Osteopathy

[Avian]

Okay, I'm new to this particular "brand" of "medicine." After I read some stuff about it (including the use of pressure points), my BS alarm immediately went off. I want to learn more.

I was set off by this travelling museum exhibit.

Is there a good skeptical look at this stuff? I went to QuackWatch and read what they have there, but it wasn't pointed enough. Info and opinions welcomed! Thanks in advance,

Avian

 

[GroundStrength]

Not meaning to hijack the thread but...

No doubt that the effects on health that using pressure points brings, but the other side of the coin does work quite well.
I am speaking about the TCM (Traditional Chinese Medicine) model applied to the martial arts. I have personally KO'ed over 100 people
using the acupuncture (we call them kyusho points) points. I have a theory on why it works from a MWM perspective, but it does work.

end of thread hijack...

 

[Avian]

Well, I'm guessing that you are probably pinching off the blood supply to the head through various arteries or some such normal physical response.

In Osteopathy's case, though, I think the pressure points are used for diagnosis. Another warning sign for me is that the practice seems to discourage the use of "heavy" medication use, whatever that means. It just seems like a wolf shrouded in traditional western medicine's clothing.

Avian

 

[GroundStrength]

I dont like the points used for diagnosis. I am starting a thread on Kyusho Jutsu and TCM to avoid hijackinh this one. BTW there are no pinches, these are light force strikes or joint manipulations.

 

[Rolfe]

Against my better judgement, I went to a woman at the gym who does osteopathy. Not a medic or anything, some sort of physiotherapy.

She did something quite useful to my stiff neck, but then went on to something called "cranial osteopathy". Pure, unadulterated BS. It involved very gently moving the skin of my head fractionally with respect to the underlying bone - accompanied by a stream of total nonsense about how she was realigning the sutures of my skull to correct the shape of my head. Obviously nobody had told her that these sutures fuse way before [the age I was then].

Sort of like homoeopathic manipulation, in a way.

Rolfe.

 

[bug_girl]

Are we talking DO, as in doctor of Osteopathy? In the States, they have all the same duties and rights as MDs. in fact, my university has both MD and DO medical schools, and they share surgical and research centers.
I think much of the "manipulation" is bogus, but the training seems to produce a much better rounded person medically. They have a much less go-go-go competitive curriculum than MD programs. The practioners tend to be more interested in the person as a whole.
I would be happier if they had a more critical view of their founding doctor, but---
the doctor (MD and DO) i most admire works in our DO school. she researches pediatric malaria and spends half the year in malawii. (shoot, how do you spend that?) anyway, the woman eats rats all summer while she works on what, in the US, is an orphan disease. (you hold the tail like a popsicle--yum!) amazing woman.
anyway, anecdotal evidence.
i think that each individual determines just how much of a woo they will be. i had an MD that turned out to be one of the biggest Woos of them all.

 

[Avian]

But what of these diagnostic "pressure points" - and this cranial realignment? Sounds like woo-woo stuff taking the place of science to me.

 

[shemp]

My physician is a D.O., and I haven't seen any signs of woowooism from him. He's the best doctor I've ever had.

 

[BTox]

My physician is a D.O., and I haven't seen any signs of woowooism from him. He's the best doctor I've ever had.

But he can't do anything for that mug - how good can he be?

 

[athon]

From what I've read and the few students I've talked too, osteopathy used to be much like a cross between chiropracty an applied kinesthiology. Over time, the practice of it has become somewhat indistinguishable from most modern medical practices. I guess it would be like going to a physiotherapist for your back, where they do physio' type things but refer to a 'doctrine' of chiropracty.

I'm speaking on some pretty limited knowledge here, though - I haven't known any osteopaths personally.

Athon

 

[simong]

I go to an osteopath on a fairly regular basis
(every couple of months-or-so) and if my experiences are anything to go by, then it isn't a load of BS.

Basically what I get is what I assume a physiotherapist would do, but specialising on the back/spine. I suffer from back problems and the treatment consists of massage and (the best bit) forcing my spine to move by putting quite large amount of pressure on various places. The result of this pressure is to make my back make the most horrendous crunches (although it is almost painless). I can certainly vouch for the effectiveness of this sort of osteopathy, based on good old biomechanics.

I'm sure it often can get mixed with homeopathy, circulating your chi, or some-such rubbish, but the basis of proper osteopathy is in manipulation of the spine by the pretty solid method of putting pressure on it to force it to do what it should be doing (although I'm sure you will find people who will claim that where the pressure goes has nothing to do with the structure of the spinal column, but its where your energy is leaking from).

For those suffering spinal problems I can certainly recommend a 'proper' osteopath.

 

[bug_girl]

But what of these diagnostic "pressure points" - and this cranial realignment? Sounds like woo-woo stuff taking the place of science to me.

well, the history of osteo and the current practice are not the same--just as leeches are now only used in special circumstances. i think there is also a big difference from school to school--our DO school is heavily into research. i recently discovered my neuro-opthamologist was a DO! Who knew?

Any DO that talks about getting back to his/her roots, and isn't discussing hair--then i'd watch out.

 

[Rolfe]

I think things vary very much from one country to another. There's no such thing as a DO in Britain, and osteopaths are sort of physiotherapists who do more violent things (I think), but then some of them claim to be able to move your skull sutures with the very tips of their fingers.

What really disturbs me is when they claim to be able to do significant things to the spinal column of the horse. I mean, have you seen these muscles?

Rolfe.

 

[Avian]

I go to an osteopath on a fairly regular basis
(every couple of months-or-so) and if my experiences are anything to go by, then it isn't a load of BS.

I suffer from back problems and the treatment consists of massage and (the best bit) forcing my spine to move by putting quite large amount of pressure on various places. The result of this pressure is to make my back make the most horrendous crunches (although it is almost painless). I can certainly vouch for the effectiveness of this sort of osteopathy, based on good old biomechanics.

This sounds remarkably like chiropracty, which has been proven to be BS with a good dose of placebo effect. What kind of biomechanics do the DOs know that the rest of modern medicine doesn't? From every doctor I've ever heard, applying such pressure and force to your spinal column can do nothing but put you in danger.

I'm not saying you are feeling real relief, but so do the patients who go to chiropractors.

From the responses here, it seems like Osteopathy is pseudoscience getting in under the radar of modern medicine!

Avian

 

[tamiO]

My doctor is an osteopath. I didn't know he was not an MD until the third visit. I picked up the appointment card to call him and was looking over the card as I called. I went and told my husband and we looked it up online. From what I understood,a doctor of osteopathy is an MD who has had further training into the musculo-skeletal system and it's relationship with other systems.

He is the best doctor I have ever had. I have nerve damage and a host of other symptoms which form a chronic pain syndrome. He has never charged me for anything except steroid shots and we visit the sample room often so I can have all my medicines.

I will ask him some questions next time I see him and find out exactly what kind of training he has had and his reasons for becoming an DO

 

[Graham]

I looked into this a little while back because my sister (who, incidentally, has a PHD in neuropsychology and yet somehow believes that Uri Geller is, on balance, probably for real) was seeing an osteopath.

IIRC, they arer properly trained doctors, etc, extra training on the musculo-skeletal system and it's relationship with other systemsa and supposedly additional, emphasis on treating the patient rather than the condition.

It's this last that gets up the nose of regular doctors since DOs, sometimes just by default IMO, tend to insinuate that regular doctors don't care for their patients.

There also seems to be a higher incidence of associated woowooism amongst DOs than regular doctors - offering complementary helaing, that sort of thing - as well as their own personal brand of woowooism - the whole cranial manipulation thing.

Graham

 

[HopkinsMedStudent]

in fact, my university has both MD and DO medical schools, and they share surgical and research centers.

What university is this? I am aware of no university which has both an MD and a DO school. They are separate schools.

I think much of the "manipulation" is bogus, but the training seems to produce a much better rounded person medically.

I dont give much weight to that critique. That seems to be the mantra of many DOs, but I think its just BS marketing.

I'm sure there are individuals with personal anecdotes who feel the way you do, but there are thousands of people also with personal anecdotes about how chiropractic "works" for them.

They have a much less go-go-go competitive curriculum than MD programs.

I'm guessing your DO told you that, which again sounds like pure speculation. DO and MD programs teach the same stuff mostly, except DO programs include a unit on OMM. Most DOs in practice have NOTHING to do with OMT however, so the distinction between DO and MD is largely irrelevant. I saw a study which showed that only 6% of DOs actively practiced OMT.

The practioners tend to be more interested in the person as a whole.

Again, I think this is just a BS marketing ploy. There are individual DOs who people are attracted to, just as there are individual MDs who are much better than DOs. Its a mixed bag either way. I'm highly skeptical of arguments made by DOs that there is some higher level trend or average of DOs that is somehow superior to MDs.

I would be happier if they had a more critical view of their founding doctor, but---

For the most part, DO schools ignore the original thoughts of their founder, Andrew Taylor Still. He had some quack ideas about how the MSK system could cure most/all disease.

In the context of the times though (1800s) many MDs were also quacks back then, so I cant fault him too much. DO programs today use his ideas of preventive medicine, and thats about it. They certainly dont subscribe to his views that surgery is a last result, or that pharmaceuticals should be used only in the most dire circumstances.

i think that each individual determines just how much of a woo they will be. i had an MD that turned out to be one of the biggest Woos of them all.

I agree with you 100% on this. There are MDs who are rather quackish (the guy in Britain who studied MMR and autism comes to mind, as well as the David Riley figure who is a huge proponent of homoeopathy in the US).

I dispute the notion that there is some trend that DOs are better than MDs on average or vice versa for that matter.

Apparently, in Britain, DOs are almost 100% all quacks. Rolfe will have to speak up on this issue. DOs in teh states are largely indistinguishable from MDs.

 

[HopkinsMedStudent]

IIRC, they arer properly trained doctors, etc, extra training on the musculo-skeletal system and it's relationship with other systemsa and supposedly additional, emphasis on treating the patient rather than the condition.

I agree they are properly trained, but again I think this notion that they "treat the whole person" is just nonsense marketing.

Its dependent on the individual practioner, not on whether he has a DO or an MD degree.

 

[Rolfe]

Apparently, in Britain, DOs are almost 100% all quacks. Rolfe will have to speak up on this issue.

There's no such animal as a "DO" in Britain. A doctor is a doctor is a doctor. MB ChB is the usual degree.

"Osteopaths" tend to be attached to sports centres or gyms or the sort of clinic that tries to cater for the chronic back and joint cases that regular medicine often can't do a great deal for. They aren't medically trained but they sometimes have BSc degrees from the sort of red-brick "universities" that were technical colleges 20 years ago. They seem to hover about half way between physiotherapy and woo-woo.

Rolfe.

 

[bug_girl]

What university is this? I am aware of no university which has both an MD and a DO school. They are separate schools.

i pm'ed you with that information. i won't post my location publicly.

I'm guessing your DO told you that, which again sounds like pure speculation....Again, I think this is just a BS marketing ploy.

no, dear, the doctors at my school. the admissions panel that i work closely with, and my own observations after 15 years of advising pre-med students led me to this conclusion. it is, admittedly, observational.

I dispute the notion that there is some trend that DOs are better than MDs on average or vice versa for that matter.

I don't think that's what i said. At least, it's not what i meant to say I think we agree more than we disagree. and it's clear that european DO's are a different animal than US DO's.