Osteopathic doctors (DO) are better qualified to be Orthopedic/spinal Surgeons.

[asparagine]

Here's an idea. Why don't you get into medical school, score high enough on the boards to even think about orthopedic surgery or whatever other crazy specialty you think D.O.s should be given preference in, and then come back and complain about the unfairness of it all?

See you in about 4 years.

sounds good then. As of now I'll rest the "DO's more qualified to be Orthopedic Surgeon debate".

I'll still reply to others on things that apply to other ideas.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[ShenanigansMD]

Im surprised you all haven't realized this was just another stupid way of the OP trying to start an MD vs. DO flame war..

:troll:

 

[asparagine]

Man you just don't know what you don't know, and what you're talking about is one of those things. Good luck with your med school applications.

Because no one really knows the truth. I mean we can accept certain things that are logical but we really don't know which journals are true or real.


Just look at Dr. Dipak K. Das

Who conducted research on benefits of red wine in the Universityof Connecticut Health Center.

11 scientific journals were published and consideredevidence based peer-reviewed journals.
He was found guilty of fabricating on 145 occasions in 7years!

What other science-based studies will pop up in the futurewhich we will find fabricated.
Or what other medicines side effects like Yaz will we findafter years to be extremely detrimental to human health?

 

[Raryn]

Because no one really knows the truth. I mean we can accept certain things that are logical but we really don't know which journals are true or real.


Just look at Dr. Dipak K. Das

Who conducted research on benefits of red wine in the Universityof Connecticut Health Center.

11 scientific journals were published and consideredevidence based peer-reviewed journals.
He was found guilty of fabricating on 145 occasions in 7years!

What other science-based studies will pop up in the futurewhich we will find fabricated.
Or what other medicines side effects like Yaz will we findafter years to be extremely detrimental to human health?

"Extremely detrimental to human health" is apparently something very, very subjective. Contrary to what you might have heard on TV, Yaz (drospirenone/ethinylestradiol) is a highly effective birth control method that some later studies found has an increased risk of venous thrombolism (i.e. blood clots in the legs that may go to the lungs) compared to previous birth control pills. While the increases are statistically significant (if you trust those studies, which is arguable actually, there are some questions regarding their methadology), they are not clinically significant in the vast majority of the patients who can or would take it (young, healthy women). ALL estrogen containing OCPs increase the risk of VTEs, this one was just a bit higher than most.

It has not been taken off the market and while the FDA has updated the warnings of using it in women who are at higher risk of VTE (women >35, smokers, those who are undergoing surgery), it is still quite available and you'd be hard pressed to find a legitimate authority to call it "extremely detrimental".

Now, I could think of a few examples that might actually work for the argument above, but all of them are either extremely old or were acted on appropriately as further data came to light. It's always difficult balancing the benefits from new medications versus the need for long term safety evaluations of them, but the US actually does a pretty good job of it. (hence why you have people simultaneously bitching the FDA takes forever to process potentially lifesaving medications and saying how it just puts everything through too fast and puts pts at risk)

 

[asparagine]

"Extremely detrimental to human health" is apparently something very, very subjective. Contrary to what you might have heard on TV, Yaz (drospirenone/ethinylestradiol) is a highly effective birth control method that some later studies found has an increased risk of venous thrombolism (i.e. blood clots in the legs that may go to the lungs) compared to previous birth control pills. While the increases are statistically significant (if you trust those studies, which is arguable actually, there are some questions regarding their methadology), they are not clinically significant in the vast majority of the patients who can or would take it (young, healthy women). ALL estrogen containing OCPs increase the risk of VTEs, this one was just a bit higher than most.

It has not been taken off the market and while the FDA has updated the warnings of using it in women who are at higher risk of VTE (women >35, smokers, those who are undergoing surgery), it is still quite available and you'd be hard pressed to find a legitimate authority to call it "extremely detrimental".

Now, I could think of a few examples that might actually work for the argument above, but all of them are either extremely old or were acted on appropriately as further data came to light. It's always difficult balancing the benefits from new medications versus the need for long term safety evaluations of them, but the US actually does a pretty good job of it. (hence why you have people simultaneously bitching the FDA takes forever to process potentially lifesaving medications and saying how it just puts everything through too fast and puts pts at risk)

Okay, that's a rational reply.

 

[deleted103644]

if you look at my quotes after that you will find that i had one that stated the misunderstanding and said that i do not denounce evidence-based-science, but i just don't believe in accepting everything you hear unless you're spouting some pseudoscientific bs like chiropractic, acupuncture, or reiki, then i'll eat that **** up with a spoon.

ftfy

 

[asparagine]

ftfy

Doctors give results in many things and help people tremendously.

However, if you look into chiropractory and OMM and not judge them just because of what you've heard, rather focusing on results, you will see that they also do a tremendous service in health.

they are both important.

anyway, the spoon is yours

 

[SpecterGT260]

why did this thread get revived?
here is the skinny - there are people who get their PhDs in human anatomy. They are not qualified surgeons. In the same way, OMM (which is not 200 credits..... It is no more time consuming than PE skills are for MDs) does not make DOs more qualified to be orthopods. The foundation of this question is just silly.

 

[SpecterGT260]

Doctors give results in many things and help people tremendously.

However, if you DONT look into chiropractory and OMM and not judge them just because of what you've heard, rather focusing on results, you will see that they also do a tremendous service in health.

they are both important.

anyway, the spoon is yours

Fixed it for you.

The actual literature on the subject is scant, biased, and often very very poorly controlled. It's ok. This is common with people trying to push an agenda rather than discover the facts objectively. As an example: I saw a poster recently given by an MS1 who worked under an MD who is prominent in the dietary world for promoting the paleo diet. The study design had no healthy population for comparison, arbitrarily chose nutrients of interest, listed only those with a p<0.05 out of an extensive list (this is a big problem if you understand stats) and used a quality of life survey to assess results. Can you explain to me why this is a terrible study? Nearly every paper I have ever seen on OMM or chiropractic manipulation has the same issues. I have not seen compelling (or even suggestive) evidence that the effects are anything other than placebo and provider bias.

also, chiropractory? wtf....

 

[Non Pizza Lunch]

Okay I'll bite. Couple of things that always bothered me is when people start comparing how well they knew a subject just based on the amount of lecture hours/ credits. Literally there were one hour classes in medical school that effectively covered more than a two weeks worth of material in undergrad, and I'm sure they also won't be anywhere close to as equivalent with chiropractors or ND? (lol).

But going back more on topic around DOs, don't around 95% of DOs think that 95% of the OMM is bs. So you think that <10 hours of somewhat useful knowledge is going to make that much of a difference. Not to mention that most MD schools have already been transitioning to working in the clinic along with classes in the first 2 years logging in way more than 200 hours, so the answer to the question is no, DOs don't have an advantage in knowledge, and a HUGE actual disadvantage when trying to become an orthopod or neurosurgeon.

 

[sliceofbread136]

I don't know why peer reviewed literature isn't good enough to prove the effectiveness of much of modern medicine but this guy's anecdotal evidence of how great omm and chiropractors are is supposed to convince us of how great it is.

 

[asparagine]

I don't know why peer reviewed literature isn't good enough to prove the effectiveness of much of modern medicine but this guy's anecdotal evidence of how great omm and chiropractors are is supposed to convince us of how great it is.

peer reviewed literature IS good enough to prove the effectiveness of much of modern medicine today.

However, it's unfair to simply point fingers and claim a certain group is biased.

So if one is able to accuse Chiropractic research or osteopathic research as biased research, then they should be equally as willing to accept that people can accuse MD's of having biased research also.

 

[deleted103644]

peer reviewed literature IS good enough to prove the effectiveness of much of modern medicine today.

However, it's unfair to simply point fingers and claim a certain group is biased.

So if one is able to accuse Chiropractic research or osteopathic research as biased research, then they should be equally as willing to accept that people can accuse MD's of having biased research also.

Peer review is only as good as the peers who do the reviewing.

If your peers do not place much weight in well-designed (double blinded RCT, etc etc) studies, peer review is a poor marker for paper quality.

 

[SpecterGT260]

Peer review is only as good as the peers who do the reviewing.

If your peers do not place much weight in well-designed (double blinded RCT, etc etc) studies, peer review is a poor market for paper quality.

Yes

 

[asparagine]

Peer review is only as good as the peers who do the reviewing.

If your peers do not place much weight in well-designed (double blinded RCT, etc etc) studies, peer review is a poor marker for paper quality.

and whose to be the judge of that? obviously chiropractors will believe their peer reviews are not biased.

same with doctors,,,


anyway this thread went on too long.

 

[SpecterGT260]

and whose to be the judge of that? obviously chiropractors will believe their peer reviews are not biased.

same with doctors,,,


anyway this thread went on too long.

you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what peer review is. This isnt about trusting the publisher. it is about identifying what is published as good or poor science. There are MDs that publish crap science as well. See my earlier post -

This is common with people trying to push an agenda rather than discover the facts objectively. As an example: I saw a poster recently given by an MS1 who worked under an MD who is prominent in the dietary world for promoting the paleo diet. The study design had no healthy population for comparison, arbitrarily chose nutrients of interest, listed only those with a p<0.05 out of an extensive list (this is a big problem if you understand stats) and used a quality of life survey to assess results. Can you explain to me why this is a terrible study?

peer review is (supposed to be) an objective and logical process. Do your findings and methods really support your conclusions? The findings need to be robust enough to not simply be dismissed as placebo due to inadequate controls, which was what I mentioned earlier as a problem with the literature in these cases.

 

[deleted103644]

and whose to be the judge of that? obviously chiropractors will believe their peer reviews are not biased.

same with doctors,,,


anyway this thread went on too long.

As I said, there are objective criteria. Chiropractors have a bad track record with it. So chiropractic peer review is very suspect.

 

[DrSnips]

As I said, there are objective criteria. Chiropractors have a bad track record with it. So chiropractic peer review is very suspect.

Here is your typical chiropractic peer-reviewed paper, just to give an example:

Title: Gastric cancer risk reduction through chiropractic in the bread consuming patient

Abstract: Bread consumption is widely known to be a common cause of gastric cancer due to the multitude of chemicals found in bread. No medical techniques are known at this point that can reduce this this cancer risk. We studied 3 patients who consumed bread and subsequently had a session with a chiropractor. At the one-week endpoint, none of the 3 patients had developed gastric cancer, thereby proving with p = 3.14159 that chiropractic can prevent gastric cancer in the bread eating population.

 

[SpecterGT260]

Here is your typical chiropractic peer-reviewed paper, just to give an example:

Title: Gastric cancer risk reduction through chiropractic in the bread consuming patient

Abstract: Bread consumption is widely known to be a common cause of gastric cancer due to the multitude of chemicals found in bread. No medical techniques are known at this point that can reduce this this cancer risk. We studied 3 patients who consumed bread and subsequently had a session with a chiropractor. At the one-week endpoint, none of the 3 patients had developed gastric cancer, thereby proving with p = 3.14159 that chiropractic can prevent gastric cancer in the bread eating population.

thats mean... but not too far off from what I have seen.

 

[CaribbeanBlue]

peer reviewed literature IS good enough to prove the effectiveness of much of modern medicine today.

However, it's unfair to simply point fingers and claim a certain group is biased.

So if one is able to accuse Chiropractic research or osteopathic research as biased research, then they should be equally as willing to accept that people can accuse MD's of having biased research also.

You sound like a preacher. This is sort of how christian preachers argue for the bible against science.

 

[SpecterGT260]

You sound like a preacher. This is sort of how christian preachers argue for the bible against science.

But to be fair, dinosaurs are like totally fake and junk

 

[notbobtrustme]

sounds good then. As of now I'll rest the "DO's more qualified to be Orthopedic Surgeon debate".

I'll still reply to others on things that apply to other ideas.

A DO is not an MD+. That's where the majority of your misconceptions originate.

 

[SpecterGT260]

A DO is not an MD+. That's where the majority of your misconceptions originate.

I hate that comparison. The issue is thus: people who have an (their own) perceived shortcoming or inferiority complex have a need to draw comparisons and exaggerate specific qualities. We take classes with the PA students and I have heard more than one of them comment on how they just took their entire first year of medical school in 3 months. Such comparisons serve to inflate the ego and are simply erroneous. However any attempt to dispel such inaccurate comparisons (like the DO=MD+ thing) is interpreted as bashing and suddenly becomes taboo. But honestly....... bullsh*t. I am all over threads like this but honestly if everyone involved would just shut up about it and adopt the outlook of "I do what I do when I do what I do" and stop worrying about what the guy next to them is doing I would have no issue at all. a solid 95% of the threads that I have been in like this have been initiated by some pre-DO who wants to validate their life choices by inflating meaningless aspects about the profession. Fortunately there are a few well informed and level-headed DO students around here who don't drum this crap up.

 

[tiedyeddog]

Peer review is only as good as the peers who do the reviewing.

If your peers do not place much weight in well-designed (double blinded RCT, etc etc) studies, peer review is a poor marker for paper quality.

Couldn't be better said.

 

[kpcrew]

I hate that comparison. The issue is thus: people who have an (their own) perceived shortcoming or inferiority complex have a need to draw comparisons and exaggerate specific qualities. We take classes with the PA students and I have heard more than one of them comment on how they just took their entire first year of medical school in 3 months. Such comparisons serve to inflate the ego and are simply erroneous. However any attempt to dispel such inaccurate comparisons (like the DO=MD+ thing) is interpreted as bashing and suddenly becomes taboo. But honestly....... bullsh*t. I am all over threads like this but honestly if everyone involved would just shut up about it and adopt the outlook of "I do what I do when I do what I do" and stop worrying about what the guy next to them is doing I would have no issue at all. a solid 95% of the threads that I have been in like this have been initiated by some pre-DO who wants to validate their life choices by inflating meaningless aspects about the profession. Fortunately there are a few well informed and level-headed DO students around here who don't drum this crap up.

That PA program must only take super geniuses or something.

 

[SpecterGT260]

No more than the medical school does

 

[Ser Demetrius]

DOs tend to suck at standardized tests. People who suck at standardized tests tend not to get competitive residency spots.

 

[K31]

Someone please close this thread!

Don't deny me one of the great pleasures of life--watching MD vs. DO train wrecks. This thread has provided some much-needed laughs while preparing to submit ERAS.

 

[MiracleforMD]

DOs tend to suck at standardized tests. People who suck at standardized tests tend not to get competitive residency spots.

I would say a lot of applicants who had to go DO instead of MD did so because of low GPA/not giving enough ****s in undergrad. Myself possibly included.

 

[lobo.solo]

A DO is not an MD+. That's where the majority of your misconceptions originate.

Wait, what!!!
Are you saying that a DO =\= MD + chiropractor??? Man.... I was hoping I could have a part-time chiropractor practice on the side if become DO....

 

[487806]

It's probably a troll thread as others mentioned, but i'll give my view. Both MD and DO are equally qualified to be orthopedic surgeons.

 

[zoner]

I would say a lot of applicants who had to go DO instead of MD did so because of low GPA/not giving enough ****s in undergrad. Myself possibly included.

ugh, i guess i need to get all wrapped up in this thread!

not always dude or duddet, it could be your age as well. remember, do schools are A LOT more friendlier to older students than MD schools. i had 4.0 gpa and alright MCAT... i don't wanna talk about what happened.

 

[La Presse]

That PA program must only take super geniuses or something.

+1

Dude, where in hell do you get your avvies from?

 

[MiracleforMD]

I would say a lot of applicants who had to go DO instead of MD did so because of low GPA/not giving enough ****s in undergrad. Myself possibly included.

ugh, i guess i need to get all wrapped up in this thread!

not always dude or duddet, it could be your age as well. remember, do schools are A LOT more friendlier to older students than MD schools. i had 4.0 gpa and alright MCAT... i don't wanna talk about what happened.

"a lot of applicants" =/= "always". Soooo, yeah. What was your MCAT?

 

[zoner]

"a lot of applicants" =/= "always". Soooo, yeah. What was your MCAT?

ah.. sorry, i missed "a lot" part of your comment... funny, this kind of silly mistakes were my biggest downfall in my MCAT. I got majority of my answers wrong (in practice tests) purely from misreading the prompts or the quesitons.... 10.10.10

 

[MiracleforMD]

ah.. sorry, i missed "a lot" part of your comment... funny, this kind of silly mistakes were my biggest downfall in my MCAT. I got majority of my answers wrong (in practice tests) purely from misreading the prompts or the quesitons.... 10.10.10

Damn, 4.0/30. That is rough to get turned down from MD with stats like that. I have a small sample size anecdotally, but all of the non-trad (>30 y/o) that have gotten in have had exceptional MCAT scores (>35).

 

[MedPR]

Hey mods, how about swinging the banhammer already? Or are we going to have to debate reflexologists for your amusement?

I see nothing ban worthy

Sent from my SGH-T999 using SDN Mobile

 

[TooMuchResearch]

Can we have the admins make it so that pre-meds can't post in the medical students section?

I think there is a tech issue there. To prevent pre-meds from posting (or at least starting threads), it might have to be a private forum requiring authentication and manual addition to the group. It came up in one of the resident-attending forums recently, and I think that was the conclusion.

 

[xXIDaShizIXx]

You guys just hate D.O.'s don't you?

 

[SpecterGT260]

No.



That was easy

 

[DrWily]

You guys just hate D.O.'s don't you?

This thread was created by a potential pre-med DO spouting off BS and obviously gulping the koolaid. Has nothing to do with hating D.O.s... just this guy.

 

[Mehd School]

Y'all postin' in a troll thread.

 

[DrWily]

Y'all postin' in a troll thread.

Post pad.

+1

 

[487806]

Y'all postin' in a troll thread.

So are you?

 

[Mehd School]

So are you?

Um. No I'm not.

 

[487806]

Um. No I'm not.

 

[kpcrew]

Um. No I'm not.

I'm gonna show you how to do it and we start real slow

 

[lobo.solo]

I'm gonna show you how to do it and we start real slow

Is this sexy talk???

 

[deleted103644]

You guys just hate D.O.'s don't you?

I hate the sin, not the sinner.

Osteopathy needs to be destroyed. Chiropractors and acupuncturists, you're next. After that, I'll punch Dr. Oz in the face before resting my feet on my Dr. Phil skin rug.

 

[KnuxNole]

I forgot Chiropractors still exist today.