- Joined
- Mar 9, 2007
- Messages
- 319
- Reaction score
- 1
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
Oh my god you win
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
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!
If OMM is not the core principle of DO programs, then who cares if it's the core of osteopathy? According to your own statement, it's a non-issue. And even there you are wrong, OMM was not ever the core principle of osteopathy, it was only the most widely recognized aspect of it.
The osteopathic medical philosophy is defined as the concept of health care that embraces the concept of the unity of the living organism's structure (anatomy) and function (physiology). These are the four major principles of osteopathic medicine:[2]
- The body is a unit. An integrated unit of mind, body, and spirit ("Man is Triune" – A.T. Still[19]).
- The body possesses self-regulatory mechanisms, having the inherent capacity to defend, repair, and remodel itself.
- Structure and function are reciprocally interrelated.
- Rational therapy is based on consideration of the first three principles.
Taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osteopathy#Osteopathic_principles
Do you see the word OMM anywhere in there? Or anything about manipulation? In fact, does anything there even sound like something any physician would disagree with, MD or DO? Please don't try to act like you know something when you clearly have no knowledge of it.
And have you ever read a single piece of scientific literature concerning OMM? Just because I gave a single example of anecdotal evidence doesn't mean I haven't seen scientific literature backing what I saw. Don't try and strip down my credibility by assuming false things about me because it won't work. and don't try talking down on me as if I'm some sort of scientifically inept idiot. Like it or not, I have more authority and experience than you on whether OMM is complete garbage or if it has some use. You only know what you have read, which I'm willing to bet is basically whatever other people on SDN say, so your opinion on OMM is not based on anything real and is completely uneducated. Even though I hate OMM, I have actual valid reasons to do so. But just because I dislike OMM doesn't mean I like to see people spread mis-information about it.
johnny - I agree with you for the most part. I feel no matter how coincidentally accurate a pseudoscience is, the misunderstanding of the fundamental mechanisms is problematic and only opens the door for misinterpretation and harm down the road. However I do feel that this can be redeemed if the fundamentals are worked out later. Some parts of OMM have done this. But still... I dont see sound evidence other than catering to the anti-pill crowd that this is any better than normal allo...er... MD treatments. Nor is anything OMM has to offer curative in any sense.... I also dislike it on that principle
Do they do any studies of OMM vs sham OMM? I somehow doubt it, and that's really the only thing that could validate any of their theories.
I think that a huge misconception many of you have that although there are certainly parts of OMM that are not proven to work, and some parts that are just outright insane, there are also parts that just make sense if you know how the body works
I think that a huge misconception many of you have that although there are certainly parts of OMM that are not proven to work, and some parts that are just outright insane, there are also parts that just make sense if you know how the body works.
And if you are genuinely interested in reading about what OMM research looks like, here's one: http://ebm.rsmjournals.com/content/237/1/58.long
I'd be genuinely impressed if you can "tear" apart a research article published in an experimental biology journal by a trio of PhDs.
this is why so many chiropractic studies seem successful. they gauge how the patient "feels". And lets be honest, having someone beat on you in designated areas for a half hour feels pretty damn good but this doesnt necessarily make it an effective treatment . I would be interested to see a study which looked at delay before recurrence of symptoms based on various manipulative techniques vs placebo vs meds.Can't get behind the pay wall right now, but unless they compare OMM techniques to random massage by someone not trained in OMM (eg a masseuse in a white coat), this is not a valid study.
It's the same as acupuncture vs sham acupuncture. Both have an effect, but the BS built around acupuncture is just that, BS.
Additionally, picking a random study proves nothing. A p value of 0.05 means that 1/20 studies will be wrong (easy to cherry pick those ones). It needs to be easily reproducible.
This is all off topic though, and belongs in the usual DO threads. Unless you have a reason to call MDs "allopaths", stop posting about this.
It's boring and remains pseudoscience, despite your protestations. So is acupuncture, Reiki, and chiropractic. All may have physiological effects, but their foundations are built upon bull plop.
no.... that is basically exactly what i said.
Are you taught the parts that seem outright insane, or is that mostly of historical interest, along with blood letting, hair of the dog that bit you, etc? And if the insane stuff is still being taught, it there anyone in the profession advocating to change that?