It's not a matter of how OMM is taught. Strong students are turned off by the fact that OMM isn't evidence-based and its "complicated models" don't make sense. And they're turned off by the fact that some charlatans (thankfully a minority of DOs) are peddling this 19th century pseudoscience as legitimate medicine—thereby abusing the trust of the public and contributing to the stigma against physicians with the DO degree.
I'm not one to argue with the sentiment that there evidence based medicine is largely the most useful tool physicians have to make decisions, but I really do feel the need to point out that EBM does in fact itself have limitations in some circumstances. Of course this largely is due to some practical restraints that make it very difficult to study increasingly narrow populations. EBM works in averages, and in that way it excludes individuals and potentially uniquely arising issues (which are not necessarily related to OPP, but could be any other diagnosis). So yes, its great at forming a general guidelines, but it can have limited utility if for whatever reason a patient doesn't fit the mold.
I have said before that OMM doesn't lend itself to great research, nor do I truly expect high quality research on OMM to start pouring of DO schools across the nation. Thats a true and fair criticism.
Now you may be scoffing at the thought from your perspective where patients are being blindfolded and forced against their will into OPP treatments that have no EBM to back them despite this not being a prerequisite for offering the service. I certainly can see that physicians being disingenuous about the healing powers of OMM being an unethical practice. But I do not think that there is anything unethical or disdainful about a DO offering a treatment which has some unproven or limited potential (even if unlikely) to help a patient, so long as they are completely openly discussing the limited research with the patients. Its not like you need to be deceitful to get people who are willing to give anything a shot after all else has failed. Even if they decline the treatment I don't imagine that it would be tremendously upsetting for most DOs, because they have lots of other things to be doing anyway. Is it not the goal for a physician to alleviate suffering of the individual in your exam room? Or is it just to follow EBM as complete gospel without consideration for the patient.
For that reason, think that there can be an argument to be made about OMM's usefulness in practice. Will it work for everyone? Certainly not, and in fact this may be the majority. Will some people find it therapeutic mentally and feel some alleviation of their symptoms? Yes, If you improved someone's subjective experience of life, and their own interpretation of well-being and symptoms would that be considered alleviation of suffering? I think so.
The issue is this sort of thinking doesn't exactly fit the mold of EBM. Counterpoints probably include thoughts like "its just placebo yadda yadda yadda", and that may be a fair point to raise, but if you gave the patient true informed consent, that argument kind of falls apart.
The Caveat.
I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with my interpretation of what I think OMM's utility could be from my perspective. However, I do get disconcerted at my peers who blindly accept all of the teachings in OMM as being supported by good evidence, or as just factual information without giving some thought to what it means, what poor quality evidence looks like or what ethical use of OMM would entail. I also think there is something to be said about the fidelity to bringing EBM as the first and foremost for your patients, because you absolutely CANNOT miss a finding because you've been caught up in your cervical soft tissue techniques leading to delayed care for life or limb threatening conditions. The goal isn't to be a snake oil salesman, its do do your best to alleviate suffering.