Talk:Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine

Doctor of Osteopathic International Practice Rights - Taiwan Section
Hello all,

I noticed there was a recent edit to the Taiwan section of "International Practice Rights" made by an anonymous user. Previously the page said Taiwan recognizes the DO degree, and has unlimited practice rights. Here is the link to an old page from December 2020:

However, the edits made in January 2021 by the anonymous user state the Taiwan does not recognize the DO degree anymore and practice is restricted, with no citations. Would anyone who is part of the American Osteopathic Association/International Osteopathic Alliance be able to confirm this? Thank you very much! 2603:90C8:100:A630:C861:FC3D:1688:D327 (talk) 18:56, 16 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I am not a part of those organizations, but also not aware of information that justifies the change in the content. Seems like something that warrants references. I'll add a citation-needed tag to the change. If it remains unreferenced, then reversing the edit is worthy of consideration and discussion. Rytyho usa (talk)


 * This is a misleading edit as there are practicing DOs in Taiwan such as Dr. Liou as shown here, https://english.tmuh.org.tw/Doctor/Detail/410, though he is listed as an MD, he graduated from NSU with a DO degree

Pseudo-science, or not? Or debatable?
There's been quite a bit of back-and-forth here. So, apparently at some time -- I don't know how far back this was in the the article -- the first sentence of the "History" section had "Osteopathy is a pseudo-science whose practice began in the United States in 1874."


 * 14 May 2021, User:184.4.62.188 removed it ("removed falsehood")
 * 14 May, User:Roxy the dog restored it (no edit summary)
 * 27 May, I removed it again ("doesn't look like this is incontrovertibly true, and other related articles don't say this. If it's arguable there should be a section talking about this rather than a flat statement here")
 * 6 June User:Faucidawg restored it ("not providing a reliable source (WP:CITE, WP:RS)")

So kind a a slo-mo back an forth here. So for one thing, if this is definitely true it should probably go right up in the lede, as we do for dowsing and Phrenology and so on. (Even then we are kind of cautious, more like "X is generally considered a pseudoscience" rather than "X is a pseudoscience").

So let's see... what best describes the statement "Osteopathy is a pseudo-science":
 * 1) Pretty much true, only disputed by meatheads and grifters, or
 * 2) Maybe true, maybe not, reasonable and informed people have different opinions, or
 * 3) Pretty much false, only supported by dunderheads and ideologues?

We need to figure that out, and do that we need to have some sources. I'm not expert or interested in the subject, but you guys are, so let's see some sources. I personally have no opinion on the merits, but I'd say that asking for reliable sources to support removing "Osteopathy is a pseudo-science" is kind of backwards. Generally we use sources to support the adding of existence of statements. Removing "Osteopathy is a pseudo-science" is not the same as adding ""Osteopathy is not a pseudo-science", which would require refs.

And so the other thing is, the bare statement "Osteopathy is a pseudo-science" doesn't fit in with the rest of the article. I mean the rest of the article is "Osteopathy such and so, Osteopathy this and that" as if it was just another boring regular branch of medicine. If it really is pseudo-science, that needs to be brought in front-and-center thruout the article and needs to be a big part of the article, as well as being up in the lede. At the very least, there ought to be a section "Osteopathy as pseudo-science" or something. If there's controversy about it, then we need to have a whole section "Controversy" or something. But a one-off sentence about what, if true, would be an extremely important aspect of the entity, that is only going to have the reader scratching her head. At any rate: refs and sources. Herostratus (talk) 02:58, 7 June 2021 (UTC)


 * This discussion seems sort of pointless, as modern doctors of osteopathic medicine (DO) receive a conventional medical education with an additional course on manipulation in their preclinical years. This is why they have the same graduate medical education (residencies), specializations, and medical licenses as a doctor of medicine (MD). This page does a much better job explaining the history https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osteopathic_medicine_in_the_United_States#History


 * With that being said, calling osteopathic manipulative treatment a pseudoscience is a stretch. Some treatments have a large body of literature supporting them, such as pain relief for low back pain.


 * Other treatments have little to no evidence supporting them, such as cranial manipulation.


 * In any case, i agree that the bare statement "Osteopathy is a pseudo-science" doesn't fit in with the rest of the article. This article is about the American DO degree, which is very different from the practice of osteopathy.


 * OK. No objection having been received, I'll delete it again, subject to further disccussion or editing. Herostratus (talk) 20:31, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

The article hammers the point that they receive real medical training ad nauseam. The fact is, they are chiropractors. Chiropractic is labelled a pseudoscience, and rightly so. Why not osteopathy? 70.29.50.59 (talk) 05:35, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Osteopathic medicine and osteopathy are not synonymous. Osteopathic physicians are not chiropractors. Osteopathy is a separate article. Also, please see WP:NOTFORUM. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 06:43, 16 September 2021 (UTC)


 * The OMM stuff is absolutely textbook pseudoscience; in the USA it's about the only distinctive thing about DOs (vs MDs), as is mentioned in many quality sources. NPOV requires that it be mentioned here too, and WP:PSCI that the mention be prominent. Bon courage (talk) 12:25, 12 November 2023 (UTC)


 * What source? Did you write some textbook on pseudoscience? You are framing skills from a different profession (osteopathy) and their adapted version on a different profession (osteopathic medicine). Physical manipulation is not considered pseudoscience, certainly not on Wikipedia. When this issue has not reached a consensus, why will you declare a set of skills pseudoscience? Editinggnitide69 (talk) 05:32, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Physical therapy without woo (whether that be chiropractic, osteopathic, Rolfing, or whatever flavour of woo) is not pseudoscience. OMM is. Your argument is like saying homeopathy isn't pseudoscience because water is not pseudoscientific. This is explained in the cited sources. As the Novella source says, OM is "pure pseudoscience akin to straight chiropractic". Bon courage (talk) 05:40, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * That source is not enough for you to conclude the whole of 300-500 hours spent on OMM is pseudoscientific. You cannot put OMM under an umbrella. Physical manipulation taught in OMM, especially muscle energy or classical techniques, are part of physical therapy modules. Craniosacral maneuvers developed later has received criticism for being pseudoscientific; this has been discussed in the osteopathy article. This issue has not reached a consensus and is under an active discussion. Please do not make further changes till a consensus is reached. We will restore the old version of this article until it is confirmed that describing the whole as pseudoscientific is what aligns with Wiki standards. Editinggnitide69 (talk) 18:47, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * There is consensus. The sources say what the sources say, and WP:NPOV is not a negotiable policy. I have raised this matter at WP:FT/N. Bon courage (talk) 18:51, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * You have raised the matter in the forum. This doesn’t mean a consensus was reached. I do not see a single comment there. We have provided back and forth many sources that will say that not whole of OMM is pseudoscientific; this page is not going to discuss OMM in-depth either. There are articles about OMM, which we can link in this article. Please keep original form till consensus is reached. Editinggnitide69 (talk) 19:08, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Perhaps comment there then? If you have other sources discussing OMM and pseudoscience then those would be useful. Bon courage (talk) 19:14, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The osteopathic manipulation techniques performed by doctors of osteopathic medicine in the United States has more evidence to show that it can be be an effective form of treatment rather than evidence that shows it is pseudoscientific. It simply is more inaccurate to state that it is pseudoscientific. Lack of sources to prove that it is pseudoscientific. Here are some links that elaborate on OMTs: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8368056/
 * https://www.gavinpublishers.com/article/view/efficacy-of-osteopathic-manipulative-treatment-omt-with-lymphatic-pump-treatment-adjuvant-to-conventional-antibiotic-therapy-in-hospitalized-patients-with-pneumonia-a-systematic-review-of-randomized-controlled-trials-rcts# Eko321 (talk) 05:29, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Fringe/dodgy journals are not reliable sources. For 'pseudoscience' we need sources which directly consider the question of pseudoscience. For wider input, please raise a query at WP:FT/N. Bon courage (talk) 05:33, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You stating that it is a pseudoscience is a fringe theory. I supplied sources that described the benefits and elaborated on osteopathic manipulative medicine. Here is another source that outlines WHY it is NOT a pseudoscience: https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.7556/jaoa.2004.104.10.405/html?lang=en
 * This one is from clevelandclinic: https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/treatments/9095-omt-osteopathic-manipulation-treatment
 * Again, another scientific source showing the benefits with evidence: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9143587/ Eko321 (talk) 05:45, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Those are all weak sources, but the first one directly rebuts your argument, and says of DO training: "I cannot continue to support an antiquated system of healthcare that is based on anecdote or, in some cases, pseudoscience". Efficacy and pseudoscience are different questions, as a purple hat therapy may be effective but bogus. Bon courage (talk) 05:58, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You did not properly analyze the source. That source was a reply to a letter claiming osteopathic manipulative medicine is pseudoscience and it was disputing it, with evidence. Something you have yet to do. I have sifted through many of your replies to find any of the sources you are using to claim osteopathic manipulations are pseudoscience, but it appears you have yet to share one, you just claim "the sources say what the sources say". Frankly, it is quite concerning that you are ready to completely dismiss the legitimacy of a healthcare practice when you are unable to fully read and comprehend a source that says the exact opposite of what you are claiming (with evidence), then continuing on to say that it proves you correct. Eko321 (talk) 06:13, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * From the cited WP:SBM sourceBon courage (talk) 06:54, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * How is an opinion article sufficient evidence? Even the sources page says they often cover fringe topics. This directly from SBM
 * Editors do not consider Science-Based Medicine a self-published source, but it is also not a peer-reviewed publication with respect to WP:MEDRS. Since it often covers fringe material, parity of sources may be relevant.
 * Once again, claiming all of osteopathic manipulation is a fringe opinion and simply incorrect. I have provided scientific sources that factually demonstrate that not all of osteopathic manipulation is pseudoscience and it should be defined more correctly. 2607:B400:24:0:1D62:D89:9E71:F4D (talk) 13:21, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Please sign in when editing articles and/or talk pages. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:26, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it's raving bollocks. Cranial pulses, energy medicine and medical knowledge from the afterlife. Wikipedia isn't going to play down the BS. If you want to promote it, find somewhere else on the web that will play. Bon courage (talk) 13:29, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Lead
The lead currently reads "Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine (DO or D.O.) is a medical degree offered by 37 medical schools in the United States." This is misleading, as was the previous wording "offered by a set of medical schools...".

"Offered by" makes it sound as though it is an option, the way some law schools offer both a JD or an LLM degree. But as far as I know, medical schools offer either MD degrees or DO degrees, and are accredited either by the LCME or the AOACOCA, not both, so it seems correct to describe those that award DO degrees "osteopathic medical schools". --Macrakis (talk) 18:08, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I misread the sequence of edits and self reverted, but please don't feel that you need to take my self-rv as an endorsement of the change. VQuakr (talk) 18:53, 14 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Exactly. The lead of an article should not be confusing. Saying that DO is a "medical degree offered by 37 medical schools" is very confusing because it could mean that some schools offer both an MD and a DO degree. If you insist on avoiding the qualifier "osteopathic", perhaps you can find some other wording. But if I'm not mistaken, those 37 schools call themselves by that name, so what's the problem? Perhaps it is worth mentioning the equivalence of MD and DO training in the lead.


 * But given that they're "equivalent", the glaringly obvious question is: what is the difference between a DO and an MD -- why are they two different degrees? I can't read our users' minds, but that's certainly my first question. I shouldn't have to visit Comparison of MD and DO in the United States to answer this fundamental question. Leads don't normally mention negatives, but perhaps in this case it's worth distinguishing osteopaths and doctors of osteopathic medicine explicitly. --Macrakis (talk) 21:22, 14 December 2021 (UTC)


 * We don’t call medical schools “allopathic” because it is a pejorative term invented by Sam Hahnemann to describe early 19th century heroic medicine. “Allopathy” is not taught in medical schools. There is, however, no reason for not calling osteopathic medical schools by the term that they themselves use. It’s right there in the article title. Brunton (talk) 12:19, 27 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Did you review the discussion above? The problem with "is offered by 37 medical schools" is that it sounds like one school could offer both MD and OD degrees, the way the Harvard Divinity School offers MDiv, MTS, ThM, and MRPL degrees. Also, "in the United States" is less ambiguous than "American". Is the American University of the Caribbean's Medical School (Sint Maarten) "American"? --Macrakis (talk) 21:39, 27 December 2021 (UTC)


 * While I do not object to indicating that the D.O. degree is "offered" by 37 medical schools (any more than I would object to a business school's page stating that the school "offers" an MBA), we could consider stating instead that 37 medical schools in the US "confer" or "grant" the D.O. degree.


 * I also agree that "United States" is much less ambiguous than "American," which could refer to the American continents.


 * The thing is - medical schools can offer both degrees. In fact, there are universities that offer both MD and DO degrees, albeit very few and generally via separate schools/colleges. Nova Southeastern University, University of North Texas, and Michigan State University are examples. I'm not sure that "offered by a set of medical schools in the US" is any better (or worse) than "offered by 37 medical schools in the US." Rytyho usa (talk) 01:34, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * As you say, they are separate medical schools (colleges, faculties) within those universities that offer MD and DO degrees. --Macrakis (talk) 18:11, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

An IP has been reinstating what is essentially one of the edits made by various of the docs socks that were active on this article. It doesn’t seem to me that there is consensus for this change, so I’m going to revert and suggest that they discuss it here. Brunton (talk) 18:02, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * +1 --Macrakis (talk) 18:11, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Now that the protection on the article has expired the IP has returned and started reinstating the edit. Still no consensus for it, and no attempt to engage here. Brunton (talk) 19:24, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

One sided view
This whole article really reads like a pamphlet made by D.O. schools; practically no mention of the drawbacks, difference in career prospects, why they are only recognized in USA (in practice), etc. while articles about M.D.s talk at length about why they suck Xoronako (talk) 02:57, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Inadequate source
"The curricula at DO-granting medical schools are equivalent to those at MD-granting medical schools, which focus the first two years on the biomedical and clinical sciences, then two years on core clinical training in the clinical specialities.[8]" [8] is Kasper, Dennis L., Eugene Braunwald, Anthony S. Fauci, Stephen L. Hauser, Dan L. Longo, J. Larry Jameson, Kurt J. Isselbacher (2004). "Chapter 10. Complementary and Alternative Medicine". Harrison's principles of internal medicine (16th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. ISBN 978-0-07-139140-5.

A textbook, from 2004 no less, isn't accurate or sufficient source to claim curriculum is the same, especially after accreditation changes in 2020/21 90.131.37.154 (talk) 90.131.37.154 (talk) 15:52, 3 June 2024 (UTC)