Two Schools of Thought - There is a difference!

[jerbeargood]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Thank you. And I wish you all the best in your medical endeavors.

I agree with you DireWolf. I am a 4th year DO, and there really is no difference (unless you want to specialize in OMT). Every school has its strengths and weaknesses.

 

[VentdependenT]

The major differences are that Allopaths get into ACGME specialties easier than DO's, OMT is part of the curriculum of DO schools, and the majority of Osteo med schools are not research heavy....there ya go.

Oh, and Osteopaths on the whole are "laid back." That is a good thing.

 

[Ypo.]

The major differences are that Allopaths get into ACGME specialties easier than DO's, OMT is part of the curriculum of DO schools, and the majority of Osteo med schools are not research heavy....there ya go.

Oh, and Osteopaths on the whole are "laid back." That is a good thing.

And this would be...bad? good? Some combination? Could you elaborate whats so wonderful about ACGME - or give me a little more info here. I only know what the letters stand for, and nothing else. Thanks.

 

[VentdependenT]

http://www.acgme.org

On the whole bigger, badder, better organized, with more funding than the majority of AOA approved specialties. Now thats just my opinion of course. Great osteo specialty programs do indeed exist.

 

[Ypo.]

Mahalo.

 

[cooldreams]

i think the accurate statement to be made is that originally, osteopathy did vary from allopathy in the 'holistic' medicine approach. additionally, osteopathy did not condone any type of surgery either.

times have changed, both DO's and MD's have taken the best parts from each side and worked together to get where we are now. there is only a slight difference between the two, so slight that the largest difference is now just the name. to say otherwise from either side is something that you will learn to see as a "catch 22" scenerio.

furthermore, from a legal stand point, they are both equal, and in this legalistic society we live in, that is all that really matters anyways.

 

[cooldreams]

QUOTE]

I had no problem with you associating reiki with naturopath medicine as they are two forms of "alternative" medicine in the eyes of Americans.
I also had no problem with you telling someone to get an aloe enema.
I was simply pointing out that getting an ND would prevent the OP from developing the ability to use the aspects of traditional medicine he had expressed a desire in.

However, assuming reiki has no "real" basis...that was pretty much exactly the kind of comment I was talking about that bums me out.
Have you have shadowed a reiki master, read books on it, and been treated by reiki? If so, then I would respect your educated and enlightened opinion (and your desire to consider a form of medicine that has been around for many years before rejecting it). 😉

To answer your question about my knowledge of Reiki......no, yes, yes. I have never shadowed a Reiki master(there are probably very few true masters in the US at any given moment), I have read about it, and I have had it demonstrated on my body several times, but never by anyone that could claim to be a master.

Additionally, I know two Chinese trained physicians and have had extensive conversations with them regarding TCM, and even some of the more esoteric healings arts. I am definitely open to other schools of thought, but I hold them to a very high standard. In other words, I don't want to hear about TCM from somebody who isn't really a physician in that discipline.

It is my general experience that Westerners that are into alternative medicine tend to attach magical thinking to it, which denegrates the amount of intellectual work put into these modalities. It seems like more of a social affect than a real interest in an established discipline. I realize that I am making a huge generalization, but this has been my experience more often than not. Ask a Chinese physician trained in Beijing to explain the concept of Qi to you, and then compare it to the explanation you would get from an American hippy wannabe. You will see exactly what I mean.

If anything, I think I have a very deep respect for the various schools of medicine throughout the world. I have no respect for poseurs......[/QUOTE]


dewd... i dont know about tcm much at all except for pressure point usage. that stuff is very cool. i worked with a 'master' on it briefly (a week) and he was hesitant to call himself a master even. he was also very hesitant to talk about much of what he knows, like it was secret or something... but... ive seen the stuff in action... 'modern medical knowledge' has quite a long way to go to be able to comprehend what happend back then ...

😱 😱 😱

 

[Ypo.]

i think the accurate statement to be made is that originally, osteopathy did vary from allopathy in the 'holistic' medicine approach. additionally, osteopathy did not condone any type of surgery either.

Actually, osteopathic schools incorporated surgery very early in 1897, starting with the founding school A.T. Still himself opened ( the American School of Osteopathy-est. 1892). The evidence suggests that from the beginning, A.T. Still wanted to incorporate surgery, and we know that once surgery training was established-he gave it his full support. This somewhat surprised the "lesion" osteopaths (those who wanted osteopathy to include only OMT).