Talk:Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Medicine (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Education (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

AACOM definition[edit]

Based on the description by the "italic" American Association of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine "italic" Doctors of Osteopathic Medicine provide a holistic approach in diagnosing their patients. They see each person as more than just a collection of organ systems and body parts that may become injured or diseased. One key concept osteopathic medical students learn is that structure influences function. Thus, if there is a problem in one part of the body’s structure, function in that area, and possibly in other areas, may be affected. [1]Vishwajraval (talk) 00:28, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I edited the definition I think the phrase that I added into the definition makes the definition better. The link is right at the end if you want to check it outVishwajraval (talk) 21:21, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
It seems extremely undue in the lede, and the claims appear to be rather dubious, possibly a WP:FRINGE violation. --Ronz (talk) 22:01, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Agree that it's undue. The content put in by Wishwajraval could be more terse anyway. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:11, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I added the second section on this sentence. Doctors of Osteopathic medicine are distinguished by their ability to diagnose a patient by taking the holistic approach to come to conclusion about their patients. I found a good reference on — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vishwajraval (talkcontribs) 00:08, 10 May 2014‎

Looking over Holism#Medicine, it appears to mean something different in medicine than how it was presented in the article. It looks like AACOM is using it correctly, while the information added to the article was using an incorrect definition. --Ronz (talk) 00:41, 10 May 2014 (UTC)


  1. ^ [1],"aacom" 2008-present

Primary sources in lead re: pseudoscientific[edit]

There are primary sources in the relating to the 'pseudoscientific' aspect of OM which relies on an editorial and an op-ed piece. These primary sources should be removed. DVMt (talk) 14:31, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

They are commentary on the DO syllabus (which is primary): secondary sources. Please review WP:PST. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 14:34, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
[2] This is an editorial in the JAOA. This [3] is a op-ed in forbes. Neither qualify as a review. DVMt (talk) 14:39, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
So what? These are not health claims and for pseudoscience WP:PARITY allows us considerable lassitude in our choice of source anyway. Please review the Talk page archives where this has been discussed at length. It looks like you are trying to remove criticism from the lede, which would make it misrepresent the body, and compromise the neutrality of this article. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 14:43, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, here [4] you stated that primary sources need not apply. I'm not doing anything that you suggest, other than follow the rules that are here. Where does it state in any review that OM is pseudoscience? If you're going to make a blanket statement than you need a better source. Also, thanks for acknowledging those sources were primary. You just proved my point that you were misleading in your edit summary. DVMt (talk)
They're not primary sources, they are secondary sources. They would not be WP:MEDRS for health claims, but they are more than RS for the text they support. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 15:00, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
I think you're confused. Your sources aren't systematic reviews (secondary source) or derived from a textbook (tertiary source). Go back and read WP:MEDRS carefully. You're making a massive claim, OM=pseudo, a blanket statement. You'll need better sources or these ones needs to go. Can't have it both ways. DVMt (talk) 15:07, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm quite clear, thanks. As I said, please review WP:PST. A secondary source "provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources". Systematic reviews are types of secondary sources which are very good sources for health claims. Quackwatch (to pick an example) is generally a very good secondary source for describing health frauds. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 15:12, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Why are you reaching down when you can use the gold standard which is a pubmed indexed systematic review? Surely if OM/CM is pseudoscience you can find more than an op-ed and lay article. Also, are you suggest that OM/CM for LBP, for instance, is fringe and pseudoscientific?
Don't be silly, whether or not something is a pseudoscience cannot be determined by a systematic review, since this is a question of categorization, not of empirical medical evidence. Our policy requires that pseudoscience things be described as such; WP:PARITY gives guidance on the sources we can use. If you can find an even stronger source, the by all means include it. Notice, BTW, we also use Quackwatch (a kind of gold standard) in the article body. And there's more at our OMT article if you're interested. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 15:38, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
What exactly makes OM/CM pseudoscientific for the treatment of LBP? Was there ever an arbcom or some kind of ruling that stated unequivocally that OM/CM is pseudoscientific? DVMt (talk) 15:41, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
As per what WAID said, you shouldn't rely on a Forbes op-ed as the 'meat' of your proposition. Can you please point to be some kind of ruling that stated unequivocally that OM/CM is pseudoscientific? Thanks, DVMt (talk) 17:54, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Paging Alexbrn (talk · contribs)! Your attention is requested please. DVMt (talk) 16:33, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── There seems to have been some confusion: Wikipedia is asserting nothing "unequivocally", but relaying the views as reported in the article body here, and more fully in our OMT article. The rationale for the wording used there was given by WAID some months back. Arbcom has no authority to rule on content. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 03:39, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

That's not the interpretation I'm getting. You said that the default position is skepticism, in line with Quackwatch. Just to make it clear: you think that a Forbes article and editorial is sufficient to label OM/CM pseudoscientific? If arbcom is not that right venue, then where is the proper venue to discuss this issue where manipulative therapies for MSK issues is pseudoscientific? DVMt (talk) 15:48, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
We're not discussing "manipulative therapies for MSK" (your idée fixe), but OMT - specifically OMT training. A distinct thing. Forbes is a reputable publication - how you any reason to doubt how it reports Salzberg's view? (he is a professor at Johns Hopkin, which seems to make him a notable enough critic). Are you really saying no critical view of OMT should be reported at all on Wikipedia? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 17:49, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Forbes as a reliable medical source? We can do better. Criticism is of course permitted, but caution must be taken about making sweeping generalizations. When you want to make an extraordinary claim, you need extraordinary evidence. The criticism seems to be directed towards OMM (These techniques, known as osteopathic manipulative medicine (OMM),[1] have been criticized as "pseudoscientific".[15][16]". What happened to your statement at WAID that MM didn't equal fringe? Regards, DVMt (talk) 23:20, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
I think you just failed to address every point I made, except for agreeing criticism should not be obliterated. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 04:17, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
I did address your points and concerns. And now you're trying to get me to accept an appeal from authority from Salzberg. In the end, an op-ed doesn't suffice nor does an commentary. As Yobol described in a different page. ""All articles published, including editorials, letters, and book reviews, represent the opinions of the authors and do not reflect the policy of the Editorial Board, or the institution with which the author is affiliated, unless this is clearly specified."
An appeal to authority is an argument tactic, so not relevant to the text in question. Salzberg, Bledsoe and Quackwatch are the three "critical" views we quote, all notable in their own way, giving this article a tiny proportion of its content as criticism. The lede summarizes the criticism given in the body and provides a courtesy citation just to Bledsoe and Salzburg. If you're saying these views shouldn't be here, then I disagree. This has been discussed ad nauseam before, and as was suggested then, dispute resolution may be a way to proceed if there is dispute. Feel free to initiate that if you wish. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 16:02, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
An appeal to authority is a logical fallacy which you were asking me to do to give the Salzberg source some sort of legitimacy. Like WAID said, it's very much shaky referencing, should definitely be more robust rather than reaching down. I was simply asking you to clarify your stance. Also, I repeat All articles published, including editorials, letters, and book reviews, represent the opinions of the authors and do not reflect the policy of the Editorial Board, or the institution with which the author is affiliated, unless this is clearly specified."' Please address this point, Regards, DVMt (talk) 16:22, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
If the term "pseudomedical" should be used to describe the hands-on manipulation techniques in that sentence, then original, peer-reviewed articles highlighting evidence to support this claim should be cited. Only one of the two citations support this claim, albeit loosely. The book by E.S. Swanson does not appear to use primary sources in his claim of Osteopathy being pseudomedical. The term "pseudomedical" should be removed from that sentence unless another more substantial reference can be found. Angryarmpit (talk) 09:01, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Please see WP:PSCI and WP:PARITY. We are obliged to call fringe stuff out, and the source is high-quality enough to describe OMT as the nonsense it obviously is. This has recently been discussed at WP:FT/N. Alexbrn (talk) 09:11, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
The only thing we are obliged to do here is to present and support factual information, and if that includes calling out fringe stuff in order to present the closest objective view then this is acceptable. However, a systematic review paper on this subject [1] highlighted the efficacy of some Osteopathic treatment modalities for treating lower back pain. I would agree on describing OMT as highly controversial in many aspects of the practice, but not uniformly pseudoscience. Angryarmpit (talk) 20:12, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring over the pseudoscientific delegation of OMM in the lede[edit]

I've already commented above how these sources are very weak to be making some a broad, sweeping generalization. And now there's back and forth edits wars. There does seem to be CON at this point, so best if we discussed it here. Regards, DVMt (talk) 16:57, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Have you taken on board now that Wikipedia is reporting critics' views, and not making a "sweeping generalization"? The lede must summarize the body, as it now does. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 17:38, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Seems like this conversation kind of trailed off. Has a conclusion been reached here or not? Does everyone feel the issue has been resolved or not? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 06:30, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
It's not resolved. We're using an op-ed and a commentary to state OMM is bogus and pseudoscientific. Doc James has said that letters to the editor aren't good sources. So, my question is, if there's no better source (secondary, tertiary) then the opinions of these men aren't sufficient to state that OMM is completely bogus. Can you find a stronger source, Alex? DVMt (talk) 16:19, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Right, so you haven't taken on board that we are reporting views and not asserting facts. These are the (only) critical views of osteopath training. You are saying that all critical views should be deleted from the article, correct? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 16:39, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Incorrect. What I'm stating is that the weight given to the critical sources should be based on the quality of the sources. Since these are on the poorer end of the spectrum, they can't be asserted as strongly as if they were published in a medical textbook or a systematic review. DVMt (talk) 16:41, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Side point correction-these views are criticizing the training of osteopathic physicians not osteopaths (Alex, just FYI these are commonly conflated terms, but they are not synonymous). Anyway, continue discussion. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 20:05, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, Tyler. This is a critical distinction that gets conflated. Alex, do you disagree with Doc James' assertion that letters to the editor aren't good sources? I'm more moderate: 'it depends'. There is a lot contextual information that is needed. Nevertheless, it seems to be, and as per this discussion [5] that it's you have misunderstand what fringe is and how the sources should be used to describe a subject. Stating that OMM is pseudoscientific, is stating that osteopathic medicine is bogus. That's an over-reach. OMM is practiced by the same licensed physicians. DVMt (talk) 20:31, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Including relevant criticism to osteopathic manipulative training is acceptable and appropriate, but I agree that outright accepting that osteopathic medical training is pseudoscience is an overreach in this case. Commentary from a few editors does not establish the fact of pseudoscience. However, we can still include those sources until a more reputable source emerges. Rytyho usa (talk) 00:32, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

How should we deal with this over-reach? Typically under MEDRS we use peer-reviewed literature, preferably 2ndary or 3ary sources. This is an op-ed in Forbes and a letter to the editor. So, extremely questionable sources to make such a massive claim. Hope to collaborate with you to move the needle forward! Neuraxis (talk) 00:58, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
To repeat, yet again: we are not asserting things here but relaying views. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 03:34, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
You don't to understand: this is an over-reach. This has been relayed by different editors. You confused osteopathy with osteopathic medicine. Errors are piling up. Neuraxis (talk) 12:49, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
No, we say OMT techiques "have been criticized as" pseudoscientific, not that they are (though I think we probably could, since that is not a seriously contested assertion). Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 13:02, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
You have concerned editors saying this is an over-reach. So, CON can change. Neuraxis (talk) 13:04, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
We have an editor arguing confusedly against an WP:NPOV article and a strong smell of WP:COI and WP:ADVOCACY. The small but significant amount of criticism contained in the article must be reflected in the lede; the fringe elements of osteopathy must be apparent per policy. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 13:10, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Making specious allegations and not assuming good faith is very uncouth, Alex. You didn't address any of my points. We know by another discussion that your personal interpretation of fringe has been debunked and rebutted. So, please try to avoid using the same logic pattern here as you did there. Thanks. Neuraxis (talk) 13:12, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't think you have understood. If you think WP:FRINGE is misapplied you can raise this at WP:FT/N. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 13:17, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Talking apples and oranges. We are specifically talking about an over-reach. Why are you ignoring my and Rytyho's concerns? Neuraxis (talk) 16:56, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Quackwatch on the dubious nature of CST[edit]

It's not important if Quackwatch or some other source is used (there are plenty to chose from in the CST article). What's important though is that this knowledge is not just ripped out entirely. Currently it fails WP:V. Alexbrn (talk) 06:31, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Well then Alex, when I removed it you should have said that and replaced the 2003 QW with a newer, higher-quality source as I did instead of edit warring the same old source in (especially when you removed the very same reference a few edits prior for similar content explicitly stating that it and the Bledsoe reference are old-very true for both of them as they're both greater than ten years old, which makes their utility rather questionable). How exactly does the current version fail WP:V exactly, hmm? Please be specific so we can better address your concerns. Newer and higher-quality sources should always be our goal when substantiating claims on Wikipedia. You should know that better than anyone, Alex. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 06:36, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Because you were using Carroll to support text about what Quackwatch says[6] which failed WP:V. We don't just erase sources because they're old if they contain knowledge which doesn't date. The dodginess of cranial manipulation has been long settled.
But it's still not right - you don't mention where in skepdic you're citing, but makes no mention of cranial osteopathy, still less of it being (just) "one" dubious aspect of OMT ... in fact Carroll's entry applies to all OMT and he writes "there has not been scientific validation of Still's theory of shaking and manipulating to remove obstructions." Alexbrn (talk) 06:51, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Okay, 1) I corrected the dubious part and referenced the specific page I'm referring to (how about using a modicum of patience and giving me a few minutes to find the page number, don't be so impatient and give credit where it's due, Alex, that's childish and you can find it on your own too since I know you are a capable editor and can find information quite well), 2) you really need to communicate better instead of wholesale reverting/removing content and use your words through edit summary or talk page better (note that we're only having this conversation here because I called for us to go to the talk page). I think that would make your interactions on Wikipedia more effective, but that's just my opinion and you can take it or leave it. 3) I'm not citing the website you gave above. Please refer to the actual source I used. This is another problematic tendency of yours I've observed...a tendency to editorialize (e.g., the dogmatic part, which you did self-corrected so thank you for that though it's unfortunate that I had to label it as such for this to occur) and to consistently point elsewhere when it comes to discussing content. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 07:09, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Well, to WP:FOC you're now citing biomedical information to Carroll, and he's not WP:MEDRS. The knowledge here at issue is much more broadly in the realm of categorization: that cranial osteopathy is out-and-out quackery (which we politely dealt with before by stating that QuackWatch called it dubious). By saying in Wikipedia's void that (just) "one modality" of OMT has being criticized (for some points of detail you then give) you're not in neutral in alignment with sources generally, or even with Carroll in particular, who questions OMT in general in his writings. And actually isn't CST the type of cranial manipulation that comes from chiropractic rather than osteopathy? - we really need a source on cranial osteopathy. Alexbrn (talk) 07:26, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
I am focusing on two things, content and your conduct since both are important (the latter has been disruptive, IMO). Now, how did you conclude that Caroll is not MEDRS? You seem to just keep trying to come up with different arguments against this source. It's rather peculiar. You seemed pretty happy to use Carroll's website in your earlier statement. Looks like the book was even endorsed by Stephen Barrett of Quackwatch (author of the older source you wanted to use and the 2011 source cites him as well) and is in the Library of Congress. The source does in fact discuss cranial osteopathy if you read the actual page carefully. Speaking of which, how well do we distinguish these two modalities on Wikipedia's craniosacral therapy page where you've been heavily involved? An interesting question. As far as MEDRS is concerned, it's a newer secondary and independent source and is not self-published (Wiley is a respected & reliable publisher). If you have a higher-quality source that states the same information (e.g., medical textbook or biomedical journal articles according to MEDRS), then please present the specific source(s) here for verification. Your assessment of "neutrality" is incorrect and the content says exactly what the source does (not to mention the original sentence in question was about cranial). TylerDurden8823 (talk) 07:46, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
What's disruptive is a misuse of an article Talk page which is meant to be for discussing article improvements, not personalizing disputes. Carroll is a fine tertiary source I'm often happy to use, particularly for questions of what's pseudoscience and the so-called demarcation question. He's not usable for asserting WP:BIOMEDICAL content generally, as I'm sure you can confirm at WT:MED, since he's not a high-quality secondary medical source, a position statement of a major body, or, etc. etc. I think we need to know that cranial manipulation is on Quackwatch's radar, and it would probably be due to hear a bit more about Carroll's views of OMT. I shall ping WP:FT/N since this is a WP:FRINGE issue. Alexbrn (talk) 07:59, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Oh, brother with the drama queen act. I haven't misused a thing. Feel free to ping whoever, but the fact remains that it's still a better source than the 2003 QW (also not the position statement of a major body or high-quality secondary source as defined above), which you yourself said a few edits earlier was old and trimmed for similar content. If you have a higher-quality source, I will (again) suggest you present it here for verification/vetting. It's clear to me you and I will never see eye-to-eye on anything. I do not believe you sincerely come to the table to engage in meaningful or constructive dialogue (in this encounter or in past ones) about the content. As for Caroll's views of OMT as a whole, it's not in this book. Besides, that would be more appropriate for the OMT page. Signing off for the night. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 08:25, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Please WP:FOC and stop the open WP:ABF. I trimmed the QW source because a comparison between DOs and MDs (from 2003) is precisely the kind of information that does date; in contrast the dubious nature of cranial manipulation is still current. I made that point in the edit summaries. Categorization of something as pseudoscience/quackery is not in the realm of WP:MEDRS but is more normally dealt with using a source of WP:PARITY with those expounding the bogus concepts (MEDRS publications generally don't waste their space debunking pseudoscience). Per our WP:PSCI policy if we mention that dubious stuff is (still) part of the DO training, then the nature of that dubious stuff needs to be prominent and clear. Alexbrn (talk) 08:49, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

It's not ABF, it's a clear pattern. I could say the same of you (regarding FOC and ABF) with how you've treated me in our multiple encounters as there has always been a hostile and unfriendly/discourteous tone (from the get go), which I do not appreciate. The vast majority of Wikipedia editors find they are able to engage in meaningful discussion with me about content and vice versa, but you've been the exception rather than the rule. Normally, I'm instructing you to FOC. If the dubious nature of cranial manipulation is current, then we should use current sources, period. If categorization of something as pseudoscience/quackery is not in the realm of MEDRS, then why are you citing it above for criticism of cranial osteopathy/craniosacral therapy as a source commenting on biomedical information. As for MEDRS publications not wasting their space debunking pseudoscience, that's completely untrue. I've seen plenty of articles that do just that. Also, please note that the word dubious (I notice a repetitive harping on this word) is not IN the article anymore, thanks. I didn't say there's an objection to discussion of the training, but your selective use of QW comes across as bizarre and unwarranted. You have yet to demonstrate how the QW source is more appropriate than Carroll that cites Barrett's QW article and is more recent. I also noticed no refutation of the counterarguments to your criticism of the use of this source, so I'll assume that means you have no valid objection to it since, as mentioned above, you have not proven how it falls below MEDRS standards. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 08:58, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
To WP:FOC - Carroll is no good for biomedical assertions, so using him to imply that one of the problems of CST is merely "inter-rater variability" (whatever the Hell that's supposed to mean) implies there some real science on real phenomena going on here, when in fact Carroll's stand out complaint - that this is "quackery" is omitted. You know, health fraud. I'm happy to use Carroll as well as (or instead of) QW so long as the main thrust of the criticism is made plain. Also, why is this source dated 2011 here when so far as I can see the only edition (and so the one Google scanned) was 2003? You didn't trust Google's metadata did you? In my understanding Carroll moved from a purely paper-based work to one he could update electronically, so his latest entry on this topic is here: ... it was updated a couple of months ago so would make a better ref. Alexbrn (talk) 09:37, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
(Later ...) No answer, but edit-warring. Let's be careful about dating and not remove content unless there's some reason to do so. The QW material has been established in this article for a long time, and after some discussion. Alexbrn (talk) 14:49, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
You accuse me of edit warring? Ridiculous. You're the one edit warring and assuming bad faith. Shame on you, Alex. Taking it to Wikiproject Medicine since you have no consensus and insist on edit warring and ignoring WP:BRD. Your last comment does not exactly FOC as you would have others believe. As for inter-rater variability, I'll refer you here TylerDurden8823 (talk) 14:53, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Personalized again. However the fact is you first removed this disputed content, and then ceased discussion here (just above) once your preferred version was "in" - so your WP:BRD complaint is a boomerang. We can't say a 2003 book is from 2011. And we can't use sources without reflecting their key relevant points. Alexbrn (talk) 14:59, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
No, you made it personal by being disrespectful. There is no "complaining" going on and your characterization of it as such is clearly personal. I find your conduct highly disrespectful. Please see WP:5P and maintain civility (I sincerely believe you have not been civil towards me in this or any of our other previous encounters in contrast to my interactions with nearly all other Wikipedia editors). And your accusation is personal as well as is your accusation of boomerang. The 2003/2011 bit does seem to be my error as I did see sources stating the book was published in 2011, but on further inspection that does appear to be inconsistent with the publication date. I will be looking for newer, better sources than 2003 QW & Caroll since they're both old. However, you [7] initially trimmed the article stating explicitly that it was old along with the old Bledsoe reference (very clear why it was removed) and then after the fact provided weak arguments to try to get it back in because it espouses your POV. As for not "reflecting their key points", I have no idea what you mean. My "preferred version" (as you characterize it), is completely verifiable within the cited text. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 15:13, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
And it would probably be best if you took a brief hiatus from editing (perhaps 48-72 hours) as a time out to cool your head. Just a suggestion, but I think you need to walk away from this. You seem overly invested and the personal conducts/characterizations are improper conduct for a veteran editor. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 15:19, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Sorry I'll not enter into a personal exchange. Please stick to discussion of the article text. Alexbrn (talk) 15:32, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Nonsense. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:34, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── So are we now at the point where Carroll's characterization of cranial therapy as "quackery" is deemed strong enough without the need for Quackwatch calling it "dubious" too? I'm not necessarily sure Carroll is the stronger source here. Can we just use both sources? I think the advantage of QW is that it focuses on osteopathy in particular whereas Carroll is writing about CST more broadly (which overlaps with chiropractic). Alexbrn (talk) 15:35, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

  • both of you are very good editors please talk it out--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:49, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I stripped out most of the citations that was being argued over, and replaced it with two systematic reviews. I'm happy to let the language of the article more anti-craniosacral therapy if you all want, but does my edit solve this dispute? NW (Talk) 23:40, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Not really because the requirement here is, per WP:PSCI, to make the pseudoscientific nature of OMM and CST clear- the question isn't about efficacy (though we could go there as well). The two new sources used are "in-universe", and one is very old: for the question of efficacy there are much stronger WP:MEDRS & WP:FRIND sources as used in the OMT article. Alexbrn (talk) 07:04, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
First off, what is an "in-universe" journal? Calling OMM pseudoscience and rejecting the AOA's journal on that basis is assuming your conclusion. Secondly, the "old article" is used to talk about what is the frequency of actual use. If you have anything better that's fine, but it's a useful placeholder for now. And third, probably most important, you can't just point to vague better sources that exist elsewhere to support your conclusion, especially not when you have been posting opinion pieces above. Cite the exact references here and note how you would like to use them please. NW (Talk) 13:50, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
We know OMM is pseudoscience from our sources that consider the matter, as has been discussed at some length here in the past. Sources for efficacy should be WP:MEDINDY and in this case WP:FRIND so I'd use something like PMID 25175885 (or other sources in the OMT article). We have many such sources so there is no need to reach for ones which may be dubious. However, this article is not really the place to discuss efficacy. The issue is (as the sources say) that there is this pseudomedical remnant of OMM that is taught as part of D.O. training, and per WP:PSCI we need to make sure this is plainly mentioned. The Carroll source that Tyler added, and/or the Quackwatch source that has long been here are useful for that, probably in combination with Swanson source which is still there. Or alternatively we could draw more from the Swanson source. Alexbrn (talk) 14:41, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Saying that you can't use any publications from any entire professional field that is composed of ~100,000 licensed professionals in the US on the grounds that they're not "independent" is wrong. There is no definition of independence that completely excludes the views of academic experts in an entire field. We use reviews from surgical journals to talk about surgery, don't we? Even though we know that surgery is filled with bad practices that the field refuses to correct (150,000+ useless knee surgeries each year, tens of millions of patients told to never take a sip of water in the 8 to 12 hours before surgery, thousands of complications caused by surgeons refusing to let patients eat after surgery...) and that many surgeons have outright superstitions comparable to athletes who must wear their "lucky" socks? If we accept surgical journals when talking about surgeons, then we need to accept osteopathic journals when talking about DOs. In neither case should we accept only the POV of the specialists, but we cannot exclude them. Being a licensed healthcare professional is not an inherent conflict of interest (and "independence" is all about COI). MEDINDY is about considering whether you are paid for the explicit purpose of pushing a POV, like a drug company's marketing department. It's not about being a licensed healthcare professional. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:51, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
we're not "talking about DOs", we're talking about OMT, a pseudoscientific field which does not penetrate beyond the bounds of (apparently some few) osteopaths. We do require independent sourcing for that; by your argument we'd be using homeopathic journals as sources for homeopathic treatment efficacy. Alexbrn (talk) 21:02, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
"We're not talking about DOs" do realize the title of the article is Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine, right? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 04:55, 2 January 2016 (UTC)


TylerDurden8823 in this edit queried the use characterization of OMT as being "dogma-based". But the source says it is based on nonscientific tenets, which is synonymous[8]. Is it really going to be necessary to find a source which uses this exact word (easily done) or can we just paraphrase this obvious fact in an obvious way please? Alexbrn (talk) 07:05, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Regardless, the word dogma is neither specifically used nor implied in this source and was therefore an inappropriate; your addition was clearly editorializing/OR. If you want to get into semantics, we can do that. Tenet is defined as such: "a principle or belief, especially one of the main principles of a religion or philosophy." There is a key semantic difference when using the term dogma that you are overlooking Alex. Dogma is not a perfect synonym for tenet.
Here is the definition for dogma from Wikipedia's own page: "Dogma is a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true." Now, if you compare the definition of dogma and tenet, there is overlap, but notice that dogma has the condition that it is "laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true." Where in the source does it say that? Please point it out to me exactly. Here is what the source says verbatim: "In a similar vein, osteopaths believe that manipulating muscles and joints help the body to heal. Osteopathy was created by American physician Andrew Taylor Still (1828-1917) in 1874 and is practiced in many countries today. Like chiroracty, the field has evolved and has lost some of its nonscientific tenets. Currently, the US medical community recognized ostepathic physicians, who are medically trained, and osteopaths, who are limited to non-invasive manual therapies." Aside from the misspelling of osteopathic in this quote casting some question about this source's credibility (or at least the editor's), where exactly do you see dogma? This sounds like your interpretation/opinion, but this is not included in the source, Alex. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 07:16, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not RS, but if you're seriously arguing that "nonscientific tenet" and "dogma" are not synonmyous enough to be the basis of a decent paraphrase, then I don't know. Of course there are plenty of sources which use the word "dogma" too, since it's kind of obvious. I shall get one. Still's notions were not well served though by being described as "philosophically-based", and that's what we had before. Alexbrn (talk) 07:41, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
No problem, here is Merriam Webster's take. I'm sure even you can accept that as RS for definitions. Merriam's definition of tenet: "a principle, belief, or doctrine generally held to be true; especially : one held in common by members of an organization, movement, or profession." For comparison, here is their definition of dogma: "a belief or set of beliefs that is accepted by the members of a group without being questioned or doubted." I see clear differences in these two definitions (mainly the accepting without being questioned/doubted aspect), the importance of which you seem to minimize. Tenet is clearly the correct term and dogma is not according to your cited source. There's your RS. Oh, and the term philosophically is no longer in the article there, FYI. What's obvious to me is the editorializing I see and misattribution of the term to references that do not contain this terminology. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 07:49, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
It's usually possible to find a dictionary or thesaurus to support a line of argument, and usually futile. I think the point is that Still's belief system was so obviously dogmatic (no matter what synonyms the sources use) that a source is hardly necessary. However, if we must, how about John Burnham's new history of US health care?
Well, a step forward in the right direction, but it says specifically "at that time" (late 1800s). If you add that caveat (depending on how you phrase it), then it might be an acceptable addition. This source looks fine at cursory glance. As for the futility of arguing about it, you're the one who brought it up here and incorrectly stated that tenet is synonymous with dogma. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 08:46, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Since the text you queried said "dogmatically-based" we were already referring to the basis of OMT; we also say the bogus stuff is less used these days to make that explicit. Tenet is a close synonym of dogma, as any synonym lookup will tell you (there is really no such thing as a "perfect synonym" other than the same word: a demand for such "perfect synonyms" is a recipe for WP:PLAGIARISM). And despite my caution not to argue from dictionaries, let's go to the Big Daddy of them all, the full OED, which defines dogma as "a tenet or doctrine authoritatively laid down, esp. by a church or sect". Given the context of Still's followers being a "sect", with Still as the single authority figure, this looks spot on. Probably the sort of reason why Professor Burnham wisely chose the same word. Alexbrn (talk) 09:04, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I realize that this is resolved, but I'm going to "seriously argue" that "nonscientific tenet" and "dogma" are not synonymous, and further that nonscientific tenets are (or can be) a good thing.

Here are the five tenets of nursing, as codified in a major textbook a few years ago:

  1. Nursing practice is individualized.
  2. Nurses coordinate care by establishing partnerships (with persons, families, support systems, and other providers).
  3. Caring is central to the practice of the registered nurse.
  4. Registered nurses use the nursing process to plan and provide individualized care to their health care consumers.
  5. A strong link exists between the professional work environment and the registered nurse's ability to provide quality health care and achieve optimal outcomes.

Do you see any "scientific" ones in there? I don't. But I see five very good tenets.

There's another list of tenets, aka "principles", at Wikipedia:Five pillars. Do you see any "scientific" ones in there? I don't. But I see five very good tenets.

A tenet is a "a principle, belief, or doctrine generally held to be true; especially : one held in common by members of an organization, movement, or profession". Above you see a list of the tenets of nursing (a profession) and the tenets of the Wikipedia movement. None of them are scientific. All of them are good.

Furthermore, dogma is generally understood as a pejorative in English, and the cited source doesn't carry that tone. It says that the field has "lost some of its nonscientific tenets", and little else. (It also doesn't support the claim that OMM is little used these days, or that it's based on pre-scientific ideas. In fact, it supports little except the use of its neologism pseudomedicine, which I see Alex has turned into an article). But rather than deriding the idea of nonscientific tenets in a grammatically poor sentence, let's instead hope they don't lose all of their nonscientific tenets! The nonscientific tenets of medical practice include humanism, integrity, ethics, professionalism, trust, respecting patient's choices and protecting their privacy. These are very, very good things, even if they are not "scientific". WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:15, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

All of which suggests it may be better to refer to them, like the above source, as "dogmatic therapeutic beliefs". Alexbrn (talk) 21:30, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
I think you may have missed WhatamIdoing's points, but I won't attempt to speak on their behalf for fear of misrepresenting their position. I'll let WAID elaborate. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 04:50, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

USMLE Step 2 CS / Step 3 Eligibility[edit]

The stated information that D.O. students may not take USMLE Step 2 CS or Step 3 unless they are dual degree candidates is no longer correct. Per the USMLE website, to be eligible for Step 1, 2 CK or 2 CS, one must be enrolled in or graduated from either an LCME accredited MD school or an AOA accredited DO school. Step 3 has the same requirements plus the stipulation that one has passed steps 1, 2 CS and 2 CK. [2] (talk) 04:33, 3 January 2016 (UTC)


You are absolutely correct. I have edited the content of the article to improve its accuracy. Thank you for bringing this to attention! Rytyho usa (talk) 17:30, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Mention that both M.D. and D.O. are medical doctors.[edit]

Both M.D. and D.O. are medical doctors. Medical doctors=physicians and M.D. and D.O. are both physicians. Remember M.D. stands for Medicinae Doctor in Latin or "Doctor of Medicine", it does not stand for medical doctor, which is a profession not a degree. D.O. are medical doctors but D.O cannot call themselves M.D. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:13, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Pseudo-medical claim has insufficient sources[edit]

The statement is not sufficiently supported by a peer-reviewed study. This is blatantly false and needs to be removed ASAP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:3d05:df00:a115:63d4:4170:ca56 (talkcontribs)

OMT is broadly recognized as pseudoscience. Your disagreement does not change reality. VQuakr (talk) 19:40, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Please provide your peer-reviewed source citing OMT "Broadly recognized as pseudoscience". A Forbes opinion piece does not count.
Also cite your source that shows a significant majority of DOs are practicing OMT in modern medical practice. If you can't provide both sources then the pseudoscience claim has no business being in the LEDS section of this article, but should, at the minimum be relegated to the education subsection.Yodaflame6 (talk) 20:00, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Per WP:PARITY peer-reviewed sources are not necessary to identify pseudoscience as such. Where in the article do we claim that "a significant majority of DOs are practicing OMT in modern medical practice"? Or is that a straw man? VQuakr (talk) 04:21, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
And in fact the pseudomedical classification is sourced to this science textbook, not an "opinion piece" (though a good opinion piece would be fine too). Another straw man? Alexbrn (talk) 04:40, 16 April 2016 (UTC)