Wikidrama?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Mr Kenobi

Mr Kenobi

Jedi Member
10+ Year Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2012
Messages
1,492
Reaction score
1,012
Points
5,316
Location
Tatooine
Members do not see this ad.
So I was recently interested in what our old reliable pal Wikipedia said about our profession and decided to check it out.:naughty: Now let me start by saying that I have read the DO/OMM wiki subject pages in the past but when I got there this time I was surprised to see that quite a few additions and edits had taken place to both the doctor of osteopathic medicine and osteopathic manipulative medicine articles. As I dug deeper I realized there is a "talk" page for these articles where the "editors" can discuss the edits that are taking place. There is a link at the top of the page that says talk. Appears that there is some serious dissension among the ranks and the back and forth made for an interesting read. Almost reminded me of pre-allo.

Now normally this wouldn't really rustle my jimmies, but wikipedia is the first place a lot of people go for information now a days (think future/current patients & most everyone in between) and the negatively biased additions towards DOs/OMM on an informational resource as big as wikipedia is awful publicity for us. Some of the additions are from the likes of Quackwatch.com and other articles like that really controversial Forbes magazine article. I remember that Forbes article "Osteopaths vs Doctors" being pretty bad and getting a bunch of negative feedback in the comments section.

Anyhow, I just thought I'd shine a light on whats going on over there so ya'll can check it out when you get a chance or a care.

Here is the main articles doctor of osteopathic medicine link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_of_Osteopathic_Medicine

Here is the talk page (from the topic Quackwatch on down it gets interesting):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk😀octor_of_Osteopathic_Medicine

Here is a subsection that addresses "Fringe" topics, like pseudoscience stuff, where the conversation sort of spilled over into:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:FT/N

...and I assume you can all wikipedia "osteopathic manipulative medicine" and see the additions to that article if you are so inclined.

Enjoy!
 
I'm trying so hard to stop it, but my jimmies are getting exquisitely rustled right now. I don't think I'll be able to handle looking at these ******ed discussions.

I mean, I could understand if DO's learned MD curriculum minus something, or if OMM replaced something MD's learn, but OMM is a supplement! You don't go up to a pharmacist with a side interest in integrative medicine and dispute the validity of their PharmD.

And what's with this trend of jokesters that know nothing about medicine questioning medical degrees? They probably write these articles and make these edits after telling their kids they can become a pediatric neurosurgeon 4 years after high school like Sally's daughter did.
 
Seriously, how can you trust a website that any 10-year-old in Berzerkistan can edit? There is a reason colleges don't allow Wikipedia as a source.

Having said that, maybe the AOA should hire an intern to patrol the osteo pages. Recent scandals have shown that the website is constantly manipulated by ad agencies, reputation management companies, and people with an agenda.

(The comments on this MIT article are worth reading: http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/520446/the-decline-of-wikipedia/)
 
Last edited:
They even fudged the conclusion of the AOA-ACGME discussions. That's what happens when anyone can edit these pages.
 
Ya, it is pretty bad. As I read more in-depth it seems there is one user in specific that is really doing most of the editing and pushing for OMM to be labeled as a fringe practice…in turn making DOs sound like giant quacks. Looks like they even recently added OMM to the list of pseudosciences on wikipedia...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_topics_characterized_as_pseudoscience again quoting the author of that horrendous Forbes magazine article. I hate to admit it, but I really think that having this crap all over wikipedia is no bueno for the profession. Obviously most of the information is incorrect but it has a severely negative tone making DOs look like inferior physicians. If a lay person was to read these articles, I doubt many would walk away wanting to see a DO for their health issues.
 
Mr Kenobi said:
Ya, it is pretty bad. As I read more in-depth it seems there is one user in specific that is really doing most of the editing and pushing for OMM to be labeled as a fringe practice…in turn making DOs sound like giant quacks. Looks like they even recently added OMM to the list of pseudosciences on wikipedia...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_topics_characterized_as_pseudoscience again quoting the author of that horrendous Forbes magazine article. I hate to admit it, but I really think that having this crap all over wikipedia is no bueno for the profession. Obviously most of the information is incorrect but it has a severely negative tone making DOs look like inferior physicians. If a lay person was to read these articles, I doubt many would walk away wanting to see a DO for their health issues.
Click to expand...

i hate to be that guy...but what makes OMM not a pseudoscience? the wikipedia entry for OMM under the pseudoscience category seems pretty fair to me.

"Osteopathic manipulative medicine (OMM) or osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) – the core technique of osteopathic medicine. OMM is based on a philosophy devised by Andrew Taylor Still (1828–1917) who held that body had self-regulating mechanisms that could be harnessed through manipulating the bones, tendons and muscles. It has been proposed as a treatment for a number of human ailments including Parkinson's disease, pancreatitis, and pneumonia but has only been found to be effective for lower back pain by virtue of the the spinal manipulation used.[237][238][239] It has long been regarded as rooted in "pseudoscientific dogma".[240] In 2010 Steven Salzberg referred to the OMT-specific training given by osteopathic colleges as "training in pseudoscientific practices"
 
Forbes is god aweful

....i can gauge people intelligence if they mention a forbes article...by that i mean, lack of
 
SurgeDO said:
i hate to be that guy...but what makes OMM not a pseudoscience? the wikipedia entry for OMM under the pseudoscience category seems pretty fair to me.

"Osteopathic manipulative medicine (OMM) or osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) – the core technique of osteopathic medicine. OMM is based on a philosophy devised by Andrew Taylor Still (1828–1917) who held that body had self-regulating mechanisms that could be harnessed through manipulating the bones, tendons and muscles. It has been proposed as a treatment for a number of human ailments including Parkinson's disease, pancreatitis, and pneumonia but has only been found to be effective for lower back pain by virtue of the the spinal manipulation used.[237][238][239] It has long been regarded as rooted in "pseudoscientific dogma".[240] In 2010 Steven Salzberg referred to the OMT-specific training given by osteopathic colleges as "training in pseudoscientific practices"
Click to expand...

See that source there at the bottom of that paragraph…Steven Salzberg…have you read any of his thoughts on DOs and osteopathic medicine before? Links to sources like that shouldn't be in an "encyclopedic" articles where a lot of people pull their information from.http://www.forbes.com/sites/sciencebiz/2010/10/27/osteopaths-versus-doctors/ --Just incase you have never seen that. (The comments on that article are pretty entertaining read as well.)

Besides that (and besides the fact that you are being that guy:naughty:), whoever is making all of these edits seems to have an agenda if you are to read through all of the DO related articles on WP and take note of the numerous mentions of quackery and psuedoscience that have been recently added.

Did you check out the "talk" page on the Doctor of osteopathic medicine article on WP?
 
costales said:
Seriously, how can you trust a website that any 10-year-old in Berzerkistan can edit? There is a reason colleges don't allow Wikipedia as a source.
Click to expand...

...you mean besides the fact that you shouldn't be using secondary sources (like encyclopedias) anyways in college?
 
Boy it is getting heated on that talk page lol. Nerds.
 
Mr Kenobi said:
Ya, it is pretty bad. As I read more in-depth it seems there is one user in specific that is really doing most of the editing and pushing for OMM to be labeled as a fringe practice…in turn making DOs sound like giant quacks. Looks like they even recently added OMM to the list of pseudosciences on wikipedia....
Click to expand...

OMT is largely pseudoscience.
Just because DOs incorporate mainstream medicine in their practice doesn't change that.
 
wanna_be_do said:
OMT is largely pseudoscience.
Just because DOs incorporate mainstream medicine in their practice doesn't change that.
Click to expand...

Yep...but just because DOs learn OMM in school for a couple hundred hours on top mainstream medicine doesn't make them quacks--which seems to be the viewpoint of a lot of the folks in that talk page.
 
Mr Kenobi said:
Yep...but just because DOs learn OMM in school for a couple hundred hours on top mainstream medicine doesn't make them quacks--which seems to be the viewpoint of a lot of the folks in that talk page.
Click to expand...

True that. Not to mention, the people on that page are probably not even med students- MD or DO- so yeah, they can go blather all they want.
 
Don't you think it's a bit of a stretch to cover all of OMM with the "pseudoscience" blanket? A bit naive to think that all things fit into pretty neat little boxes of categorization where everything is so black and white? Or to brush things off completely when more inquiry and investigation is necessary? Closed minds usually are not those that spark change and improvement.

That said, there are aspects of OPP that have a nice dose of pseudoscience mixed in. It's just asinine using this reality to disregard the rest in such an absolute manner.
 
Dharma said:
Don't you think it's a bit of a stretch to cover all of OMM with the "pseudoscience" blanket? A bit naive to think that all things fit into pretty neat little boxes of categorization where everything is so black and white? Or to brush things off completely when more inquiry and investigation is necessary? Closed minds usually are not those that spark change and improvement.

That said, there are aspects of OPP that have a nice dose of pseudoscience mixed in. It's just asinine using this reality to disregard the rest in such an absolute manner.
Click to expand...

I guess I don't think it's a stretch. Look at this from a different perspective: think about someone like Alex Jones or Jesse Ventura. They have CRAZY conspiracy theories that they subscribe to, but SOME of their political commentary is spot-on. The informed/general public will disregard their accurate commentary, because it is spouted from a conspiracy theorist. In other words, if you wanted to propagate a sensible idea, you wouldn't use Alex Jones as your messenger. The same is true with OMM, IMO. Even if some lower back pain can be treated with OMT, if you want it to be taken as not "pseudoscience" you need to remove it from the OMM category.

At the end of the day though, it really won't matter if you call it pseudoscience or not, the vast majority of you won't use it in practice, and if a field like chiropractic can be so successful, and patients have good outcomes, who cares what you call it?
 
MaxillofacialMN said:
I guess I don't think it's a stretch. Look at this from a different perspective: think about someone like Alex Jones or Jesse Ventura. They have CRAZY conspiracy theories that they subscribe to, but SOME of their political commentary is spot-on. The informed/general public will disregard their accurate commentary, because it is spouted from a conspiracy theorist. In other words, if you wanted to propagate a sensible idea, you wouldn't use Alex Jones as your messenger. The same is true with OMM, IMO. Even if some lower back pain can be treated with OMT, if you want it to be taken as not "pseudoscience" you need to remove it from the OMM category.

At the end of the day though, it really won't matter if you call it pseudoscience or not, the vast majority of you won't use it in practice, and if a field like chiropractic can be so successful, and patients have good outcomes, who cares what you call it?
Click to expand...

I agree. I see this even from our own OPP professors. We have one professor who consistently presents "out there" theories and it has reached the point where the second he opens his mouth, the chuckles start, and pretty much everything he says is either disregarded or just not heard, regardless of how good or bad the information is. Then there is another who presents his lectures from a purely anatomical and physiological perspective, i.e. in very much a mechanical manner without any hocus pocus involved. People listen to him. Problem is, like you alluded to, the "voices" of the pro-OMM enclave tend to be the former of the above examples.
 
Apart from cranial, nothing I have studied in OMM is intrinsically pseudo-scientific. Almost all of it has basic, direct anatomic-physiologic correlation. The issue is when instructors and authors try to go beyond the scope of the actual manipulation and infer "out there" correlations and unverifiable claims. Could OMM use more "scientific research" behind it? Sure. But to me that really seems kind of frivolous because if its putting the anatomy back where it belongs and feels best, what's the point? There are plenty of recognized areas of medicine that do this same simple thing but we don't require research articles to prove its efficacy because frankly it's just common sense.
 
Mosonik said:
Apart from cranial, nothing I have studied in OMM is intrinsically pseudo-scientific.
Click to expand...

There is more pseudoscience to OMT than just cranial/craniosacral therapy.
The concept of the somatic dysfunction, at the core of much of osteopathic 'theory', is pseudoscientific nonsense.
 
Mosonik said:
Apart from cranial, nothing I have studied in OMM is intrinsically pseudo-scientific. Almost all of it has basic, direct anatomic-physiologic correlation. The issue is when instructors and authors try to go beyond the scope of the actual manipulation and infer "out there" correlations and unverifiable claims. Could OMM use more "scientific research" behind it? Sure. But to me that really seems kind of frivolous because if its putting the anatomy back where it belongs and feels best, what's the point? There are plenty of recognized areas of medicine that do this same simple thing but we don't require research articles to prove its efficacy because frankly it's just common sense.
Click to expand...
isn't that what pseudoscience is? "science" without evidence?
 
Science vs. "osteopathic theory":

the-scientific-method.jpg
 
I actually enjoy engaging you all on this issue but I feel like we may go in circles due to most of your perspectives on medicine. Have any of you learned/read/studied anything about the history of medicine? To conclude that much of osteopathic philosophy, including that of somatic dysfunction, is pseudoscience on the basis of a lack of quantifiable data is a fallacy to me. Whether you have recognized it before or not what you are defending is an age old approach to medicine and health that promotes the idea that everything must be quantifiable (which is what I was referring to with my comment on research which is totally based on that). Now don't get me wrong I am not saying to practice careless medicine or to do ANYTHING that endangers or puts at risk a patient but OMT has not only not done this but people generally like it (especially soft tissue, muscle energy, etc) even if it doesn't "heal" them overnight.
What I am basically getting at though is that to me, pseudo-science, false science, is based on what contradicts good medical care/practice. While OMT may lack an abundance of quantifiable data it is by no means contradicting conventional medicine today. I personally feel that typical approach, which most defend as more factual, is actually much shallower and an easier approach to health since it doesn't consider the integration of multiple aspects of a person. People know this too, it is why so many are dissatisfied with much of modern medical practice and care and why they are constantly switching providers, just looking for someone who is going to see the physiology of the body but also beyond that.

And let me point out, this approach is neither present in all DOs or absent from many MDs but what it is, is lacking from too many practitioners
 
Mosonik said:
To conclude that much of osteopathic philosophy, including that of somatic dysfunction, is pseudoscience on the basis of a lack of quantifiable data is a fallacy to me.
Click to expand...

It is in no way fallacious, its called the scientific method. There is no proof that any of OMT is beneficial other than as a placebo effect. Although the placebo effect doesn't necessarily harm people, it is still irresponsible and potentially dangerous to claim that some form of medical treatment works when it is only in the person's head. The presence of OMT in the osteopathic world seems to only exist as a way for the AOA to differentiate itself from the allopaths. As for the history of medicine, in the 19th century allopathic medicine used to involve bloodletting and other questionable procedures (which one could argue, sparked the creation of osteopathic medicine), but these practices were dissolved over time because they either had no evidence to support the benefits or they found the practices to be detrimental to the patient. Now that we are in the 21st century, allopathic and osteopathic medicine are almost exactly the same thing except for the implementation of OMT. OMT is comparable to the 19th century allopathic practices and I believe it will eventually be dissolved like the many questionable procedures before it.
 
SurgeDO said:
i hate to be that guy...but what makes OMM not a pseudoscience? the wikipedia entry for OMM under the pseudoscience category seems pretty fair to me.

"Osteopathic manipulative medicine (OMM) or osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) – the core technique of osteopathic medicine. OMM is based on a philosophy devised by Andrew Taylor Still (1828–1917) who held that body had self-regulating mechanisms that could be harnessed through manipulating the bones, tendons and muscles. It has been proposed as a treatment for a number of human ailments including Parkinson's disease, pancreatitis, and pneumonia but has only been found to be effective for lower back pain by virtue of the the spinal manipulation used.[237][238][239] It has long been regarded as rooted in "pseudoscientific dogma".[240] In 2010 Steven Salzberg referred to the OMT-specific training given by osteopathic colleges as "training in pseudoscientific practices"
Click to expand...


Yep, pretty accurate IMO
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom