Thoughts on OMM

[forEBM]

Hey everybody,
I'm a MS1 at an osteopathic school with some thoughts on OMM that I wanted to share and get feedback on.
I don't believe in it. I know that's not a super original opinion to have, but I'm wondering why nothing (at least nothing that I'm aware of) is ever really done to get rid of it. It seems like most of my classmates and seniors either buy into it or approach it with a "get through it and forget about it" sort of attitude.

Really my biggest issue with it in the here and now is that it's an opportunity cost: because I have to take OMM courses, I lose 4-6 hours a week that I could be studying something else. It's frustrating to think that my allopathic counterparts have that privilege.

Again, I'm in my first year, so I understand that I have limited experience with OMM, but a review of the literature is enough for me to have questions about how an education and a field that is supposed to be based on scientific evidence can make OMM a mandatory part of the curriculum.

So here's my first question for more advanced osteopathic students and graduates. If you don't buy into the OMM stuff, why not try to change it? Or have there been attempts made that I'm just ignorant to?

The other reason for posting this is that I'd like to try and push for OMM becoming less of an integral part of osteopathic education. I understand that it won't happen at my school anytime soon because even if the board were to agree that it's not sound scientific medicine, it's still on COMLEX and passing COMLEX is a requirement for graduation, so every student needs to learn it (I'm assuming this is the same at other osteopathic schools, but I don't really know). I'm looking at the ACGME merger happening in the next few years and wondering if it would be possible to either get OMM stuff off of COMLEX or change the graduation requirements so that USMLE could serve as a substitute. Then a reasonable argument could be made for OMM being an elective course and eventually (hopefully at least) it could just fall off completely.

Does anybody think this is at all realistic or am I way off base here?

I'm sorry if I anything I've said bothers anybody. I just wanted to get an idea of where everyone else is on this. Thanks for your time.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[GUH]

Hey everybody,
I'm a MS1 at an osteopathic school with some thoughts on OMM that I wanted to share and get feedback on.
I don't believe in it. I know that's not a super original opinion to have, but I'm wondering why nothing (at least nothing that I'm aware of) is ever really done to get rid of it. It seems like most of my classmates and seniors either buy into it or approach it with a "get through it and forget about it" sort of attitude.

Really my biggest issue with it in the here and now is that it's an opportunity cost: because I have to take OMM courses, I lose 4-6 hours a week that I could be studying something else. It's frustrating to think that my allopathic counterparts have that privilege.

Again, I'm in my first year, so I understand that I have limited experience with OMM, but a review of the literature is enough for me to have questions about how an education and a field that is supposed to be based on scientific evidence can make OMM a mandatory part of the curriculum.

So here's my first question for more advanced osteopathic students and graduates. If you don't buy into the OMM stuff, why not try to change it? Or have there been attempts made that I'm just ignorant to?

The other reason for posting this is that I'd like to try and push for OMM becoming less of an integral part of osteopathic education. I understand that it won't happen at my school anytime soon because even if the board were to agree that it's not sound scientific medicine, it's still on COMLEX and passing COMLEX is a requirement for graduation, so every student needs to learn it (I'm assuming this is the same at other osteopathic schools, but I don't really know). I'm looking at the ACGME merger happening in the next few years and wondering if it would be possible to either get OMM stuff off of COMLEX or change the graduation requirements so that USMLE could serve as a substitute. Then a reasonable argument could be made for OMM being an elective course and eventually (hopefully at least) it could just fall off completely.

Does anybody think this is at all realistic or am I way off base here?

I'm sorry if I anything I've said bothers anybody. I just wanted to get an idea of where everyone else is on this. Thanks for your time.

Why did you even enroll in an osteopathic medical school if you don't want to learn osteopathic medicine? You can still drop out if it bothers you so much; you have barely even started. And yes, you are off base if you think that there is truly no scientific basis for any OMM. You clearly have not done a thorough review.

 

[AlteredScale]

Hey everybody,
I'm a MS1 at an osteopathic school with some thoughts on OMM that I wanted to share and get feedback on.
I don't believe in it. I know that's not a super original opinion to have, but I'm wondering why nothing (at least nothing that I'm aware of) is ever really done to get rid of it. It seems like most of my classmates and seniors either buy into it or approach it with a "get through it and forget about it" sort of attitude.

Really my biggest issue with it in the here and now is that it's an opportunity cost: because I have to take OMM courses, I lose 4-6 hours a week that I could be studying something else. It's frustrating to think that my allopathic counterparts have that privilege.

Again, I'm in my first year, so I understand that I have limited experience with OMM, but a review of the literature is enough for me to have questions about how an education and a field that is supposed to be based on scientific evidence can make OMM a mandatory part of the curriculum.

So here's my first question for more advanced osteopathic students and graduates. If you don't buy into the OMM stuff, why not try to change it? Or have there been attempts made that I'm just ignorant to?

The other reason for posting this is that I'd like to try and push for OMM becoming less of an integral part of osteopathic education. I understand that it won't happen at my school anytime soon because even if the board were to agree that it's not sound scientific medicine, it's still on COMLEX and passing COMLEX is a requirement for graduation, so every student needs to learn it (I'm assuming this is the same at other osteopathic schools, but I don't really know). I'm looking at the ACGME merger happening in the next few years and wondering if it would be possible to either get OMM stuff off of COMLEX or change the graduation requirements so that USMLE could serve as a substitute. Then a reasonable argument could be made for OMM being an elective course and eventually (hopefully at least) it could just fall off completely.

Does anybody think this is at all realistic or am I way off base here?

I'm sorry if I anything I've said bothers anybody. I just wanted to get an idea of where everyone else is on this. Thanks for your time.

It's fine to have these thoughts. There are many who feel OMM to sometimes be sort of cult-ish. There are some case reports (n=1) and even some retrospective studies showing the efficacy of certain OMT treatments. Even so, showing the exact cellular and molecular mechanisms behind the treatments is near impossible as it cannot be done in vitro or in vivo. Which means you will probably never see OMM trial results being published in JAMA or NEJM.

The merger won't change much in the way of OMM requirements. Even if it was theoretically cut off from the COMLEX, you still have ACGME accredited programs that have requirements for OMM training.

If OMM training is removed, there would be absolutely no reason to have a medical degree termed "DO" and no reason at all to have a separate set of board exams.

 

[Elevencents]

It's not going anywhere. Should have applied MD or at least done more research prior to applying DO.

 

[yanks26dmb]

Dude, it's like 18 months you have to deal with..then never again. I'm not into it either, but I get it done and move on with life. There are aspects of it I think is pure BS...there are other aspects that I do actually believe work.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

Personally I came into DO school skeptical of OMT/OMM. I can genuinely say that I am still in many ways skeptical, however I can genuinely say that there are techniques that are helpful and there are things to be gained and learned from OMT. Now whether I will use them however, is up to my reservation. Though I can honestly say that if someone comes with edema in their arms, then doing efflurage is perfectly reasonable.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

You shouldn't be taking a spot from someone who actually wants to be an osteopathic physician. Why did you even enroll if you're so principled about standing up for what you think is "ebm"? You can still drop out if it bothers you so much; you have barely even started. And yes, you are off base if you think that there is truly no scientific basis for any OMM. You clearly have not done a thorough review.

Personally I think one of the things that continues to fuel this attitude is the reality that OMT is a mixed basket of treatments. Many work, others are entirely contradictory to science and reality and need to be removed. OMT should and will remain a part of the DO curriculum. But whether I believe that things like cranial or etc should remain? Hell no.

 

[jakeislove]

I'm guessing forEBM doesn't want to touch my signed copy of An Introduction to Bio Cranial Therapy for good luck.

 

[Mad Jack]

Hey everybody,
I'm a MS1 at an osteopathic school with some thoughts on OMM that I wanted to share and get feedback on.
I don't believe in it. I know that's not a super original opinion to have, but I'm wondering why nothing (at least nothing that I'm aware of) is ever really done to get rid of it. It seems like most of my classmates and seniors either buy into it or approach it with a "get through it and forget about it" sort of attitude.

Really my biggest issue with it in the here and now is that it's an opportunity cost: because I have to take OMM courses, I lose 4-6 hours a week that I could be studying something else. It's frustrating to think that my allopathic counterparts have that privilege.

Again, I'm in my first year, so I understand that I have limited experience with OMM, but a review of the literature is enough for me to have questions about how an education and a field that is supposed to be based on scientific evidence can make OMM a mandatory part of the curriculum.

So here's my first question for more advanced osteopathic students and graduates. If you don't buy into the OMM stuff, why not try to change it? Or have there been attempts made that I'm just ignorant to?

The other reason for posting this is that I'd like to try and push for OMM becoming less of an integral part of osteopathic education. I understand that it won't happen at my school anytime soon because even if the board were to agree that it's not sound scientific medicine, it's still on COMLEX and passing COMLEX is a requirement for graduation, so every student needs to learn it (I'm assuming this is the same at other osteopathic schools, but I don't really know). I'm looking at the ACGME merger happening in the next few years and wondering if it would be possible to either get OMM stuff off of COMLEX or change the graduation requirements so that USMLE could serve as a substitute. Then a reasonable argument could be made for OMM being an elective course and eventually (hopefully at least) it could just fall off completely.

Does anybody think this is at all realistic or am I way off base here?

I'm sorry if I anything I've said bothers anybody. I just wanted to get an idea of where everyone else is on this. Thanks for your time.

Once you're actually in practice, regardless of the field, you'll realize that EBM is kind of oversold. There's just a lot of areas where you have good anecdotal evidence but there's no money for funding a study or study design just couldn't be done in a practical, effective way.

 

[icevermin]

[deleted]

 

[soon2BdocC]

Hey everybody,
I'm a MS1 at an osteopathic school with some thoughts on OMM that I wanted to share and get feedback on.
I don't believe in it. I know that's not a super original opinion to have, but I'm wondering why nothing (at least nothing that I'm aware of) is ever really done to get rid of it. It seems like most of my classmates and seniors either buy into it or approach it with a "get through it and forget about it" sort of attitude.

Really my biggest issue with it in the here and now is that it's an opportunity cost: because I have to take OMM courses, I lose 4-6 hours a week that I could be studying something else. It's frustrating to think that my allopathic counterparts have that privilege.

Again, I'm in my first year, so I understand that I have limited experience with OMM, but a review of the literature is enough for me to have questions about how an education and a field that is supposed to be based on scientific evidence can make OMM a mandatory part of the curriculum.

So here's my first question for more advanced osteopathic students and graduates. If you don't buy into the OMM stuff, why not try to change it? Or have there been attempts made that I'm just ignorant to?

The other reason for posting this is that I'd like to try and push for OMM becoming less of an integral part of osteopathic education. I understand that it won't happen at my school anytime soon because even if the board were to agree that it's not sound scientific medicine, it's still on COMLEX and passing COMLEX is a requirement for graduation, so every student needs to learn it (I'm assuming this is the same at other osteopathic schools, but I don't really know). I'm looking at the ACGME merger happening in the next few years and wondering if it would be possible to either get OMM stuff off of COMLEX or change the graduation requirements so that USMLE could serve as a substitute. Then a reasonable argument could be made for OMM being an elective course and eventually (hopefully at least) it could just fall off completely.

Does anybody think this is at all realistic or am I way off base here?

I'm sorry if I anything I've said bothers anybody. I just wanted to get an idea of where everyone else is on this. Thanks for your time.

Apparently you are not sorry about offending anyone. There is more and more research being done to identify and quantify the changes associated with OMM. But I guess that doesn't matter to you since your 3 months of OMM classwork has made you such expert.

Please do your colleagues a favor. Either learn to appreciate OMM and what it can do to help alleviate pain and suffering. Or drop out of school and become that allopath you think is so much better. If you should stay in your DO program, do the rest of us a favor and stop trashing our profession.

(Steps off soapbox)

Sent from my SM-G920T using Tapatalk

 

[Moose A Moose]

Nature of the beast, honey bunny.

Try and stay open-minded.
You'll come to find it's not all pixie dust.

 

[Dr. Death]

Do not panic. The waaaaaambulance is on it's way. You poor thing there there.

 

[Chinchillin']

Honestly, OMM Lab is useful regardless of whether or not you fully "buy-in" to osteopathy. You still learn your anatomical landmarks cold, and your palpatory skills will be the better for it. That's something that's actually clinically useful for many physicians... Alot more useful than the biochemistry they probably have you studying in the basic sciences.


Also, I know everyone says this, but you REALLY DO start to develop an appreciation for it with experience. ATLEAST some parts of it. Regardless, you should probably make peace with this. If your constantly negative about it your just gonna be a drag.

 

[forEBM]

Why did you even enroll in an osteopathic medical school if you don't want to learn osteopathic medicine? You can still drop out if it bothers you so much; you have barely even started. And yes, you are off base if you think that there is truly no scientific basis for any OMM. You clearly have not done a thorough review.

I don't think that the majority of people who apply to osteopathic schools are there because they want to learn osteopathic medicine, but maybe I'm wrong. I agree with you that I have a very limited perspective because I have just started, but I can't base my opinion off of my own experience, even if my experience were extensive, because it's at best anecdotal.

Maybe you're right and I haven't done a thorough review. Based on the studies I've read, there's good evidence for the use of OMM to treat lower back pain, though I can't find anything that indicates that it's more effective than things like chiropractic treatment or physical therapy. It's not that I think that there's absolutely no chance that OMM is valuable. It's just that I haven't been able to find enough good evidence on my own and it hasn't been presented to me by my professors and because of that I feel like my time would be better served working on something else.

Can you point me in the direction of the scientific basis for OMM you're talking about?

 

[forEBM]

It's fine to have these thoughts. There are many who feel OMM to sometimes be sort of cult-ish. There are some case reports (n=1) and even some retrospective studies showing the efficacy of certain OMT treatments. Even so, showing the exact cellular and molecular mechanisms behind the treatments is near impossible as it cannot be done in vitro or in vivo. Which means you will probably never see OMM trial results being published in JAMA or NEJM.

The merger won't change much in the way of OMM requirements. Even if it was theoretically cut off from the COMLEX, you still have ACGME accredited programs that have requirements for OMM training.

If OMM training is removed, there would be absolutely no reason to have a medical degree termed "DO" and no reason at all to have a separate set of board exams.

I appreciate the response and I agree with you on all of your points.

Your last statement about OMM training being essentially the only reason why a distinct "DO" degree exists is pretty much my thought process exactly. I guess I really don't understand why we have distinct medical degrees and separate board exams. If MDs and DOs are legal and functional equivalents, why bother having separate schools and board exams?

 

[forEBM]

Honestly, OMM Lab is useful regardless of whether or not you fully "buy-in" to osteopathy. You still learn your anatomical landmarks cold, and your palpatory skills will be the better for it. That's something that's actually clinically useful for many physicians... Alot more useful than the biochemistry they probably have you studying in the basic sciences.


Also, I know everyone says this, but you REALLY DO start to develop an appreciation for it with experience. ATLEAST some parts of it. Regardless, you should probably make peace with this. If your constantly negative about it your just gonna be a drag.

Good points on the anatomy stuff and the palpatory skills, makes sense.

And you're probably right, I should just get over it, but I'm still in the annoying "change the world" idealist sort of phase of my life I guess, so I'm here.

 

[forEBM]

I'm guessing forEBM doesn't want to touch my signed copy of An Introduction to Bio Cranial Therapy for good luck.

I'm always open to looking at research I haven't read, maybe it'll change my perspective.

 

[forEBM]

Not sure what you're taught in 1st year at your school but trust me, if its similar to mine and you're learning basic MET, counterstrain, lymph drainage etc then you are a fool for saying "I don't believe in it."

I was skeptical initially too. I then learned that dermatologists do the lymph training we learn at rates of >1000/hr (by the way it was an MD that told me this). I then saw numerous cases of "Piriformis Syndrome" in clinic that my MD attending either referred out or just prescribed some random medication for. I then saw a ton of things that OMT definitely without question could have treated. When I compared it to my experiences with my DO attending last year (only ms2), there was a definite difference. It's a tool. Use it as a tool. If you go in to general med or any specialty, use it.

Also in my opinion you have no reason to "question" any of it until you learn Craniosacral. Now that ish... that is pseudoscience for sure.

My questions aren't based on what I've been taught in school, it's more that I have questions based on research I've seen and my OMM course has done nothing to really change my mind.
Sounds like we're doing similar stuff, and again, it's not that I don't think there's any value to that stuff. It's just that based on the research I've seen, there's no significant difference vs. just straight up PT except in cost to the patient, so I don't know if it's something that really needs to be done by a physician.

You know more than I do about actually practice so I'll take your word for it on the derm stuff and piriformis syndrome. I appreciate the perspective.

 

[forEBM]

Do not panic. The waaaaaambulance is on it's way. You poor thing there there.

No panic, just trying to get a better feel for things. If this is a good thing to get into, I want my mind changed quick so I can start investing in it. If not, I wanna know so I don't waste time on it.

 

[jakeislove]

I'm always open to looking at research I haven't read, maybe it'll change my perspective.

It's one of the books by Boyd. Might be useful for getting an idea on his original principles (regarding cranial manipulation), but useless in terms of evidence or validity.

TBH, my experience is only one local DO incorporates any manipulation in treatment. During school no DO Attending, resident, or student practiced manipulation. If they needed an adjustment or felt something was out of place they'd find an MD student who'd been a Chiropractor before school in the Caribbean.

 

[LChristmas]

If you want to see some osteopathic research and publications, here is a good place to start. This is from the Osteopathic Research Center at TCOM.

 

[forEBM]

If you want to see some osteopathic research and publications, here is a good place to start. This is from the Osteopathic Research Center at TCOM.

Thanks, I will check this out for sure.

 

[forEBM]

It's one of the books by Boyd. Might be useful for getting an idea on his original principles (regarding cranial manipulation), but useless in terms of evidence or validity.

TBH, my experience is only one local DO incorporates any manipulation in treatment. During school no DO Attending, resident, or student practiced manipulation. If they needed an adjustment or felt something was out of place they'd find an MD student who'd been a Chiropractor before school in the Caribbean.

Thanks for the info and review of the book, I'll take a look. And thanks for the review perspective on the real world, I appreciate it.

 

[GUH]

I don't think that the majority of people who apply to osteopathic schools are there because they want to learn osteopathic medicine, but maybe I'm wrong. I agree with you that I have a very limited perspective because I have just started, but I can't base my opinion off of my own experience, even if my experience were extensive, because it's at best anecdotal.

Maybe you're right and I haven't done a thorough review. Based on the studies I've read, there's good evidence for the use of OMM to treat lower back pain, though I can't find anything that indicates that it's more effective than things like chiropractic treatment or physical therapy. It's not that I think that there's absolutely no chance that OMM is valuable. It's just that I haven't been able to find enough good evidence on my own and it hasn't been presented to me by my professors and because of that I feel like my time would be better served working on something else.

Can you point me in the direction of the scientific basis for OMM you're talking about?

If you wanted to become an MD you should have attended an MD school. It is really tiresome when people within the profession advocate for its elimination, especially when it's so early in your career and so easy for you to leave and pursue your true goal. You knew full well that you would be expected to learn OMM when you applied to DO schools.

And yes, there is pretty good evidence that OMT can be part of a chronic lumbago treatment plan. What is clinically relevant is that including its use in treating these patients is superior to so-called "conventional" treatment. Whether or not chiropractic treatment is better is a question for a different study to answer. It is not common practice to make a single study which compares every possible treatment option known to mankind.

Now if you decide to continue on in this career and really honestly feel that there should be more studies done, then by all means pursue that. Perform research and show whether all OMM is as completely useless as you think it is, or that chiro or PT is superior in all situations.

 

[Bea5T]

Class isn't much use in terms of learning OMM because no one in the class has significant somatic dysfunction. Doing techniques on healthy people doesn't teach me anything. OMM should be an elective that has a specific track students can follow so they can get actual experience.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

Class isn't much use in terms of learning OMM because no one in the class has significant somatic dysfunction. Doing techniques on healthy people doesn't teach me anything. OMM should be an elective that has a specific track students can follow so they can get actual experience.

I guess PCM joint exams aren't useful either then unless someone in your class tears half their crap.

I think there's some meaningful significance in learning what normal is, before you start learning what pathological conditions are too.

 

[Bea5T]

I guess PCM joint exams aren't useful either then unless someone in your class tears half their crap.

I think there's some meaningful significance in learning what normal is, before you start learning what pathological conditions are too.

There's not a whole class dedicated to leaning PCM joint exams. I also don't think I should be giving HVLA treatments to healthy people. OMM has screwed up my back more than a few times tbqh.

 

[AlteredScale]

I appreciate the response and I agree with you on all of your points.

Your last statement about OMM training being essentially the only reason why a distinct "DO" degree exists is pretty much my thought process exactly. I guess I really don't understand why we have distinct medical degrees and separate board exams. If MDs and DOs are legal and functional equivalents, why bother having separate schools and board exams?

Because DO schools want to stay distinct. Really the only reason why haha. Will if change? Maybe, maybe not. I'm assuming the latter. AOA is a strong group and will fight tooth and nail to keep that distinction intact.

 

[Goro]

I challenge you to try this: suspend your disbelief and see if you can try and learn something useful.

Hey everybody,
I'm a MS1 at an osteopathic school with some thoughts on OMM that I wanted to share and get feedback on.
I don't believe in it. I know that's not a super original opinion to have, but I'm wondering why nothing (at least nothing that I'm aware of) is ever really done to get rid of it. It seems like most of my classmates and seniors either buy into it or approach it with a "get through it and forget about it" sort of attitude.

Really my biggest issue with it in the here and now is that it's an opportunity cost: because I have to take OMM courses, I lose 4-6 hours a week that I could be studying something else. It's frustrating to think that my allopathic counterparts have that privilege.

Again, I'm in my first year, so I understand that I have limited experience with OMM, but a review of the literature is enough for me to have questions about how an education and a field that is supposed to be based on scientific evidence can make OMM a mandatory part of the curriculum.

So here's my first question for more advanced osteopathic students and graduates. If you don't buy into the OMM stuff, why not try to change it? Or have there been attempts made that I'm just ignorant to?

The other reason for posting this is that I'd like to try and push for OMM becoming less of an integral part of osteopathic education. I understand that it won't happen at my school anytime soon because even if the board were to agree that it's not sound scientific medicine, it's still on COMLEX and passing COMLEX is a requirement for graduation, so every student needs to learn it (I'm assuming this is the same at other osteopathic schools, but I don't really know). I'm looking at the ACGME merger happening in the next few years and wondering if it would be possible to either get OMM stuff off of COMLEX or change the graduation requirements so that USMLE could serve as a substitute. Then a reasonable argument could be made for OMM being an elective course and eventually (hopefully at least) it could just fall off completely.

Does anybody think this is at all realistic or am I way off base here?

I'm sorry if I anything I've said bothers anybody. I just wanted to get an idea of where everyone else is on this. Thanks for your time.

 

[Chinchillin']

Good points on the anatomy stuff and the palpatory skills, makes sense.

And you're probably right, I should just get over it, but I'm still in the annoying "change the world" idealist sort of phase of my life I guess, so I'm here.

I'm only OMS2 and I had a very similar attitude entering school, so I know how you feel. It's very frustrating to have to listen to abstract osteopathic theories when your being stuffed with other, way more dense and important material. I got over it by realizing that many of the things we learn in OMM like MSK diagnosis and biomechanics are real things that MD students are also responsible for learning -- its just a different context.

Just learn to have a sense of humor about the stuff that is really out there, it helps. Plus, I am convinced that suboccipital release is the reason my girlfriend loves me so much. Just saying, it has perks.

 

[icevermin]

[deleted]

 

[HotLunch96]

The moment they dimmed the lights and the doc began speaking in soft tones telling us to focus on the CRI, you should have seen the looks of defeat on my classmates' faces. Cranial needs to be removed for sure, but I think ME (can we just call it stretching already?) does have its utility. Whether or not you choose to use it in your clinical practice, is entirely up to you. I'm with the "learn it for boards, and forget it" camp. OMM really only exists for the first two years of medical school from what I've heard from senior classmates.

On the cranial note, check out this survey performed by DMU a few years ago.
https://cranialosteopathy.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/2011-cranial-survey-abridged-results.pdf

 

[ortnakas]

I "believe" in the musculoskeletal stuff.

Viscerosomatic reflexes make sense, and so do some of the visceral techniques. I don't think you're ever going to do them INSTEAD of the standard diagnoses/treatments, but I can buy that there are times that chronic back pain might point toward a kidney issue due to facilitation, or that splenic pump might HELP clear an infection a little faster.

I'm not a fan of HVLA just because I don't like doing it. I'm also not a big fan of counterstain because it seems like a false quantification, but maybe it would work on someone with a real 10/10 pain tender point (not a healthy classmate).

Chapman's points are dumb, but not that hard to memorize.

Cranial... ask me at the end of this semester.

 

[forEBM]

I challenge you to try this: suspend your disbelief and see if you can try and learn something useful.

Fair enough, and that's my plan considering that I will have to take the class whether I believe in it or not. My thoughts are about the future of the profession for the most part.

 

[wjs010]

The moment they dimmed the lights and the doc began speaking in soft tones telling us to focus on the CRI, you should have seen the looks of defeat on my classmates' faces. Cranial needs to be removed for sure, but I think ME (can we just call it stretching already?) does have its utility. Whether or not you choose to use it in your clinical practice, is entirely up to you. I'm with the "learn it for boards, and forget it" camp. OMM really only exists for the first two years of medical school from what I've heard from senior classmates.

On the cranial note, check out this survey performed by DMU a few years ago.
https://cranialosteopathy.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/2011-cranial-survey-abridged-results.pdf

Wait. They really dimmed the lights? Lol

 

[NurWollen]

Wait. They really dimmed the lights? Lol

They did at my school.

 

[chizledfrmstone]

The moment they dimmed the lights and the doc began speaking in soft tones telling us to focus on the CRI, you should have seen the looks of defeat on my classmates' faces. Cranial needs to be removed for sure, but I think ME (can we just call it stretching already?) does have its utility. Whether or not you choose to use it in your clinical practice, is entirely up to you. I'm with the "learn it for boards, and forget it" camp. OMM really only exists for the first two years of medical school from what I've heard from senior classmates.

On the cranial note, check out this survey performed by DMU a few years ago.
https://cranialosteopathy.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/2011-cranial-survey-abridged-results.pdf

Yeah, **** got really weird.

Don't we need it for COMLEX 2?

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

Yeah, **** got really weird.

Don't we need it for COMLEX 2?

I imagine it's one of those cases of relearn it over a weekend?

 

[Seth Joo]

Nature of the beast, honey bunny.

Try and stay open-minded.
You'll come to find it's not all pixie dust.

A Professor at Johns Hopkins ripped OMM to pieces as complete nonsense, and another MD at Oregon Health Sciences University did the same. There was also a retired Columbia University physician who did not have many kind words for OMM either, Dr. Barrett. The Hopkins professor later retracted his statement about Osteopathic Medicine but did not retract his statement about OMM. People at elite academic institutions tend to have negative attitudes towards OMM, its no surprise that there is a glass ceiling at so many of these places.

 

[costales]

A famous neurosurgery professor at Johns Hopkins also said that evolution was the work of the devil.
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/ben-carsons-scientific-ignorance

 

[Bea5T]

A Professor at Johns Hopkins ripped OMM to pieces as complete nonsense, and another MD at Oregon Health Sciences University did the same. There was also a retired Columbia University physician who did not have many kind words for OMM either, Dr. Barrett. The Hopkins professor later retracted his statement about Osteopathic Medicine but did not retract his statement about OMM. People at elite academic institutions tend to have negative attitudes towards OMM, its no surprise that there is a glass ceiling at so many of these places.

eh, many of these guys are angry old men that hate on a bunch of things. Such as the 80 hour residency cap.

 

[wjs010]

They did at my school.

Lol. Oh god that is weird. Did they also speak in a soft voice?

 

[chizledfrmstone]

Lol. Oh god that is weird. Did they also speak in a soft voice?

It's almost as if you were there...

 

[HotLunch96]

Wait. They really dimmed the lights? Lol

yes. yes they did

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

Young one, I too started as you. Disappointed in myself for not having gotten into an MD school, questioning whether my school was even "real". Over time, I learned that #1. We are taught the same stuff, doesn't matter if its MD or DO + #2. We are taught an additional tool. OMT. Whether you use it or not is your choice, but once you're in the clinic and you see stuff where you think to yourself "Hm. This looks exactly like what was covered in class..." and then you see your Attending just prescribe a med, you'll hit yourself on the head. #3. You'll injure yourself either in the gym or somehow else, you'll ask a classmate "All right, lets see if this **** actually works" and once they finish and you leave feeling rejuvenated, you'll really question your prior beliefs.

I've been there, done that sir. Is the data either not there or questionable? Possibly. Does this stuff potentially just induce a placebo? Maybe, again the data is missing. Is it smart to cast it all off as pseudoscience and a waste of time learning? Lol, not only is that not smart it's very stupid. We get reimbursed for this stuff, and there's also very little overhead associated with it. I think with the merger, as DOs hopefully begin to proliferate with MDs and the professions are integrated more, I think we will see more and more MDs want to learn OMT (in fact I am seeing this happen with the newer generation now). At that point, if we've already caste aside OMT, we'll hit ourselves on the head and think "What the flip did we do that for?"

I mean, do doctors in hospitals really even have time to do some of these OMM techniques repeatedly? I mean again, there's a time and a place for stuff, it's why we have such an enormous emphasis on specialization. So I don't think I'd ever hit my head when my attending prescribes something even if OMM could have been helpful. The attending has duties and things he has no time for or does not wish to do he should refer out.

 

[Zaphod42]

Biggest blow to the legitimacy of OMM and treatments that may actually be useful is the fact that cranial is still being taught and tested on licensing exams. I can only assume this is due to politics. But the problem isn't just whether some techniques work or not, its the entire culture where OMM is treated almost like a religion and students are afraid to question it. This attitude has no place in medicine and needs to change. I hope to see a future where there are DO schools also at the forefront of advancing medical knowledge but as long as it is acceptable to teach pseudoscience we will not be taken seriously by the academic world. OP, I don't blame you for being skeptical and don't listen to those who say you should not have chosen DO. I'll give you the same advice someone gave to me: just keep your mouth shut until you are in a better position to do something about it (so you don't screw yourself). Not sure what your research background is but if this is something you are passionate about, get involved early and learn to evaluate what is good and bad research. Also you said you would like to push for OMM to be less integral part of osteopathic education. IMHO this shouldn't be the goal. You should be in support for anything that may benefit your future patients regardless of how its labeled (OMM, physical therapy, herbal etc). Healthy skepticism is important in science but don't let it blind you. It is possible to be open minded at the same time. Look up the 2015 nobel prize winner Tu Youyou. She evaluated Chinese herbal medicines to discover Artemisinin, a compound to fight malaria that saves countless lives. Probably wouldn't have been able to do this if she classified ALL of ancient herbal medicine as worthless and never looked into it as a result.

 

[Seth Joo]

eh, many of these guys are angry old men that hate on a bunch of things. Such as the 80 hour residency cap.

Not really, these people have power, they are people in high places in the medical community, its the reason why so many of us DOs often hit a glass ceiling when trying to get residency training at large academic hospitals.

Even Dr. Oz, who promotes a lot of pseudoscience dismissed OMM as such.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

Not really, these people have power, they are people in high places in the medical community, its the reason why so many of us DOs often hit a glass ceiling when trying to get residency training at large academic hospitals.

Even Dr. Oz, who promotes a lot of pseudoscience dismissed OMM as such.

I think that the glass ceiling is breaking. There are DO PDs in many very good university based programs in many specialties. Obviously it's slow change, but we're getting there.

I think as with the old guard for OMM in the DO world, the anti-DO sentiments are very much dying out in the MD world too. Many MD applicants now apply to and interview at DO schools. They understand the field better and they will populate PD positions one day too.

 

[Seth Joo]

I think that the glass ceiling is breaking. There are DO PDs in many very good university based programs in many specialties. Obviously it's slow change, but we're getting there.

I think as with the old guard for OMM in the DO world, the anti-DO sentiments are very much dying out in the MD world too. Many MD applicants now apply to and interview at DO schools. They understand the field better and they will populate PD positions one day too.

Its slow change, but the majority of DOs still go into primary care, and from the programs at major universities, they tend to take DOs into certain programs like PMR and such.