Allopathic?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
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 :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Members don't see this ad.
 
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.
 
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.

I don't care how much authority you have in OMM, nor do I care how much experience you have in defense against the dark arts, potions, or Quidditch.

I don't even really care about studies about OMM, because I highly doubt they are well controlled (and almost by definition they are not conducted by unbiased third parties). The main one is hogwash about OMM helping with the Spanish flu.

And the whole function structure etc part of AT Still's thesis is the basis for OMM, so yes it is at its core. What do you think the bolded parts of his doctrine mean?

I really have no interest in pouring through the OMM literature, but feel free to give me a few key references and I'll tear them apart. My main objection is to the premise itself and the origins of the "theory".

I am morally opposed to pseudoscience, and if you aren't, you really should question whether you're worthy of the title, "doctor".
 
Members don't see this ad :)
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
 
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.
 
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 am not aware of any. I have seen some OMM techniques studied. And more modern disciplines like PT have picked up HVLA (or at least are toying with it). I still feel like the AOA doesnt allow the good to be separated from the bad..... so it is kinda like the award winning chili that just happens to have a few dog turds floating in it. Chances are you wont end up with one of those nuggets, but you cannot necessarily differentiate it from the burger till it is too late. I just liked that a few of the techniques had sound physio behind them rather than hocus pokus
 
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. Alot of OMM is not too different than muscle stretching, the type athletes do before games, it's just taken to a slightly different level. These things that are sensible are what most DOs perform if they do any OMM at all. Remember, DOs are physicians too, so most of them know when something is just outright ridiculous, that's why very few actually stick with OMM after graduation. The crazy OMM that everyone hears about is practiced by very, very few DOs that chose to specialize in that field. People don't seem to realize that OMM is an extremely broad spectrum of techniques, and yes some of it is pseudoscience, but the categories that exist of OMM are huge and you can't dismiss all of it as pseudoscience because it's not all at the same level of "crazy". And this also why you can't simply do research in OMM because there are almost infinite things that would have to be tested. I wish more OMM could be researched that way we can filter out the ridiculous things we learn and just focus on things that are proven to work, but I don't think it's a feasible task to test everything. I do agree that we shouldn't learn something until it is proven, but that's unfortunately how it is.

And have you ever stretched your hamstrings when they felt tight? Well, the principle you are using to do that summarizes a significant part of OMM. In fact, that principle accounts for almost 90% of OMM we are taught in the first year, so unless you think stretching muscles is a bunch of baloney, you probably wouldn't have much of a problem with most of OMM. Is it's efficacy overemphasized? Absolutely, but it can be used in those very specific instances.

And I am against pseudoscience just as much as the next person, but I am also against forming uneducated opinions and being willfully ignorant. Using blanket statements against OMM as being a pseudoscience, while although true in some instances, shows a lack of knowledge on what OMM actually consists of, and as a physician it is more important to educate yourself on things you may not like more than it is to decide you don't like it and refuse to actually learn about it. I know I don't like OMM because I am educated about it. I don't like acupuncture and I see it as a bunch of rubbish, but I'm not going to debate an expert on acupuncture anytime soon because I certainly don't know enough about it and I am certainly not educated about it.


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.


And as for the Spanish Flu thing, it has been debunked many times by DOs and has been addressed in the JAOA (Journal of the American Osteopathic Assoctiation): http://www.jaoa.org/content/108/9/484.full
 
Last edited:
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

no.... that is basically exactly what i said.
 
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.

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?
 
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.

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.
 
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.
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 :thumbup: 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.
 
no.... that is basically exactly what i said.


I wasn't directing anything at you specifically



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?

I have so far not been taught anything that is just outright "insane," but I have been taught many things that I severely question the efficacy and usefulness of, or just even the extent to which it can actually alleviate symptoms. From what I've learned so far, OMM is useful in helping with very minor problems, like muscle tightness, soreness, and stiffness, things that would probably go away eventually but can be sped up or temporarily relieved with OMM. From what I've heard, the second year has more "insane" things that are taught, but I know nothing about it yet.


And as for the research study, I'm not sure if I'm allowed to copy/paste a subscription-based article (I was on campus at the time so I didn't realize it wasn't free, and now I'm home and I can't view it) so I'm not going to risk it, but the article had nothing to do with a DO performing a technique on patients. It was basically a test on dogs to see the effect of increasing lymph flow using a mechanical pump hooked up to the dogs to mimic a commonly used osteopathic technique, and the results suggested that it would improve cytokine distribution and other immune-related molecules, which was what was hypothesized. I am sure that the results could be easily reproducible, but I am not sure if it has been done so.
 
Top