Forbes Osteopathic Medicine Article

[IslandStyle808]

Two wrongs don't make a right.

Also, a key difference is that DOs have taken their nonsense (your word, not mine) and used it as a primary characteristic to distinguish themselves from MDs.

Uh no. My point has nothing to do with two wrongs.

Its seeing the shades of grey in everything. OMM evidence isn't that strong, but the whole concept of it should not just be tossed just because most studies are invalid. You might as well throw out 30% of mainstream medicine because a good chunk of it is based on anecdotal evidence or will have evidence in the future that will over throw it. OMM still has enough evidence in some arenas that it can be used in combination with other treatments. Its not about two wrongs, its about know in what context OMM should be used and when it should be discarded.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Scrubs101]

Plenty of homeopaths are trained physicians. What do you have against MDs and DOs who prescribe homeopathic medicines on the basis of anecdotes and "water memory" pseudo-science?

I'm sorry thought you were referring to NDs, physicians that partake in homeopathy is a little different but still not on my good side (first off, wow im shocked by that data you posted never would have guess that many docs partake in it).

The OMM docs I've seen in practice do not continue treatment if the patient is not progressing and do not give false hopes or exaggerate their goals of treatment, it's mostly "hey lets give this a try and if it works for you than great if not then you should try something else", now if my experience had been more of the opposite than I'd probably have similar feelings as you. From what I've heard regarding homeopaths (NDs) (besides the fact none of it is scientific at all) is they try and convince their patients they can do something they cant, and really push anti-mainstream medicine propoganda, such as anti-vax, anti-oncology (dont even get me started on the ND trying to say all of oncology is a sham and all for profit), and anti-pharm.

Don't know much at all about homeopathy besides the fact it is as a whole based off of literal anti-science, MOST (not all) of OMM is based off of biomechanics (reread my previous statements if you wish to know which ones i disagree with/want abolished). At my school our orthopods, PMR, OMM, and biomechanists all do research together. Also MOST of OMM is the same physical therapy, so yes i would have no problem sending my patients to either PT or OMM.

If you live too strongly by the book of EBM you have a lot more fights to pick than just with OMM, i should see you picking fights in the PT, Ortho, and other medical forums on here too.

I'm in neuro and MSK right now and this may be an over exaggeration but there is a **** of drugs we use that we just dont know the mechanism of action for (for diseases we dont know the MOA of sometimes) and for MSK a lot of treatment plans seem to go like this conservative (rest, ice, nsaid) ---> steroid injections ----> surgery if all else fails, i see no issue throwing OMM into the conservative treatment plan and if it works and we dont have to make that next step then great! If not, take the next step. It has minimal risks, relatively minimal cost, and is pretty quick. I guess i may just have a bias because I've seen it work and have talked to patients that have had their lives changed by it, but using that in my argument doesnt make me any better than the snake oil salesman.

I whole heartedly think OMM is a a useful tool to have in you line up of treatments for MSK issues. Now if it's a good doctor they will not continue treatment if the patient is not benefitting and take that next step if need be. OMM not is not some snake oil treatment that some ND tells you will cure your cancer, it is a treatment option, and like MANY treatment options within the world of modern medicine has not been proven to be more effective than other treatments for x condition. But it is a low risk treatment, relatively low cost, and when done by an ethical doctor wont be prolonged past the point of realizing "hey its not really working for this patient". So im in the boat of why not, if done ethically.

I do not plan on using OMM in the future and am overall not the biggest fan of it, that being said it is not this useless pseudoscience monster some people on here make it out to be.

Also and I mean this sincerely, best of luck with the application process. Once you make it you can just "fake it till you make it" and forget about it if you want, many of us do this. You are not forced to use it in practice if you dont want to

 

[Ho0v-man]

We obviously have our disagreements, but I still respect y'all. I think you'll be good physicians one day. Every single one of yas.

Anyway, I've made my position clear. I'mma bounce. See you hooligans on other threads.

Sincerely, best of luck to ya in the process. If you end up at a school with some good omm faculty/fellows like mine you’ll probably be doing techniques in lab and think “This is BS nonsense” and then the faculty will come over and do it and knock your socks off. You can really tell a difference between novice classmates and dedicated experts. Despite my comments in this thread, I’m actually a pretty skeptical guy and really wanted to not find results with some treatments bc I hate doing them (ie sacral stuff) but I’ve been surprised.

I haven’t gotten to cranial or Chapman’s points though.

 

[Ho0v-man]

The problem with arguing with the OMM apologists is they always move the goal posts. They say “the MSK stuff is great!” And we all go yeah no ****. But let’s kill the vast majority of it. Including but not limited to:
Cranial
Sacral nutation or whatever nonsense they use in association with cranial
Sacral unilateral flexion??? (I love this one. Bro you’re saying this bone is flexed on one side?)
Chapman points
Jones points
Viscerosomatic reflexes
Anterior and posterior tender points
Cervical HVLA
Inhibitory trigeminal nerve tapping
INTRAVAGINAL maneuvers

Once all that crap is stricken and completely disavowed then let’s talk about the parts that overlap with PT and actually have science and reason behind them.

Pretty good post tbh. Kinda sad that outdated stuff like you mentioned stays in the curricula bc of “tradition” or whatever. Especially when one considers that the whole field was founded on the realization that practices at the time were ineffective so something else should be tried.

I will say that if your SI is bothering you, sacral/innominate MET feels pretty good.

 

[jw3600]

Pretty good post tbh. Kinda sad that outdated stuff like you mentioned stays in the curricula bc of “tradition” or whatever. Especially when one considers that the whole field was founded on the realization that practices at the time were ineffective so something else should be tried.

I will say that if your SI is bothering you, sacral/innominate MET feels pretty good.

I know.

 

[NurWollen]

The problem with arguing with the OMM apologists is they always move the goal posts. They say “the MSK stuff is great!” And we all go yeah no ****. But let’s kill the vast majority of it. Including but not limited to:
Cranial
Sacral nutation or whatever nonsense they use in association with cranial
Sacral unilateral flexion??? (I love this one. Bro you’re saying this bone is flexed on one side?)
Chapman points
Jones points
Viscerosomatic reflexes
Anterior and posterior tender points
Cervical HVLA
Inhibitory trigeminal nerve tapping
INTRAVAGINAL maneuvers

Once all that crap is stricken and completely disavowed then let’s talk about the parts that overlap with PT and actually have science and reason behind them.

You make some good points.

I'm always surprised how even some people who bash cranial and Chapman's points seem to think that the diagnosis and naming of somatic dysfunctions makes sense.

So this one vertebrae is turned a certain way? And we're supposed to be able to discern that by palpation? Even though any imaging would almost certainly show a normal spine?

Some of the MET and HVLA for the thoracic and lumbar spine feels great though. I'm pretty sure any benefit though has to do with better mobilization of tense musculature, rather than a bone being popped back in to place.

Sent from my SM-G930V using SDN mobile

 

[jw3600]

You make some good points.

I'm always surprised how even some people who bash cranial and Chapman's points seem to think that the diagnosis and naming of somatic dysfunctions makes sense.

So this one vertebrae is turned a certain way? And we're supposed to be able to discern that by palpation? Even though any imaging would almost certainly show a normal spine?

Some of the MET and HVLA for the thoracic and lumbar spine feels great though. I'm pretty sure any benefit though has to do with better mobilization of tense musculature, rather than a bone being popped back in to place.

Sent from my SM-G930V using SDN mobile

Oh 100% agree. Inter operater reliability for all of this is complete garbage. But you can’t deny that certain spines for sure have restrictions in motion and tenderness in certain patterns. Treating it is basically trial and error. I will argue that just because an MRI spine is normal doesn’t mean every little ligament, joint, facet, and tiny intervertebral muscle is without pathology at least on some spectrum.

 

[deleted831695]

Do you care about getting rid of anti-DO bias? If you do, then eliminating pseudo-scientific theories and practices that are unique to the DO profession would be a step in the right direction, I think.

If the letters "DO" were changed to "MD,O" tomorrow, I bet like half the bias, if not more, would be gone, not because of OMM.

 

[Medic741]

I for one am excited for the extra $70/visit

 

[BorntobeDO?]

Here's my optimistic take, as well ... I get 200+ extra hours of MSK exposure which can't hurt, I take on the role of a patient for 2 hours a week for 2 years, shirt off, poked and prodded and exposed and I think that's helped me feel much more sympathetic to patients when they're put in the same situation in front of me. And my palpating skills are probably leagues better than MD students starting 3rd year. Maybe that'll help?

Bottom line, OMM can be what you make of it, given we don't have much choice. Sometimes it's really annoying and feels like it's getting in the way and other times it feels very useful learning to reset an anteriorly displaced mandible.

It hurts! It hurts my thumbs, my brain, my boards... Oh thats probably a SBS dysfunction that I need fixed, will eliminate that dysfunction right there. Maybe I have a chatmans point acting up? Someone do some fascial distortion!

 

[jrlob91]

Sure, you can make a patient feel good in the short term by prescribing homeopathic medicines, performing craniosacral therapy, communicating with their dead grandparents in the spirit world, and temporarily withholding a diagnosis from them in the case of untreatable conditions.

But what's the long-term cost? The long-term cost is the breakdown of the medical profession's reputation and a strong sense of public distrust toward physicians. That's a large-scale public health cost that far outweighs the ounce of satisfaction your patient derives from the placebo effect after one of your bone wizardry sessions.

If omm works on a chronic pain patient, I don’t see how that is more “short term” than the oxycodone pill that lasts four hours before he/she has to take another one? Seriously, I don’t even like omm that much but this thread is full of MD student or OMS-0 bull crap that doesn’t even pertain to any of you. Let it go.