Talk:Osteopathy

Split from Osteopathic medicine

Please see the To Do talk page Talk:Osteopathy/to_do for remaining tasks to clean up this article, and avoid duplication with Osteopathic medicine when adding new material. apers0n 17:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I am somewhat confused as to why there are separate articles. There certainly isn't for allopathy and allopathic medicine. Wikipedia needs to be consistant, so whatever is decided should be applied to both. Tyciol 13:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Osteopathic physicians are medically trained, osteopaths in most other countries are not. Also see Medicine vs. Allopathic medicine - two different paradigms, and see discussion on allopathy below. --apers0n 14:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

First let me preface this entry with the statement that this is my first entry in this discussion of Osteopathy. Second let me state that I am currently the president-elect of the Cranial Academy, and have been practicing "Traditional Osteopathy" including Osteopathy in the Cranial Field in the United States, for the last 24 years. I have trained in both MD and DO hospital settings and despite my exclusive devotion to the practice of Osteopathy, I am MD residency trained in Psychiatry.

As your are probably aware by this time that the definition and practice of Osteopathic Medicine is complex and difficult to "pin down." I have read much of the discussion on this site, and have the following comments generally:

1. Internationally each country has its own regulatory and educational processes that differ not only between countries, but also many countries have their own internal differences and complexities. It should be noted that at present, the emergence of non-medical Osteopathy is literally exploding internationally. There are presently 5 osteopathic schools in Munich Germany, alone. The problem with this explosion will be establishing and maintaining standards.

2. The US has the most rigorous of educational processes and has had the most influence politically, as the US is the site of origin of the osteopathic profession... and, US osteopathic physicians train in hospital settings, specialize in all fields, diagnose, prescribe medications, and are often indistinguishable from their MD counterparts. Osteopathic Manipulation, or as I prefer to call it... "Osteopathy," is taught in a basic form in all osteopathic colleges during the first 2 years. Students tend to be enthusiastic initially, but as the rigours and orientation of conventional medicine are intensely emphasized, the students tend to lose their interest, even to point of osteopathic manipulation losing its credibility.

This is the context in which much of the discussion existing on this webpage occurs.

Further:

1. The osteopathic profession is presently in the process of developing and collecting a body of research that supports the already established efficacy of osteopathic manipulation.

2. The practice and philosophy of "Traditional Osteopathy" (osteopathic manipulation)... is uniquely different from convential "allopathic" or "AMA style" medicine... and by definition should be considered "alternative." Politically, it is not in the interest of the US profession to call Osteopathic Medicine "alternative." Hence the NCCAM does not support research on Osteopathy, which is ludicrous.

I am certain that other issues will become apparent as I read further... Overall the discussion of Osteopathy on Wikipedia has merit, but will always be fraught with controversy and contain inacuracies due to the complexity of the issues.

Markdo 19:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Osteopathy is a medical body that includes physicians practicing in all fields of medicine.

All this means to me is that it has gained official recognition. It doesn't tell me what it is or how it's different from "standard" Western medicine (or similar to it). Also, how does it relate to chiropractic? This article doesn't say anything, and as such, is properly a candidate for deletion. But I'd rather it get finished. Please, someone answer my questions above. --Uncle Ed 21:45 Mar 25, 2003 (UTC)

Osteopathy originally strictly used manipulative techniques for correcting somatic abnormalities thought to cause disease and inhibit recovery. However, over the past century, osteopathy has come to embrace the full spectrum of medicine.

If that's not "saying something," then I don't know what it is. Would you prefer it to say, "now it utilizes a combination of manipulative techniques, drugs, and surgery?" The article also says where the movement came from, who founded it, and where its schools are. Now there are opinions as to whether the osteopathic approach is superior to the traditional M.D. approach or not, and I'm certainly of the belief that it is, but that's not NPOV, so it doesn't belong in there.

An osteopath can do absolutely everything that an M.D. can, and very nearly everything that a chiropractor can (my understanding, as I was told by my late father, who was an osteopath, is that osteopathy inspired chiropractic). And I don't think "gained" recognition is a good use of words; my grandfather was practicing osteopathy before World War II and nobody ever questioned whether he was a doctor. He just delivered babies and prescribed medicine like anyone else. The difference between going to him or the M.D. across town was that if your back hurt, Dr. Ralph would probably put you on his table and pop your back rather than telling you to take aspirin. Dave Farquhar 22:17 Mar 25, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks, Dave, I think it's getting better -- especially with your latest additions. I look forward to working with you further. :-) --Uncle Ed 22:49 Mar 25, 2003 (UTC)

There was a big fight in California in the late 1950s over whether osteopaths would be fully licensed as doctors. California passed some law that pretty much screwed over the osteopaths, requiring them to go back to medical school, as in M.D. school, to take stuff they'd already taken. At least, that's how I remember it. I was pretty young at the time. But the point is that there was struggle and conflict over D.O.s getting fully licensed in every state. jaknouse 01:51 Mar 26, 2003 (UTC)

Jaknouse is mostly correct about the instance in California. Only it wasnt a law passed by Californa to limit osteopathic practice rights rather it was a move by the AMA to absorb osteopathic medicine. They offered osteopaths the option to switch their degree from DO to MD for a mear 60$ membership fee. They did not have to go back to school. I'm a current 1st year student at TUCOM. We've spent a great deal of time learning the history, theory, etc. of osteopathy, and will continue to do so. I made a few minor changes (e.g. - updating the # of osteopathic schools to 23 to reflect current numbers) and would be glad to contribute in the future. I believe that MDs tend not to call themselves allopaths only because they tend to follow the assumption that anyone who is "Doctor" is an allopathic doctor. However, the wording is perfectly correct. An MD is as much an allopath as a DO is an osteopath. Both terms are quite specific. --SargonZ 08:20, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Allopathy, labeling?

Do M.D.s call themselves allopaths? As far as I can tell, "allopathic" is a term used by homeopaths and alternate practitioners to describe standard modern medicine, not a term it uses for itself. As such, saying that an MD "is properly called" an allopath is misleading at best: it's not a term used commonly or by the doctors themselves. Vicki Rosenzweig

I grew up in an Osteopathic family. We always called them allopaths. After all, Osteopaths are "medical doctors" just as much as M.D.s. jaknouse 03:31 Mar 26, 2003 (UTC)

MDs tend not to call themselves allopaths because "allopath" is a perjorative term invented by Samuel Hahnemann, homeopathist, who used it to characature the practices of physicians. The term is not properly applied to todays practitions: standard medicine has never paid allegiance to an allopathic principle. -Nunh-huh 08:27, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thank you, I stand corrected. It amazes me how much politics influences medicine. In my idealistic brain, it seems the two should be unrelated. --SargonZ 16:43, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It would be nice wouldn't it? In New Jersey it's now illegal to give certain people flu shots.....<g> - Nunh-huh 00:55, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Amazes me too. Coined by the founder of Homeopathy eh? Ugh, rightly. Tyciol 13:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Pre-Med osteopathy resource

One of my colleagues forwarded me an article that I thought might be useful, either as a source or as a link; it seems to present a relatively clear, mostly unslanted view of osteopathy. It is aimed at pre-med students, but I think the information in it could be useful to all. I'll leave it up to y'all to decide what to do with it. Kaplan Osteopathy page -SargonZ 20:39, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The page doesn't seem to be active, new link to update or remove reference? Tyciol 13:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Osteopathic profession outside the USA

I have edited this page a little to widen the perspective, osteopathy has developed differently outside the USA. I am an osteopath that trained in the UK and have worked in the Uk & NZ. When I havd time I shall add a section on the osteopathic paradigm and the philosophies that profession applies in clinical reasoning and treatment regimes. -AntaineNZ

Visceral Osteopathy, Link Removal Policy

I've edited some modifications on this section since the author made some self-advertisement for his website and the information given was false and misleading. -Alain Guierre DO(UK)

Link removal policy: A note to user Alain_Guierre: Please DO remove links to commercial, self-advertisement pages. Please DO NOT remove links to supportive (or critical) research pages. 20:33, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Dear Levine2112, your link appears to be a self-promoting page referring to a private practice: http://www.originalosteopathy.com/osteopathic/index.html

Wikipedia:Vanity guidelines: What should not be linked to:

1. In general, any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article here would have once it become an example of brilliant prose.
2. Links that are added to promote a site, by the site operator or its affiliates. See External link spamming.
3. Sites that primarily exist to sell products.
4. Sites with objectionable amounts of advertising :

See also: External link spamming. Respectfully, Alain

Criticism?

Isn't there usually a section for criticism? The word "critics" appears only once in the entire article, and this is a highly controversial practice!

This seems incredibly slanted to me at present, comes off as more of an advertisement than a critical analysis of both sides of the issue. If you can't see it in the text I think the inclusion of the pejorative Osteopath term "allopath" proves it's not exactly getting input from both sides.

Given that 90+% of osteopathic medical practice is identical to "allopathic" medical practice, I don't see the controversy. Granted, there are some controversial elements, such as cranial, but those have been labeled as controversial. DocJohnny 11:13, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Defensive much? Simply using the term allopath is biased. If you want to be unbiased shouldn't you use the term used by the group your referring to to describe themselve? would you use 'indian' to refer to native americans? or 'nigger' for african americans? what about 'blacks'? given that 90%+ of african americans are black?

The person he was replying to used the term 'allopath' in quotes, so did he, I don't see the problem. The problem being, calling it 'standard medicine' isn't really a name, more of a description. If you can come up with a more commonly recognized term, I'd like to hear it... Tyciol 12:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Criticism

I think it would be useful to include research on the efficacy or otherwise of osteopathic treatment or links to investigations into the theoretical basis of some claims made for techniques. Some such links have been included.

I dont think that it can be asserted that osteopathic practice is a 'highly controversial practice', controversial to whom and on what basis? Exclamation mark not required. I have edited this page to try and include information and balance, to give some detail on the regulatory framewrok and hte profession outside the USA. I appreciate the contributions on visceral etc. I myself do not pratice cranial osteopathy and have tried to treat that area sensitively but evenhandedly. I see no need for the editorial policy to be defined solely by a narrow bio-medical paradigm. The page is intended as information on osteopathy not a manifesto for or against it. -AntaineNZ

Osteopathy might not be highly controversial, but it is a little controversial. I was quite surprised not to see a Critcism section. Normally when I want a quick understanding of controversial subjects I go straight there first :) Mathiastck 14:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Mathiastck completely. I go directly to the criticism section for almost any subject, as a measure of it's even-handedness whether it is controversial or note. And i do, by the way, agree that Osteopathy is at least a little controversial, with evidentiary, causal science under assault on many fronts, such as intelligent design. Without a controvrsy section that article has no integrity. The article on Homepathy, IMO, does an excellent job of approaching a contoversial subject fairly.

I'm not all that familiar with Wikipedia's policies, but can someone tag this as not being neutral or requiring attention?Armandtanzarian 01:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

In this article the 'criticism' section is called: 'Future challenges' - and tagged with a stub - feel free to expand this section. --apers0n 18:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The consensus seems to be that it is controversial, and the convention on wikipedia seems to be to label the sections Criticisms rather then Future Challenges. I have thus renamed it so, without changing the article in any other way. Mathiastck 06:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Please show me where such a convention is stated. --apers0n 07:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

It is controversial to standard non-osteopathic (allopathic) medical doctors I'm betting. One of the reasons it is controversial is that doctors seem more prone to including other practises less supported by standard medical practise, the dipping into which is reminicent of chiropracty. Naturopathy is another instance of people with Bachelors of Science opening medical schools with some good practises, but also littered with pseudosciences. Tyciol 12:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I just finished a health professions degree BScKin, and the term 'allopathy' was used regularly, and with no negative connotations inferred, whatsoever. It's the actual noun.

Additions

I have added a few things such as clinical trial information, and attempted to clarify the visceral portion of the article to remove some POV aspects. DocJohnny 22:32, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

It would be nice to add some well-studied evidence to support both the osteopathic theory in general and osteopathic treatments in specific to validate, to support and to differentiate osteopathy from conventional medicine. Just saying it provides the same drugs, surgery plus some osteopathic treatments isn't enough to validate its value. A physiotherapist can theoretically provide the same thing, should they be given a medicine program with a degree such as D.P.? -Unknown

Cranial Osteopathy

"Many without direct experience of the benefits of treatment dismiss cranial osteopathy as pseudo-science". That is a rubbish statement. It pre-supposes that there are indisputed 'benefits' that would be quite apparent to people who criticise the practice if they had experience of it. It also assumes that those who have experienced it don't dismiss it as psuedo science. Where is the evidence for that? Whether or not some one has experienced it or not is not even slightly relevent to forming an informed oppinion on whether it is psuedo science or not... If it is then lets only allow astronauts to edit the article on space travel. In fact it could be argued that those who have experienced these benefits have a conflict of interest in evaluating its scientific merit.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.206.14.1 (talk • contribs) 15.00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

That's an excellent point, it's basically testimonial-based evidence which is no longer sufficient in modern science. Tyciol 12:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The section on Cranial Osteopathy contains a great deal of incorrect information, especially the first paragraph. Insurance companies do reimburse for osteopathic treatment and that includes cranial treatment. I have hundreds of EOBs from insurance companies that verify this.

There is no easy means for an insurance company to differentiate between types of treatment. Treatment codes only involve number of areas treated, not which techniques or philosophies were used in the treatment. This means that it is impossible for an insurance company to even tell that a physician utilized cranial osteopathy in treatment unless they request the medical records.

I do not believe that it is legal to refuse payment due to the type of osteopathic treatment performed. On providing requested records to insurance companies, I have never had a payment refused on the grounds that I utilized Cranial Osteopathy. All this information is common knowledge.

Cranial Osteopathy is not a "contested issue within the profession." It is considered accepted practice within the profession. Please contact the American Osteopathic Association for further clarification.

Please correct the erroneous and misleading information and note that I have contributed correct information in the past that was not used to update the document. ::—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ericdo (talk • contribs) 23.19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Dolgin, thanks for the input. It does fall upon all of the editors shoulders to make updates to the article. You have a unique persepctive here - as a highly regarded D.O. practicing cranial osteopathy. You should be able to contribute greatly to this article and correct any oversights. Feel free to make the changes you have suggested yourself. Our one caveat here at Wikipedia is to be sure to provide references (from verifiable sources) to support your edits. Best of luck and happy editing! Levine2112 23:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Reverting previous edit by User:Fyslee as the evidence has been laid out at Craniosacral therapy to include cranial osteopathy. --apers0n 13:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Alternative or conventional medicine

I reverted the edit by 72.185.98.234 (talk) that changed the first sentence in the article from

• Osteopathy is an alternative medicine and...

to

• Osteopathy describes a facet of modern medicine rooted in...

because osteopathy is an alternative to modern Western medicine, not a facet of it. Osteopathy provides an alternative approach to healthcare based on the inherent restorative capacity of the body rather than suppressing symptoms. --apers0n 07:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Source Required

Regarding the reversion by ApersOn, what is your source, other than your own perceptions, that lead you to label Osteopathy as "alternative medicine" The PRACTICE of ostopathic medicine itself is not an alternative to traditional western medicine, it IS part of traditional western medicine. Osteopaths engage in a full scope of practice of traditional Western medicine, in traditional hospitals. Perhaps you MIGHT be able to label the osteopathic philosophical approach to traditioanl medicine as unique, but here again, the philosophies were all by A.T. Still, who himself, was a westerner, and a surgeon. Openly labeling the profession as "alternative medicine" is highlys subjective and deceptively implies that if a patient were to visit an oesteopath for a conventional problem, e.g., an infected appendix, they might receive some alternative or unconventional form of therapy, e.g., herbs or manipulation. This simply is not case. I refer everyone to the American Ostepathic Association, the worldwide governning body of th profession, and their own description of Osteopathy. "Osteopathic medicine is one of the fastest growing healthcare professions in the U.S. and brings a unique philosophy to traditional medicine. With a strong emphasis on the inter-relationship of the body's nerves, muscles, bones and organs, doctors of osteopathic medicine, or D.O.s, apply the philosophy of treating the whole person to the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of illness, disease and injury". Note the word traditional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.185.98.234 (talk)

72.185.98.234's quotation from the AOA appears to apply only to America, and doctors of osteopathic medicine (a term used in the US). "Osteopaths engage in a full scope of practice of traditional Western medicine, in traditional hospitals." is only the case in the US. The following phrase: the "American Osteopathic Association, the worldwide governing body of the profession" is paradoxical by definition. Perhaps attention of this nature should be directed to the article Osteopathic medicine, relating to osteopathy in America.

The Alternative medicine article defines alt med as follows: "includes practices that incorporate spiritual, metaphysical, or religious underpinnings" per A T Still's original concept of osteopathy as a minister, and a far cry from the current practice.

As a reference, the American NCCAM, a government agency, classifies osteopathy as follows: "Manipulative and body-based methods in CAM are based on manipulation and/or movement of one or more parts of the body. Some examples include chiropractic or osteopathic manipulation..." [1] (CAM = Complementary and Alternative medicine).

The idea of osteopathy itself being a Traditional medicine is dubious considering its' recent origins, although bone-setting could be considered as such. Osteopathy could conceivably be defined as integrative medicine, and I would welcome further discussion on that. --apers0n 16:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

With regards the comments from the two individuals above, there are some falsities that need to be cleared up, although the first person is much more correct than the second. Osteopathy, with a capital "O" refers to the western profession founded by A.T. Still, in the United States. Osteopathy, in this regard, from its origin, is traditional western medicine, and its practitioners, who are all trained in the United States, enjoy full practice rights. In response to ApersOn's comments: "recent origins" is paradoxical. Regarding NCCAM, it does not specifically label the practice of "O"steopathy as an alternative medicine, only osteopathic manipulation, which is a very small component of Osteopathy with a capital O. As an analogy, chelation, widely practiced by allopaths, is considered "alternative medicine" by NCAM but all of allopathy, with a capital "A" is not. Clearing up further points, The American Osteopathic Association, is the worldwide governing body of Osteopathy, with respect to the practice that was founded in the United States, but is now practiced widely beyond US borders, on all continents. ApersOn is correct in noting that British Osteopaths do not enjoy full practice rights, and are not trained in the same manor as US physcians. When defining "O"steopathy however, their exclusive use of manipulation, which is classified as alternative medicien, should be considered the exception, not the rule. Attempting to confine the practice of full-scope western osteopathic medicine to the United States, is promulgating false information. To be specific, U.S. trained osteopaths are the only osteopaths who enjoy full practice rights, but to say that those rights do not cross the US borders is false. Currently, US-traind D.O.s have full practice rights in 44 countries throughout the world, and hence this is why 72.185.98.234 is entirely correct in asserting that the American Osteopathic Association is the worldwide governing body for the practice of Ostopathy with a capital O. Granted, popular culture in the US and elsewhere generally has the perception that DO's are practioners of alternative medicine, but in terms of clarity, academic integrity, and fairness, credence must be lended to those who practice Osteopathy's defintion, vis a vis the profession's own regulatory body's defintion--which precisely is, tradtional medcine, and not the public's conception of what they believe it to be.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.247.153.21 (talk)

In response to the comments by 131.247.153.21, I agree that when it was first established the AOA may historically have been the worldwide governing body of osteopathy, but please refer to Osteopathic International Alliance (OIA) (as in osteopathy#External_links) which, as a worldwide organisation of organisations and established by the AOA (Ref: "The Osteopathic International Alliance: Unification of the Osteopathic Profession": "The American Osteopathic Association (AOA) saw a need for an international association to represent the osteopathic profession"), and in common with the World Osteopathic Health Organization (WOHO) "share a vision for the future of osteopathy" (with a small "o"). The OIA "has made it its mission to advance the philosophy and practice of osteopathic medicine and osteopathy throughout the world." (Ref: "An Update: The International Osteopathic Profession") - osteopathic medicine and osteopathy are clearly distinguished here. The aims of the WOHO are: "To promote, develop, protect and establish throughout the world, the study, knowledge, philosophy and practice of osteopathy" (Ref: WOHO objectives), again the word osteopathy is used with a small "o". The AOA uses the phrase: "American Osteopathic Medicine" when referring to international promotion: BIOMEA International Poster Session.

Agreed that US-trained Osteopathic physicians enjoy international rights to practice Osteopathic medicine, and this should be reflected in the Osteopathic medicine article, but should contemporary evidence exist, any current semantic difference between the words "osteopathy" and "Osteopathy" must be clearly distinguished in both this osteopathy article and the Osteopathic medicine article, or in Osteopathy (disambiguation). --apers0n 10:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

In response to ApersOn, his links to the AOA and OIA are moving us in the right direction. Still, further disambiguation is required. The OIA is merely an umbrella organisation that is adminstered by the AOA. Further, the link provided which refers to osteopathy with a lower case "o" appears to simply be a working paper from a steering comittee, and the lower case o, perhaps, was a simple oversight. The official membership and by-laws, published more prominently on the same website, make multiple references to the organisations goals of advancing Osteopathy, with a capital O, (and not just Osteopathic medicine), and more specifically, it refers to Osteopathy with respect to the aims of "full-practice rights". In other words, non-physician osteopaths who do not have traditional western medical training or full-practice rights (as in the UK), are ineligible for full-membership in the OIA. When you add up that the OIA appears to bear the endorsement of the World Health Organisation, the fact that they claim to advance the profession of Osteopathy, and that, full OIA membership requires traditional western training and competence, and it is beginning to look like the evidence for calling Osteopathy "alternative", in this day and age, is scarce. (12.183.100.8 15:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC))

I've reworked the article with the difference in mind between Osteopathy/osteopathy and Osteopathic/osteopathic medicine, with a link at the top of the page to the disambiguation page Osteopathy (disambiguation), and the worldwide views (i.e. other than the U.S. view) of the connection with complementary/alternative medicine. I hope the two articles reflect this a bit more clearly now, but it may be worth mentioning that the AOA view of Osteopathy is that it is not alternative even when practised by non-physician osteopaths, if what I understand from the comments by 12.183.100.8 is correct, or that the view is changing. Is there a link to these stated AOA aims and by-laws that could be used as a reference? --apers0n 17:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

history

The history section ends around 1890 as far as I can tell, yet the intro mentions a significant change in 1969. Can some-one add to the hsitroy seciton? Kdammers 03:54, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The majority of family and sports doctors in the US are D.O.s.

What are D.O.s? Benqish 08:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I added a sentence that defines the abbreviation D.O. I also removed the above sentence altogether. Its completely false. It might seem to be true considering most D.O.s go into these fields. Looking at the numbers, though, one can see that its not even close. Quoting the 2005 American Osteopathic Association Fact Sheet, there are 18,765 active Family Practice D.O.s in the country. The American Academy of Family Practice Physicians represents over 93,700 family physicians. Just comparing the two numbers without doing the math, one can see what an overstatement this sentence is. Whoever authored it wrote it without checking the statistics whatsoever. --Jdcaust 07:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Quackwatch external link

I removed the link to "Dubious Aspects Of Osteopathy" by Stephen Barrett of Quackwatch. The link contains original research that is not peer reviewed. Links such as the one to NEJM are much better. We have many many external links here and Wikipedia is not a link farm. This also fails WP:EL (Links to be avoided point#1 and #2). A user interested in keeping this link has accused me of being in WP:COI here. I don't see why. Perhaps that user can explain that position here? Levine2112 01:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

It's notable criticism of the concept, and should remain. It does not fail either point 1 or 2 of WP:EL. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

It absolutely fails these. And since it is not peer-reviewed it fails as a reliable source of the very claims it is purporting. Thus it misleads the rewader with unverifiable information. this is the exact kind of link WP discourages. Additionally, the majority of this link provided historical info which is already in this article and is redundant. But Barrett's claims such as: "the American Osteopathic Association is acting improperly by exaggerating the value of manipulative therapy and by failing to denounce cranial therapy" is unfounded and misleading to the reader. (Also, side note, you claim I violated 3RR. I believe you are incorrect.) Levine2112 02:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Since when do External links have to be peer reviewed? Please provide the URL to that policy. -- Fyslee (First law) 06:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

It is unbalanced POV on the history of medicine (you could probably get an interesting view of Kansas medicine from the genealogy buffs or local history books) by a known partisan. The QW link ends like a forum column, that seems chosen to discredit, with more "flowery language" than I see on Talk pages or even some previously banned trolls. It would be more interesting and germane for the osteopathy article to have better links & references on historical criticism of the "regulars" (MD) of the days when Still developed his philosophy.--I'clast 14:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Levine is ungoing a major campaign of removing Quackwatch links [2] This user is obviously has some issues that he isn;t being honest about. FGT2 17:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:AGF please. No personal attacks. I have been completely forthcoming with why I have removed the link. It is not a reliable source of information, it borders of original research, it has been link spammed (and wikipedia is not a repository for links) and it contain misleading/unverifiable information. Levine2112 17:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Poor arguements by Levine2112. Levine2112 is behaving a bit trollish. 63.17.56.54 19:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:AGF andd please make an argument about the topic at hand rather than a personal attack. Levine2112 19:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Your arguements are poor and deceptive. 63.17.56.54 20:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)