The early osteopathic profession believed that chiropractic was a theft and a crude form of osteopathy. This article attempts to compare and assess some of the similarities and differences between early chiropractic, osteopathy, Palmer and Still. Early chiropractic philosophy closely resembled osteopathic philosophy but the actual diagnostic methods and mechanics involved in the two schools’ manipulative techniques appear to have been quite different. Additionally, what are the probable reasons behind drugless osteopathy expanding to an unlimited scope? Why did chiropractic retain a limited scope? How did early chiropractic become “contaminated” by osteopathic and bohemian manipulations? Finally, arguments over the nature and effects of the manipulable lesion (the “chiropractic subluxation: and the “osteopathic lesion”) led to division and a splintering of both schools.
This abstract is reproduced with the permission of the publisher. Full text is available by subscription.