chiropractor calling himself a physican????

[SteelCity]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

The only time I have ever considered it acceptable to criticize another based on their occupational status is when they attempt to portray themselves as something they are not.

That said, DPMs ARE surgeons if they choose to be. They're not vascular surgeons, transplant surgeons, or neurosurgeons by any definition; however, they still cut, snap, and hammer on the human body--just a select region. Chiropractors ARE manual medicine practitioners. Naturopaths appeal to people of alternative medical views. The problem comes when they lobby for unnatural medical rights beyond their training/ability or if they outright practice out of scope.

If, in some alternate universe, chiropractors undertook a rigorous, certified pharmacological education for their focused field (in addition to manipulation and anatomy), I'd have no problem seeing them write for muscle relaxants, etc...

Remember, Osteopaths, we are still considered by some as the bastard second cousin of Hippocrates. Know that being regarded as inferior is an unpleasant feeling. Just keep the bar high, be good at what you do, and they'll come around. (Same message to DCs, DNPs, etc...)

👍👍 Good point and was exactly what I was thinking. Now, on that note we should just stop the pissing contest

 

[facetguy]

not that would be *****ic. However, I found this interesting article assessing if they see regard themselves as PCP's: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14569217

the study has many limitation, but interesting nonetheless.

There have been some pilot projects, very limited in numbers and locale, that have looked at the feasibility of chiros functioning as primary care practitioners. The results have been published:

The original study:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...nel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

The follow-up study:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...nkpos=1&log$=relatedarticles&logdbfrom=pubmed


For these pilot programs, a select number of chiros underwent additional training in medically-oriented physical exam procedures. This was by no means a profession-wide movement. By the way, the primary author is an MD, the other a DC.

Perhaps what some chiros mean when they say 'primary care' is 'primary care' in the sense of 'being able to see a chiro without a referral/prescription from an MD', which is what I think the above-cited study was more about. In other words, direct access. I don't think they mean "I'll take care of that cardiac arrhythmia for you, Mrs. Smith, and I'll do it better than my medical colleagues, so just lay down on this treatment table...". Speaking for myself, I haven't listened to a heart since chiro school.

 

[bluemonkey]

I've received enough chiropractic newsletters raving about the dangers of vaccines to believe chiropractors are most definitely not physicians.

 

[Cp22kjer]

The issue with this issue was nicely illustrated (to me at least) when I brought the subject up tangentially with a few classmates and our preceptor (physician) in a small group. We were just talking about various issues in healthcare that affect physicians (reimbursement, malpractice, etc) and midlevels came up. I brought up the idea of the DNP in a non-inflammatory manner (although I certainly had some strong opinions) just to test the waters out, and I seemed to be the only one who didn't think "oh wow, that's great, more healthcare for all, puppy dogs and rainbows, hip hip hooray." I'm exaggerating, and I really didn't expect to get much of a different response from a bunch of starry-eyed first years, but even the preceptor didn't have much of a stance . . . I don't believe he actually knew much about the DNP program or what it was.

Wow thats really sad. I don't understand how people can't be informed on these kind of things. I guess it could be due to actually having time as I don't start MS1 until August 😳.

 

[87138]

Wow thats really sad. I don't understand how people can't be informed on these kind of things. I guess it could be due to actually having time as I don't start MS1 until August 😳.

SDN is a very small subset of medical students (and premedical students). If I never visited this site, I very well may never have heard of, say, DNPs and such. While it's understandable that someone may not have heard about this, I definitely felt like the odd man out when bringing the subject up and simply offering that perhaps it's not the best thing for us as physicians.

 

[Cp22kjer]

SDN is a very small subset of medical students (and premedical students). If I never visited this site, I very well may never have heard of, say, DNPs and such. While it's understandable that someone may not have heard about this, I definitely felt like the odd man out when bringing the subject up and simply offering that perhaps it's not the best thing for us as physicians.

Yeah I'd feel the same way. I mean I'm very opinionated on the matter and would expect most physicians/future physicians to have some knowledge on the issue. It is a REAL problem. Same thing happened when the ANA pushed for NPs to prescribe........now they've had their fill and want to push it farther.

Your example is the shinning reason why we should be concerned. It would be unfortunate that some of your colleagues(primary care) cannot find a job because DNPs are cheaper and can do the same thing.......even if quality of care drops. It's still a freaking business and trust me they'll hired🙁.

 

[facetguy]

There is a new Master's Degree in Advanced Clinical Practice being offered to chiropractors this fall.
http://www.nuhs.edu/postgrad/pdfs/masters_brochure.pdf

The idea here is that it appears there will continue to be a lack of primary care physicians in the future, and along with the success of the pilot studies I noted a bit earlier, properly trained chiros can effectively fill this gap.

We'll see how well this is received by the chiropractic community (I can already guess how it will be received in the medical community, let alone the SDN community!). Quite frankly, though, the 2 studies I mentioned earlier created barely a blip on the chiropractic radar screen. I'm not sure the interest will be there, particularly for the older DCs. Perhaps this will resonate with newer grads, and perhaps this type of expanded training will simply become part of chiropractic school eventually...who knows.

 

[Cp22kjer]

The idea here is that it appears there will continue to be a lack of primary care physicians in the future, and along with the success of the pilot studies I noted a bit earlier, properly trained chiros can effectively fill this gap.

So funny because for so long their whole slogan was "without medicine". How ironic if they were to get involved.

Shoot NPs are getting in on it why not throw some chiros in.

 

[facetguy]

Consumer Reports Low Back Pain survey results:
http://www.consumerreports.org/health/medical-conditions-treatments/back-pain/overview/back-pain.htm

Chiropractors did pretty well (actually they topped the list), consistent with published studies over the years. You'll note from the table that chiros rated highest among back pain sufferers. "Many of our respondents" also reported being "dissatisfied" with their primary care physician treatment.

Whether you like chiropractors or "believe in" chiropractors or not, as medical students you might take notice of what your patients are saying and how they feel about standard medical care for back pain. It may make you more effective some day.

 

[Chuck's Right Foot]

Consumer Reports Low Back Pain survey results:
http://www.consumerreports.org/health/medical-conditions-treatments/back-pain/overview/back-pain.htm

Chiropractors did pretty well (actually they topped the list), consistent with published studies over the years. You'll note from the table that chiros rated highest among back pain sufferers. "Many of our respondents" also reported being "dissatisfied" with their primary care physician treatment.

Whether you like chiropractors or "believe in" chiropractors or not, as medical students you might take notice of what your patients are saying and how they feel about standard medical care for back pain. It may make you more effective some day.

I think DC care is good for lower back pain... In fact, there is very little that does work for back pain. But dealing with lower back pain =/= physician....

 

[devilpup]

There is a new Master's Degree in Advanced Clinical Practice being offered to chiropractors this fall.
http://www.nuhs.edu/postgrad/pdfs/masters_brochure.pdf

The idea here is that it appears there will continue to be a lack of primary care physicians in the future, and along with the success of the pilot studies I noted a bit earlier, properly trained chiros can effectively fill this gap.

We'll see how well this is received by the chiropractic community (I can already guess how it will be received in the medical community, let alone the SDN community!). Quite frankly, though, the 2 studies I mentioned earlier created barely a blip on the chiropractic radar screen. I'm not sure the interest will be there, particularly for the older DCs. Perhaps this will resonate with newer grads, and perhaps this type of expanded training will simply become part of chiropractic school eventually...who knows.

I just read the studies. Although they are preliminary studies gradually setting the foundation to something that will probably continue getting stronger, they have huge limitations. The validity, reliability and controlling of confounding factors (e.g. bias, blinding, randomization) of these studies need to be reassessed and I'm sure it will. Analogous to the 'doctorification' in the NP movement, studies will likely emerge that will try to compare the effectiveness (clinical, cost-risk analysis, etc.) of Chiro's to PCP and will show a benefit. Rightfully when someone raises objections, the studies will be cited. How can you argue with studies right?

there are several published studies that are increasingly being cited and used to "prove" the legitimacy of their movement-

• Mundinger MO. (2004). Advanced practice nurses: The preferred primary care providers for the 21st century. In J Showstack, S Hasmiller & A Rothman (Eds). The Future of Primary Care.
• Lenz ER, Mundinger MO, Kane RL, Hopkins SC, Lin, SX. (2004). Primary care outcomes in patients treated by nurse practitioners or physicians: Two-year follow-up. Med Care Res Rev. 2004 Sep;61(3):332-51
  
• Mundinger MO, Kane RL. Challenges facing family practice and primary care. JAMA. 2003 Jan 15;289(3):297-8; author reply 299-300.
  
• Mundinger MO. (2002). Twenty-first-century primary care: New partnerships between nurses and doctors. Academic Medicine, 77(8), 776-100%.

I'm all for patient safety and helping the underserved who lack primary care, but society shouldn't start bitching and moaning when they see that a majority of US medical students woud rather specialize than purse primary care.

I'm making the assumption that most med students (SDN for sure!) oppose this movement and might consider this as a deterring factor when deciding decision to pursue primary care or not.

 

[facetguy]

I just read the studies. Although they are preliminary studies gradually setting the foundation to something that will probably continue getting stronger, they have huge limitations. The validity, reliability and controlling of confounding factors (e.g. bias, blinding, randomization) of these studies need to be reassessed and I'm sure it will. Analogous to the 'doctorification' in the NP movement, studies will likely emerge that will try to compare the effectiveness (clinical, cost-risk analysis, etc.) of Chiro's to PCP and will show a benefit. Rightfully when someone raises objections, the studies will be cited. How can you argue with studies right?

there are several published studies that are increasingly being cited and used to "prove" the legitimacy of their movement-

• Mundinger MO. (2004). Advanced practice nurses: The preferred primary care providers for the 21st century. In J Showstack, S Hasmiller & A Rothman (Eds). The Future of Primary Care.
• Lenz ER, Mundinger MO, Kane RL, Hopkins SC, Lin, SX. (2004). Primary care outcomes in patients treated by nurse practitioners or physicians: Two-year follow-up. Med Care Res Rev. 2004 Sep;61(3):332-51
  
• Mundinger MO, Kane RL. Challenges facing family practice and primary care. JAMA. 2003 Jan 15;289(3):297-8; author reply 299-300.
  
• Mundinger MO. (2002). Twenty-first-century primary care: New partnerships between nurses and doctors. Academic Medicine, 77(8), 776-100%.

I'm all for patient safety and helping the underserved who lack primary care, but society shouldn't start bitching and moaning when they see that a majority of US medical students woud rather specialize than purse primary care.

I'm making the assumption that most med students (SDN for sure!) oppose this movement and might consider this as a deterring factor when deciding decision to pursue primary care or not.

Yes, those studies I posted are limited, but interesting. As far as US med students choosing to specialize over pursuing primary care, that is already happening, as you know. Changing that trend will require increasing PCP salaries, which will require an overhaul of reimbursement practices and healthcare attitudes in general.

 

[Cp22kjer]

I'm making the assumption that most med students (SDN for sure!) oppose this movement and might consider this as a deterring factor when deciding decision to pursue primary care or not.

This will absolutely be a factor in my decision. I'm not sure what I might end up liking but PC is already at the bottom of the latter.

 

[Cp22kjer]

Whether you like chiropractors or "believe in" chiropractors or not, as medical students you might take notice of what your patients are saying and how they feel about standard medical care for back pain. It may make you more effective some day.

There's something to be said about manipulation for back pain vs. painkillers. And I agree that one shouldn't prematurely rule out referring to one.

 

[engineeredout]

Consumer Reports Low Back Pain survey results:
http://www.consumerreports.org/health/medical-conditions-treatments/back-pain/overview/back-pain.htm

Chiropractors did pretty well (actually they topped the list), consistent with published studies over the years. You'll note from the table that chiros rated highest among back pain sufferers. "Many of our respondents" also reported being "dissatisfied" with their primary care physician treatment.

Whether you like chiropractors or "believe in" chiropractors or not, as medical students you might take notice of what your patients are saying and how they feel about standard medical care for back pain. It may make you more effective some day.

I don't think chiros are being criticized here for treating back pain; its just the thought of them moving beyond that to real primary care (and ED )

 

[Dr. Dai Phan]

not that would be *****ic. However, I found this interesting article assessing if they see regard themselves as PCP's: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14569217

the study has many limitation, but interesting nonetheless.

Greetings,

Interesting abstract. I wonder how a DC can act as a PCP when they cannot perscribe medications or order laboratory tests? This is not an attack on the profession but perhaps this is why some DCs viewed themselves as physicians. DP

 

[facetguy]

Greetings,

Interesting abstract. I wonder how a DC can act as a PCP when they cannot perscribe medications or order laboratory tests? This is not an attack on the profession but perhaps this is why some DCs viewed themselves as physicians. DP

Dr. Phan, I believe the study was done to see if using a different model can be effective, cost-effective and safe (and at least for those two studies proved to be true). So the inability to prescribe meds is a non-issue for the purposes of this pilot study. I don't think there were any limitations on ordering labs or dx tests. As for DCs viewing themselves as physicians because of this study, that's not the case, as this was a very limited study.

 

[Buckeye(OH)]

Im on my Rads elective this month. One of the radiologist was talking about a Chiropractor that bought a CT scanner. Not only does he do the CT and charge for it, HES DOING THE READS!!

Is this even legal?

 

[JaggerPlate]

Is this even legal?

I was under the impression that, at least for hospitals, only Radiologists on US soil (that's basically thrown in there for outsourcing to India and telerads) could read and diagnose scans.

 

[Bacchus]

There's something to be said about manipulation for back pain vs. painkillers. And I agree that one shouldn't prematurely rule out referring to one.

Would you not refer to a physician that uses OMM, first?

 

[facetguy]

Would you not refer to a physician that uses OMM, first?

I would refer to the person with the greater level of manual therapy skills, which in almost all cases...OK, at least on average...would be a chiropractor.

 

[facetguy]

Im on my Rads elective this month. One of the radiologist was talking about a Chiropractor that bought a CT scanner. Not only does he do the CT and charge for it, HES DOING THE READS!!

Is this even legal?

X-ray yes. CT scans? My first thought would be no, but this could vary by state and by post-graduate training.

 

[Cp22kjer]

Would you not refer to a physician that uses OMM, first?

Indeed I would but it would depend on circumstances such as one being nearby or not. If I chiro were more feasible (for the pt) and I knew him then I'd do that.

 

[Cp22kjer]

I would refer to the person with the greater level of manual therapy skills, which in almost all cases...OK, at least on average...would be a chiropractor.

I wouldn't refer to a DO whom hadn't done an OMM residency....

 

[Rhs326]

Ok, so I realize that the debate over whether or not Chiropractors are real doctors is and has been very heated. Firstly, I'd like to say that the term "doctor" is not solely reserved for medical physicians. A "doctor" is a person who has received a Doctorate degree, whether the degree be Ph.D, Sc.D, M.D., D.O, D.C, D.P.M, D.D.S., etc... Doctor means educator. Medicine, Osteopathy, Chiropractic, Podiatry, Pharmacy, Dentistry, Psychology (any many others) are all specialized/Terminal branches of education. Anyone with a doctorate degree is first and foremost an educator. They possess the knowledge to inform others in a competent fashion about their specific field.

Many people with doctorates (for the exception of those with research-based degrees) may choose to practice their specific field (practitioners). This is where the term doctor has been skewed. Doctors of Medicine, also termed medical physicians, are health-care professionals whose scope of practice is focused on the diagnosis and treatment of disease and injury, primarily through the use of drugs and/or surgery. This is what the general public thinks of when they hear/see of the word "doctor". Medical physicians are widely accepted as the only people to be correctly called "doctor". Obviously, this is a misnomer. For a long period of time, medical physicians were the only source of health-care treatment because at that time, there was not very much research done on human health. Dentists, who are Doctors of Dentistry, are doctors who focus on mouth and tooth health. They were not referred to as doctors, rather as dentists. This was not because they weren't themselves doctors (they of course were/are), but because it was just easier and more common to say dentist. Podiatrists, or Doctors of Podiatry, are health-care professionals who... (You get the picture). All health-care practitioners holding doctorates are REAL doctors. There is nothing fake about any of them, after all, how can there be? All of their degrees are from schools that are accredited by the department of education, aka, THE GOVERNMENT. All of them must pass state exams in order to gain licensure. The only legitimate argument about Chiropractors and Medical physicians is that neither are the other. Chiropractors never claimed to be medical physicians, nor have medical physicians claimed to be chiropractors.

Chiropractors purposely turned down the AMA's offer to become part of their association because they knew they were a separate identity. As far as saying Chiropractors are "quacks", that is a completely uneducated statement. Chiropractors are primary-care physicians who receive nearly identical education as medical physicians, the main difference being pharmacology and surgery. Chiropractors take the same amount of course hours in all of the same basic sciences (chiropractic students take more hours of anatomy than do medical students), and overall, more class time hours. Chiropractors have to take a four-part board exam in order to gain licensure... If you cannot see the progression of this by now... So to say Chiropractors aren't real doctors, that is completely untrue. To say that is to say Podiatrists aren't real doctors, Psychologists aren't real doctors, Dentists aren't real doctors, Pharmacists aren't real doctors, and so on... Clearly it isn't a true statement. Again, the only valid argument would be to say, "Chiropractors aren't real medical doctors", which is completely correct!! Chiropractors, nor any other doctor (besides medical of course) claim to be medical doctors. To do so would be ridiculous.

The requisites to be a doctor are not the ability to prescribe drugs/perform surgery. Unfortunately, western medicine has drilled into our heads that only Doctors can prescribe and perform surgery, so therefore the only real doctors are ones that do so. Look at the state our country is in, we are in the 30's on the list of most healthy countries. Our spending for health-care is astronomical, YETTTTT WE AREN'T THE HEALTHIER FOR IT! I have a deep and honest respect for medical doctors and the services they provide. Without drugs and surgery, many people alive today would not otherwise be. Medical doctors are excellent in treating life-threatening diseases and their emergency care is excellent. Medical doctors to have an ultimate downfall though, for the most part, they are only treating the symptoms of diseases, not the diseases themselves. Many of the diseases medical doctors treat, such as diabetes, heart disease, cancer, hypertension, obesity, stroke, etc... which are already far into the diseases progression. Chiropractors, Naturopaths, and Osteopaths (not as many as in the past) are doctors who are more focused on disease prevention. Chiropractors are doctors who are most noted for their manipulation of joints, especially those in the spine. Chiropractic manipulation has been shown to be the most effective in treating back and neck pain, and it is also the least expensive (for the patient and insurance companies).

What many people may not know is that Chiropractors are trained in nutrition, exercise, natural supplements, and lifestyle guidance so that they can teach patients about how to live the healthiest life they are able to live. Most of the diseases medical doctors treat are diseases of affluence; obesity, diabetes, heart disease, some cancers. These diseases all stem from leading unbalanced and over-indulgent lifestyles. Obviously there are genetic components to each of the diseases, but that is because their parents/grandparents also lived similar lifestyles, and thus passed on the gene for disposition. The argument that Chiropractors claim to treat aids, cancer, etc.. are completely ridiculous. Chiropractors do in fact treat AIDS patients. They do not treat the disease itself, rather they work on pain management, diet, exercise, and lifestyle choices that will help the patient live a healthier life and therefore have a better chance at beating the terrible disease. The same goes for the cancer argument. Chiropractic does not cure cancer obviously, but it is completely possible that it may prevent it (through the diet, exercise, and lifestyle guidance). Nearly every chronic disease is 50/50. 50% nature, 50%nurture. Meaning that even though we may be genetically predisposed to certain diseases, does not dictate that we will get them, hence the focus on prevention. A healthy lifestyle is obviously the best "medicine". Chiropractors help patients to make their lives healthier and thus reducing the chance of getting diseases. Medical doctors help patients that already have the diseases by treating their symptoms. The delineation between the two disciplines is clear.

For those who say that Chiropractors are quacks because of DD Palmer (in the 1800's) claiming he could cure every disease, are basing their opinions on something that is essentially medieval thinking. If basing a profession on its founding fathers were realistic, then medical doctors are also "quacks". In the 1700's and 1800's, medical physicians believed that all diseases were due to "tainted" blood and therefore their treatment plan consisted of bleeding patients out by either cutting vessels and draining blood from them, leaches, emetics, and diuretics. If the blood loss didn't kill them from the blood letting, then the electrolyte imbalance from the emetics and diuretics surely did the trick. Clearly what happened hundreds of years ago cannot be the deciding factor on today's world. There is far too much research on health today for that to be the case. For those who say, show me the double blind clinical research on the efficacy of Chiropractic, I'd say read the JAMA and its findings on Chiropractic and how it was the MOST effective treatment for low back pain. For those who say "well a part of your philosophy is the infamous vertebral subluxation and its so-called ability to hinder our innate intelligence, therefore reducing our level of health". This is the weak point of Chiropractic. Not only is there a lack of adequate funding for such research to be done properly (thanks pharmaceutical companies!), but also the design of such an experiment would be extremely complex if not impossible. In-vivo research is really only possible when looking at biochemistry. It is relatively easy with today's technology to find the agonist/receptor complex. It is a clear and definable entity. This is where medicine gains it merit. It is not the fault of Chiropractors that vertebral subluxations are so hard to study. One cannot receive a "placebo" adjustment. In drug studies, participants receive either the actual drug, or a placebo, and regardless they are receiving drug. In Chiropractic research, one cannot just give one group adjustments and the other... I don’t know, a crossword puzzle ...(just a little joke).

The general public believes that we (scientists/medical doctors) can find the cure to EVERYTHING in a lab, which is clearly untrue (at the moment). Although science has made incredible strides in research on health, we are, at the end of the day, only human. We are not capable of finding every answer to every question. Just because there is not a peer-reviewed journal article on a treatment, does not mean that it is not effective. It just means that A. It hasn't been thoroughly studied, or B. We don't understand it, and therefore haven't found a way to study it yet. Even when the FDA approves drugs for release, and even though they know how the drug works, there are still unforeseen adverse side effects that may surface (look at all of the drugs taken off of the market because they were found to be unsafe). Again, there is no such thing as perfect ANYTHING: no perfect research, no perfect treatment, no perfect drug, no perfect doctor, NO PERFECT HUMAN!. Science is only capable of one thing: disproving. Those who say it is "scientifically proven" don't understand the downfalls of the scientific method. Science proves absolutely nothing, it merely shows trends. Anyone with a Ph.D will tell you this. I realize I’ve gone off on a tangent here but people only pick bits and pieces of info and base their entire opinion on a subject using them. For those who believe that Chiropractic is unsafe because of vertebral artery dissection in the upper cervical spine, here is an interesting tidbit. (http://www.chiroandosteo.com/content/14/1/16). Many of the reported cases of people having strokes due to upper-cervical manipulations were not patients under the care and supervision of CHIROPRACTORS. They were under the care of either a. people pretending to be chiropractors, b. physical therapists/physiotherapists, or c. osteopaths. Alright, I am getting off of my soapbox now. I would really appreciate it if people were to respond to my post (in a professional and respectful way of course). Thank you for your time.

 

[Eudjinn]

Chiropractors are primary-care physicians who receive nearly identical education as medical physicians, the main difference being pharmacology and surgery. Chiropractors take the same amount of course hours in all of the same basic sciences (chiropractic students take more hours of anatomy than do medical students), and overall, more class time hours. Chiropractors have to take a four-part board exam in order to gain licensure... If you cannot see the progression of this by now... So to say Chiropractors aren't real doctors, that is completely untrue. To say that is to say Podiatrists aren't real doctors, Psychologists aren't real doctors, Dentists aren't real doctors, Pharmacists aren't real doctors, and so on... Clearly it isn't a true statement. Again, the only valid argument would be to say, "Chiropractors aren't real medical doctors", which is completely correct!! Chiropractors, nor any other doctor (besides medical of course) claim to be medical doctors. To do so would be ridiculous.


come again?

 

[group_theory]

Chiropractors purposely turned down the AMA's offer to become part of their association because they knew they were a separate identity. As far as saying Chiropractors are "quacks", that is a completely uneducated statement. Chiropractors are primary-care physicians who receive nearly identical education as medical physicians, the main difference being pharmacology and surgery. Chiropractors take the same amount of course hours in all of the same basic sciences (chiropractic students take more hours of anatomy than do medical students), and overall, more class time hours.
.

Rhs326, your post is full of errors (and propaganda) but this one stood out.

First, read your history between the acrimonious relationship between the AMA and chiropractors.

Second - NO, chiropractors do not have the same education as physicians. You can count as many credit hours of anatomy, biochemistry, as you want - but until I see chiropractic students pre-rounding on surgery in their 3rd year, taking 30 hr calls/80 hrs a week, or see a chiropractic student round with an inpatient internal medicine team (and manage their multiple medical complexities), take call in an ICU settings, or treat a kid with a fever in an acute setting, then NO, chiropractors do not have the same education as physicians. If you want to claim more class hours, go ahead but your clinical exposure is extremely limited. You can add as many "clinical modules" as you want, but nothing replaces clinical education. And if you want to claim that these additional classes (and hours) in chiro school and clinics can compare to residency training, then you know absolutely nothing about medical education and should not even comment on how it compares to chiro education.

If you want to claim to be a primary care physician (as some chiropractors do) then great, be able to be their primary care physician. What will you do with that 75 year old male with CAD s/p CABG x 4, ICMO with EF of 30%, rate control afib, DM2 with last A1C of 13, HTN, CKD stage 4, OA, BPH who comes into to your office with complaint of being "more tired than usual". What are you going to do? How will you work this up? This is a very common scenerio that occurs everyday in PCP's offices. And if you think patients with this multiple comorbidities don't exisit or are rare, then you haven't spent any significant amount of time in a PCP's office. No "clinical diagnosis module" or class will teach you how to work this up.

Chiropractors have a legitimate place in our society. I have no beef with chiropractor using the Doctor title. But don't claim that you can replace a PCP, or that your "medical" education exceeds those of physicians.

 

[Eudjinn]

Rhs326, your post is full of errors (and propaganda) but this one stood out.

First, read your history between the acrimonious relationship between the AMA and chiropractors.

Second - NO, chiropractors do not have the same education as physicians. You can count as many credit hours of anatomy, biochemistry, as you want - but until I see chiropractic students pre-rounding on surgery in their 3rd year, taking 30 hr calls/80 hrs a week, or see a chiropractic student round with an inpatient internal medicine team (and manage their multiple medical complexities), take call in an ICU settings, or treat a kid with a fever in an acute setting, then NO, chiropractors do not have the same education as physicians. If you want to claim more class hours, go ahead but your clinical exposure is extremely limited. You can add as many "clinical modules" as you want, but nothing replaces clinical education. And if you want to claim that these additional classes (and hours) in chiro school and clinics can compare to residency training, then you know absolutely nothing about medical education and should not even comment on how it compares to chiro education.

If you want to claim to be a primary care physician (as some chiropractors do) then great, be able to be their primary care physician. What will you do with that 75 year old male with CAD s/p CABG x 4, ICMO with EF of 30%, rate control afib, DM2 with last A1C of 13, HTN, CKD stage 4, OA, BPH who comes into to your office with complaint of being "more tired than usual". What are you going to do? How will you work this up? This is a very common scenerio that occurs everyday in PCP's offices. And if you think patients with this multiple comorbidities don't exisit or are rare, then you haven't spent any significant amount of time in a PCP's office. No "clinical diagnosis module" or class will teach you how to work this up.

Chiropractors have a legitimate place in our society. I have no beef with chiropractor using the Doctor title. But don't claim that you can replace a PCP, or that your "medical" education exceeds those of physicians.

took the words right out of my mouth

 

[ShyRem]

I also must disagree with the

Chiropractors help patients to make their lives healthier and thus reducing the chance of getting diseases. Medical doctors help patients that already have the diseases by treating their symptoms.

Medical doctors do preventative medicine - i.e. your yearly physical. Counseling on diet, obesity, smoking cessation, etc. BEFORE they cause a problem. In fact, quite a bit of time and effort is spent on that cause. Pregnancy - mostly preventative, trying to catch potential issues before they become a problem. Vaccinations. Well child visits. Yearly ob/gyn exams for women. All preventative.

Been a while since you saw your medical doctor I take it, Rhs326?

 

[JaggerPlate]

Ok, so I realize that the debate over whether or not Chiropractors are real doctors is and has been very heated. Firstly, I'd like to say that the term "doctor" is not solely reserved for medical physicians. A "doctor" is a person who has received a Doctorate degree, whether the degree be Ph.D, Sc.D, M.D., D.O, D.C, D.P.M, D.D.S., etc... Doctor means educator. Medicine, Osteopathy, Chiropractic, Podiatry, Pharmacy, Dentistry, Psychology (any many others) are all specialized/Terminal branches of education. Anyone with a doctorate degree is first and foremost an educator. They possess the knowledge to inform others in a competent fashion about their specific field.

Many people with doctorates (for the exception of those with research-based degrees) may choose to practice their specific field (practitioners). This is where the term doctor has been skewed. Doctors of Medicine, also termed medical physicians, are health-care professionals whose scope of practice is focused on the diagnosis and treatment of disease and injury, primarily through the use of drugs and/or surgery. This is what the general public thinks of when they hear/see of the word "doctor". Medical physicians are widely accepted as the only people to be correctly called "doctor". Obviously, this is a misnomer. For a long period of time, medical physicians were the only source of health-care treatment because at that time, there was not very much research done on human health. Dentists, who are Doctors of Dentistry, are doctors who focus on mouth and tooth health. They were not referred to as doctors, rather as dentists. This was not because they weren't themselves doctors (they of course were/are), but because it was just easier and more common to say dentist. Podiatrists, or Doctors of Podiatry, are health-care professionals who... (You get the picture). All health-care practitioners holding doctorates are REAL doctors. There is nothing fake about any of them, after all, how can there be? All of their degrees are from schools that are accredited by the department of education, aka, THE GOVERNMENT. All of them must pass state exams in order to gain licensure. The only legitimate argument about Chiropractors and Medical physicians is that neither are the other. Chiropractors never claimed to be medical physicians, nor have medical physicians claimed to be chiropractors.

Chiropractors purposely turned down the AMA's offer to become part of their association because they knew they were a separate identity. As far as saying Chiropractors are "quacks", that is a completely uneducated statement. Chiropractors are primary-care physicians who receive nearly identical education as medical physicians, the main difference being pharmacology and surgery. Chiropractors take the same amount of course hours in all of the same basic sciences (chiropractic students take more hours of anatomy than do medical students), and overall, more class time hours. Chiropractors have to take a four-part board exam in order to gain licensure... If you cannot see the progression of this by now... So to say Chiropractors aren't real doctors, that is completely untrue. To say that is to say Podiatrists aren't real doctors, Psychologists aren't real doctors, Dentists aren't real doctors, Pharmacists aren't real doctors, and so on... Clearly it isn't a true statement. Again, the only valid argument would be to say, "Chiropractors aren't real medical doctors", which is completely correct!! Chiropractors, nor any other doctor (besides medical of course) claim to be medical doctors. To do so would be ridiculous.

The requisites to be a doctor are not the ability to prescribe drugs/perform surgery. Unfortunately, western medicine has drilled into our heads that only Doctors can prescribe and perform surgery, so therefore the only real doctors are ones that do so. Look at the state our country is in, we are in the 30's on the list of most healthy countries. Our spending for health-care is astronomical, YETTTTT WE AREN'T THE HEALTHIER FOR IT! I have a deep and honest respect for medical doctors and the services they provide. Without drugs and surgery, many people alive today would not otherwise be. Medical doctors are excellent in treating life-threatening diseases and their emergency care is excellent. Medical doctors to have an ultimate downfall though, for the most part, they are only treating the symptoms of diseases, not the diseases themselves. Many of the diseases medical doctors treat, such as diabetes, heart disease, cancer, hypertension, obesity, stroke, etc... which are already far into the diseases progression. Chiropractors, Naturopaths, and Osteopaths (not as many as in the past) are doctors who are more focused on disease prevention. Chiropractors are doctors who are most noted for their manipulation of joints, especially those in the spine. Chiropractic manipulation has been shown to be the most effective in treating back and neck pain, and it is also the least expensive (for the patient and insurance companies).

What many people may not know is that Chiropractors are trained in nutrition, exercise, natural supplements, and lifestyle guidance so that they can teach patients about how to live the healthiest life they are able to live. Most of the diseases medical doctors treat are diseases of affluence; obesity, diabetes, heart disease, some cancers. These diseases all stem from leading unbalanced and over-indulgent lifestyles. Obviously there are genetic components to each of the diseases, but that is because their parents/grandparents also lived similar lifestyles, and thus passed on the gene for disposition. The argument that Chiropractors claim to treat aids, cancer, etc.. are completely ridiculous. Chiropractors do in fact treat AIDS patients. They do not treat the disease itself, rather they work on pain management, diet, exercise, and lifestyle choices that will help the patient live a healthier life and therefore have a better chance at beating the terrible disease. The same goes for the cancer argument. Chiropractic does not cure cancer obviously, but it is completely possible that it may prevent it (through the diet, exercise, and lifestyle guidance). Nearly every chronic disease is 50/50. 50% nature, 50%nurture. Meaning that even though we may be genetically predisposed to certain diseases, does not dictate that we will get them, hence the focus on prevention. A healthy lifestyle is obviously the best "medicine". Chiropractors help patients to make their lives healthier and thus reducing the chance of getting diseases. Medical doctors help patients that already have the diseases by treating their symptoms. The delineation between the two disciplines is clear.

For those who say that Chiropractors are quacks because of DD Palmer (in the 1800's) claiming he could cure every disease, are basing their opinions on something that is essentially medieval thinking. If basing a profession on its founding fathers were realistic, then medical doctors are also "quacks". In the 1700's and 1800's, medical physicians believed that all diseases were due to "tainted" blood and therefore their treatment plan consisted of bleeding patients out by either cutting vessels and draining blood from them, leaches, emetics, and diuretics. If the blood loss didn't kill them from the blood letting, then the electrolyte imbalance from the emetics and diuretics surely did the trick. Clearly what happened hundreds of years ago cannot be the deciding factor on today's world. There is far too much research on health today for that to be the case. For those who say, show me the double blind clinical research on the efficacy of Chiropractic, I'd say read the JAMA and its findings on Chiropractic and how it was the MOST effective treatment for low back pain. For those who say "well a part of your philosophy is the infamous vertebral subluxation and its so-called ability to hinder our innate intelligence, therefore reducing our level of health". This is the weak point of Chiropractic. Not only is there a lack of adequate funding for such research to be done properly (thanks pharmaceutical companies!), but also the design of such an experiment would be extremely complex if not impossible. In-vivo research is really only possible when looking at biochemistry. It is relatively easy with today's technology to find the agonist/receptor complex. It is a clear and definable entity. This is where medicine gains it merit. It is not the fault of Chiropractors that vertebral subluxations are so hard to study. One cannot receive a "placebo" adjustment. In drug studies, participants receive either the actual drug, or a placebo, and regardless they are receiving drug. In Chiropractic research, one cannot just give one group adjustments and the other... I don’t know, a crossword puzzle ...(just a little joke).

The general public believes that we (scientists/medical doctors) can find the cure to EVERYTHING in a lab, which is clearly untrue (at the moment). Although science has made incredible strides in research on health, we are, at the end of the day, only human. We are not capable of finding every answer to every question. Just because there is not a peer-reviewed journal article on a treatment, does not mean that it is not effective. It just means that A. It hasn't been thoroughly studied, or B. We don't understand it, and therefore haven't found a way to study it yet. Even when the FDA approves drugs for release, and even though they know how the drug works, there are still unforeseen adverse side effects that may surface (look at all of the drugs taken off of the market because they were found to be unsafe). Again, there is no such thing as perfect ANYTHING: no perfect research, no perfect treatment, no perfect drug, no perfect doctor, NO PERFECT HUMAN!. Science is only capable of one thing: disproving. Those who say it is "scientifically proven" don't understand the downfalls of the scientific method. Science proves absolutely nothing, it merely shows trends. Anyone with a Ph.D will tell you this. I realize I’ve gone off on a tangent here but people only pick bits and pieces of info and base their entire opinion on a subject using them. For those who believe that Chiropractic is unsafe because of vertebral artery dissection in the upper cervical spine, here is an interesting tidbit. (http://www.chiroandosteo.com/content/14/1/16). Many of the reported cases of people having strokes due to upper-cervical manipulations were not patients under the care and supervision of CHIROPRACTORS. They were under the care of either a. people pretending to be chiropractors, b. physical therapists/physiotherapists, or c. osteopaths. Alright, I am getting off of my soapbox now. I would really appreciate it if people were to respond to my post (in a professional and respectful way of course). Thank you for your time.

Holy Christ. Thanks for bumping a thread to write a novel about why you are insecure.

 

[Rhs326]

primary care does not mean gatekeeper. Primary care means a patient does not require a referral/script to see the doctor. It's primarily part of the insurance companies' vernacular. Chiropractors know very well they aren't able to treat every disorder under the sun, the same goes for every other type of doctor. There is no one-stop-shop, and thinking that there is is erroneous. For the one case with the 70-something old man, the chiro would refer to an MD/DO because chiros are trained to know when NOT to treat certain patients.

 

[Rhs326]

and no it hasn't, I see my medic every 6 months. it just grinds my gears so think of a profession who truly believes they are able to treat everything (as medics often believe). They need a reality check, which would be that they aren't the fix-all profession like the general (and uneducated) public believes them to be. Everyone needs to know their role in the health equation, respect everyone else's role, and work together. After all, the only person who truly matters is the patient. I am 100% for the multi-disciplinary model and I thoroughly respect every player in the game.

 

[futIDdoc]

Chiropractic =/= medicine
Chiropractors =/= doctor or physician

I do not respect chiropractors because their 'treatments' are based on a demonstrably false set of assumptions. During the 'practice' of their craft well-control evidence based studies have shown put patients at increased risk of stroke and spinal injury. On a positive note, claiming your education is equal to mine as a medical student made and your critique of the scientific method me laugh and brightened my day.

Lee KP and others. Neurologic complications following chiropractic manipulation: A survey of California neurologists. Neurology 45:1213-1215, 1995.

Crislip M. Chriopractic and stroke: Evaluation of one paper. Science-Based Medicine Blog, July 17, 2008.

Haldeman S and others. Unpredictability of cerebrovascular ischemia associated with cervical spine manipulation therapy. Spine 27:49-55, 2001.

 

[ShyRem]

medic? 😕 that generally means paramedic. I don't know of anyone who calls their physician a "medic". And I don't know of any physician who

truly believes they are able to treat everything

I'm gonna leave the reality check comment alone. Nothing good can come of responding to that comment.

 

[basupran]

we have a chiro around here going around telling people he is an orthop(a)edist. He certainly picks up a surprising number of women.

 

[facetguy]

I do not respect chiropractors because their 'treatments' are based on a demonstrably false set of assumptions.

Interesting. Please educate us as to this "demonstrably false set of assumptions".

During the 'practice' of their craft well-control evidence based studies have shown put patients at increased risk of stroke and spinal injury.

As a scientist, you might want to examine literature on both sides of the issue.

Lee KP and others. Neurologic complications following chiropractic manipulation: A survey of California neurologists. Neurology 45:1213-1215, 1995.

A survey. Compelling.

Crislip M. Chriopractic and stroke: Evaluation of one paper. Science-Based Medicine Blog, July 17, 2008.

Hmmm...a panel of international, multidisciplinary experts published in the top spine-related journal in the world, versus some guy's blog. Which to believe??? Decisions, decisions.

Haldeman S and others. Unpredictability of cerebrovascular ischemia associated with cervical spine manipulation therapy. Spine 27:49-55, 2001.

The lead author here (Scott Haldeman) is both a chiropractor and an MD/neurologist (as well as a PhD/neuroscience), who has written extensively on this topic. He is clear that stroke following spinal manipulation (and not just chiropractic manipulation, by the way) is exceedingly rare, so rare that it's even difficult to quantify and difficult to separate from strokes that occur randomly. Let's not lose sight of just how rare these events are.

 

[protean]

1st of all this thread is absurd in the real world of healthcare. I browsed this thread far too long and had to finally jump in. Look, be what you WANT to be in healthcare. There's plenty of room for chiro's and MD's. They do different things, obviously. If you've got a passion to do either, you'll be a helluva lot better doc than one who "assumes the role of either" yet can't really stand what he is trained to do.

It's ALL about desire, interest, beliefs, etc. No, DC's don't cure cancer straight up. But MD's can't adjust a patient (legally, unless trained in the art/science or whatever you call it. If it works for the patient, who cares what you call the craft, it helps the patient and educates them as to what, where or how to treat the problem - which is what the patient cares about when feeling bad, correct?). MD's can't do much hands-on, w/out using a "script pad" (which sure in hell can do harm) or referring to a PT or using surgery.

Thus, DC's can fill the void IF - the need is conservative - and responds to manipulation. If you went to a DO who trained in OMM for his 4 yrs in school, yet doesn't utilize it daily, you'd then be risking your neck (no pun) literally as he's not adept at using it regularly.

Likewise, if you went to a chiro rather than your endo (crinologist) for diabetic control you'd end up in a diabetic coma. So, despite this nonsense of "DC's destroy arteries or blow up a patient's stroke risk, etc." - don't you think an MD writing a script takes on even MORE liability w/ the risk of OD'ing a patient or causing longterm organ damage, etc. than does a potential "rare" complication w/ a DC adjustment. (By the way, w/out looking it up, when's the last time you personally heard of a DC messing up someone like daily stories abound about medical doc's causing problems?)

Also, think logically as an insurer would, who's liability insurance is less? A DC w/ a low chance to do harm, or an MD w/ a HUGE chance to harm a patient every time he writes a script or in nearly every surgery (infections, etc.).

Do the math people, this isn't 1920, and both fields (allo and chiro) deserve a place in modern meds. It's up to the person in the field to use judgment and prudence in either instance. An MD can be just as much a sham, as a DC treating conditions outside his scope. Quacks can be found in every walk of life. If you don't think so just take a ride in a cab in a foreign country and see how long a 5 min. cab ride can be w/ an unscrupulous cabbie (that takes you in circles to ring up a higher fare w/ out your knowledge of where to hell you went).

I just had to reply to this whole bizarre discussion that is utterly ridiculous.

 

[chirogurl]

Chiropractic is a profession for spinal adjustment

 

[FutureDocDO]

👍

DPMs surpass nowhere near the rigors requisite of claiming the title of "physician," and any argument to change the degree from DPM to MD COMPLETELY ignores the fact their education is nothing like that of MDs and DOs.

They spend the first 2 yrs in classes with MDs/DOs...big deal...so do PAs, and it's not every single class. From 3rd yr onward, and many instances 2nd year onward, it's strictly podiatry: foot and ankle medicine.

Inherent to the title of MD is the explicit acceptance that one is a physician trained in all the necessary diagnostic & treatment schemes tested on the USMLE, and has spent sufficient time studying the BODY, not the FOOT. DPM education comes nowhere near that.

Furthermore, chiropractors calling themselves “physicians” is a joke. PTs are not Physical Therapist Physicians, NPs are not Nurse Practitioner Physicians, and simply having a 4 yr post-baccalaureate degree doesn’t automatically confer the title of “physician” because one is in the health field.

👍

 

[Bones DO]

Weren't Osteopaths and Chiros hatched from the same egg back in the day.... where's the love?

 

[ShyRem]

Bones, I do hope you're joking there. The 🙄 is a good sarcasm indicator.....

 

[244869]

D.D. Palmer is rumored to have been a student of A.T. Still.

 

[facetguy]

Bones, I do hope you're joking there. The 🙄 is a good sarcasm indicator.....

Wow. Shy, that's a little harsh.

 

[gis2011]

I lost respect for people going to POD school when I saw some of their 'what are my chances' threads. People with 3.0 and 21 on MCAT were being told they were 'alright' and I overheard stories of people getting in with LOW, low MCAT. Scary. I'm sure they will, like everyone else, push for more and more practice rights too.

Funny, there are plenty of DO schools and students with numbers just like that (DO schools with AVERAGE mcats of 24 etc, meaning many students were lower...)...hope you don't lose respect for yourself or many of your future classmates next.

 

[JaggerPlate]

Funny, there are plenty of DO schools and students with numbers just like that (DO schools with AVERAGE mcats of 24 etc, meaning many students were lower...)...hope you don't lose respect for yourself or many of your future classmates next.

I've interviewed at 5+ schools now, each one quoted their MCAT around a 27/28 with GPA at 3.5. One school wasn't even interviewing people with MCAT below 27 at that point in the cycle. All DO. Sorry to offend you, but there is a large, large gap in the DO GPA/MCAT and POD.

 

[244869]

LECOM: "Successful candidates typically have both science and overall grade point averages of 3.2 or above" and "Successful candidates typically have a mean MCAT score of 24."

And what about some of the other DO schools which do not post their average MCAT and GPA?

Podiatry overall average gpa is 3.3 and average mcat is 22. Not that far off.

Yes there are DO schools with stellar stats...CCOM, DMU, etc. But the gap is not as large as you might think.

 

[JaggerPlate]

LECOM: "Successful candidates typically have both science and overall grade point averages of 3.2 or above" and "Successful candidates typically have a mean MCAT score of 24."

And what about some of the other DO schools which do not post their average MCAT and GPA?

Podiatry overall average gpa is 3.3 and average mcat is 22. Not that far off.

Yes there are DO schools with stellar stats...CCOM, DMU, etc. But the gap is not as large as you might think.

You stated the average for POD at 3.3/22 and pulled one example of one school that used vague language which I take as a nice way of saying 'our cutoff.' Listen, I really don't want to turn this into a bickering contest because you aren't going to convince me, and you are going to defend POD completely (obviously). I really, really disagree saying the gap 'isn't small.' Like I said, I've had 5+ examples of nothing ever stated lower than a 27/28 average, and I applied with a 30 ++ and have only received several 'oh, well your MCAT score is good,' ie: nothing crazy, we see this all the time.

 

[244869]

You stated the average for POD at 3.3/22 and pulled one example of one school that used vague language which I take as a nice way of saying 'our cutoff.' Listen, I really don't want to turn this into a bickering contest because you aren't going to convince me, and you are going to defend POD completely (obviously). I really, really disagree saying the gap 'isn't small.' Like I said, I've had 5+ examples of nothing ever stated lower than a 27/28 average, and I applied with a 30 ++ and have only received several 'oh, well your MCAT score is good,' ie: nothing crazy, we see this all the time.

Average DO stats are still 3.45/25. Higher than pod...yes. MUCH higher...no not really. And if you consider the verbage LECOM uses as the cutoff then why don't they publish their average entering stats? Looks like they'd rather use vaque words than admit that their average entering stats are 3.2/24.

You can quote what adcoms tell you but statistics don't lie. Like I said, yes there are DO schools with stellar stats but there are also a handful with so so stats. Thus bringing the average down.

 

[gis2011]

I've interviewed at 5+ schools now, each one quoted their MCAT around a 27/28 with GPA at 3.5. One school wasn't even interviewing people with MCAT below 27 at that point in the cycle. All DO. Sorry to offend you, but there is a large, large gap in the DO GPA/MCAT and POD.

You're not offending me jagger, I'm a second year at an MD school. What you are doing is failing to see that the difference between DO school's admissions numbers isn't necessarily a whole lot higher than these POD schools/people that you apparently "have no respect for". I don't know what these 5 DO schools that you interviewed at have told you, but it's no surprise for a DO school to accept people with MCATs around a 23. (for example, I know VCOM had an MCAT average of 23 or 24 within the last 2 years...they may be up to a 25 now...)

People who live in glass houses and all that...but congrats on your acceptance...and try to respect others, you'll go further in medicine.

 

[JaggerPlate]

Average DO stats are still 3.45/25. Higher than pod...yes. MUCH higher...no not really. And if you consider the verbage LECOM uses as the cutoff then why don't they publish their average entering stats? Looks like they'd rather use vaque words than admit that their average entering stats are 3.2/24.

You can quote what adcoms tell you but statistics don't lie. Like I said, yes there are DO schools with stellar stats but there are also a handful with so so stats. Thus bringing the average down.

This will be my last post concerning this issue because you completely ignored the fact that I said we are locked in a discussion with no ending. I don't know why you keep bringing LECOM up, or which campus you are talking about. If they don't publish their average entering stats, I'm not sure how you can reject my conclusion of it being a nice way of saying cutoff and confirm your conclusion of it being the entering average, but kind of irrelevant I guess. I do agree that there are a range of stats coming from schools ... I'd say this is an age (old vs new schools) issue more than a quality of student issue. Again, the best example one can ever give is their first hand knowledge, and I stated mine ... can't do much else. Am I going to deny your conclusion that the lower average is because it's the mean of old schools with great stats and newer schools with lower stats?? No. Like you said, I can't deny statistics, but I will say that I also cannot comment on the applicants to the schools that are considered lower ... my guess is that they are very qualified and that the schools are legit and offer a quality education.

I still completely believe my statement about the difference in stats. I think if you went on a school by school basis and compared old DO schools to old POD schools and new to new etc, you'd see a huge gap. For example, as you stated, CCOM is one of those schools with great stats. I have published information from the school that said 3.53/28. This school was established in 1900 and is considered one of the tops in the DO world. Ohio College of Podiatric Medicine was established in 1916 (ie old like CCOM) and states it's average stats as 3.25/23. http://www.ocpm.edu/?page=admission-faq
I think this is a pretty fair comparison as far as 'good vs good' and it seems to me like there is a LARGE difference there. If this example is foolish, it's simply because I'm not overtly familiar with Pod school quality/age. the Ohio school continually came up as good, well established etc. I think this is proving the point I am trying to make ... and shows a better picture than a simple average to average comparison which you stated yourself is flawed from the DO perspective, but seems fairly accurate for the POD world.

I also wanted to state that I'm not trying to be a jerk or act superior. It's not secret that I've spent a LOT of time here on SDN battling similar fights with MD vs DO, and I'd be a huge hypocrite if I said 'my numbers are higher than yours ... ie I'm better.' I assure you that isn't the case or my point, and to be honest, I don't even remember when I said the original post, but it probably seems more harsh than usual, and I think I was probably in a tiff at the time or something. Anyway, like I said ... I'm not going to reply anymore, but feel free to post a rebuttle.