SGU or Lake Erie Osteopathic?

[Brob459]

LECOM or St George University in Grenada? Anybody have thoughts on which would provide me with better opportunities?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[SGU06]

LECOM or St George University in Grenada? Anybody have thoughts on which would provide me with better opportunities?

I think if you want to specialize than LECOM will probably offer you a better oppurtunity at matching into wherever you want. If you goto SGU, those chances might be slightly less (Assuming all your stats are otherwise equal).

If you want to do primary care than I would recommend SGU because you will probably match at an equally decent place, and plus you won't have to deal with all the things that come with being a DO. (ie. Questions like what is a DO?)

Good luck.

 

[Skip Intro]

LECOM or St George University in Grenada? Anybody have thoughts on which would provide me with better opportunities?

This is a really difficult question to answer because it depends on so many different things.

I think the only rational answer is to look at each school's residency placement list over the past few years and decide. Depending on which way the scales tip, you should be able to make a more informed decision about where you should go based on what your ultimate residency goals are.

Just remember, medical school is just the basic training. Once you're done (or near done), the opportunity to interview and do residency at your choice of programs will be far more important. Where and when you do your residency is the time you truly learn your craft, and that is ultimately far more important than where you did your undergrad med. Pick a program that is going to get you into the residency that you want to be in. If you don't know that yet, that's okay. You can still compare, on the whole, which school has historically done better in placing their graduates in choice residencies. That's how I'd make my decision were I again in your shoes.

Aside from that, there are other variables (e.g., overall cost, staying in the U.S. vs. living in a third-world environment for two years, having DO vs. MD stitched on your labcoat later in life, etc.) that are less tangible and not as critical (unless you are an over-anxious pre-med student who falsely believes that these things are what people really worry about... which they don't) but should still be weighed.

However, at either school (i.e., LECOM or SGU), you are definitely going to get a quality education when it's all said and done. You should at least feel confident in that. You're currently split, in my opinion, between two pretty good choices. That's a good position to be in.

Just my $0.02.

-Skip

 

[Brob459]

I really appreciate the thought everyone puts into their responses!
This is a big decision, so I am trying to hear every side and it really helps hearing from informed people.

 

[busupshot83]

LECOM or St George University in Grenada? Anybody have thoughts on which would provide me with better opportunities?

Which is cheaper? I would go the cheaper of the two.

 

[dbiddy808]

I have never heard of lake erie osteopathic school. To me it sounds like a junior college or something....but I don't know maybe its a good school? I'd say that more people have heard of st.george's around the country and I'd bet that the DO match list is no better than SGUs. I'd go to SGU, but I'm biased since I'm a caribbean grad.

 

[shahkg]

Dude, sit the year out and re-apply for a US med school. Do some research, kiss ass, make connections, whatever...go the US route.

I go to SGU, hoping to match this year. Trust me, being a US grad opens up more doors.

 

[jbod34]

I currently go to LECOM and I think it is a wonderful school. I have to admit that I am a little biased but when I applied I was MD all the way and Had no idea what the heck a DO was or where Erie was. LECOM has gone out of their way to provide a wonderful education with more opportunities than I can think. They now have a campus in Fla if the heat is what you are looking for. From experience I struggled a little my 1st year and the profs here bent over backwards to make sure I not only passed but more importantly understood the material. As for opportunities after medschool I think that all medschools provide you with basic education and the opportunities that you get are up to you and how hard you are willing to work during your 3th and 4th years. (No matter what school you go to you are on your own during 3rd and 4th years). I don't know much about the caribbean schools and how they work with state liscensure but I would definately look into that. Some people who get their education overseas (not related to the US) have to take ALL their 1st and 2nd year tests over again. Beware!! Good luck.

 

[Brob459]

Thanks for all the advice. They both seem like nice schools

 

[busupshot83]

Dude, sit the year out and re-apply for a US med school. Do some research, kiss ass, make connections, whatever...go the US route.

I go to SGU, hoping to match this year. Trust me, being a US grad opens up more doors.

I wouldn't reapply because you have already gained acceptance to a U.S. school. Go the D.O. route, then SGU if you really want the M.D.

As Skip stated in a previous thread: "To clarify, my point was that whether you ultimately decide to go to [LECOM] or St. George's - EITHER WAY - you are on an excellent path to fulfilling your dreams of becoming a doctor."

 

[MHC]

I interviewed for SGU and was accepted last year but didn't attend due to the cost of their tuition. I was very impressed however, and while living in New York met a lot of grads from SGU. So, like has been said, if the MD is really important do that, if you are good with DO, do that. But do some research into DO to make sure that it is something that you'll be proud of. And if you choose not to go to LECOM, thats ok- I'm waitlisted and need the seat!

 

[DreamJob]

As a first year at Lecom-Bradenton I could not ask for a better school. The PBL program is the way medical school should be taught. Our faculty is amazing, the campus is attractive, Sarasota is fun, and the student body is like a big family. I was waitlisted at Miami and finally got accepted in July, however I stayed with Lecom-Bradenton and could not be happier with my decision.

 

[Brob459]

As a first year at Lecom-Bradenton I could not ask for a better school. The PBL program is the way medical school should be taught. Our faculty is amazing, the campus is attractive, Sarasota is fun, and the student body is like a big family. I was waitlisted at Miami and finally got accepted in July, however I stayed with Lecom-Bradenton and could not be happier with my decision.

I will be joining you in Bradenton in the fall and am very excited

 

[sunnyjohn]

LECOM... I am not knocking SGU, but it is expensive.

 

[DreamJob]

And SGU is not comparable...........Honestly!

 

[stephew]

And SGU is not comparable...........Honestly!

DO versus img often comes down to which particular schools youre talking about. I dont know a thing about LEO at all. I do know a lot about sgu. To suggest that SGU isn't a top alternative pathway if you fail to get into a US Allopathic school is off-base I'm afraid. Or rather Im pleased to say since i went there.

 

[PathOne]

Stephew and many, many others are proofs that it is quite possible to get what you want with an SGU degree. However, a Carib. school IS, unfortunately, a roadblock to the most competitive residencies.
I personally know of a SGU grad with an otherwise competitive application who was rejected from a derm residency SOLELY for being a SGU grad. In fact, a member of the selection committee said so. Same committee had the year before accepted a DO (from Iowa, I believe).

Is that fair or objective? No, probably not. But I'm afraid that it's not a unique occurence. In fact, I can't recall that I've ever heard of a Carib. grad in Derm.

All other things being equal, I would personally feel that the best way to go if you want to be a US physician is to go to a US accredited DO school. But that's just my own opinion... Best thing would probably be to visit both schools, talk to experienced docs and make an informed decision based on that and your personal circumstances.

 

[stephew]

I know two sgu grads in derm. (one at mgh actually; the other my friend in nyc)
There is no arguement that if you get into a us allo school go there and that its a disadvantage to be an img. hence my comment about it being an alternative if you dont do allo i nthe us above. however being a DO is also a disadvantage. For the same reasons; the vast vast majority are folks who failed to get into us allo schools and PDs know it. Also, some pds (and this is the unfair part you mention again) dont trust DOs either.

You have to compare schools, your personal goals, the sorts of placement people get from each school= some imgs schools are without a doubt inferior to many DO schools and some IMG schools superior to many DO schools. sometimes its simply an issue of where you want to practice and the comfort level of the community in that area with dos and imgs. this is the reality. there is an inverse correlation between the vehemence with which someone sticks up for one over the other, and the credibility of their argument.

 

[DreamJob]

imgs schools are without a doubt inferior to many DO schools and some IMG schools superior to many DO schools.

And some MD schools are inferior to DO schools. DO on the average is no way inferior to MD, it is slightly different. I got accepted into the University of Miami (MD school) and I chose to go to Lecom-Bradenton (DO school). I have many reasons for my decision. You talk about admission standards as your comparison of the better school. There are tons of MD schools who have lower admission requirements then many DO schools. If you are discussing the top schools in the country, yes many are MD, however after the top 20 or so the rest are very similar in admission standards.

 

[Skip Intro]

Caribbean students (from the "big three", at least) do many rotations side-by-side with Osteopathic students. Personally, I did rotations with students from NYCOM, PCOM, Touro, and LECOM. Some of the rotations were excellent; some were not.

We're (DO and Carib students), for all intents and purposes, in the same boat. Trust me. I matched into anesthesiology at a competitive, university-based program. Already, I know that I have one Ivy grad in my incoming class and another from an osteopathic program. Ultimately, it comes down to the applicant.

Will you get shut out from certain programs? Yes. But, to re-emphasize what Steph said, this will happen at certain programs whether you're DO or Carib, it just may not happen at the same program(s). Make the decision on what's best for you ultimately. The only issue really comes down to what your peers might think, and trust me that all evaporates quickly. Likewise, very few patients care where you go to school (I've only ever been directly asked where I go to school once by a patient). They just want to be taken care of compassionately, professionally, and competently. If you can accomplish that, it won't matter where you went to undergrad med in the long run.

Just my (additional) $0.02...

-Skip

 

[stephew]

imgs schools are without a doubt inferior to many DO schools and some IMG schools superior to many DO schools.

And some MD schools are inferior to DO schools. DO on the average is no way inferior to MD, it is slightly different. I got accepted into the University of Miami (MD school) and I chose to go to Lecom-Bradenton (DO school). I have many reasons for my decision. You talk about admission standards as your comparison of the better school.

let me be clear about what i mean by inferior as that seems to be something that one has to be delicate about; i mean it in a two-fold way.

1) in terms of opportunity open to you from a given school. Over all being a US allopathic grad is the best route. Yes yes there are exceptions to the rule but this is a true generalization. Look at residency placements from various offshore schools and compare with DO schools. You'll see that from some schools the DOs do better and sometimes the IMGs do depending upon the school in question [note: please lets not tangent into "well what's better anyway"- I'm talking of broad strokes of the ability to get competitive residencies and in competitive and university programs]

2) there are some programs that are very good and some that are very weak. In the USMD programs, in DO and in IMG. In the US allo world this phenomenon exists but by and large most are decent schools. There is greater variation among do and img schools. The broadest range of quality is without a doubt among IMG schools. There are some truely crap schools out there. But I am objecting to your "no comparison" comment. The quality and opportunity coming from the better IMG schools is on par or better with many DO schools. And this brings me back to my original sentiment; you can't just argue DO or IMG. You must (like the original poster) compare the two schools. And I never spoke of admissions standards as a measure of the school.

What I am NOT talking about when I talk about this issue is the quality of being a DO versus being an MD so please just put that aside. Anyone who rolls their eyes when hearing about DOs is ignorent or defensive (take your pick). And IMG who does so gets to add "rather sad" to the list. Ditto the DO who does the same when they hear "IMG". You may have chosen the DO pathway over an allopathic US school and there are a few who do.But by and large, DO is utilized the same way off shore schools are. be cause we fail to get into a US allopathic school, just like the original poster. Who I applaud along with many users in this thread; its nice to see this discussion fiarly well throught out and civil for a change.

 

[DreamJob]

US news and World reports ranking of medical schools. Michigan State University Osteopathic school is ranked 9th. 14 spots ahead of John Hopkins. Trust me DO is in no way inferior to anyone, only undergraduates and insecure MD's think so.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/grad/rankings/med/brief/mdprank_brief.php

 

[stephew]

US news and World reports ranking of medical schools. Michigan State University Osteopathic school is ranked 9th. 14 spots ahead of John Hopkins. Trust me DO is in no way inferior to anyone, only undergraduates and insecure MD's think so.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/grad/rankings/med/brief/mdprank_brief.php

my friend,
I dont think youre really reading what im saying; you're insecurely coming back with a defense each time. There is no need. Lets leave it at that.

 

[Skip Intro]

US news and World reports ranking of medical schools. Michigan State University Osteopathic school is ranked 9th. 14 spots ahead of John Hopkins. Trust me DO is in no way inferior to anyone, only undergraduates and insecure MD's think so.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/grad/rankings/med/brief/mdprank_brief.php

Please re-read what Steph wrote. In addition to completely missing the point, posting rankings for supposedly "best schools" for primary care as an indicator that one school is better than another does not support your cause (UMass in Worcester is 4th, after all). Likewise, the perception among the medical community is that these U.S. News and World Reports rankings are, on the whole nothing more than superficial entertainment for lay people used to sell magazines, at the very worst potentially confusing and misleading as well as devoid of journalistic merit, and at the very best generally useless in the grand scheme of things.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11597837

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=10183262

-Skip

 

[DreamJob]

let me be clear about what i mean by inferior as that seems to be something that one has to be delicate about; i mean it in a two-fold way.

1) in terms of opportunity open to you from a given school. Over all being a US allopathic grad is the best route. Yes yes there are exceptions to the rule but this is a true generalization. Look at residency placements from various offshore schools and compare with DO schools. You'll see that from some schools the DOs do better and sometimes the IMGs do depending upon the school in question [note: please lets not tangent into "well what's better anyway"- I'm talking of broad strokes of the ability to get competitive residencies and in competitive and university programs]

2) there are some programs that are very good and some that are very weak. In the USMD programs, in DO and in IMG. In the US allo world this phenomenon exists but by and large most are decent schools. There is greater variation among do and img schools. The broadest range of quality is without a doubt among IMG schools. There are some truely crap schools out there. But I am objecting to your "no comparison" comment. The quality and opportunity coming from the better IMG schools is on par or better with many DO schools. And this brings me back to my original sentiment; you can't just argue DO or IMG. You must (like the original poster) compare the two schools. And I never spoke of admissions standards as a measure of the school.

What I am NOT talking about when I talk about this issue is the quality of being a DO versus being an MD so please just put that aside. Anyone who rolls their eyes when hearing about DOs is ignorent or defensive (take your pick). And IMG who does so gets to add "rather sad" to the list. Ditto the DO who does the same when they hear "IMG". You may have chosen the DO pathway over an allopathic US school and there are a few who do.But by and large, DO is utilized the same way off shore schools are. be cause we fail to get into a US allopathic school, just like the original poster. Who I applaud along with many users in this thread; its nice to see this discussion fiarly well throught out and civil for a change.

I agree with what you said. I understand that the match typically for allopathic schools is "better" than osteopathic schools. I do believe that many osteopathic students actually choose to go this route, not fall back on it. The philosophy behind the term osteopath is very credible, I believe most allopathic physicians would agree. Ultimately the initials behind your name are meaningless. The quality care you provide for a patient in need, is all that matters.

 

[Skip Intro]

I agree with what you said. I understand that the match typically for allopathic schools is "better" than osteopathic schools.

Good start...

I do believe that many osteopathic students actually choose to go this route, not fall back on it. The philosophy behind the term osteopath is very credible, I believe most allopathic physicians would agree.

... OOPS... WAY too many unsupportable assumptions here...

Ultimately the initials behind your name are meaningless. The quality care you provide for a patient in need, is all that matters.

Yes, but you should have kept the first part and this last part, and left out the middle. Then you would be have stood well-grounded in fact, honesty, and good sense.

-Skip

 

[FlemishGiant]

Lets look at Residency options for when you graduate. If you go to a DO school you also have all of the DO residencies as options. Hopefully, by the time you are an MS4, there will be a combined match, giving you even more choices.
For instance, lets say you want to be a Surgeon (god forbid) . So you rank some high power allopathic programs 1-4. Then you rank some strong DO programs 5-6. Now if you match 1-4 great, you get to be a surgeon . Guess what? If you match at 5-6 (your DO programs) great, you still get to be a surgeon ! If you decide to go Carib, sadly this option will not be available for you. If you don't get your allopathic programs you are out of luck and don't get to be a surgeon yet...
Also I see a lot of these posts, ie. Carib vs. DO, in this forum. Maybe try asking the same question in the DO forums also to get different views/opinions.

Good luck w/ your decision,
FG

 

[DreamJob]

... OOPS... WAY too many unsupportable assumptions here...

Everything stated is true and supported by facts. The philosophy behind osteopathy is very credible, many DO's do choose to go this route, and MD's and DO's work side by side as equals. What part of this do you not agree with?

 

[gflanag]

in regards to "keeping the most doors open" for someone who isn't sure what specialty they would like to get into.. ranging anywhere from family practice to ortho surgery.. it seems that the consensus here is that most of the DO schools are a slightly better choice than even Ross and SGU? Particularly b/c these students can apply to both the MD AND DO residency programs?
In regards to the osteopathic schools at UMDNJ, NYCOM and Westurn/U do we think this would hold true?

 

[KitKat0526]

I really appreciate the thought everyone puts into their responses!
This is a big decision, so I am trying to hear every side and it really helps hearing from informed people.

Hey! What did you decide??? I'm 1st reading this post in MAy 2005- I went to SGU for a month until hurricane Ivan shut the school down in Sept. 04- now I'll be starting a LECOM this summer (class 0f 09)....I'm very curiois to see what decision you made- especially b/c I can give you some insight on SGU....

hopefully I'll talk to you soon...
Kate

 

[Megalofyia]

Hey! What did you decide??? I'm 1st reading this post in MAy 2005- I went to SGU for a month until hurricane Ivan shut the school down in Sept. 04- now I'll be starting a LECOM this summer (class 0f 09)....I'm very curiois to see what decision you made- especially b/c I can give you some insight on SGU....

hopefully I'll talk to you soon...
Kate

What made you change your mind? Why didn't you go to New York to continue on with the year?

 

[KitKat0526]

What made you change your mind? Why didn't you go to New York to continue on with the year?

Continuing in NY would have been SOOOO convienent for me to continue as an SGU student since I live 35 minutes from NYCOM (where they relocated), but after going through ABSOLUTE HELL in Grenada for a week after the storm and realizing there was no real support system for the US kids abroad, I wanted to keep me feet planted in the US.....

 

[KitKat0526]

So after a few weeks of being able to think about it, I decided to leave SGU and take my chances applying to DO schools very late in the game (December 04), It ended up being too easy- I applied to all 22 DO schools and got interviews at 12 schools . LECOM- Bradenton was the 1st school that I interviewed at,i fell in LOVE with it, cancelled all of my other interviews and sent my LECOM $$ in for the class of 09'. I couldnt be happier with my decision.

 

[KitKat0526]

BROB459...I just read that you chose LECOM ( I guess I looked over that post before) Bradenton or PA? I think you'll be happy with your decision. Good Luck and I'll see you in FL if thats where you're going!

 

[DreamJob]

BROB459...I just read that you chose LECOM ( I guess I looked over that post before) Bradenton or PA? I think you'll be happy with your decision. Good Luck and I'll see you in FL if thats where you're going!

Congratulations on your decision! See you in August, have your Netters ready, anatomy is a lot of fun!

 

[Brob459]

BROB459...I just read that you chose LECOM ( I guess I looked over that post before) Bradenton or PA? I think you'll be happy with your decision. Good Luck and I'll see you in FL if thats where you're going!

Hey, KitKat0526! I will be joining you down in Bradenton

 

[Skip Intro]

I do believe that many osteopathic students actually choose to go this route, not fall back on it. The philosophy behind the term osteopath is very credible, I believe most allopathic physicians would agree.

... OOPS... WAY too many unsupportable assumptions here...

Everything stated is true and supported by facts. The philosophy behind osteopathy is very credible, many DO's do choose to go this route, and MD's and DO's work side by side as equals. What part of this do you not agree with?

As everyone can see, you slightly modified and qualified the statements that I was reacting to. Regardless, I'll still answer your question (since you asked). However, your assumptions still are not really supported by the facts, but instead perhaps just by your current perceptions.

Here's explicitly why I reacted the way I did to what you originally said:

(1) I don't agree that "many" (an unquantifiable term) would choose DO over U.S. MD given the side-by-side choice. Merriam-Webster defines "many" as "consisting of or amounting to a large but indefinite number", with the operative word there being large. So, based on this definition, I would disagree that, as stated, a large number of students choose osteopathy rather than "fall back on it". But, I am sure that there are a likely "many" osteopathy students who later would attempt to dishonestly claim that they "preferred" or even "chose" osteopathy over allopathy after failing to secure a position in a U.S. MD-granting school. Unless these same students actually had that decision in their hands and chose to go to osteopathy, I can't believe this is a regular occurrence and that most would make that decision. While I'm sure there are indeed very few who actually fit this description, it is this occassional intellectual dishonesty among those osteopathic students who later claim that they "chose" osteopathy over allopathy, when that choice really only entailed perhaps going to a U.S. DO school versus a Caribbean MD school, that I have a problem with.

(2) Much of the philosophy behind the "curative" theory behind OMM that separates it from the traditional "allopathic" approach (which is also part of an osteopaths training, granted) is suspect, often unsupported by rigorous data, and are considered by most MDs (and even a large portion of DOs) to be of little value in the treatment of most ailments that physicians end-up treating. The manipulations offered are perceived to be nothing more than glorified chiropractic, regardless of some of the individually distinct and competing theories behind osteopathy versus chiropractic, and pseudoscientific with little real value, especially when you consider such quack practices as craniosacral therapy, a practice even considered suspect by most osteopaths. (Why hasn't the AOA officially and publicly stated that there is little evidence to support this practice? No, they have instead passively endorsed it and it has even been incorporated into the curriculum of many schools.) Furthermore, I think the common perception that osteopaths hold some sort of dominion over the ability to provide better "holistic" treatment for the patient is something to which M.D.'s also object, as well as find to have no real, true, meaningful distinction in common practice patterns between the two disciplines in everyday practice.

Furthermore, I personally find (and I'm sure many others would agree with me) the philosophical basis of OMM/OMT to be bogus, despite whatever data you might be able to present, and I believe - again - the majority of students entering osteopathic school today also have no real intentions of ever using it past the compulsory training they get in school. This has been discussed extensively in osteopathic literature (e.g., "OMT becoming a 'lost art' among clinicians", "Low response survey rate in private practice and low satisfaction in post-graduate training", "Few students will use OMM in practice", etc.).

Those are the facts.

Listen, I have no problem with osteopathy students/graduates. I think that they are equally capable as any other medical graduate, and they should be able to specialize as much as they want. I have osteopathy friends and will certainly work along side of many osteopathic colleagues in the future. I just wish to maintain honesty in the discussion. And, being honest, osteopathic education in this modern era primarily serves as a back-up plan for a majority of students who otherwise would've rather gone to a U.S. allo school had they been able to get in. The same holds true for Carib students, given the individual circumstances for each. I hold no ill-will or bad feelings towards either who've worked hard to get through their training and have stayed the course to becoming physicians. Don't get me wrong in that regard. I just hold myself to a high level of personal integrity, and seeing as I don't "buy in" to the OMM/OMT modality, an osteopathic education was never in the cards for me. Doesn't mean that I don't think that some people derive benefit from certain aspects of it or that the practice should be stopped.

So, as long as we can at least fundamentally agree that osteopathic education, in these modern times, is primarily and for most an alternative pathway to becoming a physician in lieu of getting a spot at a U.S. allo school, then I have no problems. It's when people start offering unsupportable assertions such as "I do believe that many osteopathic students actually choose to go this route, not fall back on it," and "the philosophy behind the term osteopath is very credible, I believe most allopathic physicians would agree" that we are going to start having problems. Yes, the majority of osteopathic education is the exact same as an allopathic education. It's when you start getting into the fringes, namely the less rigorous and more controversial "manipulative" theories and practices, that I think we see a real divergence among the fields and equal disagreement as to the validity of that treatment modality, of which I don't agree with you that "most allopathic physicians" would find "credible". And, it's at least very sad that we are investing time and money into training students in a modality that most are unlikely to routinely incorporate into their practice, all because the AMA and AAMC won't open more M.D. schools. This is the real concerning issue here... that we have so many qualified applicants who are forced to go offshore or into an alternative medical education program that forces them to learn things they don't agree with or will never employ and is perceived by them as nothing more than de rigueur and pointless while on the path to getting their medical degree.

-Skip

 

[drusso]

Furthermore, I personally find (and I'm sure many others would agree with me) the philosophical basis of OMM/OMT to be bogus, despite whatever data you might be able to present, and I believe - again - the majority of students entering osteopathic school today also have no real intentions of ever using it past the compulsory training they get in school. This has been discussed extensively in osteopathic literature (e.g., "OMT becoming a 'lost art' among clinicians", "Low response survey rate in private practice and low satisfaction in post-graduate training", "Few students will use OMM in practice", etc.).

-Skip

Have you read the articles in the OMT Journal Club? I'm not sure how to respond to someone who doesn't want to evaluate data presented to them.

OMT Journal Club

 

[Skip Intro]

Have you read the articles in the OMT Journal Club? I'm not sure how to respond to someone who doesn't want to evaluate data presented to them.

You mean like this comment (regarding an osteopathy student's perception of the utility of craniosacral)? Again, why does the AOA continue to support such clearly unsupportable (dare I say "quack") medical practices? Trust me, I've evaluated plenty of data. It's just that I'm equally interested in the opinions of those who are explicitly trained in this methodology, which is something that is far more germane to this particular discussion anyway.

And, as far as OMM, I don't think there has ever been anything to scientifically back-up the "philosophical" assumptions implicit to Dr. Still's original theories, which is what I was commenting on from the OP's general assumption that we all agree that osteopathy is inherently sound and generally accepted in the "allopathic" community (if you'll re-read again). A trip to a physical therapist offering roughly the same treatments for lower back pain works just as well as OMM "manipulations", minus the bogus, superfluous theorizing as to why.

-Skip

 

[DreamJob]

You mean like this comment (regarding an osteopathy student's perception of the utility of craniosacral)? Again, why does the AOA continue to support such clearly unsupportable (dare I say "quack") medical practices? Trust me, I've evaluated plenty of data. It's just that I'm equally interested in the opinions of those who are explicitly trained in this methodology, which is something that is far more germane to this particular discussion anyway.

And, as far as OMM, I don't think there has ever been anything to scientifically back-up the "philosophical" assumptions implicit to Dr. Still's original theories, which is what I was commenting on from the OP's general assumption that we all agree that osteopathy is inherently sound and generally accepted in the "allopathic" community (if you'll re-read again). A trip to a physical therapist offering roughly the same treatments for lower back pain works just as well as OMM "manipulations", minus the bogus, superfluous theorizing as to why.

-Skip

You 're too funny! One quick question, how many times were you denied admission to an osteopathic medical school?




P.S. Don't be bitter, it isn't pretty. Just be proud of who you are, and try not to disrespect others!

 

[awdc]

You 're too funny! One quick question, how many times were you denied admission to an osteopathic medical school?




P.S. Don't be bitter, it isn't pretty. Just be proud of who you are, and try not to disrespect others!

Well, if you think questioning the scientific validity of OMM equates to disrespecting practitioners of OMM, then you've got much to learn about science. Pretty much the only thing OMT is scientifically accepted for is back pain. Can anyone honestly say otherwise? Let's face it, osteopathy is not scientifically credible at this point. Those are the facts until proven otherwise. However, the osteopathic medical profession is accepted because it does mirror "allopathic" medical education and upholds the standard of care found in medicine. Look, I think OMM is great and I think a lot of MD's think OMM is great, but let's not jump to conclusions that osteopathic philosophy is a credible science.

 

[group_theory]

Let's face it, osteopathy is not scientifically credible at this point. Those are the facts until proven otherwise.
...
but let's not jump to conclusions that osteopathic philosophy is a credible science.

Be careful not to throw the baby out with the bath water. While OMT is a component of osteopathy, it isn't all of osteopathy. Another important part of osteopathy rests on its principles, or philosophy - that underlies all of osteopathic medicine. (these philosophy has been around since Dr. Still came up w/ osteopathy) And if you read these principles, you might agree that most are scientifically sound.

The principles are:

1. The body is a unit; the person is a unit of body, mind and spirit.

2. The body is capable of self-regulation, self-healing and health maintenance

3. Structure and function are reciprocally interrelated

4. rational treatment is based upon an understanding of the basic principals of body unit, self-regulation, and the interrelationship of structure and function.


You can call me a quack, but I think those 4 principles are true and scientifically sound.

A lot of people condeming OMT on this board have very little experience with OMT, its philosophy or the understanding behind OMT besides what they read on the web. While I dont believe in everything that is in OMT, there are certain techniques that are helpful.

If you haven't gone to the gym in a while, and you go and overwork yourself - OMT can be helpful. A woman in a car who reaches for something in the backseat and suddenly her back "cracked" - OMT may be helpful. A gardener who has been tending her lawn for hours suddenly stands up to find her back aches and back muscles in spasm - OMT may be helpful. Someone who has hypotension, radiating backpain, and pulsitile abdominal mass, OMT will not be helpful (just checking to see if you're still reading)

For me, in the end, it's something I can offer my patients. It might or might not work. Backpain is a very common cc in primary care settings, and many people are unsatisfy with current medical therapy. If OMT can help alleviate some of of the backpains that I will see, hey - I will slowly build up some very loyal patient base - who are willing to switch HMO, PPOs, pay cash - just to be seen by me.

For the original poster - SGU or LECOM - either will be fine. More of a personal choice really. Many people choose SGU over DO. That's fine. Many people choose DO over SGU. That's fine too. Can't fault someone for picking what's right for them. Just do well in school, boards, and wards.

 

[Dr Sum Day]

A trip to a physical therapist offering roughly the same treatments for lower back pain works just as well as OMM "manipulations", minus the bogus, superfluous theorizing as to why.
-Skip

I have to disagree here. I've seen many PTs and they cld not help, just the same old stretching and strength exercises. I am already strong and flexible, so they didn't have anything to offer. I went to a D.O and the manipulations helped, although it's too expensive. I'd never charge that much
Anyway, I like your critical analysis, b/c I'm a skeptic too, but I feel one should consider everything, like meds, stretching, manipulations, blood or lymph flow, or whatever. We have to think outside the box.

There are PTs that know manipulation, but I was never sent to any

 

[Skip Intro]

One quick question, how many times were you denied admission to an osteopathic medical school?

One quick answer: zero; I never applied.

And, I'm not bitter. Look at my tag line.



-Skip

 

[Shodddy18]

You mean like this comment A trip to a physical therapist offering roughly the same treatments for lower back pain works just as well as OMM "manipulations", minus the bogus, superfluous theorizing as to why.

-Skip

Exactly what part of the physiology behind the efficacy of OMT is bogus and superfluous? The PhD physiologists who taught me much of it didnt seem to think these mechanisms were bogus or superfluous.

 

[housecleaning]

LECOM or St George University in Grenada? Anybody have thoughts on which would provide me with better opportunities?

this is an outrageously do-heavy board. and many have been banned for not embracing the "do philosophy." good luck.

 

[tkim]

this is an outrageously do-heavy board. and many have been banned for not embracing the "do philosophy." good luck.

Could you send me an example of this? I'm curious who did the banning.

 

[EastCoaster78]

Well, if you think questioning the scientific validity of OMM equates to disrespecting practitioners of OMM, then you've got much to learn about science. Pretty much the only thing OMT is scientifically accepted for is back pain. Can anyone honestly say otherwise? Let's face it, osteopathy is not scientifically credible at this point. Those are the facts until proven otherwise.

Here we go, just a quick pubmed search, with JAOA articles omitted.

mechanism.

hypertension.

geriatrics.

cerebral palsy.

otis media.

herniated disk.

 

[Skip Intro]

Herein, I'm going to respond to two very important points from above responses that I think underlie exactly what I'm talking about. Just remember, I'm not "attacking" osteopaths or people who graduate with a D.O. degree and practice medicine side-by-side with other physicians. I'm also not "attacking" people who use sound judgement in evaluating the practices that have been proven, through a robust evidence base, to be appropriate treatment for a malady. But, it's important to draw a distinction between what is now commonly practiced and accepted as "good medicine" in light of the (perhaps waning in acceptance) political motivations of some stalwart osteopaths who are attempting to preserve and separately distinguish their field from "allopathy", which (in my humble) opinion only becomes divisive, non-productive, and ultimately "quackish" when stripped for examination.

these philosophy has been around since Dr. Still came up w/ osteopathy) And if you read these principles, you might agree that most are scientifically sound.

The principles are:

1. The body is a unit; the person is a unit of body, mind and spirit.

2. The body is capable of self-regulation, self-healing and health maintenance

3. Structure and function are reciprocally interrelated

4. rational treatment is based upon an understanding of the basic principals of body unit, self-regulation, and the interrelationship of structure and function.


You can call me a quack, but I think those 4 principles are true and scientifically sound.

First off, as I stated already I take objection to the assertion implicit in your statements that osteopaths somehow hold dominion over the concept of "holistic" medicine (which are based on misinterpreted comments Still made and which I'll further address below). Perhaps we allopaths call it the "doctor-patient relationship" or "preventive medicine" or by some other moniker, but to make a veiled accusation that we somehow don't care about treating the whole person and are uninterested in their "wellness", which as defined by the WHO as being not merely the absence of infirmity, is absurd.

Secondly, and and no offense intended, but have you actually read Still's original manifesto on osteopathy? Check it out.

Among many other gems, there is stuff about curing scarlet fever by removing cerumen impaction. There are outrageous anecdotal rates of purported "cures" of diseases of which no one could have possibly known or understood the underlying mechanisms given the state of medical science at the time.

But, I think Still was mostly understood. He was a careful observer who based on the state of the art of medicine made many fallacies, when held to modern standards of Good Clinical Practice, that perhaps "blinded" him to the limitations of his observations. Much of his "theory" just doesn't hold-up to close scrutiny. Many often quote the following as evidence of his "holistic" approach to medicine...

"We know that if we ever know the whole, we must first know the parts."
- A.T. Still

What is so unique and revolutionary about that? This is essentially stating that the whole is made up of parts. This is exactly what every allopathic medical education model teaches. Likewise, the allopathic process (which modern Osteopathy fully embraces) tries to apply the principle of Ockham's Razor in looking at the summation of the constellation of signs and symptoms to come up with the most reasonable and parsimonious explanation as to what the problem is, in addition to the psychosocial issues that may have played a role in causing the problem in the first place (e.g., unprotected sex, smoking, drug use, etc). This is, by definition, a holistic approach to the patient's problem.

The only thing that Still did back in the 1860's and 1870's was rebuff the failings of what-was-then-modern medicine by making close (and in many cases incorrect) observations of infirmity, and then extrapolate them into often wildly unsupportable conclusions about the underlying disease processes, causes that we now definitively know without question. And, he then used this often incorrectly assumed and anecdotally supported "philosophy" to build an entire medical establishment around.

Take this, for example...

Duration of such great mental vibrations for so long stops nutrition of all or one-half of the brain, and we have a case of "Hemiplegia," or the wheels of one-half of the brain run so fast as to overcome some fountain of nerve force and explode some cerebral artery in the brain and deposit a clot of blood at some motor supply or plexus.

http://www.meridianinstitute.com/eamt/files/still2/st2ch3.html#MENTAL VIBRATIONS.

We now definitively know the causes of the vast majority of strokes, which often result from phenomenon occurring outside of the brain and/or are vascular in nature, as well as how to effectively interupt that process. Stroke has nothing to do with "overworking the brain." In light of modern medical achievement, Still's assumptions seem almost juvenile. But, he continues in his "philosophy"...

Slaves and savages seldom fall victims to paralysis of any kind, but escape all such, for they know nothing of the strains of mind and hurried nutrition. They eat and rest, live long and happy. The idea of riches never bothers their slumbers.

Observational bias at its finest! And, I'd like to see a modern osteopath get up in front of a symposium full of minority colleagues and offer that as evidence that the osteopathic "philosophy" is sound. And that's not to mention the fact that it is simply factually wrong. We now know, through careful epidemiologic study, that African-Americans are at FAR greater risk of stroke than Caucasians, whom Still was predominately treating at the time. His theories were paternilistic, elitist, and even racist, not to mention limited by his own self-biased perceptions. But, there's more...

Hemiplegia is usually the result of a cerebral hemorrhage or embolism.

AH! He gets it right. But, let's go back to his reasoning as to why this occurs...

Duration of such great mental vibrations for so long stops nutrition of all or one-half of the brain, and we have a case of "Hemiplegia," or the wheels of one-half of the brain run so fast as to overcome some fountain of nerve force and explode some cerebral artery in the brain and deposit a clot of blood at some motor supply or plexus.

Essentially, he's saying that if you think too hard you're going to overwork your brain and this will cause a stroke. This is just flat-out wrong. But, you can't fault him - at the time - for coming up with such theories.

This is just one example of numerous, silly, unscientific assertions that Still makes in his "Philosophy of Osteopathy" credo. I know, for the most part, that the majority of his "theories" have since been abandoned. What I can't continue to fathom is how osteopaths want to in this day in age try to draw such a hard distinction between their allopathic counterparts in certain areas of medicine, yet happily and routinely embrace what Still clearly rejected as part of his core philosophy (e.g., use of medication). Furthermore, why some osteopaths continue to use and endorse WHOLLY unproven modalities (again, like craniosacral), which are just based on... well... nonsense, also baffles me. Again, why doesn't the AOA come out against craniosacral? Is it interested more in science or politics?

The only real continuing difference between allopathy and the continued support of the "osteopathic philosophy" as a distinct modality is that most of us know better. We use careful study and evidence base to avoid such anecdotal and unsupported inferences. We use the peer-review process to make sure that our individual biases don't make their way into the body of scientific knowledge. And, when we do find new data and realize that we were wrong about previous assumptions or knowledge, we abandon it for the newer, better information.

So, to continue to assert, in this modern age, that the philosophy upon which osteopathic medicine is based is sound and widely accepted by mainstream physicians - even most osteopaths - is simply incorrect. For those who've actually looked into the matter and not simply based their opinions on general impressions they get from their osteopathic colleagues on the wards, they'd find that the core philosophy of osteopathic medicine - i.e., the part that distinguishes it from its shared allopathic medicine roots - is not based on a credible scientific system nor is it supported by a mountain of data which actually shows the purported philosophical basis of the therapeutic modality to be wholly unprovable.

Therefore, any assertion that the "osteopathic philosophy" is sound and that "most physicians agree" so - or, for all intents and purposes, it is fundamentally different than (or perhaps even "superior" to) the allopathic model is simply offensive. Those are the things I object to, not the osteopathic physician who uses sound medical judgment and a strong evidence base to provide quality care to his/her patients.

-Skip

 

[Skip Intro]

Exactly what part of the physiology behind the efficacy of OMT is bogus and superfluous? The PhD physiologists who taught me much of it didnt seem to think these mechanisms were bogus or superfluous.

Well, you're changing the argument. I never anywhere said anything about or indicted the physiology of osteopathic manipulations. I believe that stretching and massage is beneficial, and perhaps a more robust variety provided by some osteopaths versus physical therapists is even more beneficial. What I object to is the unproven philosophy of Osteopathy, especially the more outlandish claims (such as craniosacral therapy) that the field endorses.

I see that EastCoaster78 has posted several articles from the AOA's journal supporting the use of OMM/OMT in various diseases. I'm less interested in small studies without sham controls published in the flagship journal of an association that is interested in self-preservation of its practices than I am in cross-comparative studies using rigorous methodology published outside of AOA endorsed journals. Problem is, there aren't many compartive studies or publications outside of the JAOA... hmmm. Maybe part of the problem:

The survey results confirm that general medical practitioners are highly unlikely to have professional dealings with chiropractors and osteopaths, including referral of patients to said providers, even if the patient requests such a referral, and that general medical practitioners are much more likely to have professional dealings with physiotherapists than with any of the other nontraditional groups considered.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...d&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=9608376&query_hl=19

To me, the belief in the principles of OMT becomes more of a "blind faith" in the osteopathic philosophy. Ask yourself this: what is the true distinction between chiropractic manipulation and osteopathic manipulation? Are the techinques so different as to warrant such a divergent philosophical basis for their use? Many osteopaths counter that the modality just "makes sense" when treating certain ailments. This is the same sort of unsupportable belief that modern science has worked so hard to limit (or remove entirely) when trying to minimize human error and bias in attempting to understand the nature of disease and health. What I suggest is that we support much more rigorous, cross-controlled, and sham-controlled studies to see if the distinctions that osteopaths so cherish in their own methodology are true.

Again, don't get me wrong. I think osteopathic education provides a great opportunity for many students to learn medicine. However, you should be careful in swallowing the osteopathic philosophy whole... you might choke. And, yes, numerous studies support that most agree with that sentiment.

-Skip