Osteopathic vs. Allopathic

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
robtncqe said:
I'll post the Wikipedia page again that Explains the entire issue.
5l.jpg
Click to expand...

Actually, Wikipedia entries are known to change frequently. And it's peer edited so no guarantee of accuracy.

If there is something worthwhile that you can verify, it would be more helpful if you would copy and paste. This way we will know what you are referring to and that it hasn't changed.
 
Gauss44 said:
Actually, Wikipedia entries are known to change frequently. And it's peer edited so no guarantee of accuracy.

If there is something worthwhile that you can verify, it would be more helpful if you would copy and paste. This way we will know what you are referring to and that it hasn't changed.
Click to expand...

Does the MD/DO debate change frequently enough to render yesterday's Wikipedia page invalid?
 
Mt Kilimanjaro said:
Does the MD/DO debate change frequently enough to render yesterday's Wikipedia page invalid?
Click to expand...

Again, anyone can edit Wikipedia. Nothing on there has to be true. The degree of accuracy sometimes depends on the subject matter.
 
Last edited:
gettheleadout said:
Yeah gee it's not like it has citations or anything.
Click to expand...

As Colbert says, "You see, any user can change any entry, and if enough other users agree with them, it becomes true. ... If only the entire body of human knowledge worked this way. And it can, thanks to tonight's word: Wikiality. Now, folks, I'm no fan of reality, and I'm no fan of encyclopedias. I've said it before. Who is Britannica to tell me that George Washington had slaves? If I want to say he didn't, that's my right. And now, thanks to Wikipedia, it's also a fact. We should apply these principles to all information. All we need to do is convince a majority of people that some factoid is true. ... What we're doing is bringing democracy to knowledge."

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_in_culture
 
Gauss44 said:
As Colbert says, "You see, any user can change any entry, and if enough other users agree with them, it becomes true. ... If only the entire body of human knowledge worked this way. And it can, thanks to tonight's word: Wikiality. Now, folks, I'm no fan of reality, and I'm no fan of encyclopedias. I've said it before. Who is Britannica to tell me that George Washington had slaves? If I want to say he didn't, that's my right. And now, thanks to Wikipedia, it's also a fact. We should apply these principles to all information. All we need to do is convince a majority of people that some factoid is true. ... What we're doing is bringing democracy to knowledge."

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_in_culture
Click to expand...

I fail to see the relevance to Wiki articles actually sourcing their facts.
 
How did this **** get 59 posts? Don't you guys ever get tired of this?
 
Gauss44 said:
Actually, Wikipedia entries are known to change frequently. And it's peer edited so no guarantee of accuracy.

If there is something worthwhile that you can verify, it would be more helpful if you would copy and paste. This way we will know what you are referring to and that it hasn't changed.
Click to expand...

Because Wikipedia is far less trustworthy than this anonymous internet forum full of pre-med trolls which is held to the highest standard of accountability and accuracy.

Why don't you point out what it is in the Wikipedia article that you think is inaccurate or untrustworthy and we'll go from there.
 
mirimonster said:
Because Wikipedia is far less trustworthy than this anonymous internet forum full of pre-med trolls which is held to the highest standard of accountability and accuracy.

Why don't you point out what it is in the Wikipedia article that you think is inaccurate or untrustworthy and we'll go from there.
Click to expand...

By the time I'm done pointing things out, the article will probably have changed. Then I'll have to start all over.
 
Gauss44 said:
By the time I'm done pointing things out, the article will probably have changed. Then I'll have to start all over.
Click to expand...

That's a cop out if I've ever heard one. Took me 3 seconds to find out said article was last modified 2 months ago. Not sure how long you were planning to take in this treatise, but I'm pretty sure you just haven't bothered to read it because of an irrational Wikipedia bias. Would it surprise you to know that things in print contain inaccuracies, partly because just because it's published doesn't mean it's right, but also largely because print is not easily edited to stay current?

Don't complain that you can't get the answer to your question if you're not willing to read the information freely available. And if you really don't trust Wikipedia then just scroll to the bottom and use the cited articles to form your own (same) conclusions the slow way.
 
Gauss44 said:
As Colbert says, "You see, any user can change any entry, and if enough other users agree with them, it becomes true. ... If only the entire body of human knowledge worked this way. And it can, thanks to tonight's word: Wikiality. Now, folks, I'm no fan of reality, and I'm no fan of encyclopedias. I've said it before. Who is Britannica to tell me that George Washington had slaves? If I want to say he didn't, that's my right. And now, thanks to Wikipedia, it's also a fact. We should apply these principles to all information. All we need to do is convince a majority of people that some factoid is true. ... What we're doing is bringing democracy to knowledge."

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_in_culture
Click to expand...

You're missing the point. Facts on Wikipedia have cited sources (scroll down to the bottom and all the primary sources are listed). There's a lot of quality control in Wikipedia, so while anyone can go into that article right now and change it, it will be corrected relatively quickly. Doctors use Wikipedia, researchers use Wikipedia, med students use Wikipedia...I used it all throughout first year and it hasn't harmed me yet. It's very good for a quick explanation when you don't have a textbook and your notes don't do the topic justice, and it's also very good for finding published articles on the topic by scrolling down to the primary sources, because sometimes PubMed can make me want to throw my computer at the wall.

Also, good job citing Wikipedia. Colbert is a satirist, who by definition uses exaggeration to make fun of something or to make a point. He's kidding. A Wikipedia quote of Colbert does nothing to support what you say.
 
If you do well on your mcat, DO school is for people who aren't smart enough to be a MD.


If you don't do well on your mcat, DO school is just as good as MD. In fact, you are choosing to go to DO school because you agree with their philosophy.
 
^Wrong! A whole bunch of us want to go DO because it will let us become doctors. Many of us don't believe that OMM crap.
 
armpitsOFmight said:
^won't need to because I've worked with DOs in pathology and dermatology who don't use it. Since they're practicing "osteopathic" medicine, I'll just explain what I experienced working with them.
Click to expand...

Pathologist and dermatologist not using manipulative care? You don't say..
 
^try not to forget that only 60-66.6666% of bone doctors go into primary care.
 
armpitsOFmight said:
^Wrong! A whole bunch of us want to go DO because it will let us become doctors. Many of us don't believe that OMM crap.
Click to expand...

To talk about something more substantive then the DO v. MD "debate":

If there isn't an actual difference in clinical skills between DOs and MDs, then that just shows that the standards for allopathic schools are artificial too high.

With the physician shortage, they could expand med schools and accept people with low objective qualifications and it wouldn't hurt the population at all.

Seems like the AAMC is creating the problem.
 
^It could be just an admissions bubble that pharmacy went through pre-2008, aka their golden years of making just as much money as FM doctors. That bubble popped in 2008 and now their admissions standards have lowered significantly since there are less jobs and way too many schools pumping out new PharmD's.
 
armpitsOFmight said:
^try not to forget that only 60-66.6666% of bone doctors go into primary care.
Click to expand...

This is completely unrelated to the lack of groundbreaking news supplied by your post, and to the fact you think all OMM is crap yet wish to be a D.O.

Though given the eloquent way in which you present yourself here, I don't feel as if your personality will take up too many acceptances from the genuine applicants.
 
UCFMD said:
This is completely unrelated to the lack of groundbreaking news supplied by your post, and to the fact you think all OMM is crap yet wish to be a D.O.

Though given the eloquent way in which you present yourself here, I don't feel as if your personality will take up too many acceptances from the genuine applicants.
Click to expand...

...
 
Last edited:
armpitsOFmight said:
You are clearly misguided if you think OMM is the only thing that defines a bone doctor.
Click to expand...

And you are clearly not great at verbal comprehension if you drew that generalization from my posts.

Guessing low MCAT has you applying D.O.? I can reach for conclusions as well.
 
Yeah, cause the MCAT really defines a person's intelligence.
 
armpitsOFmight said:
Yeah, cause the MCAT really defines a person's intelligence.
Click to expand...

Hah, you completely missed the satirical point behind me saying that. I can't tell if this is sad or funny. 🙁

chemsmith said:
o rly?

what are you doing trolling pre allo then?
Click to expand...

He's actually a pro-troll by saying D.O.s are better, yet OMM is pointless. His purpose here is to get a rise out of both sides.

Instead he just looks like an idiot.
 
UCFMD said:
Hah, you completely missed the satirical point behind me saying that. I can't tell if this is sad or funny. 🙁



He's actually a pro-troll by saying D.O.s are better, yet OMM is pointless. His purpose here is to get a rise out of both sides.

Instead he just looks like an idiot.
Click to expand...

I would imagine many other people share his opinion though.

Alot of DOs and pre-DOs have commented on the fact that they think OMM is pointless.

People mostly just go to DO school because they want to be doctors and couldn't get into a MD school. There's no shame in that.

The latter part of the sentence will be "offensive" to some, but by and large it is true.
 
Moving on..

Dbate said:
If there isn't an actual difference in clinical skills between DOs and MDs, then that just shows that the standards for allopathic schools are artificial too high. With the physician shortage, they could expand med schools and accept people with low objective qualifications and it wouldn't hurt the population at all.
Click to expand...

The underlying problem with this is the lack of residencies. Could M.D. schools accept the next 15-20 applicants on the waitlist and still be fine academically? Absolutely, it's not like there's a magical line and everyone on the other side isn't intelligent enough for an M.D. school.

The problem is they can't all undergo a 20% expansion without severely hurting the residency:applicant ratio. Or actually, maybe then everyone would be forced into primary care. Problem solved! 😀
 
Last edited:
armpitsOFmight said:
I wonder if I can perform OMM on myself when I'm constipated and allow me to defecate more easily. Can OMM make laxatives a thing of the past? The only way for me to find out is to go to DO school and learn about this and practice it on myself when in the bathroom.
Click to expand...

So many mental images... Why, brain?

😱
👍
 
Dbate said:
I would imagine many other people share his opinion though.

Alot of DOs and pre-DOs have commented on the fact that they think OMM is pointless.

People mostly just go to DO school because they want to be doctors and couldn't get into a MD school. There's no shame in that.

The latter part of the sentence will be "offensive" to some, but by and large it is true.
Click to expand...
Again, I'm specifically talking about the generalizations he's attained from a pathologist and a dermatologist. That is what I've been ridiculing this whole time. I don't care about the underlying philosophical discussion on why people actually go to osteopathic schools.
 
^oh, btw....my PCP is a DO and he doesn't use OMM either.


BAM!!

Now you have 3 different kinds of Docs there junior.
 
armpitsOFmight said:
^oh, btw....my PCP is a DO and he doesn't use OMM either.

Now you have 3 different kinds of Docs there junior.
Click to expand...
Two of them are still a pathologist and dermatologist. Doesn't make your original statement seem any more intelligent.

There is also nobody arguing that all osteopathic physicians use OMM, but as long as you continue to misinterpret everything I say, you'll likely continue on with this fight against the English language.

Doctor Strange said:
I kind of hoped that this thread wouldn't actually turn into an MD vs. DO debate... Oh well............
Click to expand...

It's really not. There's nobody comparing the two with the exception of one person, who is mostly arguing a point that nobody has made. Just let him be.
 
Last edited:
^Actually, it is you who needs to go back to school and take another six credits of intensive writing. You're whole argument from the beginning was that DO means nothing but OMM. What university do you go to? I'll be more than happy to call the registrar's office and sign you up today!
 
armpitsOFmight said:
You're whole argument from the beginning was that DO means nothing but OMM.
Click to expand...
Please quote the part where I said this, or the part where I said all osteopathic physicians use OMM. Or the part where I said most osteopathic physicians use OMM. Or the part where I said any amount of osteopathic physicians use OMM.

Now please, ask me to direct you to the part where you make a generalization about OMM after you mentioned your time with a pathologist! :laugh:

armpitsOFmight said:
You're whole argument
Click to expand...
Also I'm not a whole argument, you take that back! lols
 
You're the supposed MCAT wizard; if you're too lazy to read your own posts above it's not my problem.
 
armpitsOFmight said:
You're the supposed MCAT wizard; if you're too lazy to read your own posts above it's not my problem.
Click to expand...

:laugh:

So the statement I'm accused of making is there, whether it's actually there or not, because I can't find it. There are times when I feel as if everyone on SDN is a genius.. and then there are these times. 😀
 
UCFMD said:
:laugh:

So the statement I'm accused of making is there, whether it's actually there or not, because I can't find it. There are times when I feel as if everyone on SDN is a genius.. and then there are these times. 😀
Click to expand...

Clearly you got a 5 in verbal.
 
UCFMD fell for the bait pretty hard. Entertaining.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

I
Natural science internship as an allopathic pre-med student?
Replies
3
Views
717
AJS59
AJS59
F
Scribe vs Medical Assistant
Replies
1
Views
806
LunaOri
LunaOri
eharlc2119
  • Question Question
MA vs. CRC
Replies
5
Views
853
The OTC
The OTC
ptarta
Help NYU vs SBU
Replies
2
Views
606
Rachapkis
Rachapkis
E
Letter Packet vs Interfolio
Replies
2
Views
720
EEqualsRx2
EEqualsRx2
Top