Talk:Osteopathy

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Ok, what are we going to do about all the spam on this page? Peter talk, or type, or whatever... 00:40, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

It's protected, so it shouldn't be a problem anymore. Also, I've an article in the works, which I will finish eventually (assuming nobody decides it's off-mission...)--"Shut up, Brx." 00:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Change in tone at the end

The article starts out trying to frame osteopathy as illegitimate, but the last section points to how it might get taken seriously as a type of medical practice. Is there a plan for the article to criticize the medical establishment for legitimizing o-pathy, or is that a contradiction that gets left unaddressed? P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 21:31, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Nobody cares? Alright then, I'll try to make it gel together. P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 01:27, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Osteopathy began as illegitimate, but later assimilated itself into mainstream medicine, at least in the United States. You still have plenty of osteopathic quacks, nevertheless. Basically, osteopaths in the US today (DOs) are grosso modo as good as your basic doctor. I'll be reverting you shortly.--Brxbrx 02:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Ok, if you have a study showing it's legit, provide it. Cause pub med provides nothing. Since the distinction between a regular ol' MD and an osteopath is the manipulation thing, and since THAT IS WOO - he's necessarily practicing woo. --Pink mowse.pngGodot What do cats dream about? 03:01, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

[edit] The intro doesn't really say what it is...

From the way it was written, it sounds like chiropractic med. is it? and if not, why not. --Pink mowse.pngGodot What do cats dream about? 02:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

[edit] D.O.

A DO is not automatically a quack, no more than an MD (well, maybe a little more). Are you people dense? An osteopathic physician does not believe that all disease can be cured by musculoskeletal manipulation. Pay attention, and don't edit if you don't know what you're talking about.--"Shut up, Brx." 03:01, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Need I point out that you're the one who called osteopathy "bullshit" and "cult-like" in your own article? Don't be all pissy to people who are here trying to fix your weak shit. P-Foster Talk "Armed with the knowledge of our past we can charter a course for our future"--MX 03:06, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to think that I made a distinction. Osteopathy and osteopathic physicians have grown apart, particularly in the US, where a DO is mostly indistinguishable from an MD--"Shut up, Brx." 03:09, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
He is automatically a quack, Brx, if he follows osteopathy, even if he is a fully licensed medical doctor. they are not one in the same. There is simply no evidence, anywhere, that manipulating the body cures illness, other than joint and muscle diseases. Because every single osteopath necessarily says "I think that the body's structure is related to how well the body fucntions", because this is a GUIDING PRINCIPAL, it's woo. they all necessarily do woo. they also do medicine.--Pink mowse.pngGodot What do cats dream about? 03:12, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
An osteopathic physician does not believe that all disease can be cured by musculoskeletal manipulation. --"Shut up, Brx." 03:15, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
But he believes that some is. Woo. P-Foster Talk "Armed with the knowledge of our past we can charter a course for our future"--MX 03:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
And every single one thinks that the structure of the body effect the function; that anything you do to one part, effects the whole. otherwise, he is a generic doctor and not an osteopath. What do you think the difference is, Brx, if not what is outlined on their own association?--Pink mowse.pngGodot What do cats dream about? 03:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

[edit] You have no idea what you're talking about...

Some Osteopathic techniques work, some do not. Some treatment modalities are supported by randomized, controlled clinical studies... some are not. Just like medicine as a whole. We do what works for the benefit of patients, not as validated by pure statistics. - foreign trained allopath, current US Osteopathic student — Unsigned, by: 137.52.248.123 / talk / contribs

Feel free to drop the papers corresponding to those particular studies. I do remember osteopathy coming up at a Simon Singh talk a couple of months ago, where a few people were claiming that osteopathy worked and wasn't chiropratic, but weren't terribly specific with their evidence. Scarlet A.pngpostate 18:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
You realize that "validated by statistics" is what allows us to figure out what will "work for the benefit of the patients." If your technique or treatment fails to be validated by experimental trials then using it to treat a patient is a fundamental violation of what it means to be a doctor. It is unethical, immoral, and often illegal. Tmtoulouse (talk) 18:21, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, everyone- doctors and patients alike- would prefer evidence based medicine. But in practice, the threshold for evidence varies by institution and by doctor. I admire your ideal, but in clinical medicine, not everything is clinically supported. Reading the latest JAMA this morning (vol307 #16) the article by Bridget Keuhn on p1681: "Most drugs have never been studied in children, yet physicians often prescribe products studied in adults to children without the benefit of clinical evidence to support the safety and efficacy of the product for the patient's age group and without evidence based information on dosing. Although this off label usage is legal and accepted clinical practice..." This isn't DO vs MD, its physicians across the spectrum, regardless of training.

Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Toolbox
support