Real physicians on both sides of the Atlantic take rigorous courses in Chemistry, Physics, and Maths at the High School and University level before they even start their schooling in Medicine proper. This is necessary in order to even begin to understand the language of modern rigorous medical training. This is apparently not the case for UK-trained osteopaths. The entrance requirements for UK Schools of Osteopathy are shockingly low, and the full degree can be done part-time, on weekends. One notorious osteopath who visits this section regularly admits to leaving school at the age of 16, without any A levels, and without ever taking a course in High School Science. (He claims to have taken a make-up survey course called "Access to Medicine" in order to qualify for Osteopathy School). This would explain his adherence to some very strange ideas, such as the following gem: "I remember seeing a documentry about folk who'd inadvertently built machines which were more than 100% efficient. Physicist very skeptically went along to see them. Once shown that the energy output was greater than energy input the answer was always the same — "this isn't a laboritory" — ....No machine can be 100% efficient but it is possible to design machines which draw energy form the fabric of space giving the appearance of greater than 100% efficiency. Teslar [sic] did a lot of experiments on this but his notes were either destroyed or Hidden (I personally think he destroyed them because he stubbled upon something too dangerous to be experimented on at the time). Hardline physicist don't want to discover this because it means they have to re-theorise everything." Not wishing to embarrass this osteopath more than he embarrasses himself, I will not mention his name, but readers can contact me for the source of the quote. Should the UK and NZ governments require all osteopaths to take at least a minimum of High School science subjects?
Alternative Medicine - 5 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
"modern, rigorous". well, thank you. i suppose chiropractors should take that as a complement since they take the same basic anatomical sciences.( by the way, chiro students were told by the national board examiners they kicked the med students asses.) actually though, it's all pretty irrelevant. the point being, none of that gets sick people well. if it did, the medics would, but they don't.
2 :
Yes. Since I'm unfamiliar with osteopathy, will you give links as proof of your claims?
3 :
I'm sure that all the RELEVANT basic "science" is taken into consideration, including "high school science" whatever that is. People who go to Osteopaths are going for a particular treatment modality. They understand what the specialty is and that's what they want, or they wouldn't go there. If you don't agree with what's being practised and how, then you're not likely to be a patient.
4 :
They should at least know A level (or higher) biology... but then if someone IS good at something and has got that way through on-the-job training, and has a good reputation (regardless of any previous education) then I would say they were an anomaly in the trade. I would be wary of anyone who claims things that make you doubt their professionalism. I sometimes hear stories from people who have been trained in the field I work in (arboriculture), and I can tell they are lying right away, which then gives me cause for concern, and to maybe not trust their abilities as a person as much. As for the Tesla thing, I know his wind turbine has been made, owing to the advances in modern technology... but yes... nothing is 100% efficient.
5 :
You do not appear to have done adequate research on university requirements. Your first statement is incorrect. Not all of those subjects are prerequisites for studying a bachelor of medicine in all tertiary institutions. Chemistry is usually a prerequisite. As is Maths. Biology is often omitted. And Physics is sometimes an adequate substitution for Chemistry. Two examples: http://www.qtac.edu.au/Courses/courses/guide2011/317012.htm http://www.qtac.edu.au/Courses/courses/guide2011/020712.htm As for your claim of "rigorous courses", Harvard Medical School only requires 2 years for Chemistry and all other subjects only 1 year. http://hms.harvard.edu/admissions/default.asp?page=requirements I studied senior (2 years) high school Maths (Standard and Advanced), Biology, Chemistry and Physics. They are foundation level courses. As a general guideline, many non-prerequisite high school subjects are covered at University level over a 4-6 week period, meaning 4-6 hours of lectures. That is why many medical courses do not have your stated requirements. What this means in reality is that those who have not studied the subject at high school may need to work harder to understand and pass examinations in these subjects. For example: - Dental Science requires Maths, and one of Biology/Chemistry/Physics http://www.qtac.edu.au/Courses/courses/guide2011/712002.htm - Pharmacy requires Maths and Chemistry http://www.qtac.edu.au/Courses/courses/guide2011/725002.htm - Veterinary Science requires Maths and Chemistry http://www.qtac.edu.au/Courses/courses/guide2011/317051.htm This is the outline for a course in Osteopathy in Australia - 5 years, which is the same period required of dentists. MDs have 6 years of full-time study. http://www.qtac.edu.au/Courses/courses/guide2011/055111.htm It appears you are either ignoring facts to enhance an attack, or you really know very little about university education, particularly in relation to medical sciences.
Read more discussion :
