Reflecting shadows on the cave wall...

Osteopathically yours,

Osteopathy is a philosophy and exactly by that a science and a knowledge that demands more exactness, precision, discipline and mental focus than many others...and there our present education system fails deeply, in my opinion.

Some try to compensate this sensed weakness by going in what they are convinced is all generally accepted scientific models and by that try to overcome or correct the named educational weaknesses, think again...

Some others take the opposite stance and would fly around the room like Major Tom if they could, going all esoteric or worse, think again ...

Then the so-called philosophers......, those bring my thoughts back to the philosophical conference of Hamburg in 2006 immediately... philosophers that tend to club you numb with Nietzsche, Kant, Aristoteles and the rest of the herd...until... just before succumbing the "Ruffian Bush Boy" jumped up in my mind and asks out loud to those guy's: 'Drop it, I am not interested in a grocery list of learned by heart quotes..., tell me what you think without the quotes which sound of a fit of "acute Polly says Good morning syndrome". ' .... Then dead silence followed and dropped draping the table like a heavy velvet purple blanket. Shock and awe tactics overtook again...

(Context: I was invited as a speaker to talk about Evolutionary Medicine in the Osteopathic Field, together with the other speakers after the conference we had a sitting weekend around the table to discuss the presented concepts and ideas. My excuse: is that in my childhood I was probably too often left unsupervised, and spend most of my free time with my Baluba and Luba friends in the bush instead of learning how to become "salon-f?hig" in German or "Presentable" in English I guess...? Funny enough, it forged strong friendships that conference, I still call Jane Stark who I met there SiS, or my Spiritual Sis, and Walter Mc Kone, Brother)

Maybe because it was overwhelming, ill mannered, not polite nor correct, or just totally unexpected, because 'not done' in such classy chic osteopathic company??? I still don't know and actually don't care....But it hit something deep and fundamental, STRIKE - BULL'S EYE or whatever....

I like intellectualizing and reasoning , as much as any next osteopathic teacher, I guess, but when a philosophical conference which was with the idea of seeing what are the possible tracks for osteopathy in the just begun Century, turns into a kindergarten contest of who has the longest, it made some of us sad. Meaning who can throw most Philosophers quotes on the table instead of saying plainly what they think, and argumenting it or corroborating it, what make them think that way and come to such a conclusion...

I really go off my rockers, Andrew Taylor Still, the discoverer of osteopathy indicates plainly and at several times repetitively, that "knowledge, which does not bring anything in Nature's principles and practice to the PHILOSOPHY of Osteopathy, should not be of our concern."

With which I agree absolutely, in the sense that Nature and its principles are my first love and probably my last, nature was and still is my favorite classroom, spirituality and osteopathy.

But something fundamental, to me anyway, is that an osteopath is something you strive to become, and osteopathy is something you not only do but are pregnant with and gestating... for the rest of your natural life... Osteopathy is a process you are in becoming with but never just are there.

Still, wrote about Osteopathy and the struggle of its coming into Form, on several occasions, but my favorite one stays his preface of the little green book (PMPO):

"In taking up a pen at my age, and assuming the responsibility of writing a book on the causes and treatment of diseases, philosophically and in a comprehensible manner, with words and forms to meet the demands of this enlightened age, I feel it is a very great undertaking, and ask that the world give me its friendly criticism. Read and adopt, or reject, as you may feel disposed when you have perused what I may write. I start out on this journey alone, with no compass except my reason, and if I fail, no one will suffer for the trip excepting myself. "

A.T.S. , JANUARY 1, 1902.?

The fundamental question that arises is: what is reality in Nature, and what are our models (science or others), which are by the way: simplified and in essence partly fantasy reproductions of what really is?

We just had another fantastic example in the IJOM

What’s wrong with osteopathy?

Reading of this recent publication ‘What’s wrong with osteopathy?’ (International Journal of Osteopathic Medicine 48 (2023) 100659 ), rose since the very first sentence of the Abstract great concerns to me as a very recognizable image of history disturbingly popped up in my mind. Forcing myself to read on, the image and methods used behind it became only more precise, as they repeat almost systematically...

This so-called intent of rational objective scientific article is a disgrace for the authors but even so for the Editor and Publisher of it, thus also the Journal.

What disturbing image popped up?

The “Reichsministerium für Volksaufkl?rung und Propaganda”, under the lead of Minister dr. Joseph Goebbels (Doctor of Philology), was extraordinarily efficient in the molding and kneading of the people’s spirit and perception.

Goebbels synthetized his tactics in six very clear basic principles.?

1. Simplify. Keep it simple. Do not put people in disarray with complexity and stratification.

2. Repeat. However wrong an assertion is, if you repeat it often enough, it will become truth.

3. Use and manipulate emotion. You don’t get your point from sound reasoning, but from the impressions of nonsense arguments and gut feeling.

4. Frame your theorem. Sketch a tendentious image of reality.

5. Ignore undesirable facts that might undermine your theorems.

6. Lie credibly. By using references that enforce your theorems.

Goebbels, would probably nod approvingly when reading this discourse on the so-called ‘peer reviewed paper’: What’s wrong with Osteopathy?

So many things in this paper are reminding me of Goebbels and his “Ministerium”, that deconstructing all the nonsense and instore some of the complexity and stratification that reality demands would be extremely time consuming.

Rebuffing, the nonsense arguments and putting them into context would take about 5-8 times as many pages as the article counts.?

If I would have the leisure to do it, the exercise might be fun, but I don’t want to waste my precious time on trying to educate such blind self-conviction, clearly the opposite of scientific questioning, rather making a caricature of good science rules.

So just for the sake of the argument, the first sentences of the Abstract were taken and critically reviewed. In black the authors statements, in bold and Italic my reflections.

What's wrong with osteopathy?

Oliver P. Thomson, Andrew MacMillan

Abstract

This commentary critically (1) examines the foundational assumptions (2) , practices and claimed distinctiveness upon which osteopathy was built and continues to be structured (3).

Put things back into context: this just the first sentence of the Abstract…

(1)??In order to “examine” anything “critically”, as these authors view themselves doing, there are several premises which should always - at least as close as possible, be taken in account, unlike the momentary trendy “cancel and woke culture” have a clear tendency of doing, as do these authors:

- extract something completely out of context (Space Time or environment)

- look at it with today’s language and culture understanding and then judge from this point of view…

This is a very dubious entrance in the matter, in my opinion.

The very first premise, when looking at an American historical text of 1899, is to sketch the environment in which this text was written, handy or willingly they are left out of the reference list? (Carol Trowbridge and Jane Stark both wrote several books on the subject) (Goebbels 1, 4 and 5 principles)

The second premise, if one wants to correctly try to read and understand what is meant in said text of 1899, one should be certain, one’s language is adapted to the text, and not ‘arrogantly’ by habit take for granted that one’s today British English is the right interpretation, both Carol Trowbridge as Jane Stark’s books give all readers a clue: (Still had in his library and used Webster’s dictionary 1828, the first American Dictionary) (Goebbels principle 4 and 5)

Goebbels principles applied only in the first part of this opening sentence: 1, 4, 5.

(2)??Any author(s) that reference to themselves 11 times in a new publication, try to create an impression of being a top specialist on the matter investigated, or it carries a smell of egocentric tunnel-vision affirmation…not questioning science. (Goebbels principle 6) ??

-The author ‘critically examines” while osteopathy has “foundational assumptions” Goebbels principles applied in the first parts of this opening sentence: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.

(3)??“Osteopathy was built and continues to be structured”: ?Generalization that is unusable as Osteopathy is developing very differently not only in every country but even in every school or institution.(Goebbels principles applied only in the first opening sentence: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.)

??As said, something like a pattern is repeating itself, only in the first sentence of the abstract as such the Goebbels popup probably happened in my mind. But let’s not judge hastily, as these authors do, but read critically the rest…

Five areas which are considered to be highly problematic for osteopathy ( 1), namely its weak theoretical basis, inherent biomedicalism, monointerventionism, default practitioner-centredness and predilection for implausible mechanisms.

(1)??Five areas which are considered to be highly problematic for osteopathy: by whom?, why are they problematic for Osteopathy, considered on which basis? From which point of view? Goebbels principles applied on the second sentence of the abstract: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. Especially Goebbels principle 3 is obvious by the sentence construction: inducing an athmosphere or mood.

It is argued that these areas require considerable reflection and action as if not remedied, they constitute a major threat to the development, unity and legitimacy of the osteopathic profession. Ongoing reconceptualisation of underpinning theories, assumptions and associated skills informed by current evidence and knowledge from disciplines outside of the osteopathic domain is necessary for professional maturation. Goebbels principles 2

Introduction

In response to an invitation to reflect on osteopathy’s future and potential threats 1, this commentary critically examines the foundational assumptions, practices and claimed distinctiveness upon which osteopathy was built and continues to be structured. We outline five areas which we consider are significantly problematic for osteopathy, namely its weak theoretical basis, inherent biomedicalism, monointerventionism, practitioner-centredness and predilection for implausible mechanisms. Our contention is that significant intellectual and research mileage is needed in these areas, building upon ongoing work to develop tools and methods to develop knowledge of them within osteopathy 2,3 (Goebbels principles 2 and 6 referring to one’s own work; in order to manage a reference list of 130, the authors reference to themselves 11 times).

This is the point where I stop because the systematic reiteration, is unworthy of a peer reviewed journal.

Read, reason and refute me, please be my guest...

CONTEXT MATTERS, ALWAYS