Is Osteopathy science?

  • Thread starter Thread starter deleted158872
  • Start date Start date
Discover Your Odds of Getting into Medical School
This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
D

deleted158872

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
First of all, I don't want to offend anyone. I'm simply scientifically curious: Has there been experiments or evidence to show that Osteopathy is science-based or evidence-based as opposed to unproven stuff like homeopathy or naturopathy?
 
Yes, butthole.
 
If you want to know about Osteopathic Medicine from the very beginning and how it has proven itself since then; read "The DOs: Osteopathic Medicine in America."

This is a little off topic, but in relation to this book I wanted to point out some of the irony within the conversation of "D.O. vs M.D."
Almost everyone in the medical community can agree that D.O. and M.D. schools offer the same curriculum. In some cases, Osteopathic schools offer even more science based labs and classes and yes, Osteopathic medical schools also have the coveted OMM lab in addition to all of the other courses involved. What was eye opening to me, though, was the fact that D.O. schools and M.D. schools have been practicing the same classroom techniques since the beginning of the first "official" school of Osteopathic medicine in Kirksville.

An excerpt from the book..

"Stone's veto (of Still's first school proposal) and the urgings of Smith and others who had argues that the DOs training was incomplete finally convinced Still that he had to make changes. By the end of 1896 he had formally lengthened the course of study to four terms of five months each, and at dedication ceremonies of a new college building he announced, "I am now prepared to teach anatomy, physiology, surgery, theory and practice, also midwifery in that form that has proven itself to be an honor to the profession."(28) Several months later the school published a more detailed course outline that also included histology, chemistry, urinalysis, toxicology, pathology, and symptomatology.(29) Thereafter Still's supporters maintained that every subject covered in a standard medical college, with the exception of materia medica, was taught at the American School of Osteopathy." (The DOs: Osteopathic Medicine in America, p. 31)


P.S. "Materia medica" is just another way of saying medicine in Latin language.
 
OrdinaryMD said:
If you want to know about Osteopathic Medicine from the very beginning and how it has proven itself since then; read "The DOs: Osteopathic Medicine in America."

This is a little off topic, but in relation to this book I wanted to point out some of the irony within the conversation of "D.O. vs M.D."
Almost everyone in the medical community can agree that D.O. and M.D. schools offer the same curriculum. In some cases, Osteopathic schools offer even more science based labs and classes and yes, Osteopathic medical schools also have the coveted OMM lab in addition to all of the other courses involved. What was eye opening to me, though, was the fact that D.O. schools and M.D. schools have been practicing the same classroom techniques since the beginning of the first "official" school of Osteopathic medicine in Kirksville.

An excerpt from the book..

"Stone's veto (of Still's first school proposal) and the urgings of Smith and others who had argues that the DOs training was incomplete finally convinced Still that he had to make changes. By the end of 1896 he had formally lengthened the course of study to four terms of five months each, and at dedication ceremonies of a new college building he announced, "I am now prepared to teach anatomy, physiology, surgery, theory and practice, also midwifery in that form that has proven itself to be an honor to the profession."(28) Several months later the school published a more detailed course outline that also included histology, chemistry, urinalysis, toxicology, pathology, and symptomatology.(29) Thereafter Still's supporters maintained that every subject covered in a standard medical college, with the exception of materia medica, was taught at the American School of Osteopathy." (The DOs: Osteopathic Medicine in America, p. 31)


P.S. "Materia medica" is just another way of saying medicine in Latin language.
Click to expand...

If A. T. Stills had his way, none of those courses would have been added. In order to be truly recognized as physicians by the states D.O.s practiced in, the school had to make their curriculum "almost" the same as M.D. schools. It was more of a forced move.
 
EDIT: Double post.
 
Maruko said:
First of all, I don't want to offend anyone. I'm simply scientifically curious: Has there been experiments or evidence to show that Osteopathy is science-based or evidence-based as opposed to unproven stuff like homeopathy or naturopathy?
Click to expand...
http://www.aacom.org/docs/default-source/cib/bgom.pdf?sfvrsn=6

If you go to the "Brief Guide to Osteopathic Medicine: For students by students" booklet that is published by AACOM, flip to page 19 and you'll find the following quote: "Throughout our review of the existing osteopathic literature, we discovered that finding strong, valid evidence to support OMM proved somewhat difficult due to the general shortage of research and the limitations of current studies. Common obstacles in osteopathic research include small sample sizes, the subjectivity of unclearly defined pain scales, lack of double-blinding, pre-trial participant bias regarding OMM, occasional lack of interjudge reliability, and failure to account for inter-operator variability."
 
IslandStyle808 said:
If A. T. Stills had his way, none of those courses would have been added. In order to be truly recognized as physicians by the states D.O.s practiced in, the school had to make their curriculum "almost" the same as M.D. schools. It was more of a forced move.
Click to expand...

I don't think it matters if it were forced or not. Sure, it was somewhat forced, but it already had a foundation for proven (to the community) medicinal usage using their hands, as they would say back then. Who is to say that it wouldn't have eventually shifted to this style of schooling in the future, anyway? A.T. Still didn't want to ever have to use medicine in his line of work, he was big in massaging, bonesetting, all of that good stuff. But, today, Osteopathic schools practice with medicine along with everything else that comes along with the M.D. curriculum.

Apollo1 said:
When did MD schools, or any other schools, start yearning for OMM?
Click to expand...
Not sure if I just don't understand your question or if you are trolling? OMM is the foundation of Osteopathic medicine. M.D. Schools do not teach OMT/OMM in their curriculum.
 
OrdinaryMD said:
I don't think it matters if it were forced or not. Sure, it was somewhat forced, but it already had a foundation for proven (to the community) medicinal usage using their hands, as they would say back then. Who is to say that it wouldn't have eventually shifted to this style of schooling in the future, anyway? A.T. Still didn't want to ever have to use medicine in his line of work, he was big in massaging, bonesetting, all of that good stuff. But, today, Osteopathic schools practice with medicine along with everything else that comes along with the M.D. curriculum.


Not sure if I just don't understand your question or if you are trolling? OMM is the foundation of Osteopathic medicine. M.D. Schools do not teach OMT/OMM in their curriculum.
Click to expand...

Trolling? Do you just not know what the word coveted means?
 
Is it science? Well that depends on your definition of science. Is it inquisitive..innovative..and aims to treat a problem? Then yes. Is it empirically supported consistently through double blind trials? Not so much. Do patients report feeling better afterwards? Often. As you can see, it's complicated...some studies show efficacy in certain areas (treating chronic back pain) while others don't fully support its' use. I'm always a fan of...if it helps but does not harm...why not continue it? Until then, more studies will evaluate its' efficacy....and the debate will rage on.
 
Akech said:
Trolling? Do you just not know what the word coveted means?
Click to expand...
...I am not about to sit here and have a grammar session with someone who is clearly way off-topic. Yes, I know what it means and it is fitting for the sentence. It may not be your choice of word usage, but it is mine. So please, back to the main topic now?
 
OP, for what it's worth, at multiples CME conferences I've attended with my work I've seen research that supports OMM.

Specifically, I saw one D.O. present his research on how OMM reduced hospitalization due to pneumonia by 1.5 days using a technique that (presumably) increased lymphatic flow. I also saw research presented that showed cranial OMM's effectiveness in reducing/eliminating pain post motor vehicle accidents.

Now, were these studies following the gold standard of scientific literature (double-blind, etc.)? Probably not. As @SPQR MD quoted previously, there are specific reasons why it's particularly difficult to research OMM. Take that for what you will.
 
brenasuarus said:
OP, for what it's worth, at multiples CME conferences I've attended with my work I've seen research that supports OMM.

Specifically, I saw one D.O. present his research on how OMM reduced hospitalization due to pneumonia by 1.5 days using a technique that (presumably) increased lymphatic flow. I also saw research presented that showed cranial OMM's effectiveness in reducing/eliminating pain post motor vehicle accidents.

Now, were these studies following the gold standard of scientific literature (double-blind, etc.)? Probably not. As @SPQR MD quoted previously, there are specific reasons why it's particularly difficult to research OMM. Take that for what you will.
Click to expand...

Was all of this published in the JAOA? That has to stop if OMM is going to move forward or the journal needs to be revamped.

I've seen too many studies with "promise" only to find out the pt population was healthy med students, the number of pts was too low, or the study was poorly controlled. The results then become anecdotal at best.

I'm sure there are some decent studies but they are tucked away in non-IF rated journal not held up to scrutiny to any greater scientific or medical community.
 
Maruko said:
First of all, I don't want to offend anyone. I'm simply scientifically curious: Has there been experiments or evidence to show that Osteopathy is science-based or evidence-based as opposed to unproven stuff like homeopathy or naturopathy?
Click to expand...
If by osteopathy you are only talking about the manipulation portion of the training, I'll it's a mixed bag with mainly little evidence. There is some research that has been done, but it is very questionable. I honestly can't ever see myself using OMM on patients.
 
DrEnderW said:
Was all of this published in the JAOA? That has to stop if OMM is going to move forward or the journal needs to be revamped.

I've seen too many studies with "promise" only to find out the pt population was healthy med students, the number of pts was too low, or the study was poorly controlled. The results then become anecdotal at best.

I'm sure there are some decent studies but they are tucked away in non-IF rated journal not held up to scrutiny to any greater scientific or medical community.
Click to expand...
Reminds me of this one study about my depression one of the OMM teachers was raving about. When you read it, you realize that there were only 8 patients in treatment and they were given OMT in addition to psychotherapy and medication.

As for the JAOA, I can't believe it even exists as a journal. It has 0 as its impact factor.
 
AlbinoHawk DO said:
Reminds me of this one study about my depression one of the OMM teachers was raving about. When you read it, you realize that there were only 8 patients in treatment and they were given OMT in addition to psychotherapy and medication.

As for the JAOA, I can't believe it even exists as a journal. It has 0 as its impact factor.
Click to expand...
Well, technically the JAOA does not currently track citations to calculate an IF, so it does indeed have an IF >0... it's just not calculated. They're working on being indexed by the Journal Citation Reports system in order to get an IF.

Not that say that I think it's too much higher than zero, but... yeah.
 
Last edited:
Of course it is scientific...the problem is that it is very operator dependent, patient dependent, without a good placebo for double-blind studies. In the right context...people can improve with OMT. It doesn't cure everyone...but in regards to pain, there are very few treatments or modalities that do.
 
I actually prefer the whole holistic approach to medicine. I don't like it when doctors fail to treat the source of the problem. Most md's however, well any doctor treat holistically to a certain degree;however, I have seen cases where the lifestyle of the pt is never even considered as a treatment option.
 
OrdinaryMD said:
Not sure if I just don't understand your question or if you are trolling? OMM is the foundation of Osteopathic medicine. M.D. Schools do not teach OMT/OMM in their curriculum.
Click to expand...

I'm not trolling. As you said, OMM belongs to osteopathic medical schools; however, that doesn't mean that other schools desire OMM and/or have started using OMM. Hence my questioning of how OMM is "coveted."
 
Maruko said:
First of all, I don't want to offend anyone. I'm simply scientifically curious: Has there been experiments or evidence to show that Osteopathy is science-based or evidence-based as opposed to unproven stuff like homeopathy or naturopathy?
Click to expand...

There is very little evidence out there that OMM has any basis in science. DO schools used to be focused strictly on Osteopathy many years ago but began adding medical science, that is why DOs have the same practice rights as MDs today.
 
j4pac said:
Of course it is scientific...the problem is that it is very operator dependent, patient dependent, without a good placebo for double-blind studies. In the right context...people can improve with OMT. It doesn't cure everyone...but in regards to pain, there are very few treatments or modalities that do.
Click to expand...

This is the classic response to squirm out of a legitimate, honest critique.

The same could be said for surgical procedures (surgeon skill, adherence to rehab, radiological analysis, institutional differences, pain tolerance, placebo control, etc). Despite all of that, there are THOUSANDS of high quality surgical studies every year in a multiple of high quality journals. There are intelligent ways to get around the problems you address.

That is excuse has to stop.
 
Apollo1 said:
I'm not trolling. As you said, OMM belongs to osteopathic medical schools; however, that doesn't mean that other schools desire OMM and/or have started using OMM. Hence my questioning of how OMM is "coveted."
Click to expand...

I never, not once, said that other schools desired for it. Please, let me clarify this ever so difficult word so you can rest at ease. I am guessing you Googled this word and couldn't wrap your head around how to use it. COVETED=DESIRED. OMM can be desired by anyone, patients being the main focus here... In the late 1800's and early 1900's it was OMM that the people were so fascinated with and it was the one type of practice DOs were using. I mentioned MD vs DO one time in order to compare curriculum, I never once implied that MDs long for an OMM class.

I hope this is clear now. Not going to reply to your quotes again.
 
DrEnderW said:
This is the classic response to squirm out of a legitimate, honest critique.

The same could be said for surgical procedures (surgeon skill, adherence to rehab, radiological analysis, institutional differences, pain tolerance, placebo control, etc). Despite all of that, there are THOUSANDS of high quality surgical studies every year in a multiple of high quality journals. There are intelligent ways to get around the problems you address.

That is excuse has to stop.
Click to expand...

Thanks for giving me a good laugh. A med student educating me on intelligent medical decisions? Good stuff.

Do you have patient's with chronic pain? What is your answer to chronic pain? That of which is "standard of care" such as doping your patients up with medications that do NOTHING to treat them? Of how about referring your patient to a surgeon to perform a procedure that does NOT have good outcomes for their chronic pain condition?

Modern medicine has very POOR answers for chronic pain. The best answer is a multidisciplinary approach toward pain which includes mental health, rehabilitation, and many other techniques that you consider voodoo.
 
j4pac said:
Thanks for giving me a good laugh. A med student educating me on intelligent medical decisions? Good stuff.

Do you have patient's with chronic pain? What is your answer to chronic pain? That of which is "standard of care" such as doping your patients up with medications that do NOTHING to treat them? Of how about referring your patient to a surgeon to perform a procedure that does NOT have good outcomes for their chronic pain condition?

Modern medicine has very POOR answers for chronic pain. The best answer is a multidisciplinary approach toward pain which includes mental health, rehabilitation, and many other techniques that you consider voodoo.
Click to expand...

Huh? Maybe you meant to respond to someone else? You should re-read my post.

I'm not sure how study design and controlling for inherent biases has anything to do with medical decision making? What does managing chronic pain have to do with anything I am discussing regarding OMM research design?
 
OrdinaryMD said:
I never, not once, said that other schools desired for it. Please, let me clarify this ever so difficult word so you can rest at ease. I am guessing you Googled this word and couldn't wrap your head around how to use it. COVETED=DESIRED. OMM can be desired by anyone, patients being the main focus here... In the late 1800's and early 1900's it was OMM that the people were so fascinated with and it was the one type of practice DOs were using. I mentioned MD vs DO one time in order to compare curriculum, I never once implied that MDs long for an OMM class.

I hope this is clear now. Not going to reply to your quotes again.
Click to expand...

No need to get bent out of shape and impolite. This is getting a bit pedantic, but coveting something is not solely desiring something, but desiring something and not being able to have it. To point out what you had initially said:

OrdinaryMD said:
and yes, Osteopathic medical schools also have the coveted OMM lab in addition to all of the other courses involved.
Click to expand...

You compared coursework, and "coveted" just doesn't apply here. Also, patients won't covet for OMM because they can get the treatment from a D.O. I'm not trying to debate the validity of the practice itself; plenty of people of visit here and we shouldn't be putting out false info (even when unintentional). Try to enjoy the rest of your day.
 
Apollo1 said:
No need to get bent out of shape and impolite. This is getting a bit pedantic, but coveting something is not solely desiring something, but desiring something and not being able to have it. To point out what you had initially said:



You compared coursework, and "coveted" just doesn't apply here. Also, patients won't covet for OMM because they can get the treatment from a D.O. I'm not trying to debate the validity of the practice itself; plenty of people of visit here and we shouldn't be putting out false info (even when unintentional). Try to enjoy the rest of your day.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the grammar lesson.. Feel like contributing to the actual thread now?
 
DrEnderW said:
Huh? Maybe you meant to respond to someone else? You should re-read my post.

I'm not sure how study design and controlling for inherent biases has anything to do with medical decision making? What does managing chronic pain have to do with anything I am discussing regarding OMM research design?
Click to expand...

No...I was replying to you, just as you were to me. I think that there is a bit of a disconnect regarding the points we are trying to get across...so if you don't mind, how would you intelligently design a double blind study that has scientific relevance for OMT?
 
j4pac said:
No...I was replying to you, just as you were to me. I think that there is a bit of a disconnect regarding the points we are trying to get across...so if you don't mind, how would you intelligently design a double blind study that has scientific relevance for OMT?
Click to expand...

I was comparing surgical research to how OMT research could be conducted.

For example, in surgical research I'm involved in we control for surgical skill by having the same surgeon perform all procedures at a single institution, physiologic outcome is done by quantitative radiological outcomes evaluated by a single radiologist blind to the procedure, functional outcome is judged using a standardized and validated form given by blinded office staff. Patient data is collected for years to have a large N, let's say 100 for a relatively rare procedure. Common pain scales are used. Follow up and adherence to rehab are strict inclusion criteria for the study. These things control as best as possible for some of the variables discussed.

Double blinding isn't going to happen with either surgery of OMT as the operator obviously knows the dx.

An OMM study could control by having a single operator, have the dx and results validated by a blinded 2nd operator, inclusion and exclusion criteria implemented, strict follow up protocol to somewhat control for patient compliance, increase the number of patients, use a validated pain scale for that region etc. For a dx that involve measurable MSK alignment, blinded radiologists could evaluate radiographs before and after treatment. These are just a couple quick thoughts.

I actually really support the validity of OMM and we share the same view on chronic pain. I want the research to increase in quality so it can find a more accepted place as a treatment modality not because I think it's voodoo.
 
SpartanWolverine said:
Well, technically the JAOA does not currently track citations to calculate an IF, so it does indeed have an IF >0... it's just not calculated. They're working on being indexed by the Journal Citation Reports system in order to get an IF.

Not that say that I think it's too much higher than zero, but... yeah.
Click to expand...
I didn't know that. You learn something new every day. Thanks for the info.
 
Overall, poorly tested in some areas, decent in some, but for others, pure unproven claims. Please do not get me started on cranial manipulation or Chapman's points. Actually, on cranial OMM, there may be some therapeutic benefits, but the explanation needs to be changed to one more realistic. Those bones don't move, period.

The best evidence for OMT is on musculoskeletal issues, but there's some decent evidence of its use for other things.

Maruko said:
First of all, I don't want to offend anyone. I'm simply scientifically curious: Has there been experiments or evidence to show that Osteopathy is science-based or evidence-based as opposed to unproven stuff like homeopathy or naturopathy?
Click to expand...
 
Osteopathic manipulation is not much different from Chiropractic manipulation, the reason why DOs are equivalent to MDs in terms of practice rights is that we get actual evidence based medical science education. Many years ago DO schools focused strictly on OMM. DOs have had full practice rights in all 50 US states for only the past 20 years or so.

I think on musculoskeletal issues there is some benefit, but I read in my textbook that OMM has therapeutic value for issues like constipation then it starts to make you wonder.
 
Last edited:
O Grady said:
Are you sure you're a medical student?
Click to expand...

Yes, and there is no real wide body of evidence that Osteopathic Manipulation is efficacious. Its not that different from Chiropractic manipulation. They are different to some degree, but both involve manual manipulation of the musculo-skeletal system of the body.
 
DrEnderW said:
I was comparing surgical research to how OMT research could be conducted.

For example, in surgical research I'm involved in we control for surgical skill by having the same surgeon perform all procedures at a single institution, physiologic outcome is done by quantitative radiological outcomes evaluated by a single radiologist blind to the procedure, functional outcome is judged using a standardized and validated form given by blinded office staff. Patient data is collected for years to have a large N, let's say 100 for a relatively rare procedure. Common pain scales are used. Follow up and adherence to rehab are strict inclusion criteria for the study. These things control as best as possible for some of the variables discussed.

Double blinding isn't going to happen with either surgery of OMT as the operator obviously knows the dx.

An OMM study could control by having a single operator, have the dx and results validated by a blinded 2nd operator, inclusion and exclusion criteria implemented, strict follow up protocol to somewhat control for patient compliance, increase the number of patients, use a validated pain scale for that region etc. For a dx that involve measurable MSK alignment, blinded radiologists could evaluate radiographs before and after treatment. These are just a couple quick thoughts.

I actually really support the validity of OMM and we share the same view on chronic pain. I want the research to increase in quality so it can find a more accepted place as a treatment modality not because I think it's voodoo.
Click to expand...

I like your idea...especially about standardizing the operator and trying to control inclusion/exclusion criteria...but your design is going to have problems for a few reasons:

1) You are using radiographic evidence of somatic dysfunction as the standard of diagnosis. It's not the standard. If it was the standard I would save my time and skip the evaluation while getting x-rays instead.

2) Just like herniated disc on MRI does not equal back pain and visa versa...somatic dysfunction does not equal back pain and visa versa. The exact cause of back pain is not always easy to determine, and that is the purpose of multidisciplinary approach toward pain. This is a big reason why most Ortho-spine procedures have significantly inconsistent results...and why more than 90% of the time, conservative treatment will be the initial treatment.

3) I do believe that pain scale and functional outcome is probably the most useful and realistic measure of outcome when it comes to OMT. The problem is that both are HIGHLY subjective and based on patient perception. A strong placebo control group is important in determining the effect of bias on the study...which as you know is difficult to achieve. The importance of the psychological aspect of pain perception can't be underestimated and that has been stated consistently over current pain management literature. Most surgical studies have more objective measures of outcomes, which simplifies the methods considerably. And the surgical procedures which don't...see vertebral fusions, disc pain, tenodesis...have considerably less support than say ACL reconstruction. The moment a quality study that demonstrates that OMT improves subjective pain, critics will arguing that it was due to placebo.

4) Even if your study shows that OMT is superior to placebo and/or nothing...there will be questions about the consistency of OMT training in DO schools. Not all DOs are created equal in regards to OMT. The conductor of the study should have proficiency in Sports Medicine to ensure that ONLY somatic dysfunction can account for symptoms (which is very difficult to do with back pain)...and they should also be very skilled at OMT. But when that the study points in favor of OMT, is it because you have a one and a million conductor? What will the study really prove?
 
IslandStyle808 said:
If A. T. Stills had his way, none of those courses would have been added. In order to be truly recognized as physicians by the states D.O.s practiced in, the school had to make their curriculum "almost" the same as M.D. schools. It was more of a forced move.
Click to expand...

I have always liked to envision it as an arms race: MDs felt threatened by DOs and put political pressure on them. DOs upped their game to meet the new requirements and the cycle repeated.

The "persecution" of early osteopathic medicine is what drove it to be what it is today. It's a cool mutual (?) beneficial arrangement: DOs became more academically/scientifically rigorous and MDs became more attenuated to the biopsycosocial aspects of their patients.

Win/win
 
Monkitty said:
I have always liked to envision it as an arms race: MDs felt threatened by DOs and put political pressure on them. DOs upped their game to meet the new requirements and the cycle repeated.

The "persecution" of early osteopathic medicine is what drove it to be what it is today. It's a cool mutual (?) beneficial arrangement: DOs became more academically/scientifically rigorous and MDs became more attenuated to the biopsycosocial aspects of their patients.

Win/win
Click to expand...

Well, competition can be a good thing sometimes. I have to agree there.
 
In a muscle related conference, I saw a poster about OMM and muscular dystrophy. I don't remember the exact experimental setup. I only remember the researcher used mdx primary culture, and delivered some stimulus frequency (they claimed it mimics OMM), and the inflammatory cytokines like TNF-alpha actually down regulated. I kept searching this experiment on pubmed for more than a year but it seems they didnt make it publish.
 
Should have gone to pubmed first and searched OMM.
 
Holding the head can apparently cure depression! #science #cranial
 
OrdinaryMD said:
...I am not about to sit here and have a grammar session with someone who is clearly way off-topic. Yes, I know what it means and it is fitting for the sentence. It may not be your choice of word usage, but it is mine. So please, back to the main topic now?
Click to expand...

Covet
verb
to desire wrongfully, inordinately, or without due regard for the rights of others:
to covet another's property.

therefore, you implied that MD's desire the learning of OMM, when that couldn't be further from the truth.

i'll be praying for you as you take the CARS section of the MCAT. and you should try growing some thicker skin. you were wrong, someone corrected you. admit your fault and move on.
 
genericpremedstudent said:
Covet
verb
to desire wrongfully, inordinately, or without due regard for the rights of others:
to covet another's property.

therefore, you implied that MD's desire the learning of OMM, when that couldn't be further from the truth.

i'll be praying for you as you take the CARS section of the MCAT. and you should try growing some thicker skin. you were wrong, someone corrected you. admit your fault and move on.
Click to expand...

Oh, boy, yet another person lurking the forums quoting my posts trying to prove me wrong. I don't believe you actually took the time to read my explanation as to why he is in fact, not correct. I am fully aware of the definition of covet. But, have you ever thought to realize that people who AREN'T in medical school may want to learn the skills of OMM? My implication had nothing to do with the MD program directly. If that is how you took it, then I am writing to you right now that it is not the context it should be viewed in.

Now, after you read all 46 posts, this is what you had to say about the topic? Read the actual OP and reply to the subject at hand.
 
OrdinaryMD said:
Oh, boy, yet another person lurking the forums quoting my posts trying to prove me wrong. I don't believe you actually took the time to read my explanation as to why he is in fact, not correct. I am fully aware of the definition of covet. But, have you ever thought to realize that people who AREN'T in medical school may want to learn the skills of OMM? My implication had nothing to do with the MD program directly. If that is how you took it, then I am writing to you right now that it is not the context it should be viewed in.

Now, after you read all 46 posts, this is what you had to say about the topic? Read the actual OP and reply to the subject at hand.
Click to expand...

LOL. yes, i read the posts. you must have forgotten about the context in which your dumb post was made. you were directly referring to MD vs DO education. don't try to back pedal when you get called out. and really... what layperson wants to learn the skills of OMM? better yet, how many laypersons even know what OMM is? you're grasping at straws trying to defend your poor word choice. furthermore, who do you think you are to dictate how people can and can't respond? if i want to further discuss your idiotic statement, then i will.
 
OrdinaryMD said:
This is a little off topic, but in relation to this book I wanted to point out some of the irony within the conversation of "D.O. vs M.D."
Almost everyone in the medical community can agree that D.O. and M.D. schools offer the same curriculum. In some cases, Osteopathic schools offer even more science based labs and classes and yes, Osteopathic medical schools also have the coveted OMM lab in addition to all of the other courses involved. What was eye opening to me, though, was the fact that D.O. schools and M.D. schools have been practicing the same classroom techniques since the beginning of the first "official" school of Osteopathic medicine in Kirksville.
Click to expand...

quoted for posterity's sake
explain how, based on the context of this post, you meant that it is the general public who "covets" OMM education.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

K
Science GPA for DO schools
Replies
4
Views
1K
KellySmith24
K
S
Nontraditional student science LOR
Replies
2
Views
1K
Splenda88
S
N
Is this inappropriate?
Replies
4
Views
1K
notEinstein
N
OldManFutureDoc
Is getting ghosted a normal thing?
Replies
11
Views
1K
Ho0v-man
Ho0v-man
M
  • Locked
DO bias? is it real or is it more nuanced?
Replies
1
Views
2K
wysdoc
wysdoc
Top Bottom