It's funny how only osteopathic students regret going to DO school once they find out about how uncertain science can be. What? OMT works but we're not quite sure why? NOOOOO! I WANT TO BE AN MD!!!! AHHHHH!
From the Prozac website:
http://www.prozac.com/how_prozac/how_it_works.jsp?reqNavId=2.2
"Depression is not fully understood, but a growing amount of evidence supports the view that people with depression have an imbalance of the brain's neurotransmitters, ..... Many scientists believe that an imbalance in serotonin, one of these neurotransmitters, may be an important factor in the development and severity of depression.
PROZAC may help to correct this imbalance by increasing the brain's own supply of serotonin....
While PROZAC cannot be said to "cure" depression, it does help to control the symptoms of depression, allowing many people with depression to feel better and return to normal functioning."
How's that? "...not fully understood..." "...scientists believe..." "...may be an important factor..." "Prozac may help..." "...cannot be said to cure depression, but helps control the symptoms..." (treating symptoms and not people? Sorry, couldn't help throwing that in there). Sounds like the science behind depression and the science behind the treatment is just a bunch of "may" "perhaps" "believe" (sounds like OMT?)
How about this little gem from the Zoloft website:
http://www.zoloft.com/index.asp?pageid=44
"Although the way Zoloft works for depression, panic disorder, OCD, and PTSD is not completely understood...."
What? Prescribing something that seems to work in studies but that doesn't have a known mechanism of action? QUACKS!!!!! Oh, wait...those are MDs and not DOs. Never mind.
When an MD uses therapy that's not understood, to treat disorders that aren't understood, it's OK because a drug company-sponsored study shows the drug "may work."
When a DO uses therapy that's not understood (OMT) to treat disorders that aren't understood (somatic dysfunction), it's quackery and people regret going to DO school.
Double standard? That's the only thing that's worthy of regret.
The more you read your books (particularly neuroscience, immunology and plenty of physiology concepts) you realize most of the "science" in medicine is based on "perhaps" "evidence seems to point to" "may" "it's agreed that". Very few things are certain. MDs seem to handle this uncertainty very well. DOs start to whine and regret, especially when the uncertainty comes from OMM.