Talk:Osteopathy

Nomenclature
The sentence in the lead, "People practicing osteopathy are referred to as osteopathic practitioners" is inaccurate and contradicts two of the cited sources (the link to the third source appears to be dead). Non-physician, manipulation-only practitioners of osteopathy are referred to as osteopaths. Doctors of Osteopathic Medicine are referred to as osteopathic physicians. This is stated in the sources as well as the American Association of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine's website (http://www.aacom.org/become-a-doctor/about-om/US-vs-abroad). Both call themselves "DO's". In the United States, osteopaths are prohibited from referring to themselves as "DO's" to avoid being confused with osteopathic physicians.SympatheticResonance (talk)

Bias article ignoring current osteopathic practice
It is interesting that you frame osteopathy in such a derogatory light whereas the Wikipedia on Physiotherapy praises it as an evidence based form of complementary medicine. Are you aware that Osteopaths in Australia complete a 5 year double degree and treat/manage patients using education, exercise rehabilitation and manual therapy techniques based on the most current biopsychosocial model. Almost identically to how physios treat and manage patients however you will claim that Osteopathy is Pseudoscience. If you are worried about citations there is plenty of peer reviewed evidence that education in combination with exercise helps manage conditions 202.7.239.156 (talk) 10:51, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You need to read more carefully. You're at a different article than where you should be. We split up the subject of osteopathy into two main articles, and this article is for the alternative medicine/quackery practice originally started by Still, with no modernization or updating in accordance with modern scientific and medical knowledge.
 * You need to follow the links at the top of the article. Here they are: Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine and Osteopathic medicine in the United States. There you will see we document how modern osteopaths with real scientific training and degrees are classified as full-fledged, evidence-based, physicians. You mention that "Osteopaths in Australia complete a 5 year double degree". Do we mention that in any of our articles? If not, that should be fixed. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 16:30, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I see your point however, Australian Osteopaths aren’t physicians, they are classified as Osteopathic practitioners who are regulated under the same board as MD’s but did not complete med school. They either have a double degree bachelor of health science/applied science (osteopathy) or a bachelor of health science with a masters in Osteopathy. Hence it doesn’t fit under the title DO as we aren’t technically Doctors in Australia so don’t come under the other wiki page that you alluded to. However we are given the title Dr as an honory title which is rarely used by practitioners in Australia and can cause confusion. Non physician Osteopaths within NZ and Aus are regulated under a strict board and throughout the uni curriculum are only taught the highest level of available evidence and the skills in which to critically analyse the current medical evidence to proves patients with evidence based care. The article above alludes to the profession as an absolute quack and doesn’t acknowledge the science/health background of the course and how we have completely changed from the older irrelevant teachings of A still to the most current available evidence pertaining to musculoskeletal injuries 202.7.239.156 (talk) 22:12, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * That's very interesting. That should be described in an article here, with proper sourcing. As far as "The article above alludes to the profession as an absolute quack...", that won't change, and this article is not about Australian and New Zealand osteopaths, although, without an article on their educational and licensing status, people could get confused. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 22:21, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Well that’s my point, the article is misleading as readers will assume that Australian Osteopaths practice Pseudo-science based on this article. It’s quite disappointing considering Osteopaths spend a large portion of there education doing rigours training on pain science, neuroscience, exercise rehab, biomechanics, physiology and anatomy to be told that their profession is pseudo-science. It would be less misleading if that article was split into ‘Historic Osteopathy’ and then an article reflecting modern Osteopathy. I guarantee if I search Doctor or Surgery on Wiki it doesn’t talk about all the dodgy outdated procedures they did 200 yrs ago in the intro 202.7.239.156 (talk) 22:47, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, in the article you focus solely on OMT as our core technique. That is incorrect, it is only one technique that is sometimes used depending on clinical reasoning. You’ve mislead readers into thinking that Osteoapaths only do OMT similar to Chiro which is a fallacy. I’m happy to provide you with references supporting the other techniques we use such as Isometric contractions, exercise rehabilitation, joint articulation, assisted stretching, myofascial release, patient education, general nutritional and lifestyle advice and ergonomic evaluation 202.7.239.156 (talk) 22:55, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * In summary this article is extremely outdated and misleading. This does not reflect the professions views in any way and seems like an attempt to spread misinformation about a profession. It’s very unfortunate that you would look down on a profession as pseudo science even though it is covered under private health insurance and even government funded public health as an allied health profession that works closely with MD doctors in collaborative management of patients. If you search Osteoapthy Australia or AHPRA and look at Osteopathy and it’s role you’ll see a clear idea that it is inline with modern medicine and rejects the outdated notions of Still 202.7.239.156 (talk) 23:01, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Instead of arguing with you, I think it would be more constructive if you turn your energies toward improving the section about Australia. Use good sources and document the stuff that isn't mentioned. Maybe after that's done it will be easier to figure out a better approach. I'd like to see a list of the modalities you use. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 00:57, 18 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I don’t see an Australian section within the article. I can list the modalities in order and then cite them with for and against evidence. Once that’s done hopefully you’ll consider reframing the tone in the intro. I also noticed myotherapy is considered allied health on wiki, but Osteoapthy isn’t even though we are classified by the governing body and government health department as. Is there a reason for this ? 220.253.143.109 (talk) 03:06, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The Australian section is quite informative. It is more the introduction and image used that doesn’t make sense. The image is outdated and not a technique used by our profession. As for being classified pseudo-science that is a reach. Is there evidence to prove that exercise, education and manual therapy has no therapeutic benefit, I highly doubt. You’ve mainly just spoken about OMT which is one small aspect. Same as if I wrote an article about clinical psychiatry and only talked about labotomies in the intro and used a photo of one in the intro. I will post the current research supporting Osteoapthy as complementary medicine and hopefully then you will reconsider its current classification as ‘pseudo science’ which isn’t supported by any health governing body 220.253.143.109 (talk) 03:14, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I completely agree that the entry is inaccurate and misleading. Osteopaths in the U.K. are trained, insured and statutorily regulated. The Osteopaths Act 1993 is an Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom to regulate the practice of osteopathy. It received royal assent on 1 July 1993 and thus created the General Osteopathic Council. The Title of osteopath is protected in the U.K. and all osteopaths must be registered with The General Osteopathic Council, completing 30 hours of CPD per year in order to retain registration. Each student of osteopathy must complete an undergraduate training of a minimum of 4 years full time training to obtain a bachelor degree in osteopathy.
 * To claim that it is a pseudo science is misleading and does not reflect the rigorous training that osteopaths undergo.
 * In the article it is suggested that Dr AT Still was some sort of idiot for suggesting that the body can heal itself or that the body had connections that ran throughout the body. We now have, amongst others, the dissections of Tom Myers’s Anatomy Trains [isbn 9780702078132] which illustrate the fascial connections, and anyone who has ever scratched themselves know that the body does in fact heal itself.
 * Frankly I am beyond irritated with this article and the way that any editing is reversed by editors who clearly either do not have any osteopathic insight or who feel threatened by the efficacy with which osteopaths work. Saltpie (talk) 16:58, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It's a pseudoscience alright, per the sources. Because something's available "on the NHS" doesn't negate that (there are still some pockets of the NHS were homeopathy is available, I believe). The osteopathic lesion may have had its uses as a concept back in the day, but anybody holding Still's beliefs to be scientific today is truly rocking the woo. Bon courage (talk) 05:03, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Osteopathy is a recognised by the NHS as an Allied Health Profession in the UK
To allow this article to remain, with the first statement describing osteopathy as a 'pseudoscience', is unjustified and damaging to a recognised and valuable profession, and to the patients we support. Please see the following links https://www.england.nhs.uk/ahp/role/ https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/osteopathy/ 88.202.147.91 (talk) 18:00, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Please see Talk:Osteopathy/Archive 4. Osteopathy and Osteopathic medicine are two different things. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:04, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Osteopathy is regulated in the UK (where there is no DO). NICE recommend it for manual therapy, but all the other more woo-y stuff is unsupported. Bon courage (talk) 18:24, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Requested change to the opening paragraph of this article
Please could you change the opening paragraph:

Osteopathy (from Ancient Greek ὀστέον (ostéon) 'bone', and πάθος (páthos) 'pain, suffering') is a pseudoscientific system of alternative medicine that emphasizes physical manipulation of the body's muscle tissue and bones.

To remove the word 'pseudoscientific' so that it reads:

Osteopathy (from Ancient Greek ὀστέον (ostéon) 'bone', and πάθος (páthos) 'pain, suffering') is a system of alternative medicine that emphasizes physical manipulation of the body's muscle tissue and bones.

The reasons the word should he removed are as follows:

- There are no other significant recognised healthcare professions listed on wikipedia which are described in this way. So it appears that Osteopathy has been unfairly singled out for a description which could be construed as making it equivalent to less reputable pseudoscientific medicine. Equivalent professions to Osteopathy include Chiropractic, Physiotherapy and Massage. - There are no other reputable online references which define Osteopathy using this word. - Non-American Osteopaths qualify with a 4 year university degree which includes many identical subjects to those learned by the medical profession including anatomy, physiology, pathology and pharmacy. So using the word 'psuedoscientific' as the opening description is misleading and inaccurate. - The opening paragraph also states that Osteopathy is an alternative medicine, which is sufficient in itself to allow the reader to understand that it sits apart from the central body of standard medical practice. Jonathan Boxall (talk) 13:57, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It's pseudoscience according to the article, and per WP:PSCI that needs to be flagged up prominently. Bon courage (talk) 14:01, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * "- There are no other significant recognised healthcare professions listed on wikipedia which are described in this way. So it appears that Osteopathy has been unfairly singled out for a description which could be construed as making it equivalent to less reputable pseudoscientific medicine. Equivalent professions to Osteopathy include Chiropractic, Physiotherapy and Massage."
 * Chiropractic is described as pseudoscientific in it's summary and twice in the introduction. Physiotherapy isn't pseudoscientific. Massage isn't necessarily pseudoscience. MaligneRange (talk) 17:16, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Multi-Center Osteopathic Pneumonia Study in the Elderly - MOPSE
Study showed: Decreased length of stay in the hospital of approximately 1 day Decreased duration of IV ABx Decreased tachypneic resp rate Decreased incidence of respiratory failure Decreased incidence of death

Please include this in the efficacy area. 66.252.200.62 (talk) 14:36, 23 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Sounds like primary research, so not WP:MEDRS. Bon courage (talk) 14:50, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Canada
it says it's not government regulated, then it says you need to register in private schools. If it's not regulated, you don't need any education, and could just teach yourself or make it up as you go... 64.110.254.75 (talk) 20:19, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Training requirements
Died of breast cancer, recently. And I learned she spent her time seeing an Osteopath, and the Article doesn't have prominently displayed something like REQUIRED EDUCATION. How much education does it take for some random quack to call himself "doctor"? A two-year degree? A course by mail from a matchbook cover? A certificate from some university in Belize? What's the difference in education between a medical doctor and this form of quack?2603:8081:3A00:30DF:FD49:B5B5:CF6D:BC59 (talk) 02:49, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Per WP:NOTAFORUM, I changed the section header, from "Quack Medicine and a Dead Friend". The issue of more content on education requirements is a reasonable one, so I wanted to leave that here. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:28, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This is the wrong article. Here are the proper articles: Osteopathic medicine in the United States and Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 18:39, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * But I wonder whether it would be useful here to have anything more about the lack of training requirements? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:45, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The "criticism" section deals with some of the problems. The issue is when certain methods are used for conditions where modern medicine is more appropriate. For example, OMT / HVLA manipulation is not an appropriate treatment for allergies and asthma. It may have some limited legitimacy for certain musculoskeletal complaints of a purely mechanical nature. Note that "limited"!! Modern DOs recognize this, and that's why very few of them continue to use OMT at all. They have learned of its limitations and the superior results from modern medicine. Some osteopaths still "over" depend on OMT, and we rightly call them quacks. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 00:43, 27 May 2024 (UTC)