Allopathic?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Words are not just words. Words have meanings. As people that are supposed to be communicate effectively, we use words that are the most appropriate for the situation. By the selection of one's words, one can show himself to be ignorant and inconsiderate.

As a polite society, we've decided that a group of people should be allowed to name themselves. Oriental and Occidental are ways to differentiate two types of people, but we don't use the former because Asians object to the history and the meaning.

Chiropractors don't post in a forum called Quack Talk. They're probably smarter than us in that respect.

My point was that in some states, their laws refer to MDs as Allopathic physicians (i.e. that's the legal name for MDs in those states); The OP and others on this thread were making it sound like it's an uncommon term used as a derogatory term or only on SDN.

Also, to use the example you used and compare or equate racial bigotry, to calling MDs allopathic physicians is disrespectful to those races at best.

Members don't see this ad.
 
Last edited:
My point was that in some states, their laws refer to MDs as Allopathic physicians (i.e. that's the legal name for MDs in those states); The OP and others on this thread were making it sound like it's an uncommon term used as a derogatory term or only on SDN.

Also, to use the example you used and compare or equate racial bigotry that many had/have suffered, to calling MDs allopathic physicians is disrespectful to those races at best.

A Google search of laws does not prove something is common nor derogatory. What percentage of medicine-related laws use allopathic compared to just medicine? And further, how does it prove that the term is not derogatory. You're basically ignoring everything in the thread that details how the term is derogatory.

I love your second argument. It's okay to be disrespectful to MDs because they don't have it as worse as racial groups. It makes no sense, is an appeal on emotions, and completely ignores the point of the comparison. So, you admit that words aren't just words?
 
A Google search of laws does not prove something is common nor derogatory. What percentage of medicine-related laws use allopathic compared to just medicine? And further, how does it prove that the term is not derogatory. You're basically ignoring everything in the thread that details how the term is derogatory.

I love your second argument. It's okay to be disrespectful to MDs because they don't have it as worse as racial groups. It makes no sense, is an appeal on emotions, and completely ignores the point of the comparison. So, you admit that words aren't just words?

So are you saying that states that under their laws call MDs, allopathic physicians are doing so in a derogatory way and somehow are discriminating against MDs? Don't be ridiculous! Even the AMA commonly uses the term "allopathic" to refer to MDs;

Just to be clear I never said it's ok to be disrespectful to MDs or anyone else. But regardless of how you or others perceive the term "allopathic", it is not the same or even close to a racial slur and for you to equate the two is shameful. Words are words! It's all about context; If anyone uses the term "allopathic" or "osteopathic" or any other term to be disrespectful to a group of people (like many on SDN do) shame on them.
 
Last edited:
Members don't see this ad :)
So are you saying that in states that under their laws call MDs, allopathic physicians are doing so in a derogatory way and somehow are discriminating against MDs? Don't be ridiculous! Even the AMA commonly uses the term "allopathic" to refer to MDs;

Just to be clear I never said it's ok to be disrespectful to MDs or anyone else. But regardless of how you or others perceive the term "allopathic", it is not the same or even close to a racial slur and for you to equate the two is shameful. Words are words! It's all about context; If anyone uses the term "allopathic" or "osteopathic" or any other term to be disrespectful to a group of people (like many on SDN do) shame on them.

I've never heard the word allopathic as derogatory term on SDN.......
 
I've never heard the word allopathic as derogatory term on SDN.......

Not on SDN, but anyplace where the discussion is centered around the evils of modern medicine (led by homeopaths, naturopaths, anti-vaccinators, etc.), "allopaths" are definitely the enemy. Actually, in these discussions, "allopaths" just means anyone who went to actual medical school and uses evidence-based medicine and prescribes drugs, so it includes both DOs and MDs.
 
I've never heard the word allopathic as derogatory term on SDN.......

That's just it - people treat it like a normal term when it isn't. It's a homeopathic term that has been adopted by osteopathic people.

It's utter nonsense and should not be propagated on these forums or by the AMA.
 
My point was that in some states, their laws refer to MDs as Allopathic physicians (i.e. that's the legal name for MDs in those states); The OP and others on this thread were making it sound like it's an uncommon term used as a derogatory term or only on SDN.

Also, to use the example you used and compare or equate racial bigotry, to calling MDs allopathic physicians is disrespectful to those races at best.

There were once US laws that used the term 'Negro'. At least one is assuredly still on the books somewhere.

Do I really have to spell this out for you? People don't want to be called that, the laws were written by stupid (to put it mildly) people, etc.

And before you get all obtuse about it, no, I'm not equating this situation to Jim Crow, but 'words are words' is a nonsense argument.
 
There were once US laws that used the term 'Negro'. At least one is assuredly on the books somewhere.

Do I really have to spell this out for you?

The term "allopathic" is stupid, but when you start bringing in Civil Rights analogies you're bring ridiculous. You might as well jump straight to Godwin's Law.
 
The term "allopathic" is stupid, but when you start bringing in Civil Rights analogies you're bring ridiculous. You might as well jump straight to Godwin's Law.

Yeah, yeah. He said the same thing re: 'Orientals' already.

Congress using a stupid word does not render it less stupid, IMO. I suppose there are less inflammatory examples but I can't think of any.

edit: Actually, I can!

"Democrat Party" is a political epithet used in the United States instead of "Democratic Party" when talking about the Democratic Party. The term has been used in negative or hostile fashion by conservative commentators and members of the Republican Party in party platforms, partisan speeches and press releases since 1940.

Multiple reasons are suggested for the use of the term. A 1984 New York Times article suggested Republicans began to use the term when Democrats used their own party name to imply "they are the only true adherents of democracy." Republicans "feared that 'Democratic' suggested Democrats [had] a monopoly on or are somehow the anointed custodians of the concept of democracy." New Yorker commentator Hendrik Hertzberg wrote, "There's no great mystery about the motives behind this deliberate misnaming. 'Democrat Party' is a slur, or intended to be—a handy way to express contempt. Aesthetic judgments are subjective, of course, but 'Democrat Party' is jarring verging on ugly. It fairly screams 'rat.'" Political analyst Charlie Cook attributed modern use of the term to force of habit rather than a deliberate epithet by Republicans. Ruth Marcus stated that Republicans likely only continue to employ the term because Democrats dislike it. Marcus stated that disagreements over use of the term are "trivial", and Hertzberg calls use of the term "a minor irritation" and also "the partisan equivalent of flashing a gang sign." Theologian William Dinges, however, argues:

Names and labels count in public discourse. The have social and political consequences. They carry residual imaginative meaning and shape how we remember and perceive something. The power to name is the power to define. The power to define is the power to socially locate and designate and (in some cases) to condemn what is labeled deviant or nonnormative.

Threadbombing level = MAD, but I rest my case.
 
Last edited:
Poor Jonnydrama getting his degree 'bashed' by others, can't imagine what that is like...


I'll accept the term allopath when DOs abandon the term doctor.

:smuggrin:

Just teasing.

In all honesty, would still not know what a DO was if not for SDN. Outside of the Midwest, they still aren't widely accepted.

The only things I object to are the terminology (ie allopathic vs osteopathic) and OMM (ie glorified chiropractic). DO programs should all be converted to MD programs and this silly debate stopped once and for all.

Better drive carefully... :smuggrin:
 
I'll accept the term allopath when DOs abandon the term doctor.

:smuggrin:

Typical ignant comment. Similar to ones you made about ODs:
Shouldn't you go back to Walmart and get back to handing out contacts?

And then you get schooled by one of your own:
I could say "go back to reading and dictating reports of 50 portable cxrs that were done in the ICU 7 hours ago and already seen and acted upon" but that would be stooping to your level.

Just teasing.

In all honesty, would still not know what a DO was if not for SDN. Outside of the Midwest, they still aren't widely accepted.

The only things I object to are the terminology (ie allopathic vs osteopathic) and OMM (ie glorified chiropractic). DO programs should all be converted to MD programs and this silly debate stopped once and for all.

Sure, I really believe you that you are JUST teasing, ya I really do.

In any case you bring up a good point. In a lot of ways it would be better to have DOs and MDs to be one and the same. Also for optometrists to not be doctors. It indeed would be less confusing and more efficient (though that can be argued as most other countries start MD school at around age 18)

I was all for applying to MD school before I came on these forums and learned about the overly complex nature of the United States healthcare system. I then researched laws and scopes of practices and found what I love now. And I'm so glad I did. Law > Medicine (and anything you have to say) in terms of control. So the take home message is that the healthcare system is, frankly, screwed up and you just need to find the path that makes most sense for you and not just blindly gun for MD school like most other people. I've had many doctors tell me they'd rather be dentists now because of the amazing reimbursements they get. Not so much the other way around.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Poor Jonnydrama getting his degree 'bashed' by others, can't imagine what that is like...

You're right, I should play nice, but I'm not complaining about my degree being bashed - it's about the acceptance of a pseudoscience term ("allopathic") into common parlance.

I'm against pseudoscience in general, and if you want me to respect your degree, drop OMM. Or at least start practicing something more believable, like voodoo or witchcraft.
 
But regardless of how you or others perceive the term "allopathic", it is not the same or even close to a racial slur and for you to equate the two is shameful.

Stop. Just stop. Us Asians neither need nor want your white knighting. It's abundantly clear from your posts that you have no idea about the transition from Oriental to Asian in the American lexicon, or the reasoning. All you see is a no-no word that someone told you not to use, and you jump into a sanctimonious and incredibly uninformed shamefest.

One of our primary and rational reasons include a stupid, antiquated, and condescending etymology (like allopathic) given to us by someone else (like homeopathy). Oriental was the ubiquitous word of choice, not a racial slur, and perfectly fine by society standards of that time, but rejected for good reasons.

Cue the repeated "Words are words. Context. Shame."
 
You're right, I should play nice, but I'm not complaining about my degree being bashed - it's about the acceptance of a pseudoscience term ("allopathic") into common parlance.

I'm against pseudoscience in general, and if you want me to respect your degree, drop OMM. Or at least start practicing something more believable, like voodoo or witchcraft.

Cut me deep with that one JD, don't go insulting my wiccan sisters. There are plenty of terms that are used by people to describe things that have nothing to do with what those things actually are. The real issue here is a med student that has too much time on his hands and not enough non-virtual friends. Most people don't know what allopathic means and most who do equate it to MD/DO. You taking issue with an archaic term that has really no modern day negative connotations is frankly immature and alludes to someone in need of a hobby.... may I suggest OMM?
 
Cut me deep with that one JD, don't go insulting my wiccan sisters. There are plenty of terms that are used by people to describe things that have nothing to do with what those things actually are. The real issue here is a med student that has too much time on his hands and not enough non-virtual friends. Most people don't know what allopathic means and most who do equate it to MD/DO. You taking issue with an archaic term that has really no modern day negative connotations is frankly immature and alludes to someone in need of a hobby.... may I suggest OMM?

There's nothing immature about disagreeing with the use of a term that has its roots in homeopathy.

I don't think people are using it in a derogatory fashion, I just think that it lends credence to pseudoscience.

And sorry, I'll pick up voodoo first - seems more practical.
 
Most people don't know what allopathic means and most who do equate it to MD/DO. You taking issue with an archaic term that has really no modern day negative connotations is frankly immature and alludes to someone in need of a hobby.... may I suggest OMM?

I know what allopathic means, as do at least several of my classmates and professors. Many of us understand that it's a pejorative term cooked up by homeopaths, and prefer not to have it applied to us. No, I don't fly into a rage when someone innocently uses it, and no, I don't cry myself to sleep at night over it. But I'd rather people used a different word, one that wasn't created specifically to insult my chosen profession by a notorious crank.

You can say that it doesn't have negative connotations, and apparently to you it doesn't. But it does to other of us. You're really speaking too broadly here.
 
Yeah, yeah. He said the same thing re: 'Orientals' already.

Congress using a stupid word does not render it less stupid, IMO. I suppose there are less inflammatory examples but I can't think of any.

edit: Actually, I can!



Threadbombing level = MAD, but I rest my case.

Allow me to give you another example. As a very liberal person it is my honor to be called a liberal but when conservatives call me a liberal they are not doing it to compliment me but that doesn't make liberal a bad word so again in my example and even your example it is all about the context in which the word is being used not the actual word.

Stop. Just stop. Us Asians neither need nor want your white knighting. It's abundantly clear from your posts that you have no idea about the transition from Oriental to Asian in the American lexicon, or the reasoning. All you see is a no-no word that someone told you not to use, and you jump into a sanctimonious and incredibly uninformed shamefest.

One of our primary and rational reasons include a stupid, antiquated, and condescending etymology (like allopathic) given to us by someone else (like homeopathy). Oriental was the ubiquitous word of choice, not a racial slur, and perfectly fine by society standards of that time, but rejected for good reasons.

Cue the repeated "Words are words. Context. Shame."

Wow.... I did not expect that one! You obviously have some major self-identity issues/crisis which I hope you are working on. Keep us posted on your progress and good luck!

I know what allopathic means, as do at least several of my classmates and professors. Many of us understand that it's a pejorative term cooked up by homeopaths, and prefer not to have it applied to us. No, I don't fly into a rage when someone innocently uses it, and no, I don't cry myself to sleep at night over it. But I'd rather people used a different word, one that wasn't created specifically to insult my chosen profession by a notorious crank.

You can say that it doesn't have negative connotations, and apparently to you it doesn't. But it does to other of us. You're really speaking too broadly here.

As long as your parent organizations (namely the AMA) continue to regularly use the term "allopathic", you can't fault others for doing the same when used in the right context (mainly to differentiate the two types of physicians in this country).

Also the AMA represents more MDs than the 10 people who have commented on this forum so if anything, you all are the ones applying your opinions too broadly...

Lastly, if you get rid of "allopathic" they start using "MD" in a negative sense as many of them already do. So again it gets back to what I said, it's all about context!

In summary whatever you all want to call yourselves is fine with me; I was just pointing out that the term has accepted usage in a non-derogatory sense!
 
The objection to the term "allopathic" is actually the opposite of the objection to those other terms.

The other terms actually have benign origins, they literally mean "black" or "Eastern" (literally, "rising", as opposed to "occidental", ie "setting"). They became unacceptable through usage and negative connotations. Eventually the modern terms will be deemed unacceptable too and replaced with new ones.

Allopathic is at its root ridiculous, so a completely different beast.
 
There's nothing immature about disagreeing with the use of a term that has its roots in homeopathy.

I don't think people are using it in a derogatory fashion, I just think that it lends credence to pseudoscience.

And sorry, I'll pick up voodoo first - seems more practical.

You are right JD, fight the good fight against the word allopathic. You are definitely not someone with too much time on their hands.
 
You are right JD, fight the good fight against the word allopathic. You are definitely not someone with too much time on their hands.

I'm a post Match 4th year wasting time on the SDN iPhone app while enjoying the sun outside. I definitely have time on my hands. :D

So do you apparently.
 
I'm a post Match 4th year wasting time on the SDN iPhone app while enjoying the sun outside. I definitely have time on my hands. :D

So do you apparently.

eh, I probably shouldn't be online... vodoo practical tomorrow I need to get serious about. Might I suggest making a few non internet friends to enjoy the sun with :D
 
eh, I probably shouldn't be online... vodoo practical tomorrow I need to get serious about. Might I suggest making a few non internet friends to enjoy the sun with :D

There's plenty of time for that tonight. Enjoy your voodoo!

Just remember:

Eye of newt, and toe of frog, Wool of bat, and tongue of dog, Adder's fork, and blind-worm's sting, Lizard's leg, and owlet's wing.

Don't want to offend the ghost of AT Still.

PS Even Wikipedia groups you with chiropractors. ;)
 
There's plenty of time for that tonight. Enjoy your voodoo!

Just remember:

Eye of newt, and toe of frog, Wool of bat, and tongue of dog, Adder's fork, and blind-worm's sting, Lizard's leg, and owlet's wing.

Don't want to offend the ghost of AT Still.

PS Even Wikipedia groups you with chiropractors. ;)

What a stupid and misinformed statement JD, everyone knows it's eye of frog toe of newt. I don't even know what weird concoction you would make with eye of newt. Wiki can place the profession where ever they would like doesn't really bother me, although if they are going to place me anywhere I'd prefer to be placed with the sorcerers of yore. The medical establishment groups me right alongside you, and you know what? I'm fine with that. I think we are building a fantastic foundation for a lifelong relationship. I know you are growing up and heading into residency but..... pen pals?








I don't want to lose you.....
 
Just teasing.

In all honesty, would still not know what a DO was if not for SDN. Outside of the Midwest, they still aren't widely accepted.

The only things I object to are the terminology (ie allopathic vs osteopathic) and OMM (ie glorified chiropractic). DO programs should all be converted to MD programs and this silly debate stopped once and for all.

DOs are recognized much more than just in the Midwest. Texas, for example, is full of DOs all over the place.

And OMM is not the same as chiropractic medicine. I'm a DO student, and while I don't agree with everything in OMM or even like it very much, I do know that there are significant differences between what we are taught and what chiropractors are taught. There are certainly similarities, as there are similarities with OMM and what PTs and massage therapists do, but it's just that, similarities due to overlap. It's much more complicated than labeling it as glorified chiropractic medicine.

And I do agree that DO schools should just become MD schools with OMM being a separate and optional certification. It would simplify the board examination process and just end this unnecessary separation.

And I find it disappointing that a medical student would be ridiculing other fellow medical students. If you have a problem with OMM, that's fine, so do the majority of DO students, but being disrespectful to other DO students is not necessary. We work just as hard and jump through the same hoops as everyone else. You claim to be simply teasing, but it's more than obvious you are not and it's also obvious you feel superior to us, which is a misplaced feeling. You shouldn't complain about how you find the term allopathic derogatory and then turn around and insult an entire profession of people who will be your future colleagues.
 
Last edited:
DOs are recognized much more than just in the Midwest. Texas, for example, is full of DOs all over the place.

And OMM is not the same as chiropractic medicine. I'm a DO student, and while I don't agree with everything in OMM or even like it very much, I do know that there are significant differences between what we are taught and what chiropractors are taught. There are certainly similarities, as there are similarities with OMM and what PTs and massage therapists do, but it's just that, similarities due to overlap. It's much more complicated than labeling it as glorified chiropractic medicine.

And I do agree that DO schools should just become MD schools with OMM being a separate and optional certification. It would simplify the board examination process and just end this unnecessary separation.

And I find it disappointing that a medical student would be ridiculing other fellow medical students. If you have a problem with OMM, that's fine, so do the majority of DO students, but being disrespectful to other DO students is not necessary. We work just as hard and jump through the same hoops as everyone else. You claim to be simply teasing, but it's more than obvious you are not and it's also obvious you feel superior to us, which is a misplaced feeling. You shouldn't complain about how you find the term allopathic derogatory and then turn around and insult an entire profession of people who will be your future colleagues.

DO student here:

Having learned OMM and used it (unlike JohnnyDrama), I can say that some of it is useful, some it is crap. Either way I personally dont enjoy learning it and I dont see myself every using it in a clinical setting (as I dont plan on doing FM, sports med, or PMR). But I thought I would give it a shot and came in with an open mind.

As said, we learn the exact same diseases, drugs, etc as you do. We have have this additional course. Most of us take the USMLE too.

I do agree that DO should be turned into MD with an additional certification in OMM, but thats never going to happen as the AOA loves to claim "DOs are better because they have the osteopathic touch.....which means you know OMM.... and might be a bit better with people (this has zero science to even back this up).

Whether you like it or not, we will be your future colleagues no matter where you practice.

You can chill, we wont be trying to convince you that your treatment for Subarachnoid hematoma is wrong and the patient needs OMM lol
 
I have no ill will towards DO students (except those who take OMM seriously).

I only object to the pseudoscientific views at the core of your degree. The AOA should be abolished and DO schools converted to MD schools (with the exception of one or two that might not pass certification).

OMM should not be a separate certificate, any more than there should be joint MD/Chiropractor programs.

And while the osteopathy part of your curriculum is a different school than chiropractic, it has the same legitimacy.
 
Doctors did therapeutic amputations even in the 1800's. Arsenic is an effective treatment for a number of diseases. Etc.

Many meds today don't work. And many do make people sicker.

Our treatment for cancer is to give you a toxic chemical that hopefully kills the cancer before it kills you. Tell me that's not barbaric.

And what would you suggest instead for cancer? An Rx w blanks for a bucket list? Your examples come before EBM which was instated to avoid "barbaric" practices to the best of our ability
 
Of course not. Modern medicine has it's own similar drugs. Vioxx et al.

Many drugs we currently use will be pulled/restricted in the future when we realize we are doing more harm than good. For example, statins will likely only be used in those with severe cardiovascular disease.

Vioxx is.not an example of a modern drug as it was pulled 8 years ago. Statins are fine. Weve been over that about 6 times already





In what sense? Primitive relative to some non-specified future date? Everything is definitionally primitive if your point of reference is where we might be in 100 years.

What matters is whether or not there is evidence the treatment works.

Yeah, the adverse effects of chemo suck, but so does dying of cancer and chemo is often the best way to avoid or forestall that. If it is in line with the patient's priorities, it is hardly barbaric. It is offering the standard of care based on observed results, rather than unfounded theories or convincing guesses.
:thumbup:






Barriers to entry are not necessarily a good thing. How many people have died because of FDA-related delays in their introduction to the market? Every piece of legislation comes with an opportunity cost.
you have a bad habit of only presenting a "damned if you do damned if you don't" scenario.







Not sure what your point is. Do we need big brother to watch our drugs or not?
Exactly
 
There were once US laws that used the term 'Negro'. At least one is assuredly still on the books somewhere.

Do I really have to spell this out for you? People don't want to be called that, the laws were written by stupid (to put it mildly) people, etc.

And before you get all obtuse about it, no, I'm not equating this situation to Jim Crow, but 'words are words' is a nonsense argument.
I read an anthropology paper recently that related to body measurements of "whites and negroes". Written 2005. What would you suggest they say instead? (P.s. this is a trap)
 
I have no ill will towards DO students (except those who take OMM seriously).

I only object to the pseudoscientific views at the core of your degree. The AOA should be abolished and DO schools converted to MD schools (with the exception of one or two that might not pass certification).

OMM should not be a separate certificate, any more than there should be joint MD/Chiropractor programs.

And while the osteopathy part of your curriculum is a different school than chiropractic, it has the same legitimacy.

OMM is not at the core of the DO degree. In fact, OMM is not actually the point of the "philosophy" that the DO schools like to boast about. Our knowledge of conventional medicine is no different than what is taught at any other medical school. It is not as if my Cardiopulmonary lectures had OMM stuck in it. The amount of time spent doing OMM is insignificant compared to the amount of time in other classes, so trying to claim it is the "core" of what we learn is ridiculous.

And as an MD student, I know for a fact you don't know anything about OMM as I knew nothing about it before starting medical school, so your opinion of its legitimacy is based on nothing but pure speculation. It seems like your aggressive stance is based on things you have heard rather than things you have seen. I do not like OMM, but I know enough about it to realize that is isn't completely scientific mumbo-jumbo, and there is research backing a good portion of it up. There are parts that are less tested scientifically, and I recognize that, but your view that it's all 100% pseudoscience is itself a very uneducated opinion. I am an extremely skeptical person, but I have seen OMM treatments significantly help patients with my own eyes. Will I ever practice it after graduation? Probably not.
 
OMM is not at the core of the DO degree. In fact, OMM is not actually the point of the "philosophy" that the DO schools like to boast about. Our knowledge of conventional medicine is no different than what is taught at any other medical school. It is not as if my Cardiopulmonary lectures had OMM stuck in it. The amount of time spent doing OMM is insignificant compared to the amount of time in other classes, so trying to claim it is the "core" of what we learn is ridiculous.

And as an MD student, I know for a fact you don't know anything about OMM as I knew nothing about it before starting medical school, so your opinion of its legitimacy is based on nothing but pure speculation. It seems like your aggressive stance is based on things you have heard rather than things you have seen. I do not like OMM, but I know enough about it to realize that is isn't completely scientific mumbo-jumbo, and there is research backing a good portion of it up. There are parts that are less tested scientifically, and I recognize that, but your view that it's all 100% pseudoscience is itself a very uneducated opinion. I am an extremely skeptical person, but I have seen OMM treatments significantly help patients with my own eyes. Will I ever practice it after graduation? Probably not.

OMM was essentially pulled out of AT Still's butt.

Some of what was called traditional medicine back there was dangerous, so a good massage and some placebos could have been the safer therapy. That doesn't legitimize the practice.

OMM is the core principle of osteopathy. The reason it is no longer the core of most DO programs is because they are really just MD programs with looser accreditation requirements (that then have to play lip service to osteopathy or fall under the stricter guidelines of the LCME).

"I am an extremely skeptical person, but I have seen OMM treatments significantly help patients with my own eyes."

This is a classic example of a scientifically illiterate viewpoint. Anecdotes are not evidence, especially without a control group (a good massage without any osteopathic knowledge).

I hope you know better when looking at scientific literature, and I sincerely hope that your program (DO or MD) teaches you better analytical skills than that.

Otherwise, I have some magic rocks to sell you that cure the common cold in less than a week!
 
but back on topic.... It doesn't bother me at all that the term "allopathic" was coined by a homeopath back at a time when medicine was an uncontrolled and dangerous practice. Homeopathy was formed as a rebellion to some medical practices. However, I can take a great amount of pride that the practice I ascribe to saw where it was and how to improve and has since evolved into what we have now. Homeopathy is still just as much voodoo as the day it was conceived :thumbup:
 
but back on topic.... It doesn't bother me at all that the term "allopathic" was coined by a homeopath back at a time when medicine was an uncontrolled and dangerous practice. Homeopathy was formed as a rebellion to some medical practices. However, I can take a great amount of pride that the practice I ascribe to saw where it was and how to improve and has since evolved into what we have now. Homeopathy is still just as much voodoo as the day it was conceived :thumbup:

But you have to admit, the osteopathic part of the DO is as much fooey as it ever was.
 
but back on topic.... It doesn't bother me at all that the term "allopathic" was coined by a homeopath back at a time when medicine was an uncontrolled and dangerous practice. Homeopathy was formed as a rebellion to some medical practices.

Agreed. For much of history, going to the doctor could be worse for your health than not. The medical profession had to put a lot of effort in the nineteenth/early twentieth century to make itself respectable...in fact the ubiquitous white coat was adopted in an effort to mimic natural scientists because, in the hopes some of the good public image would rub off.
 
But you have to admit, the osteopathic part of the DO is as much fooey as it ever was.

There are some good rationales behind a few of the therapies. However there are also a few that are simply bad.... I have a difficult time with anything that lacks a clear and coherent mechanism or that has a mechanism that is contradictory to other basic scientific principles (thinking very heavily about cranial here and the stuff about "getting in tune" with a patient). There is a chasm between administering a drug differently because EBM suggests it is better and developing an entire treatment technique set on false foundations. This is what chiropractors do. OMM needs quite a bit of fat trimmed. Not that we do not... but we make every attempt to and do not jealously guard practices as dogma that are rooted in fallacy.

so in a nutshell, I agree with you - OMM stands as an outward identifier to keep osteopathic medicine its own group. There isnt really any good reason to have two distinct professions and there are too many back-doors in my opinion. But I am not ready to poopoo on OMM as a whole.... that said - I dont think there is anything OMM does that is intrinsically better than some PT and pain killers :smuggrin:
 
Too many DO students seem to come down with OMM Stockholm Syndrome. It's holding you hostage!! Kick it in the nuts and run for your professional life.

And yes, stop calling MDs "allopathic". :smuggrin:
 
Too many DO students seem to come down with OMM Stockholm Syndrome. It's holding you hostage!! Kick it in the nuts and run for your professional life.

And yes, stop calling MDs "allopathic". :smuggrin:

the letters dont always keep the symmetry when discussing "osteopathic" stuff and I find myself in need of an opposing term. Do you think "medicine" vs "osteopathic medicine" would fly?
 
the letters dont always keep the symmetry when discussing "osteopathic" stuff and I find myself in need of an opposing term. Do you think "medicine" vs "osteopathic medicine" would fly?

Just say MD vs DO. Or traditional medicine, Western medicine, etc. The usual terms used as a contrast to CAM BS.
 
you like traditional/western over allopathic? We only currently have to say "western" due to an influx of hippies who want to have their chakras cleared by crystals..... aside from having silly roots, why do you hate "allopathic"? Were you touched inappropriately by an allopathist once? :smuggrin:
 
you like traditional/western over allopathic? We only currently have to say "western" due to an influx of hippies who want to have their chakras cleared by crystals..... aside from having silly roots, why do you hate "allopathic"? Were you touched inappropriately by an allopathist once? :smuggrin:

There's no such thing as an allopath.

It's a dumb term created by the 19th century equivalent of those hippies.

If you'd prefer, yes, the appropriate distinction would be medicine vs. osteopathy.

The part of your curriculum that is real is just medicine. The rest is osteopathy/AT Still's gibberish ideas.
 
Post a pic of your inaugural MD tattoo as proof :shifty:

You want the one w the initials or the whole name of the school? fun story, its actually the same tattoo and just depends on how excited I am at the moment
 
Top