Talk:Osteopathy

Nomenclature

The sentence in the lead, "People practicing osteopathy are referred to as osteopathic practitioners" is inaccurate and contradicts two of the cited sources (the link to the third source appears to be dead). Non-physician, manipulation-only practitioners of osteopathy are referred to as osteopaths. Doctors of Osteopathic Medicine are referred to as osteopathic physicians. This is stated in the sources as well as the American Association of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine's website (http://www.aacom.org/become-a-doctor/about-om/US-vs-abroad). Both call themselves "DO's". In the United States, osteopaths are prohibited from referring to themselves as "DO's" to avoid being confused with osteopathic physicians.SympatheticResonance (talk)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Osteopathy/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 10:14, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

This article has way too paragraphs without citations and too many maintenance tags, so I have to quickfail it. Medical articles have higher standards than other articles. --FunkMonk (talk) 10:14, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Evidence to remove “pseudoscientific” and quack watch citations

Efficacy of Osteopathic Manipulative Treatment in Creating a Difference in Pain Levels for Patients With Localized Joint Pain: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12097846/

please allow this thread to become a place where we can share emerging evidence on osteopathy and osteopathic manipulative treatment (omt) within our community. Sincerely, Ryan Christensen DO Drryanc (talk) 23:47, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

More citations for your review.

Osteopathic Manipulation in the Management of Chronic Pain. J Pain Res. 2020 Jul 20;13:1839–1847. doi: 10.2147/JPR.S183170 - https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7381089/

https://oce.ovid.com/article/00132114-201804000-00015/PDF

https://oce.ovid.com/article/00132114-201804000-00015/PDF

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0965229920318835

https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/12/4/e053468

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25847552/

https://www.cureus.com/articles/105415-osteopathic-manipulative-treatment-and-the-management-of-headaches-a-scoping-review#!/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28352200/

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0965229924000311

https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9032/12/13/1353#:~:text=In%20conclusion%2C%20OMT%20seems%20to%20have%20a%20role%20in%20promoting,approach%20appears%20to%20be%20better.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27653920/

https://jom.osteopathic.org/abstract/impact-of-osteopathic-manipulative-techniques-on-the-management-of-dizziness-caused-by-neuro-otologic-disorders-systematic-review-and-meta-analysis/

https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/physiology/articles/10.3389/fphys.2019.00403/full

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-60253-6

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/pmrj.12732

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9054945/

most are the highest quality types of research conducted; meta-analyses and systematic reviews. I would hesitate referencing studies that aren't meta-analyses of systematic reviews when discussing the efficacy for an entire field of medicine.

Osteopathic manipulation, performed by both an osteopathic physician or an osteopath, has been shown to be effective for many conditions. This article needs to reflect that, rather than this outdated notion from before the 1960s that osteopathic manipulative treatments are not effective. The research begs to differ.

Most drugs and/or surgeries also have many studies that show no difference from placebo or standard treatment, but we don't call them quackery. Why do they still qualify as medicine? The article makes brief mention of osteopathic physicians who do actually perform osteopathic manual treatments (OMT). These osteopathic manual treatments are evidence based medicine. This heading needs to be changed and the body needs to reflect this difference. This is not quackery, evidence demonstrates it, and this article is harming the osteopathic profession for individuals who do not know the effectiveness of OMT yet, because they will likely shy away from it. Please edit the bias existing in this article to allow for thoughtful scholarship and scholarly inquiry. Drryanc (talk) 23:55, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

A shopping list there, including some junk journals. But for pseudoscience we need sources which specifically consider that aspect (i.e. using that exact word). For questions of efficacy, yes, WP:MEDRS are necessary. Bon courage (talk) 04:04, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

osteopathy being termed as pseudoscientific

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

• What I think should be changed (include citations):

Osteopathy is a pseudoscientific system of alternative medicine that emphasizes physical manipulation of the body's muscle tissue and bones.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osteopathy#cite_note-SBM-1

• Why it should be changed:

I am submitting a formal request for immediate review and correction of the wording on the Osteopathy page, specifically the classification of osteopathy as “pseudoscientific.” In its current form, the article appears to violate multiple core Wikipedia policies, including:

WP (Neutral Point of View)

WP (Undue Weight)

WP (High-quality medical sourcing requirements)

WP (Avoiding systemic bias)

1. Violation of NPOV and UNDUE

The label “pseudoscience” is presented as a definitive, universal statement, without reflecting the global regulatory reality. This creates a misleading and factually distorted impression.

Osteopathy is:

fully integrated into national medical systems in several countries,

statutorily regulated in the UK and multiple Commonwealth nations,

and supported by a body of peer-reviewed research on manual therapy effectiveness.

Presenting osteopathy as uniformly “pseudoscientific” is inaccurate and gives disproportionate weight to a single viewpoint, while excluding key international evidence.

2. Failure to Represent Global Regulatory Status

The article currently ignores or minimizes the following facts:

United States: Osteopathic physicians (DOs) are fully licensed medical doctors with unrestricted practice rights.

United Kingdom: Osteopathy is regulated under statutory law through the General Osteopathic Council.

Australia, New Zealand, EU regions: Osteopaths are government-registered primary healthcare professionals.

An article cannot ethically or policy-compliantly use a single-label classification that contradicts the legal and medical frameworks of multiple nations.

3. MEDRS Concerns

The “pseudoscience” claim relies on selective, outdated, or context-inappropriate sources, which do not meet the strict standards for medical content. More recent systematic reviews and high-quality evidence are omitted or downplayed, which again violates WP and WP.

4. Requested Action

I request that editors remove or revise this terminology and replace it with policy-compliant, neutral wording that reflects the actual scientific landscape. Suggested alternatives:

“Evidence for osteopathic interventions varies by technique and by condition, and scientific debate continues.”

“Regulatory recognition and clinical integration differ internationally, and research outcomes are mixed.”

~2025-35396-33 (talk) 14:12, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

While I'm in general agreement on the facts stated here (which means precisely nothing, however my own GP here in the US is a DO, as are many within the Kaiser Permanente network), the above appears to be AI generated, and on those grounds alone this edit should probably be removed (including mine) - but I'm not sure precisely what the remedies are in this situation. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 19:06, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

References

No sources provided. See above. Ixocactus (talk)

Request for reconsideration: "Pseudoscience" classification

I am requesting reconsideration of the blanket classification of osteopathy as "pseudoscientific." I declare that I am an osteopathic researcher, which gives me both relevant expertise and a potential conflict of interest.

Issue with current wording:

The current lead presents osteopathy as universally pseudoscientific, which does not reflect: 1. Statutory regulation in multiple jurisdictions (US, UK, Australia, NZ) 2. Integration into national health systems 3. Recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses showing efficacy for specific conditions

Not requesting removal of criticism:

I am NOT suggesting we remove critical perspectives. Wikipedia should reflect that osteopathy is controversial and has historical pseudoscientific elements.

Proposed neutral wording:

Instead of "pseudoscientific system of alternative medicine," consider: "Osteopathy is a system of manual therapy that is regulated as a healthcare profession in some countries but remains controversial, with critics characterising some of its theoretical foundations as pseudoscientific."

Sources Meeting WP:MEDRS

[List 3-4 of the strongest systematic reviews/meta-analyses from the document]

Request:

Can we discuss more neutral wording that: - Acknowledges regulatory recognition where it exists - Notes the ongoing scientific debate - Includes criticism appropriately - Meets NPOV requirements for representing diverse reliable sources JerryDraperRodi (talk) 15:04, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

I think we've got it pretty correct ATM, and I dont believe your suggestions will fly. - Walter Ego 15:59, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Walter Ego, thanks for responding. However, "I think we've got it pretty correct" and "your suggestions won't fly" aren't policy-based arguments - they're opinions about outcomes. I'm raising specific concerns about Wikipedia policy compliance that need to be addressed substantively.

The core issues are:

1. NPOV violation: The current wording presents one perspective (that osteopathy is pseudoscientific) as definitive fact, while marginalising that it's statutorily regulated as a healthcare profession by government health authorities in the USA, UK, Australia, and New Zealand. WP:NPOV requires we present significant viewpoints proportionately.

2. UNDUE weight: We're giving primary weight to sources like Quackwatch whilst minimising recent systematic reviews meeting WP:MEDRS standards. The evidence base has evolved considerably since earlier consensus was formed.

3. Internal contradiction: The article simultaneously calls osteopathy "pseudoscientific" whilst acknowledging it's regulated by the General Osteopathic Council under UK statute, practitioners require Master's degrees, and it's recognised within national health systems. This is logically inconsistent.

I'm not asking us to remove criticism or ignore that aspects of osteopathic theory are controversial. I'm asking that we accurately represent the current regulatory and research landscape whilst maintaining appropriate criticism.

Can you explain specifically which Wikipedia policies support maintaining wording that contradicts the regulatory status in multiple jurisdictions? Or are you simply saying the current editing community prefers the status quo regardless of policy concerns? JerryDraperRodi (talk) 16:27, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

"Osteopathy" is a pseudoscience. "Osteopathic medicine" is not.

Atwood, Kimball C. (25 March 2004). "Naturopathy, pseudoscience, and medicine: myths and fallacies vs truth". MedGenMed: Medscape General Medicine. 6 (1): 33. ISSN 1531-0132. PMC 1140750. PMID 15208545. Retrieved 19 February 2026. Osteopathy has, for the most part, repudiated its pseudoscientific beginnings and joined the world of rational healthcare. That is why graduates of its schools, but not those of chiropractic or naturopathy, can train as residents and legitimately identify themselves as primary care physicians or specialists.

Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 21:10, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Osteopathy, a scientifically proven medicine. (NOT "pseudoscientific")

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Since "'Pseudoscience' consists of statements, beliefs, or practices that claim to be scientific or factual but are inherently incompatible with the scientific method.", Osteopathy doesn't fall into this category, since there are multiple scientific studies published on numerous websites like Pubmed, Natinal Library of Medicine, and others (also mentioned in the World Health Organization), I suggest the removal of the pejorative adjectivation "pseudoscientific" where referring to a proven science like Osteopathy. I also suggest the replacement of the term "alternative" medicine, since it is not an alternative to any medicine, but rather complementary to other forms of medicine. So "complementary" is the correct nomenclature. DavetheBoris (talk) 16:54, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2026

Change the part about alternative medicine and pseudoscience in Europe. Osteopaths are recognised from the world health organisation and from the European Union as a primary healthcare profession. It focuses on musculoskeletal health only and osteopaths go through a 5 year university degree in europe. ~2026-27992-12 (talk) 14:47, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

 Not done please read all the previous discussions on this page. Also, please provide proper sources when making a change request. --McSly (talk) 14:55, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

In 2000 the United Kingdom and Finland were the only European countries with osteopathic programmes at university level, in 2023 Bachelor's or Master's programmes are already offered in 11 countries (Austria, Belgium, Finland, Germany, Italy, Malta, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland, UK).

reference:Raimund Engel,

The seven drivers of change in osteopathic education,

International Journal of Osteopathic Medicine,

Volume 55,

2025,

100740,

ISSN 1746-0689,

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijosm.2024.100740. ~2026-27992-12 (talk) 11:42, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

These are degrees accredited by Europe and world health organisation which sets the standards for education.In the UK I completed clinical rotations and assessments within the biggest hospitals in London and many of us work within the NHS. The comments “pseudoscience” and “alternative” need to be corrected. It’s a disgrace to Wikipedia ~2026-27992-12 (talk) 11:50, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Wikipedia is doing great work in being front and centre with it's following the science, and evidence. Thank goodness I dont have to go to London hospitals. - Walter Still not in the Epstein Files Ego 12:16, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

You probably are a 5 year old talking like that. Many people have given a ton of peer reviewed papers on osteopathy and each response I see is completely out of the topic and against many health organisation statements regarding osteopathy. ~2026-27992-12 (talk) 13:57, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm a very advanced five year old. - Walter Still not in the Epstein Files Ego 14:45, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Speaking as one five year old to another, I'm guessing the temp account meant in dog years. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:41, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Speaking of the Netherlands, according to , there is only one a recognized (by MinOCW) faculty of osteopathy, namely Conservatoire Superieur d'Osteopathie. N.B.: accreditation by NVAO does not guarantee recognition. Also, CSO is not a Dutch faculty. That website lists all faculties from the EU, maybe also from other countries. Conclusion: there is only one recognized EU faculty of osteopathy.

Nope, I was wrong: there are also recognized:

• The International Academy of Osteopathy
• London School of Osteopathy
• European School of Osteopathy (ESO)

In total: four faculties. Maybe there are osteopathy faculties from bona fide European medical schools, but I couldn't find them there. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:16, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

As opposed to 30 odd circus schools. See Category:Circus schools. I wonder if anyone accredits circus schools. We wouldn't want someone practicing as a circus clown without an accredited degree, now would we? (Checks category...) Yup. École nationale de cirque Graduates receive a college diploma, Diploma of Collegial Studies in Circus Arts or DEC, from the Quebec Ministry of Education. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:17, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Yup, the home country recognizes the faculty, and that recognition gets taken for granted in other European countries.

That does not mean that the degree will be recognized in another country as a Bachelor's or a Master's, but they take for granted it is a valid foreign diploma in higher education. In order to get recognized in another country, a similar recognized faculty has to exist in that country. I.e. the academic field and the secondary education before it cannot be too different from those of the country doing the recognition.

Recognition for work purposes is quite another matter. In the Netherlands, "therapist" is not a regulated profession. Some alt-med professions do get recognized as valid. E.g., a "Doctor of Chiropractic" gets recognized as "manual therapist". I think that "manual therapist" is a regulated profession. So, everyone is free to call themselves a therapist, and practice as a therapist, but not as a manual therapist. This is further complicated by the fact that medical insurance companies only recognize alt-med professionals who are recognized by their specific alt-med national association. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:34, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Reluctance to change term "pseudoscientific"

I'm new to the editing side of Wikipedia and so I am wondering why there is a general reluctance to change the term "pseudoscientific" to describe osteopathy despite several people making a strong case for it using trusted sources here in the editing suggestions. It seems to me that the people who review edits aren't taking an objective stance on this article. Is there a specific kind of source that you are missing to disprove the "pseudoscientific" claim about osteopathy? I understand that osteopathy has had dubious roots, but it is considered a medical profession in several countries. Is there something I'm missing? ~2026-46312-89 (talk) 06:18, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

The case made, despite what you say, is not very strong, and people have been trying to make the same point as you , unsuccessfully, for some time. That's because ChiropracticOsteopathy is pseudoscientific, according to sources. - Walter Ego 06:56, 25 August 2026 (UTC)