Talk:Comparison of MD and DO in the United States/GA2

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Auchansa (talk · contribs) 04:18, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I am not formally reviewing this. However, I have grave concerns about this being a Good Article. Technically, it meets many of the checklists of a Good Article. However, it misses major questions that a reader might have.

Quite a few people believe that D.O.'s are inferior to M.D. You can argue if it is not true but sweeping it under the rug is a dis-service to the Wikipedia reader.

I would like to know if D.O. applicants could not get into a M.D. medical school. I suspect that thousands of other readers want to know if this is true.

It appears that there is some bias in the article and perhaps it was written largely by a D.O. One clue is in the introduction when it refers to M.D.'s as allopathic physicians. I thought that the term was mainly used by D.O.'s and that if you were to ask 100 M.D.'s, 99 or 100 of them would not say "I am an allopathic physician". Similarly, in the Jon Benet Ramsey murder case, the ransom note was thought to be a fake because it read something along the lines of "We are a Foreign Faction." A real foreign faction would not refer to themselves as such.

Consider the above comments in article improvement. Auchansa (talk) 04:18, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

• I nominated the article, so I also will not be formally reviewing it, but I will respond to a couple of your concerns. Information on how many DO students applied and were rejected from MD schools is included in the article. See the student aptitude section, which compares the performance of M.D. and D.O. students on examinations.
• Part of the reason that "allopathic" is used in the article is because the term is found in several of the references, which are published by M.D. organizations. If you feel that you have constructive contributions to make regarding the use of the word, I strongly encourage you to do so on the talk page. Thank you for your feedback. Rytyho usa (talk) 07:13, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

The way the article is written, there seems to be (intentional or unintentional) a theme to convince the reader that a DO is just as good as a MD, as if they are trying to prove themselves. Wikipedia should not be a Bible tract or an agenda pusher.

As far as state medical boards, I've looked at some websites and MD's are generally not referred to as "allopathic". It is common that MD's are referred to as "medical doctors" or "physicians".

When an article appears to be (intentionally or unintentionally) pushing an agenda, if it is a GA, it should go out of its way to be neutral. This is not the case with this article. There should be very great consensus that there is neutrality.

Is it possible that the clinical training of osteopathic schools are not as good? Is it that they do not have the cutting edge university hospitals and research? What is, according to Wikipedia, the reason for conversion of an osteopathic medical school, the University of California, Irvine School of Medicine, into a M.D. degree granting school? Would that provide insight on the issue of D.O. schools, at least for editors trying to write this article (not necessarily including it in the article, though)?

Aren't there hokey awards, like the U.S. News' best hospitals? Aren't many of them affiliated with M.D. medical schools, but none or almost none of them affiliated with D.O. medical school? Is this relevant?

So many questions that cast doubt on the GA. Perhaps, a fresh set of editors should re-write the article? Auchansa (talk) 05:09, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

To answer some of your questions, osteopathic medical schools are not as well established as many of the M.D. schools, some of which have been around for a very long time. Also, there are currently far fewer D.O. schools than M.D. schools. However, the clinical training of osteopathic school is just as good as that of M.D. schools since the curricula taught at the schools is essentially identical. That being said, regarding the allopathic issue, it is a mix. I have seen works written by MDs (I can provide links if you need me to) that say allopathic and the link Rytyho referenced is actually by the NIH. Of course, I am under the impression that allopathic should be used minimally or not at all (I prefer the latter) as I think the allopathic/osteopathic dichotomy is an antiquated one without much use. I think Doctors of Osteopathic Medicine (D.O.) and Doctor of Medicine (M.D.) is sufficient. As for whether or not the article is attempting to convince the reader that a DO is as good as an MD, as you said, many people erroneously assume that D.O.s are not the equals of M.D.s despite the fact that they are today. I agree that encyclopedia articles should not have an agenda and that they should dispel misinformation and provide accurate, unbiased information. Can you provide instances of biased tone in the article that can be improved upon? UC Irvine turning into an M.D. degree granting school has nothing to do with what you're talking about. There is a separate article that discusses that which I'm sure Rytyho can provide you a link to. As for whether or not DOs can or cannot get into MD school, it is a mix. Speaking from anecdotes, which I know is not evidence, I have heard instances both ways with MD students having applied to DO schools and not getting in, DO students applying to MD schools and not getting in, and the reverse situations as well. There is a small gap in average admissions standards but it is a diminishing gap and one that is addressed in the article I believe. To answer another of your questions, DO schools do have research programs. Also, if you examine the article more carefully, the issue of D.O. applicants and M.D. schools is discussed in the student aptitude indicators section. If you have other questions feel free to leave a message here or on my talk page. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 10:33, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Auchansa: I agree. Most M.D. physicians do not identify as "allopathic physicians." However, the article does not suggest that most M.D. physicians identify as "allopathic physicians." In fact, it says just the opposite. As a rule, they do not. The article only indicates that they sometimes are referred to as such. A cursory review of a few websites is not sufficient evidence that the term is not used, or that it is not sufficiently notable to be included in an article. Good articles need not eliminate all controversial content, they only must present it in a neutral fashion. I think completely eliminating the word "allopathic" from the article would diminish, rather than improve, the quality of the article. Note: I have recently deleted one use of the word, and added a couple citations to clarify its current use. As it stands, the word is used once in the lead, and then again in the section entitled "Self-Identification." It is not used anywhere else in the article. If you, or TylerDurden8823, or anyone else still feel the use is unwarranted, let's continue this discussion.

Any editors or readers interested in reading about the California merger on wikipedia may do so by referencing Osteopathic medicine in the United States. That article gives thorough treatment to the issue of territorialism between M.D.s and D.O.s in the United States, and discusses their currently professional relationship, which is much less adversarial than it has been in the past. The article is linked in the history section of this article. Forgive me, but I fail to recognize your point here. You do not seem to believe that content should be included in this article, and I agree, but I don't think I follow you...

Please refrain from using sarcasm when discussing controversial topics on wikipedia. It is rarely helpful (WP:SARC). Also, please note that the article does discuss how M.D. residencies are generally considered more prestigious than D.O. residencies. See the sections on residencies and professional advantages. The article doesn't appear to avoid these topics, yet you seem unsatisfied with the current state of the article. Could you explain why? Specific suggestions regarding how to improve the article are always much more helpful than broad generalizations, such as "the article appears to be pushing an agenda." If you have references comparing the research conducted at MD and DO schools, or regarding the distribution of top rated hospitals with affiliations with M.D. institutions vs. D.O. institutions, I encourage you to include that in the article. If any discrepancies exist in the quality of clinical education between MD and DO schools, and you are aware of quality references, please add them. Personally, my research has not indicated that to be case, although perhaps you are aware resources or journal articles that I am not aware of.

I look forward to working with you both on further improving this article. Rytyho usa (talk) 00:59, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, I have added some more information on applicants to both D.O. schools and M.D. schools (how many were accepted by both, MD only, and DO only). Any feedback on that is also welcomed. Thanks! Rytyho usa (talk) 01:02, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

After reading the Allopathic medicine article I think you should be very careful how you use the term allopathic. Saying "are sometimes known as allopathic physicians" is too ambiguous and potentially misleading. The opening sentence is not encyclopaedic. This is not an essay so there is no need to introduce the topic that way. Also an uncited single sentence history section is not going to meet the GA standards. Haven't looked too closely at the rest of the article, but its nomination appears premature. I can't find any other comparison articles that are rated Good for you to compare this to, but I have worked on one relating to sprots and it can be difficult to write these types of articles neutrally and without straying into WP:Synth territory. AIRcorn (talk) 02:03, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

AIRcorn: wow, that's a really good point about the lead; I don't know how I missed that. Thanks! I've just reworded it. I re-read some of the references from the allopathic article, and I agree: it's a word that ought to be used with caution. The lead now indicates that it's a controversial term. For the history section, I think the original intention was to drive readers to the article on osteopathic medicine in the united states for more background, but this article probably deserves a more complete section of its own. Thanks for the feedback! Should the article fail the GA review, or should it be put on hold for a week to allow changes to be made? Rytyho usa (talk) 03:39, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

This is a very difficult article to write. If we are politically correct, we could try to convince the readers that they are the same. If we are realistic, it may be hard to get sources.

On another subject, near the top of the article, after the lede, it says "There is a history of territorialism between the MD and DO qualified physicians' worlds, though animosity between the groups has subsided in recent years." Shouldn't there be a source? Was there really animosity . Has it subsided?. I thought that some MD's thought DO came from lousy medical schools, but not as lousy as some elsewhere in the world, but did not hate DO's. I thought that some DO's are jealous of MD's and think they are just as good. Of course, these conclusions are original research, though they may guide us to the truth of the matter.

Bottom line, it is a tough article to write. Could one hypothetically write an article "Comparison better graduates of the UCLA medical school and Marshall University medical school"? Just as tough.

Just a thought...maybe DO do residencies in worse hospitals?

Just another thought...the article compares MD's to DO's. How about the MD that went to medical school in India or Dominican Republic. Of course, maybe political correctness is such that an Indian medical school is equal to the best US medical school?

Any doctors here?

Auchansa (talk) 06:12, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree, the sentence about territorialism and animosity should be cited.

I suppose I took the article to be only about U.S. medical graduates of M.D. programs and D.O. programs. However, I am not convinced that offering a balanced comparison while satisfying GA criteria is impossible. That's an interesting thought on the IMGs - should the article include international medical graduates? I don't know. The lead does indicate it's about physicians practicing in the United States. Rytyho usa (talk) 07:16, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

To answer your question Auchansa, no, most DOs actually do their residencies in ACGME/AOA dually accredited residency programs and some still do them in AOA programs. I also agree that the sentence in the history section should be cited even though it is correct. I think you may be oversimplifying things a bit though Auchansa. I believe that it is only a small proportion of MDs who still think the way you speak of and that the majority of them recognize that DOs are medical physicians just as they are and the same goes for DOs, I think only a small minority might feel the way you described. We know that original research has no place in this article anyway so that's really a moot point. Also, there's an allopathic medicine article??? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 07:37, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

This is a difficult article to write, as I have said before. Especially when there is controversy, there must be a citation. The citation must be balanced. (It doesn't help if an article is written with biased statements, even if there is a citation for each of the biased sentences).

One possibility is to slowly work on this. The other possibility is to rapidly work on this, but I don't know if there are enough people with lots of time to devote to this.

As far as "most DOs actually do their residencies in ACGME/AOA dually accredited residency programs", this may need a citation but if it is true, then that may be a good point.

How about specialized fields, like ENT? Is this true?

"In 2001, the AOA adopted a provision making it possible for a D.O. resident in any M.D. program to apply for osteopathic approval of their training.[54] The topic of dual-accreditation is controversial" ------ This is confusing. It sounds like a DO resident can do a MD residency and get osteopathic approval, this making the residency program ACGME/AOA. This is either confusing or incorrect. The previous paragraph implied that some residency programs get accreditation by both groups, which sounds more likely. Readers of a GA should not become confused easily because of confusing text. Auchansa (talk) 03:59, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment. I've started a thread here on the talk page about the main problem I see with this article. Biosthmors (talk) 22:39, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes Auchansa, DOs work in every specialty in medicine including specialties like ENT as you mentioned and the rest. The statement I made on this talk page is not something I explicitly put into the article though I'm sure it discusses it somewhere that most DO medical students enter into AOA/ACGME dually accredited residencies. There are programs that get approval from both the AOA and the ACGME to clarify my previous statements. I'll refer you to this article's 74th reference which shows that there are programs that have received approval by both the AOA and ACGME. What you said above applies to programs that are only accredited by the ACGME and not both-hence you must apply for osteopathic approval of the ACGME residency. There are four states (Michigan, Florida, Pennsylvania, and Oklahoma that require the AOA to recognize ACGME internship (PGY1) training so that DO residents may apply for board certification. This whole process (called resolution 42) is avoided when DO students enter into an AOA-approved internship year and then do an ACGME or AOA/ACGME or AOA residency. If it is still not clear to you I can always try to explain it in a different way. In the meanwhile, here are two links that may clarify things for you:

http://www.osteopathic.org/inside-aoa/Education/postdoctoral-training/Pages/trainee-forms-and-applications.aspx

http://www.osteopathic.org/inside-aoa/Education/postdoctoral-training/Pages/resolution-42.aspx/

As far as D.O. in every specialty, I did some research and found this may not be true. I looked up how many burn surgeons in the U.S. are D.O. and found there are zero. I looked up how many oculoplastic surgeons in the U.S. are D.O. and I can find only two, one in Michigan and one in South Carolina. What I think is the truth is that D.O. medical schools are less reputable and their graduates have a hard time getting into competitive fields. Furthermore, D.O. schools frequently do not have all of the specialties in their teaching hospital. Sure, they have the main ones, but not always the small fields.

This comment doesn't relate to the article so much as one of the editor's comments, which may be almost true, but not true.

Another editor questioned whether this is really a suitable article for Wikipedia. What I can say is that it is a very hard article since it is a comparison and not a single thing, like Albania or flashlight or George Washington. Should Wikipedia have an article "Comparison of George W. Bush and Bill Clinton"? Or "Comparison of the living standards of Canada and the United States"? Or "Comparison of private schools and public schools in Florida"? Good questions to consider.

What about an article "Different kinds of Doctors in the U.S." and have that cover DO, MD, optometrist, doctor of nurse practitioner, etc. Which brings to the subject how about "Comparison of optometrists with D.O. ophthalmologists"? It would be a travesty to have an essay about how optometrists are almost like D.O. ophthalmologists, they have x years of training, they have so-called residencies, which don't compare at all with D.O. ophthalmology residencies, etc. Auchansa (talk) 04:10, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Auchansa, what you have said here is inaccurate. DOs are permitted to go into any medical specialty. Just because there aren't currently any DO burn surgeons you can find does not mean there are not any nor does it mean they cannot specialize in that field. DOs are certainly allowed to specialize in reconstructive plastic surgery. I was able to find DOs who specialize in that particular field with a very simple google search immediately I urge you to be a bit more thorough next time before making inaccurate claims like that. You seem to have forgotten what I wrote above-most DO schools are much younger and not as well established. It is a growing field and that is well known amongst those who know about DOs. Regardless, what you think is the truth is not really the point here. You're entitled to your opinion but that doesn't make it correct. It is true that DOs can specialize in any medical field. I still think that Biosthmors had the right idea about what to do with the article. I don't think a new article called different kinds of doctors in the U.S. is necessary when there is already a well-established and written article to continue improving. What did that optometrist/ophthalmologist comparison have to do with anything? Nevermind, forget I asked, it's off topic. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 01:26, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Can they or are there some sort of barriers or training issues why they are not? Part of the reason that D.O.'s are not burn surgeons may because that none (I think) of the teaching hospitals of D.O. schools have burn centers, at least, on this list. http://www.ameriburn.org/verification_verifiedcenters.php Not all of the hospitals on this list are the main teaching hospital of MD medical schools, but many are such as the University of Wisconsin Burn Center, University of Washington Burn Center, VCU Burn Center, University of Utah Burn Center, which are the bottom 4 of the list. I looked up a few of these burn centers and none of them that I looked up have D.O.'s. I suppose I should ask a burn surgeon to find out the comprehensive story. However, clearly there is some reason why M.D. are in fields, like burn surgery, but D.O. are either not or there are so few of them that a search can't find any of them. As far as the statement that D.O. are permitted, there is a saying that anyone can be President of the U.S. However, we've never seen a convicted murderer or an African-American woman or a Japanese-American President. It may be because the barriers to being President are too big for these people to attain. In contrast, there have been over 40 White male Presidents.

Blatantly false. I've already shown you that there are actually DOs who are burn surgeons despite your insistence that there are not. Furthermore, I've already provided you a very simple explanation for why there are far fewer DOs who are burn surgeons when compared to MDs. In pure numbers, there are currently a lot more MDs in the United States than DOs. A simple search does find them, you are either not looking or not looking very hard. I performed a simple google search and managed to find some within a few minutes. Your analogy to the Presidents is a flawed one since you are the one who initially questioned whether a DO can specialize in burn surgery at all (they can) and I have demonstrated that. I'll even quote you: "As far as D.O. in every specialty, I did some research and found this may not be true." And of course: "This comment doesn't relate to the article so much as one of the editor's comments, which may be almost true, but not true." You even went so far as to say my statements (which are accurate) were false (not true). And you even admitted that your own comments were really getting off topic, not a good thing when reviewing an article.TylerDurden8823 (talk) 06:21, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Basically, there are a lot of unanswered questions. This is a very hard article to write.I wish it were an easier article to write. An article, like Toulouse, France or Thomas Jefferson, is much easier to write. Auchansa (talk) 05:19, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

It think this discussion should be copy/pasted to Osteopathic medicine in the United States (and continued there) as that looks like the likely merge target for this article. As I mention on the talk page of this article, I think the topic of this article is not notable enough for its own page (thus it is difficult to write about). Biosthmors (talk) 18:13, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Further discussion and evaluation using standard criteria

A good article is— Well-written: (a) the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[5]

Factually accurate and verifiable: (a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout; (b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;[6] and (c) it contains no original research.

There are problems with this section. Based on the talk page, there are some real problems and controversy with this article. For the history section, there is not evidence that the historical events described are the most relevant in the comparison of the two. Are the quotes just a random quote that an editor found and presumes is typical of the era?

I am concerned that the article does contain original research. For example, in the cultural difference section, what evidence do we have that the main cultural difference is "self characterization", "perceptions", and "self identifications"? Are there several sources that agree that these are the sole or main cultural differences?

Broad in its coverage: (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[7] and (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.[8]

Based on the talk page, the article does not address the issues and/or has problems. Foreign medical school MD graduates are also ignored. I read that a chunk of doctors are foreign graduates.

Illustrated, if possible, by images:[9] (a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and (b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[10]

I also note that this article has failed GA in the past.

There is a potential major omission. The licensure section has a big chart. However, there is no mention of something I just found out. D.O. are licensed in many states by a separate osteopathic medical board, composed only of D.O. and M.D. are excluded. D.O. cannot be licensed by regular medical boards and M.D. have to go through these boards, not the osteopathic board.

One editor above even remarked that this article should be merged, which would make it not a GA.

Auchansa (talk) 04:04, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

It's more helpful to cite specific examples of the article that could be improved upon. I can't say I agree with your assessment of the history section (going over it again it seems like it definitely covers important events (although perhaps this section can be expanded further). Do you have any evidence that the article contains original research? Can you cite specific sentences that make you think this? As for the self-characterization bit, if you actually open the reference it comes directly from that study. I know because I just looked since I hadn't seen that study before myself. You may want to read wikipedia's definition of original research: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Original_research Also, are you really supposed to base the majority of your assessment on the talk page? I'm considering asking for a second opinion since this was a rather poor review in my opinion and failed to provide specific examples of where the article has shortcomings and suggestions for remedying them. Not sure if it's worth the trouble though since the article may be merged anyway and it would be a moot point. Regardless, you may want to display a bit more neutrality the next time you do a GA review (such as not making blatantly false statements as you did earlier or at least conceding that you made errors and jumped the gun).TylerDurden8823 (talk) 06:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I have consulted with Doc James, an administrator and main editor at the Med Portal.

There are two major issues at hand. One is a possible POV issue. Others have raised similar points. The other issue is that there is serious talk of a merge. This makes the article not stable since it could be merged at any time.

Based on this, I consider this GA application to be concluded and not passed.

I would encourage discussion to see if this article stays or is a merge. Then I would try to get an object re-write of it. There are clearly some differences in DO's versus MD's. This is not to say one is bad. There are also needs some other work as noted above.

Don't be discouraged. Perhaps, if a GA is desired, continued work could be done and make it the best GA (or even FA) ever. Perhaps a goal would be daily work on this for the rest of the year in order to make it really nice by late November and then get that FA by the end of the year. Good luck! Auchansa (talk) 03:02, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Again, more helpful to cite specific sentences in the article that display your points and need improvement. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:15, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

It is beneficial for WP when articles are clearly GA or FA. When there is doubt, it does not help WP if just promote articles so people can put stars or green crosses on their page. Auchansa (talk) 03:48, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

What nonsense. I'm not saying you should have automatically passed it as GA. I'm saying to be more constructive, instead of just saying the article needs this, the article needs that, or it sounds this way, etc. you need to be more specific about what paragraph, what sentence, etc needs improvement and in what way. It is always more helpful to give clear, concise, specific places in the article in need of revision and demonstrate how the current version is lacking in any way. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 04:47, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Food for thought:

"D.O. dermatology training is much better now than it's been in the past," says David M. Pariser, M.D., American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) president-elect. "Some allopathic dermatologists may not realize the improvements that have been made in D.O. dermatology programs, though there's still more work to do for some programs."" Bryan Hopping T 03:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Were they bad to begin with or is this editor's comment invalid?

As discussed on other pages, this page vastly overuses the term allopathic. It uses the term in a fashion only understood by a minority, even within the US medical community. The term is understood by C/AM practitioners (such as homoeopaths) to include American osteopathic DOs! It is also insulting and incorrect terminology. I think this term should be used where appropriate, but nearly every use in this page can be replaced by a more accurate term that will avoid any confusion and ambiguity. SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 19:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

This comment was made. This may be a source of dispute one way or another?

If what you say is true, then fix it. From what I see, it looks like nearly all of its occurrences in this article are in quotes or it is being used to describe how it is not a generally accepted term. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 04:47, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

←One of the reasons that MD's consider the term pejorative is that it is destructive to medicine. There is an implication in the word that MD's do not utilize everything to treat a patient, or that MD's have an inherent bias against medicine that is not sold to them by Big Pharma. My problem with using "allopathic medicine" is that there is medicine and there is...nothing. Medicine implies that it has been scientifically tested and rigorously analyzed for safety and efficacy. Non-medicine means it hasn't. Maybe sitting under a crystal pyramid will cure you of erectile dysfunction, but there's no science to prove that. Medicine is just medicine. Everything else is unproven. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 20:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

See above

Merging seems like a great idea. AIRcorn (talk) 22:44, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Instability, may not survive as an article???

If you see issues regarding POV or MOS that have not been addressed than yes I would not pass it as a GA.Doc James 17:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, I do not endorse or support any of the above quotes nor do I this one from Forbes. However, they are food for thought.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/sciencebiz/2010/10/27/osteopaths-versus-doctors/ Are they equal? Well, not quite. Osteopathy started out as little more than pseudoscience, based on the mistaken idea that manipulations of the skeleton and muscles – massage, basically – would cure disease. Finally, there is data that shows that students enrolling at colleges of osteopathy have lower grades than students entering medical schools, suggesting (though this is not proof, of course) that D.O. schools provide an alternative route to a medical degree for those who aren’t good enough to get into normal medical schools.... the standards are higher at schools offering MDs,... (DOs)do get standard medical training, and some of them are undoubtedly very good doctors...

This is a ridiculous argument. At the time that osteopathic medicine was founded in the middle of the nineteenth century there were plenty of ridiculous treatments used by all physicians, MD, DO, and otherwise. Both fields have adopted the principles of modern medicine. And to cite such a biased article, this really is not good for your credibility Auchansa. Also, osteopathy is an antiquated term that is strongly discouraged to avoid confusion with non-physician osteopaths trained outside of the United States. The admission standards are currently higher at MD schools but as the article notes, it is diminishing each year and is not very much anymore. Many DOs are excellent doctors just as many MDs are excellent doctors. You also need to compare UCSF MD graduates with Harvard Medical school MD graduates as well Auchansa. There are quality differences between MD schools also. I've already provided you many plausible reasons for why there is currently a disparity in the number of specialists when comparing the DO and MD fields. You just choose to ignore those reasons completely.04:53, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, how do Rocky Vista DO compare with University of Colorado MD graduates? Lake Erie DO graduates compared with UCSF MD graduates? AT Still Universtiy DO graduates versus Harvard Medical School MD graduates? Are they all the same???

Also see comments in this GA2? Comments include not explaining why there is disparity between number of MDs and DOs in certain very specialized and competitive (to get into) sup-specialties, the feeling among some that this article attempts to "prove" that DO are the same as MDs by citing a possible difference then saying "but....". Also not covered is diversity among MDs, such as those who went to medical school in India or third world countries. Auchansa (talk) 03:59, 22 July 2012 (UTC)