Information icon.svg Results for the 2023 RationalWiki Moderator Election have now been posted. Thank you for participating in this election, and congratulations to the winners!


From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to 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...)--User:Brxbrx/sig 00:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Change in tone at the end[edit]

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)

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

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)


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)

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

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: / 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.

Real world problem[edit]

I have a real world problem with this article. I was doing some paperwork today, and found out that all three of my physicians (general pract, ob-gyn, and endocrinologist) happen to have OD and not MD behind their name. In 10 years at kaiser, going at least 5 times a year to my gp, and once to the other two, not once have they every suggested any physical manipulation of the body. no once have they given me exercises to work on that were not directly related to the issue at hand (i had my gen pract give me something for carpel tunnel, and my obgyn taught me some stomach exercises for a personal thing). My endocrinologist gives me synthroid and nothing else... we should really think about "real world practicies" vs. "what they do", when it's pretty much NOT what at least 3 do. anyone else have any experience in this?Green mowse.pngGodot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability 00:48, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

My experience (here in the western U.S.) is the same as yours. Our local clinic has MDs and DOs and you can't tell them apart.
The problem is that osteopathy means very different things in different countries. I tried to get at this by adding the sentence "In the United States, a Doctor of Osteopathy (DO) is for almost all purposes indistinguishable from the more conventional Doctor of Medicine (MD)." In other countries osteopathy is much more alt med-ish. There's a discussion of these differences in the Osteopathy article at Wikipedia (so you know it's true). I don't really know enough about the topic to comment in more detail. Doctor Dark (talk) 01:09, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

My friend is a DO, and I will say that in the US the main difference, and possibly only difference, between an MD and a DO is that the MD went to an MD school and the DO went to a DO school. It's true that DO schools are somewhat less prestigious than MD schools, but the difference is not great, and it's rather dubious to judge someone based on the name of their school rather than the years and decades of real world experience, practicing real medicine. Go through the directory of your local hospital; I promise you will find DOs. They are not there because your hospital is interested in alternative medicine. They are there because they are just as capable as a "real" doctor. (talk) 05:30, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

If you would like to amplify or clarify the point, you have the same "edit" button as everyone else. My uncle's DO was converted to an MD when his school changed to a straight medical college. It wouldn't have mattered except for status. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 13:03, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

The thing is in the modern US osteopathy/DO is more of a traditional title associated with certain schools and has nothing at all to do with all this cure by manipulation silliness. Unlike other quackery of the 19th century (cough, chiropractic, cough) the osteopathic tradition came out of the cold a long time ago and practices conventional/real medicine. There is some training in "manipulative medicine" (basically massage) but in modern context this essentially occupies the same space as the white coat ceremony, it's a practice that's important for identity and historical reasons rather than actual medicine. Yes, DO schools tend to be the less prestigious medical schools, and I'm sure a few MDs look down on DOs or make jokes about them, but in practice they're identical.

But like I said, this is only in the US. In every other country the osteopathic tradition never made that transition and should be rightly regarded as quacksterism. --Lyrann (talk) 22:22, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Observations & a question about osteopathy in Australia (and Berlin)[edit]

I have attended a student osteopathy student clinic in Melbourne quite a few times for muscle and tension issues.

In my experience they are essentially physiotherapists (physical therapist). They have a few different techniques, but much of it seems like what what I'd expect a physiotherapist to do. Nothing that seems clearly based on woo, either on my personal contact or in the material I've seen on the website or in the waiting room.

(Differences: I find them often gentler than physiotherapists; and they sometimes do gentle "mobilisation" movements that I wouldn't have expected to achieve anything, but which seem to result in better movement at the relevant joint – whether by placebo or not. But that's a minor part of the work they've done on me.)

Yoga about page for Osteopathy Australia] seems consistent with this.

I've also had one treatment from a physiotherapist in Berlin, who turned out to also be an osteopath. Again, no woo that I could detect – she just treated my back.

Is there evidence to suggest that osteopathy in Australia *is* woo? And Germany? --Chriswaterguy (talk) 12:54, 25 January 2017 (UTC)