I’ve had personal experience dealing with them and they’re by far the worst and most narcissistic individual I’ve had the displeasure of interacting with.
They modded several subs, including r/advice and /offmychest. They were incredibly touchy and prone to calling people stupid for not understanding their convoluted rules. I got banned for responding to a post that they deemed to be on the wrong sub. They didn’t have time to create a copy-paste to redirect people to what they thought was a more appropriate sub, but they did have time to write individual replies about how stupid I am and how I should have learned (not to question them, I guess?)
What was the point of spending years as a productive administrator, making tens of thousands of edits and logging thousands of actions, to implode the whole thing over a pointless argument on an RfA talk page?
People do weird things. Mood disorders, (develop-/)mental disorders, personality disorders, extreme cases of having a shitty day, or just being a twat.
What is really fucked up isn't just the meltdown, but the insinuation they did this to fuck with someone else, this Beeblebrox guy. That's not very hoopy.
god I hate wikipedia abuse. It even happens from non admins. There’s this one movie I watched and I realized that it wasn’t on the lead actor’s filmography so I added it, and within minutes it was removed without reason. I go on this guy’s talk profile and it’s full of people claiming that they religiously remove edits on a number of random articles. Probably 80% of edits in the past year alone on that filmography page were from this one guy and almost all of them were removing tiny contributions from other users. Some people just like to act like an article is “theirs”
Was suspected of being paid to edit pages, and was an admin. But people tell me wikipedia is totally trustworthy. People never really see the fighting that goes on in the Talk pages, if they did they would absolutely give pause about giving full faith to wikipedia.
I am more likely to trust a site that is open and public about its edit wars and that demands sourcing claims than I am all the others that are completely opaque about it and is just trust us bro.
I don't know how it is now but back in the late 00's/very early 10's I had attempted to correct some obvious mistakes in some articles I came across. Some edits were immediately reverted -- seemingly by a bot while others were reverted to some editor. On some, I tried using Talk to discuss why the reversion is incorrect and had put forth better sources (the actual source) instead of some 'scientific journalist's' article that got it wrong and was basically threatened that I'd be banned.
These weren't some esoteric or difficult subjects but fairly well-known and straight-forward data. It was such a hassle that I just gave up after my very short foray into Wikipedia editing for 5 or so years. I gave it another go for some subjects in my industry and learned that editors are not only territorial but take corrections personally. Sources be damned. What I've seen is so-called scientific journalists for news articles/blogs are just anecdotes pulled from paper abstracts. An abstract of an abstract with opinions not derived from the actual data. How is something like theregister, CNN, MSNBC or Fox News more reputable than the sources that they sourced from?
With that, the well-known advice of "Take Wikipedia with a grain of salt and actually read the cited sources." and more importantly, the cited sources' source, rings true.
In other words, in my opinion, Wikipedia is more a summary of blogspam than it is an encyclopedia, though there are some exceptions of course.
That doesn't sound normal to Wikipedia at all. In fact in the first half of Wikipedia history most editors weren't territorial and even now territorialism is against policy (WP:OWN). It's only warnings to block for 4+ repeated edits after informing.
Is there also a policy against evading blocks/bans? If there was then perhaps the subject in this article would have never happened.
Perhaps the takeaway here is that we could all learn from writing policies that would definitely solve every instance of a problem. For example, if a company could have policies against sexual harassment it could all stop.
In another example on a bigger scale, if countries would sign a treatise of some type with other peoples and nations then we could all get along far better. A great example of this could be when the US signed various treaties with different Native American Tribes such, as happens, this Wikipedia article describes.
Thank you. I believe the world could learn much from our discussion and I know, I feel that my own experiences and opinions have been rightfully invalidated.
Yes, there is. In fact SPI (sockpuppet investigations) is known as one of the hardest "departments". You'd need pretty suspicious behavioral evidence before filing one for good reasons. Clerks need to sort through all the requests and see which ones deserve the actual IP-inspectors (CheckUsers) to check if the users seem to be the same (or an open proxy. Don't worry, the IP address retention period is only 90 days). Also, cases to check if an IP address is the same as an established user will never be CheckUser'd cuz that would be exposing the IP address though it won't go unpunished and will be judged purely on behavioral evidence.
Sockmasters who span ridiculously long amounts of time are documented at WP:LTA (long-term abuse). However, ones that inspire copycats (like some WillyOnWheels who move-vandalized tons of pages) have their documentation deleted as part of a policy called Deny Recognition (to the trolls).
I think in this case MMO is another word for “people will people”.
IRL people talk behind each other’s backs, online they sockpuppet, spreading rumors and half-truths, or even outright lies. It’s always been like that, but places like Wikipedia have better transparency tools to track them down, better than trying to track what some people talked about over a cup of tea, or while walking their dogs in the park.
I will give some more info on what I saw at wikipedia, which arguable is common knowledge.
After I translated pages, I noticed people coming in to make small edits. I don’t mind those, but is baffled that people seem to be making meaningless changes all the time. Not to mention I am pretty sure I am more knowledgeable on said subjects than those “editors”.
I later realized that the number of edits and the number of edited pages count towards some arbitrary numbers which people can use to claim and move up the ladder of admin rights. It all made sense on why there are so many minimal edits performed by individuals. They are looking for low hanging fruit.
It soured my feelings toward wikipedia. I thought of it as a good volunteer project. Turns out some people play it as a numbers game. And they have enormous influence on the site.
Those people than use their power to suppress whatever they don’t like to see on wikipedia, similar to what OP posted.
By the way, to understand how absurd wikipedia’s system is, please take a look at the following news:
Why Emily St John Mandel asked for help getting divorced on Wikipedia
Well, edit count actually doesn’t matter at all in the scheme of admin rights, but some people think it to be some part of their ego. Getting admin rights is apparently exhausting and people usually oppose territorial people from getting admin. Also I’m curious how meaningless the edits were, copyediting is also important.
That was more than 10 years ago. Maybe the changes are indeed meaningful and maybe I was too young at that time. And I honestly don’t mind people making changes.
What made me quit was accidentally reading about wikipedia dramas and realized I was participating in a giant MMO in text. It was not a good feeling.
I do volunteer work to feel good. (Yes, really.) I still sometimes do volunteer work. Just not on wiki.
I know about those, and I have to partially disagree.
The number of edits limits were introduced to filter out people who had no clue, or wish to have a clue, about how Wikipedia worked. I remember having to spend some time on the latest edits page looking for vandalism, or searching for misspellings, or helping people with the formatting of their articles, to get to a minimum number of edits needed for some vote. I learned a lot during that time, and I think it was a reasonable way of achieving it.
Where it started getting out of hand, is when over time the minimum number of edits got increased, and increased again, and again… getting into silly amounts more fit for a bot than for an actual human.
I haven’t looked at it for several years, probably lost my voting rights long ago.
Why Emily St John Mandel asked for help getting divorced on Wikipedia
This isn’t absurd, it’s one of the safety mechanisms to keep a minimum of quality to the information included in the Wikipedia: to be a tertiary source.
Anyone can be a primary source; they might be the ones with the most knowledge… or some rando making stuff up. Wikipedia doesn’t have a panel of experts capable of judging this, or even people in charge of verifying the identity of anyone, so instead it simply rejects all primary sources as a rule.
Because of that, Wikipedia is based on secondary sources and their reputation, on people deciding to analyze, and verify more or less, what someone else is saying.
It isn’t absurd, it’s the only way to run a project where everyone can edit everything, including people totally clueless of the subject at hand… who can nonetheless report on the analyses done by secondary sources, help with the formatting, spell checking, or double check the validity of sources added by others.
I am pretty sure I am more knowledgeable on said subjects than those “editors”.
That’s the thing: you may be pretty sure, but Wikipedia has no way of knowing whether that’s true, and doesn’t even try to.
If you are more knowledgeable, you’re free to become a primary source and publish your stuff, whether through academic means or simply on a website.
If you’d rather apply your knowledge to analyzing the articles of others, you can become a secondary source just as easily, start a WordPress or Medium blog and go ahead… but don’t forget to cite your primary sources.
Wikipedia is the entry point for people totally clueless about a topic, aimed not towards presenting knowledge, although it does some of that, but mainly towards presenting where to learn more.
It isn’t a perfect system, ideally you’d hire a panel of experts and have them curate all content… but that comes with a whole set of problems, that would never have let Wikipedia reach the size it has as fast as it has.
Keep in mind the original Encyclopédistes took 19 years to publish a single edition with little over 70,000 articles, while the Wikipedia has grown to 6.7 million articles in just 22 years (Size of Wikipedia as of Nov 2023)… plus some more in a bunch of different languages.
I’ve checked it now, and I see the permission systems have been changed since I was last seriously active on Wikipedia.
Somewhat ironically, I’ve now found a years old notification for a deletion vote… which I couldn’t take part in, because at the time I was busy almost dying. Funny how these things work.
In addition, extensive evidence was presented during the case, backed up by analysis from Jayen466 in the workshop, that Wifione was likely a reincarnation of an editor who was blocked for extensive sock-puppetry in 2008, after abusing dozens of accounts to conduct a similar campaign over a period of several years which included threatening editors who persistently challenged the abuse. Arbitrators were sufficiently satisfied by the evidence of sock-puppetry that they passed (by a majority of ten to two) a finding of fact stating that Wifione was likely a sock-puppet, and thus that the account was created in violation of a block.
No, my suggestion is you should have left the title as is and your only modification should have been to add “Wikipedia” at the beginning to make it clear what community was concerned.
Wifione has edited Wikipedia to the advantage of the IIPM and to the detriment of its competitors, in a manner consistent with attempts to optimise search engine results. (See Jehochman's evidence and Harry Mitchell's analysis.)
Passed 12 to 0 at 12:11, 2015-02-13 (8 years, 8 months, 25 days ago) (UTC−5)
Sock puppetry
Following a review of Jayen466's evidence and a historic CheckUser result, the Committee considers it likely that User:Wifione is a sockpuppet of User:Empengent, formerly Mrinal Pandey. The User:Wifione account was created and operated while Empengent (talk · contribs) was blocked.
Passed 10 to 2 at 12:11, 2015-02-13 (8 years, 8 months, 25 days ago) (UTC−5)
Endless disputes
Commentary – varying from constructive criticism to ad hominem remarks – about Wifione has been posted in many forums on many occasions over five years without resolution. Forums include: Wikiquette assistance ([11], [12], [13]); the Administrators' noticeboard, ([14]); the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ([15], [16]); Jimmy Wales' talk page ([17], [18], [19], [20]) and Editor review/Wifione [21]).
Passed 12 to 0 at 12:11, 2015-02-13 (8 years, 8 months, 25 days ago) (UTC−5)
He’s just a mentally ill attention seaker and probably has some form of obsessive disorder.
He’ll be back, there’s no doubt.
It’s best to fade this news into the background as fast as possible so he gets nothing out of it.
Based on that, it would seem like these could be some possibilities:
Maybe they enjoy “the game” or deception more than doing anything real with it. They may already have another alt admin in the making, or even made one already.
It’s a lot of time to keep up the same charade, so maybe they’re doing it as a job, with who knows how many more accounts already.
Or maybe they finally got bored with it, and decided to go out with a “POP!” while showing everyone their “superiority”.
For better and for worse, the Wikipedia attracts people good with words, which includes those capable of writing clearly, and those who can organize the whole project, and also those who enjoy playing games of sophistry to whatever end.
As someone who only tried making some random corrections here and there and wasn’t all that “in” in the whole editing world, over time the experience was miserable enough that I simply don’t bother anymore.
More than once I tried correcting the Finnish version of some pages on a specific subject that had pretty blatant misrepresentations of what the source material actually said (as in they actually ended up claiming the opposite of what the source or the English page said), and my edits were reverted by some “power admin” who was treating the pages on that subject as their personal fiefdom. They refused to have any sort of rational discussion about it, and it turned into them just using obscure (to me, anyhow) Wikipedia policy references to get their way and I simply couldn’t be arsed to figure out how to get around this particular asshole.
As someone here in the comments said, “people will people.” Too many Wikipedia admins are in it simply for the feeling of power, and Wikipedia’s frankly quite complicated policy is used more as a weapon against people who dare encroach on their turf rather than as rules for ensuring good-quality pages.
Edit: also, am I the only one who keeps accidentally clicking on Lemmy’s “delete comment” button when meaning to edit a comment? Why in the everliving fuck doesn’t it ask for confirmation?
Anything a chiropractor can do that will actually help, a PT can do better. They’ll also teach you what exercises to do to prevent needing to see them again.
A chiropractor will just tell you to come to them more often, and take more of your money over time.
You can save a lot of money by just going to a masseuse instead of a chiropractor. People attribute the positive feeling they get from attention to well being improvements, and pseudoscience practitioners certainly achieve that at a premium price. If it’s attention you want, get a massage, otherwise go to a PT and get some real help.
This. I’m seriously considering finding the money for an at home sauna. Get my muscles nice and warm and relaxed and then stretch the shit out of them.
Just be careful. There is such a thing as over stretching. I fucked up my knees stretching after a hot yoga session and could barely walk for a couple of years.
One of the worst overstretches I did was in a pool. With my body weight canceled out I could get into deeper stretches, like by putting my leg up on the edge of the pool. Afterwards I realized I’d overdone it. lol
You don’t have to tell me anything, seriously. I have fucked up my back no less than 3 times. The last time I fucked my back up was about a year ago and I busted my shoulder at the same time. My back is still tight and off in a few places and while my shoulder isn’t at 100% I have like 90% of rom back and more to come as I keep working on it. I have and continue to fix myself all without the help of a pt.
I had hoped that a line like that wouldn’t be taken at face but I guess the Amelia Bedelias are making there way from reddit.
In some places and depending on the specific details, the punishment for that offense wouldn’t include jail time. Instead of a crime, it’s just a penile code violation.
My wife, bless her innocent heart, still doesn’t get this. She’s been to every strip mall, Groupon massage studio in the area and is constantly like “wow, I can’t figure out why these $75/hr massages are so hit or miss.”
I have tried explaining to her that it’s because she doesn’t have a penis, but she still doesn’t get it.
I can’t believe I know this, but RubMaps used to (might still be?) a thing. If you looked at the outside of them on Google Maps you could very quickly start to pick up on the patterns among the listed locations.
As a massage therapist that used to work in education (director of education at a massage school and taught anatomy/pathology) results will vary wildly across the States. The majority of states only started licensing in the last 10-15 years, and of course requirements for licensing and supervision varies. Some schools teach enough anatomy to get their students to pass the tests, then focus their time teaching spa type massage (aromatherapy, wraps, hot stones, etc.) or energy work. Not saying there’s anything wrong with that, but it serves a different purpose.
There are definitely schools that exist that focus more on therapeutic/rehabilitative work, but even then the challenge is finding a therapist with an up to date approach who doesn’t buy the old school “no pain no gain” who kicks the shit out of you. Massage shouldn’t hurt. But if your find the right therapist for you, they’re worth their weight in gold.
Yup. At my first massage appointment, before I even got on the table, she told me where I hurt and why I was hurting that way. And she was 100% correct.
Just FYI, the generally preferred term these days is “massage therapist.” Last I heard “masseuse” and “masseur” (the masculine version) have an implicit sexual connotation that “massage therapist” does not. Unless that’s what you were recommending instead of chiropractic, in which case carry on!
A lot of it can be done at home without a pt. Foam rollers and yoga mats are your friend. Even better if you can get a second pair of hands that know how to pop a back properly.
Physical therapists have definitely taught me reparative exercises that I would never in a million years have thought of on my own. PT is a god damned miracle drug.
I’m not saying that they aren’t and can’t be helpful. What I’m saying is that thanks to the internet and tons of books on the subject you can do a lot of stuff yourself without spending the money or the time going to a therapist.
If you need it, you need it, but some of us can learn most of this stuff elsewhere and/or go to a pt for a few lessons and then handle the rest at home.
Also I’m talking about what a chiropractor would do, not what a pt would do. To put both on the same level is an insult to everyone who isn’t a chiropractor.
A chiropractor is way cheaper than PT. Money is such a limiting factor for so many people that, while your advice is true, it has a similar vibe to telling a broke person with car trouble to just pay a mechanic to fix it. It’s the best option but I don’t blame them for trying something less expensive.
Paying money to get nothing and still have the original problem is not the inexpensive option though. These con artists are just stealing from people who can’t afford to be stolen from.
Paying money to get nothing and still have the original problem is not the inexpensive option though.
But a person can indeed fix their car effectively, and sometimes a chiropractor can help.
My mom had an issue in her shoulder that caused her to literally sob in pain and went to various regular doctors for about a year (it was a while ago so unsure of the exact timeframes). Those doctors gave her steroids which helped the pain but ultimately exacerbated the problem. She went to PT with limited success and was about to have surgery when she decided to try a chiropractor. Note that throughout this, affordability was not a concern. The first treatment helped significantly and several more treatments essentially resolved the issue whatever it was.
The foundations of chiropractic are indeed BS, but that doesn’t imply that any action taken by a chiropractor is inherently unsound. Regular medicine has a history of being wrong, it’s unlikely that in 2023 we figured it all out 100% and anything of any use is part of standard medicine.
Medicine has a history of being wrong while we learn which things work and which things don’t. Supplementary, Complementary and Alternative Medicine has a history of being wrong while its practitioners try to carve out a niche in the dark spots that we haven’t figured out yet and then dig in to fight to the death (of their patients) once their foundations are shown to be wrong. Look at homeopathy, for example: proven to be wrong time and time again but still you’ll find homeopathic products on shelves in stores across the world, even in areas with regulated markets.
Just because there are things we haven’t fully explained or discovered yet doesn’t mean that the first snake oil salesman to stake a claim on the unknown owns it. Being right takes time and new age woo-woo garbage isn’t a shortcut worth taking.
Let’s see, on one side you have conventional medicine, where doctors where doing lobotomies as recently as the late 1960s, the Sackler family who just recently pretty much literally got millions addicted to opiates and are using corporate law to shield them, while other corporations operating within the realms of conventional medicine are selling them drugs to help them shit (opiates make you constipated). Doctors tell kids they are hyper and need meth because they can’t sit still and quietly learn to become a capitalist slave.
I don’t know that conventional medicine is in a place where they can claim the moral high ground. For every BS chiropractor there are 500 BS pharmaceutical reps or paid off doctors/scientists raking in millions. Have you not seen TV lately? Are those drug ads all noble and the chiropractor is the only bad guy?
There are so many more examples of the fucked up nature of conventional medicine but somebody’s gotta smoke that pile of weed next to me.
I want to be clear - the theoretical foundations for chiropractic are BS, but some of the treatments may indeed be helpful, homeopathy is BS 100%.
When is the last time you went to a hospital and saw a chiropractic department? When was the last time you went to a hospital and saw an orthopedics department? I have never had an MD recommend I see a chiropractor, but I have been sent to an orthopedist who sent me to PT. It worked.
That’s entirely beside the point. The question is, when was the last time you left a doctor’s office with a $40 bill? If you don’t have money to pay a doctor then you’ll never even hear their advice much less be in a position to take it.
I also wouldn’t blame someone for trying a cheaper option, but I WOULD blame the “cheaper option” mechanic if he sold you a $100 pair of aura cleansing fuzzy dice to keep your engine from overheating?
Jesus fuck, it’s like you guys are intentionally misunderstanding what I’m saying. All I’ve said is that I get why people go see chiropractors instead of doctors. I’m not advocating anything. I’m trying to have a discussion with you people and all you’ll do is set up straw men and virtue signal at them. Consider me done with this bullshit
If that’s all you said, I agreed with that part. Why did you keep arguing with me?
I see people doing this so often (on the internet especially) and it honestly baffles me. The best I’ve ever been able to rationalize it is that people are often far more interested in arguing their own points and saying what they believe than actually listening to and understanding others or having a real debate. That may be overly simplistic but it’s how I cope.
PTs are also broadly not very helpful with very limited knowledge. I don’t think I’ve ever met somebody who was genuinely helped by PT, though I’m sure some of them out there take their jobs seriously.
Like any profession that is service based it is “your results may vary”. My pt has helped me with exercises that have helped me get past tennis elbow and shoulder tendonitis.
Have you met somebody that ACTUALLY does their PT suggested exercises? I do know some people who said that PT isn’t working but then again, they don’t even follow basic recommendations.
Yes, several. Including myself for a couple different issues growing up. Eventually I learned enough about the human body to realize how useless the exercises were for the problems I was having exercised properly which finally sorted me out. I just figured I’d gotten unlucky with the two I had, but the more people I meet who’ve spent time in PT the more I realized they might not be as competent as you’d hope they’d be.
in my country a PT is a personal trainer, so I understand where you’re coming from if that’s what you mean. But I think in this instance PT means physiotherapist
Physical therapy changed my life. Not just that, but my PTs actually had knowledge and experience with my rare condition – more so than any doctor I’ve ever seen to this day. I’m sorry that hasn’t been your experience, but I assure you that there are serious PTs out there.
You can also search out a GP that is a DO Instead of an MD in the US.
They still learn osteopathic manipulation, which is a broader form of manipulation not limited to the spine that helps with stretching-type exercises. But they are certified (often with the same board exams even) and licensed on par with MDs. Many clinics have DOs among their providers.
Important caveat of “in the US”. In most countries, osteopaths are basically the same as chiropractors. In the US, DO licensing is the same as MD licensing, so they do have to learn real science and medicine in addition to the fake science and medicine of osteopathy. Personally, I wouldn’t aim for a DO as my Dr., but if I already had one that I liked, I wouldn’t worry about it too much. Osteopathic schools are easier to get into than medical schools, cause we have more people that want to get their MD than we have schools to teach them, so plenty of those people become DO’s.
That’s why I specifically said in the US. You have to be careful, though, some DO schools are easier to get into than some MD schools but there are also DO schools that are harder to get into than some MD schools (MD schools in the Caribbean for example) so unless you are being hyper vigilant about which school your GP went to, you’re still just relying on the fact that they all passed the same or equivalent boards anyway.
This is incorrect. You are likely confused due to the fact that the names of the fields are similar.
Osteopathy /=/ osteopathic
I'll discuss the fields as the are in the US, as I am not aware of how they are in other countries.
Chiropractors go through their own degree programs through their own colleges.
Osteopaths are homeopathic practitioners (not doctors, and they refer to their customers as clients, they are legally not allowed to refer to them as patients) and are alternative medicine practicioners.
MDs receive a medical degree and are doctors.
DOs receive a medical degree (an MD) as well as an additional 300+ hours of osteopathic study through their medical school to receive a second medical degree certification - this is NOT the same as the homeopathic study, this is the study of the bones, joints, nerves, and how they all work together as a whole.
The AOA only recently (2010) decided to recommend that DO’s no longer be called osteopaths. As they still practice and teach osteopathic manipulation, it’s not inaccurate to still refer to them as osteopaths. When they abandon that pseudoscience and turn completely to evidence based medicine, I’ll refer to them as DO’s. Right now, all DO’s are osteopaths, but not all osteopaths are DO’s.
It doesn't have to do with homeopathy. Osteopathy is it's own pseudoscience alternative medicine and it is what they're trained as a side to their medical training. They do act like this training somehow makes them more holistic than MDs, but that's been proven to be largely false and they generally do not use that osteopathic manipulation in their practice.
Some non-doctor osteopaths might use homeopathy, but the basic theory of what osteopathy is remains pseudoscience even when it's done by DOs.
Thank you, I didn't realize that homeopathy was not general term - I thought it was a generalized term for alternative medicine that wasn't eastern medicine, but I was wrong.
Anyway, I do still have some things to clear up for you.
You still seem to think that DOs are spending their 300+ additional hours after the MD learning the pseudoscience, which isn't the case. Those hours are spent with neurologists, orthopedics, physical therapists, and other fellowships and residencies only provided by the MEDICAL SCHOOL - which would absolutely not allow any pseudoscience within their walls. Yes, they might do very minor manipulation in their practices, but it's what's learned through neurologists, physical therapists, or orthopedists, etc. (in addition to their MD residenciea just like the MDs in family practice, OB, surgery, dermatology, oncology, etc). The goal of a DO is to treat a patient as the sum of their parts rather than symptomatically.
Patient-first rather than symptom-first. (DO vs MD)
Osteopathic rather than allopathic. (DO vs MD)
-If I go to an MD with an earache, I'll have my ear checked out and maybe find nothing wrong but walk out with Prednisone to see if it helps. Prednisone does nothing but make me gain water weight.
-If I go to a DO with an earache, I'll have my ear checked out and maybe find nothing wrong, but he might think since there was nothing obvious that maybe there's a nerve pinched near the top of my neck so he'll have me stand to look at my posture and notice that I'm standing awkwardly with my hips not level, checks out my ankles and realizes I've started to lean in on one of my ankles and writes an Rx for a custom insole and exercises to strengthen my ankle. The issue with the ankle was causing my hips to lean, which caused my back to curve the other way to compensate, which pinched a nerve in my neck, which caused an earache. Wear the insole while strengthening the ankle, earache goes away.
(This is a true story of something that happened to me, not an example of every experience with a MD or a DO)
There is nothing precluding and MD from also searching for the underlying cause, but allopathic medicine looks to treat symptoms.
Osteopathy is 100% the movement of muscles and bones and not taught in medical school.
What you're describing is a pseudoscience. It's a pseudoscience that IS allowed in osteopathic medical schools because, you guessed it, they're osteopathic. It is not evidence based medicine. I understand that DOs proclaim thatt they are more holistic than other practitioners. As I said, studies have shown that is not the case.
I have to ask: what do you think "holistic" means? You've said twice (once in each comment I've know replied to) that DOs "think they are more holistic than others"
Do you think it relates to holy?
It doesn't. It means that's parts of something are interconnected and can only be considered in reference to the whole of itself.
Which is the key difference between osteopathic and allopathic medicine, so of course they believe they are more holistic.
I'm not sure what you were trying to prove with those links. The first explains that while evidence based medicine uses statistics, it is a specific way of using data to determine clinical care - that it can determine the best route of care for the largest group of people that works most of the time, which is great for most people most of the time...but what about when you fall outside that group (my addition - yes, they could try the second choice when the first doesn't work or the third next, but that takes time and suffering). Whereas DOs consider the the first choice option as well as the outside options by evaluating everything. Consider the story above of my earache. That's what the link was describing. I'm not sure what you got from it, or what that has to do with being holistic (though considering outside treatment options that might involve other parts of the body would be considered holistic). The thing is, statistics are great to describe how a population reacts to treatments, not an individual. Appendectomies have a 95% success rate, but that doesn't mean that you have a 95% chance of surviving one. But evidence based treatments are based on the success rates, not the individual - that's where the patient-first idea come into play, DOs consider the patient as a whole rather than only the statistics when the statistics don't line up with the patient.
The second link says that healthcare costs between MDs and DOs are similar. Neither is more expensive, neither is less expensive. I'm not sure what that has to do with being holistic (either the actual definition or whatever you may think it means).
You're making the claim that what I described previously is pseudoscience because a DO saw that my ankle has turned inward and offered ankle strengthening exercises. Ankle strengthening exercises aren't pseudoscience, there is data behind it - the idea that it could cause ear pain due to the other issues it causes certainly would not be common, but it is explainable. Pseudoscience is something that uses no explanatory reasoning and avoids peer review. DOs routinely publish their findings.
I understand exactly what holistic means, and I provided that outcome based study (and I promise you, if you look in the literature there are many more), to prove that MDs (allopathic medicine) are treating the whole body as well. I provided that horses mouth osteopath description of why they can't quite match up to evidenced based medicine because it is as hollow as it sounds.
Patronizing me like I don't know what the words I use mean is incredibly tiresome. I said I was a nurse. One of the key claims of the nursing profession is that we provide holistic care over more medicine focused disciplines. It is horseshit when we say it and it's horseshit when the osteopaths say it.
I understand that's what you wanted to show with that article, but that's not the information that the article provided. That article did not provide any information about either MDs or DOs being holistic or not. It was about the use of statistics in their respective practices. Which is why I questioned knowledge of the definition.
But damn, I hope I never get you as a nurse. I used to teach in one of the top nursing graduate universities in the country, and your attitude is definitely not what we would aim for. Yes, we encouraged away from the pseudoscience and focused on research based approaches, but damn. Osteopathic is different than allopathic, but neither is exclusive to evidence based, nor is either inclusive to it.
Actually, outside the US, the DO training is 7 years, same as a medical doctor. I chose a DO for my primary care doctor because they have papatory skills (i.e. they actually touch someone) that regular doctors refer out.
Really depends on the country, though. Many countries don’t have “DO” as a profession cause they only need one type of evidence based medical degree, so anyone who does osteopathy is basically equivalent to a chiropractor or other type of witch doctor.
I can definitely respect the perception that they interact with you more, and I’m glad you have a doctor that works well for you.
In my corner of the world, most CPs are also PTs. Or rather the other way around: they use chiropractic as one of many therapeutic means in their portfolio. I have to say, I very much appreciate this approach, as it relives the initial pain/discomfort but also addresses the underlying problem.
Yes, there are plenty of medical practitioners that poorly represent their profession. I’m sure you could easily apply the same logic here to PT, NP, DO, MD, etc.
What should be emphasized is that Chiropractic has heavily evolved, like any other healthcare field and there is a high degree of overlap between PT and DC methodologies. So much so, PT has lobbied for adoption of joint manipulation.
A good DC won’t limit themselves to 5 minutes visits for a quick adjustment. A good DC is evidence-based, incorporates rehab and education, and provides care to the body and systems.
A chiropractor will just tell you to come to them more often,
If you are going to one that does, you are going to the wrong one. There are a lot of quacks in professions and some of them are AMA licensed doctors too.
I was very skeptical of them until a friend recommended one he personally knew for my painful shoulder - he even offered to pay for the visit if it didn’t help. I was amazed when I walked out of the office completely pain free.
Many professional sports athletes seek out massage and chiro with good results because they cannot afford miss events and can’t test positive for the drugs that many conventional doctors would push.
There is a place for all avenues of remedies depending on the problem. Incompetents can be found in all professions. That said, is far too easy for a poser to set themselves up as a chiropractor.
seems like thats the crackocracker industry problem, they simply dont have any standards. I’ll grant you there may be some crackocrackers who actually have some skills… maybe, but if a patient has to go to 20 of them to find “that one good one”, then that industry is garbage
I would also point out that any pro quackocracker post you see here is the one time they might have helped someone just out of random chance, those people are loud and tell everyone how great their quackocracker is. Its simple confirmation bias, they have a sample size of one, themselves, this is not how data works.
I see my chiropractor once ever couple of years, I do most my own chiropractic stuff myself so I only visit her when I can’t deal with it. She knows I’m not gonna come back for a mother year or 3 so she doesn’t even tell me to book.
This is a great point. My MiL is a chiropractor (a non-quacky one), and she incorporated a lot of PT into her practice. Additionally, I read a couple years ago that PTs are beginning to incorporate the good things from chiro (whatever they are. I’m not a doctor) into their own practice.
A roundabout way of saying that we learned some things from chiro, but PT was always the future.
en.wikipedia.org
Oldest