[Skip to Content]
[Skip to Content Landing]
April 17, 1926

Foreign Letters

JAMA. 1926;86(16):1225-1227. doi:10.1001/jama.1926.02670420049021

This article is only available in the PDF format. Download the PDF to view the article, as well as its associated figures and tables.


Osteopathy on the Defensive  Mr. E. T. Pheils, who describes himself as "vice president, British Osteopathic Association, chairman, Legislative Committee" has made an attempt to reply to the criticisms of osteopathy by Dr. Graham Little and Lord Dawson. He says that much of their matter against osteopaths has been accumulated from the "die-hards" of the American Medical Association. The recent debate in the house of commons is, he says, practically the same as that which has taken place in various United States legislatures previous to legislative protection. Now this statement is quite inaccurate, for the criticisms of osteopathy in this country, excepting the quotation of the American Medical Association's classification of colleges, have been quite independent. If they happen to coincide with anything said in America, it is simply a corroboration. "Well selected commissions," we are told, "invariably have reported that the osteopathic colleges compare quite favorably with the orthodox

First Page Preview View Large
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview