A new direction for osteopathic medicine....

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

Even when DO's score equally as well as their MD counterparts, they still face discrimination by ACGME PD's. Telling DO's to cut out OMM training will not magically end this discrimination.

So you'd rather the discrimination remain with low board scores or higher board scores?...

I'd rather we get higher board scores and that can thus gain favor from non-ultra discriminating PDs.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Mad Jack]

DOs are 5% or so of practicing physicians, but 20% or so of current medical students. I think that our field is doing just fine.

As far as evidence, do we really need RCT's for every technique we employ. Beware of the current "evidence base medicine" trend, as it has a huge push from Corp. Med and pharmacy companies who can control the flow of "evidence" that dictate our practice. The fact is there will never be a big RCT for OMM as no one but the practitioner makes any money from it, and these trials cost millions and millions. RCT's are done for medications, preferable ones that need to be taken every day, for which a company has a patent and exclusive rights for a decade, and can therefore justify the cost of doing said RCT.

Or, you know, we could not build an entirely separate profession based on one single treatment methodology that the vast majority of practitioners never use. OMM should be a specialty, not the foundation of a profession.

 

[GUH]

So you'd rather the discrimination remain with low board scores or higher board scores?...

I'd rather we get higher board scores and that can thus gain favor from non-ultra discriminating PDs.

If you had any actual evidence that cutting down on OMM would significantly improve boards scores then your argument might have merit.

 

[DocEspana]

If you had any actual evidence that cutting down on OMM would significantly improve boards scores then your argument might have merit.

I'd love to have cut OMM time in half for two reasons
1) if you actually studied hard for it (I did) you would probably find what I did, that literally 50% of the 2 year total lesson plan was simply old techniques reintroduces as "oh hey remember this? ya. you can use this here too. now lets spend 40 minutes doing it again despit being tested on it last semester"
2) That extra ~2 hours a week would be totally dedicated to the Super Nintendo emulator I threw on my computer in medical school. I could have beaten Castlevania even faster than I did.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

If you had any actual evidence that cutting down on OMM would significantly improve boards scores then your argument might have merit.

I'd imagine that an experiment doesn't need to be created to prove what is largely implicit. I mean for what it is worth 4 hours more of studying high yield material or even restructuring the DO curriculum for usmle would undoubtedly raise averages.

 

[dyspareunia]

I'd imagine that an experiment doesn't need to be created to prove what is largely implicit. I mean for what it is worth 4 hours more of studying high yield material or even restructuring the DO curriculum for usmle would undoubtedly raise averages.

To the level of MD averages? This is assuming there isn't an inherent difference in the abilities of MD/DO students and MD/DO curricula (excluding OMM).

 

[Escape_Goat]

OMM definitely makes you a better, well rounded doctor. OMM is a great clinical modality. It reduces pain, increases range of motion, and promotes healing. It does not require the use of a medication, and for most patients involves one to two treatments.

Sadly, not enough DOs use manual medicine. I think it stems from a lack of interest as a medical student, and this underlying hostility toward the practice (as exemplified by posts on this forum). I have actually seen more interest in developing OMM skills from the MDs I practice with than the DOs, and that is the real tragedy.

Its not the end all of medicine, but it is a nice tool to have in the toolbelt. If you don't want to use it, then don't, but to choose to not develop a skill that could really benefit your patients is pure ignorance.

I think a lot of the issue people have with OMM is that there is a lack of research that provides clinical evidence for its efficacy. Much of the previous research on the various techniques demonstrated marginal benefit at best or the studies themselves suffered from major design flaws. What you end up with are a lot of anecdotal accounts of the effectiveness of OMM along with the fact that still incorporate nonsense like cranio-sacral therapy into the curriculum. So OMM really ends up sounding like a bunch of pseudoscientific gobbledygook.

 

[dyspareunia]

I think a lot of the issue people have with OMM is that there is a lack of research that provides clinical evidence for its efficacy. Much of the previous research on the various techniques demonstrated marginal benefit at best or the studies themselves suffered from major design flaws. What you end up with are a lot of anecdotal accounts of the effectiveness of OMM along with the fact that still incorporate nonsense like cranio-sacral therapy into the curriculum. So OMM really ends up sounding like a bunch of pseudoscientific gobbledygook.

This.

And btw (directed at hooligansnail), masseurs are better at alleviating musculoskeletal pain than MDs are. That doesn't make massage a valuable clinical skill.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

To the level of MD averages? This is assuming there isn't an inherent difference in the abilities of MD/DO students and MD/DO curricula (excluding OMM).

My personal belief is that the populations applying to DO & MD are largely one in the same. And they may not reach the same exact score zone, but I would think they could start hitting around average since average includes a bunch of borderline scores from IMGs.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

I think a lot of the issue people have with OMM is that there is a lack of research that provides clinical evidence for its efficacy. Much of the previous research on the various techniques demonstrated marginal benefit at best or the studies themselves suffered from major design flaws. What you end up with are a lot of anecdotal accounts of the effectiveness of OMM along with the fact that still incorporate nonsense like cranio-sacral therapy into the curriculum. So OMM really ends up sounding like a bunch of pseudoscientific gobbledygook.

In the end that's all there is. Enormous chunks of OMM have failed to stand up against the scientific method and as such are not relevant material for medical school.

 

[Escape_Goat]

In the end that's all there is. Enormous chunks of OMM have failed to stand up against the scientific method and as such are not relevant material for medical school.

Exactly.

 

[bionerd89]

To the level of MD averages? This is assuming there isn't an inherent difference in the abilities of MD/DO students and MD/DO curricula (excluding OMM).

If there was any inherent difference between MD/DO students it would be the same difference between Top Tier MD and Low Tier MD.

 

[dyspareunia]

My personal belief is that the populations applying to DO & MD are largely one in the same. And they may not reach the same exact score zone, but I would think they could start hitting around average since average includes a bunch of borderline scores from IMGs.

I have a handful of friends in DO schools and a few who also go to "top tier" MD schools. I'm a mid-tier MD myself. I wouldn't say that there is a large gap in intelligence (between us), but the work ethic and willingness to sacrifice things for school/career is much greater in my top-tier friends.

Of course that it only my experience, but I tend to believe that applies to the med student population in general.

If there was any inherent difference between MD/DO students it would be the same difference between Top Tier MD and Low Tier MD.

Not quite. If we're using entrance statistics, the gap between top tier and bottom tier MD is much narrower than mid tier MD and mid tier DO.

Top tier MD: 3.8+/37
Bottom tier MD: 3.6-3.7/31

Mid-tier MD: 3.7-3.8/32-33
Mid-tier DO: 3.5-3.6/26-27

And we all know that the gap between a 27 and a 32 MCAT is significantly greater than a 33 and a 37.

Just as the gap between a 230 and a 245 is significantly greater than the gap between a 250 and a 270.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

I have a handful of friends in DO schools and a few who also go to "top tier" MD schools. I'm a mid-tier MD myself. I wouldn't say that there is a large gap in intelligence (between us), but the work ethic and willingness to sacrifice things for school/career is much greater in my top-tier friends.

Of course that it only my experience, but I tend to believe that applies to the med student population in general.

Who knows, I still believe that the populations are similar enough.

 

[Dr. Zombie]

I have a handful of friends in DO schools and a few who also go to "top tier" MD schools. I'm a mid-tier MD myself. I wouldn't say that there is a large gap in intelligence (between us), but the work ethic and willingness to sacrifice things for school/career is much greater in my top-tier friends.

Having both MD and DO friends, I've noticed that MD friends were all gunners and most DO friends (I said most) just wanted to "get by" and finish school.

 

[dyspareunia]

Having both MD and DO friends, I've noticed that MD friends were all gunners and most DO friends (I said most) just wanted to "get by" and finish school.

About a third of my class just wants to get by. Another 20% are gunners, the rest fluctuate... Meaning the week after a test they study their asses off, then the rest of the time they get lazy again.

 

[Dr. Zombie]

About a third of my class just wants to get by. Another 20% are gunners, the rest fluctuate... Meaning the week after a test they study their asses off, then the rest of the time they get lazy again.

Where do you lay in the spectrum? Also, how were your admissions stats?

 

[bionerd89]

I have a handful of friends in DO schools and a few who also go to "top tier" MD schools. I'm a mid-tier MD myself. I wouldn't say that there is a large gap in intelligence (between us), but the work ethic and willingness to sacrifice things for school/career is much greater in my top-tier friends.

Of course that it only my experience, but I tend to believe that applies to the med student population in general.



Not quite. If we're using entrance statistics, the gap between top tier and bottom tier MD is much narrower than mid tier MD and mid tier DO.

Top tier MD: 3.8+/37
Bottom tier MD: 3.6-3.7/31

Mid-tier MD: 3.7-3.8/32-33
Mid-tier DO: 3.5-3.6/26-27

And we all know that the gap between a 27 and a 32 MCAT is significantly greater than a 33 and a 37.

Just as the gap between a 230 and a 245 is significantly greater than the gap between a 250 and a 270.

I think my point is that I don't think its fair to say there is a inherent difference in intelligence between all MD and DO students. There are DO student that did have very low entrance stats and probably shouldn't even be in med school but there are also MD students who had very low stats and got into their state school or because they are URM. I've seen so many students get into MD schools with lower stats than me just because they are URM or from states like New Mexico or South Carolina (I'm from CA so the bar here is set a little different). So yes there are less intelligent DO students just like how there are less intelligent MD students.

 

[JustPlainBill]

Interesting thread -- and oft repeated -- I can't make up my mind which way I feel -- well, that's a lie -- I get so tired of the 'osteopathic difference' -- yeah, there is a difference but it just depends on how anal retentive the MD/DO are that you're talking to....there are plenty of reasonable MDs that dont' chase the labs, aren't scientific nerds and actually treat the patient.....just like there are those that are criteria driven and can spout off CURB65/Ranson/Wells/CHADS2VASC at the drop of a hat and expect you to be able to also --- just like there are 'true believer' DOs who swear they can palpate a cranial rhythm and treat the celiac plexus through 18 inches of tissue.....PUHLEEZ.....and you can get groans from MDs and fiery, angry responses from old line DOs when you debate either position.....

For me -- There's not a whole lot that's different now about DOs vs MDs -- just the old line DOs who make it an issue -- right along with old line MDs -- once these retire, hopefully things will get better.....and quite frankly, I was at TCOM which had the ORC -- and they really did not make their case for OMM being valid or evidence or just plain common sense based -- especially cranial. As I've ranted on other threads, the most important experiment was set up by a DO/PhD OMS3 student, Marty Knott while all the other paid researchers were doing whatever it was they do.....Haven't seen much else come out of that place, but then I really don't care...when I was there the OMM department was filled with true believers with an attitude.....whatever....

 

[dyspareunia]

I think my point is that I don't think its fair to say there is a inherent difference in intelligence between all MD and DO students. There are DO student that did have very low entrance stats and probably shouldn't even be in med school but there are also MD students who had very low stats and got into their state school or because they are URM. I've seen so many students get into MD schools with lower stats than me just because they are URM or from states like New Mexico or South Carolina (I'm from CA so the bar here is set a little different). So yes there are less intelligent DO students just like how there are less intelligent MD students.

If you read my post you would have seen that I said exactly the opposite about intelligence.

 

[DocEspana]

Having both MD and DO friends, I've noticed that MD friends were all gunners and most DO friends (I said most) just wanted to "get by" and finish school.

boy, I sure am glad that the plural form of "anecdote" is "evidence"

 

[Dr. Zombie]

boy, I sure am glad that the plural form of "anecdote" is "evidence"

Yeah so am I.

 

[cbrons]

As I described in a post above.....

Almost all research in the U.S. is funded by private companies. RCT's with enough power to provide grade A or B evidence are astronomically expensive. As such, that money is only invested in areas where a pharmaceutical company has potential to make enough back to justify the cost. OMM is and never will be the kind of thing that is going to generate research trials.

Evidence based medicine is great. However, it has a real possibility for abuse for two reasons.

1. A faulty assumption seems to have weaseled its way into previously intelligent discussion. The idea that the lack of research on a subject is equivalent to negative evidence. They are not the same. Lack of research is lack or research. Period. If none exists, then you move down the line to case series, case presentations, and anecdotal evidence. While not as strong as a RCT, they still have value

2. The flow of "evidence" in this country is controlled by private companies who have a vested interest in one outcome over another. Often, these studies are biased, and there is a serious conflict of interest. That does not mean that all the drugs a pharmaceutical company comes up with are crap. It does mean that we have to treat even RCTs with skepticism.

Ever heard of the NIH?

 

[HooliganSnail]

Or, you know, we could not build an entirely separate profession based on one single treatment methodology that the vast majority of practitioners never use. OMM should be a specialty, not the foundation of a profession.

And yet it is the foundation of an entire profession. Knowing where you come from is important

 

[HooliganSnail]

Ever heard of the NIH?

You are aware that the government is broke, right? It's about trends. NIH research grants are way down.

 

[HooliganSnail]

It's because DOs have 4-6 hours less a week of time to study for the boards. The MDs I know spend all of 2nd year preparing for the boards where as most DO schools maintain a traditional classes first then boards.
Which in the end screws DOs over.

Like I've said before. OMM needs to be removed second year if we want DO board pass rates and scores to be competitive enough to not relegate them to FM.

Get real. You know most of your class doesn't start studying for the board exam until February or March of their second year, at least not seriously. The idea that OMM in second year (which is an easy class at every school btw) is the reason that board scores are lower is absurd. As if any student would be using that extra 2 hours twice a week to hit the books. They would more likely be wasting time on Facebook.

You know it be true

 

[dyspareunia]

And yet it is the foundation of an entire profession. Knowing where you come from is important

Boy do I wish we still practiced bloodletting. You know, so I could know where I came from.

 

[Mad Jack]

And yet it is the foundation of an entire profession. Knowing where you come from is important

It shouldn't be any longer. Osteopathy was founded in the days when medicines were as deadly as the diseases they caused. No longer is this the case. As medications and surgery have become the most effective means of treating patients, OMM should have become an adjunct therapy, not a core of the discipline. Physicians once let blood and drilled holes in skulls- should these obsolete practices be taught as well so we know "where we came from?" Both practices certainly still have use today (leeches for use in draining blood and assisting in the healing of skin grafts, and drilling holes through the skull to insert drains to relieve ICPs), buy we have found more useful procedures and treatments for the majority of physicians to utilize, so we leave the leeches to the plastic surgeons and the drilling of holes to neurosurgeons. OMM should be an adjunct therapy for those specialties that find it useful, not something forced on every medical student, and the two professions should subsequently merge and be done with this separate but equal nonsense.

 

[HooliganSnail]

But how do you reconcile the fact that you do learn techniques that are largely impossible to work? Cranial?

I mean as a whole most aren't using it. I don't think it's because they feel like they're not good at it, but because when they spend the morning on biochem and the evening on omm it's obvious that one is not like the other.

I don't really like cranial, I will admit it. Although even you have to admit that it feels good while its being done, and may help with headache (not drinking 10 beers helps more though)

I also think Chapman's points are a bit overstressed. It's not that I think they don't exist, I just don't think they are clinically relevant.

OMM is not the end all of medicine, but the tone on this forum is that it should be abandoned, which I think is a mistake.

 

[HooliganSnail]

It shouldn't be any longer. Osteopathy was founded in the days when medicines were as deadly as the diseases they caused. No longer is this the case. As medications and surgery have become the most effective means of treating patients, OMM should have become an adjunct therapy, not a core of the discipline. Physicians once let blood and drilled holes in skulls- should these obsolete practices be taught as well so we know "where we came from?" Both practices certainly still have use today (leeches for use in draining blood and assisting in the healing of skin grafts, and drilling holes through the skull to insert drains to relieve ICPs), buy we have found more useful procedures and treatments for the majority of physicians to utilize, so we leave the leeches to the plastic surgeons and the drilling of holes to neurosurgeons. OMM should be an adjunct therapy for those specialties that find it useful, not something forced on every medical student, and the two professions should subsequently merge and be done with this separate but equal nonsense.

In reality, OMM is an adjuct therapy used by some practicing DOs. It is a useful technique, but not appropriate in many situations. I call it a nice tool to have in the toolbelt. The amount of hours spent learning it through the four years of medical school is really very limited. It is however, one of the seven core tenants of osteopathic medicine. If you train as a DO in this country you have to demonstrate basic competency in that skill. Deal with it.

Merging is short sighted. We fought for a hundred years to be equal. I do not think we should just assimilate into the ACGME.

 

[dyspareunia]

I don't really like cranial, I will admit it. Although even you have to admit that it feels good while its being done, and may help with headache (not drinking 10 beers helps more though)

I also think Chapman's points are a bit overstressed. It's not that I think they don't exist, I just don't think they are clinically relevant.

OMM is not the end all of medicine, but the tone on this forum is that it should be abandoned, which I think is a mistake.

The tone on this forum is that OMM is not evidenced based and should be an optional form of training. If making it optional results in it being abandoned, well then the physicians have spoken and we know how worthwhile DOs really thought it was.

You're saying that OMM should stay around because it is what historically defines DOs. Which is ludicrous.

 

[HooliganSnail]

Boy do I wish we still practiced bloodletting. You know, so I could know where I came from.

DOs never practiced bloodletting. Obviously you don't know where you come from

 

[dyspareunia]

DOs never practiced bloodletting. Obviously you don't know where you come from

I'm not a DO student.

 

[HooliganSnail]

The tone on this forum is that OMM is not evidenced based and should be an optional form of training. If making it optional results in it being abandoned, well then the physicians have spoken and we know how worthwhile DOs really thought it was.

You're saying that OMM should stay around because it is what historically defines DOs. Which is ludicrous.

No it should stay around because it is a useful technique that can help patients

 

[HooliganSnail]

The tone on this forum is that OMM is not evidenced based and should be an optional form of training. If making it optional results in it being abandoned, well then the physicians have spoken and we know how worthwhile DOs really thought it was.

You're saying that OMM should stay around because it is what historically defines DOs. Which is ludicrous.

A simple pubmed search of "Osteopathic manipulation" results in 486 articles. There is not a lack of evidence

 

[dyspareunia]

A simple pubmed search of "Osteopathic manipulation" results in 486 articles. There is not a lack of evidence

Yes, a few hundred studies that show no conclusive evidence that OMM is actually worthwhile.

No it should stay around because it is a useful technique that can help patients

I'm not saying it shouldn't stay around. I'm saying it should be optional. If it really is a useful technique, physicians will learn it on a voluntary basis.

You seem to really believe in OMM utility, yet you also seem to fear that it will disappear if it isn't included in the mandatory DO curricula. Makes no sense.

 

[HooliganSnail]

I'm not a DO student.

Really? What are you doing on here then?

 

[Dr. Zombie]

Yes, a few hundred studies that show no conclusive evidence that OMM is actually worthwhile.



I'm not saying it shouldn't stay around. I'm saying it should be optional. If it really is a useful technique, physicians will learn it on a voluntary basis.

You seem to really believe in OMM utility, yet you also seem to fear that it will disappear if it isn't included in the mandatory DO curricula. Makes no sense.

I agree. It should be optional.

 

[DocEspana]

You are aware that the government is broke, right? It's about trends. NIH research grants are way down.

Still about 35% of all clinical research and >50% of all bench research in the medical field. Not as broke as you think, just more broke than it used to be.

 

[dyspareunia]

Really? What are you doing on here then?

I didn't know you wanted to keep MDs out of your sub-forum.

 

[Mad Jack]

In reality, OMM is an adjuct therapy used by some practicing DOs. It is a useful technique, but not appropriate in many situations. I call it a nice tool to have in the toolbelt. The amount of hours spent learning it through the four years of medical school is really very limited. It is however, one of the seven core tenants of osteopathic medicine. If you train as a DO in this country you have to demonstrate basic competency in that skill. Deal with it.

Merging is short sighted. We fought for a hundred years to be equal. I do not think we should just assimilate into the ACGME.

You can fight for a hundred years for something and still be wrong.

 

[HooliganSnail]

Yes, a few hundred studies that show no conclusive evidence that OMM is actually worthwhile.



I'm not saying it shouldn't stay around. I'm saying it should be optional. If it really is a useful technique, physicians will learn it on a voluntary basis.

You seem to really believe in OMM utility, yet you also seem to fear that it will disappear if it isn't included in the mandatory DO curricula. Makes no sense.

I have zero fear at all that OMM will disappear if it isn't included in the curriculum. This is all a hypothetical conversation.

You think OMM is crap and has no place in modern medicine. I think that it helps reduce pain, increase range of motion, and promote healing without the need for pharmacological therapy. I think that there is ample evidence in the above cited articles and from my own experience to warrant its continued use.

You are entitled to your opinion

 

[dyspareunia]

I have zero fear at all that OMM will disappear if it isn't included in the curriculum. This is all a hypothetical conversation.

You think OMM is crap and has no place in modern medicine. I think that it helps reduce pain, increase range of motion, and promote healing without the need for pharmacological therapy. I think that there is ample evidence in the above cited articles and from my own experience to warrant its continued use.

You are entitled to your opinion

Why not make it optional?

 

[HooliganSnail]

Still about 35% of all clinical research and >50% of all bench research in the medical field. Not as broke as you think, just more broke than it used to be.

My fear, and it should be yours too, is that as the percentage of research that is funded from private pharmacological companies continues to rise, the risk for biased "evidence" that can be used to generate profits increases.

When combined with the trend of focusing on certain "quality" metrics to determine pay scales, I fear that it could create an environment where physicians are pressured into prescribing medicine based on tainted research, or risk losing reimbursement. The big loser in that scenario is the patient, and we will all be patients one day...

 

[HooliganSnail]

You can fight for a hundred years for something and still be wrong.

I'm sorry, but did you just take a shot at the entire profession of osteopathic medicine?

That btw is exactly what DOs have been fighting for so long. And we are winning btw. Nah nah nah nah naaaaa nah!!!!!

 

[DocEspana]

My fear, and it should be yours too, is that as the percentage of research that is funded from private pharmacological companies continues to rise, the risk for biased "evidence" that can be used to generate profits increases.

When combined with the trend of focusing on certain "quality" metrics to determine pay scales, I fear that it could create an environment where physicians are pressured to providing medicine based on tainted research or risk losing reimbursement. The big loser in that scenario is the patient, and we will all be patients one day...

In what time frame are you discussing? In the last 100 years? yea its risen. In the last couple decades? This has pretty much been the status quo for amount they are involved in research. While it is always possible (and in no way unimaginable) that pharma will suddenly take a bigger bite of the research total, there is no reason to think the immediate future will be any more likely than the last couple decades to be the moment they finally decide to do that.

And BTW, there is no such thing as metrics based on tainted research. Any metric that exists is based on meta-analysis and only really figures in research that has a known number needed to treat or positive/negative predictive value. The metrics that will be put into place are all tied to level A research which basically requires those analytic values.

You cant fake those. You cant force data to create those. And no singular study can modify those. Those are compendiums of tens of different top class studies and hundreds of lesser studies that all show the same thing and can conclusively prove that this is better than that by a factor of this many lives saved per pill perscribed or test run.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

And yet it is the foundation of an entire profession. Knowing where you come from is important

Yes, keep it as a foundation and a history. But do not tout it around as valid or an enormous part of what you will be doing in the future.

Get real. You know most of your class doesn't start studying for the board exam until February or March of their second year, at least not seriously. The idea that OMM in second year (which is an easy class at every school btw) is the reason that board scores are lower is absurd. As if any student would be using that extra 2 hours twice a week to hit the books. They would more likely be wasting time on Facebook.

You know it be true

Then let them waste time on Facebook and let others have time to prep for their other more relevant and important classes.

In reality, OMM is an adjuct therapy used by some practicing DOs. It is a useful technique, but not appropriate in many situations. I call it a nice tool to have in the toolbelt. The amount of hours spent learning it through the four years of medical school is really very limited. It is however, one of the seven core tenants of osteopathic medicine. If you train as a DO in this country you have to demonstrate basic competency in that skill. Deal with it.

Merging is short sighted. We fought for a hundred years to be equal. I do not think we should just assimilate into the ACGME.

You became equal when you began to teach medicine. Osteopathic medicine is and has been moving towards assimilating into mainstream medicine because it is no different than it. You may tout a philosophical difference, or a belief regarding that or this, but the reality is that it's been incorporated into the medical model because both program types use the psycho-social paradigm. Regardless of whether or not you spend 200 hours on OMM, osteopathic medicine has become medicine and as such being called osteopathic physicians makes no sense and in reality makes people believe you're a bone doctor.

And for an adjunct therapy it takes up an enormous amount of time. I don't think it needs to be abandoned entirely but I think it needs to change, I think that it needs to be reduced. And as you've said, remove clinical unimportant parts and you'll have that reduction.

 

[HooliganSnail]

Why not make it optional?

It is optional, once you have graduated from medical school. You are not required to use OMM ever again.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

I'm sorry, but did you just take a shot at the entire profession of osteopathic medicine?

That btw is exactly what DOs have been fighting for so long. And we are winning btw. Nah nah nah nah naaaaa nah!!!!!

If anything I'll take a shot at any theocratic organization and any profession that defends them. And winning what? You do realize that the new generation hold no love for the old ways and they hold no respect for sustaining a theocratic organization like the AOA. They aspire to end the distinction and practice medicine, not to be the living extension of A.T. Still's will.

 

[HooliganSnail]

In what time frame are you discussing? In the last 100 years? yea its risen. In the last couple decades? This has pretty much been the status quo for amount they are involved in research. While it is always possible (and in no way unimaginable) that pharma will suddenly take a bigger bite of the research total, there is no reason to think the immediate future will be any more likely than the last couple decades to be the moment they finally decide to do that.

And BTW, there is no such thing as metrics based on tainted research. Any metric that exists is based on meta-analysis and only really figures in research that has a known number needed to treat or positive/negative predictive value. The metrics that will be put into place are all tied to level A research which basically requires those analytic values.

You cant fake those. You cant force data to create those. And no singular study can modify those. Those are compendiums of tens of different top class studies and hundreds of lesser studies that all show the same thing and can conclusively prove that this is better than that by a factor of this many lives saved per pill perscribed or test run.

I have land in Florida you should buy....