Is the philosophy of osteopathic medicine not using medicine at all?

[cuwhenucme]

Hello.
I always thought the philosophy of osteopathic medicine is to prevent the disease. Therefore, D.O. try not to give the patients medicine and rely on their own body to heal themselves.

Please correct me if my understanding is wrong. Thanks!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[AlteredScale]

Hello.
I always thought the philosophy of osteopathic medicine is to prevent the disease. Therefore, D.O. try not to give the patients medicine and rely on their own body to heal themselves.

Please correct me if my understanding is wrong. Thanks!

Preventative medicine is a staple of the osteopathic profession. But to consider preventative medicine as some sort of all-inclusive property of DO schools and not MD schools is foolish. Preventative medicine is taught everywhere.

There are both MD's and DO's that consider pharmaceutical therapy as a last resort in the right context but HVLA (some OMT technique) isn't going to fix someone who is in afib.

 

[Siggy]

Prevention is a staple, and ideally medication is always a last resort. However, by the time your patient ends up with uncontrolled diabetes or heart failure, they're getting to the last resort. If you can avoid medication, then sure, avoid it. However a lot of patients are well past the point where medications becomes appropriate.

 

[RadsonRads]

The 'philosophy' of 'osteopathic medicine' (whatever that is) is a severely antiquated way of thinking.

 

[QualityProcess]

I have to disagree with RadsonRads above, I don't really think its appropriate to lump together all of osteopathic philosophy as being severely antiquated. A lot of what DOs are taught in school regarding approach to patients is very appropriate. Incorporating compassionate care is something everyone should be doing, if your patient is awake to appreciate it. The idea of treating the "whole body" rather than "just symptoms" is somewhat rhetorical but MDs do it too. The idea that the body heals itself is also too-often used rhetorically but is true in many circumstances. If I missed the point, please elaborate...

I think "last resort" is an inaccurate way of representing the way DOs (and MDs) prescribe medications. If someone has a fib, they're getting their a fib drugs, its just a matter of benefit-risk analysis. Obviously if risks are moderate-to-high, drugs are a last resort. Even the professors at my school who are most emotionally invested in osteopathic philosophy consider OMT an adjunct treatment at best when you're dealing with potentially fatal situations. Although we did have a question in OPP during cardiac block that made many of my classmates and I uncomfortable...

 

[RadsonRads]

I have to disagree with RadsonRads above, I don't really think its appropriate to lump together all of osteopathic philosophy as being severely antiquated. A lot of what DOs are taught in school regarding approach to patients is very appropriate. Incorporating compassionate care is something everyone should be doing, if your patient is awake to appreciate it. The idea of treating the "whole body" rather than "just symptoms" is somewhat rhetorical but MDs do it too. The idea that the body heals itself is also too-often used rhetorically but is true in many circumstances. If I missed the point, please elaborate...

I think "last resort" is an inaccurate way of representing the way DOs (and MDs) prescribe medications. If someone has a fib, they're getting their a fib drugs, its just a matter of benefit-risk analysis. Obviously if risks are moderate-to-high, drugs are a last resort. Even the professors at my school who are most emotionally invested in osteopathic philosophy consider OMT an adjunct treatment at best when you're dealing with potentially fatal situations. Although we did have a question in OPP during cardiac block that made many of my classmates and I uncomfortable...

The reason I say it is antiquated is because we don't treat pts with OMM as first-line therapy. If you do, you will not only be wasting your time, but will most likely get a nice lawsuit for not treating appropriately. This is what irks me the most about OMM in the first 2 yrs of school. So much time is wasted with complete and utter bs. And you can't say anything to your professors about it because they are the ones who grade you subjectively and you are always worried about getting bad grades. Anyways, I digress....

There is literally NO distinguishable difference in a way a DO treats vs MD. I don't know why the AOA fools themselves into thinking 'our way' is better. If anything, it's worse.

 

[QualityProcess]

I get frustrated when I have to study stuff like Chapman's and cranial too, but that's no reason to bash OMM en masse, its not a take-it-or-leave it situation. And its strange that you say there's no difference in the way DOs and MDs treat, but DO is antiquated? I think maybe you just have a problem with the culture of OMM.

I'm not a huge fan of OMT but there are plenty of reasons to use it first line in musculoskeletal problems. I know someone in physical therapy school and a lot of their techniques are remarkably similar, if not identical... and I wouldn't hesitate to send a patient to physical therapy if it would improve quality of life, save them money, etc.

 

[hallowmann]

...There are both MD's and DO's that consider pharmaceutical therapy as a last resort in the right context but HVLA (some OMT technique) isn't going to fix someone who is in afib.

HVLA, no, but Rib Raising and rotary inhibition of a left 2nd intercostal space Chapman's point ...






...also, probably no...

 

[AlteredScale]

HVLA, no, but Rib Raising and rotary inhibition of a left 2nd intercostal space Chapman's point ...






...also, probably no...

Honestly it would be AMAZING if that worked!

 

[GUH]

The reason I say it is antiquated is because we don't treat pts with OMM as first-line therapy. If you do, you will not only be wasting your time, but will most likely get a nice lawsuit for not treating appropriately. This is what irks me the most about OMM in the first 2 yrs of school. So much time is wasted with complete and utter bs. And you can't say anything to your professors about it because they are the ones who grade you subjectively and you are always worried about getting bad grades. Anyways, I digress....

There is literally NO distinguishable difference in a way a DO treats vs MD. I don't know why the AOA fools themselves into thinking 'our way' is better. If anything, it's worse.

Nothing in that post is supported by fact. Many doctors do treat with OMT as a first-line therapy, use it appropriately, aren't sued, and use many of the same techniques and palpation skills learned in the first two years of medical school, and treat their patients differently than most MDs would.

So you can pretend you are an MD if you want, but that is absolutely not representative of the osteopathic profession as a whole.

 

[IslandStyle808]

One of the reasons I was attracted to osteopathic medicine is the preventative approach they used, even among the specialists. However, it was same reason why I applied to my state MD school as well, since it is a primary care focused school. So it really didn't matter to me whether I applied DO or MD as long as there was an emphasis on this aspect.

 

[RadsonRads]

Nothing in that post is supported by fact. Many doctors do treat with OMT as a first-line therapy, use it appropriately, aren't sued, and use many of the same techniques and palpation skills learned in the first two years of medical school, and treat their patients differently than most MDs would.

So you can pretend you are an MD if you want, but that is absolutely not representative of the osteopathic profession as a whole.

Ah I see you are one of the kool-aid drinkers...

Many doctors do not treat with OMM as first-line therapy. FEW of them do. I wish I had somewhere to get actual facts, but I bet less than 1-2% of all DOs do this. These are the OMM/NMM "specialists" of the world. I was referring to everyday peds, FM, ortho, rads, anesthesia, etc. Like the example above that was used; if a cardiologist did sub-OA release on a pt with a-fib, or a GI doc pushes on their mesentery for bowel problems, I think it is malpractice.

 

[hallowmann]

Ah I see you are one of the kool-aid drinkers...

Many doctors do not treat with OMM as first-line therapy. FEW of them do. I wish I had somewhere to get actual facts, but I bet less than 1-2% of all DOs do this. These are the OMM/NMM "specialists" of the world. I was referring to everyday peds, FM, ortho, rads, anesthesia, etc. Like the example above that was used; if a cardiologist did sub-OA release on a pt with a-fib, or a GI doc pushes on their mesentery for bowel problems, I think it is malpractice.

To be fair Guh said "many" not a majority, not a large percentage, etc. Even 1-2% is on the order of 1000-2000 docs. If we take the higher estimate of the docs that use OMT regularly (5%), its on the order of 4500.

It is significantly skewed based on specialty though. I mean the only people really doing OMT regularly are the OMM/NMM specialists (I actually believe it is an ACGME specialty now, since it has a residency review committee on the ACGME), PM&R docs (I actually know plenty of DOs and even some MDs in this field that use it as first-line therapy), and a percentage of FM docs (I've noticed this is very regionally based, any family practice in my area with >2 DOs has OMT clinic hours, but in other areas it's hard to find).

Anyway, my point is that its not an outrageous concept that you could both be correct, as long as you lay off the extremes. The DO population is sufficiently diverse, and many DOs do use OMT. That doesn't make their opinion less important. And as for the large majority of DOs that would never dream of using it, that really doesn't make them "MD wannabes". They are DO physicians as much as the rest, and as physicians they are capable of discerning what method of treatment they should utilize at a given time.

I'm reminded of a question I had in OPP last year from my professor who clearly uses it on a regular basis. The question described an emergent clinical scenario with a number of answers, some that were unnecessarily invasive, multiple were OMT answers, and one answer that would be the normal medical thing to do. A lot of people got the question wrong, because it was OPP, so they assumed the answer must have been some form of OMT. It wasn't. Stabilize the patient, and if it's beneficial then do OMT.

 

[RadsonRads]

To be fair Guh said "many" not a majority, not a large percentage, etc. Even 1-2% is on the order of 1000-2000 docs. If we take the higher estimate of the docs that use OMT regularly (5%), its on the order of 4500.

It is significantly skewed based on specialty. I mean the only people really doing OMT regularly are the OMM/NMM specialties (I actually believe they are ACGME specialties now, since they have a residency review committee on the ACGME), PM&R docs (I actually know plenty of DOs and even some MDs in this field that use it as first-line therapy), and a percentage of FM docs (I've noticed this is very regionally based, any family practice in my area with >2 DOs has OMT clinic hours, but in other areas it's hard to find).

Anyway, my point is that its not an outrageous concept that you could both be correct, as long as you lay off the extremes. The DO population is sufficiently diverse, and many DOs do use OMT, that doesn't make their opinion less important. And as for the large majority of DOs that would never dream of using it, that really doesn't make them "MD wannabes". They are DO physicians as much as the rest, and as physicians they are capable of discerning what method of treatment they should utilize at a given time without med students (yeah all 3 of us) saying what is and isn't acceptable.

I'm reminded of a question I had in OPP last year from my professor who clearly uses it on a regular basis. The question described an emergent clinical scenario with a number of answers, some that were unnecessarily invasive, multiple were OMT answers, and one answer that would be the normal medical thing to do. A lot of people got the question wrong, because it was OPP, so they assumed the answer must have been some form of OMT. It wasn't. Stabilize the patient, and if it's beneficial then do OMT.

I think everyone is missing the point here because it is literally never applicable to do OMM because there is no proper literature that shows its effectiveness. I used the term 'proper' because we all know how OMM studies are in literature... One recent case report comes to mind in which a professor of mine did cranial on a blind person. Minutes later the patient's Vision was restored after years and years of being blind. I mean come on guys. Who allows this kind of thing to be published??

 

[PL198]

I get frustrated when I have to study stuff like Chapman's and cranial too, but that's no reason to bash OMM en masse, its not a take-it-or-leave it situation. And its strange that you say there's no difference in the way DOs and MDs treat, but DO is antiquated? I think maybe you just have a problem with the culture of OMM.

I'm not a huge fan of OMT but there are plenty of reasons to use it first line in musculoskeletal problems. I know someone in physical therapy school and a lot of their techniques are remarkably similar, if not identical... and I wouldn't hesitate to send a patient to physical therapy if it would improve quality of life, save them money, etc.

its antiquated because there's no actual difference. real life practice is the exact same, yet people try to push like there's a difference. there's not.

 

[hallowmann]

I think everyone is missing the point here because it is literally never applicable to do OMM because there is no proper literature that shows its effectiveness. I used the term 'proper' because we all know how OMM studies are in literature... One recent case report comes to mind in which a professor of mine did cranial on a blind person. Minutes later the patient's Vision was restored after years and years of being blind. I mean come on guys. Who allows this kind of thing to be published??

To be fair you're using literally the most ridiculous example of OMT (cranial). Like I said, there are plenty of PM&R docs that use OMT as first-line therapy for chronic lower back pain among other things. Like I said, if you want to stick to the extremes by all means do it. Just don't be surprised when people give you examples that contradict something you say.

Also, there still are plenty of medical treatments that are used despite verification that it absolutely works, because other treatments are either harmful or non-existent. In fact, in certain situations, the first barrier for treatment use in some conditions is that it's safe. If it's safe to use, it's used whether it's confirmed to work or not. This is pretty much how all "new" treatments work. On top of that, don't get me started on some of the most invasive procedures still used today, that when compared with true placebo, don't seem to really show any benefit. This is a particularly big problem in surgery.

 

[RadsonRads]

To be fair you're using literally the most ridiculous example of OMT (cranial). Like I said, there are plenty of PM&R docs that use OMT as first-line therapy for chronic lower back pain among other things. Like I said, if you want to stick to the extremes by all means do it. Just don't be surprised when people give you examples that contradict something you say.

Also, there still are plenty of medical treatments that are used despite verification that it absolutely works, because other treatments are either harmful or non-existent. In fact, in certain situations, the first barrier for treatment use in some conditions is that it's safe. If it's safe to use, it's used whether it's confirmed to work or not. This is pretty much how all "new" treatments work. On top of that, don't get me started on some of the most invasive procedures still used today, that when compared with true placebo, don't seem to really show any benefit. This is a particularly big problem in surgery.

I absolutely agree with massage/PT (which very much overlaps with certain OMM techniques) and exercise/stretching is good for lower back pain as first-line. I do think surgeons are quick to cut in LBP, but I also know that patients are horribly lazy and just want a quick fix.

I mentioned the outlandish literature about the efficacy of cranial for a reason. About 99% of what we learn in omm in the first 2 years is complete and utter hogwash/bs/garbage. It is a disgrace and should be removed from curriculum. If all we had to learn was applicable techniques such as LBP techniques and other msk techniques it would be one thing. Filling our brains with nonsense and testing us on it multiple times over is a travesty.

 

[GUH]

I think everyone is missing the point here because it is literally never applicable to do OMM because there is no proper literature that shows its effectiveness. I used the term 'proper' because we all know how OMM studies are in literature... One recent case report comes to mind in which a professor of mine did cranial on a blind person. Minutes later the patient's Vision was restored after years and years of being blind. I mean come on guys. Who allows this kind of thing to be published??

Wrong again unless you don't consider the NEJM to be "proper literature". Keep talking though; this is entertaining.

 

[RadsonRads]

Wrong again unless you don't consider the NEJM to be "proper literature". Keep talking though; this is entertaining.

source

 

[GUH]

source

You may want to edit your previous post.
Words like "literally never" and "no" have very specific meanings.

 

[PL198]

1999 and its low back pain. what can conventional medicine do for that? not much. show me massaging a mesentery or something where there's actually a conventional alternative besides rest

 

[jamcat]

As a potential future DO student, I have a question about OMM. I guess I'm still struggling with this: if it's shown to be effective, then all doctors should use it, not just DOs; if it's not shown to be effective, then no doctor should use it, including DOs. I just don't "get" this whole DO/OMM thing at all. I hope I'm not opening up the floodgates here as it seems that OMM can generate some controversy. I'm (obviously) a newbie and genuinely interested in learning about this.

 

[RadsonRads]

You may want to edit your previous post.
Words like "literally never" and "no" have very specific meanings.

Results
Patients in both groups improved during the 12 weeks. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in any of the primary outcome measures

Conclusions
Osteopathic manual care and standard medical care have similar clinical results in patients with subacute low back pain. However, the use of medication is greater with standard care.

man you really showed me....So the non-OMM group required a few more advil. Big deal. How about we analyze the cost of OMM to the patient vs standard treatment?

 

[GUH]

Results
Patients in both groups improved during the 12 weeks. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in any of the primary outcome measures

Conclusions
Osteopathic manual care and standard medical care have similar clinical results in patients with subacute low back pain. However, the use of medication is greater with standard care.

man you really showed me....So the non-OMM group required a few more advil. Big deal. How about we analyze the cost of OMM to the patient vs standard treatment?

Yeah, why bother touching our patients and worrying about things like NSAID side effects when we can just hand them a bottle of Advil and push them out the door?

And why bother paying attention to the NEJM?

 

[RadsonRads]

As a potential future DO student, I have a question about OMM. I guess I'm still struggling with this: if it's shown to be effective, then all doctors should use it, not just DOs; if it's not shown to be effective, then no doctor should use it, including DOs. I just don't "get" this whole DO/OMM thing at all. I hope I'm not opening up the floodgates here as it seems that OMM can generate some controversy. I'm (obviously) a newbie and genuinely interested in learning about this.

You may be new, but this what many of us have been trying to figure out for years....

 

[RadsonRads]

Yeah, why bother touching our patients and worrying about things like NSAID side effects when we can just hand them a bottle of Advil and push them out the door?

And why bother paying attention to the NEJM?

I am paying attention to the NEJM (from 16yrs ago) and it states "There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in any of the primary outcome measures"

 

[GUH]

As a potential future DO student, I have a question about OMM. I guess I'm still struggling with this: if it's shown to be effective, then all doctors should use it, not just DOs; if it's not shown to be effective, then no doctor should use it, including DOs. I just don't "get" this whole DO/OMM thing at all. I hope I'm not opening up the floodgates here as it seems that OMM can generate some controversy. I'm (obviously) a newbie and genuinely interested in learning about this.

There are DOs who believe that MDs should receive OMM training, although they may disagree on which exact skills should be taught.
There are other DOs who just want to be MDs and want to dispense with OMM at all costs, in spite of the literature demonstrating its utility in certain situations.

EDIT: It is also important to note that there is also a philosophical component to osteopathic medicine, which includes the four tenets of osteopathic medicine. Most allopathic medical school administrators have no problem with this part of osteopathic medicine and MDs have actually moved in the direction of the four tenets in recent years. So you could say that the MDs are already moving towards adopting some aspects of osteopathic philosophy (whether or not they'd admit it) because they provide a framework for sound medicine.

 

[PL198]

Yeah, why bother touching our patients and worrying about things like NSAID side effects when we can just hand them a bottle of Advil and push them out the door?

And why bother paying attention to the NEJM?

1999 and its low back pain. what can conventional medicine do for that? not much. show me massaging a mesentery or something where there's actually a conventional alternative besides rest

 

[GUH]

I am paying attention to the NEJM (from 16yrs ago) and it states "There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in any of the primary outcome measures"

Correct. Do you need me to explain why the results are still important? Or are you aware that there are risks to prescribing NSAIDs when they really aren't necessary, or in higher doses than necessary?

 

[W19]

As a potential future DO student, I have a question about OMM. I guess I'm still struggling with this: if it's shown to be effective, then all doctors should use it, not just DOs; if it's not shown to be effective, then no doctor should use it, including DOs. I just don't "get" this whole DO/OMM thing at all. I hope I'm not opening up the floodgates here as it seems that OMM can generate some controversy. I'm (obviously) a newbie and genuinely interested in learning about this.

If all physicians are not using it, that should tell you something...

 

[GUH]

If all physicians are not using it, that should tell you something...

Not all physicians do surgery, either.

 

[jamcat]

Not all physicians do surgery, either.

But that's because not all doctors are surgeons...If surgery is indicated, you will be referred to a surgeon. It's not like a MD/non-OMM DO will see a patient and say "Oh, you need OMM, go to a DO."

My question is more along the lines of: if OMM is useful, why aren't MDs doing it and receiving training in it? It's kind of counter to science and medicine for something to be useful and not use it.

If it's not useful, why are DOs doing it?

 

[PL198]

lol I love how he still hasn't addressed the points I brought up.

 

[W19]

Not all physicians do surgery, either.

I guess OMM or OMT is DO secret sauce... You have bought into the hype!

 

[RadsonRads]

There are DOs who believe that MDs should receive OMM training, although they may disagree on which exact skills should be taught.
There are other DOs who just want to be MDs and want to dispense with OMM at all costs, in spite of the literature demonstrating its utility in certain situations.

EDIT: It is also important to note that there is also a philosophical component to osteopathic medicine, which includes the four tenets of osteopathic medicine. Most allopathic medical school administrators have no problem with this part of osteopathic medicine and MDs have actually moved in the direction of the four tenets in recent years. So you could say that the MDs are already moving towards adopting some aspects of osteopathic philosophy (whether or not they'd admit it) because they provide a framework for sound medicine.

Ok, anybody who actually cites the 4 tenets of Osteopathy either has no friends, or works for the AOA. Also, MDs aren't 'moving over to this approach.' That is so dumb and naive to think this. Do you really think an MD just started realizing that he needs to treat the body as a whole? Or, maybe they just learned that the body has an innate ability to self-heal? Come on man. You are delusional.

 

[j4pac]

Here are the tenets of osteopathic medicine. I got it from the AOA website.

Tenets of Osteopathic Medicine

The American Osteopathic Association’s House of Delegates approved the Tenets of Osteopathic Medicine as policy which follows the underlying philosophy of osteopathic medicine.

1. The body is a unit; the person is a unit of body, mind, and spirit.
2. The body is capable of self-regulation, self-healing, and health maintenance.
3. Structure and function are reciprocally interrelated.
4. Rational treatment is based upon an understanding of the basic principles of body unity, self-regulation, and the interrelationship of structure and function.

It would surprise me if MDs didn't believe in all of the above. I don't read anything about NOT using medicine. I believe that the Osteopathic tenets encourage conservative treatment whenever possible...but I would believe that MDs view things similarly.

 

[RadsonRads]

Correct. Do you need me to explain why the results are still important? Or are you aware that there are risks to prescribing NSAIDs when they really aren't necessary, or in higher doses than necessary?

Yes, I would please like for an MS3 to tell me about the risks of an OTC med.

The results are not important. Hence why it says there is no statistical significance.

 

[RadsonRads]

Not all physicians do surgery, either.

Literally the dumbest response I've ever seen. You guys act like OMM is some secret that only DOs have the power to use and perform miracles. There is a reason why it isn't widely used. It is because there is NO data that supports it. Not even the one article posted 16yrs ago

 

[moonwake]

Literally the dumbest response I've ever seen. You guys act like OMM is some secret that only DOs have the power to use and perform miracles. There is a reason why it isn't widely used. It is because there is NO data that supports it. Not even the one article posted 16yrs ago

Well there is chiropractic care- which is a huge source of OMM in a hybrid sort of way. I seriously think the reason why people don't go to OMM OMT specialists is because they don't know they exist or even what they are. Don't want to take medicine for back pain? Go to to a chiropractor. That's what I had always heard growing up (by the way I didn't know what DO's did until my junior year in college- what about the average person of America)?

 

[GUH]

Literally the dumbest response I've ever seen. You guys act like OMM is some secret that only DOs have the power to use and perform miracles. There is a reason why it isn't widely used. It is because there is NO data that supports it. Not even the one article posted 16yrs ago

Yes, I would please like for an MS3 to tell me about the risks of an OTC med.

The results are not important. Hence why it says there is no statistical significance.

Just keep digging that hole.

 

[RadsonRads]

Just keep digging that hole.

Please tell me how I am digging a hole?

 

[GUH]

Please tell me how I am digging a hole?

Ok, anybody who actually cites the 4 tenets of Osteopathy either has no friends, or works for the AOA. Also, MDs aren't 'moving over to this approach.' That is so dumb and naive to think this. Do you really think an MD just started realizing that he needs to treat the body as a whole? Or, maybe they just learned that the body has an innate ability to self-heal? Come on man. You are delusional.

Yes, I would please like for an MS3 to tell me about the risks of an OTC med.

The results are not important. Hence why it says there is no statistical significance.

This is hilarious. Are you and @icevermin the same person? If not, you should meet each other.
Not only do you resort to unscientific diatribes and ignore any contradictory evidence while insulting anyone who disagrees with you and fail to provide any of your own evidence, but you'll even ignore basic medical facts like the fact that drugs have side effects and their use should be minimized when possible. Just keep digging.

 

[GUH]

I guess OMM or OMT is DO secret sauce... You have bought into the hype!

Where in this thread did anyone say that OMM should only be taught to DOs? There are a number of MDs who use OMM.

 

[GUH]

But that's because not all doctors are surgeons...If surgery is indicated, you will be referred to a surgeon. It's not like a MD/non-OMM DO will see a patient and say "Oh, you need OMM, go to a DO."

My question is more along the lines of: if OMM is useful, why aren't MDs doing it and receiving training in it? It's kind of counter to science and medicine for something to be useful and not use it.

If it's not useful, why are DOs doing it?

Some MDs actually do receive training in OMM. And what do you mean by the bolded statement? That actually does happen.

 

[PL198]

lol this is hilarious. yeah OMM is the way to go man, just rub on them in a magical way and all their problems disappear, like blindness

 

[GUH]

lol this is hilarious. yeah OMM is the way to go man, just rub on them in a magical way and all their problems disappear, like blindness

So that's what you think OMM is? Did you pay any attention in class?

 

[PL198]

i do go to an MD school. and you've still ignored what I point out about back pain and being from 1999. show me something that has conventional alternative treatment that isnt rest.

 

[jamcat]

Oh! I didn't know that...I had never heard of or seen a patient be referred by an MD to a DO specifically for OMM.

I mean, if OMM is useful, I want to learn it. But I have a hard time believing that there is this body of useful treatment out there that MD schools have specifically declined to incorporate into their curriculum. I would certainly expect that, if there were evidence that it were effective, MDs would also receive such training.

But it seems as though there's a lot of doubt as to its efficacy. I'm very much an evidence-based medicine type of person, and I'm trying to sort out if OMM is compatible with that as I apply to both MD and DO schools next year.

It seems as though most DOs, even those who like OMM, think cranial stuff is a waste of time and not supported by the evidence, and to be honest, I'm not so thrilled about the prospect of going to a school that treats things that are not supported by evidence the same as those that are.

So I appreciate everyone who has responded! Still trying to learn more.

 

[GUH]

i do go to an MD school. and you've still ignored what I point out about back pain and being from 1999. show me something that has conventional alternative treatment that isnt rest.

Chronic lower back pain does have conventional alternative treatment that isn't rest.
Look up "Diagnosis and treatment of low back pain: a joint clinical practice guideline from the American College of Physicians and the American Pain Society"
"For most patients, first-line medication options are acetaminophen or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs."

Are you going to argue that the ACP is controlled by osteopathic extremists?

I'm glad you seem to know so much about OMM with exactly zero training in it. Talk of "rubbing away the blindness" makes that clear.

 

[GUH]

Oh! I didn't know that...I had never heard of or seen a patient be referred by an MD to a DO specifically for OMM.

I mean, if OMM is useful, I want to learn it. But I have a hard time believing that there is this body of useful treatment out there that MD schools have specifically declined to incorporate into their curriculum. I would certainly expect that, if there were evidence that it were effective, MDs would also receive such training.

But it seems as though there's a lot of doubt as to its efficacy. I'm very much an evidence-based medicine type of person, and I'm trying to sort out if OMM is compatible with that as I apply to both MD and DO schools next year.

It seems as though most DOs, even those who like OMM, think cranial stuff is a waste of time and not supported by the evidence, and to be honest, I'm not so thrilled about the prospect of going to a school that treats things that are not supported by evidence the same as those that are.

So I appreciate everyone who has responded! Still trying to learn more.

If you attend a DO school, there are likely to be some things that you are skeptical of. That's normal and that's fine. However, if you don't want to be a DO then I would suggest not attending a DO school. Find a place that fits well with your personality and mentality.