History of Osteopathy
(and Twentieth-Century Medical Practice)

E. R. Booth, Ph.D, D.O.



The question is not whether a doctrine is beautiful, but whether it is true. - HARE.

The historian finds much that he would gladly omit, if the duty committed to his care did not demand a record of facts. Most people have a certain degree of reverence for one or more of the so-called learned professions. In business trouble, they naturally turn to the lawyer; in bodily disease, to the doctor; in spiritual distress, to the priest. They generally like to think well of those who have assumed responsibilities of a high order. They want to esteem those who have relieved them from legal turmoil, raised them from a bed of sickness, or administered the consolations of religion. This feeling is especially strong in the breast of one who has at some time seriously thought of entering one of these professions, and has conscientiously studied with that purpose in view. This is the relation of the writer to the practice of drug medication and to that all too prevalent custom of resorting to the knife on the slightest provocation. He has a kindly feeling for the medical profession by instinct and training. Much, therefore, that appears in Chapters IV, V, VI, XI, and XII, as well as in this, would have been omitted had not truth required its insertion. History furnishes the records of human events and they must be truthfully presented or history is perverted.

Some things are presented in these pages that may seem to be unfair criticism of drug doctors. It will be seen that these do not appear in the text so much as in the quotations from medical sources. Many medical men know the weaknesses of their profession and have spoken against them in unequivocal language, sincerely hoping for improvement. Others enthusiastically loyal to their own schools, have fought every thing which seemed to them to be "irregular," with commendable zeal but with deplorable indiscretion.

It is a principle in law that the accused shall not be compelled to give testimony that might incriminate himself. It is also a common practice in courts to rule out statements made by the defendant under duress or under excitement that might prejudice his case. Fence the. free use of the testimony of the medical profession against their own methods may look like a violation of the principle enunciated above. But the medical profession contains many progressive men who are willing to reject error and accept truth; they are quoted liberally in this book. Any other course would be unjust to them and the cause they represent. On the other hand, many willfully and persistently close their minds against the acceptance of truth unless it comes through the ordained channels of their own construction, and have not been backward in thrusting their opinions upon others; they are also entitled to a hearing, which is cheerfully granted.


The medical profession has furnished its quota of great and good men who have battled valiantly for truth and justice. So when osteopaths see so much of the evils of present medical practices and are made the targets of misrepresentation and abuse by M. D.’s in private conversation, in their accredited journals, in legislative balls, and in courts of justice, they might feel justified in offering retaliation in kind. But it is not to be forgotten that Osteopathy is based upon the knowledge of centuries of careful study by the ablest scientists engaged in medical research, particularly in anatomy and physiology. The medical profession has made Osteopathy possible. In fact, Osteopathy is in direct line with all the real scientific progress in knowledge of the structure and functions of the human body. It is the natural successor of all that has, through the centuries, become unquestionably established by medical practice. Therefore, let us be true to history, and give others all the credit due them. Along this line Dr. Still has spoken words that all physicians, of whatever schools of practice, would do well to heed "Much can be said in silly abuse of medical doctors, medical trusts and so on, but he who howls the loudest is generally the least to be trusted; nine out of ten such men are old wolves that sneak around to find a rail off to get into the pen and eat some sheep. I say, let the doctor alone - he is not so bad as he is often called.

"We should thank him for the kindly effort; he has been a faithful general, and has done all that his school and a life of long experience could arm him with. In our distress we called for his assistance, like a brother he came and did the best he could. He was with us in our trouble, soul and body and strength, and we should love, honor, and respect him for his kind efforts, though he failed. He is not to be blamed but honored and respected."


Attempts have been made in several cities to keep osteopaths from securing first class offices. Landlords have been warned, and in many cases they have been influenced by the boycotting threats of the rivals of Osteopathy. Hence osteopaths have been kept out of, or forced to leave, desirable places, for no other reason than that they were osteopaths. Even businessmen have had their interests threatened if they ignored the wishes of the drug doctors so far as to patronize an osteopath. In short, there is scarcely a plan known to the most unscrupulous commercialism that has not been used against Osteopathy. Yet it has progressed in spite of opposition.

Every possible attempt also has been made by the medical profession to belittle the training given in osteopathic colleges. Many of their criticisms have been just, and doubtless have had an influence in enlarging and enriching the osteopathic course. The requirements of an osteopathic education in 1896, four years after the first school began its career, were much more exacting than for the medical practitioner ten years before, centuries after their first schools were established. The quality of the work done in scores of medical colleges even in the last decade of the nineteenth century, was an unintentional fraud in many cases and a play upon the credulity of an unsuspecting public in many others. The following from the Medical Journal, shows the condition of affairs even in the medical department of Harvard University, in 1886:

"Professor William James, of Harvard University, is an M. D. of the class of 1886, but is a psychologist and not a practitioner. He has a very distinct recollection of the anatomic part of his examination. When he came before the genial Oliver Wendell Holmes, the latter asked him some questions about the nerves at the base of the brain. It so happened that the examinee was well up on that subject and he gave a pretty exhaustive reply. 'Oh, well, if you know that you know everything," said Dr. Holmes cheerfully, 'let's talk about something else. How are all your people at home?' 'In that pleasant way,'' said Dr. James, 'I completed my examination in that subject. I do not remember having encountered any difficulties in any of the subjects. The examination for the degree was oral and lasted just an hour and a half.

The ninety minutes were equally divided among nine subjects, ten minutes to each. Each of us as he came in took a seat at a desk, behind which stood the professor who was to conduct the examination in that particular subject. The professor asked the questions and we answered them as best we could. Out in the hall stood the janitor beside the big gong, and at the expiration of the ten minutes he pounded the big gong. This was the signal for all the students to get up and change desks much after the manner of your progressive euchre parties. There were two other matters to be attended to before I got my M. D. I had to write a thesis, and I did it. Then I went to the dispensary and took a case for diagnosis and treatment. There was a lump on the back of a man's neck which I diagnosed as a carbuncle, and for which I prescribed hot poultices. It was with feelings of apprehension that I learned later that the patient was suffering from an internal disorder, and the test was on that. However, the examining board was very kind about it. They admitted that my course in diagnosing the first trouble I came across in my patient, namely the carbuncle, which was plainly apparent to the examiner's eye, was quite natural, and said that my treatment was the proper one. Therefore I was adjudged satisfactory."

Not only did the medical students of the last decades of the nineteenth century fail to learn it all before entering the medical college and while pursuing their studies, but the practitioners in the field made mistakes then just as they do now. The report of the Ohio State Board of Health confirms the following which appeared in the Columbus Press Dispatch:

"Columbus, Ohio, November 9, 1898, - Secretary Probst of the state board of health, returned yesterday from Loveland where he discovered the same state of affairs as to smallpox as at Wapakoneta.

"The disease has been raging there since last May and there have been seventy cases, all of which local physicians called chickenpox.

Dr. Probst was called to Center, Ohio, to see a case, and from this case tracked the disease to Loveland."

Comment is unnecessary, except to say that, upon the testimony of medical doctors themselves, wisdom will not die with them. Scores of mistakes of more recent occurrence, perhaps less serious, but no less evident, could be cited. People who live in glass houses would appear more consistent if they did not hurl stones in the direction of their neighbors' houses.


The extremes to which the older schools of medicine have some. times gone in their dire distress because of the success of Osteopathy, is pitiable. They have often tried in every conceivable way to belittle the learning and smirch the character of those who reject the errors of the past and show the courage necessary to battle for the right. But reputable members of those schools have often come forward, not only to battle for truth and justice, but to try also to save the good name of the profession from the influence of its "fool friends." During the discussion of the osteopathic bill before the Iowa legislature, in March, 1898, Hon. P. L. Prentis, a member of the house, himself a homeopathic physician, most ably championed the osteopathic bill, and thus did much towards overcoming some of the feeling that had taken possession of the people against the medical profession. His entire speech abounds with wit and wisdom. The "distinguished writer" referred to in the quotation below is Dr. J. W. Dime, editor of the Iowa Medical Journal.

"The most remarkable and astonishing declaration, however, of this distinguished writer is found at the close of his article, and which I desire to read exactly as printed in the copy he has so kindly left upon my desk. It reads as follows: 'Think of mastering anatomy, physiology, chemistry, histology, pathology, gynecology, obstetrics, and a knowledge of all diseases in twenty months by an ignorant mechanic who can scarcely read or write the English language!' I pass over, Mr. Speaker, this burning insult to the respectable young men and women from the state of Iowa, now at Kirksville, as unworthy of comment. Continuing, this prevaricator of facts says: 'And all this to be learned in the rural district of Kirksville, Mo., where not a single case of acute disease, diphtheria, croup, fever of any kind, obstetrics, and but little gynecology are seen.' Mr. Speaker and gentlemen of the house, are you longer surprised at the fact of so many people from all parts of the United -States flocking to the 'rural district' of Kirksville, Mo. ? Think of it ! Not a single case of acute disease is there seen; but more astonishing than this is the statement that in the 'rural district' of Kirksville, Mo. - a city of 7,000 inhabitants-never has there been seen a single case of obstetrics ! (Applause.) What a veritable paradise is this 'rural district' of Kirksville, Mo. Surely here has been discovered a spot upon which the curse of a just Providence has never fallen! (Applause.)"

From the testimony of high authority, may it not be possible that the ranks of the drug doctors may be recruited from "ignorant mechanics who can scarcely read or write the English language?" Dr. A. M. Hayden, President of the Ohio Valley Medical Association, used the following language in his address before that learned body at its meeting at Evansville, Indiana, November 9, 1904, as printed in the Lancet-Clinic, December 10, 1904:

"There are in the United States 154 medical schools, as reported recently by the Commissioner of Education. The regular schools have 23,750 men, 1,162 women students, and last year graduated 4,703 Doctors of Medicine. Out of that total of 24,912 students, 1,782, or 7.15 percent, had college degrees.

"The Homeopathic schools have 1,330 men and 221 women students, and last year graduated 343 Doctors of Medicine. Out of a total of 1,551 Homeopathic students in the year just past, 103, or 6.61 per cent, have college degrees.

“The Eclectic schools had 756 male and 67 female students, and graduated 141 students. In these schools 8.14 per cent were college graduates.

"Out of all the lot 7.15 per cent were college graduates. That is a conspicuously bad record for the United States to show to the rest of the world.

"And this is the class of men and women who are coming forth to succeed us in our work. These are the Doctors of Medicine to whom we are to entrust the welfare of our profession in this country. This is the class of practitioners who are being turned loose upon an unsuspecting public. Can we turn our backs and say the responsibility is not ours?"


It is almost impossible for an osteopath to read a medical journal without seeing evidence of the fact that the medical profession does not grasp the osteopathic idea, or understand the principles underlying its application. If it does we are forced to the conclusion that it cannot or will not do justice to the new science. One or two illustrations will make this point clear.

In the Medical Review of Reviews for July, 1903, and a number of other medical journals issued about that time, is an article on the treatment of whooping-cough by pulling down the lower jaw. The journals and the learned M. DA, who gave the facts as to the method and result of the treatment, seem to take as much delight in it as a boy with his first pair of rep top boots. They seem to be utterly oblivious to the fact that Osteopathy had been applying the same principle with even greater success for at least ten years. The writer says:

"Spasm of the glottis being not only the sole cause of the acute suffering in pertussis, but of the most of the dangers as well, the main object of medication is the relief of the symptom." "The spasm of the glottis, like that occurring in asphyxia of chloroform narcosis, is due to spasms of the cricothyroid muscle." "The manipulation is harmless, painless, and easy of application without any of the ill effects of drugs; it offers a maximum good effect with a minimum derangement. Patients treated in this manner are less likely to suffer from complications and sequelae, than those treated only medicinally; they emerge from the disease in far better condition, less exhausted and less emaciated because vomiting has been controlled."

It will be observed that the writer does not intimate that there is a cause for the spasms of the muscles. As usual with the M. D's, he does not go to the real cause. The osteopath learns from anatomy and physiology that the muscle in question is supplied by the superior laryngeal nerves, branches of the vagi, which receive branches from the superior cervical ganglion and communicate with the recurrent laryngeal and the superior cardiac nerves. The osteopath goes back to or nearer to the origin of these nerves, removes the irritation, and overcomes the spasms, not only in the ninety per cent of cases claimed by the writer, but generally in the other ten percent and also in "other spasmodic coughs and laryngeal spasms." This treatment is evidently considered one of the important discoveries of the year 1903, because it received notice in the American Year Book of Medicine for 1904, page 259, and in the International Climes, Volume I, Fourteenth Series, 1904, page 273. It would have been more credit to the medical profession had it recognized this familiar instance of progress about ten years sooner and given credit where credit was due. This is a case in which the medical profession has come near the osteopathic practice, but has not grasped the osteopathic idea of removing the cause of the spasms; hence they have, by purely empirical methods, succeeded, in a crude fashion, in doing what osteopaths do on strictly scientific principles and by scientific procedures.

Contrast the above with Osler's views, as given in his "Practice of Medicine:" "The medicinal treatment of whooping-cough is most unsatisfactory." "For the paroxysmal stage a suspiciously long list of remedies has been recommended, twenty-two in one popular text book on therapeutics." Among the remedies that Osler himself says "may be given," are ipecacuanha wine, paregoric, quinine, resorcin, iodoform, carbolic acid, chlorate of potassium, bromide of potassium, glycerine, bromoform, belladonna, and antipyrin.

Dr. M. F. Pilgrim, in Medical News for January 24, 1903, comes close to the osteopathic idea, but can not refrain from showing his contempt for truth, if of osteopathic origin. He also shows his lack of understanding of the osteopathic practice when he speaks only of the effects of "mechanical stimulation" and of osteopaths as "much given to manipulating the spine." He overlooks the corrective work which is at the basis of Osteopathy, but which is almost entirely ignored by all other systems. But he is evidently making progress and we can forgive him for his errors. He says:

"Recurring now to the primary proposition submitted earlier in this paper, viz.: that mechanical stimulation accomplishes its most important work through stimulation of the nerves or nerve centers concerned in and controlling the diseased organ and which are mainly located in the spinal column, we may naturally anticipate dissent or skepticism. There are two reasons for this. First, we know, in a general way, that the 'osteopaths,' so called, are much given to manipulating the spine, therefore we shrink from anything savoring of their methods of procedure; second, we have not perhaps carefully studied our physiologies with reference to this point, especially those of more recent date, otherwise support would be found for the theory and practice of localization of controlling nerve centers given off at various points along the cord.

"The first objection is puerile and should be dismissed with the brief statement that while we as a profession know and care very little about the theories and methods employed by the osteopaths, we cannot afford to reject, without investigation, any procedure likely to benefit our patients, simply because similar methods and measures may have been or are being employed by irregular practitioners. As physicians, it is alike our province and our duty to employ whatever is meritorious and beneficial in alleviating human suffering, regardless of the source from which it emanates.

"Speaking broadly, but still accurately, it is the quality and activity of the circulation that keeps the functions of the body in right or wrong condition, and the nerves govern and control the circulation."


It is not necessary to introduce testimony other than that of medical men to prove that the medical profession is not prepared to treat the sick by other means than the use of drugs. An article in the Journal o f the American Medical Association for September 21, 1901, on the necessity of a practical knowledge of dietetics, hydrotherapy, and physio-mechanical therapeutics, contains the following:

"Until very recently the profession has for the most part relied upon the administration of drugs for the alleviation and cure of disease, all other means except surgery being left to the abuse of charlatans and quacks. But it is the sign of the present state of scientific development, that the attention of the thoughtful has been called to the effects that may be obtained by agents not emphasized in books on materia medica, therapeutics, or in the pharmacopeia.

"In order to learn whether the necessity for the teaching of dietetics, hydrotherapy and physico-mechanical therapeutics was realized, and whether the need of such instruction was being met, the writer sent letters to the various medical schools and colleges throughout the United States, asking each for its bulletin, catalogue, or yearly announcement. Most of the institutions written to immediately responded. Upon examining the printed curricula of the different schools, it was found that the three subjects above referred to were for the most part given but small space in the general scheme of study, and in not a few institutions were entirely omitted from the course."

It is more than gratifying to know that many "regulars" are not in sympathy with the prevailing ignorance in their own school of practice as to physical methods of dealing with the human body in both health and disease. Occasionally we get a glimpse of this fact from their own authorities and a glance at the courses of study in their medical colleges dispels all surprise that they should be so poorly informed, The following is from the New York Medical Journal and Philadelphia Medical Journal, consolidated, for November 7, 1903, page 891:

"After a conversation with a physical trainer and a so-called physical culturist of national repute, the writer can not avoid the conviction that the profession has much to learn in reference to these matters, and not only that, but the corollary is equally obvious that if we are to be prepared to meet and answer the claims and pretensions of physical culturists and osteopaths, we must undertake all manner of investigation into every aspect of physical development, massage, pulmonary gymnastics, and general and special exercises and movements. Perhaps nothing is more striking than the more or less contemptuous way in which physical trainers, etc., speak of the medical profession; and that this contempt is partially at least deserved, certain remarks of Professor Hollis, of Harvard, in a paper on College Athletics seem to prove. Speaking of the employment of a professional trainer, the professor says: 'The professional seldom possesses the ideals which should prevail in a college atmosphere. His introduction probably springs from the difficulty of getting practical advice from the doctors. Their experience has usually been with sick men. When confronted with the problem of taking care of well men, they seem to fail.'"

The same journal quoted above, in its issue for December 19, 1903, contains the paper read at the meeting of the American Medical Association, at New Orleans, June 1, 1903, by John Madison Taylor, A. B., M. D. The writer shows the usual antipathy to every method not adopted by the "regulars," and adheres to the common practice of his school in classing Osteopathy and Christian Science together. With all his errors, he gives some wholesome truths. He says

"Supply is always adjusted to meet demand, and those who are more practical welcome Osteopathy, which is closely analogous to Christian Science in its non-science and its unblushing claims to do all things well. Both these cults, typifying as they do the two extremes of mental attitude, contain much that is wholesome and efficacious but encumbered with endless falsities. Medical science has been long fully alive to all that is of value in each domain, as its literature abundantly evidences to any who will search it even superficially."

How does the above statement tally with the following from the same article?

"Osteopathy has so far come largely as a surprise and bewilderment to the medical mind and it is the purpose of this brief communication to say a few words on the subject.

"The members of the medical profession should bear in mind that they are themselves exceedingly ignorant in what constitutes high-class massage and remedial movements, few of them having learned the simplest rudiments of mechano-therapy; and that, consequently, they are rarely competent critics. In Europe this is not so. Again, in this country we have few of the thoroughly trained masseurs, such as are graduated at the Swedish, Danish, and German high-class institutions, where the course is two full years of nine or ten months each. Unfortunately, our local schools of massage turn out graduates after a three months' course, and even American aptitudes can become only superficial in the fundamental branches in so brief a training. Few are conscientious enough to carry their studies to an adequate thoroughness; yet a few do so, and are then often better than the foreigners. The European masseur finds almost none of our physicians able to appreciate his skill, much less competent to direct him, hence the temptation is for him to practice on his own responsibility. Thereupon, in the minds of many, both of medical men and masseurs, there arises a bitter antagonism based on rivalry. This is not as it should be: they ought to work in harmony, each appreciating the special skill of the other."

Every osteopath can fully sympathize with Dr. Taylor in the following statement:

"The writer has been able, by these means, to accomplish cures of certain acute congestions of the spinal cord which, if he were to publish them in the present attitude of the medical profession, would probably cause him to be branded as a liar. He can afford to bide his time, however, and meanwhile the patients are well."

But the osteopath who has spent at least twenty months - now twenty-seven months - of hard work under competent instruction and guidance, is incompetent, according to the doctor, to do what he claims masseurs "after a three months' course" are qualified to do. Furthermore it "lies in the ability of medical practitioners" who "are themselves exceedingly ignorant in what constitutes high-class massage and remedial movements," "pitifully ignorant," to direct this work, or it must not be done at all, is the argument of the learned doctor. Dr. Taylor continues:

"The sphere of manual therapy lies in the ability of medical practitioners to influence centers of organic activity by mechanical stimulation through the vasomotor nerves, whereby less or more blood can be sent to parts, according to their need. Not only can this be accomplished, varying in utility with the physiological and other knowledge, of the practitioner, but sensory, as well as nutritive effects, are thus wrought, and in so much more accurate, safe, and thorough a fashion, that no one who has once had his attention thus aroused can remain content to omit using these excellent procedures. To be sure, it need not be that well tried and proved remedies and measures shall be abandoned, but in manual therapy, when applied by the physician himself, there is a nice, exact, and prompt agency, far in advance of all other measures for the relief and cure of a wide variety of derangements, not only of the coarser mechanisms, but of the vital organs.

"It remains, then, for medical men to investigate these statements, not to deny them. Drugs are admitted to fail frequently; the recognized forms of balneotherapy and climatotherapy fail; hygiene in its broadest sense, on which so many rely, can often accomplish little; of special rays, etc., much is hoped; but the reasonableness of manual therapy must commend itself increasingly to those physicians who will look carefully into the matter for themselves."

In the same journal, for January 16, 1904, Dr. Taylor replies to "the astonishing large number of letters elicited" by his former article. He recognizes the merits of Osteopathy, but like most of his school will not admit its origin. He says:

"As I said, it is a constant surprise and disappointment to me, having given much attention to manual treatment, to note how pitifully ignorant are 'the leaders of medical thought,' not only of the whole subject, but of its gravity, its resources and its enormous possibilities. It is doubtful if a hundred of the accepted 'leaders' in any community (in America) were called upon to express opinions on the subject it would be possible to find about two or three who could formulate such based upon either knowledge, experience, or appreciation of fundamental principles. Yet any man with an M. D. to his name will give you off-hand a definition of Osteopathy, and it is usually far from flattering. Still, these osteopaths have forced themselves upon the attention of the public and thence upon that of the profession, more upon the sheer merit of their methods than by the boldness of their assumptions.

"It can not be denied, it can certainly not be disproved, that these methods are not highly efficacious, and in those conditions which the profession (ignoring certain elemental principles) fail to appreciate and apply. Permit me to repeat what I said in the article referred to, that my own appreciation has come by a close study of those very facts from which the osteopath gains his recognition, and which are plainly set forth in the literature of medicine, and I began long before there was such a thing as an "osteopath."'

Dr. Taylor will probably convince himself in due course of time that he is the original osteopath. He seems already to be imbued with the idea that he is in possession of all the learning of the osteopaths, and that all the facts "are plainly set forth in the literature of medicine." Every osteopath knows that the literature of medicine contains much of value to the osteopath, yet he may read volume after volume without a hint as to the manner in which Osteopathy interprets and applies that knowledge. In fact, Dr. Taylor himself does not seem to have the remotest idea of the fundamental osteopathic idea, namely, the finding of a definite cause for, a disturbance and its removal by specific means. He has not gotten beyond the idea of "mechanical stimulation," which doubtless is valuable in many cases, but does not constitute a much greater part of the work of the genuine and successful osteopath than does the use of soap and water.


In 1992, when Osteopathy was under discussion before the Ohio legislature, the claim was made repeatedly that there is nothing in Osteopathy but what M. D.'s know and practice. In order to be prepared to contradict that statement authoritatively in open discussion, the writer read a work on disease of women, just published by D. Appleton and Company, prepared by thirty-one of the best specialists in that subject in America, and edited by one of the most eminent gynecologists living. As Osteopathy has been signally successful in treating all diseases of that class, the present writer thought he would find in that recent volume of 900 pages something savoring of Osteopathy. After reading it, he challenged contradiction of the following statements: (1) There is not an osteopathic principle in the book or a suggestion of the osteopathic means of curing disease. (2) There is not a sentence in the book that teaches that the direct impairment of the nerve, supply to the parts affected has anything to do with their diseased condition. (3) There is not a sentence in the book that teaches that interference to blood vessels or lymphatics or the vasomotor nerve supply outside of the parts affected has anything to do with their diseased condition. The truth is, the medical profession has nothing in its practices, either directly or remotely, that has any semblance to Osteopathy.

The same Dr. Taylor, in the article from which the above quotation is made, also said:

"Two men, in no way associated, applied for work in massage recently, one a graduate of Dr. Clodhausen's Institute, in Copenhagen, and one of the Royal Institute for Gymnastics, in Stockholm. The first, after completing his two years' course in Denmark, took a post-graduate course of a year in the Swedish School.

On coming to America, each, hearing of the marvels of Osteopathy, which pretends to proceed on similar lines but with a mystical quality of omniscience, determined to learn this 'science.' Each one took the full course at Kirksville, the school of Dr. Still and the fountainhead of Osteopathy, graduating in due course. They both assured me that they learned no facts of importance not already known to them. Such instances can be readily duplicated in the experience of others."

Dr. J. C. Howell, of Vineland, New Jersey, denied the truth of the statement, and offered to forfeit $25.00 for each and every graduate of the American School of Osteopathy whom Dr. Taylor or any one else could produce under oath as having made application for employment as "masseurs." The "bluff" was not answered.

Such absurd, unreasonable, and unverifiable statements are often made by the opponents of Osteopathy. They deceive those that know nothing about the subject, confirm those familiar with it in the belief that the authors of such statements are either ignorant or knavish, and make scientists blush at the unscientific spirit of some of their professed leaders.


Every reader of the Journal of the American Medical Association must have noticed the bitterness and unfairness shown towards osteopaths and the inconsistencies with which it unavoidably becomes entangled in discussing a subject so foreign to its predilections. Pages of this book might be filled with quotations in proof of this assertion. In speaking of the decision of the Supreme Court of Ohio in the Gravett case, the Journal said: "It makes osteopaths subject to the same rules as all other practitioners, except as regards their special exclusive dogma and practice." It acknowledges that Osteopathy is special, exclusive, and distinct from all other practices, which all who are well informed know to be true.

The Journal also knows full well the shortcomings of the system which it champions. Dr. J. M. Littlejohn has ably reviewed many of its articles in the Journal o f the Science of Osteopathy, from which the following is taken:

"In connection with the subject of education, the Journal of the American Medical Association of September 21, 1901, declares, 'Until very recently the profession has for the most part relied upon the administration of drugs for the alleviation and cure of disease, all other means except surgery being left to the abuse of charlatans and quacks.' After discussing the value of hygiene, exercise, heat and cold, etc., it adds, 'Since these means form so vital a part as therapeutic agents, it would seem that the time has come to consider the urgent necessity for the systematic teaching of their principles and the intelligent application of the most important and neglected of them. Broadly speaking, these would appear to be the subjects of dietetics, hydrotherapy, and physico-mechanical therapeutics.' The writer then goes on to commend these neglected elements and adds that in most colleges these receive no attention or only very small space. These three remarkable fields of therapeutics are practically non est in the medical course, and yet the medical defenders arrogantly claim all knowledge and dub every one else ignoramus."

It was this same journal, the official exponent of the medical profession in America, that published the famous Kentucky decision against Osteopathy. The present writer, thinking that he might have overlooked the publication of the Supreme Court's findings in reversing that decision, wrote the Journal asking if it had published that decision and in what issue it would be found. He enclosed a stamped, self-directed envelope for reply. The envelope came back but it did not contain the desired information. In short, the medical journals have been very careful not to publish any thing favorable to Osteopathy, which, in a large measure, accounts for the dense ignorance of many honest and progressive doctors upon all that pertains to the subject. Even the official journal of the "regulars" continues to publish, advertise, and sell Judge Toney's decision more than four years after it was reversed and the higher court had shown that some of its statements were, to say the least, unreliable.

In contrast with the conduct of the Journal of the American Medical Association, the following self-explanatory statement appeared in the Alkaloidal Clinic for November, 1903, which shows an altogether different spirit:

"In our September issue we published a note condensed from the current press to the effect that Minnesota's governor had recently vetoed a bill that gave osteopaths the right to treat all diseases and sue for their pay, but protected them from malpractice suits. It appears now that in following others we but gave voice to error which we are glad to correct."

The same journal, the Alkaloidal Clinic, which wields a freelance against almost every thing in therapeutics except alkalometry, contained an article in the issue for April, 1904, by John Little Morris, M. D., on "Mechanical Vibration in Pulmonary Disease," in which he says:

"There are very few chronic conditions confronting the specialist that will not be greatly benefited, and often cured, if the nerve centers associated with the distant organs can be stimulated at the same time that the lymphatic and venous circulations are awakened and the waste products carried off. It is a well-known fact easily demonstrable in any physician's office, that all chronic and most acute pathologic conditions are accompanied by more or less spinal tenderness. This observation is not deduced from that nefarious class of quacks known as osteopaths, but from such physiologists as Foster, Landois, and Sterling."

He then cites a case of asthma cured and consumption helped by vibration. Like so many of the practices of his school, his treatment was an "experiment," instead of an intelligent procedure based upon facts established by "such physiologists as Foster, Landois, and Sterling," the positive results of which have been demonstrated in thousands of cases treated by osteopaths. Note his words in speaking of the case of pulmonary phthisis

"With no hope of doing more than to secure drainage of the lungs to some extent, the patient was prevailed upon to allow me to experiment with him. Treatment was instituted three times weekly, in exactly the same manner as the first case, and to our surprise there was a marked improvement in all symptoms. In. four weeks he gained eight pounds, looked much better than for two years, and, as he expressed it, 'he at last had some ambition to get up and do.' His respiration decreased from 28 to 22, and his evening temperature to 101 degrees F. The physical condition was not apparently changed, except possibly there were not so many rales, owing to the diminished frequency of breathing.

"In this case where we anticipated no results whatever, the outcome has been really wonderful, and it seems to open up a new field both to doctor and patient in the treatment of these hopeless ‘lungers.’ In cases in which the tubercular process is in its incipiency, why should we not expect more decided results - the patient's physical condition being not so low?"

In June, 1904, the Alkaloidal Clinic published an article on Osteopathy which gave an erroneous impression concerning the subject. It said, "The Clinic will be pleased if some of the schools will instruct the family." C. A. Campbell, D. O., replied and corrected some of the wrong impressions conveyed; but the Clinic "from lack of space," did not publish the reply. Both articles appeared in the Journal of Osteopathy, September, 1904 This incident is insignificant except as it is further proof that it is almost impossible to get a medical journal to publish the truth concerning Osteopathy.

The Cleveland Medical Journal has made itself conspicuous by its rantings against osteopaths and everything that seemed to favor osteopathy. In the issue for April, 1900, it contains a sensational article under the heading "Soiling the Judicial Ermine," in which it assails judges of the Supreme Court of the state, a prominent state official, and a well-known politician. Among other things it said:

"It is no great credit to the bar and to the politics of the state of Ohio that attorneys so palpably deficient in clearness of intellect and in thoroughness, and breadth of education have come to hold positions in the highest court in the state."

But the abuse and threats of the profession did not deter the friends of Osteopathy from continuing in the good work already begun. In Ohio they were even more persistent in their support of the science two years later, when practically everything they asked for at the hands of the legislature was granted them by an almost unanimous vote, after one of the most vigorous fights in the history of osteopathic legislation had been waged by the medical trust. (Chapter IV.)


Iowa has been one of the most hotly contested fields. During the pending of the osteopathic bill before the legislature in 1898, the M. D.'s, we may say the "regulars" only, were perniciously active and made their interests paramount to all others. They used in the legislature the same petitions they had used a few years before against the homeopaths. This time they had simply pasted a new heading on them entitled "Against the passage of the Osteopathic Bill," instead of the "Homeopathic Bill." Not one word was uttered or one letter presented against Osteopathy by any one not connected with the medical trust. The following adopted by the Iowa Association of Physicians, signed by its officers and by the committeemen from each congressional district, was used to influence the legislature. Comment is unnecessary:

"We will vote and work where our professional interests lie, and will, at all times make party principle subordinate, in state matters, to our professional interests, and vote, when necessary, in a body for such individual candidates as will comply with the expressed wishes of this organization. This principle shall be especially adhered to in the selection of members to the state legislature."

In spite of all this opposition from the medical men, the bill passed both branches of the legislature and was signed by the governor. But the board was true to its instincts. It nullified the law by refusing to license osteopaths. This caused a general cry of resentment at the outrage, which was voiced by the Burlington Hawk-Eye, January 22, 1899, as follows:

"And where is Iowa going to stand in the contest for the maintenance of the rights of the public? Last winter the Iowa general assembly enacted a law granting osteopaths the right to practice their profession in this state and entitling the graduates of their colleges certain privileges granted those of other medical colleges. But now comes the Iowa state board of health, in which body the osteopaths have no representation, and coolly nullifies and sets aside the law. The board declines to issue certificates to osteopathic physicians, assigning reasons which are clothed in a verbiage not easily comprehended by the public which are utterly indefensible, and in defiance of the law-making power of the state. The action of the medical board is not only amazing, but it is outrageous.

"The Hawk-Eye is confident that the better class of regular physicians of Iowa will not approve of the action of the state board. The latter is composed of a class of men who do not stand as high in the profession as many of their colleagues in the state. In fact, the Iowa medical board is a close corporation, run more for the benefit of its officiary than the welfare of the people. It is constantly trenching upon the rights of the public. Its latest action is so palpably an effort to thwart the legislative will that it is destined to create a reaction in public feeling against the whole system of state medical surveillance. In that respect the action of the board may prove to be a blessing in disguise."


Osteopaths have not refused tests as to their knowledge of the branches necessary for the practice of their profession. They have taken the same examinations as the M. D.'s in many states and the results have not caused the osteopaths to suffer by comparison. In all subjects bearing upon a knowledge of the human body in health and disease, it has been proven, before medical boards, that many of them are the peers of the M. D.'s who have graduated from Harvard and other first class medical colleges. In Ohio all osteopaths entering the state since 1902 have had to take the same examination in anatomy, physiology, obstetrics, and physical diagnosis, as M. D.'s. It should be borne in mind that such examinations are evidently unfair for the osteopaths, because the questions are prepared and the papers corrected by M. D.'s who have studied the several subjects with a different purpose in mind from that of the osteopaths. In addition the osteopaths in Ohio are required to take an examination on six subjects from an osteopathic standpoint, the examination being conducted by osteopaths. In Massachusetts, after taking the regular medical examination, twenty-six of the thirty-three who applied up to December, 1904, 78.8 per cent, received certificates - for what? - to practice medicine in all its departments, including the giving of drugs and the performing of major surgery, for which they do not profess to be qualified. For the year 1903, only 69.4 percent of all examined received license to practice, showing superior qualifications of osteopaths. In Alabama, where the doctors claim to have one of the best medical laws in existence, osteopaths have been granted a license to practice drug medication and major surgery, - procedures for which their education in osteopathic colleges did not profess to fit them and which they have no desire to use. What a farce a medical examination must be that will certify that a doctor is qualified to practice a system in which he does not profess to be qualified; or say to the innocent and confident subjects of the state that the holder of a certificate is qualified to cut into the abdominal cavity and remove a kidney; or into the chest and remove part of a lung; or even into the skull and remove part of the brain, when he has never even seen such an operation.

It is also worthy of note that a sincere test of a drug doctor's qualifications is of very recent origin. In Massachusetts, during the six months prior to January, 1895, 3,792 licenses were granted without examination to practice medicine, 349 of which were issued to doctors who were not graduates of any medical institutions authorized by law to confer degrees in medicine. Since then, 3,285 have been issued upon examination, 475 of which were to non-graduates of medical institutions conferring the degree M. D. In Ohio, from the passage of the medical law, February 27, 1896, to December 31, 1902, 10,796 certificates were issued, 713 of which were to non-graduates in medicine. The "great revival of learning" in the medical profession came with the advent of Osteopathy. A striking coincidence to say the least.

In view of the above facts, we may ask, who are responsible for these low standards for the present generation of drug practitioners and who have most bitterly opposed a thorough test as to the qualifications of an osteopath to practice his profession? Osteopaths have always insisted that those licensed to practice Osteopathy should not only prove that they possess a knowledge of the fundamental sciences at the basis of all medical learning, but also show that they know Osteopathy and that they have had the training necessary to practice. The medical fraternity have, time and again, refused to sanction any such a test as to qualifications. In proof of this claim read the following from the Ohio State Medical Society, signed by Dr. F. C. Martin, and read before every member of the legislature at the time of the contest in 1902:

"The present medical law requires all candidates for the license to practice medicine, of whatever school, to take before the Board of Medical Registration and Examination, an examination in eight subjects. There is a provision in Section 4403f exempting the Osteopaths from examination in all but four of these. These four, which the present law requires that the osteopaths should be examined in, are Anatomy, Physiology, Chemistry, and Physical Diagnosis. These are the fundamental branches of medical sciences. Whatever method of treatment any school of medicine may apply to disease, the first requisite is a proficiency in the knowledge of what the organism is, what its functions are, how they are performed, why they are thus performed, and what changes the structures undergo when disordered or diseased. One proficient in this knowledge is capable of recognizing what it is that ails the patient. The knowledge of the treatment of these disorders or diseases is a superstructure built on this foundation. Whatever the method of treatment applied, the person administering it should have a knowledge of these four elements. This the present law demands even of the osteopaths. That this requirement is fair and just must be obvious. That it is drawn in the interest of the sick citizen, and is in the interest of the state, must be apparent."

How it is "fair and just" to the people or even to the doctors that one class of practitioners should not be called upon to show qualifications to practice according to their own views is not so "obvious" to the uninitiated as the circular letter tried to make the legislature believe; and how the bill was "drawn in the interest of the sick citizen" and "in the interest of the state," without requiring of professed osteopaths a knowledge of their practice inn treating diseased conditions, is not "apparent" to one who has only the interests of the sick citizen and the state at heart.

Medical men have been blatant in their cry of ignorance of the essential subjects pertaining to the human body on the part of osteopaths. All educated osteopaths know that their knowledge falls short of the high standard towards which the profession is looking. But they have more than once invited the M. D.'s to competitive examinations or cease their boasting. The writer calls to mind three cases of that kind, one in Kirksville, Missouri; one in Lincoln, Nebraska; and one in Marion, Indiana. No such challenge has ever been accepted.

Occasionally we find in purely medical journals words of commendation. The following appeared in the Alkaloid Clinique of Chicago, early in 1902:

"What concerns us most is the scientific nature of their qualifications. Briefly, the system of Osteopathy appears to be this, that the students are thoroughly trained in anatomy - upon the living body, going over and locating the bones with all their prominences and depressions, then the ligaments and muscles attached, and the vessels, nerves, and other structures as related to the bony framework of the body. By this method of training, the student is so familiarized with the living human body that he is able to detect many deviations from the normal standard which would escape the ordinary physician, and which are yet capable of accounting for many of the ills that affect the human body. Now, as to the value of this method of teaching anatomy there can be no question, or of its vast superiority over the methods in vogue at the medical schools of the present."


Let it not be inferred that all medical doctors are opposed to Osteopathy and the progress embodied in its teachings. Arthur Weir Smith, A. M., M. D., in an article in the National Eclectic Medical Journal for September, 1903, in speaking of the failure to enact an osteopathic law in Virginia, said:

"While this is a triumph of allopathy, all legislation of this sort is also a triumph of bigotry and intolerance. The old-school doctors have always arrogated to themselves a certain perfection in medical practice, and have dictated arbitrarily what should constitute a medical education. If an individual makes a discovery, he is not allowed to publish it freely; and everything is done to discourage reform in the healing art.

"Whether the osteopaths have made a discovery or not, they have a right to test their method. To have impediments put in their way so as practically to prohibit their doing so, is neither just nor right. To insist that one shall have a medical education as established by the allopaths, before he can practice Osteopathy, is as unreasonable as to insist that one shall be educated in Roman Catholicism before he can embrace the Protestant religion. We may suppose the ease reversed, the osteopaths having the power now enjoyed by the regulars. Imagine every old-school doctor being obliged to take a course in an osteopathic college, and obtain a license to practice from a board of examiners composed of, or controlled by, osteopaths!"

Before the writer had been in the field practicing Osteopathy a month, his attention was called to a remark made by an M. D. A patient of considerable prominence, with a bowel trouble which drugs always fail to relieve, had been treated without results by the best doctors that could be had. As a last resort, an osteopath was called, soon gave relief, and the case was cured, thus contradicting the claims of the M. D's in practically all such cases, that death is inevitable. The man was favorably known in business circles and a brilliant future was dawning upon him; hence the concern of the M. D. for his welfare when he said to his former patient, "You had better died than been cured by that ______ osteopath; you are now ruined for life." This may appear like an extreme case, but it is not. Similar incidents are a part of the personal experience of almost every osteopath; and the medical profession has not always kept its convictions a secret. No less an authority than Dr. B. F. Posey, took a like stand in the Medical Times for October, 1900. He says:

"I think it would be better for the profession if we all would recognize the fact, that it is better to have patients to die under scientific treatment than to recover under empirical treatment, therefore use tonics if needed for your dignity and thereby accept no dictating by the laity."

The boldness with which the ‘regulars’ claim that theirs is the only "scientific treatment," and all other is "empirical," often carries conviction because of the air of authority with which the assertions are made. As a matter of fact, does any medical authority of repute dare to try to defend his practice of drug medication on scientific principles? Have not most of their practices been empirical ever since the dawn of medical history? The "dictating by the laity" has been one of the principal elements in medical progress (Chapter VI), and intelligent people will not soon give their physical well being entirely into the hands of self-constituted conservators of health, who make their living off those who have been so unfortunate as to loose their health.

Nothing seems to irritate some who claim to be leaders in the medical profession more than for any one of their number in good standing to say anything in recognition of Osteopathy. The publication of an article on Osteopathy in the annual supplement to the American Encyclopedia for 1900, caused the following ebullition in the Cleveland Journal of Medicine in 1901, under the heading "Pseudo-Science in the Wrong Place."

"Physicians will be interested to know that the ‘Annual Cyclopedia,’ issued by D. Appleton & Company as a supplement to the American Cyclopedia, recognizes ‘osteopathy’ by a descriptive article, but entirely ignores medicine and all its branches. This is a point that physicians should carefully remember. The article upon 'osteopathy' gives one an unexpectedly keen insight into the narrow education and feeble mental grasp of the editor of an 'Annual Cyclopedia.' It is astounding to read in a reference work that assumes some pretension to authority, the following description of 'osteopathy:' 'A method of treating diseases of the human body without the use of drugs, by means of manipulations applied to various nerve centers, chiefly those along the spine.'

"Just think with what contempt every beginner in physiology will hereafter view an editor who permitted that twaddle to appear in his volume. ‘Nerve centers along the spine!’ Does the editor of the 'Annual Cyclopedia' know that anatomy has been carefully studied for several centuries and has become an exact science? Is it supposable that three other people in the United States are so ignorant? It is humiliating to think that an old and honorable publishing house, which has published enough good medical books to have some elementary knowledge of medical science, should so far forget its self-respect and its standing as to publish under its own name an article so palpably in conflict with the most elementary facts of anatomy and physiology."

While it may not be the best scientific English to speak of "nerve centers along the spine," the statement expresses a truth recognized by all who possess "the most elementary facts of anatomy and physiology," except possibly a few M. D.'s, who are so blinded by prejudice that they can not see a truth. The fact that the article in the "Annual Cyclopedia" referred to, "entirely ignores medicine in all its branches," calls forth the implied threat of dire vengeance against the publishers of the book. Possibly the omission was necessary because of the author's inability to find anything new or any advances in medicine during the preceding year. Why a medical journal should offer such strenuous objections when a general publication gives the people at large information concerning a science that has thousands of practitioners, hundreds of thousands who are recipients of its blessings, and supports liberally half a score of schools, is left to the judgment of the reader to decide. Verily the writer preferred darkness rather than light, and would keep the whole medical profession as well as the laity in ignorance of what progress is being made.

In marked contrast with the article in Appleton's Annual, is one in the New International Encyclopedia. Any fair-minded reader, familiar with Osteopathy, will note at least five false statements therein, either implied or clearly, stated. It claims, (1) that osteopaths always profess to cure by drugs manufactured in the system ; (2) that health is prevented by only one cause, viz., the slight displacement of some bone; (3) that osteopaths profess to cure every disease; (4) that osteopaths are not trained or disciplined by a proper course of study; (5) that M. D's only are trained in diagnosis.

B. M. Jackson, A. M., M. D., LL. B., realized the situation as shown in an article on "The Physician and Some of His Mistakes," which appeared in a recent issue of the Medical Brief. It is evident to every one familiar with the differences between drug practic and Osteopathy, that the medical profession would never have been able to appropriate "to their own use the, claims of Osteopathy" without changing almost all their theories and their courses of instruction in their colleges. Here is a quotation from Dr. Jackson:

"When Dr. A. T. Still declared that manipulations, or rubbing, will relieve or cure certain abnormal conditions, whereas medicine will not, a few physicians advised the medical fraternity to investigate his claims, and others called him names. The consequence was that the greater number of physicians followed those whose minds were not receptive, and instantly commenced to make war on Dr. Still personally, his disciples in particular, and Osteopathy in general. Today Osteopathy is an independent profession, and physicians look on and witness the immense number of its followers, which, of course, is an immense loss to the physician. Had the mass of physicians followed the advice of the intellectual among them, they would have appropriated to their own use the claims of Osteopathy, the truth of some being capable of demonstration. 'There is no doctrine so false as not to contain in it some truth,' is a wise and true proverb, and had not the few original disciples of that school been prosecuted for practicing 'medicine' without a license, it would not have been possible for Osteopathy to claim recognition as an independent school, with an attendance in 19031904 of nearly two thousand students."


The following from the Chicago Clinic and Pure Water Journal, April, 1904, is so clear that it is given in full. The medical profession cannot ignore the progress of Osteopathy and evidences of its success, but they hope to crush it with the force of their superior numbers. Again, they ignore one of the best established facts in the history of the progress of mankind; namely that truth is not a matter of opinion, overthrown by a majority vote.

"Last mouth we protested against the apathy of the members of the medical profession who, lamenting the growing strength of the osteopaths, sit idly by and watch their progress, or content themselves with passing futile resolutions in the medical societies. The extent of osteopathic recognition by the various States of the Union, as set forth in the Chicago Clinic and Pure Water Journal, in March, came as a surprise to the medical profession and excited comment in many quarters. There was no exaggeration, however.

In fact, the story was not all told. There are additional facts which may serve to arouse us to opposition to the growing strength of irregulars. We cannot afford to ignore it. A few months ago the Supreme Court of the State of Kentucky declared that Osteopathy was not the practice of medicine (Nelson vs. State Board of Health, 57 S. W. R. 501). Before that time the secretary of the State Board of Health had proudly held that the State was free from osteopaths. Very recently the Kentucky State legislature passed a bill recognizing Osteopathy, and further, put an osteopath on the State Board as a member. Since the March editorial in this journal was written, South Carolina has fallen into the hands of the irregulars, and a law has become operative compelling the State Board of Medical Examiners to license osteopaths merely upon presentation of diplomas and without examination. In Mississippi the osteopathic bill failed to pass - but what an empty victory! The Supreme Court of Mississippi has declared (Hayden vs. State, 33 S. R. 653) that Osteopathy is not medical practice and is not in any way subject to the control of the State Medical Board. This much has been done by osteopaths since the last issue of this journal.

Osteopathy is not a weakling which can be safely ignored. It has become legalized in Arizona, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, and Wisconsin. In the following States osteopaths are exempted from restrictions by law: District of Columbia, Maine, Massachusetts, Mississippi, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, and Rhode Island. And to what is this wonderful progress of an irregular cult due? To the energy of the osteopaths? No more than to the lamentable apathy of the medical profession. Illinois may yet be kept within the pale of regular medical practice. Two governors, Tanner and Yates, have saved the State on two occasions, and that against vigorous protest of osteopaths and their friends. With the precedent of twenty-four States held up to him, no governor can afford to veto an osteopathic bill in Illinois unless supported actively by the entire medical profession. The Supreme Court of Illinois has decided that the practice of Osteopathy is the practice of medicine as defined by the statutes, and we are safe unless the action of the Supreme Court is overridden by the legislature. The only way for us to be assured that the legislature will not defeat this excellent court decision and recognize the osteopath, is for us to work together as harmoniously, energetically, and intelligently as do the Kirksville irregulars. We have the majority - let us make it count,"

The March journal mentioned in the quotation above, also contained an article by H. S. Zimmerman, M. D., entitled "Osteopathy What It Is and What It Teaches Vs." It contains some truthful statements, but its merits are overshadowed by the skill and freedom with which the author used the terms "quackery," "impudence," "pretensions," "assurances," "suggestion," "hypnotic control," "impudent claims," "height of absurdity," "criminal," and other uncomplimentary expressions. Aside from his futile attempt to show that Osteopathy is "hypnotic control," the quotations below contain the gist of the article:

"The growing popularity of the osteopathic practitioner with the laity and the many instances of cure or improvement effected by the osteopathic methods of treatment, behooves us to endeavor to answer intelligently the question, 'Is there any virtue in it?'

"The popularity of Osteopathy again, perhaps, is ascribable to the growing reaction, if not repugnance, in the minds of the laity to the internal use of drugs. This leads to the question 'What does Osteopathy teach us?"'

"If we hope to retain the confidence of our patients in the efficacy of drugs and put a check upon the impudent claims of Osteopathy, we must bestir ourselves and learn a lesson. Homeopathy originated as a protest against the enormous and nauseous doses of drugs used in Hahnemann's day. We have profited by it. We may learn from Osteopathy that drug giving is not all, and, further, the powerful means for good of mental suggestion. This factor, backed up by the strong personality of the tactful physician, will alone effect a cure or enhance the effects of our medicine when failure would otherwise result. We should make our medicines palatable and avoid the more nauseating drugs. It may or may not he wise to mention to our patients the collateral effects of our remedies; for instance, the head roaring of salycilic acid compounds. Thus forewarned, undue alarm will be prevented and the disagreeable features minimized by the patient."


After reading Dr. Zimmerman's article one might suspect that osteopathy had a corner upon everything savoring of quackery; but the quotations below show that adepts in this line may be found in the ranks of the regulars. Quacks always learn how to touch the pockets" of the wealthy to the best advantage. But they axe not the only ones who drag a noble profession down to the level of the most degraded commercialism. It is a common saying that only the wealthy are subject at all times to appendicitis, and the poor when medical colleges are in session. Honest physicians of all schools are trying to counteract this mad rush after the "almighty dollar" at the expense of truth, honor, and often at the sacrifice of the life of an innocent victim to the surgeon's avarice. The following maxims of "Dr." Maximilian Muller, and the comments are from the Alkaloidal Clinic for August, 1904:

"Yankees are the easiest people on the face of the earth to fool." "A middle-aged American and his money are soon parted - if you make him believe he is sick."

"Touch a woman's fears for her husband's safety, and it is then an easy matter to touch the husband's pocketbook."

"There is only one way to capture an American millionaire, and that is with a solemn look and a surgical instrument."

"Sickness rarely kills a poor man because nobody cares whether he dies or gets well; but every one makes such a fuss when a rich man grows ill that it - usually scares him to death."

"Make a rich man believe your are wealthy and you can make him believe anything you tell him."

"No, these are not the sayings of any modern surgeon. They are the words of a 'quack,' of one who had never seen the inside of a medical college. But here is the funny part of it: He says that he was an attendant at a hotel, where he closely watched the great city doctors while in attendance on wealthy men, until he had mastered their methods, which he practiced when he announced himself as a physician; and so deftly imitated these illustrious physicians that he was received without question as one of them, and reaped a rich harvest from credulous millionaires.

"Could we believe but a small part of the tales we hear in regard to the 'working' commercially of wealthy patients by illustrious members of the medical profession, we would cease to wonder that the public welcomes any and everything to get away from the regular profession. But we are thankful to the bottom of our hearts that our intimate knowledge of many thousands of our colleagues has taught us that those who take a commercial view of their relations with their patients are but an insignificant element in the mass. The American doctor, in spite of all temptation in these ways, is honest."

It is a pleasure to note progress in the healing art irrespective of the source from which it emanates. Below is given in full an article from the New York Medical Journal and Philadelphia Medical Journal for September 24, 1904, reviewing an article in an English journal, the Lancet, September 10, 1904. Following the medical instinct of looking afar off for information, it is not surprising that a medical journal should give credence to such statements made in England and persistently ridicule facts originating in our own country, or deny statements made by one whom they stamp as "irregular."

"Shadwell states that in many cases where the patients complain of pain in various regions of the body (pleurodynia, intercostal neuralgia, false angina, ovarian neuralgia, gastrodynia, etc., etc.), well marked tender spots can be found along the spine at the point of origin in which pain is complained of. By treating these tender spots on the spine, complete, immediate, and permanent relief is the result. The writer cites ten illustrative cases, in which relief was obtained by the use of blisters, tincture of iodine, etc., applied along the spine. In this class of cases the patients never complain of pain in the spine, and will often protest against examination."

But the mystery of the whole matter to the D. O.'s, is that the M. D's have not found the cause of the tender spots. They talk about treating tender spots with blisters, etc., and tell about what may be accomplished by mechanical stimulation; but they do not hint that maladjustment or derangement of tissues causes trouble, much less say anything about the manner in which a genuine osteopath goes about correcting the trouble. They do not seem to realize that the human body is naturally self-regulative. They can only recommend pulling, twisting, stimulating, blistering, rubbing something in; never the simple osteopathic principle of correcting by direct specific application of scientific principles to the immediate removal of the cause of the trouble. Yet these are the men who claim in 1905 that all curative measures should be administered under their directions.