What is an "Allopath"?

[Paul1441]

---

Members don't see this ad.

What is an "allopath"?

 

[sambo]

What is an "allopath"?

A physician who attended an allopathic medical school (as opposed to osteopathic) and recieved an M.D. degree (as opposed to a D.O.)

Both MDs and DO can prectice medicine and prescribe medications, but D.O.'s also learn how to do manipulation of certain joints to "treat" disease, sort of like a chiropractor.

 

[lattimer13]

What is an "allopath"?

A physician, just like an osteopath.

 

[OzDDS]

What is an "allopath"?

Actually, using the term allopath (to describe MDs) was started by "alternative" practiciners. It's common use is actually incorrect.

http://www.ncahf.org/articles/a-b/allopathy.html

 

[Paul1441]

So why does SDN use the term Allopathic for this forum? Is there something else they should call it?

 

[DrBuzzLightYear]

"Doctors"

 

[Paul1441]

But isn't there some "unique" title that allopaths could use, since allopthic doesn't seem to fit anymore?

 

[ddmo]

How about MD's? Or just physicians, and the DO's are osteopathic physicians.

 

[DrBuzzLightYear]

i know! i know! how about... REAL Doctors... boy, i'm going to get some hate mail for that one...

 

[4th year]

 

[Paul1441]

riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.....

 

[Paul1441]

Actually, using the term allopath (to describe MDs) was started by "alternative" practiciners. It's common use is actually incorrect.

http://www.ncahf.org/articles/a-b/allopathy.html

From this link:The term "allopathy" was invented by German physician Samuel Hahnemann (1755-1843). He conjoined allos "opposite" and pathos "suffering" as a referent to harsh medical practices of his era which included bleeding, purging, vomiting and the administration of highly toxic drugs.

Didn't John Hopkins School teach blood letting up until like the 1920?

 

[phillyfornia]

an allopath is a physician who treats symptoms, usually with medication or surgery. this is in contrast to an osteopath, who treats the whole patient.

 

[Fermata]

an allopath is a physician who treats symptoms, usually with medication or surgery. this is in contrast to an osteopath, who treats the whole patient.

"Whole" patient?

To think that MD's don't address the "whole" patient is to kid yourself.

I respect DO's, but please, cut the BS.

What do you think the majority of DO's treat patients with?

.....medication and surgery, perhaps?

 

[ridirkulous]

an allopath is a physician who treats symptoms, usually with medication or surgery. this is in contrast to an osteopath, who treats the whole patient.

 

[Paul1441]

an allopath is a physician who treats symptoms, usually with medication or surgery. this is in contrast to an osteopath, who treats the whole patient.

Well.. maybe not so. But then what makes an allopathic medial doctor unique from a DO? (besides the whole manipulation thing)

 

[NotShorty]

As far as I can paraphrase from my memory of Stedman's medical dictionary:

Allopathy- Disease is caused by the invasion of pathogens. Medication etc. creates an environment that the pathogens can't handle, pathogens die, person is healthy.

Osteopathy- Disease is a result of body funtioning in less than optimal capacity. Return body to optimal configuration via manipulation, increase of lymphatic drainage etc. and body will heal itself.

...after med school, the line blurs, and you really get little difference. It's mostly just two different perspectives on the same thing.

Two different "flavors" of medicine, if you will.

-NS

 

[DrBuzzLightYear]

i'm with fermata! every DO i've talked to has explained their "unique approach" by saying that they treat the WHOLE pt and not just the symptoms. what a bunch of B*##$#!T. i mean, what doctor doesnt do that?? you think MD's are sending aortic dissection pts home with just NSAID's to treat the pain?? no! we we fix the dissection, lower the BP, fix the lipid profile, check for diabetes, check for infection, recommend lifestyle changes...in other words, we treat THE WHOLE PATIENT.

 

[Paul1441]

i'm with fermata! every DO i've talked to has explained their "unique approach" by saying that they treat the WHOLE pt and not just the symptoms. what a bunch of B*##$#!T. i mean, what doctor doesnt do that?? you think MD's are sending aortic dissection pts home with just NSAID's to treat the pain?? no! we we fix the dissection, lower the BP, fix the lipid profile, check for diabetes, check for infection, recommend lifestyle changes...in other words, we treat THE WHOLE PATIENT.

I agree, DO's do put too much emphesis on thier "wholelistic" (spelling?) approach. Maybe back in the days of A.T Still there was a huge difference in this area between DO's and MD's, but today it is just silly to say that DO's are the only ones that give the patient a complete evaluation. Quit living in the past and admit that MDs have evolved in thier practices just as much as DO's

 

[dmudoc2B]

I agree, DO's do put too much emphesis on thier "wholelistic" (spelling?) approach. Maybe back in the days of A.T Still there was a huge difference in this area between DO's and MD's, but today it is just silly to say that DO's are the only ones that give the patient a complete evaluation. Quit living in the past and admit that MDs have evolved in thier practices just as much as DO's

One of the main reasons we put emphesis on our wholistic approach is because of the fact that we believe that "the body has an intrinsic capability to heal itself". That makes us different. I'm not living in the past...maybe you should take another look at your osteopathic priciples (see below) that you learned the first week of Med School. This isn't saying that MDs can't have the same approach and I'm definately not saying that MDs don't do a complete evaluation of their patients. I'm simply stating that we are taught to approach patients using these osteopathic principles and THAT is what makes us different.

OSTEOPATHIC PRINCIPLES
1. The body functions as a unit
2. Structure and function are interrelated
3. The body possesses self-regulatory mechanisms.
4. The body has an inherent capacity to heal and repair itself.
5. Movement of body fluids is essential to maintenance of health.
6. Somatic components to disease are not only manifestations of
disease, but also are factors that contribute to maintenance of
the disease state.

 

[Cowboy DO]

I agree that there is no difference between the treatment of a DO and an MD in the same field. I think you guys are making the mistake in thinking that when we use this phrase we infer that you do not treat the "whole" patient.

I mean if we as D.O.'s used the saying "D.O.'s: We use stethoscopes, to listen!" That doesn't mean that you don't, because of course you do, but it might mean that it?s a quality of ours that we are especially proud of. Who are you to say what we can or can't be proud of and how we show that pride?

Also maybe...just maybe it?s a fun thing to say, (and quite catchy I might add) and you guys just need to relax. Patients may like it but its not they are fleeing your offices and coming to see D.O.?s en masse just because if a silly slogan we put on bumper stickers. Or at least I hope that people wouldn?t blindly choose something based on a 6 word quip...but then again this is America.

 

[DrBuzzLightYear]

the principles that dmudoc2B outlines are great, but again, there's nothing in them that an MD wouldn't agree with. maybe its a question of the significance DO's place on "movement of fluids" and "the body can heal itself". so what diseases do DO's treat by facilitating fluid movement?? are you talking about things like pulmonary edema and hydrocephalus? or are you trying to tx AIDS and TB patients with spinal manipulation?

 

[Paul1441]

One of the main reasons we put emphesis on our wholistic approach is because of the fact that we believe that "the body has an intrinsic capability to heal itself". That makes us different. I'm not living in the past...maybe you should take another look at your osteopathic priciples (see below) that you learned the first week of Med School. This isn't saying that MDs can't have the same approach and I'm definately not saying that MDs don't do a complete evaluation of their patients. I'm simply stating that we are taught to approach patients using these osteopathic principles and THAT is what makes us different.

OSTEOPATHIC PRINCIPLES
1. The body functions as a unit
2. Structure and function are interrelated
3. The body possesses self-regulatory mechanisms.
4. The body has an inherent capacity to heal and repair itself.
5. Movement of body fluids is essential to maintenance of health.
6. Somatic components to disease are not only manifestations of
disease, but also are factors that contribute to maintenance of
the disease state.

So maybe DO's should emphasize these principles, instead of making it look like MD's are completely inadequate. Yes take pride in the uniqueness of the DO profession, but try not to mislead the general public that MD are not going to provide a level of care that's on par with the national standard. I'm sure they learn how to do a complete H&P, and investigate all possible problems with the patient, so DO's shouldn't imply otherwise.
Maybe the main reason DO's resort to simply explaining their difference from MD's ("They treat the whole Pt") is because it takes to long to go through all these "osteopathic principles".
If DO's want national recognition as a unique profession, then try to do so without pissing off the rest of the professionals, who in the end will be our colleagues.

 

[Paul1441]

the principles that dmudoc2B outlines are great, but again, there's nothing in them that an MD wouldn't agree with. maybe its a question of the significance DO's place on "movement of fluids" and "the body can heal itself". so what diseases do DO's treat by facilitating fluid movement?? are you talking about things like pulmonary edema and hydrocephalus? or are you trying to tx AIDS and TB patients with spinal manipulation?

I think manipulation is mainly stressed to promote the flow of fluid in any condition that fluids may accumulate, or those that increased flow to tissues may promote the healing process, such as ankle sprains, leg edema in pregnancy, post-operative fluid retention, and yes, even TB can have fluid congestion and manipulation (along with the multi-drug therapy) can have outstanding effects to preserve lung function. AIDS may be in that small list of conditions that manipulation may not be warrented, but DO's never claimed to be able to miraculously cure every patient they touch.
I may be wrong, maybe there is a manipulative technique for AIDS patients. It probably depends on what the Pt presents with.

 

[DrBuzzLightYear]

even TB can have fluid congestion and manipulation (along with the multi-drug therapy) can have outstanding effects to preserve lung function.

yeah, think about, isnt there a chance that those outstanding results have something to with those 4-5 different antibiotics you're giving the pt??

 

[Paul1441]

yeah, think about, isnt there a chance that those outstanding results have something to with those 4-5 different antibiotics you're giving the pt??

Of course antiboitics alone will have a positive effect (some negative), but in conjuction with manipulation, you increase blood flow to specific organs (i.e the lungs), antibiotics get to where they need to go, immune cells, Ab's, all that good suff get better infiltration to the lungs, thus improving the effects of the antibiotics. Increasing the effects of the antibiotics may allow for a lower dose requried, and then reducing the negative side effects of the drug.
Those cysts that TB creat in the lungs are very congested, the body has to do this in order to contain the organism. They have cronic disease because the immune system can't penetrate the cyst to kill the organism. Organism survives, breaks out, causes reoccurance. Manipulation increases perfusion to the cyst, improving the function of the Antibiotics, and increasing the success rate of those multi-drug regimens. This line of thinking is used for many other drug therapies.

 

[Sweet Tea]

great thread. 👍





🙄

 

[DrBuzzLightYear]

i have a hard time swallowing claims about manipulation. you're making some BIG claims about its efficacy treating severe pathology. if there was any truth to it, then why wouldn't it be taught to all medstudents, MD and DO?? why would any MD deny his patients a potential treatment? i've never heard of any large, multi-center, blinded and controlled studies proving the efficacy of manipulation in treating conditions like TB or AIDS. these sorts of studies should be the corner stone of treatment.

 

[Paul1441]

i have a hard time swallowing claims about manipulation. you're making some BIG claims about its efficacy treating severe pathology. if there was any truth to it, then why wouldn't it be taught to all medstudents, MD and DO?? why would any MD deny his patients a potential treatment? i've never heard of any large, multi-center, blinded and controlled studies proving the efficacy of manipulation in treating conditions like TB or AIDS. these sorts of studies should be the corner stone of treatment.

You probably haven't seen any studies on manipulation because you have no reason to be looking for them. Manipulation isn't emphasized in MD schools, they don't teach it, students aren't made aware of it. The "foundation" of MD school education does not include manipulation so MD students are in the dark on it's benifits.
The research is coming along. The DO profession has been around for a fraction of the time allopathy has. Give it time. You said yourself there is nothing in the Osteopathic principles that an MD wouldn't agree with. Does this mean you are open to the ideas of osteopathy (since you agree with them)? How is it so hard to believe these "BIG" claims? The principles are easy enough to understand. The DO's are just the first to try to put them into practice.
Remember how they laughed at Louis Pasteur for his "outrageous" claim about microbiology. Think how radical his ideas were at the time. The osteopathic claims are not that big and they are based upon principles acceptable to all of medicine.
Just give it some time.

 

[dmudoc2B]

Great reply Paul1441! You have to remember DR BUZZ, that just because you are not familiar with something doesn't mean you can automatically disregard it. THere are plenty of osteopathic manipulation studies, you just have to seek them out and also understand that it IS a relatively new concept.

 

[tkim]

As much as I'd *love* to see another MD vs. DO/allopath vs. osteopath bashing thread, unless there is something constructive to add to this discussion, let's drop it.

For OMT to reach acceptance and legitimacy beyond a subset of the osteopathic community, the treatments need to be held to the same rigorous standards as any other treatment modality that is currently accepted and used. I hear that such research is up and coming, but until it arrives, and comprises a large body of work, it will be looked at with skepticism.

Now, if anyone wants to post links to good OMM research do it here and now.

 

[Paul1441]

As much as I'd *love* to see another MD vs. DO/allopath vs. osteopath bashing thread, unless there is something constructive to add to this discussion, let's drop it.

For OMT to reach acceptance and legitimacy beyond a subset of the osteopathic community, the treatments need to be held to the same rigorous standards as any other treatment modality that is currently accepted and used. I hear that such research is up and coming, but until it arrives, and comprises a large body of work, it will be looked at with skepticism.

Now, if anyone wants to post links to good OMM research do it here and now.

Too true! We don't want a "bashing" thread about MD vs. DO. I started this thread as an open invitation to allopathic students to define their profession. As you can see i got a lot of jokes and sarcasm, but as of yet no one has provided a real definition of the MD profession. What makes them unique? Why are they seperate from DO's? We found out MD's don't like the term allopathy, because it represents a style of medicine that is out of date and rather barbaric. So if not allopathy, then what. What is your style? what are your principles?

 

[ddmo]

The research is coming along. The DO profession has been around for a fraction of the time allopathy has. Give it time. You said yourself there is nothing in the Osteopathic principles that an MD wouldn't agree with. Does this mean you are open to the ideas of osteopathy (since you agree with them)? How is it so hard to believe these "BIG" claims? The principles are easy enough to understand. The DO's are just the first to try to put them into practice.

Personally, my girlfriend is an osteo student, and I respect them as being equal physicians. I also respect OMM for making my back maybe less sore. But curing disease, give me a break. I have to call BS on your response that the reason the research is so few and far between is because osteopathy has only been around for 130+ years. Think about all of the diseases that have been discovered in the past 130 years and how many of them now have cures (many with medications), due to the vast amount of research. AIDS is the perfect example. How is it that AIDS has only been studied for 20 years, yet huge progress has been made in improving lifestyle and prolonging symptoms with such treatments as the cocktail. To say that OMM is a viable treatment (maybe not for AIDS, your words) for a list of diseases, and that there is little research backing this up because of how 'young' osteopathy is, is not only dellusional, but borderline ridiculous.

I love it how many, certainly not all, DO's have absolutely no problem trashing MD's and the treatments they provide. Not to mention how many of them are uterly convinced that all us MD's(students too) do is talk trash behind their back. Well, I have never heard anything of the sort at my school or in the hospitals I have been in. However, I have heard a lot of snide BS comments come out about regarding MD's when hanging out with groups of DO students.

Ohh well, what can you do?

I am expecting to see a topic in the osteo board saying, "osteo bashing in allo, let's get'em..."

 

[tkim]

I am expecting to see a topic in the osteo board saying, "osteo bashing in allo, let's get'em..."

I don't think that will happen, but if it does, I'll end it right quick.

 

[Cowboy DO]

I have to call BS on your response that the reason the research is so few and far between is because osteopathy has only been around for 130+ years. Think about all of the diseases that have been discovered in the past 130 years and how many of them now have cures (many with medications), due to the vast amount of research. AIDS is the perfect example. How is it that AIDS has only been studied for 20 years, yet huge progress has been made in improving lifestyle and prolonging symptoms with such treatments as the cocktail. To say that OMM is a viable treatment (maybe not for AIDS, your words) for a list of diseases, and that there is little research backing this up because of how 'young' osteopathy is, is not only dellusional, but borderline ridiculous.

AIDS is not a perfect example. You cannot make the comparison between research for AIDS and research for OMM. First of all AIDS was pandemic that was lethal...and while sometime it does feel like my shoulder is going to kill me at times, it most certainly will not. Its all about funding. Whos going to fund AIDS research...pretty much everybody. Whos going to fund research on OMM pretty much only D.O.'s and there arnt a whole lot of us. There would probably be greater funding but i think we can all agree that if there are benefits to OMM in conditions that are not musculo-skeletal in nature, they are minimal when compared to the benefits of medication. Thus maybe why nobody?s throwing the 1.6 billion dollars at OMM when they can send it in the way of pharmacological research. Another reason why theres not a whole lot of research is that its impossible to double blind it, and nearly impossible to blind it at all. In medication you have a placebo pill...no prob, the doc doesnt know what it is, niehter does the patient. How do you deliver fake OMM? the doctor has to know, and the patient would most likely figure it out.

I love it how many, certainly not all, DO's have absolutely no problem trashing MD's and the treatments they provide. Not to mention how many of them are utterly convinced that all us MD's(students too) do is talk trash behind their back. Well, I have never heard anything of the sort at my school or in the hospitals I have been in. However, I have heard a lot of snide BS comments come out about regarding MD's when hanging out with groups of DO students.

Ohh well, what can you do?

Please...don?t take this anonymous webboard as an accurate representation of how DO?s or DO students act or even feel about MD?s. I?ve never once heard anyone in my class trash talk MD?s but in fact not a day goes by where I don?t here some sort of snide remark about OMM (but we all get frustrated... I talk crap about pharmacology too sometimes.) But you seem "utterly convinced that all us DO's(students too) do is talk trash behind your back"

I am expecting to see a topic in the osteo board saying, "osteo bashing in allo, let's get'em..."

Well if there?s one thing I love about the osteopathic profession it?s the enormous amount of fraternity. 😀

 

[ddmo]

Cowboy,

1) If you would have read the comments I was responding to, then you would have realized that the person making them was stating how beneficial a treatment OMM is to non-musculoskeletal diseases like TB. You made my point exactly. There isn't 1.6 billion in research on the benefits of OMM in combating these diseases because it would most likely be 1.6 billion wasted.

2) I am not using this board as a representation of DO's opinions of MD's. I am using my own experiences at one of the best osteo schools in the country as an MD student incognito. It's amazing what people say when they don't know you are from the 'dark side'.

 

[Paul1441]

Personally, my girlfriend is an osteo student, and I respect them as being equal physicians. I also respect OMM for making my back maybe less sore. But curing disease, give me a break. I have to call BS on your response that the reason the research is so few and far between is because osteopathy has only been around for 130+ years. Think about all of the diseases that have been discovered in the past 130 years and how many of them now have cures (many with medications), due to the vast amount of research. AIDS is the perfect example. How is it that AIDS has only been studied for 20 years, yet huge progress has been made in improving lifestyle and prolonging symptoms with such treatments as the cocktail. To say that OMM is a viable treatment (maybe not for AIDS, your words) for a list of diseases, and that there is little research backing this up because of how 'young' osteopathy is, is not only dellusional, but borderline ridiculous.

I love it how many, certainly not all, DO's have absolutely no problem trashing MD's and the treatments they provide. Not to mention how many of them are uterly convinced that all us MD's(students too) do is talk trash behind their back. Well, I have never heard anything of the sort at my school or in the hospitals I have been in. However, I have heard a lot of snide BS comments come out about regarding MD's when hanging out with groups of DO students.

Ohh well, what can you do?

I am expecting to see a topic in the osteo board saying, "osteo bashing in allo, let's get'em..."

Why has there been so much progress with AIDS treatment? $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
follow the money trail my friend. If there is a way pharacology corps. can make money, they'll spend money. And osteopathic research has been only been around for what, maybe 50 years. They were too concerned with getting run out of town back in the 40's and 50's to be doing research.
Give it time. The number of DO schools is rising, they are becoming more research oriented. The evidence will come. It's a main priority to start
getting more manipulation research published. I would love to see more myself.

And i'm glad to hear you and your friends dont trash talk DO's. Thats cool

Again, I don't believe it is in the osteopathic principles the idea that manipulation is the above-all cure-all treatment. DO's agree with utilizing modern technology, pharmacology, and any other -ology out there. DO's just have additional tools to assist in diagnosis and treatment.

 

[Cowboy DO]

My mistake. 😳

 

[San_Juan_Sun]

Its all about funding. Whos going to fund AIDS research...pretty much everybody. Whos going to fund research on OMM pretty much only D.O.'s and there arnt a whole lot of us.


Please...don?t take this anonymous webboard as an accurate representation of how DO?s or DO students act or even feel about MD?s. I?ve never once heard anyone in my class trash talk MD?s

To be fair, researching OMM can be quite difficult. For example, how do you perform a double-blind study of OMM efficacy? It's not like you can keep the doc in the dark there. Another example is technology. Only recently has the technology become available to stretch single myofibers, to test alpha and gamma interplay with regards to OMM.

However, the funding for OMM reseach is there. Put together a good study, and the NIH will fund you. There are several significant areas of research currently progressing in the DO world. It's a shame that in the past osteopaths may have been somewhat delinquent in the research game, but we are trying, and you have to start somewhere.

Lastly, I agree that the vast majority of DO students respect allopaths. I cringe when I see pre-DOs (if there really is such a thing) say that they learn everything MDs do, plus OMM. Not very respectful, tactful, or accurate. We will all be together in residencies and practice one day: better to get along and help each other out than argue about cirriculums and "philosophy".

 

[babyruth]

Guidelines for certain things are now requiring some type of musculoskeletal treatment.

Low back pain being the primary example. Instead of sending the patient to a 'chiropractor,' DO's can treat the patient fulfilling the complete guidelines without further referral and get paid for this treatment.

We don't claim to cure diseases, but to help facilitate healing. If something can be fixed with a pistol, we don't pull out our shotgun to kill it--meaning if we can use OMT to treat low back pain, then we don't have to keep these patients on painkillers for lengthy periods of time.

Just my 0.02

 

[San_Juan_Sun]

If something can be fixed with a pistol, we don't pull out our shotgun to kill it

But you have to admit, killing stuff with a shotgun is pretty cool.

Otherwise, nice post.

 

[Dr Sum Day]

As much as I'd *love* to see another MD vs. DO/allopath vs. osteopath bashing thread, unless there is something constructive to add to this discussion, let's drop it.

For OMT to reach acceptance and legitimacy beyond a subset of the osteopathic community, the treatments need to be held to the same rigorous standards as any other treatment modality that is currently accepted and used. I hear that such research is up and coming, but until it arrives, and comprises a large body of work, it will be looked at with skepticism.

Now, if anyone wants to post links to good OMM research do it here and now.

excellent response! 👍

 

[Deuce 007 MD]

Here check out the archives of family medicine journals of the ama. http://archfami.ama-assn.org/issues...ll/fsa8021.html it states:

"Although many osteopaths use manipulation as an adjunct to treat many illnesses, there are no large controlled trials of the effectiveness of manipulation for conditions other than lower back pain ... Studies that have shown positive effects of manipulation for back pain have been criticized for not adequately controlling placebo effect. Doran and Newell65 concluded after studying 456 patients that although a few patients responded rapidly to manipulation, there were no significant differences compared with physiotherapy, corsets, and analgesics ... Osteopathic medicine is similar to allopathic medicine, but places a greater emphasis on the importance of the musculoskeletal system and normal body mechanics as central to good health. To support this emphasis, more basic research and controlled trials for the effectiveness of manipulation are needed."

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

David E. Jones Ph.D.

"I spent 12 years teaching basic sciences and 7 years as an associate dean at the an osteopathic medical school ... The department of manipulative medicine was completely segregated from the other departments, both in principles and in practice. The osteopathic faculty members in the standard medical departments neither practiced nor taught OMT. Nor did the OMT faculty practice or teach the standard forms of medicine. It was as if OMT was a freestanding form of health care ... one that, unlike other departments, was not necessarily bound by scientific foundations. Being a basic science researcher, I have made attempts to set up an animal model to objectively test the claim that certain harmful forms of sympathetic nerve traffic could be altered by spinal OMT. However, I never received any support from the osteopathic faculty in seeing such a study completed. The general attitude of the osteopathic manipulation physicians was, "since we already know it works, why should we bother with proving it."

 

[Dr Sum Day]

Here check out the archives of family medicine journals of the ama. http://archfami.ama-assn.org/issues...ll/fsa8021.html it states:

"Although many osteopaths use manipulation as an adjunct to treat many illnesses, there are no large controlled trials of the effectiveness of manipulation for conditions other than lower back pain ... Studies that have shown positive effects of manipulation for back pain have been criticized for not adequately controlling placebo effect. Doran and Newell65 concluded after studying 456 patients that although a few patients responded rapidly to manipulation, there were no significant differences compared with physiotherapy, corsets, and analgesics ... Osteopathic medicine is similar to allopathic medicine, but places a greater emphasis on the importance of the musculoskeletal system and normal body mechanics as central to good health. To support this emphasis, more basic research and controlled trials for the effectiveness of manipulation are needed."

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

David E. Jones Ph.D.

"I spent 12 years teaching basic sciences and 7 years as an associate dean at the an osteopathic medical school ... The department of manipulative medicine was completely segregated from the other departments, both in principles and in practice. The osteopathic faculty members in the standard medical departments neither practiced nor taught OMT. Nor did the OMT faculty practice or teach the standard forms of medicine. It was as if OMT was a freestanding form of health care ... one that, unlike other departments, was not necessarily bound by scientific foundations. Being a basic science researcher, I have made attempts to set up an animal model to objectively test the claim that certain harmful forms of sympathetic nerve traffic could be altered by spinal OMT. However, I never received any support from the osteopathic faculty in seeing such a study completed. The general attitude of the osteopathic manipulation physicians was, "since we already know it works, why should we bother with proving it."

I've seen this before from you. Nice to here from you again....skepticism is good 🙂

 

[fuegorama]

http://archpedi.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/157/9/861

Tiny group, but worthy of increased study. However, if efficacy in this manipulation is demonstrated, who will fund it? Bristol Myers?

 

[Paul1441]

Too true! We don't want a "bashing" thread about MD vs. DO. I started this thread as an open invitation to allopathic students to define their profession. As you can see i got a lot of jokes and sarcasm, but as of yet no one has provided a real definition of the MD profession. What makes them unique? Why are they seperate from DO's? We found out MD's don't like the term allopathy, because it represents a style of medicine that is out of date and rather barbaric. So if not allopathy, then what. What is your style? what are your principles?

No takers huh?

 

[Deuce 007 MD]

No takers huh?

My kung fu is better then yours.

If I have to explain it to you, you wouldn't understand. 😀

 

[Fermata]

I didn't mean to start something.

DO's and MD's serve and function as equals.

It's just that the "whole patient" propaghanda doesn't mean anything. Philosophy and practice are not the same thing.

Besides, most DO's don't even use OMT.

Really, all of us are working towards the same goal but are taking different routes.

Just cut the BS.

 

[OzDDS]

Of course antiboitics alone will have a positive effect (some negative), but in conjuction with manipulation, you increase blood flow to specific organs (i.e the lungs), antibiotics get to where they need to go, immune cells, Ab's, all that good suff get better infiltration to the lungs, thus improving the effects of the antibiotics. Increasing the effects of the antibiotics may allow for a lower dose requried, and then reducing the negative side effects of the drug.
Those cysts that TB creat in the lungs are very congested, the body has to do this in order to contain the organism. They have cronic disease because the immune system can't penetrate the cyst to kill the organism. Organism survives, breaks out, causes reoccurance. Manipulation increases perfusion to the cyst, improving the function of the Antibiotics, and increasing the success rate of those multi-drug regimens. This line of thinking is used for many other drug therapies.

If you are saying that OMT is used in conjuntion with drugs to increase profusion to assist in the delivery of said drugs to areas of the body, wouldn't you get the same effect by getting a gym membership and getting an occasional sports massage? The emphasis on OMT philosophy being enough reason to create an entirely different medical degree just seems a bit of an overdramatic.

 

[Paul1441]

My kung fu is better then yours.

If I have to explain it to you, you wouldn't understand. 😀

Nice way of saying "you have no idea"