Is viscerosomatic reflex a real, substantiated mechanism?

[deleted842137]

Hello all,

Before I start, I don't mean to start any controversy on osteopathic medicine. I wouldn't be here if I didn't believe wholeheartedly in the value of it (especially the holistic approach).

I'm a current OMS-1 and we just completed a lecture on viscerosomatic reflex. Immediately after the lecture and understanding the concept, I felt very satisfied. It's a concept that makes a lot of sense anatomically and physiologically, and I was so excited that it's our first real connection of basic science to clinical medicine (especially primary care; I thought, this is literally what my family doctor is thinking about when I to tell him or her I have stomach pain). I was pretty hyped about this all and felt fulfilled and happy to be in medical school.

I then decided to Google "viscerosomatic reflex".

I was pretty shocked to see that there isn't much at all written about it (well, not nearly as much as I expected considering I believed this must be a core concept in all of medicine). There's no Wikipedia article. A lot of the search results are written by osteopathic organizations/physicians and chiropractors. I was pretty taken aback, because as mentioned, I felt like this concept must be core to all medicine (osteopathic and allopathic), considering the clinical relevance it has on localized pain.

I really hate to even wonder this, but is the concept of viscerosomatic reflex substantiated scientifically? Is it something both MDs and DOs believe in, or do MDs not recognize it is a legitimate mechanism? Are there a lot more concepts like this coming my way? Should I expect to learn more elaborate mechanisms like this that are exclusively recognized by the osteopathic community?

If so, this isn't really what I expected coming to a DO school. Every DO told me, the curriculums of DO and MD schools are identical except that DOs learn OMM and also take a more holistic approach.

But to find out there are concepts in anatomy (and I guess maybe in the future, physiology, histology, pathology, pharmacology etc. ?) that we dedicate almost entire lectures to, that are recognized only by the osteopathic community has definitely got me rethinking osteopathic medical school in general (again, it pains me to say this).

Anyone have any comments on all this?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Kardio]

I had a similar experience as you with this exact material.

My impression is that DO schools use the term 'viscerosomatic reflex' in place of 'referred pain.'

 

[EmilKraepelin55]

I agree with Kardio, but we all know it’s more than that in the eyes of true-believing DO’s. For example, they expect that given you have gastritis there should be a reflex change in the musculature at both the corresponding side and spinal level that supplies the stomach leading to a somatic dysfunction i.e. T5-7 F RLSL. This is the particular phenomenon that is not substantiated. Yes, expect more of this type of thinking going forward. Just wait till you get to Chapman’s points, and the whole “Osteopathic difference” concept starts to really lose its charm. Cranial was the last straw for me though.

 

[EmilKraepelin55]

Also, don’t be afraid to question this stuff. We are going into a scientific field, so we shouldn’t have to relegate ourselves to accepting propositions which are not backed up with sufficient evidence.

 

[DO2015CA]

I agree with Kardio, but we all know it’s more than that in the eyes of true-believing DO’s. For example, they expect that given you have gastritis there should be a reflex change in the musculature at both the corresponding side and spinal level that supplies the stomach leading to a somatic dysfunction i.e. T5-7 F RLSL. This is the particular phenomenon that is not substantiated. Yes, expect more of this type of thinking going forward. Just wait till you get to Chapman’s points, and the whole “Osteopathic difference” concept starts to really lose its charm. Cranial was the last straw for me though.

I was pretty happy we didn’t even learn Chapman’s points at my school. The OMM chair was like “memorize these for boards, but they aren’t very useful”

 

[Ho0v-man]

I agree with Kardio, but we all know it’s more than that in the eyes of true-believing DO’s. For example, they expect that given you have gastritis there should be a reflex change in the musculature at both the corresponding side and spinal level that supplies the stomach leading to a somatic dysfunction i.e. T5-7 F RLSL. This is the particular phenomenon that is not substantiated. Yes, expect more of this type of thinking going forward. Just wait till you get to Chapman’s points, and the whole “Osteopathic difference” concept starts to really lose its charm. Cranial was the last straw for me though.

I’m an M4 and this is the first actual attempt I’ve seen at explaining it. I’ve just been answering these questions blindly, much like I do for most omm questions.

 

[EmilKraepelin55]

I’m an M4 and this is the first actual attempt I’ve seen at explaining it. I’ve just been answering these questions blindly, much like I do for most omm questions.

Lol I mean as long as a person can make an association then who cares how you get the answer for an OMM question, right? Might as well be little raccoons tugging at your rotatores after they smell some ulcers.

 

[Ho0v-man]

Lol I mean as long as a person can make an association then who cares how you get the answer for an OMM question, right? Might as well be little raccoons tugging at your rotatores after they smell some ulcers.

Oh I doubt I’m getting the answer correct lol. I think the dirty little secret is that you can do well above average on comlex and still tank omm.

 

[Scrubs101]

Oh I doubt I’m getting the answer correct lol. I think the dirty little secret is that you can do well above average on comlex and still tank omm.

Darn comlex/comat score reports keep telling me im Subpar AF at osteopathic principles and practices

 

[EmilKraepelin55]

Oh I doubt I’m getting the answer correct lol. I think the dirty little secret is that you can do well above average on comlex and still tank omm.

I mean, definitely. I spent a grand total of like 3 hrs of my dedicated for level 1 reviewing OMM. Didn’t even use the green book. I think our OMM professor was sufficiently disillusioned of OMM that he made it fairly understandable, based his teaching primarily on indications/contraindications and treatment procedures rather than vague mechanisms which pan out more as philosophical sophistry.

 

[AnatomyGrey12]

Are there a lot more concepts like this coming my way? Should I expect to learn more elaborate mechanisms like this that are exclusively recognized by the osteopathic community?

Oh bro.... you think viscerosomatics is bad? Just wait until cranial... or Chapman’s points.

The DO Delusion is very real.

But to find out there are concepts in anatomy (and I guess maybe in the future, physiology, histology etc. ?) that we dedicate almost entire lectures to, that are recognized only by the osteopathic community has definitely got me rethinking osteopathic medical school in general (again, it pains me to say this).

The bright side is that you can completely ignore OMM. DO school is not OMM, despite what the true believers will try and convince you of. It’s 97% steaming garbage that should be relegated to the annals if history. The vast majority of your curriculum will be the same as MDs.

Ignore the crap, and just learn medicine. It’s too late to regret this decision.

 

[Ho0v-man]

Darn comlex/comat score reports keep telling me im Subpar AF at osteopathic principles and practices

Same. It’s been at the absolute bottom on every report

 

[deleted842137]

Oh bro.... you think viscerosomatics is bad? Just wait until cranial... or Chapman’s points.

The DO Delusion is very real.


The bright side is that you can completely ignore OMM. DO school is not OMM, despite what the true believers will try and convince you of. It’s 97% steaming garbage that should be relegated to the annals if history. The vast majority of your curriculum will be the same as MDs.

Ignore the crap, and just learn medicine. It’s too late to regret this decision.

See, that's the thing. I was very happy to just ignore only OMM as long as every other class was real, substantiated medicine. I had peace of mind that I could clearly separate the two. But to find out in subjects like anatomy, physiology, pathology, there are NUMEROUS (not once in a blue moon, but like, at least once every lecture) phenomena that we are learning that have no scientific basis and are not recognized by the MD community has got me feeling a different way. Again, this is not what I expected going in. I expected that our curriculum outside of OMM was identical to the MDs. But this doesn't seem to be even close to the truth. It also makes me think, if we're spending so much time on these DO-only concepts, what are the MDs learning instead during this time? Because they also study 12 hours a day. Is there just a huge amount of medicine we won't learn? Some second years have told me we miss out on a lot of embryology. I'm having major FOMO, and feel like I'm missing out on a real education in medicine.

 

[EmilKraepelin55]

See, that's the thing. I was very happy to just ignore only OMM as long as every other class was real, substantiated medicine. I had peace of mind that I could clearly separate the two. But to find out in subjects like anatomy, physiology, pathology, there are NUMEROUS (not once in a blue moon, but like, at least once every lecture) phenomena that we are learning that have no scientific basis and are not recognized by the MD community has got me feeling a different way. Again, this is not what I expected going in. I expected that our curriculum outside of OMM was identical to the MDs. But this doesn't seem to be even close to the truth. It also makes me think, if we're spending so much time on these DO-only concepts, what are the MDs learning instead during this time? Because they also study 12 hours a day. Is there just a huge amount of medicine we won't learn? I'm having major FOMO, and feel like I'm missing out on a real education in medicine rooted in scientific evidence.

You should have your OPP class separate from your basic sciences. If the two are so integrated that you are learning basic science with a purely Osteopathic foundation to understanding, then I would be concerned. My school would integrate OMM with basic science after the fact in a separate class with non-basic science faculty. So there was enough division where you wouldn’t poison the well so to speak. Does your school not function this way?

 

[deleted842137]

You should have your OPP class separate from your basic sciences. If the two are so integrated that you are learning basic science with a purely Osteopathic foundation to understanding, then I would be concerned. My school would integrate OMM with basic science after the fact in a separate class with non-basic science faculty. So there was enough division where you wouldn’t poison the well so to speak. Does your school not function this way?

I'm only one week in but so far in Histology and Anatomy lectures we've had osteopathic mechanisms sprinkled in. But also, in Histolology, the lecturer made it very clear when we were learning an osteopathic application. In the case of viscerosomatic reflex in anatomy, there was zero mention that this was a DO concept. To add insult to injury, the lecturer stressed A LOT how this is one of the most important (definitely THE most important of that lecture) concept in neuroanatomy. My classmates who didn't do a Google search probably believe its a cornerstone of all of medicine, based on how it was presented. I just find this all a bit deceptive. I wish everytime we learn a DO concept, they make it very clear.

 

[EmilKraepelin55]

I'm only one week in but so far in Histology/Anatomy lectures we've had osteopathic mechanisms sprinkled in. But also, in Histolology, the lecturer made it very clear when it we were learning an osteopathic application. In the case of viscerosomatic reflex in anatomy, there was zero mention that this was a DO-only concept. To add insult to injury, the lecturer stressed A LOT how this is one of the most important (definitely THE most important of that lecture) concept in neuroanatomy. All my classmates who didn't do a Google search probably believe its a core concept in all of medicine. I just find this all a bit deceptive. I wish everything we were learning a DO concept they made it very clear.

You are kidding me lol. We learned neuroanatomy without any Osteopathic appeals in the basic sciences. The way they are teaching y’all is uninformed at best and incredibly disingenuous at worst. Basically, keep doing what you are doing. Keep questioning. Know that all you need to know for steps/levels is in FA, UWorld, BnB, Pathoma, Sketchy etc. and leave the BS they preach in the dust.

 

[AnatomyGrey12]

But to find out in subjects like anatomy, physiology, pathology, there are NUMEROUS (not once in a blue moon, but like, at least once every lecture) phenomena that we are learning that have no scientific basis and are not recognized by the MD community has got me feeling a different way.

But this doesn't seem to be even close to the truth.

Give specific examples, because we never did anything OMM related in any other class. I kind of doubt you are getting taught random DO topics in every lecture. I think you should name your school too, because if true it is absolutely ridiculous.

It also makes me think, if we're spending so much time on these DO-only concepts, what are the MDs learning instead during this time? Because they also study 12 hours a day. Is there just a huge amount of medicine we won't learn? Some second years have told me that because we spend a lot of time on osteopathy, we miss out on embryology. I'm having major FOMO, and feel like I'm missing out on a real education in medicine.

1. MD schools do have a tendency to focus a bit more on the basic sciences like biochem, embryo, etc. This is easily made up. Many of us here have very good USMLE scores that back up that idea. I have interacted with the MD students in our state, and I didn't feel like there were any differences in knowledge base at all.

2. Do not, ever, rely on your school lectures to teach you. If you are missing out on a "real education in medicine" then that's on you. Be an adult learner. That's how you overcome curricula deficiencies (and being honest, every school whether MD or DO is going to have weak parts in the curriculum).


I should point out I am far from being a supporter of osteopathy in any form. Many would classify me as a "self hating DO." Just want to give context to my queries so you don't think I'm just out here defending DO schools because I've drunk the kool-aid.

 

[deleted842137]

Give specific examples, because we never did anything OMM related in any other class. I kind of doubt you are getting taught random DO topics in every lecture. I think you should name your school too, because if true it is absolutely ridiculous.


1. MD schools do have a tendency to focus a bit more on the basic sciences like biochem, embryo, etc. This is easily made up. Many of us here have very good USMLE scores that back up that idea. I have interacted with the MD students in our state, and I didn't feel like there were any differences in knowledge base at all.

2. Do not, ever, rely on your school lectures to teach you. If you are missing out on a "real education in medicine" then that's on you. Be an adult learner. That's how you overcome curricula deficiencies (and being honest, every school whether MD or DO is going to have weak parts in the curriculum).


I should point out I am far from being a supporter of osteopathy in any form. Many would classify me as a "self hating DO." Just want to give context to my queries so you don't think I'm just out here defending DO schools because I've drunk the kool-aid.

It's only been a week, but as I said above, there was one DO mechanism we learned in Histology (which was clearly mentioned as a DO concept), and viscerosomatic reflex in anatomy (which we probably spent 20-25 minutes of a lecture on). BUT the thing is, this concept was never mentioned as a DO concept. It was just interspersed in the material. That's my biggest qualm here. Because that makes me question everything else I learned, and make me want to neurotically Google every title of every slide to uncover if what I'm learning is uniquely osteopathic

 

[deleted842137]

You are kidding me lol. We learned neuroanatomy without any Osteopathic appeals in the basic sciences. The way they are teaching y’all is uninformed at best and incredibly disingenuous at worst. Basically, keep doing what you are doing. Keep questioning. Know that all you need to know for steps/levels is in FA, UWorld, BnB, Pathoma, Sketchy etc. and leave the BS they preach in the dust.

Thanks! This helps a lot!

 

[Ho0v-man]

It's the DO school in NJ. What's funny is that our anatomy professor has an extremely good reputation and also lectures (and is adjunct professor) at probably the top MD school in our area.

It's only been a week, but as I said above, there was one DO mechanism we learned in Histology (which was clearly mentioned as a DO concept), and viscerosomatic reflex in anatomy (which we probably spent 20-25 minutes of a lecture on). BUT the thing is, this concept was never mentioned as a DO concept. It was just interspersed in the material. That's my biggest qualm here. Because that makes me question everything else I learned, and make me want to neurotically Google every title of every slide to uncover if what I'm learning is uniquely osteopathic medicine

You’re not missing out. It’s only been a week. We learn the same stuff as MDs. There is a difference in emphasis though. MD schools will have a bigger focus on research, and nitty gritty science like cell bio and biochem. DOs will have a bigger focus on MSK and micro, for example. But its literally all taught. You will find stuff that’s in First Aid that isn’t in your curriculum because it’s either going to be taught later, or it’s just too obscure to matter and you’ll cram it during dedicated.

 

[deleted842137]

You’re not missing out. It’s only been a week. We learn the same stuff as MDs. There is a difference in emphasis though. MD schools will have a bigger focus on research, and nitty gritty science like cell bio and biochem. DOs will have a bigger focus on MSK and micro, for example. But its literally all taught. You will find stuff that’s in First Aid that isn’t in your curriculum because it’s either going to be taught later, or it’s just too obscure to matter and you’ll cram it during dedicated.

Thanks for the reassurance!

 

[Neopolymath]

OP, you will do well with hard work and a questioning, scientific mind. Try not to worry! Much like when news networks spend 23 hours a day on editorial content but not news without identifying it as such on purpose to mislead their fanatical audience, you will encounter DO faculty who do that underhanded tactic too. Just ignore their rhetoric once you identify them. It's all good as long as you know that when these people open their mouths they state a lot of conjecture as fact and assume everyone completely agrees/believes their religion.

Don't worry about your classmates. Most of them figure out all the nuances of DO school... Eventually. It's not your job to help them.

One thing I want to stress: you must pass your OMM classes even though we know it's BS!!! Just cram and dump to pass the preclinical stuff. Comlex requires no OMM knowledge and any residual knowledge you accidentally keep will be perfectly adequate for boards. Anyone arguing OMM is important for Comlex probably should have actually studied their basic science curriculum to learn what they went to medical school to learn. You can score very well guessing on every OMM question.

 

[thumbz]

Oh I doubt I’m getting the answer correct lol. I think the dirty little secret is that you can do well above average on comlex and still tank omm.

TRUTH! Below is my score report for a 620 on Level 2

 

[Neopolymath]

TRUTH! Below is my score report for a 620 on Level 2

View attachment 314240

This cannot be emphasized enough. Faculty will make it seem like it matters. It only matters if you probably deserved to fail from lack of actual medical knowledge.

 

[culturekweenXx]

At least you're doing your own research on these topics. I feel like some of my classmates just take every lecturer for their word, whether the topic is the Krebs cycle or counterstrain points.

 

[AnatomyGrey12]

It's the DO school in NJ. What's funny is that our anatomy professor has an extremely good reputation and also lectures (and is adjunct professor) at probably the top MD school in our area.

It's only been a week, but as I said above, there was one DO mechanism we learned in Histology (which was clearly mentioned as a DO concept), and viscerosomatic reflex in anatomy (which we probably spent 20-25 minutes of a lecture on). BUT the thing is, this concept was never mentioned as a DO concept. It was just interspersed in the material. That's my biggest qualm here. Because that makes me question everything else I learned, and make me want to neurotically Google every title of every slide to uncover if what I'm learning is uniquely osteopathic medicine

Yeah you just have the usual professor that throws osteopathy into random lectures in this case. I wouldn’t stress it. You’ll learn to recognize it and then just ignore it.

 

[drusso]

Hello all,

Before I start, I don't mean to start any controversy on osteopathic medicine. I wouldn't be here if I didn't believe wholeheartedly in the value of it (especially the holistic approach).

I'm a current OMS-1 and we just completed a lecture on viscerosomatic reflex. Immediately after the lecture and understanding the concept, I felt very satisfied. It's a concept that makes a lot of sense anatomically and physiologically, and I was so excited that it's our first real connection of basic science to clinical medicine (especially primary care; I thought, this is literally what my family doctor is thinking about when I to tell him or her I have stomach pain). I was pretty hyped about this all and felt fulfilled and happy to be in medical school.

I then decided to Google "viscerosomatic reflex".

I was pretty shocked to see that there isn't much at all written about it (well, not nearly as much as I expected considering I believed this must be a core concept in all of medicine). There's no Wikipedia article. A lot of the search results are written by osteopathic organizations/physicians and chiropractors. I was pretty taken aback, because as mentioned, I felt like this concept must be core to all medicine (osteopathic and allopathic), considering the clinical relevance it has on localized pain.

I really hate to even wonder this, but is the concept of viscerosomatic reflex substantiated scientifically? Is it something both MDs and DOs believe in, or do MDs not recognize it is a legitimate mechanism? Are there a lot more concepts like this coming my way? Should I expect to learn more elaborate mechanisms like this that are exclusively recognized by the osteopathic community?

If so, this isn't really what I expected coming to a DO school. Every DO told me, the curriculums of DO and MD schools are identical except that DOs learn OMM and also take a more holistic approach.

But to find out there are concepts in anatomy (and I guess maybe in the future, physiology, histology, pathology, pharmacology etc. ?) that we dedicate almost entire lectures to, that are recognized only by the osteopathic community has definitely got me rethinking osteopathic medical school in general (again, it pains me to say this).

Anyone have any comments on all this?

Did you discuss this experiment? It was a big deal when I was a medical student.

https://journals.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/japplphysiol.00495.2006

 

[Osminog]

Practitioners of pseudoscience like to borrow widely accepted scientific concepts (e.g., referred pain) and extend them far beyond the current state of scientific knowledge (e.g., "viscerosomatic reflexes"). By doing this, they make their quack ideas "sound like science" to everyday people and thereby create an air of legitimacy.

Referred pain is a widely accepted phenomenon. We know, for example, that a case of myocardial ischemia can cause radiating pain in the left arm, jaw, etc. While we don't yet fully understand the mechanisms behind referred pain, we have a number of hypotheses that attempt to explain it. What we don't have strong (or even moderate) evidence for is the notion that particular types of visceral pathology cause muscle spasms, tissue texture changes, and palpation-induced tenderness in specific components of the musculoskeletal system. The viscerosomatic reflex chart that you will memorize for boards is not at all science-backed; it's just a culmination of various osteopaths' anecdotes—patterns they claim to have noticed in their patient populations over the years.

I'm sorry that you feel disappointed about what you're discovering about OMM. If it's any consolation, I can assure you that many of your classmates feel very similarly to you but don't want to openly talk about it. Everybody in your class will have to tolerate the OMM charade in order to graduate, but as soon as they're in clinical practice, a vast majority of your classmates will forget OMM and never use it.

Did you discuss this experiment? It was a big deal when I was a medical student.

https://journals.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/japplphysiol.00495.2006

Ah, yes. An AOA-funded, yet-to-be-replicated study conducted at a DO school, with 12 dogs serving as the experimental subjects. Sounds very credible and clinically relevant.

 

[Goro]

See, that's the thing. I was very happy to just ignore only OMM as long as every other class was real, substantiated medicine. I had peace of mind that I could clearly separate the two. But to find out in subjects like anatomy, physiology, pathology, there are NUMEROUS (not once in a blue moon, but like, at least once every lecture) phenomena that we are learning that have no scientific basis and are not recognized by the MD community has got me feeling a different way. Again, this is not what I expected going in. I expected that our curriculum outside of OMM was identical to the MDs. But this doesn't seem to be even close to the truth. It also makes me think, if we're spending so much time on these DO-only concepts, what are the MDs learning instead during this time? Because they also study 12 hours a day. Is there just a huge amount of medicine we won't learn? Some second years have told me we miss out on a lot of embryology. I'm having major FOMO, and feel like I'm missing out on a real education in medicine.

I've heard multiple complaints not just from SDNers but from my own MD colleagues that they wasted a lot of time being taught their pre-clinical professors' research.

 

[drusso]

Practitioners of pseudoscience like to borrow widely accepted scientific concepts (e.g., referred pain) and extend them far beyond the current state of scientific knowledge (e.g., "viscerosomatic reflexes"). By doing this, they make their quack ideas "sound like science" to everyday people and thereby create an air of legitimacy.

Referred pain is a widely accepted phenomenon. We know, for example, that a case of myocardial ischemia can cause radiating pain in the left arm, jaw, etc. While we don't yet fully understand the mechanisms behind referred pain, we have a number of hypotheses that attempt to explain it. What we don't have strong (or even moderate) evidence for is the notion that particular types of visceral pathology cause muscle spasms, tissue texture changes, and palpation-induced tenderness in specific components of the musculoskeletal system. The viscerosomatic reflex chart that you will memorize for boards is not at all science-backed; it's just a culmination of various osteopaths' anecdotes—patterns they claim to have noticed in their patient populations over the years.

I'm sorry that you feel disappointed about what you're discovering about OMM. If it's any consolation, I can assure you that many of your classmates feel very similarly to you but don't want to openly talk about it. Everybody in your class will have to tolerate the OMM charade in order to graduate, but as soon as they're in clinical practice, a vast majority of your classmates will forget OMM and never use it.



Ah, yes. An AOA-funded, yet-to-be-replicated study conducted at a DO school, with 12 dogs serving as the experimental subjects. Sounds very credible and clinically relevant.

I was in the room when it happened...

 

[WhereMyLiberalsAt]

Practitioners of pseudoscience like to borrow widely accepted scientific concepts (e.g., referred pain) and extend them far beyond the current state of scientific knowledge (e.g., "viscerosomatic reflexes"). By doing this, they make their quack ideas "sound like science" to everyday people and thereby create an air of legitimacy.

Referred pain is a widely accepted phenomenon. We know, for example, that a case of myocardial ischemia can cause radiating pain in the left arm, jaw, etc. While we don't yet fully understand the mechanisms behind referred pain, we have a number of hypotheses that attempt to explain it. What we don't have strong (or even moderate) evidence for is the notion that particular types of visceral pathology cause muscle spasms, tissue texture changes, and palpation-induced tenderness in specific components of the musculoskeletal system. The viscerosomatic reflex chart that you will memorize for boards is not at all science-backed; it's just a culmination of various osteopaths' anecdotes—patterns they claim to have noticed in their patient populations over the years.

I'm sorry that you feel disappointed about what you're discovering about OMM. If it's any consolation, I can assure you that many of your classmates feel very similarly to you but don't want to openly talk about it. Everybody in your class will have to tolerate the OMM charade in order to graduate, but as soon as they're in clinical practice, a vast majority of your classmates will forget OMM and never use it.



Ah, yes. An AOA-funded, yet-to-be-replicated study conducted at a DO school, with 12 dogs serving as the experimental subjects. Sounds very credible and clinically relevant.

You sure know a lot about our education for not being a DO student...

Also you basically copied wiki but didn’t mention the fact that referred pain and osteopathy basically hit around the same time. So to say people from the 1800’s adopted a “widely accepted” premise is wrong.

Us DO students **** on our education enough without people coming over and adding to the cluster ****.

 

[deleted842137]

We're going through Fryette's Laws right now. Anyone else find it pretty damning that Harrison Fryette doesn't have a Wikipedia page? Haha I know having a Wikipedia isn't exactly a full-proof test for legitimacy. I've noticed a lot of the OMM concepts aren't really extensively explained (if at all) on Wikipedia though.

 

[WhereMyLiberalsAt]

We're going through Fryette's Laws right now. Anyone else find it pretty damning that Harrison Fryette doesn't have a Wikipedia page? Haha I know having a Wikipedia isn't exactly a full-proof test for legitimacy. I've noticed a lot of the OMM concepts aren't really extensively explained (if at all) on Wikipedia though.

You mean you don’t think that’s how the spine moves? Like the actual physical principle is BS?

 

[deleted842137]

You mean you don’t think that’s how the spine moves? Like the actual physical principle is BS?

NO, absolutely not lol. I was just commenting that a lot of things don't show up on Wikipedia, that's all.

 

[AnatomyGrey12]

We're going through Fryette's Laws right now. Anyone else find it pretty damning that Harrison Fryette doesn't have a Wikipedia page? Haha I know having a Wikipedia isn't exactly a full-proof test for legitimacy. I've noticed a lot of the OMM concepts aren't really extensively explained (if at all) on Wikipedia though.

Bro you have to learn to just ignore this stuff and move on. Stop pulling up Wikipedia for everything.

Pretty much everyone here is constantly telling premeds that OMM is a joke, how you are surprised by any of this is beyond me.

 

[DO2015CA]

Bro you have to learn to just ignore this stuff and move on. Stop pulling up Wikipedia for everything.

Pretty much everyone here is constantly telling premeds that OMM is a joke, how you are surprised by any of this is beyond me.

Idk about you but pretty much every ortho I know uses fryettes laws prior to CRI’ing hardware into scoliotic pt’s backs.

 

[AnatomyGrey12]

Idk about you but pretty much every ortho I know uses fryettes laws prior to CRI’ing hardware into scoliotic pt’s backs.

I'm not really talking about Fryette's laws in particular, which are really just spinal biomechanics jazzed up to be OMM'ey.

 

[calivianya]

Idk about you but pretty much every ortho I know uses fryettes laws prior to CRI’ing hardware into scoliotic pt’s backs.

This discussion of Fryette’s laws here actually just made my stomach drop.

We never touched Fryette’s laws in any class other than my OPP classes - definitely didn’t talk about them in anatomy, so I kind of assumed they were more OPP BS that doesn’t actually correlate to the real world at all. Seeing someone say they’re legit makes me wonder how many other things that were taught in my OPP classes are real medical phenomena that I need to remember and not just dump as quackery.

Should probably have had OP’s questioning attitude instead of making assumptions about what I was learning based on what course I learned it in. I feel pretty stupid right now.

 

[Osminog]

This discussion of Fryette’s laws here actually just made my stomach drop.

We never touched Fryette’s laws in any class other than my OPP classes - definitely didn’t talk about them in anatomy, so I kind of assumed they were more OPP BS that doesn’t actually correlate to the real world at all. Seeing someone say they’re legit makes me wonder how many other things that were taught in my OPP classes are real medical phenomena that I need to remember and not just dump as quackery.

Should probably have had OP’s questioning attitude instead of making assumptions about what I was learning based on what course I learned it in. I feel pretty stupid right now.

Coupled motion of the spine is a legitimate subject of academic inquiry, and scholars in the field of biomechanics conduct sophisticated experiments to investigate it. Based on the many studies that have come out and various literature reviews, we know that there happen to be a lot of nuances to spinal motion that can’t be deduced through intuition or conveyed through a simple model.

Fryette’s laws represent an oversimplified, outdated understanding of spinal motion, and they have virtually no clinical relevance to mainstream medicine. Beyond serious problems with the theory itself, there are also serious problems relating to interrater reliability of palpatory determination of spinal motion and to the effectiveness of manual treatments for “type I and II dysfunctions.”

Good rule of thumb: If a concept is taught to you in OMM and in no other medical school class, and if Googling it only yields osteopathic, chiropractic, and “holistic medicine” webpage results, then you can safely just assume that it’s pseudoscientific dogma and move on with your life.

 

[DO2015CA]

This discussion of Fryette’s laws here actually just made my stomach drop.

We never touched Fryette’s laws in any class other than my OPP classes - definitely didn’t talk about them in anatomy, so I kind of assumed they were more OPP BS that doesn’t actually correlate to the real world at all. Seeing someone say they’re legit makes me wonder how many other things that were taught in my OPP classes are real medical phenomena that I need to remember and not just dump as quackery.

Should probably have had OP’s questioning attitude instead of making assumptions about what I was learning based on what course I learned it in. I feel pretty stupid right now.

i mean the movement of spinal mechanics is rightish but the whole dysfunction that result in T1 and T2 isn’t. Yes the spine moves in those planes. No there aren’t group segments or whatever that you can treat

 

[DrWBD]

Hello all,

Before I start, I don't mean to start any controversy on osteopathic medicine. I wouldn't be here if I didn't believe wholeheartedly in the value of it (especially the holistic approach).
...

Here's the thing - modern medicine is not something you "believe in". What we do is supposed to be based on some level of evidence and not just because a "philosophy" says it is true. Presumably you studied actual science before getting into medical school, and if your BS detector is going off in your OMT class there is probably a good reason why.