DO discrimination

[NeuroLAX]

How would one design a crossover OMT study? Would this even be possible without patients and investigators knowing which treatment they are receiving and giving, respectively?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[deleted103644]

Just have doctors do it all...Also, if the placebo effect were so significant, as to thwart any real study of something like OMT, then we also could never study any pills. You are overstating the placebo effect and it would be relatively easy to set up OMT studies



Id like to see this too

I'm really not overstating it, and you're making it clear you aren't familiar with the rationale for randomized controlled double-blinded studies.

It's easy to run RCTs for a drug - a control for a drug is just a sugar pull that looks like the real thing. As long as it is randomly assigned Byrne neither the provider nor the patient knows who is getting what, it should be valid.

You're right drug companies should be testing against the best standard and not just placebo (if that's what you were saying, although I don't think it was). They don't always do this since it's a higher standard.

 

[HalfListic]

I'm really not overstating it, and you're making it clear you aren't familiar with the rationale for randomized controlled double-blinded studies.

It's easy to run RCTs for a drug - a control for a drug is just a sugar pull that looks like the real thing. As long as it is randomly assigned Byrne neither the provider nor the patient knows who is getting what, it should be valid.

You're right drug companies should be testing against the best standard and not just placebo (if that's what you were saying, although I don't think it was). They don't always do this since it's a higher standard.

No, mine's bigger!


What I am saying actually, is that you are overstating the placebo effect with human touch. Basically, the way you have presented it here, any positive effect produced by human touch is negligible...making OMT in all likely cases, a big placebo.

So, if you want to set up a double blind with OMT, I don't think it should be compared to fake OMT but to basic human touch. If this can be established as different than human touch alone, by a significant margin, then there is cause to rule out other bias, such as technique and who's performing it.

I think you at looking further along in the testing than I am...but if you are arguing the very premise of OMT, start with that. If I misspoke about some part of testing I'm not aware of, great. I don't think you really could accomplish a double blind here though. But I think it's pretty easy to see that testing can be done and I'd still like to see what info is out there.

 

[deleted103644]

If you get the same effects as OMT with fake ONT performed by a practitioner who thinks it's the real thing, then you might as well only fake it.

I don't mean to be mean, but I get the impression you don't have any experience reading actual scientific papers.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

If you get the same effects as OMT with fake ONT performed by a practitioner who thinks it's the real thing, then you might as well only fake it.

I don't mean to be mean, but I get the impression you don't have any experience reading actual scientific papers.

Take two MD's teach one fake ONT, teach the other OMT. Tell them they are new pain techniques and test it on patients. Do quazi-experiment and compare before and after.

 

[HalfListic]

Busted...I'm a non trad from the business/tech side of life. But ad hominem with no further addition doesn't add to the discussion or further convince me of your points

I still don't see how teaching fake OMT to an unsuspecting student or professional would be both ethical and unbiased. Since OMT is a standardized practice, it Seems easier to compare to massage,etc.

But again, as I've said before...I'm open to real solutions. Criticism is empty without a solution.

 

[SpecterGT260]

Busted...I'm a non trad from the business/tech side of life. But ad hominem with no further addition doesn't add to the discussion or further convince me of your points

I still don't see how teaching fake OMT to an unsuspecting student or professional would be both ethical and unbiased. Since OMT is a standardized practice, it Seems easier to compare to massage,etc.

But again, as I've said before...I'm open to real solutions. Criticism is empty without a solution.

Not an ad hominem.... good gravy I'm sick of seeing this phrase tossed about carelessly on these boards.....

 

[HalfListic]

Not an ad hominem.... good gravy I'm sick of seeing this phrase tossed about carelessly on these boards.....

Bad day?

And yes, when the arguments center around perceived flaws in the other person rather than the subject matter, it's called ad hominem. Bt why do you even care? Its a silly thing to nit pick. Don't answer...it's rhetorical.


I'm not sure why I keep adding to this thread. It's a black hole!

 

[SpecterGT260]

Bad day?

And yes, when the arguments center around perceived flaws in the other person rather than the subject matter, it's called ad hominem. Bt why do you even care? Its a silly thing to nit pick. Don't answer...it's rhetorical.


I'm not sure why I keep adding to this thread. It's a black hole!

No not a bad day. Pretty great day actually. But "ad hominem" shows up in almost every SDN thread. He didn't attempt to invalidate your argument using a personal characteristic (ad hominem) he instead inferred about a personal characteristic based on your argument. This is absolutely not ad hominem (added a happy emotion as to not confuse the situation any further)

 

[SpecterGT260]

I linked this before for another poster but I feel it may benefit you now
http://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html

You're welcome

 

[HalfListic]

No not a bad day. Pretty great day actually. But "ad hominem" shows up in almost every SDN thread. He didn't attempt to invalidate your argument using a personal characteristic (ad hominem) he instead inferred about a personal characteristic based on your argument. This is absolutely not ad hominem (added a happy emotion as to not confuse the situation any further)

Good, Im glad you're happy. heres a thumbs up friend :thumb up:

Im not on SDN as much as you, but Ive never seen the term used, as surely not overused. But again, this is a non issuer since I don't abuse the term and being too nit picky about its use is a bit nerdy. Its especially useless when you try to correct its use when it was used correctly.

So lets be nerds and hash out this issue that seems to be so very important to you. Ad hominem is a debate tactic (and fallacy!) usually used when someone is either too emotional or has nothing better to say. Its not limited to personal characteristics, its actually just belittling or insulting someone you're debating. Its a personal attack. Any personal attack.

In this case, Johnny D, instead of answering (which would have been to construct a good experiment for OMT testing) chose to point out a perceived deficiency in my knowledge. He was actually right on and Im not offended by it. The problem is, that was ad hominem, meaning his answer only commented to my person and not to the subject matter...and so this didn't add to the argument. Thats what I called out, and its not that big of a deal. Telling someone their using an ad hominem attack is more of a way to let them know you'd rather talk about the subject at hand; its not an insult. So, yes, that absolutely is ad hominem, but it absolutely doesn't matter.

Also, if you want to be picky...be sure to check your grammar. Id normally let it slide, but you seem to appreciate exactness, so heres an english lesson for you: you can "he inferred about a personal characteristic.." A good sentence could read, "he inferred something about your personal characteristics". Also, a lack of experience in a given area(which is what JD inferred) is not a personal characteristic, its a personal flaw, or just a gap in knowledge. A characteristic is more of a generalized concept that could add to a specific flaw, but not the flaw itself.

OK! now you pick apart my argument and lets go back and forth forever cause we're so smart!

I guess the only good part about this is that I feel like Im helping invalidate this worthless thread. (was is you that called me the batman of SDN, because I feel like Im being the villain this thread needs...or at least that Im adding to the useless debating along with the other villains of SDN)

 

[HalfListic]

For your perusal:


http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/english-grammar-for-dummies-cheat-sheet0.html


you're welcome

 

[SpecterGT260]

If you get the same effects as OMT with fake ONT performed by a practitioner who thinks it's the real thing, then you might as well only fake it.

I don't mean to be mean, but I get the impression you don't have any experience reading actual scientific papers.

This is what he said... he addressed your point and then went on to infer something. I love how you kids stick to your guns whenever called out for this you're welcome to continue to be wrong though. What started out as just pointing out a pet peeve resulted in you opening up the douche fountain and digging in your heels into your previous error. Bravo

 

[SpecterGT260]

.

So lets be nerds and hash out this issue that seems to be so very important to you. Ad hominem is a debate tactic (and fallacy!) usually used when someone is either too emotional or has nothing better to say. Its not limited to personal characteristics, its actually just belittling or insulting someone you're debating. Its a personal attack. Any personal attack.
)

See this is simply incorrect. Only someone completely ignorant would think this. Therefore the rest of what you said is also incorrect.





Ok now: the last part here was ad hominem because it contained a logical fallacy. However saying "you are an ass hat" is not in and of itself an ad hominem. Its just an insult. We have a fancy word for that too.... ready for it? "Insult". Its interesting how you bring up the fallacy part and then just abandon it completely by the end of the paragraph....

 

[HalfListic]

This is what he said... he addressed your point and then went on to infer something. I love how you kids stick to your guns whenever called out for this you're welcome to continue to be wrong though. What started out as just pointing out a pet peeve resulted in you opening up the douche fountain and digging in your heels into your previous error. Bravo

Good use of infer this time...I see you read my link!

keep your chin up...one day you'll be strong enough to troll in med student forums and not just the pre meds.

 

[SpecterGT260]

Good use of infer this time...I see you read my link!

keep your chin up...one day you'll be strong enough to troll in med student forums and not just the pre meds.

I'm glad I could help you pat yourself on the back you seemed to need it.
And I truly am trying to help you here. It pains me to see someone so consistently wrong about things... help me help you, halfy.... help me help you
P.s. are you drunk? My use of "inferred" was not the object of your previous whining.... it was the meaning of the word "characteristic". I just wanna know if I'm dealing with someone who is impaired.....

 

[HalfListic]

See this is simply incorrect. Only someone completely ignorant would think this. Therefore the rest of what you said is also incorrect.





Ok now: the last part here was ad hominem because it contained a logical fallacy. However saying "you are an ass hat" is not in and of itself an ad hominem. Its just an insult. We have a fancy word for that too.... ready for it? "Insult". Its interesting how you bring up the fallacy part and then just abandon it completely by the end of the paragraph....

There is no fallacy part...its a fallacy. There aren't parts to this...ad hominem isn't party valid, partly fallacy, lol. You are really starting to show your ignorance here.(I borrowed this line from you, thanks

Honestly, I have no problems admitting when Im wrong. Im wrong all the time.

What gets me is you and the few other med students who try to use their status as an appeal to authority (another fallacy, yay!) in their argument. (remember when you referred to whomever here as 'kids'...this was an attempt to do just that)

So, not only are you wrong...you are projecting your own flaws onto me. You are actually sort of a D-Bag on these forums, while I usually try to be courteous.

As I stated before, I don't mind going back and forth with you right now like a pair of teenagers arguing about their pokemon cards because Id love for people to come to this thread, see thats its garbage and ignore it. I feel Im adding to the garbage and it feel gooood:thumb up:

So, yeah, you're wrong!

 

[SpecterGT260]

There is no fallacy part...its a fallacy. There aren't parts to this...ad hominem isn't party valid, partly fallacy, lol. You are really starting to show your ignorance here.

Honestly, I have no problems admitting when Im wrong. Im wrong all the time.

What gets me is you and the few other med students who try to use their status as an appeal to authority (another fallacy, yay!) in their argument. (remember when you referred to whomever here as 'kids'...this was an attempt to do just that)

So, not only are you wrong...you are projecting your own flaws onto me. You are actually sort of a D-Bag on these forums, while I usually try to be courteous.

As I stated before, I don't mind going back and forth with you right now like a pair of teenagers arguing about their pokemon cards because Id love for people to come to this thread, see thats its garbage and ignore it. I feel Im adding to the garbage and it feel gooood:thumb up:

So, yeah, you're wrong!

You still misunderstand. An ad hominem is a fallacy. There is no fallacy in an insult. go really read the last part from you I quoted about it being "any personal attack". You must have forgotten writing it in your drunken stupor
I would also urge you to look up the definition of the word before you continue to act like an ass hat

 

[NonTraditional3]

Dude, are people still arguing in this thread??? Wth lol

 

[HalfListic]

You still misunderstand. An ad hominem is a fallacy. There is no fallacy in an insult.

Now this is a great argument...you win, WAIT! where have read this?

*slowly looks down and reads his last argument against specters increasingly frantic tyrade*

You SOB, you stole that from me!

There is no fallacy part...its a fallacy. There aren't parts to this...ad hominem isn't party valid, partly fallacy, lol.

Ill explain it again, since you still misunderstand. Any time you use an insult as the reason for an argument to wrong, thats an ad hominem fallacy. I have a link for you if you need to beef up on it.

Also, you have yet to account for your poor grammar from earlier...so, waiting for that explanation.

Come on, this is super important stuff! We need to get to the bottom of this quickly!

 

[HalfListic]

Dude, are people still arguing in this thread??? Wth lol

I feel like its the best way to make this thread as invalid as possible...plus, I kind of enjoy messing with the med student trollseys :roll eyes:


Theres not much constructive going on in this thread and despite multiple users trying to let it die and help it die, someone always brings it back. So, I just hope that when anyone new comes to read it, they just roll their eyes and move on to better things. If I have to roll in the mud a bit, so be it...I am the batman/mom of SDN (or so Im told)

 

[SpecterGT260]

Now this is a great argument...you win, WAIT! where have read this?

*slowly looks down and reads his last argument against specters increasingly frantic tyrade*

You SOB, you stole that from me!






Ill explain it again, since you still misunderstand. Any time you use an insult as the reason for an argument to wrong, thats an ad hominem fallacy. I have a link for you if you need to beef up on it.

Also, you have yet to account for your poor grammar from earlier...so, waiting for that explanation.

Come on, this is super important stuff! We need to get to the bottom of this quickly!

Ya except nowhere has anyone used the insult as their argument. The insults have been a free bonus
It's remarkable how smug you can be when you're simply wrong. I wish I could do that

 

[HalfListic]

Ya except nowhere has anyone used the insult as their argument. The insults have been a free bonus
It's remarkable how smug you can be when you're simply wrong. I wish I could do that

Its true, but you come across as remarkably poised and mature. Maybe one day you can let me know how you accomplish such a feat, while still being the smartest med student of all the premed forum! :thumb up:





PS your comment reminded me of this...hope you're a the office fan:

Michael Scott: [reading the customer survey] "Jim Halpert is smudge and arrogant."
Jim Halpert: I think he means smug.
Michael Scott: Arrogance.
Jim Halpert: Michael, I'm just trying to...
Michael Scott: [interrupting] And there's our smudginess.

 

[SpecterGT260]

I feel like its the best way to make this thread as invalid as possible...plus, I kind of enjoy messing with the med student trollseys :roll eyes:


Theres not much constructive going on in this thread and despite multiple users trying to let it die and help it die, someone always brings it back. So, I just hope that when anyone new comes to read it, they just roll their eyes and move on to better things. If I have to roll in the mud a bit, so be it...I am the batman/mom of SDN (or so Im told)

Oh I see. So you are already aware that you were wrong but decided to make an issue of it anyways. Well Batman, I guess you "win" this round . I guess not much left to do till the convo turns back to your insecurities

 

[HalfListic]

Well Batman, I guess you "win" this round

YES!!! I knew you'd come around.

...we're friends now, and we always will be.






and its, Batmom

 

[SpecterGT260]

and its, Batmom

and*, *it's Batmom


Go sober up, kid

 

[SpecterGT260]

Better get this on track before it gets locked .

No, mine's bigger!


What I am saying actually, is that you are overstating the placebo effect with human touch. Basically, the way you have presented it here, any positive effect produced by human touch is negligible...making OMT in all likely cases, a big placebo.

So, if you want to set up a double blind with OMT, I don't think it should be compared to fake OMT but to basic human touch. If this can be established as different than human touch alone, by a significant margin, then there is cause to rule out other bias, such as technique and who's performing it.

I think you at looking further along in the testing than I am...but if you are arguing the very premise of OMT, start with that. If I misspoke about some part of testing I'm not aware of, great. I don't think you really could accomplish a double blind here though. But I think it's pretty easy to see that testing can be done and I'd still like to see what info is out there.

Human touch isn't an appropriate control. Johnny covers this some, but it is SOP for drug trials to simply withhold the active ingredient in such a way that neither the patient nor the doctor can tell which is which.

If you get the same effects as OMT with fake ONT performed by a practitioner who thinks it's the real thing, then you might as well only fake it.

I don't mean to be mean, but I get the impression you don't have any experience reading actual scientific papers.

this would actually be a great study to simply look at the efficacy. As per your earlier comment, it should also be compared against pharmaceutical treatments as a gold standard but this becomes more difficult..... unless we are OK with a meta that is

Take two MD's teach one fake ONT, teach the other OMT. Tell them they are new pain techniques and test it on patients. Do quazi-experiment and compare before and after.

Need more than two but yes

An easier way may be to administer OMT and then something like chiropractic and tell the pt it is OMT... but I'd hesitate to potentially validate chiropractic

 

[HalfListic]

Better get this on track before it gets locked .
Human touch isn't an appropriate control. Johnny covers this some, but it is SOP for drug trials to simply withhold the active ingredient in such a way that neither the patient nor the doctor can tell which is which.

thats strange since its used in almost every paper Ive read about it.

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&...jzLTiT&sig=AHIEtbTOrlpgyFrhrbxF_Mv0Sf_d45bg6w

But Im just a pre-med, I shouldn't question the higher ups.

 

[HalfListic]

I think it may help to agree on one idea...OMT (as far as I have seen) is not meant to replace pharmaceuticals in all cases, but to accompany them and enhance their effects. Not an alternative medicine, but a complimentary treatment.

Ive said it before that Im not 100% sold on the idea, but it needs a fair shakedown. Its not the same level as magic crystals and which craft...thats a silly argument.

So, if there is a discussion about it, it would be nice to keep it in proper context. Thats why it doesn't make sense to me to compare it to pharmaceuticals.

 

[NonTraditional3]

I think it may help to agree on one idea...OMT (as far as I have seen) is not meant to replace pharmaceuticals in all cases, but to accompany them and enhance their effects. Not an alternative medicine, but a complimentary treatment.

Ive said it before that Im not 100% sold on the idea, but it needs a fair shakedown. Its not the same level as magic crystals and which craft...thats a silly argument.

So, if there is a discussion about it, it would be nice to keep it in proper context. Thats why it doesn't make sense to me to compare it to pharmaceuticals.

How does OMT accompany tamoxifen?

 

[HalfListic]

How does OMT accompany tamoxifen?

did you think I meant that OMT is meant to accompany all treatment? You know how its used right?

Again, Im not even vouching for its efficacy here. I just want it evaluated correctly if Im going to be learning it.

I have a few choices as a future DO. One, sit back in OMM classes, try to let it in one ear and out the other. Two, I can blindly accept OMM and utilize it or not in my practice. Three, listen to the critics and blindly assume that OMM is pseudoscience. Or four, I can find out what OMM is really supposed to be and help test it. *the scientific method needs objectivity...and theres very little of that on this thread*

I obviously choose #4...I may not know as much as others about clinical trials, but I can tell when there is a heavy bias to dismiss something that may have some value. Id love to continue evaluating OMT, but Ill complain when I see its being misconstrued.

 

[SpecterGT260]

thats strange since its used in almost every paper Ive read about it.

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&...jzLTiT&sig=AHIEtbTOrlpgyFrhrbxF_Mv0Sf_d45bg6w

But Im just a pre-med, I shouldn't question the higher ups.

This doesnt make it a valid control..... you're welcome to question whoever you please. Technically you are just towing the line for a "higher up " (the DO who published that... I assume. Hard to read on my phone) and I'm the one questioning a higher up

The placebo effect depends on expected outcomes. Patient expectations: this will make me better. Physician expectations: this will make them better. If we use only touch rather than a false treatment both the patient and physician (or observer) lose this expectation. Therefore touch alone isn't appropriate

 

[SpecterGT260]

#1 under infection is not touch alone. They say "light touch sham OMT".... I am not seeing any examples of just touch alone as you suggested.
And #3 on page 4 has a very interesting conclusion based on the data... from their numbers it looked like morphine use was the only thing with a positive effect...

 

[pattr]

If you get the same effects as OMT with fake ONT performed by a practitioner who thinks it's the real thing, then you might as well only fake it.

I don't mean to be mean, but I get the impression you don't have any experience reading actual scientific papers.

Here's an example of how osteopathic research should be performed (with sham control group and large sample size):

http://www.om-pc.com/content/4/1/2

On the subject of achieving double blind by "teaching students a fake OMM"... this would not work because OMM actually requires you to palpate and perceive change structurally (using anatomical landmarks, physical exam tests, muscle tonicity, etc.) in order to know that your treatment has had an effect/is complete... it's not just doing random motions. Even medical students can understand when something is actually having an effect or not... So I don't think this would work though it is an interesting thought.

 

[SpecterGT260]

Here's an example of how osteopathic research should be performed (with sham control group and large sample size):

http://www.om-pc.com/content/4/1/2

On the subject of achieving double blind by "teaching students a fake OMM"... this would not work because OMM actually requires you to palpate and perceive change structurally (using anatomical landmarks, physical exam tests, muscle tonicity, etc.) in order to know that your treatment has had an effect/is complete... it's not just doing random motions. Even medical students can understand when something is actually having an effect or not... So I don't think this would work though it is an interesting thought.

That's fair
Have they done any to test your last paragraph? Give OMT practitioners a random set of both "sham" and truly ill patients and assess their ability to perceive the changes, as you put it

 

[deleted103644]

Take two MD's teach one fake ONT, teach the other OMT. Tell them they are new pain techniques and test it on patients. Do quazi-experiment and compare before and after.

Haha, that typo was unintentional, but I like it.

 

[deleted103644]

Busted...I'm a non trad from the business/tech side of life. But ad hominem with no further addition doesn't add to the discussion or further convince me of your points

I still don't see how teaching fake OMT to an unsuspecting student or professional would be both ethical and unbiased. Since OMT is a standardized practice, it Seems easier to compare to massage,etc.

But again, as I've said before...I'm open to real solutions. Criticism is empty without a solution.

It's not ad hominem.

Reading scientific literature is a skill that has to be learned to some extent to be able to separate the good from the bad publications.

There are many biases that can be introduced, and yes, the placebo effect is surprisingly strong in a variety of ways that may seem counter intuitive.

I noticed you didn't have a clear understanding of experiment design which is why I said that. This is nothing against you as a person (ergo not ad hominem), just means that you are unfamiliar with this subject and should try to learn more.

I won't be able to argue this stuff well enough to convince you (and you probably don't take me fully at my word because of my stated dislike for things like OMT). So don't listen to me, there are plenty of guides on approaches to scientific literature online, just find a reputable one. You should try to review some clinical studies in the NEJM and try to pick them apart.

 

[deleted103644]

I think it may help to agree on one idea...OMT (as far as I have seen) is not meant to replace pharmaceuticals in all cases, but to accompany them and enhance their effects. Not an alternative medicine, but a complimentary treatment.

Ive said it before that Im not 100% sold on the idea, but it needs a fair shakedown. Its not the same level as magic crystals and which craft...thats a silly argument.

So, if there is a discussion about it, it would be nice to keep it in proper context. Thats why it doesn't make sense to me to compare it to pharmaceuticals.

Btw, it's complementary (unless it's flattering).

If something is being proposed for use in treatment of something with a current standard of care, you have to compare it to that. If that involves pharmaceuticals, then yes, you need to test your alternative treatment against drugs alone (probably alt vs drugs vs alt + drugs assuming alt alone isn't unethical - you would need more controls too for alt vs sham alt).

 

[MaxillofacialMN]

Aww man! If I knew this was going to happen I'd have stayed up later last night! Rats!

 

[HalfListic]

Aww man! If I knew this was going to happen I'd have stayed up later last night! Rats!

Yeah, I was tore a new one last night...I had to sleep Ina bit after that one

 

[SpecterGT260]

Btw, it's complementary (unless it's flattering).

If something is being proposed for use in treatment of something with a current standard of care, you have to compare it to that. If that involves pharmaceuticals, then yes, you need to test your alternative treatment against drugs alone (probably alt vs drugs vs alt + drugs assuming alt alone isn't unethical - you would need more controls too for alt vs sham alt).

Yes, most often the papers supporting OMT have crazy bias that goes unaddressed. They may randomize patients, but in one study they looked at DO vs MD where the DOs could use Rx but also OMT and the MDs were restricted to Rx (Obviously). Their endpoints were "Pts receiving OMT used less of xxxx drug and less of yyyyy drug...." ect..... How is that not bias on the part of the practitioner? A completely inappropriate test design for the conclusions they want to show. Many of the tests in the link above have similar problems - but that is what happens when people try to defend a belief with scientific evidence rather than letting the data fall where it will.

 

[cliquesh]

Yes, most often the papers supporting OMT have crazy bias that goes unaddressed. They may randomize patients, but in one study they looked at DO vs MD where the DOs could use Rx but also OMT and the MDs were restricted to Rx (Obviously). Their endpoints were "Pts receiving OMT used less of xxxx drug and less of yyyyy drug...." ect..... How is that not bias on the part of the practitioner? A completely inappropriate test design for the conclusions they want to show. Many of the tests in the link above have similar problems - but that is what happens when people try to defend a belief with scientific evidence rather than letting the data fall where it will.

I think they gave both groups pain pills and told them they could take as many as they wanted and then compared the number of pills used between the omm group and the "control".

 

[SpecterGT260]

I think they gave both groups pain pills and told them they could take as many as they wanted and then compared the number of pills used between the omm group and the "control".

I have seen that but I have also seen "pts w OMT were prescribed fewer xxxxx than those without"

 

[cliquesh]

I have seen that but I have also seen "pts w OMT were prescribed fewer xxxxx than those without"

That's lame.

 

[Ost3oclast]

This thread reminds me of Brett Favre. Just when you think its gone, it keeps coming back.

 

[SpecterGT260]

it absolutely is lame in terms of a control for the study.

 

[deleted103644]

I have seen that but I have also seen "pts w OMT were prescribed fewer xxxxx than those without"

Haha, considering old school DOs didn't believe in medications, I'm not surprised.

Does anyone know the date when DOs caved in and started prescribing medications?

In return, I'll share the factoid that Mormons decided that black people weren't evil in 1978.

 

[iPhysician]

Haha, considering old school DOs didn't believe in medications, I'm not surprised.

Does anyone know the date when DOs caved in and started prescribing medications?

In return, I'll share the factoid that Mormons decided that black people weren't evil in 1978.

Wow. Thought they were evil huh...thats an interesting way to generalize the history of Mormonism.

Receiving rights in the priesthood is very different than being evil.

That may have been a joke, but I actually take offense to it on a personal and academic level. If you are interested in an accurate description feel free to PM me as this is not a philosophy forum.

or continue to troll anything you dont understand. I After reading many of your comments, you exude far more intolerance than intelligence. I can only imagine this is a character flaw that can only hurt your abilities as a physician.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

Wow. Thought they were evil huh...thats an interesting was to generalize the history of Mormonism.

Receiving rights in the priesthood is very different than being evil.

That may have been a joke, but I actually take offense to it on a personal and academic level. If you are interested in an accurate description feel free to PM me as this is not a philosophy forum.

or continue to troll anything you dont understand. I After reading many of your comments, you exude far more intolerance than intelligence. I can only imagine this is a character flaw that can only hurt your abilities as a physician.

Well Mormonism believes that Black people are the direct result of Cain's sin and that all of his offspring were black because of it. But regardless, we're not debating the asininity of Mormonism.

 

[iPhysician]

Well Mormonism believes that Black people are the direct result of Cain's sin and that all of his offspring were black because of it. But regardless, we're not debating the asininity of Mormonism.

No they don't...there are plenty of fun quoted like these that suddenly surface when theres a Mormon presidential candidate.

Interesting.

Stick with your last sentence... And pm me with any questions. But please don't misrepresent my religion, especially in a science forum of all places!