I think some of the posters have a very "broken glass" view of allopathic medicine. This "whole body approach" you talk of is really integral to MEDICINE, not the forms you keep empahsizing as distinctive.
Yes, I agree, to some extent. Often allopathic medicine is taught from a whole body approach, but without a doubt that ideaology has been diluted over the past few decades by the super-sub-specialization of traditional allopathic medicine. The DO curriculum, on paper, is more well rounded. OMM, whether you beileve in it or not, does add significant class time solely in musculoskeletal function, kinesiology, and anatomy. This extra academic medicine cant hurt, regardless of whether you use OMM in the future. Also, the rotating osteopathic internship, the PGY-1 year for most DOs in which they spend time in several distinct disciplines, was actually the brainchild of MDs decades ago, but MDs gave it up because they were impatient (also b/c of hospital monetary restraints) and hence went directly into their specialty. They are slowly starting to regress on that topic. A 2002 NYCOM grad who's going to Harvard for anesthiology is doing a rotating intership in NY this year and prolonging Harvard a year for the mere experience the rotating internship can offer. Harvard actually encouraged him to do it.
Also, DOs are certainly not considered alternative as they were 75 years ago, yet as a whole, DOs are more willing to at least hear out ideas on complementary medicine. More patients went to providers of complementary care last year than to primary care doctors. It's a multi-billion dollar a year industry and cannot be ignored or written off as quickly as the majority of MDs are taught to do. Do these therapies work? Some do, some dont, but the American public is sick of being drugged and these therapies have gained a foothold, regardless of their proven efficacy.