D
deleted1091211
Resolved
Last edited by a moderator:
Osteopathic medical education has some flaws in that it does engage in pseudoscientific notions such as cranial manipulation and the existence of Chapmans's points. That said, it has more unproven claims as opposed to than chiropractic, which relies on the true quackery of subluxations.I apologize in advance if my concerns/questions here step on any toes...
So I have long been critical of chiropractic medicine (I promise this is relevant), especially its origins, legitimacy, and authenticity in its ability to treat illness. If I am truthful about my thoughts, I consider chiropractic medicine to be largely a pseudoscience that relies on placebo effect and positive thinking – I have a very negative view of it.
When it comes to osteopathic medicine and its philosophy, I see many similarities between it and the tenants of chiropractic medicine. As I understand it, a major part of the osteopathic philosophy and curriculum is bodily/skeletal manipulation in the treatment of illness, which seems to just be a side training as a chiropractor. I agree that the body needs to be treated as a whole (i.e. a symptom in one body system may be due to an issue in another body system), however, I cannot support a philosophy that puts forth a treatment which has no scientific association with a given illness (i.e. spinal subluxations and sinus infections, colds, hormonal imbalances).
The question/discussion I am interested in having, is one, whether or not my perception of the philosophy of osteopathic medicine is accurate in this respect, and two, if there are osteopathic schools that have distanced themselves from this philosophy and instead adopt a more modern/science-based approach than their counterparts?
Thank you for your thoughts in advance, and again, if anyone is offended I also apologize in advance – I am not looking for a fight or a debate.