“Systematic reviews of controlled clinical studies of treatments used by chiropractors have found no evidence that chiropractic manipulation is effective, with the possible exception of treatment for back pain.[8] A 2011 critical evaluation of 45 systematic reviews concluded that the data included in the study “fail[ed] to demonstrate convincingly that spinal manipulation is an effective intervention for any condition.”[10] Spinal manipulation may be cost-effective for sub-acute or chronic low back pain, but the results for acute low back pain were insufficient.[11] No compelling evidence exists to indicate that maintenance chiropractic care adequately prevents symptoms or diseases.[12]”
It doesn’t have to do with homeopathy. Osteopathy is it’s own pseudoscience alternative medicine and it is what they’re trained as a side to their medical training. They do act like this training somehow makes them more holistic than MDs, but that’s been proven to be largely false and they generally do not use that osteopathic manipulation in their practice.
Some non-doctor osteopaths might use homeopathy, but the basic theory of what osteopathy is remains pseudoscience even when it’s done by DOs.
Osteopathy = Osteopathic.
Thank you, I didn’t realize that homeopathy was not general term - I thought it was a generalized term for alternative medicine that wasn’t eastern medicine, but I was wrong.
Anyway, I do still have some things to clear up for you.
You still seem to think that DOs are spending their 300+ additional hours after the MD learning the pseudoscience, which isn’t the case. Those hours are spent with neurologists, orthopedics, physical therapists, and other fellowships and residencies only provided by the MEDICAL SCHOOL - which would absolutely not allow any pseudoscience within their walls. Yes, they might do very minor manipulation in their practices, but it’s what’s learned through neurologists, physical therapists, or orthopedists, etc. (in addition to their MD residenciea just like the MDs in family practice, OB, surgery, dermatology, oncology, etc). The goal of a DO is to treat a patient as the sum of their parts rather than symptomatically.
Patient-first rather than symptom-first. (DO vs MD)
Osteopathic rather than allopathic. (DO vs MD)
-If I go to an MD with an earache, I’ll have my ear checked out and maybe find nothing wrong but walk out with Prednisone to see if it helps. Prednisone does nothing but make me gain water weight.
-If I go to a DO with an earache, I’ll have my ear checked out and maybe find nothing wrong, but he might think since there was nothing obvious that maybe there’s a nerve pinched near the top of my neck so he’ll have me stand to look at my posture and notice that I’m standing awkwardly with my hips not level, checks out my ankles and realizes I’ve started to lean in on one of my ankles and writes an Rx for a custom insole and exercises to strengthen my ankle. The issue with the ankle was causing my hips to lean, which caused my back to curve the other way to compensate, which pinched a nerve in my neck, which caused an earache. Wear the insole while strengthening the ankle, earache goes away.
(This is a true story of something that happened to me, not an example of every experience with a MD or a DO)
There is nothing precluding and MD from also searching for the underlying cause, but allopathic medicine looks to treat symptoms.
Osteopathy is 100% the movement of muscles and bones and not taught in medical school.
Osteopathy /=/ osteopathic
What you’re describing is a pseudoscience. It’s a pseudoscience that IS allowed in osteopathic medical schools because, you guessed it, they’re osteopathic. It is not evidence based medicine. I understand that DOs proclaim thatt they are more holistic than other practitioners. As I said, studies have shown that is not the case.
https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.7556/jaoa.2014.166/html
https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M22-3723
Edit: To be clear, I’m an RN, and we’re taught a whole hell of a lot more pseudoscience than DO’s are.
I have to ask: what do you think “holistic” means? You’ve said twice (once in each comment I’ve know replied to) that DOs “think they are more holistic than others”
Do you think it relates to holy?
It doesn’t. It means that’s parts of something are interconnected and can only be considered in reference to the whole of itself.
Which is the key difference between osteopathic and allopathic medicine, so of course they believe they are more holistic.
I’m not sure what you were trying to prove with those links. The first explains that while evidence based medicine uses statistics, it is a specific way of using data to determine clinical care - that it can determine the best route of care for the largest group of people that works most of the time, which is great for most people most of the time…but what about when you fall outside that group (my addition - yes, they could try the second choice when the first doesn’t work or the third next, but that takes time and suffering). Whereas DOs consider the the first choice option as well as the outside options by evaluating everything. Consider the story above of my earache. That’s what the link was describing. I’m not sure what you got from it, or what that has to do with being holistic (though considering outside treatment options that might involve other parts of the body would be considered holistic). The thing is, statistics are great to describe how a population reacts to treatments, not an individual. Appendectomies have a 95% success rate, but that doesn’t mean that you have a 95% chance of surviving one. But evidence based treatments are based on the success rates, not the individual - that’s where the patient-first idea come into play, DOs consider the patient as a whole rather than only the statistics when the statistics don’t line up with the patient.
The second link says that healthcare costs between MDs and DOs are similar. Neither is more expensive, neither is less expensive. I’m not sure what that has to do with being holistic (either the actual definition or whatever you may think it means).
You’re making the claim that what I described previously is pseudoscience because a DO saw that my ankle has turned inward and offered ankle strengthening exercises. Ankle strengthening exercises aren’t pseudoscience, there is data behind it - the idea that it could cause ear pain due to the other issues it causes certainly would not be common, but it is explainable. Pseudoscience is something that uses no explanatory reasoning and avoids peer review. DOs routinely publish their findings.
I understand exactly what holistic means, and I provided that outcome based study (and I promise you, if you look in the literature there are many more), to prove that MDs (allopathic medicine) are treating the whole body as well. I provided that horses mouth osteopath description of why they can’t quite match up to evidenced based medicine because it is as hollow as it sounds.
Patronizing me like I don’t know what the words I use mean is incredibly tiresome. I said I was a nurse. One of the key claims of the nursing profession is that we provide holistic care over more medicine focused disciplines. It is horseshit when we say it and it’s horseshit when the osteopaths say it.
I understand that’s what you wanted to show with that article, but that’s not the information that the article provided. That article did not provide any information about either MDs or DOs being holistic or not. It was about the use of statistics in their respective practices. Which is why I questioned knowledge of the definition.
But damn, I hope I never get you as a nurse. I used to teach in one of the top nursing graduate universities in the country, and your attitude is definitely not what we would aim for. Yes, we encouraged away from the pseudoscience and focused on research based approaches, but damn. Osteopathic is different than allopathic, but neither is exclusive to evidence based, nor is either inclusive to it.