New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1917-12-29
The Founder Of Osteopathy
DIR. Still Exalted as Peer of Pasteur,
Metchnikoff and Enrich
he Editor of The Tribune.

To the Editor of The Tribune.
Sir: Your recent editorial under the cap
ton "The Founder OF Osteopathy" has called
forth considerable comment and vindicab!e
criticism from the practitioners Of osteopathy
and others.
The unfortunate thing about your statement
is that you apparently fail to recognize or TO
emphasize the very wide difference between
the rather crude and inherent art Of bone
setting" and the science and system Of prac-
tice, osteopathy. Had YOU done so there
should have been no occasion for this letter
Justice az least should have been done BOTH
and incidentally osteopathy would have been
placed in a better light before those OF
YOUR readers who arc still in ignorance OF
the truth or who have but hazy conception
Of osteopathic theories and teachings. At the
same time you would have paid tribute to
him whose life for half century was de-
voted to the cause Of humanity, seeking no
material reward; whose discovery OF osteop-
athy and a drugless therapy has revolution
lied the practice OF present-day medicine, in
that the osteopathic method Of diagnosis and
Of bodily adjustment without drug DOSAGE
is being more freely adapted to medical prac-
tice.l
what osteopathy has accomplished in saw
ing life. restoring health and making nope
less irvalids, crippled children and imbsciles
useful to themselves and the w9rld is com
mon knowledge.
The point wish to iterate and emphasize
is this: Osteopathy is a science, not mere
art or cult" as you imply. 1t is based upon
we'll known biological principles, such as im-
munity and bodily resistance to disease
through normal blood flow and distribution
and unimpeded transformation Of nervous
energy. etc. Il was Andrew Taylor still, in
fact. who first insisted unequivocably upon
the immunization theory, which many years
later WAS substantiated and developed by that
great scientist, Paul Enrich.
If osteopathy as it is practised to-day IS
merely the art of "bonesetting,' as you intl-
mate. then there might be somo ground for
YOUR assumption "that as a system it seems
unlikely it can last for long and VIII
inevitably be absorbed in the general teach
ings of medicine and surgery, or else the os-
teopatbist will survive as a specialist IN
comparatively narrow field" The statement
If DR. Beverly Robinson in "The New York
Medical Record" of october u ITO "hlch
YOU probably refer in your editoriaD ana
similar statements from time TO time by
other prominent physicians in this country
and in England are indubitable proof that
the medical schools are anxious to include
osteopathv in their curricula and to place
osteonathie Dhysicians on their hospital stats
osteopathv. thanks TO its founder, has es-
caped thus far these medical opportunities,
and the profession will continue to fight for
its birthright and independence until the al
lopathic olgarchy is ready to recognize os-
teopathy's rightful position in the science
Of medicine Progressive and educated mem
beers of cur profession are not dogmatic;
neither are they inclined TO the belief OF
many OF the earlier graduates in osteopathy
that Il is infallible and a pantcea FOR all Ills
In the possible event Of its becoming alb
sorbed b. the older school, it is my firm con-
viction, based upon the method OF present
day medical practice, that the new science,
osteopathy, will ultimately become the greater
and the dominant one. Specific drugs in GER
tain instances and emergencies will continue
to be used, and surgery, Of course, will always
fill It's important place. But the more rs-
tional and more scientific therapy bodily adj
justment through osteopathc mechanics will
gradually but surely supersedc empire medi-
cine. j. is quite within the realm of posi-
bility that the mere name osteepsthy will ul-
tmately lose its identity. but the system will