Poll: Do you believe in OMM?

[Lokhtar]

I think the dude is just angry.

I'm not. At least I hope I'm not. I might very well be a DO/PhD student pretty soon - and I've done research on this one subject (cranial) and I am simply disappointed that people are still taught something that is debunked. Surely it's not a sign of anger to wish to reform and challenge unscientific ideas within medicine?

Note that I've repeatedly made sure to differentiate cranial and the rest of OMM (many many times) because I don't want to make judgments from ignorance and I've absolutely zero problems with using OMM or any other methods of treatments that have scientifically shown to have benefits.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

I'm not. At least I hope I'm not. I might very well be a DO/PhD student pretty soon - and I've done research on this one subject (cranial) and I am simply disappointed that people are still taught something that is debunked. Surely it's not a sign of anger to wish to reform and challenge unscientific ideas within medicine?

Note that I've repeatedly made sure to differentiate cranial and the rest of OMM (many many times) because I don't want to make judgments from ignorance and I've absolutely zero problems with using OMM or any other methods of treatments that have scientifically shown to have benefits.

There was a time that the use of leechs was debunked, only possessing anecdotal evidence for it. Now it's been proven to be have positive properties. OMM is slowly being proven scientifically, give it a while. I'm hoping pcom opens up some more DO/PHD programs, I'd die for a DO/ social psychology PHD.

 

[JaggerPlate]

Lol, why are people jumping on Lokthar??? He's being pretty reasonable here, IMO, and I'm 99% sure he's applying DO at some point (PCOM and NYCOM?). He's not some crazy anti-DO nut, just asking questions/sticking with good science.

Personally, I see both sides of the coin - docs who teach me know it helps patients, ergo I will support it vs. this isn't good science, and that argument could be applied to some unsavory things. Still excited to learn it ...

 

[nascardoc]

I'm not. At least I hope I'm not. I might very well be a DO/PhD student pretty soon - and I've done research on this one subject (cranial) and I am simply disappointed that people are still taught something that is debunked. Surely it's not a sign of anger to wish to reform and challenge unscientific ideas within medicine?

Note that I've repeatedly made sure to differentiate cranial and the rest of OMM (many many times) because I don't want to make judgments from ignorance and I've absolutely zero problems with using OMM or any other methods of treatments that have scientifically shown to have benefits.

No, I don't think your angry. And surely OMM can use more data. I think that sometimes you just can't be so data-driven. Sometimes its ok to take something on faith (when based on science, like anatomy) and apply it to practice. How else can you advance and create data if you don't use it? I am far from an OMM guru and don't use it nearly enough, but I do believe in it when used in the right situations.

I really hope that you can take your research saviness and help drive the profession forward in the future.

 

[Siggy]

There was a time that the use of leechs was debunked, only possessing anecdotal evidence for it.

True, but they aren't the cure all that blood letting used to encompass. Also maggots have also been used in wound care.

 

[DOwnage]

I think some of it is really helpful, especially in certain situations, where as other aspects of it may not be as beneficial.

There are certainly aspects of medicine where manual manipulations in OMM can help patients, but at the same time it is probably one of the slower progressing forms of Osteopathic knowledge in relation to everything else taught in their schools.

 

[Lokhtar]

No, I don't think your angry. And surely OMM can use more data. I think that sometimes you just can't be so data-driven. Sometimes its ok to take something on faith (when based on science, like anatomy) and apply it to practice.

A few things. I realize and accept that there are many things in medicine that are not verified by strict double blind studies, some of them may in fact be harmful (as some techniques that had been in use are now proven to be), while others may be helpful. They continue to be used due to tradition, the lack of data, and the fact that there might not be an alternative. I do not have issues with that, as long as it is based on some scientific principle. In an ideal world, those techniques would eventually be verified by science. But just because it is in use, does not imply that it works. Many things that a lot of people do are constantly proven to have placebo effects.

If you notice, my critisism of OMM has been very narrow: focused on cranial. Cranial not only has dubious (some say nonexistant) basis in modern anatomy and biology, but it has been shown not to be consistant between practitioners, or helpful in virtually every study done. My problem is not necessarly abandoning all OMM (as I said, I don't like commenting on things I don't do research about), but abandoning things that have been shown not to work. There is a very fundamental difference here - doing things despite a body of scientific evidence against it is not only quackery, but it is a stain on the profession itself. There are several professors at osteopathic medical schools who have been leading the fight against cranial. I am not sure what justification AOA (or whoever decides on the cirriculum) have for its continued teaching and testing, but they need to be repeatedly called out on it.

Regardless of how small an aspect it is, if you go down the route of doing something despite clear evidence to the contrary, you are basically throwing your lot in with the mystics and the homeopaths. There are no two ways about it - the whole profession suffers as a result. You are saying, in essense, that we trust our preconcieved beliefs over the scientific method to advance the cause of medicine. That is dangerous.

I really hope that you can take your research saviness and help drive the profession forward in the future.

I hope that as well, I can't imagine not being a research physician.

 

[Cannonball]

.

 

[nascardoc]

A few things. I realize and accept that there are many things in medicine that are not verified by strict double blind studies, some of them may in fact be harmful (as some techniques that had been in use are now proven to be), while others may be helpful. They continue to be used due to tradition, the lack of data, and the fact that there might not be an alternative. I do not have issues with that, as long as it is based on some scientific principle. In an ideal world, those techniques would eventually be verified by science. But just because it is in use, does not imply that it works. Many things that a lot of people do are constantly proven to have placebo effects.

If you notice, my critisism of OMM has been very narrow: focused on cranial. Cranial not only has dubious (some say nonexistant) basis in modern anatomy and biology, but it has been shown not to be consistant between practitioners, or helpful in virtually every study done. My problem is not necessarly abandoning all OMM (as I said, I don't like commenting on things I don't do research about), but abandoning things that have been shown not to work. There is a very fundamental difference here - doing things despite a body of scientific evidence against it is not only quackery, but it is a stain on the profession itself. There are several professors at osteopathic medical schools who have been leading the fight against cranial. I am not sure what justification AOA (or whoever decides on the cirriculum) have for its continued teaching and testing, but they need to be repeatedly called out on it.

Regardless of how small an aspect it is, if you go down the route of doing something despite clear evidence to the contrary, you are basically throwing your lot in with the mystics and the homeopaths. There are no two ways about it - the whole profession suffers as a result. You are saying, in essense, that we trust our preconcieved beliefs over the scientific method to advance the cause of medicine. That is dangerous.



I hope that as well, I can't imagine not being a research physician.

I agree that when something has been shown to not be effective, then it shouldn't be used. That is one of the reasons behind me not using cranial, along with a couple other techniques. Some of it does seem strange and "voo-doey." I just don't use those techniques. I don't see them going away any time soon, so we just have to live with learning about them and answer questions on comlex. As for other techniques, i.e. muscle energy, HVLA, strain-counterstrain, tender points...those I see use in and understand how they work. Plus, research is continuing to show their effectiveness. I think rib-raising is wonderful and extremely helpful.

Now that you've proven cranial to be useless, I would suggest looking at the research of other techniques and help advance those.