What do you think of this article.

[medic170]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Here is the link to it. It kind of made me mad. Check it out. Also, here is the conclusions this doctor made, which is at the bottom of the article.


Dubious Aspects of Osteopathy
Stephen Barrett, M.D.

http://www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/QA/osteo.html

The Bottom Line
I believe that the American Osteopathic Association is acting improperly by exaggerating the value of manipulative therapy and by failing to denounce cranial therapy. If you wish to select an osteopathic physician as your primary-care provider, your best bet is to seek one who: (a) has undergone residency training at a medical hospital (allopathic); (b) does not assert that osteopaths have a unique philosophy or that manipulation offers general health benefits; (c) either does not use manipulation or uses it primarily to treat back pain.
Stephen Barrett, M.D.

 

[Shinken]

The Bottom Line
I believe that the American Osteopathic Association is acting improperly by exaggerating the value of manipulative therapy and by failing to denounce cranial therapy. If you wish to select an osteopathic physician as your primary-care provider, your best bet is to seek one who: (a) has undergone residency training at a medical hospital (allopathic); (b) does not assert that osteopaths have a unique philosophy or that manipulation offers general health benefits; (c) either does not use manipulation or uses it primarily to treat back pain.
Stephen Barrett, M.D.

That's an old article. You can find some old discussions about it. Bottom line: Dr. Barrett's website follows the same pattern. If it's allopathic medicine, it's OK, if it's not allopathic medicine -even if it works- it's not OK. If it works it's due to the placebo effect or a fluke.

 

[medic170]

That's an old article. You can find some old discussions about it. Bottom line: Dr. Barrett's website follows the same pattern. If it's allopathic medicine, it's OK, if it's not allopathic medicine -even if it works- it's not OK. If it works it's due to the placebo effect or a fluke.

Sorry, I did not realize it was old, I had it sent to me. thanks for commenting though.

 

[LukeWhite]

Which of those conclusions you list do you disagree with?

 

[OnMyWayThere]

He keeps referring to MD's as medical doctors and DO's as non-medical doctors. I thought MD is "Doctor of Medicine"....

edit: Wow, that Dr. Barrett is a joke. I know some Cranial Therapy clinics have a 6 month wait. That's not due to "hype". Oh well, let the guy be bitter

 

[medic170]

Which of those conclusions you list do you disagree with?

All of them.

 

[JohnDO]

(b) does not assert that osteopaths have a unique philosophy

Heaven forbid. 🙄 He's obviously got an agenda.

 

[OnMyWayThere]

The Bottom Line
If you wish to select an osteopathic physician as your primary-care provider, your best bet is to seek one who: (c) either does not use manipulation or uses it primarily to treat back pain.

what an idiot.

 

[LukeWhite]

what an idiot.

What's your reasoning for considering this an idiotic position?

 

[OnMyWayThere]

What's your reasoning for considering this an idiotic position?

Let's see... he is a medical professional (well, not really professional)... informing the public to choose an osteopathic physician only if he/she does not perform OMM unless it is for back pain... I don't know what part of that is NOT an idiotic position.

 

[medic170]

Let's see... he is a medical professional (well, not really professional)... informing the public to choose an osteopathic physician only if he/she does not perform OMM unless it is for back pain... I don't know what part of that is NOT an idiotic position.

Yeah, and only if they did an allopathic residency.

 

[Doctor Peloncito]

I disagree with all of his contentions here. He is basically saying that AOA residencies are worthless, and there is no benefit to OMM. Now I will grant that he gives DOs a lot more credit than he does a lot of other "health professionals", but I think he comes down a little too hard.

And OMM has proven to provide an overall benefit in that it has been shown in studies (I'll try to find references) that OMM on hospital patients reduces their overall length of stay.

Of note, Dr. Barrett is a retired Psychiatrist. He is of the group of "old school" allopaths who were trained in a time when Osteopathic medicine was viewed as a cult.

 

[medic170]

I disagree with all of his contentions here. He is basically saying that AOA residencies are worthless, and there is no benefit to OMM. Now I will grant that he gives DOs a lot more credit than he does a lot of other "health professionals", but I think he comes down a little too hard.

And OMM has proven to provide an overall benefit in that it has been shown in studies (I'll try to find references) that OMM on hospital patients reduces their overall length of stay.

Of note, Dr. Barrett is a retired Psychiatrist. He is of the group of "old school" allopaths who were trained in a time when Osteopathic medicine was viewed as a cult.

I think there was an OMM study published in 1999 in JAOA

 

[OnMyWayThere]

I disagree with all of his contentions here. He is basically saying that AOA residencies are worthless, and there is no benefit to OMM. Now I will grant that he gives DOs a lot more credit than he does a lot of other "health professionals", but I think he comes down a little too hard.

And OMM has proven to provide an overall benefit in that it has been shown in studies (I'll try to find references) that OMM on hospital patients reduces their overall length of stay.

Of note, Dr. Barrett is a retired Psychiatrist. He is of the group of "old school" allopaths who were trained in a time when Osteopathic medicine was viewed as a cult.

He is a bad apple. Unfortunately, we have those in our career too. It is important to note that this is an exception to the rule, because the majority of allopathic physicians have respect for their osteopathic counterparts. Nevertheless, people with the attitude of "Dr. Barrett" unfortunately still exist but their negative attitudes are diminishing.

 

[daveyboy]

I think there was an OMM study published in 1999 in JAOA

There is usually an OMM study in every issue of JAOA. I think you might be talking about the famous JAMA issue with a study looking at the use of OMM on chronic lower back pain.

This study is cited very often to show the effectiveness of OMM, which is unfortunate b/c that study has been shown to have several flaws and confoundings. A further study showed that there was no statistically significant effect. There are better studies to cite.

Some OMM modalities are effective, some are not, and some are more effective than others. To not seperate OMM into discreet modalities when saying that it is effective is an instant drop in credibility to somebody that is accustomed to interpretting the validity of research. It is highly indicative of an underlying bias.

When good research is conducted, and an effect can be shown in reproducable experiments, the opinions of people like Dr. Barrett don't hold as much weight in the scientfic community. Lines outside of cranial clinics are not currently held in high regard by that community. People can call the guy an idiot as much as they want, they can question the age in which he trained, yada yada yada. The only way to win that fight is with good, reproducable data. Those are the rules of the game that the NIH plays, that insurance companies play, that medicare plays, the peer reviewed journals play, etc.

Those rules ensure that physicians are prescribing care that has been shown to the absolute highest possible standard to be effective. This is why the physician is held to a higher standard. This is the burden that the DO must carry because the DO is a physician. Facing difficult criticism from fellow physicians is another burden, and that criticism is necesary for the progression of medicine.

 

[medic170]

There is usually an OMM study in every issue of JAOA. I think you might be talking about the famous JAMA issue with a study looking at the use of OMM on chronic lower back pain.

This study is cited very often to show the effectiveness of OMM, which is unfortunate b/c that study has been shown to have several flaws and confoundings. A further study showed that there was no statistically significant effect. There are better studies to cite.

Some OMM modalities are effective, some are not, and some are more effective than others. To not seperate OMM into discreet modalities when saying that it is effective is an instant drop in credibility to somebody that is accustomed to interpretting the validity of research. It is highly indicative of an underlying bias.

When good research is conducted, and an effect can be shown in reproducable experiments, the opinions of people like Dr. Barrett don't hold as much weight in the scientfic community. Lines outside of cranial clinics are not currently held in high regard by that community. People can call the guy an idiot as much as they want, they can question the age in which he trained, yada yada yada. The only way to win that fight is with good, reproducable data. Those are the rules of the game that the NIH plays, that insurance companies play, that medicare plays, the peer reviewed journals play.........

My mistake about the journal, sorry. I just wanted to point out that it is difficult to do research other than correlations with OMM because in drug testing, it is very easy to do the study double blind, but you can't really do that with OMT. Do you have any ideas for a way to do more valid research? Irs perplexing 😕

 

[daveyboy]

My mistake about the journal, sorry. I just wanted to point out that it is difficult to do research other than correlations with OMM because in drug testing, it is very easy to do the study double blind, but you can't really do that with OMT. Do you have any ideas for a way to do more valid research? Irs perplexing 😕

No sweat, man. I just try to make the point that it is a tough game.

OMT research is extremely difficult to conduct by nature, but it is possible to show direct effect with a good experimental design. I think a sham condition is the best thing going right now, but the clinician is still aware that they are giving a sham. There is the option of training a clinician that doesn't know which is which both the sham and the real modality, which seems to be the best compromise. There is the argument that this clinician wouldn't know the subtleties of a particular technique, which may influence the affect of the treatment. Of course, if subtlety is going to make or break showing an effect, then the question of whether the treatment or the subtlety causes the effect is brought up.

There is plenty of valid OMT research going on, so just look. Check out the ORC at TCOM. An SDN member is currently doing some excellent research, and is usually happy to offer advice to anyone interested. Check out the stickies on changing Osteopathic Medicine, the guy at Mayo is the guy you want to talk to.