Difference btwn OMM and Chiropractic

[laboholic]

I am curious - I have never had any experience with OMM. It doesnt seem like any of the DOs that I have seen use the technique. On the other hand, I do see the chiropractor every once and awhile. Are the techniques used the same or is OMM different? I think its very interesting how a chiropractor can just touch your back and immediately tell that it is misaligned.

On a side note, i think that some of chiropractic medicine is kind of bull#$#t. Whenever I go, he asks me to resist his hand when he presses down on my raised leg. Then he proceeds to say that I am very week in that leg. Next, he adjusts my lower back and then has me resist again... BUT, this time it feels like he pushes at a different angle (toward my body) instead of a perpendicular angle... thus it feels like I have more strength when I really probably dont.. anyone else experience this??

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[OSUdoc08]

I am curious - I have never had any experience with OMM. It doesnt seem like any of the DOs that I have seen use the technique. On the other hand, I do see the chiropractor every once and awhile. Are the techniques used the same or is OMM different? I think its very interesting how a chiropractor can just touch your back and immediately tell that it is misaligned.

On a side note, i think that some of chiropractic medicine is kind of bull#$#t. Whenever I go, he asks me to resist his hand when he presses down on my raised leg. Then he proceeds to say that I am very week in that leg. Next, he adjusts my lower back and then has me resist again... BUT, this time it feels like he pushes at a different angle (toward my body) instead of a perpendicular angle... thus it feels like I have more strength when I really probably dont.. anyone else experience this??

OMM and Chiropractics have some similarities and differences. Many of the techniques are the same, but DO's are licensed physicians whereas chiropractors are not.

OMM has some physical therapy and massage therapy techniques as well. OMM is meant to be used in concert with modern medical theraputics such as medication and surgery.

The methods you discuss are similar to those found in OMM>

 

[subtle1epiphany]

I just started, so all the OMM that I've had is a simple palpation of the forearm. however, I've heard other senior students mention that a difference is that for the most part chiro uses HVLA techniques, as they're dramatic and since the developer of chiro split from AT Still earlier, thats mostly what was there. Also, chiro only deals with the spine, while OMM is all parts of the body. DOs use other techniques such as myofascial release and muscle energy.
Well, then there's the small fact that a DO is a fully qualified and licensed physician while a DC can do only manipulation.
Can anyone with more information validate these statements?

 

[irish79]

I just started, so all the OMM that I've had is a simple palpation of the forearm. however, I've heard other senior students mention that a difference is that for the most part chiro uses HVLA techniques, as they're dramatic and since the developer of chiro split from AT Still earlier, thats mostly what was there. Also, chiro only deals with the spine, while OMM is all parts of the body. DOs use other techniques such as myofascial release and muscle energy.
Well, then there's the small fact that a DO is a fully qualified and licensed physician while a DC can do only manipulation.
Can anyone with more information validate these statements?

First, Chiropractic wasn't something that split from AT Still or osteopathic medicine. I am pretty sure it is a separate entity (there are two schools of thought when it comes to chiropractic—one slightly more metaphysical, the other more mainstream). There is some story about the founder hitting or "adjusting" a janitor and then suddenly the janitor was able to hear (or something bizarre like that). There are a lot of similarities in technique between the two--but like you said, OMM focuses on the whole body, where as chiropractic is much more resigned to manipulations of the spine (and a lot of sexy HVLA).

The technique the original poster was referring to is called muscle energy. This actually is a technique not only DO's and Chiropractors use, but also PT’s and physiatrists. I kind of lost my train of thought, so hopefully I answered all the questions.

 

[OSUdoc08]

First, Chiropractic wasn't something that split from AT Still or osteopathic medicine. I am pretty sure it is a separate entity (there are two schools of thought when it comes to chiropractic—one slightly more metaphysical, the other more mainstream). There is some story about the founder hitting or "adjusting" a janitor and then suddenly the janitor was able to hear (or something bizarre like that). There are a lot of similarities in technique between the two--but like you said, OMM focuses on the whole body, where as chiropractic is much more resigned to manipulations of the spine (and a lot of sexy HVLA).

The technique the original poster was referring to is called muscle energy. This actually is a technique not only DO's and Chiropractors use, but also PT’s and physiatrists. I kind of lost my train of thought, so hopefully I answered all the questions.

Wrong. The founder of chiropractic attended The American Academy of Osteopathy in Kirskville and was taught by A.T. Still himself. He then dropped out and stole the techniques, labeling them as his.

 

[subtle1epiphany]

okay, i can speak a little more about this since i now have my texts (finally). with regard to the chiro and DO issue, Philip E. Greenman, DO has the following to say in his text Principles of Manual Medicine:

Although not schools in medicine [Palmer], he was known to practice as a magnetic healer and became a self-educated manipulative therapist. Controversy continues as to whether Palmer was ever a patient or student of Still's at Kirksville, Missouri, but it is known that Palmer and Still met in Clinton, Iowa early in the 20th century. Palmer moved about the country a great deal and founded his first college in 1896.
...

So according to this text there's not enough information about the nature of their relationship, although I do recall reading (might have been on SDN though) that Palmer did experience/observe OMM and then forumulated a similar theory and practice in chiro.
Thanks for entertaining this subject.

 

[irish79]

Wrong. The founder of chiropractic attended The American Academy of Osteopathy in Kirskville and was taught by A.T. Still himself. He then dropped out and stole the techniques, labeling them as his.

Interesting...a friend of mine who attended chiropractic school in New York was taught by his school that this was not the case at all (i.e. that he did NOT attend osteopathic medical school nor was he a DO—that this was indeed a separate entity). I am curious as to your source for such information? I do not claim to know for sure--but since you are blatantly telling me I am WRONG--then such CONFIDENCE must be based on SOMETHING (surely you must have credible EVIDENCE to back up such statements). Furthermore, my friend and I have compared techniques learned for certain “somatic dysfunctions” and his approach is different from what I have been taught—strange if they were based on techniques created by ONE man!

 

[OSUdoc08]

Interesting...a friend of mine who attended chiropractic school in New York was taught by his school that this was not the case at all (i.e. that he did NOT attend osteopathic medical school nor was he a DO—that this was indeed a separate entity). I am curious as to your source for such information? I do not claim to know for sure--but since you are blatantly telling me I am WRONG--then such CONFIDENCE must be based on SOMETHING (surely you must have credible EVIDENCE to back up such statements). Furthermore, my friend and I have compared techniques learned for certain “somatic dysfunctions” and his approach is different from what I have been taught—strange if they were based on techniques created by ONE man!

First of all, chiropractics was not "invented" until osteopathy was established. This occurred after Palmer "met" Still. The fact that many of the techniques are duplicates doesn't baffle you? The differences are based on the fact that chiropractors aren't physicians, and thus have less training. This is why chiropractors must see you 3 times a week, whereas an osteopathic physician only has to see you once a week for the same ailment.

Study your history on the dates.

I learned it by reading books about the history of osteopathic medicine and things taught to me in class.

 

[irish79]

First of all, chiropractics was not "invented" until osteopathy was established. This occurred after Palmer "met" Still. The fact that many of the techniques are duplicates doesn't baffle you? The differences are based on the fact that chiropractors aren't physicians, and thus have less training. This is why chiropractors must see you 3 times a week, whereas an osteopathic physician only has to see you once a week for the same ailment.

Study your history on the dates.

I learned it by reading books about the history of osteopathic medicine and things taught to me in class.

So what you are saying, is you have no REAL, conclusive evidence for the accusations you are making (dates prove nothing)? Okay then! As for the glib statement about me being baffled--I ask you: if they are indeed the same techniques (as they were "stolen" from AT Still), then why is it that the chiropractors must see them multiple times a week, whereas a physician doesn't (as you said)? I am willing to bet a Chiropractor receives much more "training" in manipulation compared to me, who took ONE CLASS (OMM) for TWO years of my medical training. The only thing this proves is that it must be something to do with medicine and not manipulation which is causing them to get better.

 

[OSUdoc08]

So what you are saying, is you have no REAL, conclusive evidence for the accusations you are making (dates prove nothing)? Okay then! As for the glib statement about me being baffled--I ask you: if they are indeed the same techniques (as they were "stolen" from AT Still), then why is it that the chiropractors must see them multiple times a week, whereas a physician doesn't (as you said)? I am willing to bet a Chiropractor receives much more "training" in manipulation compared to me, who took ONE CLASS (OMM) for TWO years of my medical training. The only thing this proves is that it must be something to do with medicine and not manipulation which is causing them to get better.

One class?

Try 4, plus clinicals.

 

[BackTalk]

Here is an interesting article for you guys to read....

http://www.chiroweb.com/archives/10/14/02.html

DO's are licensed physicians whereas chiropractors are not.

Depends on the state. In some states chiropractors are licensed physicians with the same rights as MD's and DO's. The exceptions are the use of prescription drugs or operative surgery.

Also, chiro only deals with the spine, while OMM is all parts of the body. DOs use other techniques such as myofascial release and muscle energy.

Chiropractors deal with the whole body and not just the spine. Also, some utilize the techniques you mention.

Well, then there's the small fact that a DO is a fully qualified and licensed physician while a DC can do only manipulation.

Chiropractors do more than just manipulation just like a MD does more than just prescribing a pill.

 

[cooldreams]

ok, so lots of things can share comon origins and be expressed vastly different, so your point, irish79, is moot.

i can understand a protest to become associated with chiropractics in view of the many "odd" ways they treat various things obviously not at all related to the treatment they offer. in this view they are considered by some to be "quacks". yet many other doctors would fit this profile, largely chiro has gained this title.

you wish for concrete evidence of palmer and still's meeting? look no further than the sign in book for attendees. palmer is listed. beyond this is heresay. what he saw, how much, etc... who knows. it is known that palmers school took off slightly AFTER the FORMAL start of osteopathy, and in light of the fact that many parts of osteopathy were formalized after this would only give rise to the idea that the two are quite different. further, the basis for osteopathic medicine today is in fact medicine. you may study omt, but you are taught mostly medicine, medicine that chiros see nothing of.

today they are quite different areas, but a hundred years ago, not quite the same story.

if you attempt to argue beyond this for either side, you are bluffing.

 

[cooldreams]

Here is an interesting article for you guys to read....

http://www.chiroweb.com/archives/10/14/02.html

DO's are licensed physicians whereas chiropractors are not.

Depends on the state. In some states chiropractors are licensed physicians with the same rights as MD's and DO's. The exceptions are the use of prescription drugs or operative surgery.

those are quite extreme exceptions. what are they allowed to do in those states, and why are they not allowed to do it in other states??

your exceptions are part of the governments definition of a physician btw.

"While both M.D.s and D.O.s may use all accepted methods of treatment, including drugs and surgery"
http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos074.htm

Also, chiro only deals with the spine, while OMM is all parts of the body. DOs use other techniques such as myofascial release and muscle energy.

Chiropractors deal with the whole body and not just the spine. Also, some utilize the techniques you mention.


Well, then there's the small fact that a DO is a fully qualified and licensed physician while a DC can do only manipulation.

Chiropractors do more than just manipulation just like a MD does more than just prescribing a pill.

yes ive heard that it is more and more common for them to do radiology. i guess because they can charge more for it, which i cant blame them for. but remember this is not the same as what a radiologist does. not at all. they are just looking at bones, and not very technically either, perhaps angle or degree of scoliosis or soemthing. whereas a radiologist is diagnoising disease, organ problems, etc.

i saw one teach an anatomy class at a junior college (seriously). but beyond that, ive not been privy to observe.

 

[BackTalk]

those are quite extreme exceptions. what are they allowed to do in those states, and why are they not allowed to do it in other states??

your exceptions are part of the governments definition of a physician btw.

"While both M.D.s and D.O.s may use all accepted methods of treatment, including drugs and surgery"
http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos074.htm



yes ive heard that it is more and more common for them to do radiology. i guess because they can charge more for it, which i cant blame them for. but remember this is not the same as what a radiologist does. not at all. they are just looking at bones, and not very technically either, perhaps angle or degree of scoliosis or soemthing. whereas a radiologist is diagnoising disease, organ problems, etc.

i saw one teach an anatomy class at a junior college (seriously). but beyond that, ive not been privy to observe.

Before your sphincter loses tone again, do a little research on what you say.

 

[OSUdoc08]

Here is an interesting article for you guys to read....

http://www.chiroweb.com/archives/10/14/02.html

DO's are licensed physicians whereas chiropractors are not.

Depends on the state. In some states chiropractors are licensed physicians with the same rights as MD's and DO's. The exceptions are the use of prescription drugs or operative surgery.

Also, chiro only deals with the spine, while OMM is all parts of the body. DOs use other techniques such as myofascial release and muscle energy.

Chiropractors deal with the whole body and not just the spine. Also, some utilize the techniques you mention.

Well, then there's the small fact that a DO is a fully qualified and licensed physician while a DC can do only manipulation.

Chiropractors do more than just manipulation just like a MD does more than just prescribing a pill.

Don't give us lies from a chiropractic propaganda website. DC's are not licensed to prescribe medication or perform sugery. This is due to the lack of training, which explains the inferior ability to cure somatic dysfunction with a combination of pharmacology, surgery, and OMM. They are only allowed to perform a deviation of OMM.

 

[tshumard]

I have the unfortunate personal knowledge of what chiropractic education is all about. I actually attended Palmer College of Chiropractic for awhile. I did not complete my degree, because I got some very helpful advice from a DO, whom actually completed his DC degree at Palmer and he told me I would be extremely frustrated and very limited and he was very correct about saying so.

Chiropractic is no more than just adjusting patients -- yes they do have some physical therapy abilities, but very very little training in how to do anything other than 'adjustments'. They take 4 or 5 classes in 'radiology', however, one must realize that these courses are in chiropractic radiology, not in clinically radiology or any medical form of radiology. The radiology courses are used to find angles and curves, they are totally different positions even than what a medical doctor would order. Sure, a chiropractor can find fractures, breaks etc... but really anyone whom has had any radiological training can. Chiropractors are not as well trained in radiology as some of the above posters have mentioned.

OMT v Chiropractic 'Adjustments' -

There really isn't much difference other than a chiropractor relies only on adjustments to make his student loan payments, or enlarge his retirement fund. You will rarely will find a chiropractor who will not treat anyone who walks in his door. Why? Everyone who walks in that door enhances his pay check. If he starts turning away clients, he may be losing a lot of money, most DOs have the ability to not have to rely on this as much. They have flexibility in their training. Chiropractic, the more I learn about the history of Osteopathy (now properly coined as Osteopathic Medicine), seems to be a 1920s version of what the AMA wanted DOs to be. I do not know why DCs didn't make the efforts or get the chances that DOs did to become mainstream physicians, but now I know they are thoroughly against being anything but what they are.

I do believe that D.D. Palmer had access so some of the Osteopathy information, and ripped them off and passed them off as his own, in the day when word of mouth was very slow. I am sitting just 4 blocks south of Palmer College of Chiropractic as I write this, and within 100 yards of the first 'chiropractic adjustment' ever made, and I strongly believe that what this town believes in, is no more than a man's fraud.

Sheesh, went off on a rant, but very frustrated with what has happened as of late here in Davenport, IA.

::edit:: right - > write :/

 

[OSUdoc08]

I have the unfortunate personal knowledge of what chiropractic education is all about. I actually attended Palmer College of Chiropractic for awhile. I did not complete my degree, because I got some very helpful advice from a DO, whom actually completed his DC degree at Palmer and he told me I would be extremely frustrated and very limited and he was very correct about saying so.

Chiropractic is no more than just adjusting patients -- yes they do have some physical therapy abilities, but very very little training in how to do anything other than 'adjustments'. They take 4 or 5 classes in 'radiology', however, one must realize that these courses are in chiropractic radiology, not in clinically radiology or any medical form of radiology. The radiology courses are used to find angles and curves, they are totally different positions even than what a medical doctor would order. Sure, a chiropractor can find fractures, breaks etc... but really anyone whom has had any radiological training can. Chiropractors are not as well trained in radiology as some of the above posters have mentioned.

OMT v Chiropractic 'Adjustments' -

There really isn't much difference other than a chiropractor relies only on adjustments to make his student loan payments, or enlarge his retirement fund. You will rarely will find a chiropractor who will not treat anyone who walks in his door. Why? Everyone who walks in that door enhances his pay check. If he starts turning away clients, he may be losing a lot of money, most DOs have the ability to not have to rely on this as much. They have flexibility in their training. Chiropractic, the more I learn about the history of Osteopathy (now properly coined as Osteopathic Medicine), seems to be a 1920s version of what the AMA wanted DOs to be. I do not know why DCs didn't make the efforts or get the chances that DOs did to become mainstream physicians, but now I know they are thoroughly against being anything but what they are.

I do believe that D.D. Palmer had access so some of the Osteopathy information, and ripped them off and passed them off as his own, in the day when word of mouth was very slow. I am sitting just 4 blocks south of Palmer College of Chiropractic as I write this, and within 100 yards of the first 'chiropractic adjustment' ever made, and I strongly believe that what this town believes in, is no more than a man's fraud.

Sheesh, went off on a rant, but very frustrated with what has happened as of late here in Davenport, IA.

::edit:: right - > write :/

Excellent post. Thanks!

 

[irish79]

ok, so lots of things can share comon origins and be expressed vastly different, so your point, irish79, is moot.

i can understand a protest to become associated with chiropractics in view of the many "odd" ways they treat various things obviously not at all related to the treatment they offer. in this view they are considered by some to be "quacks". yet many other doctors would fit this profile, largely chiro has gained this title.

you wish for concrete evidence of palmer and still's meeting? look no further than the sign in book for attendees. palmer is listed. beyond this is heresay. what he saw, how much, etc... who knows. it is known that palmers school took off slightly AFTER the FORMAL start of osteopathy, and in light of the fact that many parts of osteopathy were formalized after this would only give rise to the idea that the two are quite different. further, the basis for osteopathic medicine today is in fact medicine. you may study omt, but you are taught mostly medicine, medicine that chiros see nothing of.

today they are quite different areas, but a hundred years ago, not quite the same story.

if you attempt to argue beyond this for either side, you are bluffing.

This is quite a strange post. You are simply arguing the EXACT thing I am (why my point is “moot” based on whatever it is you are saying is beyond me). First of all, two people meeting proves nothing of "stolen ideas." Furthermore, as you said, many techniques of Osteopathic Medicine we learn today were developed AFTER Still and the formation of Chiropractic. This would hence seem to PROVE that what they (D.C.) do is not simply something STOLEN from osteopathy (i.e. Osteopathy in sheep's clothing). Granted, there may be some similarities, however, both entities are in the business of manipulation—therefore, it would seem techniques would indeed be similar. There are some things in Osteopathic Medicine which are borrowed from physiatry and PT—and yet there is no argument of “stolen ideas” in this instance.

I am not saying I am a proponent of Chiropractic or that I would ever send my patients to one (over a DO who practices solely OMM). However, I am not going to take some elitist stance that what we as DO's do is so much better than what they as D.C.'s do. If I have a patient who happens to also use Chiropractic, and it works for this particular person--then I say more power to them. The goal is not to chastise or put down other doctors--but rather to encourage the healthy state of the individual we are treating (whether the person treating be a DO, MD, or Chiropractor).

 

[BMW19]

If you are going to rag on another profession then please have the courtesy to prounounce it right. It's ChiropracTIC not Chiropractics. I just love when people know so little that they can't even get the basic name right. OSU don't tell me its a typo because I've seen you use it before that way.

By the way I am a chiro in DO school so if you have real Q's pm me. Don't listen to people that will rag on another profession because of their own inferiority complex about not getting into Allopathic.

The last statement was directed at the Palmer Dropout

BMW-

OMM and Chiropractics have some similarities and differences. Many of the techniques are the same, but DO's are licensed physicians whereas chiropractors are not.

OMM has some physical therapy and massage therapy techniques as well. OMM is meant to be used in concert with modern medical theraputics such as medication and surgery.

The methods you discuss are similar to those found in OMM>

 

[tshumard]

By the way I am a chiro in DO school so if you have real Q's pm me. Don't listen to people that will rag on another profession because of their own inferiority complex about not getting into Allopathic.

The last statement was directed at the Palmer Dropout

BMW-

I'm not here to get into a flame war, however, I am glad I saw the light before I wasted more money into a profession I don't care to practice. If you want to talk techniques, history, philosophy I will go toe to toe with you any day. I don't care what people's views of my opinions are, especially someone whom dispite their graduation from a chiropractic school, is doing the exact same thing that I am doing. Why aren't you in medical school? You are licensed to adjust, there is currently a higher status that goes with the MD title, and don't say the whole person approach because that is a personal philosophy that you learned way before school.

 

[BMW19]

"There really isn't much difference other than a chiropractor relies only on adjustments to make his student loan payments, or enlarge his retirement fund. You will rarely will find a chiropractor who will not treat anyone who walks in his door. Why? Everyone who walks in that door enhances his pay check"

In turn I will not argue with someone who makes ignorant ass comments such as these. I suppose there are no MD/DO's who do the same damn thing. I never attacked you, just simply trying to point out some ignorant statements. And to answer your question, I am in medical school it just happens to be osteopathic. It's not just about the "whole person approach". The entire way that DO school's approach teaching medicine is different (i.e. not heavily focused on research) is the reason I went. I felt more comfortable there if you must know. There are plenty of honest, hard working chiros who just don't have the advantages of drug companies, hospitals, and P.T. referrals. Since you never practiced chiropractic or even got the degree what gives you the right to bash it? That was my only point.

BMW-

I'm not here to get into a flame war, however, I am glad I saw the light before I wasted more money into a profession I don't care to practice. If you want to talk techniques, history, philosophy I will go toe to toe with you any day. I don't care what people's views of my opinions are, especially someone whom dispite their graduation from a chiropractic school, is doing the exact same thing that I am doing. Why aren't you in medical school? You are licensed to adjust, there is currently a higher status that goes with the MD title, and don't say the whole person approach because that is a personal philosophy that you learned way before school.

 

[tshumard]

Since you never practiced chiropractic or even got the degree what gives you the right to bash it? That was my only point.

BMW-

Oh probably since I was going to be a 3rd generation chiropractor, had the among the top 5 marks in all my classes. I have done as much independant research on the SCIENCE of chiropractic as I could possibly do. Chiropractic is solely based on testimonials, as well is OMT, there hasn't been significant scientific evidence either works, which is why it is still shuned by a significant amount of educated people.

Also, about the push for money. I'm sure there are some MD/DOs that will treat everyone that walks in their door (private practice) and do more than what is needed for more money. However, the difference being is this; overall the number of MD/DOs practice in private practice (%-wise) is significantly lower than that of the chiropractors doing so. So, are more chiropractors treating everyone that walks in their door for personal benefit? Yes.

Another agrument that is just stupid, is the one that a lot of chiropractors make on the medical profession about mis-diagnosis, wrongful surgery, etc. However, I don't know how many times people have came into a chiropractor with a complaint of low back pain, and they get adjusted neck to tailbone. And, chiropractors will push this off as it being unharmful and possibly good for the patient. But, if you look at the simple treatment, this is actually them saying, well even if I do the wrong treatment for a condition, it is unharmful and I should not be criticized for doing so, but in the other breath, they are quick to jump on those cases of medical doctors doing the wrong treatment for diseases. Chiropractors are doing this because when they bill for it, they can charge for neck, mid and low back, possibly even h/s/c adjustments and enhance their paycheck.

Do I have a negative view on chiropractors? yes
Am I ashamed that I attended chiropractic school? yes

One last question and I am done with this thread completely. Where did you graduate from with your DC, and what year?

 

[beano]

Man this folks is true entertainment! Are you attending a D.O. school? My best friend is a Chiropractor and I ...I ...see the difference he makes in peoples lives. I also have seen how DO's make a difference in the quality of their patient's lives. Why not recognize their differences and move on? Bashing..? Over Generalized negative statements? Why? Check it:

The Test of Three

In ancient Greece, Socrates (469 - 399 BC) was widely lauded for his
wisdom.

One day the great philosopher came upon an acquaintance who ran up to
him excitedly and said, "Socrates, do you know what I just heard about
one of your students?"

"Wait a moment," Socrates replied. "Before you tell me I'd like you to
pass a little test. It's called the Test of Three."

"Three?"

"That's right, Socrates continued. "Before you talk to me about my
student let's take a moment to test what you're going to say. The first
test is Truth. Have you made absolutely sure that what you are about to
tell me is true?"

No," the man said, "actually I just heard about it." "All right," said
Socrates. "So you don't really know if it's true or not.

Now let's try the second test, the test of Goodness. Is what you are
about to tell me about my student something good?"

"No, on the contrary..."

"So," Socrates continued, "you want to tell me something bad about him
even though you're not certain it's true?"

The man shrugged, a little embarrassed.

Socrates continued. "You may still pass though, because there is a third
test - the filter of Usefulness. Is what you want to tell me about my
student going to be useful to me?"

No, not really..."

"Well," concluded Socrates, "if what you want to tell me is neither True
nor Good nor even Useful, why tell it to me at all?"

The man was defeated and ashamed.


PLease "Read-up" OMT has been proven clinically effective and all we have to go on about the roots of Chiropractic vs. OMM has been printed in history books. Your MCAT, GPA, personality, perspective, whatever, has nothing to do with this.

Peace-B

Oh probably since I was going to be a 3rd generation chiropractor, had the among the top 5 marks in all my classes. I have done as much independant research on the SCIENCE of chiropractic as I could possibly do. Chiropractic is solely based on testimonials, as well is OMT, there hasn't been significant scientific evidence either works, which is why it is still shuned by a significant amount of educated people.

Also, about the push for money. I'm sure there are some MD/DOs that will treat everyone that walks in their door (private practice) and do more than what is needed for more money. However, the difference being is this; overall the number of MD/DOs practice in private practice (%-wise) is significantly lower than that of the chiropractors doing so. So, are more chiropractors treating everyone that walks in their door for personal benefit? Yes.

Another agrument that is just stupid, is the one that a lot of chiropractors make on the medical profession about mis-diagnosis, wrongful surgery, etc. However, I don't know how many times people have came into a chiropractor with a complaint of low back pain, and they get adjusted neck to tailbone. And, chiropractors will push this off as it being unharmful and possibly good for the patient. But, if you look at the simple treatment, this is actually them saying, well even if I do the wrong treatment for a condition, it is unharmful and I should not be criticized for doing so, but in the other breath, they are quick to jump on those cases of medical doctors doing the wrong treatment for diseases. Chiropractors are doing this because when they bill for it, they can charge for neck, mid and low back, possibly even h/s/c adjustments and enhance their paycheck.

Do I have a negative view on chiropractors? yes
Am I ashamed that I attended chiropractic school? yes

One last question and I am done with this thread completely. Where did you graduate from with your DC, and what year?

 

[cooldreams]

Man this folks is true entertainment! Are you attending a D.O. school? My best friend is a Chiropractor and I ...I ...see the difference he makes in peoples lives. I also have seen how DO's make a difference in the quality of their patient's lives. Why not recognize their differences and move on? Bashing..? Over Generalized negative statements? Why? Check it:

The Test of Three

In ancient Greece, Socrates (469 - 399 BC) was widely lauded for his
wisdom.

One day the great philosopher came upon an acquaintance who ran up to
him excitedly and said, "Socrates, do you know what I just heard about
one of your students?"

"Wait a moment," Socrates replied. "Before you tell me I'd like you to
pass a little test. It's called the Test of Three."

"Three?"

"That's right, Socrates continued. "Before you talk to me about my
student let's take a moment to test what you're going to say. The first
test is Truth. Have you made absolutely sure that what you are about to
tell me is true?"

No," the man said, "actually I just heard about it." "All right," said
Socrates. "So you don't really know if it's true or not.

Now let's try the second test, the test of Goodness. Is what you are
about to tell me about my student something good?"

"No, on the contrary..."

"So," Socrates continued, "you want to tell me something bad about him
even though you're not certain it's true?"

The man shrugged, a little embarrassed.

Socrates continued. "You may still pass though, because there is a third
test - the filter of Usefulness. Is what you want to tell me about my
student going to be useful to me?"

No, not really..."

"Well," concluded Socrates, "if what you want to tell me is neither True
nor Good nor even Useful, why tell it to me at all?"

The man was defeated and ashamed.


PLease "Read-up" OMT has been proven clinically effective and all we have to go on about the roots of Chiropractic vs. OMM has been printed in history books. Your MCAT, GPA, personality, perspective, whatever, has nothing to do with this.

Peace-B

well.. the student became a politician:

you never really know if the voting system is true or not, just basically word of mouth. you get to trust all of the new politicians friends that he really was voted in...

it probablly isnt good news because you didnt see eye to eye on everything with this new politician

and it really isnt too useful because they dont normally get much accomplished. just sit around and talk all day, and that is when they are not fishing or golfing...

stupid philosophers...