[orthodoc]

Um ... DOs don't have the corner on looking at the whole person. What they have is some aspects of chiropractic theory, which has no evidence-based support, and an EXTREMELY variable education in some of the aspects of allopathic medicine. Some DOs are very good, in spite of their training. Many are significantly lacking.

As an example - I attended a national convention two months ago, and signed up for a small group session on low back pain that was conducted by a DO. He told us that most low back pain is due to pelvic infirmity. He wouldn't elaborate on what he meant. He had a volunteer lie down on a table and, after palpating, triumphantly declared that the volunteer's symphysis pubis was at least 1 cm displaced. I commented that a 1 cm displacement would be easily visible on plain x-ray, correct? He replied that x-rays are always normal in spite of the 1 cm displacement. This is impossible.

He can't have it both ways; either there are measurable displacements or there are not. He admitted that no displacement that he assures his patients is present is ever provable on x-ray.

To conclude a horribly long story, Lola, I have talked with DOs, I have watched them do their manipulations, and I have done manipulations under their supervision, and not a single patient has ever felt better afterward. I don't agree that their medical training is equal to MD training. And they certainly don't have any basis for a claim to 'look at the whole person' more than an MD. My opinion is that they spend precious training time learning 'crack the back' techniques that help for a few minutes, if that, but don't do anything long-term, except get the patient to come back for more 'crack the back' stuff; and the time they spend doing this is time lost from learning more evidence-based material.