Also realize that it took centuries for us to accept that the world was round because of the belief system at that period in time. What made the transition easier was science. Not just one experiment but multiple experiments showing the same thing. establishing "substantial support" for the hypothesis or theory.
No, it only took hundreds of years for "scientists" to understand that the world was round. They needed mathematical proof, but every uneducated sailor in the world knew it was round. They could see a ship approach from over the horizon and knew that it was true.
The reason why I was suprised was because of the osteopathic push for OMM as one of its biggest distictions from allopathic medicine.
There is no osteopathic push to be distinct from allopathic medicine. One of the four Osteopathic principles states, "Rational treatments...are to include all scientifically proven therapies. At the time that OMM was developed there was very little scientific basis to medicine. MDs were giving their patients mercury, arsenic and a whole host of other things that were, in effect, killing the same patients they were trying to heal. Early osteopaths didn't use a lot of drugs because they realized that the current drugs were killing people, and OMM worked in many cases without killing people. It's that simple. Today, OMM is only a
very small part of osteopathic treatment. It is not taught because it separates osteopaths from allopaths, rather because it often has very good results.
I just feel like we should attempt to understand more about OMM.
There are lot of therapies that are in use today that we still have no idea of the mechanisms that actually make them work. But, we don't stop using them for that reason. If they are effective, even if we don't understand why, we still keep using them. There's been a big push toward EBM in recent years, but there are drawbacks as well. Medicine is controlled by insurance companies, and we all know that insurance companies just live to deny claims. Because of this, physicians have become hesitant, in some cases, to use therapies that have proven their worth, simply because there has never been an article about it in the NEJM. New and novel treatments are less likely to be tried simply because people are demanding to see "evidence" in the same type of journal articles that you are looking for now.
