions are remarkably stupid. Especially the idea that all other parts of medicine are evidence based lol.

Lol. Provide the evidence for its efficacy than. DO's and MD's use those medications equally. It is different because DO's literally define their profession with the addition of OMT. Maybe you should learn to cite a study or two.

Didn't read the thread.

I'm an MD. I've had a lot of adjustments, some musculosketetal counseling, strain/counterstrain, from DO colleagues and chiropractors over the years. I'm not sure eating chocolate has a placebo doubleblind controlled study saying it's awesome and feels good to eat it, but it does. A lot of the stuff I mentioned, feels good and has made me feel subjectively better. So IDGAF about its evidence base. I think there is value to it.

There are even reasonable theories why it doesn't result in an actual "adjustment" of joints, yet might have an effect on pain that is more difficult to measure. Some of this relates to pain gate theory in the spine. We are notoriously unable to do an awesome job of measuring the sort of things that happen on the neuronal level. There will never be a placebo controlled double blind study about jumping from airplanes without parachutes. We have to use common sense.

Often in medicine we have to go with "proof in the pudding" meaning what seems to be the subjective improvement that seems to result from an intervention. There's plenty of times placebo effect is at work. Provided that we account for risk of harm and costs, there you have it. Sometimes we have to do what *seems* like a good idea.

There are quite literally historical and politicolegal reasons/benefits to having a system of medicine that is evidence based yet separate from allopathic, which all other evidence or practices aside, is one reason to maintain the osteopathic tradition. Which isn't to say that both systems of medicine need improvement in various ways.

As far as intravaginal OMM, I don't know enough about it, but like all things genital related, it's a sensitive subject. Obviously any actual malpractice is bad. If a patient consents to intravaginal OMM for what is accepted reasons within the scope of practice for recommending the procedure, I see no reason for a qualified DO not to provide it if all parties are consenting for ethical reasons pertaining to beneficience towards the patient, and absent personal gain or feelings that make the provider less than objective or benficient.

I have no idea if that happened here, but touching patients without consent or good cause is assault.

I'm tired of ragging on DOs. I see no reason to abolish that system or most OMM. I have worked with DOs and have found them to be competent equals to the MD.
NP and PAs OTOH... less than charitable views.

Is there value to getting a massage, sure. But the same arguments you are making can be applied to Reiki, crystal therapy, shakra's,faith healing, and other alt therapies. Since you brought up chiro's lets take a look at a few.

Here is a great one for treatment of concussion.


And your argument regarding MSK being not studied or being farmed out by MDs doesnt make sense considering a majority of DO's think OMM is not worth practicing. Furthermore If it is so efficacious it shouldnt be hard to whip out a few trials with sham OMM for controls to finally shut up all the naysayers.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

MD's and DO's would practice this equally. PLus the Fetal heart stuff is discussed openly at society meetings and data is published regarding the lack of the efficacy surrounding it. The real reason that most OBgyns still use that is because of legal pressures. That being said no MD i have known defines him/herself by being MD plus FHM.

Yeah, that's the problem. You can't really point to anything outside of OMM that only MDs or DOs would do. I was just throwing up an example of a practice that has no evidence behind it. There are many.

 

[saban81]

There are parts of PT that are not evidence based. Why not cite the studies that would end this conversation. Also if it is such great sensible stuff why do 95% of DO's not use it?




Lol. We do not define our profession by OMT, DO's do and then 95% dont practice. Plus any unevidence based stuff that is practiced by MDs is probably practiced by DO's as well in that field.



Osteopathic institutions literally define themselves for being MD plus OMT you should probably study OMT's efficacy. Any questionable practice that does not have evidence behind it is being practices in equal spades by MDs and DO's with the exception of OMT.


MD's and DO's would practice this equally. PLus the Fetal heart stuff is discussed openly at society meetings and data is published regarding the lack of the efficacy surrounding it. The real reason that most OBgyns still use that is because of legal pressures. That being said no MD i have known defines him/herself by being MD plus FHM.

Lol. Provide the evidence for its efficacy than. DO's and MD's use those medications equally. It is different because DO's literally define their profession with the addition of OMT. Maybe you should learn to cite a study or two.


Is there value to getting a massage, sure. But the same arguments you are making can be applied to Reiki, crystal therapy, shakra's,faith healing, and other alt therapies. Since you brought up chiro's lets take a look at a few.

Here is a great one for treatment of concussion.


And your argument regarding MSK being not studied or being farmed out by MDs doesnt make sense considering a majority of DO's think OMM is not worth practicing. Furthermore If it is so efficacious it shouldnt be hard to whip out a few trials with sham OMM for controls to finally shut up all the naysayers.

Lol uhm no you didn’t ask for a citation. You stated that there were no treatments in medicine that weren’t backed by evidence and then when proven wrong are now changing your statement to say you were only asking for citations. While also saying that treatments that don’t have evidence for them are fine because both do and md use them. How in the world does that matter or have anything to do with your original statement that there are no treatment modalities in medicine without strong evidence. You also claimed that if there were any without evidence or proven to not work they wouldn’t be used any longer which was also completely inaccurate. Citations regarding the evidence of omm have nothing to do with those comments you made that I responded to. Lol learn to not move the goal posts so much.

 

[saban81]

I asked for citation not your pretentious reply.[/QUOTE

I asked for citation not your pretentious reply.

Lol no you didn’t. You stated there were no practices by MDs that could be used as a guise to cover up sexual assault. You also stated that no MDs had been accused of sexual assault. Both of these were dumb statements that were clearly wrong and now you are trying to say you only wanted a citation. Give me a break.

 

[Crayola227]

Kay, I'm out.

1) Anyone can rape anyone under a lot of circumstances and guises, and it's wrong.
2) This dude is a rapist.
3) The DO degree is educationally and therapeutically equivalent to the MD.
4) The extra element of OMM in the DO curriculum has elements that far from merely being without an evidence base, we have every reason to think is bunk.
5) Medicine is a practice and an art. As such, while there is danger in practicing medicine that is without strong evidence, it is not always unavoidable. And there is a risk to eliminating some practices because we don't have evidence in support of them, for many reasons.
6) There are elements of an OMM education that absolutely are of value.
7) Pelvic floor and intravaginal physical therapy is a valid therapeutic modality with an evidence base.
8) Given all of this, I would not be surprised if SOME intravaginal OMM techniques had some therapeutic efficacy.
9) Therefore, please stop ragging on the DOs. Let's not throw the baby with the bathwater on OMM, I know it has utility, although it needs some reform. Let's not be slaves to EBM, have a narrow viewpoint, and remain open to further studying therapies with a rationale based on what we know in medical science. As far as intravaginal OMM, I don't know enough about its theory and practice to comment, except to say that I know that some physical manipulation in that area is effective for some conditions. Therefore it is something that is worth further investigation rather than straight away dismissal and ridicule.

ETA: I am not a DO. I am an MD. Not that *I* think it matters, but it might to readers.

 

[Iron Lord Saladin]

Get Your Respective Degree. Become a Physician. Live Your Life. You're Not Important. Nor Are Your Thoughts. Do Your Job.

 

[EMTAB]

I think it's interesting that when you read the comments below the actual article, you find a ton of MD's (and DO's) universally agreeing that the article was poorly written and in no way indicative of how DO's practice. It's not till you get to SDN that the division arises. What "Iron Lord Saladin" wrote hits the point home..."Get Your Degree. Become a Physician. Live Your Life....Do Your Job."

 

[Crayola227]

I think it's interesting that when you read the comments below the actual article, you find a ton of MD's (and DO's) universally agreeing that the article was poorly written and in no way indicative of how DO's practice. It's not till you get to SDN that the division arises. What "Iron Lord Saladin" wrote hits the point home..."Get Your Degree. Become a Physician. Live Your Life....Do Your Job."

Uh, not exactly. I think the most useful points to come up in this thread related to the practice of medicine, EBM, and pelvic floor wellness. We discussed the indications and limitations of various physical exam maneuvers like the bimanual and DRE.

Discussion should take place to educate SDN members about these topics. Since it's SDN there's tons of chaff with the wheat, still.

 

[saban81]

I think it's interesting that when you read the comments below the actual article, you find a ton of MD's (and DO's) universally agreeing that the article was poorly written and in no way indicative of how DO's practice. It's not till you get to SDN that the division arises. What "Iron Lord Saladin" wrote hits the point home..."Get Your Degree. Become a Physician. Live Your Life....Do Your Job."

Probably because sdn has a lot of 18-20 year old kids that are still pre Med on here. They have really strong opinions even though they have not actually experienced working in medicine.

 

[libertyyne]

Lol uhm no you didn’t ask for a citation. You stated that there were no treatments in medicine that weren’t backed by evidence and then when proven wrong are now changing your statement to say you were only asking for citations. While also saying that treatments that don’t have evidence for them are fine because both do and md use them. How in the world does that matter or have anything to do with your original statement that there are no treatment modalities in medicine without strong evidence. Lol learn to not move the goal posts so much.

Please link where I stated that. Also with the exception of OMM if there is anything that is not evidence based it is being equally practiced by MD's and DOs.

Also before you go on about calling people trolls maybe improve your reading comprehension.

Got some evidence and rationale , plus underlying scientific basis. Do these OMT techniques have the same?

Could you link the most evidence based of your techniques?

Since logic is also lost upon you let me spell this out.

MD's and DO's practice medicine the same by all accounts except OMM. Since a Majority of OMM is without evidence would you say that DO's utilizing OMM are practicing more medicine that is without evidence compared to their peers?

Another interesting phenomenon is that DO's define their profession by OMM, I dont see MD's defining their profession by Fetal Heart monitoring, or some other practice that is without evidence.

The proof is frankly in the pudding. A vast majority of DO's are sensible physicians who choose not to practice OMM because they know the evidence behind it is whack. Yet on this board there are OMM apologists who drink the coolaid and want to defend something that a vast majority of their peers abandon once they go out into real practice.

 

[libertyyne]

Get Your Respective Degree. Become a Physician. Live Your Life. You're Not Important. Nor Are Your Thoughts. Do Your Job.

What is interesting is I bet this " Do your job, your thoughts are not important" is the exact attitude that allowed Nassar to practice for over 20 years with review of allegations by other physicians.

 

[libertyyne]

Probably because sdn has a lot of 18-20 year old kids that are still pre Med on here. They have really strong opinions even though they have not actually experienced working in medicine.

maybe instead of making broad accusations and adhominem attacks you should focus on the arguments. Because you have no idea about the life experiences people have had in this thread.

 

[deleted831695]

When some troll MDs suggest that OMM is tantamount to sexual assault, of course some DOs (and MDs) are going to defend parts of it. That doesn't imply that they have to use it in their clinical practice.

 

[EMTAB]

Uh, not exactly. I think the most useful points to come up in this thread related to the practice of medicine, EBM, and pelvic floor wellness. We discussed the indications and limitations of various physical exam maneuvers like the bimanual and DRE.

Discussion should take place to educate SDN members about these topics. Since it's SDN there's tons of chaff with the wheat, still.

Oh I agree that good points came up about EBM and Pelvic Floor Wellness too. I was just making an observation that there seemed to be a lot more unity over the idea that the vast majority of DO's/MD's practice in a similar fashion in the comments of the actual article than I see here, I apologize if that point wasn't clear. I don't know any DO's who do Pelvic Diaphragm redoming, or check Zink Patterns and I especially don't know any who practice cranial. Mostly this is because a lot of OMM/OMT doesn't have strong scientific research behind it or has small sample sizes or are poorly designed studies. However, a lot of OMM is also related to Physical Therapy which does have the science to back it. It can be handy though to have another modality to try to help a patient, and really that's all OMM is, another option for treatment.

Honestly, it's crazy in this day and age, especially with the merger coming up that there is still a distinction. MD's who apply to previously AOA residencies will have to learn OMM. Not to mention that it seems easier in my opinion to have a singe degree (MD) and then add ".O" or tack on another designation to indicate that they also learned OMM to help patients from getting confused. But I know that this a controversial stance for some.

 

[saban81]

Please link where I stated that. Also with the exception of OMM if there is anything that is not evidence based it is being equally practiced by MD's and DOs.

Also before you go on about calling people trolls maybe improve your reading comprehension.




Since logic is also lost upon you let me spell this out.

MD's and DO's practice medicine the same by all accounts except OMM. Since a Majority of OMM is without evidence would you say that DO's utilizing OMM are practicing more medicine that is without evidence compared to their peers?

Another interesting phenomenon is that DO's define their profession by OMM, I dont see MD's defining their profession by Fetal Heart monitoring, or some other practice that is without evidence.

The proof is frankly in the pudding. A vast majority of DO's are sensible physicians who choose not to practice OMM because they know the evidence behind it is whack. Yet on this board there are OMM apologists who drink the coolaid and want to defend something that a vast majority of their peers abandon once they go out into real practice.

Omg you literally said it in the post I replied to. You said any procedures that were shown to not work were removed and no longer practiced which is completely inaccurate. You again keep trying to justify your innaccurate statement by saying both MDs and DOs use it. This is again irrelevant to what you said. Whether both MDs and DOs practice something has nothing to do with whether your statement about evidence based treatments was correct or not. This isn’t that hard. But please by all means keep talking about logic and reading comprehension lol. You again are moving the goal posts as you talk about logic you should know this is a fallacy. The amount of evidenced based medicine practiced is again not relevant to whether procedures proven to be ineffective are kept in circulation. And for the third time I am not arguing about the evidence behind OMM that was never the point of my post. There are parts of it that are good for things like rehab and general pain relief as an alternative. There are also parts of it that are total BS, as with all medicine. Look no further then how we can’t move beyond the BS of “preventive care”.

 

[saban81]

maybe instead of making broad accusations and adhominem attacks you should focus on the arguments. Because you have no idea about the life experiences people have had in this thread.

1. This wasn’t ad hominem. It was just a true statement about the make up of sdn and why there was a difference in the conversation between this site and others that people are seeing. It wasn’t even in reference to you. I don’t even know who you are. Though you seem quite touchy. lol
2. Wait, is the guy that is calling people bone wizzards and omm apologits and posting memes to mock something, now complaining about ad hominem. Lol this has to be a joke.

 

[Lucca]

I'm just gonna close this