What's the difference?

[uacharya]

---

Members do not see this ad.

so essentially you're saying there is no difference, right?

I'm not sure exactly why you think it's a loaded question. In Canada we don't have osteopaths, they're not legally recognized here. Therefore, I've never been to an osteopath, I don't really know much about the profession, and I've never really heard about osteopathy until I visited this site. I'm just curious to know the difference between osteopathic manipulation, and chiropractic manipulation. Judging by the first 2 responses I received, I guess I won't find my answer here.

Hey SeanJohn,

Perhaps I can attempt to elucidate some of the confusion. Although the word "manipulation" is used interchangeably among chiropractors, physical therapists, and osteopathic physicians; the manipulations DOs conduct is for a little more, for a lack of a better word, "sophisticated" than that conducted by PTs and chiropractors. Osteopathic physicians recieve extensive education in anatomy when compared to chiropractors. The manipulation conducted on patients presenting with pain symptoms is done with an underlying physiological premise to alter biomechanical feedback loops and not merely to "crack and pop" (as is routinely done by chiropractors).

OMT (osteopathic manipulative treatment) has clinical application in a multitude of disorders ranging from migraines to URIs. For instance, Annals of Internal Medicine recently published a study demonstrating the efficacy of OMT in children presenting with acute otitis media. Ergo, the manipulation conducted by "osteopaths" (preferred term - osteopathic physician) has a much wider application and has a much greater cerebral component.

I hope this helps

 

[uacharya]

Actually chiropractors ARE physicians, defined legally. All physicians do not have the same scope of practice. Just like a GP (MD/DO) doesn't practice neurology, a chiropractor may not practice most fields of MD/DO medicine, but rather they focus on a more specialized area.

I don't know why this post has deteriorated into a hierarchical rant of what qualifies as a physician and what does not.

Perhaps they are legally defined as physicians but not FULL physicians/medical doctors. They perform chiropractic manipulation and that is all. Just as dentists are physicians but certainly not FULL physicians; nor are they medical doctors.

 

[Jayrod14]

From what I have read, Chiropractors with manipulate a particular joint beyond its physiological ROM. DO's, however, manipulate the joint within its physiological ROM. Don't know how accurate this is........just something that I read while researching osteopathy.

 

[macman]

Hey SeanJohn,

Perhaps I can attempt to elucidate some of the confusion. Although the word "manipulation" is used interchangeably among chiropractors, physical therapists, and osteopathic physicians; the manipulations DOs conduct is for a little more, for a lack of a better word, "sophisticated" than that conducted by PTs and chiropractors. Osteopathic physicians recieve extensive education in anatomy when compared to chiropractors. The manipulation conducted on patients presenting with pain symptoms is done with an underlying physiological premise to alter biomechanical feedback loops and not merely to "crack and pop" (as is routinely done by chiropractors).

OMT (osteopathic manipulative treatment) has clinical application in a multitude of disorders ranging from migraines to URIs. For instance, Annals of Internal Medicine recently published a study demonstrating the efficacy of OMT in children presenting with acute otitis media. Ergo, the manipulation conducted by "osteopaths" (preferred term - osteopathic physician) has a much wider application and has a much greater cerebral component.

I hope this helps

uacharya-where are your sources for the comparisons and statements you make.

 

[OMMFellow06]

I don't think the point of starting this thread was to start a war between DO's and chiropractors. Each has their role and they do what they do, just let it be. LET THE FIGHTING STOP!

 

[Krazykritter]

Just re-reading these posts I happened to see the post on the VA dissection comment: I know that one of the techniques that has been implicated here is an OA HVLA technique. DMU has not taught that technique for the last three years due to the argument that this could cause a VA dissection. Have DC schools looked at this research and adjusted their curriculum at all? This is a serious question, I'm not trying to get flamed here...

The whole issue w/ the possibility of VA dissection and changing curriculum illustrates the basic principle that we are taught as physicians, "Primum non nocere."

 

[BMW19]

They will not adjust their curriculum. Just as an MD/DO will not stop prescribing a drug because 1 in a million people will develop Rhabdomyolysis from it. Just as a Dentist will not stop anesthesizing people becuase they could paralyze their face. The incidence is so small that they see it as the benefits outwaying the slight risk. They have however, made students aware of what to do if this actually happened (i.e. signs and symptoms, call 911, etc.) In addtion they have stressed the importance of screening (Georges test, BP, smoking, Birth Control, etc.) Could a VA dissection happen? Sure it can happen by brushing your hair, turning your head around in the car. Most of the time there was a predisposition to it and the chiro gets blamed (as well he/she should if they missed warning signs). My point is it could happen to a PT, DO, Massage therapist or even "gasp" an MD if they were doing a procedure that requires rotation or lateral flexion. However, it is ALWAYS the chiro that gets blamed. I would love to see the statistics on these VA dissection Pt's and which ones actually came from a chiro or was it a PT or DO?

BMW-

Just re-reading these posts I happened to see the post on the VA dissection comment: I know that one of the techniques that has been implicated here is an OA HVLA technique. DMU has not taught that technique for the last three years due to the argument that this could cause a VA dissection. Have DC schools looked at this research and adjusted their curriculum at all? This is a serious question, I'm not trying to get flamed here...

The whole issue w/ the possibility of VA dissection and changing curriculum illustrates the basic principle that we are taught as physicians, "Primum non nocere."

 

[MacGyver]

Somebody explain to me how in the hell OMT can clear up an ear infection.

Does it open some kind of magic channel to let white blood cells eat up the bacteria?

 

[group_theory]

Somebody explain to me how in the hell OMT can clear up an ear infection.

Does it open some kind of magic channel to let white blood cells eat up the bacteria?

yup

 

[macman]

Somebody explain to me how in the hell OMT can clear up an ear infection.

Does it open some kind of magic channel to let white blood cells eat up the bacteria?

No, but it does summon PUFF THE MAGIC DRAGON to cure the child, so you were close.....you probably would have gotten it on multiple choice

As you know, the pathophys. at play begins with a peristent effusion which sets up the infection. It is the lack of drainage, rather than the bug itself that chiefly creates the problem. Hence, (esp. chronic) OM has been attributed to eustation (sp?) tube dysfunction, among other things. It is my understanding that certain OMT tech. can assist the draining of that effusion via improving the soft tissue tone surrounding the eustation tube, and one tech actually uses traction on the angle of the mandible to pump the eust. tube. Other than direct mechan. effects, OMT is theorized to have effects on the autonomic nervous system, directly/indirectly, by either directly stim. of nerve structures or by treating the soft tissues around them, this may also play a role but is probably less clear for OM.

here are some quotes from emedicine (also known as puffthedragon.com ) -sorry

http://www.emedicine.com/emerg/topic351.htm

"Pathophysiology: Acute otitis media usually arises as a complication of a preceding viral upper respiratory infection (URI). The secretions and inflammation cause a relative occlusion of the eustachian tubes. Normally, the middle ear mucosa absorbs air in the middle ear. If air is not replaced because of relative obstruction of the eustachian tube, a negative pressure is generated and causes a serous effusion. This effusion of the middle ear provides a fertile media for microbial growth, and, with the URI, introduction of upper airway viruses and/or bacteria into the middle ear may occur. If growth is rapid, the patient will have a middle ear infection. If the infection and the resultant inflammatory reaction persist, perforation of the tympanic membrane or extension into the adjacent mastoid air cells may be present."


"An osteopathic manipulation technique (ie, Galbreath technique) has been described. It may help some patients open their eustachian tubes and treat or prevent middle ear fluid accumulation. No blinded studies of this technique have been performed."

 

[mysophobe]

Chiropractors are quacks. I saw one for my neck pains once--never again.

 

[macman]

Chiropractors are quacks. I saw one for my neck pains once--never again.

I thought we decided to avoid this type of banter-you are kidding I hope. btw-ever seen a bad MD/DO or rotated with one, if not you will. No profession is immune....

 

[seanjohn]

For instance, Annals of Internal Medicine recently published a study demonstrating the efficacy of OMT in children presenting with acute otitis media.

Are you serious? 🙁

I don't want to start an argument, that's not my intention, but in Canada one of the reasons why SOME, not all, chiropractors are seen as 'quacks' by the medical and scientific community is because some claim they can cure ailments such as otitis media by cervical manipulation, as well as colic, asthma, hypertension, bedwetting, heart disease, cancer etc. by other manipulations.

 

[OSUdoc08]

Somebody explain to me how in the hell OMT can clear up an ear infection.

Does it open some kind of magic channel to let white blood cells eat up the bacteria?

You should consider learning anatomy. The eustachian tube drains the ear into the pharynx, and if there are tight, dysfunctional musculoskeletal areas, the drainage can be impeded. In addition, techniques can be used to improve lymphatic and blood draining, which you know is regulated by the musculoskeletal system.

 

[OSUdoc08]

Are you serious? 🙁

I don't want to start an argument, that's not my intention, but in Canada one of the reasons why chiropractors are seen as 'quacks' by the medical and scientific community is because many claim they can cure ailments such as otitis media by cervical manipulation, as well as colic, asthma, hypertension, bedwetting etc. by other manipulations. The medical doctors and scientists say that such claims are absolutely absurd, and have no scientific basis.

To me it seems, (with my limited knowledge about osteopathic medicine)judging from this thread, that osteopathic physicians are somewhere in between chiropractors and medical doctors.

I can't vouch for chiropractics, however,

If you know anything about viscerosomatic and somatovisceral reflexes as learned in gross anatomy, you will understand that treatment of the musculoskeletal system can relieve symptoms and improve outcomes.

Yes, someone saying it is a "cure" may be incorrect. This is why osteopathic physicians use manipulation IN ADDITION to traditional western medicine to yield the most complete results.

 

[MacGyver]

Ok now explain to me exactly how a glorified back massage changes nerve reflexes, somatic nerve firing, and autonomic nerve firing

 

[group_theory]

Ok now explain to me exactly how a glorified back massage changes nerve reflexes, somatic nerve firing, and autonomic nerve firing

Dude, pick up a physiology or neurology textbook. The concept isn't exclusively in the domain of osteopathic medicine.


I wonder ... if I massage someone's carotid sinus ... if I can treat their AVNRT?

 

[OSUdoc08]

Ok now explain to me exactly how a glorified back massage changes nerve reflexes, somatic nerve firing, and autonomic nerve firing

Are you even in medical school?

If not, then you'll learn all about it once you begin. If you are, then it's time to pick up that Chung's and do some board review.

Your question is answered in any basic gross anatomy class.

 

[MacGyver]

Dont give me that BS.

Back massage does NOTHING over the long term to change nerve firing or reflexes. Its temporary only. Any long term effects shown in studies are corrupted by the placebo effect. 99% of back pain goes away on its own, which means that SMT/OMT is just temporary "relief"

The TEMPORARY changes you see in reflexes and nerve firing is the same whether you to a massage therapist or a DO or a chiropractor. SMT/OMT is pure bunk

 

[OSUdoc08]

Dont give me that BS.

Back massage does NOTHING over the long term to change nerve firing or reflexes. Its temporary only. Any long term effects shown in studies are corrupted by the placebo effect. 99% of back pain goes away on its own, which means that SMT/OMT is just temporary "relief"

The TEMPORARY changes you see in reflexes and nerve firing is the same whether you to a massage therapist or a DO or a chiropractor. SMT/OMT is pure bunk

I guess we should go ahead and fire all of the physical therapists then, right?

OMM = PHYSICAL THERAPY

🙄

 

[uacharya]

Are you serious? 🙁

I don't want to start an argument, that's not my intention, but in Canada one of the reasons why chiropractors are seen as 'quacks' by the medical and scientific community is because many claim they can cure ailments such as otitis media by cervical manipulation, as well as colic, asthma, hypertension, bedwetting, heart disease, cancer etc. by other manipulations.

To me it seems, (with my limited knowledge about osteopathic medicine)judging from this thread, that osteopathic physicians are somewhere in between chiropractors and medical doctors.

So basically, I had used my words very carefully when I stated the trails have demonstrated the efficacy of OMT in pediatric patients presenting with otitis media. I never made a claim that OMT would solely cure the infection; furthermore, I would NEVER claim that OMT is solely indicated in any of the conditions that you describe above; infact there are a few up there in which certain procedures should never be used. Although OMT specialists have found somatic "lesions" if you will which correlate to those conditions, I don't think any one of them will claim that OMT will cure such diseases. So if a chiropractor claims that he is going to magically cure patients with said conditions, he infact is a "quack". However, DOs (also defined as Medical Doctors), do not make such claims so I hope that clears up that concern.

I can argue, however, that patients presenting with acute ear infections do have lymphatic back up and by facilitating the clearance of the lymph fluid, you could conceivably shorten the course of infection for the patient. Of course, to supplement this type of a treatment, it would only make sense to prescribe augmentin or amoxicillin to the patient as well. However, monotherapy with either treatments may lead to an extended course of infection while combination therapy (Rx + OMT) has been shown to shorten the duration of disease. (I've attached some literature)

Lastly, DOs and MDs are alike in that they are FULL PHYSICIANS who can practice everything from prescribing medications to performing surgery. Chriopractors are not, so to put DOs in a catagory between chriporactors and allopathic physicians is incorrect.

Not all DOs practice OMT as it depends on their scope of practice. For example, a neurosurgeon will almost never use any of his OMT background during his routine scope of practice and neither will a psychiatrist; however if a DO is in family practice or internal medicine may be more apt to performing OMT on patients presenting with musculoskeletal complaints. No osteopathic physician will ever claim OMT as a "cure all" remedy but may often use it in adjuvant with conventional pharmacotherapy where it applies. This is why MDs and DOs who need refreshers can take workshops offered by Harvard Medical School to learn OMT. I do not believe that this option is offered for physicians to learn chiropractic manipulation. Thank you for your inquiries and should you have any other queries - go to www.osteopathic.org and some of your misconceptions may be cleared up there.

Here is a study to help backup some of my statements.

The Use of Osteopathic Manipulative Treatment as Adjuvant Therapy in Children With Recurrent Acute Otitis Media

Miriam V. Mills, MD; Charles E. Henley, DO, MPH; Laura L. B. Barnes, PhD; Jane E. Carreiro, DO; Brian F. Degenhardt, DO

Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2003;157:861-866.

Objective To study effects of osteopathic manipulative treatment as an adjuvant therapy to routine pediatric care in children with recurrent acute otitis media (AOM).

Study Design Patients 6 months to 6 years old with 3 episodes of AOM in the previous 6 months, or 4 in the previous year, who were not already surgical candidates were placed randomly into 2 groups: one receiving routine pediatric care, the other receiving routine care plus osteopathic manipulative treatment. Both groups received an equal number of study encounters to monitor behavior and obtain tympanograms. Clinical status was monitored with review of pediatric records. The pediatrician was blinded to patient group and study outcomes, and the osteopathic physician was blinded to patient clinical course.

Main Outcome Measures We monitored frequency of episodes of AOM, antibiotic use, surgical interventions, various behaviors, and tympanometric and audiometric performance.

Results A total of 57 patients, 25 intervention patients and 32 control patients, met criteria and completed the study. Adjusting for the baseline frequency before study entry, intervention patients had fewer episodes of AOM (mean group difference per month, -0.14 [95% confidence interval, -0.27 to 0.00]; P = .04), fewer surgical procedures (intervention patients, 1; control patients, 8; P = .03), and more mean surgery-free months (intervention patients, 6.00; control patients, 5.25; P = .01). Baseline and final tympanograms obtained by the audiologist showed an increased frequency of more normal tympanogram types in the intervention group, with an adjusted mean group difference of 0.55 (95% confidence interval, 0.08 to 1.02; P = .02). No adverse reactions were reported.

Conclusions The results of this study suggest a potential benefit of osteopathic manipulative treatment as adjuvant therapy in children with recurrent AOM; it may prevent or decrease surgical intervention or antibiotic overuse.

Osteopathic Manipulation to Prevent Otitis Media—Does It Work?

Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2003;157:852-853.

ALTERNATIVE AND complimentary therapies for acute otitis media (AOM) are of growing interest to physicians and parents. Osteopathic manipulation treatment (OMT) is a frequently used alternative therapy for AOM among practitioners trained and skilled in the technique. In this issue of ARCHIVES, Mills et al1 introduce the allopathic community to the modalities applied by osteopathic physicians as treatment for AOM and their effect on outcomes. Using a randomized controlled trial design, the investigators looked for differences in frequency of AOM episodes, surgical procedures with tympanostomy tubes, and surgery-free months. Among children prone to having AOM who received OMT vs control subjects across 6 months of intervention, small but statistically significant differences were found favoring OMT.

 

[beachbunny]

So basically, I had used my words very carefully when I stated the trails have demonstrated the efficacy of OMT in pediatric patients presenting with otitis media. I never made a claim that OMT would solely cure the infection; furthermore, I would NEVER claim that OMT is solely indicated in any of the conditions that you describe above; infact there are a few up there in which certain procedures should never be used. Although OMT specialists have found somatic "lesions" if you will which correlate to those conditions, I don't think any one of them will claim that OMT will cure such diseases. So if a chiropractor claims that he is going to magically cure patients with said conditions, he infact is a "quack". However, DOs (also defined as Medical Doctors), do not make such claims so I hope that clears up that concern.

I can argue, however, that patients presenting with acute ear infections do have lymphatic back up and by facilitating the clearance of the lymph fluid, you could conceivably shorten the course of infection for the patient. Of course, to supplement this type of a treatment, it would only make sense to prescribe augmentin or amoxicillin to the patient as well. However, monotherapy with either treatments may lead to an extended course of infection while combination therapy (Rx + OMT) has been shown to shorten the duration of disease. (I've attached some literature)

Lastly, DOs and MDs are alike in that they are FULL PHYSICIANS who can practice everything from prescribing medications to performing surgery. Chriopractors are not, so to put DOs in a catagory between chriporactors and allopathic physicians is incorrect.

Not all DOs practice OMT as it depends on their scope of practice. For example, a neurosurgeon will almost never use any of his OMT background during his routine scope of practice and neither will a psychiatrist; however if a DO is in family practice or internal medicine may be more apt to performing OMT on patients presenting with musculoskeletal complaints. No osteopathic physician will ever claim OMT as a "cure all" remedy but may often use it in adjuvant with conventional pharmacotherapy where it applies. This is why MDs and DOs who need refreshers can take workshops offered by Harvard Medical School to learn OMT. I do not believe that this option is offered for physicians to learn chiropractic manipulation. Thank you for your inquiries and should you have any other queries - go to www.osteopathic.org and some of your misconceptions may be cleared up there.

Here is a study to help backup some of my statements.

The Use of Osteopathic Manipulative Treatment as Adjuvant Therapy in Children With Recurrent Acute Otitis Media

Miriam V. Mills, MD; Charles E. Henley, DO, MPH; Laura L. B. Barnes, PhD; Jane E. Carreiro, DO; Brian F. Degenhardt, DO

Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2003;157:861-866.

Objective To study effects of osteopathic manipulative treatment as an adjuvant therapy to routine pediatric care in children with recurrent acute otitis media (AOM).

Study Design Patients 6 months to 6 years old with 3 episodes of AOM in the previous 6 months, or 4 in the previous year, who were not already surgical candidates were placed randomly into 2 groups: one receiving routine pediatric care, the other receiving routine care plus osteopathic manipulative treatment. Both groups received an equal number of study encounters to monitor behavior and obtain tympanograms. Clinical status was monitored with review of pediatric records. The pediatrician was blinded to patient group and study outcomes, and the osteopathic physician was blinded to patient clinical course.

Main Outcome Measures We monitored frequency of episodes of AOM, antibiotic use, surgical interventions, various behaviors, and tympanometric and audiometric performance.

Results A total of 57 patients, 25 intervention patients and 32 control patients, met criteria and completed the study. Adjusting for the baseline frequency before study entry, intervention patients had fewer episodes of AOM (mean group difference per month, -0.14 [95% confidence interval, -0.27 to 0.00]; P = .04), fewer surgical procedures (intervention patients, 1; control patients, 8; P = .03), and more mean surgery-free months (intervention patients, 6.00; control patients, 5.25; P = .01). Baseline and final tympanograms obtained by the audiologist showed an increased frequency of more normal tympanogram types in the intervention group, with an adjusted mean group difference of 0.55 (95% confidence interval, 0.08 to 1.02; P = .02). No adverse reactions were reported.

Conclusions The results of this study suggest a potential benefit of osteopathic manipulative treatment as adjuvant therapy in children with recurrent AOM; it may prevent or decrease surgical intervention or antibiotic overuse.

Osteopathic Manipulation to Prevent Otitis Media—Does It Work?

Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2003;157:852-853.

ALTERNATIVE AND complimentary therapies for acute otitis media (AOM) are of growing interest to physicians and parents. Osteopathic manipulation treatment (OMT) is a frequently used alternative therapy for AOM among practitioners trained and skilled in the technique. In this issue of ARCHIVES, Mills et al1 introduce the allopathic community to the modalities applied by osteopathic physicians as treatment for AOM and their effect on outcomes. Using a randomized controlled trial design, the investigators looked for differences in frequency of AOM episodes, surgical procedures with tympanostomy tubes, and surgery-free months. Among children prone to having AOM who received OMT vs control subjects across 6 months of intervention, small but statistically significant differences were found favoring OMT.

👍

 

[Raven Feather]

Dont give me that BS.

Back massage does NOTHING over the long term to change nerve firing or reflexes. Its temporary only. Any long term effects shown in studies are corrupted by the placebo effect. 99% of back pain goes away on its own, which means that SMT/OMT is just temporary "relief"

The TEMPORARY changes you see in reflexes and nerve firing is the same whether you to a massage therapist or a DO or a chiropractor. SMT/OMT is pure bunk

So would otits media (assuming it not be "malignant"--like pseudomonas can sometimes cause--and I don't mean cancer) according to research conducted in the UK and published a few years back (I think it was in JAMA). Regardless, doctors still prescribe antibiotics and for your example, skeletal muscle relaxants.

 

[Jaynine]

so essentially you're saying there is no difference, right?

I'm not sure exactly why you think it's a loaded question. In Canada we don't have osteopaths, they're not legally recognized here. Therefore, I've never been to an osteopath, I don't really know much about the profession, and I've never really heard about osteopathy until I visited this site. I'm just curious to know the difference between osteopathic manipulation, and chiropractic manipulation. Judging by the first 2 responses I received, I guess I won't find my answer here.

Chiropractors are an off-shoot of osteopaths (like they are an off-shoot of MDs). I remember learning the history from this man at an osteopathic school. The first chriopractors were DO's who just wanted to specialize in manipulation and take it further.

Osteopaths basically can do the manipulation but tend to be in a more hospital environment with the ability to treat and prescribe medication.

 

[OSUdoc08]

Chiropractors are an off-shoot of osteopaths (like they are an off-shoot of MDs). I remember learning the history from this man at an osteopathic school. The first chriopractors were DO's who just wanted to specialize in manipulation and take it further.

Osteopaths basically can do the manipulation but tend to be in a more hospital environment with the ability to treat and prescribe medication.

Check out this article about the origins of chiropractic and osteopathic medicine (here is an exerpt):

"Still continued to practice medicine and teach at Kirksville. During these early years, it has been recorded that a gentleman by the name of Palmer visited Still and spent a little bit of time with him. The next thing anyone knew, Palmer was back up in Iowa where he "discovered" chiropractic."

http://www.medicine-in-motion.com/Osteopathic_medicine.htm

There is also some information comparing the two fields.

 

[BMW19]

Seems like a pretty objective article by Dr. Pearson, D.O.!!! Never claimed that Chiro was all that original. If anything that just gives them more credibility. In fact, if you are claiming that chiros are Quacks and they took all of their foundations from a D.O. then where does that leave D.O.s?

BMW-

Check out this article about the origins of chiropractic and osteopathic medicine (here is an exerpt):

"Still continued to practice medicine and teach at Kirksville. During these early years, it has been recorded that a gentleman by the name of Palmer visited Still and spent a little bit of time with him. The next thing anyone knew, Palmer was back up in Iowa where he "discovered" chiropractic."

http://www.medicine-in-motion.com/Osteopathic_medicine.htm

There is also some information comparing the two fields.

 

[macman]

Seems like a pretty objective article by Dr. Pearson, D.O.!!! Never claimed that Chiro was all that original. If anything that just gives them more credibility. In fact, if you are claiming that chiros are Quacks and they took all of their foundations from a D.O. then where does that leave D.O.s?

BMW-

Your logic is faulty

So by your logic, all chiro research done by D.C.'s is suspect? all medical articles by M.D.'s a problem for you?.....come on!

If you want to attack the article, attack it on substance

I know some argue here that chiro is the red headed step child of osteopathy , maybe it is, but each profession has to stand on its own two feet today. Osteopathy is very different now, and allopathy was prescribing poisons then! I'm not sure what point is you make there.

 

[OSUdoc08]

Seems like a pretty objective article by Dr. Pearson, D.O.!!! Never claimed that Chiro was all that original. If anything that just gives them more credibility. In fact, if you are claiming that chiros are Quacks and they took all of their foundations from a D.O. then where does that leave D.O.s?

BMW-

Touchy, touchy.

No need to personally attack me. I never said anything about chiropractors being "quacks." I simply said that they are not physicians, which is a fact. I never once made a comment about the efficacy of their techniques, as I believe their techniques are very similar as D.O.'s.

As far as "where does that leave D.O.'s?," well they have the same training and qualifications as M.D.'s, so it leaves them where they are.

P.S. Why be so pro-DC and anti-DO? You obviously gave up DC to become a DO for a reason.

 

[Huntr]

What is your problem? Go back to the allopathic forum.

Dont give me that BS.

Back massage does NOTHING over the long term to change nerve firing or reflexes. Its temporary only. Any long term effects shown in studies are corrupted by the placebo effect. 99% of back pain goes away on its own, which means that SMT/OMT is just temporary "relief"

The TEMPORARY changes you see in reflexes and nerve firing is the same whether you to a massage therapist or a DO or a chiropractor. SMT/OMT is pure bunk

 

[BMW19]

where is the personal attack? Are you Dr. Pearson? LOL. I am anything but anti-DO in fact I think it is a perfect marriage of the principles that I learned from chiropractic and the tools that all MD's have. I am anti-chiro bash And I get "touchy" when DO's specifically bash them. As you showed above we developed from similar backgrounds.

Macman,

You obviously have not been following the thread. Re-read the posts from the beginning and you will see where my logic comes from. The thread began with the a poster asking about the diff. btwn DO and Chiro. Some people gave good responses. Others began to bash chiros. And others still said chiros were not physicians since they could never deliver babies or do surgery. I have already proven OSUdoc wrong on that account as they are considered physicians in Oregon and Iowa. Maybe not DO or MD but labeled "chiropractic physicians" nonetheless. Then OSUdoc posted an article eluding to the fact that Chiros stole manipulation from A.T. Still. Therefore I thought it appropriate to bring the argument full circle by stating that D.C's are considered quacks and not physicians, HOWEVER according to some they are a direct offshoot of Osteopathic (not that I agree with that). Hence my logic that if chiros are Quacks=DO's that still use the same techniques that Still used in the 1800's should be considered quacks as well. By the way I AM PRO DC AND PRO DO, just trying to make a point.

BMW-

Touchy, touchy.

No need to personally attack me. I never said anything about chiropractors being "quacks." I simply said that they are not physicians, which is a fact. I never once made a comment about the efficacy of their techniques, as I believe their techniques are very similar as D.O.'s.

As far as "where does that leave D.O.'s?," well they have the same training and qualifications as M.D.'s, so it leaves them where they are.

P.S. Why be so pro-DC and anti-DO? You obviously gave up DC to become a DO for a reason.

 

[OSUdoc08]

where is the personal attack? Are you Dr. Pearson? LOL. I am anything but anti-DO in fact I think it is a perfect marriage of the principles that I learned from chiropractic and the tools that all MD's have. I am anti-chiro bash And I get "touchy" when DO's specifically bash them. As you showed above we developed from similar backgrounds.

Macman,

You obviously have not been following the thread. Re-read the posts from the beginning and you will see where my logic comes from. The thread began with the a poster asking about the diff. btwn DO and Chiro. Some people gave good responses. Others began to bash chiros. And others still said chiros were not physicians since they could never deliver babies or do surgery. I have already proven OSUdoc wrong on that account as they are considered physicians in Oregon and Iowa. Maybe not DO or MD but labeled "chiropractic physicians" nonetheless. Then OSUdoc posted an article eluding to the fact that Chiros stole manipulation from A.T. Still. Therefore I thought it appropriate to bring the argument full circle by stating that D.C's are considered quacks and not physicians, HOWEVER according to some they are a direct offshoot of Osteopathic (not that I agree with that). Hence my logic that if chiros are Quacks=DO's that still use the same techniques that Still used in the 1800's should be considered quacks as well. By the way I AM PRO DC AND PRO DO, just trying to make a point.

BMW-

Sorry. You did not disprove me. They do not have all of the licensure rights as an MD and a DO do. The scope of practice is LIMITED. You even AGREED with me on this.

So,

P.S. There is no argument about the fact that Palmer visited Still prior to "founding" Chiropractics. It actually happened. I never made any allusion that anyone is a "quack."

 

[BMW19]

The argument was not about full practice rights It was about being "physicians" which they are considered. I will continue to resurrect the dead horse until this thread is dead!! I never accused you of saying chiros were quacks there were others.

B-

Sorry. You did not disprove me. They do not have all of the licensure rights as an MD and a DO do. The scope of practice is LIMITED. You even AGREED with me on this.

So,

P.S. There is no argument about the fact that Palmer visited Still prior to "founding" Chiropractics. It actually happened. I never made any allusion that anyone is a "quack."

 

[OSUdoc08]

The argument was not about full practice rights It was about being "physicians" which they are considered. I will continue to resurrect the dead horse until this thread is dead!! I never accused you of saying chiros were quacks there were others.

B-

lol not FULL physicians

I don't care anything about partial physicians

let the beating continue....shouldn't you be studying or something?

 

[BMW19]

Next you'll say that craniosacral works!! LOL just kidding....

lol not FULL physicians

I don't care anything about partial physicians

let the beating continue....shouldn't you be studying or something?

 

[OSUdoc08]

Next you'll say that craniosacral works!! LOL just kidding....

There is an MD pediatrician in town who uses it successfully on all of her patients.

I'm not going to use it ever, so don't even go there.

 

[FS-Pro]

Check out this article about the origins of chiropractic and osteopathic medicine (here is an exerpt):

"Still continued to practice medicine and teach at Kirksville. During these early years, it has been recorded that a gentleman by the name of Palmer visited Still and spent a little bit of time with him. The next thing anyone knew, Palmer was back up in Iowa where he "discovered" chiropractic."

http://www.medicine-in-motion.com/Osteopathic_medicine.htm

There is also some information comparing the two fields.

What a small world, Dr. pearson is my primary care physician right now.

 

[macman]

where is the personal attack? Are you Dr. Pearson? LOL. I am anything but anti-DO in fact I think it is a perfect marriage of the principles that I learned from chiropractic and the tools that all MD's have. I am anti-chiro bash And I get "touchy" when DO's specifically bash them. As you showed above we developed from similar backgrounds.

Macman,

You obviously have not been following the thread. Re-read the posts from the beginning and you will see where my logic comes from. The thread began with the a poster asking about the diff. btwn DO and Chiro. Some people gave good responses. Others began to bash chiros. And others still said chiros were not physicians since they could never deliver babies or do surgery. I have already proven OSUdoc wrong on that account as they are considered physicians in Oregon and Iowa. Maybe not DO or MD but labeled "chiropractic physicians" nonetheless. Then OSUdoc posted an article eluding to the fact that Chiros stole manipulation from A.T. Still. Therefore I thought it appropriate to bring the argument full circle by stating that D.C's are considered quacks and not physicians, HOWEVER according to some they are a direct offshoot of Osteopathic (not that I agree with that). Hence my logic that if chiros are Quacks=DO's that still use the same techniques that Still used in the 1800's should be considered quacks as well. By the way I AM PRO DC AND PRO DO, just trying to make a point.

BMW-

BMW- I have been following. You may notice if you look back that I have defended chiros more than once on this thread. You have not answered my last comments. Motivation is not the same as logic. I get your motivation, I don't get the logic. I will refund your 25 cents. 😛 Please try again....

 

[BMW19]

Ok Macman,

Lets go thru this step by step so you can see my logic
The thread started with a poster asking the difference between DO and chiro (which I knew was going to be "time to bash chiro time")

OMMfellow proceeded to respond- "...more techniques, not just cracking the spine"

Mysophobe said- "....feel safe going to a DO" meaning chiros are not safe and later said "chiros are quacks"

KrazyKritter- "chiros are not physicians"
Osudoc- "....can never deliver a baby or do surgery"
(I disproved both of these statements- In Oregon they are physicians and can deliver babies and do minor surgery, though that does not make them an MD)

You said you were not bashing but went on to say_ "chiro schools have low admission standards and several schools are diploma mills" (which you have no evidence to back up your statements) You went on to say that we "have a lesser understanding of Sacral/Pelvic mechanics (again no evidence to back up this statement)

Uacharya- "DO's more sophisticated, chiros just crack and pop...."

Jaynine- "chiros are just an offshoot of osteopaths...."

Osudoc- posts an article on how DD Palmer stole manipulation from the DO's

So now that you have "followed all the posts" tell me how it is a fair assessment. Also tell me how my logic is faulty, considering how many people said that chiro is an offshoot of DO. We use very similar techniques yet chiros are quacks and don't understand mechanics. DO's still use techniques founded in the 1800's yet they don't get labeled quacks, only chiros.

Who has the faulty logic?

BMW-

BMW- I have been following. You may notice if you look back that I have defended chiros more than once on this thread. You have not answered my last comments. Motivation is not the same as logic. I get your motivation, I don't get the logic. I will refund your 25 cents. 😛 Please try again....

 

[macman]

Ok Macman,

Lets go thru this step by step so you can see my logic
The thread started with a poster asking the difference between DO and chiro (which I knew was going to be "time to bash chiro time")

OMMfellow proceeded to respond- "...more techniques, not just cracking the spine"

Mysophobe said- "....feel safe going to a DO" meaning chiros are not safe and later said "chiros are quacks"

KrazyKritter- "chiros are not physicians"
Osudoc- "....can never deliver a baby or do surgery"
(I disproved both of these statements- In Oregon they are physicians and can deliver babies and do minor surgery, though that does not make them an MD)

You said you were not bashing but went on to say_ "chiro schools have low admission standards and several schools are diploma mills" (which you have no evidence to back up your statements) You went on to say that we "have a lesser understanding of Sacral/Pelvic mechanics (again no evidence to back up this statement)

Uacharya- "DO's more sophisticated, chiros just crack and pop...."

Jaynine- "chiros are just an offshoot of osteopaths...."

Osudoc- posts an article on how DD Palmer stole manipulation from the DO's

So now that you have "followed all the posts" tell me how it is a fair assessment. Also tell me how my logic is faulty, considering how many people said that chiro is an offshoot of DO. We use very similar techniques yet chiros are quacks and don't understand mechanics. DO's still use techniques founded in the 1800's yet they don't get labeled quacks, only chiros.

Who has the faulty logic?

BMW-

BMW- I noticed you left the following out of your summary:


Quote:
Originally Posted by mysophobe
Chiropractors are quacks. I saw one for my neck pains once--never again.

macman replies:

I thought we decided to avoid this type of banter-you are kidding I hope. btw-ever seen a bad MD/DO or rotated with one, if not you will. No profession is immune....
macman is online now Edit/Delete Message


My main problem with your logic was that since a D.O. wrote the article, it was somehow less credible-I do not think you have answered that yet.

Are you seriously going to argue with me on the assertion that D.C. schools have admission standards much lower than D.O./M.D.? In terms of knowledge of sacral/pelvis mech., my basis for that is my personal interaction with several seasoned chiro's, who attended different schools, who openly told me I knew a much more detailed assessment and many more treatment options. Anectdoctal, yes, but it is what it is.

Finally, I do not know why you throw all these other peoples' quotes at me ( and chose to omit the ones made by me that refute your thesis)....your statements have to stand on their own two feet, and you can find any thread where folks throw around wild statements. On this thread I have called, more than once, for no bashing of chiros, I show one example above. I'm sure you can locate the others. 😀

Your logic is still faulty IMHO.

 

[BMW19]

I don't know how else to go about this with you so I will respond to each of your statements one by one:

You are taking my posts personally when I never made it personal. I was just pointing out that you made deragatory comments as well as the others, since you were patting yourself on the back about being chiro supporter.



My main problem with your logic was that since a D.O. wrote the article, it was somehow less credible-I do not think you have answered that yet.

I never said the article was not credible, only that it was not OBJECTIVE again go back and read the posts. I was pointing out that it was not to objective for a DO to be writing an article on the founder of Chiro stealing manipulation from the osteopaths! If a DC wrote that Still stole manip from DD Palmer I would have to say that that is not objective either since none of us were around then!

Are you seriously going to argue with me on the assertion that D.C. schools have admission standards much lower than D.O./M.D.? In terms of knowledge of sacral/pelvis mech., my basis for that is my personal interaction with several seasoned chiro's, who attended different schools, who openly told me I knew a much more detailed assessment and many more treatment options. Anectdoctal, yes, but it is what it is.

I never said that DC admission standards were up to MD/DO. I think the big prob. here is that you put words in my mouth! I was just pointing out that while you are the champion of chiropractic on this thread, you pointed out the low admission standards and inferior lack of knowledge about Sacro-Iliac mechanics (based on your extensive experience with DC's).

Finally, I do not know why you throw all these other peoples' quotes at me ( and chose to omit the ones made by me that refute your thesis)....your statements have to stand on their own two feet, and you can find any thread where folks throw around wild statements. On this thread I have called, more than once, for no bashing of chiros, I show one example above. I'm sure you can locate the others. 😀

Again you are taking all of this personally. Remember I never singled you out, you pointed out my "faulty logic" first. I used the quotes to show you the basis for my posts, that is it. And are you seriously going to try and defend an article in which a DO claims that chiros stole manipulation from them! You are telling me that if I think that is not objective, then it is faulty logic! Thanks for my 25 cents back!!BMW-

A

Your logic is still faulty IMHO.[/QUOTE]

 

[Krazykritter]

First of all...I have lived in Iowa my entire life and never heard a chiro called a physician and I don't understand your theory that they are limited physicians. Yes, all physicians have a certain scope of practice, but what physician has limitations on everything from not being able to prescribe meds to limiting treatment modalities to manipulation? Even DO's who specialize in manipulation supplement w/ pharmaceuticals should they find it necessary.

Secondly, I have nothing personally against chiros. I just think that the majority of them (that I have met anyway) don't understand their scope and think they know more than they do.

Case in point -- I was doing sports med stuff at a wrestling meet...I was down on another mat w/ a certified trainer. At the other side of the gym a kid goes down w/ a knee injury and by the time we get there, some guy is kneeling by the kid's side. Trainer asks the guy if he was a doctor, and of course he says, "Yes." So the trainer watches the guy look at the kid's knee while this douche bag is doing all kinds of ridiculous **** to his knee. At some point the trainer asks this guy, "What kind of doctor are you?"
"I'm a chiropracter."
We tell the guy to go sit down since he had obviously never dealt w/ a knee before and had no clue as to what an Apley or drawer test was.

Bottom line...all people can be idiots, but why falsely advertise yourself? We had a limited amount of injury time and this ***** was just getting in the way. A family practice physician (MD/DO) recommends sports injuries to orthopods. Part of being a physician is knowing who to send to a specialist and who you can treat. In my experience, this doesn't seem to be a consideration w/ DC's.

 

[macman]

I don't know how else to go about this with you so I will respond to each of your statements one by one:

You are taking my posts personally when I never made it personal. I was just pointing out that you made deragatory comments as well as the others, since you were patting yourself on the back about being chiro supporter.



My main problem with your logic was that since a D.O. wrote the article, it was somehow less credible-I do not think you have answered that yet.

I never said the article was not credible, only that it was not OBJECTIVE again go back and read the posts. I was pointing out that it was not to objective for a DO to be writing an article on the founder of Chiro stealing manipulation from the osteopaths! If a DC wrote that Still stole manip from DD Palmer I would have to say that that is not objective either since none of us were around then!

Are you seriously going to argue with me on the assertion that D.C. schools have admission standards much lower than D.O./M.D.? In terms of knowledge of sacral/pelvis mech., my basis for that is my personal interaction with several seasoned chiro's, who attended different schools, who openly told me I knew a much more detailed assessment and many more treatment options. Anectdoctal, yes, but it is what it is.

I never said that DC admission standards were up to MD/DO. I think the big prob. here is that you put words in my mouth! I was just pointing out that while you are the champion of chiropractic on this thread, you pointed out the low admission standards and inferior lack of knowledge about Sacro-Iliac mechanics (based on your extensive experience with DC's).

Finally, I do not know why you throw all these other peoples' quotes at me ( and chose to omit the ones made by me that refute your thesis)....your statements have to stand on their own two feet, and you can find any thread where folks throw around wild statements. On this thread I have called, more than once, for no bashing of chiros, I show one example above. I'm sure you can locate the others. 😀

Again you are taking all of this personally. Remember I never singled you out, you pointed out my "faulty logic" first. I used the quotes to show you the basis for my posts, that is it. And are you seriously going to try and defend an article in which a DO claims that chiros stole manipulation from them! You are telling me that if I think that is not objective, then it is faulty logic! Thanks for my 25 cents back!!BMW-

A

Your logic is still faulty IMHO.

[/QUOTE]


You still have not explained why that article is wrong, or in what way, only pointing out the degree of an author.

I do not feel personally attacked by you-I have enjoyed our discussion and feel that while we will never agree, it has been fun and educational.

I do not consider myself a champion of chiro, but I do know many who are superb clinicians and feel that calling them 'quacks', or whatever, is totally uncalled for. I think you, unfortunately, have found yourself on the receieving end of a lot of anti-chiro sentiment, and frankly, you have some of your D.C. colleagues to blame-seems like a lot of folks here have run into chiro's engaging in questionable practices. That is not fair to you or the profession, but that's why the expression: "A few bad apples...." got started.

While I'm on a tangent, DO's will have a similar problem if we open schools faster than we figure out who will teach them and train them. I'm not saying the new schools are diploma mills, they are probably all great, but at some point our profession has to figure out if we are serious about being 'osteopathic' (whatever that means today) and having enough quality training spots for our grads. I obviously need some sleep......

 

[BMW19]

Wow, I can't believe how many times I have to explain this to a physician!!! OSUdoc put up the article as some kind of evidence that chiros stole manipulation from A.T. Still (the founder of Osteopathy). I simply said that the article should be taken with a grain of salt because it was written by a DO. It's like saying that the Yankees stole Babe Ruth- it depends who you ask a Yankee fan or a Red Sox fan!! I never said the article was bad, less credible, crappy, or wrong!! Simply that it was not OBJECTIVE. I don't know if I can explain this in any simpler manner. You can disagree all you want, that does not make my logic faulty.

I don't think you have paid attention to the fact that I am a chiropractor WHO IS IN DO SCHOOL! I have support for both professions. I also feel like I have a right to comment on both. I have been thru both curriculums (well 9 months of DO, but some of it anyway).

KrazyKritter,

9/10 chiropractors will know exactly what Drawer tests are for (by the way Lachman's is the other test that you do). You obviously met the one who didn't. Do a search for how many NFL/NBA/NHL have team chiros. Do you think they hire them because they don't know how to do a test for a torn ligament! As far as not knowing that chiros are considered physicians in Iowa simply type "Iowa board of chiropractic physicians" into a google search.... you will have your answer.

BMW-





You still have not explained why that article is wrong, or in what way, only pointing out the degree of an author.

I do not feel personally attacked by you-I have enjoyed our discussion and feel that while we will never agree, it has been fun and educational.

I do not consider myself a champion of chiro, but I do know many who are superb clinicians and feel that calling them 'quacks', or whatever, is totally uncalled for. I think you, unfortunately, have found yourself on the receieving end of a lot of anti-chiro sentiment, and frankly, you have some of your D.C. colleagues to blame-seems like a lot of folks here have run into chiro's engaging in questionable practices. That is not fair to you or the profession, but that's why the expression: "A few bad apples...." got started.

While I'm on a tangent, DO's will have a similar problem if we open schools faster than we figure out who will teach them and train them. I'm not saying the new schools are diploma mills, they are probably all great, but at some point our profession has to figure out if we are serious about being 'osteopathic' (whatever that means today) and having enough quality training spots for our grads. I obviously need some sleep......[/QUOTE]

 

[OSUdoc08]

Wow, I can't believe how many times I have to explain this to a physician!!! OSUdoc put up the article as some kind of evidence that chiros stole manipulation from A.T. Still (the founder of Osteopathy). I simply said that the article should be taken with a grain of salt because it was written by a DO. It's like saying that the Yankees stole Babe Ruth- it depends who you ask a Yankee fan or a Red Sox fan!! I never said the article was bad, less credible, crappy, or wrong!! Simply that it was not OBJECTIVE. I don't know if I can explain this in any simpler manner. You can disagree all you want, that does not make my logic faulty.

I don't think you have paid attention to the fact that I am a chiropractor WHO IS IN DO SCHOOL! I have support for both professions. I also feel like I have a right to comment on both. I have been thru both curriculums (well 9 months of DO, but some of it anyway).

KrazyKritter,

9/10 chiropractors will know exactly what Drawer tests are for (by the way Lachman's is the other test that you do). You obviously met the one who didn't. Do a search for how many NFL/NBA/NHL have team chiros. Do you think they hire them because they don't know how to do a test for a torn ligament! As far as not knowing that chiros are considered physicians in Iowa simply type "Iowa board of chiropractic physicians" into a google search.... you will have your answer.

BMW-






You still have not explained why that article is wrong, or in what way, only pointing out the degree of an author.

I do not feel personally attacked by you-I have enjoyed our discussion and feel that while we will never agree, it has been fun and educational.

I do not consider myself a champion of chiro, but I do know many who are superb clinicians and feel that calling them 'quacks', or whatever, is totally uncalled for. I think you, unfortunately, have found yourself on the receieving end of a lot of anti-chiro sentiment, and frankly, you have some of your D.C. colleagues to blame-seems like a lot of folks here have run into chiro's engaging in questionable practices. That is not fair to you or the profession, but that's why the expression: "A few bad apples...." got started.

While I'm on a tangent, DO's will have a similar problem if we open schools faster than we figure out who will teach them and train them. I'm not saying the new schools are diploma mills, they are probably all great, but at some point our profession has to figure out if we are serious about being 'osteopathic' (whatever that means today) and having enough quality training spots for our grads. I obviously need some sleep......

[/QUOTE]

The article was not originally written by a D.O.

P.S. You abandoned the D.C. profession for a reason. Chill out.

 

[BMW19]

I am cool as a cucumber. Just as Macman said, I am enjoying a debate and eagerly awaiting his response......


B-



The article was not originally written by a D.O.

P.S. You abandoned the D.C. profession for a reason. Chill out.[/QUOTE]

 

[macman]

BMW-

If you question the objectivity of an author, you are questioning the quality and validity of that article. If you keep up your chirade of double talk and voodoo of course you won't make any sense to me. You also seem convinced that I cannot read. It is safe to assume that since I can write...

Of course I know you are a D.O. student, again, I have been following. What I can't always follow is the primrose path that you create out of thin air on a regular basis. 😱

You are descending from illogical to insane....

 

[mysophobe]

I said they're quacks because they are. Obviously, you have realized this on some level and have chosen to become a D.O. Welcome to the light. My opinion (which, by the way, is an opinion) comes from personal experience. I've gone to them for neck and back pain, and they made it worse. I was better off when I was doing nothing.

 

[Taus]

its not quite fair to paint w/ such a wide brush...there are good DC's and bad DC's.....in the years before I knew what a DO was I went to a DC for neck/back pain and was satisfied w/ the outcomes. On one occasion, after a few weeks of treating a problem w/ my neck, he did the right "non-quack" thing and said I should really go see a physician....as my problem was not getting better w/ manipulation.....that is the definition of a good DC in my opinion...

 

[Jaynine]

Ok Macman,

Lets go thru this step by step so you can see my logic
The thread started with a poster asking the difference between DO and chiro (which I knew was going to be "time to bash chiro time")

OMMfellow proceeded to respond- "...more techniques, not just cracking the spine"

Mysophobe said- "....feel safe going to a DO" meaning chiros are not safe and later said "chiros are quacks"

KrazyKritter- "chiros are not physicians"
Osudoc- "....can never deliver a baby or do surgery"
(I disproved both of these statements- In Oregon they are physicians and can deliver babies and do minor surgery, though that does not make them an MD)

You said you were not bashing but went on to say_ "chiro schools have low admission standards and several schools are diploma mills" (which you have no evidence to back up your statements) You went on to say that we "have a lesser understanding of Sacral/Pelvic mechanics (again no evidence to back up this statement)

Uacharya- "DO's more sophisticated, chiros just crack and pop...."

Jaynine- "chiros are just an offshoot of osteopaths...."

Osudoc- posts an article on how DD Palmer stole manipulation from the DO's

So now that you have "followed all the posts" tell me how it is a fair assessment. Also tell me how my logic is faulty, considering how many people said that chiro is an offshoot of DO. We use very similar techniques yet chiros are quacks and don't understand mechanics. DO's still use techniques founded in the 1800's yet they don't get labeled quacks, only chiros.

Who has the faulty logic?

BMW-

I in addition said they wanted to SPECIALIZE in manipulation and go FURTHER. I never said they were quacks if that is what you are incinuating (since you so selectively chose to quote part of me). I was just giving the knowledge that I was given in hopes to help differentiate the two. I believe chiropractors are in great need, especially since D.O.'s in a medical environment due to health care restraints can't always do manipulation. And over time Chiros have become their own seperate entity as has D.O.s from M.D.s

 

[BMW19]

Macman,

If you want to get personal we can, I was trying not to. This whole argument stemmed from your idiotic statement which was this:

So by your logic, all chiro research done by D.C.'s is suspect? all medical articles by M.D.'s a problem for you?.....come on!

You cannot hide behind your "eloquent" writing. How in any way does me saying that I didn't think the author was being objective mean that all reserch done by DO's is suspect? You cannot back this statement up because I never implied that! You are the one that is creating an argument out of thin air! I never said, implied or assumed what you said in your above statement. I simply said that I felt that he was biased, as a DO saying that DC's stole manipulation from AT Still. How does that possibly equate to I question the validity of ALL DO'S! Again you have the faulty logic. You may know your SI joint mechanics, but your debate skills are suffering!!

Taking the Primrose path,

BMW-

BMW-

If you question the objectivity of an author, you are questioning the quality and validity of that article. If you keep up your chirade of double talk and voodoo of course you won't make any sense to me. You also seem convinced that I cannot read. It is safe to assume that since I can write...

Of course I know you are a D.O. student, again, I have been following. What I can't always follow is the primrose path that you create out of thin air on a regular basis. 😱

You are descending from illogical to insane....