Talk:Osteopathy/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Keeping the perspective regarding Cranial Osteopathy

Each time I return to this heading I see that the language of the non-believers has crept into this article after less than ten words and fills the entire first paragraph. That is utterly ridiculous. If this continues it will warrant an appeal to the Wiki observers. Thank you.ExecTaxes (talk) 20:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we need to be honest that there is a fault line running through the osteopathic profession and the cranial issue is contentious. It would be wise to refrain from manifesto and reflect the reality of the dispute. It may be comforting to dismiss non believers as invalid, but it means a line has been crossed into faith without reason. If we are to avoid schism in the profession head squeezers and structuralists need to remain in dialogue. Lets no label the 'others' as osteo-infidel and close down dialogue. The parallels with cultish behaviour are perhaps becoming more obvious, will 'cranial' be the basis of reformation and schism? Babbybulldog (talk) 21:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Osteopathy, like chiropracty, is just out and out quackery and should be illegal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.103.110 (talk) 14:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Split from Osteopathic medicine

Please see the To Do talk page Talk:Osteopathy/to_do for remaining tasks to clean up this article, and avoid duplication with Osteopathic medicine when adding new material. apers0n 17:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I am somewhat confused as to why there are separate articles. There certainly isn't for allopathy and allopathic medicine. Wikipedia needs to be consistant, so whatever is decided should be applied to both. Tyciol 13:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Osteopathic physicians are medically trained, osteopaths in most other countries are not. Also see Medicine vs. Allopathic medicine - two different paradigms, and see discussion on allopathy below. --apers0n 14:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it was a conceptual error to split osteopathy from osteopathic medicine, as real issue is scope of practice permitted in a jurisdiction and the training required to deliver that set of competencies rather than a philosophical divide. One ought to be minded that osteopathy has a philosophical basis from which flowed technique, scope of practice evolved within regulatory context Babbybulldog (talk) 21:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

First let me preface this entry with the statement that this is my first entry in this discussion of Osteopathy. Second let me state that I am currently the president-elect of the Cranial Academy, and have been practicing "Traditional Osteopathy" including Osteopathy in the Cranial Field in the United States, for the last 24 years. I have trained in both MD and DO hospital settings and despite my exclusive devotion to the practice of Osteopathy, I am MD residency trained in Psychiatry.

As your are probably aware by this time that the definition and practice of Osteopathic Medicine is complex and difficult to "pin down." I have read much of the discussion on this site, and have the following comments generally:

1. Internationally each country has its own regulatory and educational processes that differ not only between countries, but also many countries have their own internal differences and complexities. It should be noted that at present, the emergence of non-medical Osteopathy is literally exploding internationally. There are presently 5 osteopathic schools in Munich Germany, alone. The problem with this explosion will be establishing and maintaining standards.

2. The US has the most rigorous of educational processes and has had the most influence politically, as the US is the site of origin of the osteopathic profession... and, US osteopathic physicians train in hospital settings, specialize in all fields, diagnose, prescribe medications, and are often indistinguishable from their MD counterparts. Osteopathic Manipulation, or as I prefer to call it... "Osteopathy," is taught in a basic form in all osteopathic colleges during the first 2 years. Students tend to be enthusiastic initially, but as the rigours and orientation of conventional medicine are intensely emphasized, the students tend to lose their interest, even to point of osteopathic manipulation losing its credibility.

Does this imply that there are very few 'genuine' osteopaths in the US, i.e. those that actually practice osteopathic rather than allopathic medicine? I appreciate that osteopathy has its roots in the US, but it sounds as though osteopathic physicians have lost contact with those roots sometime ago, and have wondered back into the allopathic fold. Sounds like that may be a sad thing for the osteopathic field in the US, and maybe despite varying standards there is a greater amount of osteopathic practice elsewhere in the world. Antoniolus —Preceding undated comment was added at 12:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC).

This is the context in which much of the discussion existing on this webpage occurs.

Further:

1. The osteopathic profession is presently in the process of developing and collecting a body of research that supports the already established efficacy of osteopathic manipulation.

2. The practice and philosophy of "Traditional Osteopathy" (osteopathic manipulation)... is uniquely different from convential "allopathic" or "AMA style" medicine... and by definition should be considered "alternative." Politically, it is not in the interest of the US profession to call Osteopathic Medicine "alternative." Hence the NCCAM does not support research on Osteopathy, which is ludicrous.

I am certain that other issues will become apparent as I read further... Overall the discussion of Osteopathy on Wikipedia has merit, but will always be fraught with controversy and contain inacuracies due to the complexity of the issues.

Markdo 19:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Please leave it in but briefly dicuss all 5 methods osteopathic manipulation (to my understanding.) and of course medicine and surgery.

1. Facial release 2. Lymphatic Drainage 3. Strain/Counterstrain 4. High Velocity Low Amplitude 5. Crainial Sacral

Thank you for your article. 72.197.205.99 07:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC) BobDO Babbybulldog (talk) 21:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that this thread establishes that splitting osteopathy into osteopathy: osteopathic medicine was a conceptual error. It is the scope of practice / regulatory framework in a jurisdiction that is being (wrongly) being interpreted as a philosophical split. I doubt that it is. May I pose a question? What of AUS/NZ/Uk permit osteopaths to prescribe or undertake cortisone injections/minor surgery, effectively permitting them to work as GPs/family physcians, what then of the great divide between osteopathy and osteopathic medicine? (Babbybulldog)

Discussion

Osteopathy is a medical body that includes physicians practicing in all fields of medicine.

All this means to me is that it has gained official recognition. It doesn't tell me what it is or how it's different from "standard" Western medicine (or similar to it). Also, how does it relate to chiropractic? This article doesn't say anything, and as such, is properly a candidate for deletion. But I'd rather it get finished. Please, someone answer my questions above. --Uncle Ed 21:45 Mar 25, 2003 (UTC)

Osteopathy originally strictly used manipulative techniques for correcting somatic abnormalities thought to cause disease and inhibit recovery. However, over the past century, osteopathy has come to embrace the full spectrum of medicine.

If that's not "saying something," then I don't know what it is. Would you prefer it to say, "now it utilizes a combination of manipulative techniques, drugs, and surgery?" The article also says where the movement came from, who founded it, and where its schools are. Now there are opinions as to whether the osteopathic approach is superior to the traditional M.D. approach or not, and I'm certainly of the belief that it is, but that's not NPOV, so it doesn't belong in there.

An osteopath can do absolutely everything that an M.D. can, and very nearly everything that a chiropractor can (my understanding, as I was told by my late father, who was an osteopath, is that osteopathy inspired chiropractic). And I don't think "gained" recognition is a good use of words; my grandfather was practicing osteopathy before World War II and nobody ever questioned whether he was a doctor. He just delivered babies and prescribed medicine like anyone else. The difference between going to him or the M.D. across town was that if your back hurt, Dr. Ralph would probably put you on his table and pop your back rather than telling you to take aspirin. Dave Farquhar 22:17 Mar 25, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks, Dave, I think it's getting better -- especially with your latest additions. I look forward to working with you further. :-) --Uncle Ed 22:49 Mar 25, 2003 (UTC)

Though implied by country specifics below, broad claims about osteopaths doing absolutely anything an MD can should be suffixed or prefixed by 'in the USA' as to my knowledge it ONLY applies there. This is after all an international encyclopedia, whether it originated in the US or not (much like osteopathy!) Same applies below to similar statements which apply exclusively to US trained osteopaths / MDs. Antoniolus —Preceding undated comment was added at 12:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC).

There was a big fight in California in the late 1950s over whether osteopaths would be fully licensed as doctors. California passed some law that pretty much screwed over the osteopaths, requiring them to go back to medical school, as in M.D. school, to take stuff they'd already taken. At least, that's how I remember it. I was pretty young at the time. But the point is that there was struggle and conflict over D.O.s getting fully licensed in every state. jaknouse 01:51 Mar 26, 2003 (UTC)

Jaknouse is mostly correct about the instance in California. Only it wasnt a law passed by Californa to limit osteopathic practice rights rather it was a move by the AMA to absorb osteopathic medicine. They offered osteopaths the option to switch their degree from DO to MD for a mear 60$ membership fee. They did not have to go back to school. I'm a current 1st year student at TUCOM. We've spent a great deal of time learning the history, theory, etc. of osteopathy, and will continue to do so. I made a few minor changes (e.g. - updating the # of osteopathic schools to 23 to reflect current numbers) and would be glad to contribute in the future. I believe that MDs tend not to call themselves allopaths only because they tend to follow the assumption that anyone who is "Doctor" is an allopathic doctor. However, the wording is perfectly correct. An MD is as much an allopath as a DO is an osteopath. Both terms are quite specific. --SargonZ 08:20, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Allopathy, labeling?

Do M.D.s call themselves allopaths? As far as I can tell, "allopathic" is a term used by homeopaths and alternate practitioners to describe standard modern medicine, not a term it uses for itself. As such, saying that an MD "is properly called" an allopath is misleading at best: it's not a term used commonly or by the doctors themselves. Vicki Rosenzweig

I grew up in an Osteopathic family. We always called them allopaths. After all, Osteopaths are "medical doctors" just as much as M.D.s. jaknouse 03:31 Mar 26, 2003 (UTC)

MDs tend not to call themselves allopaths because "allopath" is a perjorative term invented by Samuel Hahnemann, homeopathist, who used it to characature the practices of physicians. The term is not properly applied to todays practitions: standard medicine has never paid allegiance to an allopathic principle. -Nunh-huh 08:27, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thank you, I stand corrected. It amazes me how much politics influences medicine. In my idealistic brain, it seems the two should be unrelated. --SargonZ 16:43, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It would be nice wouldn't it? In New Jersey it's now illegal to give certain people flu shots.....<g> - Nunh-huh 00:55, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Amazes me too. Coined by the founder of Homeopathy eh? Ugh, rightly. Tyciol 13:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Pre-Med osteopathy resource

One of my colleagues forwarded me an article that I thought might be useful, either as a source or as a link; it seems to present a relatively clear, mostly unslanted view of osteopathy. It is aimed at pre-med students, but I think the information in it could be useful to all. I'll leave it up to y'all to decide what to do with it. Kaplan Osteopathy page -SargonZ 20:39, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The page doesn't seem to be active, new link to update or remove reference? Tyciol 13:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Osteopathic profession outside the USA

I have edited this page a little to widen the perspective, osteopathy has developed differently outside the USA. I am an osteopath that trained in the UK and have worked in the Uk & NZ. When I havd time I shall add a section on the osteopathic paradigm and the philosophies that profession applies in clinical reasoning and treatment regimes. -AntaineNZ

Reading this article it seems to have every term defined "(or xxx in the United States)". Is this really necessary; Wikipedia is an international project. Perhaps a minor section on US variants at the end, if the US terminology is so different from that in the UK, Canada, Australia, and anywhere else speaking English. At present disrupts the reading of the article. Graldensblud 18:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I have added to the Canadian section as well, for the same reason as above. Canadian osteopaths are not osteopathic physicians, their training is as extensive but VERY different, we do not compare ourselves. -Jen, Canada

Visceral Osteopathy, Link Removal Policy

I've edited some modifications on this section since the author made some self-advertisement for his website and the information given was false and misleading. -Alain Guierre DO(UK)

Link removal policy: A note to user Alain_Guierre: Please DO remove links to commercial, self-advertisement pages. Please DO NOT remove links to supportive (or critical) research pages. 20:33, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Dear Levine2112, your link appears to be a self-promoting page referring to a private practice: http://www.originalosteopathy.com/osteopathic/index.html

Wikipedia:Vanity guidelines: What should not be linked to:

1. In general, any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article here would have once it become an example of brilliant prose.
2. Links that are added to promote a site, by the site operator or its affiliates. See External link spamming.
3. Sites that primarily exist to sell products.
4. Sites with objectionable amounts of advertising :

See also: External link spamming. Respectfully, Alain

Criticism?

Isn't there usually a section for criticism? The word "critics" appears only once in the entire article, and this is a highly controversial practice!

This seems incredibly slanted to me at present, comes off as more of an advertisement than a critical analysis of both sides of the issue. If you can't see it in the text I think the inclusion of the pejorative Osteopath term "allopath" proves it's not exactly getting input from both sides.

Given that 90+% of osteopathic medical practice is identical to "allopathic" medical practice, I don't see the controversy. Granted, there are some controversial elements, such as cranial, but those have been labeled as controversial. DocJohnny 11:13, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Defensive much? Simply using the term allopath is biased. If you want to be unbiased shouldn't you use the term used by the group your referring to to describe themselve? would you use 'indian' to refer to native americans? or 'nigger' for african americans? what about 'blacks'? given that 90%+ of african americans are black?

The person he was replying to used the term 'allopath' in quotes, so did he, I don't see the problem. The problem being, calling it 'standard medicine' isn't really a name, more of a description. If you can come up with a more commonly recognized term, I'd like to hear it... Tyciol 12:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

'American indian' is a non-offensive and actually preferable term to 'native american.' Don't throw around claims that you have no basis for.

I find it frustrating that there is no mention of the fact that there is no one funding manipulative medicine out there so OF COURSE there isnt a whole lot of research. -jen, canada

Jen, here's a source for you. It may help make your point in the article. James Lake, MD Research Funding Favors Allopathic Medications. Bryan Hopping ^T 09:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Criticism

I think it would be useful to include research on the efficacy or otherwise of osteopathic treatment or links to investigations into the theoretical basis of some claims made for techniques. Some such links have been included.

I dont think that it can be asserted that osteopathic practice is a 'highly controversial practice', controversial to whom and on what basis? Exclamation mark not required. I have edited this page to try and include information and balance, to give some detail on the regulatory framewrok and hte profession outside the USA. I appreciate the contributions on visceral etc. I myself do not pratice cranial osteopathy and have tried to treat that area sensitively but evenhandedly. I see no need for the editorial policy to be defined solely by a narrow bio-medical paradigm. The page is intended as information on osteopathy not a manifesto for or against it. -AntaineNZ

Osteopathy might not be highly controversial, but it is a little controversial. I was quite surprised not to see a Critcism section. Normally when I want a quick understanding of controversial subjects I go straight there first :) Mathiastck 14:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Mathiastck completely. I go directly to the criticism section for almost any subject, as a measure of it's even-handedness whether it is controversial or note. And i do, by the way, agree that Osteopathy is at least a little controversial, with evidentiary, causal science under assault on many fronts, such as intelligent design. Without a controvrsy section that article has no integrity. The article on Homepathy, IMO, does an excellent job of approaching a contoversial subject fairly.

I'm not all that familiar with Wikipedia's policies, but can someone tag this as not being neutral or requiring attention?Armandtanzarian 01:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

In this article the 'criticism' section is called: 'Future challenges' - and tagged with a stub - feel free to expand this section. --apers0n 18:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The consensus seems to be that it is controversial, and the convention on wikipedia seems to be to label the sections Criticisms rather then Future Challenges. I have thus renamed it so, without changing the article in any other way. Mathiastck 06:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Please show me where such a convention is stated. --apers0n 07:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

It is controversial to standard non-osteopathic (allopathic) medical doctors I'm betting. One of the reasons it is controversial is that doctors seem more prone to including other practises less supported by standard medical practise, the dipping into which is reminicent of chiropracty. Naturopathy is another instance of people with Bachelors of Science opening medical schools with some good practises, but also littered with pseudosciences. Tyciol 12:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I just finished a health professions degree BScKin, and the term 'allopathy' was used regularly, and with no negative connotations inferred, whatsoever. It's the actual noun.

There seems to be some confusion in terms here. Osteopathy is simply the philosophy that the body has certain intrinsic abilities to heal and that medical practice should be applied with that particular focus--that is, apply treatment that works in concert with the bodies own healing mechanisms. Osteopathy is not the same thing as manual medicine! Manual medicine is simply the most well known and easily recognized application of osteopathy. Osteopathy is a very simple and easily accepted concept whereas manual medicine is generally the subject of these debates. I have never heard a legitimate criticism of modern osteopathic practice (remember, all the philosophy claims is that the body can do a lot of healing on its own--no one can deny that, we all heal from injury and disease constantly). Every criticism I have ever heard of osteopathy was actually directed at manual medicine--not osteopathy! I am an osteopathic medical student and I for one have huge issues with the way manual medicine is taught--I believe it works because patients consistently report improvements after treatment--but there is dire need for more evidence based teaching in some of osteopathic schools (I won't name which schools). That being said, I absolutely embrace the philosophy of osteopathy because it is a separate concept from manual medicine. So perhaps we can remove the "controversial" claim on this article and apply that to a separate article about manual medicine.

Additions

I have added a few things such as clinical trial information, and attempted to clarify the visceral portion of the article to remove some POV aspects. DocJohnny 22:32, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

It would be nice to add some well-studied evidence to support both the osteopathic theory in general and osteopathic treatments in specific to validate, to support and to differentiate osteopathy from conventional medicine. Just saying it provides the same drugs, surgery plus some osteopathic treatments isn't enough to validate its value. A physiotherapist can theoretically provide the same thing, should they be given a medicine program with a degree such as D.P.? -Unknown

Cranial Osteopathy

"Many without direct experience of the benefits of treatment dismiss cranial osteopathy as pseudo-science". That is a rubbish statement. It pre-supposes that there are indisputed 'benefits' that would be quite apparent to people who criticise the practice if they had experience of it. It also assumes that those who have experienced it don't dismiss it as psuedo science. Where is the evidence for that? Whether or not some one has experienced it or not is not even slightly relevent to forming an informed oppinion on whether it is psuedo science or not... If it is then lets only allow astronauts to edit the article on space travel. In fact it could be argued that those who have experienced these benefits have a conflict of interest in evaluating its scientific merit.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.206.14.1 (talk • contribs) 15.00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

That's an excellent point, it's basically testimonial-based evidence which is no longer sufficient in modern science. Tyciol 12:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The section on Cranial Osteopathy contains a great deal of incorrect information, especially the first paragraph. Insurance companies do reimburse for osteopathic treatment and that includes cranial treatment. I have hundreds of EOBs from insurance companies that verify this.

There is no easy means for an insurance company to differentiate between types of treatment. Treatment codes only involve number of areas treated, not which techniques or philosophies were used in the treatment. This means that it is impossible for an insurance company to even tell that a physician utilized cranial osteopathy in treatment unless they request the medical records.

I do not believe that it is legal to refuse payment due to the type of osteopathic treatment performed. On providing requested records to insurance companies, I have never had a payment refused on the grounds that I utilized Cranial Osteopathy. All this information is common knowledge.

Cranial Osteopathy is not a "contested issue within the profession." It is considered accepted practice within the profession. Please contact the American Osteopathic Association for further clarification.

Please correct the erroneous and misleading information and note that I have contributed correct information in the past that was not used to update the document. ::—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ericdo (talk • contribs) 23.19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Dolgin, thanks for the input. It does fall upon all of the editors shoulders to make updates to the article. You have a unique persepctive here - as a highly regarded D.O. practicing cranial osteopathy. You should be able to contribute greatly to this article and correct any oversights. Feel free to make the changes you have suggested yourself. Our one caveat here at Wikipedia is to be sure to provide references (from verifiable sources) to support your edits. Best of luck and happy editing! Levine2112 23:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Reverting previous edit by User:Fyslee as the evidence has been laid out at Craniosacral therapy to include cranial osteopathy. --apers0n 13:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

"Interrater reliability of craniosacral rate measurements and their relationship with subjects' and examiners' heart and respiratory rate measurements." - This study clearly found that examiners could not measures craniosacral movements effectively, yet the previous interpretation was that this study proves such movements exist and the actual findings of the study were completely ignored. I have fixed this interpetation to reflect the authors findings and their interpretation of the results. Given that the only evidence for cranialsacral movements in this section was this study, which in fact found the opposite, I think the entire section should be rewritten to reflect the entirely questionable scientific bases of this practice. Furthermore, the section suggests that the practice "is rejected by many physicians because it was previously understood that cranial bones fuse by the end of adolescence". Personally, I can think of a whole bunch of other reasons to reject this practice which I'm sure physicians are aware of. Like for example the fact that the movements are so small, its entirely possible that the examiners are imagining them or the fact that the presence of Sharpey's fibres don't necessarily imply movement as there may be other fibers joining these areas as well. I could go on, but I feel it is better to just adopt the practice of adding fact tags to or removing unreferenced claims from the article itself, unless of course anyone can provide me with some evidence.JamesStewart7 (talk) 03:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

"Cranial Osteopathy is not a "contested issue within the profession." It is considered accepted practice within the profession. Please contact the American Osteopathic Association for further clarification." Im afraid the above statement reflects an "american" osteopathic viewpoint. Within Europe where there is practiced (arguably) a more traditional form of osteopathy in the tradition of AT Still, and where arguably osteopaths have not been inclined to adapt to a more conventional medical mode of practice,there is a great deal of discord within the profession regarding cranial osteopathy, witness practically any issue of the professional journals. Ribfin (medical doctor and DO, europe) 17.00 hrs 19/12/2007 (Europe style date) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ribfin (talk • contribs) 16:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

It is silly to present Cranial osteopathy as if it were uncontested. Osteopathy itself is contested! So how could 'cranial osteopathy' be uncontested? The reality is that belief in cranial osteopathy is both widespread within the profession AND contested. It is a verifiable fact from merely reviewing this talk page that individual osteopaths differ in their views on the subject. I think it mysterian nonsense but that is only MY view. It is out there and it is contested. Cyberdrivel (talk) 06:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Alternative or conventional medicine

I reverted the edit by 72.185.98.234 (talk) that changed the first sentence in the article from

• Osteopathy is an alternative medicine and...

to

• Osteopathy describes a facet of modern medicine rooted in...

because osteopathy is an alternative to modern Western medicine, not a facet of it. Osteopathy provides an alternative approach to healthcare based on the inherent restorative capacity of the body rather than suppressing symptoms. --apers0n 07:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Source Required

Regarding the reversion by ApersOn, what is your source, other than your own perceptions, that lead you to label Osteopathy as "alternative medicine" The PRACTICE of ostopathic medicine itself is not an alternative to traditional western medicine, it IS part of traditional western medicine. Osteopaths engage in a full scope of practice of traditional Western medicine, in traditional hospitals. Perhaps you MIGHT be able to label the osteopathic philosophical approach to traditioanl medicine as unique, but here again, the philosophies were all by A.T. Still, who himself, was a westerner, and a surgeon. Openly labeling the profession as "alternative medicine" is highlys subjective and deceptively implies that if a patient were to visit an oesteopath for a conventional problem, e.g., an infected appendix, they might receive some alternative or unconventional form of therapy, e.g., herbs or manipulation. This simply is not case. I refer everyone to the American Ostepathic Association, the worldwide governning body of th profession, and their own description of Osteopathy. "Osteopathic medicine is one of the fastest growing healthcare professions in the U.S. and brings a unique philosophy to traditional medicine. With a strong emphasis on the inter-relationship of the body's nerves, muscles, bones and organs, doctors of osteopathic medicine, or D.O.s, apply the philosophy of treating the whole person to the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of illness, disease and injury". Note the word traditional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.185.98.234 (talk)

72.185.98.234's quotation from the AOA appears to apply only to America, and doctors of osteopathic medicine (a term used in the US). "Osteopaths engage in a full scope of practice of traditional Western medicine, in traditional hospitals." is only the case in the US. The following phrase: the "American Osteopathic Association, the worldwide governing body of the profession" is paradoxical by definition. Perhaps attention of this nature should be directed to the article Osteopathic medicine, relating to osteopathy in America.

The Alternative medicine article defines alt med as follows: "includes practices that incorporate spiritual, metaphysical, or religious underpinnings" per A T Still's original concept of osteopathy as a minister, and a far cry from the current practice.

As a reference, the American NCCAM, a government agency, classifies osteopathy as follows: "Manipulative and body-based methods in CAM are based on manipulation and/or movement of one or more parts of the body. Some examples include chiropractic or osteopathic manipulation..." [1] (CAM = Complementary and Alternative medicine).

The idea of osteopathy itself being a Traditional medicine is dubious considering its' recent origins, although bone-setting could be considered as such. Osteopathy could conceivably be defined as integrative medicine, and I would welcome further discussion on that. --apers0n 16:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

With regards the comments from the two individuals above, there are some falsities that need to be cleared up, although the first person is much more correct than the second. Osteopathy, with a capital "O" refers to the western profession founded by A.T. Still, in the United States. Osteopathy, in this regard, from its origin, is traditional western medicine, and its practitioners, who are all trained in the United States, enjoy full practice rights. In response to ApersOn's comments: "recent origins" is paradoxical. Regarding NCCAM, it does not specifically label the practice of "O"steopathy as an alternative medicine, only osteopathic manipulation, which is a very small component of Osteopathy with a capital O. As an analogy, chelation, widely practiced by allopaths, is considered "alternative medicine" by NCAM but all of allopathy, with a capital "A" is not. Clearing up further points, The American Osteopathic Association, is the worldwide governing body of Osteopathy, with respect to the practice that was founded in the United States, but is now practiced widely beyond US borders, on all continents. ApersOn is correct in noting that British Osteopaths do not enjoy full practice rights, and are not trained in the same manor as US physcians. When defining "O"steopathy however, their exclusive use of manipulation, which is classified as alternative medicien, should be considered the exception, not the rule. Attempting to confine the practice of full-scope western osteopathic medicine to the United States, is promulgating false information. To be specific, U.S. trained osteopaths are the only osteopaths who enjoy full practice rights, but to say that those rights do not cross the US borders is false. Currently, US-traind D.O.s have full practice rights in 44 countries throughout the world, and hence this is why 72.185.98.234 is entirely correct in asserting that the American Osteopathic Association is the worldwide governing body for the practice of Ostopathy with a capital O. Granted, popular culture in the US and elsewhere generally has the perception that DO's are practioners of alternative medicine, but in terms of clarity, academic integrity, and fairness, credence must be lended to those who practice Osteopathy's defintion, vis a vis the profession's own regulatory body's defintion--which precisely is, tradtional medcine, and not the public's conception of what they believe it to be.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.247.153.21 (talk)

In response to the comments by 131.247.153.21, I agree that when it was first established the AOA may historically have been the worldwide governing body of osteopathy, but please refer to Osteopathic International Alliance (OIA) (as in osteopathy#External_links) which, as a worldwide organisation of organisations and established by the AOA (Ref: "The Osteopathic International Alliance: Unification of the Osteopathic Profession": "The American Osteopathic Association (AOA) saw a need for an international association to represent the osteopathic profession"), and in common with the World Osteopathic Health Organization (WOHO) "share a vision for the future of osteopathy" (with a small "o"). The OIA "has made it its mission to advance the philosophy and practice of osteopathic medicine and osteopathy throughout the world." (Ref: "An Update: The International Osteopathic Profession") - osteopathic medicine and osteopathy are clearly distinguished here. The aims of the WOHO are: "To promote, develop, protect and establish throughout the world, the study, knowledge, philosophy and practice of osteopathy" (Ref: WOHO objectives), again the word osteopathy is used with a small "o". The AOA uses the phrase: "American Osteopathic Medicine" when referring to international promotion: BIOMEA International Poster Session.

Agreed that US-trained Osteopathic physicians enjoy international rights to practice Osteopathic medicine, and this should be reflected in the Osteopathic medicine article, but should contemporary evidence exist, any current semantic difference between the words "osteopathy" and "Osteopathy" must be clearly distinguished in both this osteopathy article and the Osteopathic medicine article, or in Osteopathy (disambiguation). --apers0n 10:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

In response to ApersOn, his links to the AOA and OIA are moving us in the right direction. Still, further disambiguation is required. The OIA is merely an umbrella organisation that is adminstered by the AOA. Further, the link provided which refers to osteopathy with a lower case "o" appears to simply be a working paper from a steering comittee, and the lower case o, perhaps, was a simple oversight. The official membership and by-laws, published more prominently on the same website, make multiple references to the organisations goals of advancing Osteopathy, with a capital O, (and not just Osteopathic medicine), and more specifically, it refers to Osteopathy with respect to the aims of "full-practice rights". In other words, non-physician osteopaths who do not have traditional western medical training or full-practice rights (as in the UK), are ineligible for full-membership in the OIA. When you add up that the OIA appears to bear the endorsement of the World Health Organisation, the fact that they claim to advance the profession of Osteopathy, and that, full OIA membership requires traditional western training and competence, and it is beginning to look like the evidence for calling Osteopathy "alternative", in this day and age, is scarce. (12.183.100.8 15:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC))

I've reworked the article with the difference in mind between Osteopathy/osteopathy and Osteopathic/osteopathic medicine, with a link at the top of the page to the disambiguation page Osteopathy (disambiguation), and the worldwide views (i.e. other than the U.S. view) of the connection with complementary/alternative medicine. I hope the two articles reflect this a bit more clearly now, but it may be worth mentioning that the AOA view of Osteopathy is that it is not alternative even when practised by non-physician osteopaths, if what I understand from the comments by 12.183.100.8 is correct, or that the view is changing. Is there a link to these stated AOA aims and by-laws that could be used as a reference? --apers0n 17:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

history

The history section ends around 1890 as far as I can tell, yet the intro mentions a significant change in 1969. Can some-one add to the hsitroy seciton? Kdammers 03:54, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The majority of family and sports doctors in the US are D.O.s.

What are D.O.s? Benqish 08:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I added a sentence that defines the abbreviation D.O. I also removed the above sentence altogether. Its completely false. It might seem to be true considering most D.O.s go into these fields. Looking at the numbers, though, one can see that its not even close. Quoting the 2005 American Osteopathic Association Fact Sheet, there are 18,765 active Family Practice D.O.s in the country. The American Academy of Family Practice Physicians represents over 93,700 family physicians. Just comparing the two numbers without doing the math, one can see what an overstatement this sentence is. Whoever authored it wrote it without checking the statistics whatsoever. --Jdcaust 07:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Quackwatch external link

I removed the link to "Dubious Aspects Of Osteopathy" by Stephen Barrett of Quackwatch. The link contains original research that is not peer reviewed. Links such as the one to NEJM are much better. We have many many external links here and Wikipedia is not a link farm. This also fails WP:EL (Links to be avoided point#1 and #2). A user interested in keeping this link has accused me of being in WP:COI here. I don't see why. Perhaps that user can explain that position here? Levine2112 01:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

It's notable criticism of the concept, and should remain. It does not fail either point 1 or 2 of WP:EL. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

It absolutely fails these. And since it is not peer-reviewed it fails as a reliable source of the very claims it is purporting. Thus it misleads the rewader with unverifiable information. this is the exact kind of link WP discourages. Additionally, the majority of this link provided historical info which is already in this article and is redundant. But Barrett's claims such as: "the American Osteopathic Association is acting improperly by exaggerating the value of manipulative therapy and by failing to denounce cranial therapy" is unfounded and misleading to the reader. (Also, side note, you claim I violated 3RR. I believe you are incorrect.) Levine2112 02:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Since when do External links have to be peer reviewed? Please provide the URL to that policy. -- Fyslee (First law) 06:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

It is unbalanced POV on the history of medicine (you could probably get an interesting view of Kansas medicine from the genealogy buffs or local history books) by a known partisan. The QW link ends like a forum column, that seems chosen to discredit, with more "flowery language" than I see on Talk pages or even some previously banned trolls. It would be more interesting and germane for the osteopathy article to have better links & references on historical criticism of the "regulars" (MD) of the days when Still developed his philosophy.--I'clast 14:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Levine is ungoing a major campaign of removing Quackwatch links [2] This user is obviously has some issues that he isn;t being honest about. FGT2 17:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:AGF please. No personal attacks. I have been completely forthcoming with why I have removed the link. It is not a reliable source of information, it borders of original research, it has been link spammed (and wikipedia is not a repository for links) and it contain misleading/unverifiable information. Levine2112 17:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Poor arguements by Levine2112. Levine2112 is behaving a bit trollish. 63.17.56.54 19:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:AGF andd please make an argument about the topic at hand rather than a personal attack. Levine2112 19:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Your arguements are poor and deceptive. 63.17.56.54 20:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

What is deceptive and what is poor. Please be specific. Thanks. Levine2112 20:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

1 Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article. No doubt "...WHOEVER THE STUPID M-F- IS THAT MADE THIS WEB PAGE S... AND DESERVES TO DIE OF THROAT CANCER. PLEASE... DIE M-F-!!!!!" represents an important contribution to/from mainstream literature.

2 Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources. Ditto--I'clast 20:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Your note in point 1 is a reader reply. I wouldn't have included it, but it does not detract from the body of the article. Point 2 does not apply either. I'm putting it back unless you can provide credible arguments relating to the body of the web site, rather than to obnoxious replies. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Let's start in the beginning of this assessment of Osteopathy, section one which Barrett labels: "Cultist Roots". To me, this would mean that Still was a cultist or osteopathy was a cult in the beginning. Yet, in the rest of this section, Barrett doesn't say how or why Osteopathy's roots are "cultists". He only makes the unsupported claim that organized medicine rejected it as a cult. Therefore to state that Osteopathy had "cultist roots" is misleading and unsubstantiated by Barrett in this assessment. That and that alone is reason enough to strinke this link from the external links section of our Wikipedia for being a misleading, unreliable source of information. Shall we continue? Under the charming section which Barrett entitles "AOA Hype" he states: "A 1991 brochure falsely claimed that OMT encourages the body's natural tendency toward good health and that combining it with all other medical procedures enables DOs to provide "the most comprehensive treatment available." My problem here is the use of the word "falsely". How does Barrett know that it is a false claim. It is his opinion that OMT is baseless. The use of the word "falsely" shows Barrett's opinion but doesn't state that this is his opinion. Again, this is misleading to the reader. Then he goes on and tells us why is outraged and lambasts Chelation Therapy and Cranial Osteopathy as dubious, but not once does he present any of the plethora of scientific research supporting these therapies. This is what is known as confirmation bias, where the assessment only shows information which support the opinion of the piece; rather than presenting all of the facts. I'm sorry. I just don't think that Barrett's assessment is credible and worse, it is misleading by presenting itself as absolute fact rather than a series of opinions from a guy who hasn't practiced medicine in nearly 15 years, never studied osteopathy, and failed the neurological portion of his board certification. Levine2112 02:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed with Levine2112 (and others). Quackwatch is extremely opinionated and even rabid, and not a reliable source of information. Levine2112's examples ("CULTIST" and "HYPE") are glaring, but not the only ones. The whole page is rife with big red flags indicating that it is an angry polemic, not a serious source of objective information. Why is Quackwatch being

taken seriously at all? Surely one can find critiques of osteopathy (if that is what is desired) that are even-handed, fair-minded and generally sane. Why rely on the mad dogs of Quackwatch for "information"? -- Alan2012 04:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, as should be obvious by now. For one thing, if there's a "plethora of scientific research supporting these therapies", some of it should be in the article. No, Barrett's criticism of osteopathy is notable, and should not be removed unless some less biased criticism can be located. (Note that quoting biased references is explicitly suggested in WP:NPOV, as long as the selection is appropriately balenced.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Biased is fine. Bu misleading is prohibited. How do you explain the "cult" accusation by Barrett? That is the first misleading red flag that we need to consider before this link is allowed to remain. After all, the title of this criticism is "Dubious Aspects of Osteopathy". If anything is "dubious" it is Barrett's assessment... passing off unsubstantiated and unverifiable opinions as fact.

As far as scientific evidence refuting what Barrett says and supporting Osteopathic therapies, I can recommend that we at least start by reviewing all of these:

Anderson, Gunnar B.J. et al., "A comparison of Osteopathic Spinal Manipulation with Standard Care for Patients with Low Back Pain," The New England Journal of Medicine, 1999; 341: 1426-1431.

Duncan, B. et al., "Parental Perceptions of the Therapeutic Effect from Osteopathic Manipulation or Acupuncture in Children with Spastic Cerebral Palsy," Clinical Pediatrics, May 2004; 349-353.

Enzmann, D.R., & Pelc, N.J., "Brain Motion: Movement with Phase-Contrast MR Imaging", Radiology, Vol. 185, (3), 1992, 653-660.

Feinberg, D.A., & Mark, A.S., "Human Brain Motion and Cerebrospinal Fluid Circulation Demonstrated with MR Velocity Imaging", Radiology, Vol. 163, (3), 1987, 793-799.

Frymann, V.M. "A Study of the Rhythmic Motions of the Living Cranium", JAOA, Vol. 70, 1971, 928-945.

Gray, H. & Carter H.V., Gray's Anatomy, 15th Ed., 1901, Reprinted by Barnes & Nobles Books, 1995.

Grietz, D., et al., "Pulsatile Brain Movements and Associated Hydrodynamics Studied by Magnetic Resonance Phase Imaging, the Monro-Kellie Doctrine Revisited", Radiology, Vol. 34, 1992, 370-380.

Heifetz, M.D., & Weiss, M., "Detection of Skull Expansion with Increased Intracranial Pressure", Journal of Neurosurgery, Vol. 55, 1981, 811-812.

Jones, James H. (with contributions from Seffinger, Michael, D.O.) "The Controversy of Osteopathy in the Cranial Field: The Research Status the Primary Respiratory Mechanism," 2005.

Magoun, H., Osteopathy in the Cranial Field, 3rd Ed. The Journal Printing Company, 1976.

Maier, S.E., et al., "Brain and Cerebrospinal Fluid Motion: Real Time Quantification with M-Mode MR Imaging", Radiology, Vol. 193, (2), 1994, 447-483.

Michael, D.K., & Retzlaff, E.W., "A Preliminary Study of Cranial Bone Movement in the Squirrel Monkey", JAOA, Vol. 74, 1975, 860-864.

Millis, M.V. et al., "The use of Osteopathic Manipulative Treatment as Adjuvant Therapy in Children With Recurrent Otitis Media," Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2003; 157: 881-866.

Miklis, D.J., et al., "Oscillatory Motion of the Normal Cervical Spinal Cord," Radiology, Vol. 192, (1), 1994, 117-121.

Moskalenko, Y. et al., "The Biophysical Organization of the System of Cerebral Circulation", Chapter 2, In: Biophysical Aspects of Cerebral Circulation, Pergamon Press, 1980, 41-42.

Moskalenko, Y., "Bioengineering Support of the Cranial Osteopathic Treatment", Medical and Biological Engineering and Computing, Vol. 34, Supplement 1, Part 2, 1996, 185-186.

Moskalenko, Y., "The Phenomenology and Mechanics of Cranial Bone Fluctuations", paper Presented at the Proceedings of the First Russian Symposium. St. Petersberg, Russia, May 27-29, 1998.

Poncelet, B.P. et al., "Brain Parenchyma Motion: Measurement with Cine Echo-Planar MR Imaging", Neuroradiology, Vol. 185, (3), 1992, 645-651.

Standring, S., Gray's Anatomy, 39th British Ed., Elsevier, 2005.

Sutherland, W.G., The Cranial Bowl, Freeman Press, 1939.

-- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the link should be retained. [http://quackwatch.com/04ConsumerEducation/QA/osteo.html Quackwatch's comments on osteopathy are of reasonable interest to someone trying to explore the range of opinions about this subject. It is reasonably well cited. The (apparent) evidence of hostility and unprofessionalism by some osteopaths is pertinent. Subsolar 02:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no legitimate "apparent evidence of hostility and unprofessionalism" contained in the quackwatch article. There is no way to verify that those comments were even posted by an osteopathic physician. Judging by the grammar and complete lack of professionalism used in the comments I would guess they were not made by a physician at all. Regardless, in the real world DOs and MDs work together in every clinical setting without any issues. Both branches of the medical profession have come a long way since AT Still came up with his version of "Osteopathy". MDs are no longer attempting to "heal" patients by blood-letting and DOs are no longer attempting to "cure" every disease with osteopathic manipulation of the musculoskeletal system. It is easy to find MDs and DOs who are on the fringes of accepted medicine and who push therapies not considered proper evidence based medicine. Modern DOs welcome and encourage additional research into the effectiveness of osteopathic manipulative techniques. In medical school we are taught that OMM is primarily a tool for treating idiosyncratic lower backpain or other musculoskeletal dysfunctions that are not responding well to other treatments. I don't have time to list many examples of research that has been done but I would recommmend anyone interested in including some search JAMA and PubMED. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.92.148.172 (talk) 08:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

(in)accuracy, V RS? Examples

Besides the bottom half of the QW osteopathy article being author controlled "Readers' Comments", chock full of unverified (-iable), non WP:RS, objectionable, and non-encyclopedic opinion & material, let's start to consider the author's text, without dwelling on a number of WP:RS policies about his specific expertise, COI, extreme behavior, etc.

Even in the top half, this wikipedian's article on osteopathy shows substantial OR that is unverified and unreferenced of questionable accuracy. For example, one seldom notices a DO explicitly *offering* "orthomolecular medicine" or "orthomolecular therapy" (vs MD, ND, PhD, DDS) or vice versa. Yet this OR statement, "The percentages of DOs involved in...orthomolecular therapy,...and several other dubious practices appear to be higher among osteopaths than among medical doctors. " Perhaps Dr Barrett meant naturopathic or even (claimed) nutrition based therapies - not necessarily the same as orthomolecular therapies, many fuzzier naturopathic and "nutrition based" therapies are *not* orthomolecular.

Which directories for orthomolecular therapies? - not even resource references were listed. Dr Barrett says he used directories. Well how about Orthomolecular Practitioners listed on Orthomolecular.org (Int'l Society for Orthomolecular Medicine)?. Nope. MD, PhD, DDS, ND but no DO. Google ("orthomolecular therapy" osteopath directory) - how about here, CERI? (first one that I opened from Google search). Nope, no DO claiming Orthomolecular, closest was Nedra Downing, D.O. Specializing in nutritional and environmental medicine. DO + orthomolecular here? Nope. hmm, getting kind of discouraged about literal accuracy, much less V RS. Removing it, again.--I'clast 23:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Osteopathy/medicine

Hi I live in the UK and osteopaths never have the medical aspect others have described above, such as prescribing medications, surgery etc. They are not even sent patients from the NHS, who would be sent to a physiotherapist. So are the US really completely different from the UK in this regard? I would say osteopathy is not part of the mainstream health service here, and they receive nothing comparable to the training of a medical doctor and perform none of a medical doctor's functions.Merkinsmum 21:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I think its a problem of two definitions sharing a word. In most of the world Osteopaths are similar to Chiropractors. In the US, physicians are generally MDs, or DOs (Osteopathic Medicine). Osteopathic medicine has its own listing which can illustrate the difference. In the US they are physicians who can prescribe medicine, perform sugery, etc. JN322 11:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there is a stark distinction and even though it is explained reasonably well in the article it should probably be closer to the top. Subsolar 02:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

As a second year student of osteopathy currently undergoing a 4 year Hons Degree, I'd take issue that UK osteopaths "receive nothing comparable to the training of a medical doctor and perform none of a medical doctor's functions". We go through extensive training in diagnosing pathologies, taking case histories, undertaking general medical testing on top of our intensive anatomical studies. We make regular trips to Guys Hospital to enable us to study cadavers. Later in the course we will be observing surgery (probably knee or hip). Our course is very, VERY intensive and highly medically based and our training, especially in physiology and neuroscience is classed as well above degree level by outside examiners. We study how to read x-rays and other scans. We are trained to make differential diagnosis so we can refer when necessary. This is just the tip of the iceburg as the training is far more extensive than this and our first two years are comparable to a doctors or nurses first two years of study (external examiners views again). Some of our lecturers are linked to NHS institutions so patients see them first. Patients can chose to go straight to an osteopath who can, if needed, refer them onto elsewhere for x-rays or specialist treatment. Please note that osteopaths in the UK are primary care professionals. If you wish to use a label, please use complimentary rather than alternative as we work closely with other skill bases to ensure the patient gets the best treatment. With regard to scientifically provable research into the efficacy of osteopathy, please refer to such persons such as Herzog and Bogduk amongst others to who's research we are often directed. As a post script, I'd accept that UK osteopaths do not undertake surgical proceedures or prescribe drugs although we are taught pharmacology. We are not like chiropracters as they generally (not all) use high velocity techniques only whilst osteopathy does work within the principles of the body is a unit - ie, all aspects of a patient's life - the psycological, physical, environmental, spiritual (some people believe in this), etc, have an impact on treatment. This means we do HVTs, soft tissue, visceral, fascial and cranial work but we also give lifestyle advice on exercise, healthy eating, ergonomic working and so forth and when necessary suggest referral to counsellors or psychiatrists to deal with emotional issues. A bit more than bone clicking I think (although I assume there are lots of chiropracters out there who do more than use specialist tables to click a single vertebra). Please do not make unfounded and detrimental remarks about osteopaths unless you have either trained as one or have extensive experience of such treatment. Criticism is meant to be a balanced argument with evidence based points being made not an uneducated and blinkered viewpoint with no facts behind it. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angel2loveu67 (talk • contribs) 18:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

intro

The intro needs to emphasise that it's different from osteopathic medicine, I've changed it slightly to reflect thatMerkinsmum 11:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

"Future challenges"

This section seems rather unbalanced and from the PoV of osteopathy advocates. "It is a continuing challenge for osteopaths to resolve their differences and present a united front if the profession is to become more widely accepted." It is not for WP to say whether it's desirable that osteopaths present a united front, or become widely accepted.

I think we can stick to the facts more by saying: that osteopathy is criticized, that practitioners have differing opinions, that it is not widely accepted.

Even the heading is questionable, sounding more like the final slide of a powerpoint presentation than an encyclopedia. Other controversial topics have "criticisms" and that would seem appropriate here too. -- Subsolar 02:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Efficacy of Osteopathy

Any claim that osteopathy is effective in any area must be followed by a reference. Claims that medical conditions such as middle earn infection are only "seemingly organic" must also be referenced. Claims that violate widely held medical principles are especially in need of reference. Several long standing, unreferenced claims such as these have been removed. Please do not re-add them without citing a sourceJamesStewart7 (talk) 03:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Beam trial

In the edit summary I said to find the journal article. Well, I found it http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/329/7479/1377. Looking at this graph, http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/329/7479/1377/FIG2, best care plus exercise does not significantly differ from best care plus manipulation or best care plus manipulation and exercise. Also the manipulation group included a lot more than just osteopathy "A multidisciplinary group developed a package of techniques representative of those used by the UK chiropractic, osteopathic, and physiotherapy professions" so you can't attribute the gains to osteopathy alone, like the article did. JamesStewart7 (talk) 05:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Naturopathy or Osteopathy?

I'm interested in alternative systems of medicine, but a little confused on whether to do Naturopathy or Osteopathy. Can someone here help me? Which is better, talking monetarily?Happening (talk) 15:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Awesome. Dude, I appreciate that you are asking a benign question. But this is seriously not the place for it. If you are in United States, try www.studentdoctor.net Cheers!Bryan Hopping ^T 02:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Allopathic medicine

Why is a link to allopathy relevant here when it isn't mentioned in the article? Hopping, please justify your edits with reasons (like you just did on the NRMP page... eventually). "Clearly" isn't good enough. SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 22:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

This is from the allopathic medicine page. "In the United States, allopathic medicine mainly refers to the medical training that leads to the degree Doctor of Medicine rather than the degree Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine. See comparison of allopathic and osteopathic medicine.[5][6]" Bryan Hopping ^T 22:17, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Differences from Chiropractic?

I think this article (and Chiropractic) would benefit from a short section describing how they are different from each other. I am certainly not qualified to write it - any takers? – ukexpat (talk) 21:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm removing foot note 23 and the claim it supports.

The Licciardone et al. study is meta. As a general rule, meta-analysis/systematic review cannot be used to prove a claim. There are several limitations to meta analysis, but the most important one is that by definition meta analyses compile the results from multiple studies. No two studies are conducted the same way, so aggregating the results of dissimilar things doesn't tell you much. But the most important reason to not cite meta studies is that the Licciardone et al. article cites its parent studies. If this study can conclude that there is a "significant" reduction in lower back pain, the parent studies should demonstrate the same (albeit with less robust and strong results). Hiding the parent studies in a meta review runs the risk of shielding invalid practices from scrutiny. 68.51.75.50 (talk) 15:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Have reverted. Meta-analyses and literature reviews are if anything more appropriate sources for Wikipedia than individual studies (primary sources), as they are essentially secondary sources, being aggregate considerations of all data available. Wikipedia is not like a science paper, it should rely on summaries of the scientific evidence that have been published in reliable sources, because to aggregate such data ourselves (as Wikipedia editors) would be original research. See WP:SECONDARY. There is no concern of "hiding" information, as any reader can follow references back to primary sources if interested, and if any valid criticisms of a particular meta-analysis has been made in another reliable source then that can be cited in the article. Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Ryan Paddy. Review articles and meta-analysis are highly valuable sources for WP. Bryan Hopping ^T 18:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Canada

Clearly there's ongoing back-and-forth editing over how osteopathy in Canada should be treated in the article. Specifically, how information about the roles of osteopaths in the international sense and osteopathic physicians in Cananda should be described. There's much discussion at user_talk:osteocorrect about it, but this is where it should be.

Osteocorrect, the article needs to describe both sides even-handedly, based on the actual situation as described in reliable sources. It doesn't matter what you think the official status of any given practice style is, it only matters what is actually practised and what it is called.

Bryan, you are shutting down the osteopathic physican perspective to an extent not justiable by WP:WEIGHT. While this article is about osteopathy in the broadest sense, which is the international sense, it also briefly describes the practice of US-trained osteopathic physicans to give context - for example, in the United States section. It's fine for the Canada section to link to an article specifically about osteopathic physicians in Canada, but it should also describe in brief their role. And if "osteopaths" in the general sense aren't recognised by Canadian state(s), that needs to be described. Ryan Paddy (talk) 02:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree 100%. I am following the naming guidelines of the American Osteopathic Association, and the Osteopathic International Alliance. Osteopathy = non-physicians. Osteopathic medicine = physicians. This is standard convention, and it is reliably sourced. I am purely focused on WP:NAMECON. Bryan Hopping ^T 04:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I thought this recent letter from the President of the American Association of the Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine was relevant to this discussion. Bryan Hopping ^T 00:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

"How many times have you seen “osteopath” used, when “osteopathic physician” would have been the proper term? Many of those outside the osteopathic profession have not yet caught up with the transformation of terminology that has occurred within the profession over the last 20 years (and, admittedly, there are those within the U.S. DO profession who resist these changes). We now recognize that when viewed in a global perspective, U.S. DOs are different from DOs outside the United States. In this global context, many of our readers know that “osteopath” more accurately refers to practitioners trained overseas who are principally trained to practice osteopathic manual therapies and are neither trained nor licensed as physicians within their countries, nor recognized as physicians within the United States. Conversely, U.S.-educated DOs are both trained and licensed as physicians within the United States and in more than 50 countries abroad. Clearly, there are differences between these two professions that are reflected in the differing terms “osteopathic physician” and “osteopath.”

The same holds true with references to U.S. “schools or colleges of osteopathy,” as opposed to “schools or colleges of osteopathic medicine.” The Osteopathic International Alliance, made up of organizations representing both “osteopathic physicians” and “osteopaths” from around the world (of which AACOM is a partner member), has been working for several years with the World Health Organization to formally define these differences in its glossary, and we anticipate such action in the near future." link