Harvey and Lee: John Armstrong

[Greg Parker]

H&L is neither convoluted or complex – there are hundreds of documents which reveal conflicts with who and where Oswald was during most of his life – they are laid out chronologically with extensive footnotes and sources.

Not convoluted or complex? Yet it takes 1000 pages to explain it?

There is an axiom that applies in pitching an idea. If you can't distill it down to half a page of dot points, it's probably not gonna fly.

And look - we're talking about simply explaining it - yet taking a 1000 pages to do so. The complexity of it in real life would be staggering. You could multiply the complexity by a factor of 1000.

[Jim Hargrove]

As the following excerpt from a peer-reviewed medical journal shows, by 1910 or so "complete removal of the tonsil has been

accepted" in both Europe and the United States.

===================== QUOTE ====================

A HISTORY OF TONSILLECTOMY:

TWO MILLENIA OF TRAUMA, HAEMORRHAGE

AND CONTROVERSY

By RONALD ALASTAIR McNENLL, M.B., B.Ch.

Senior House Officer in Surgery, Royal Victoria Hospital, Belfast

....

The first sign of a permanent change from partial to complete removal of the

tonsils came in 1897. Ballenger in the U.S.A. realised that partial removal failed

to alleviate symptoms completely in a large majority of cases. He began to

remove the tonsil with its capsule, using a scalpel and forceps. His results, using

this new technique, were so much better than partial removal, for a time the

guillotine fell into disrepute in America.

Some ten years later, dissection tonsillectomy was pioneered in this country

by George Waugh of Children's Hospital, Great Ormond Street. In 1909 he

published, in the Lancet, his account of nine hundred cases of dissecting out

the tonsils complete with capsule, using fine dissecting forceps and curved

scissors. The operation was performed with the patient lying on his back with

the head extended. The tongue was held out of the way with a stitch, and the

mouth held open with a gag between the last molar teeth. Waugh became a

great opponent of guillotine tonsillectomy, giving his reasons in these words:

"Even in highly skilled and experienced hands, the complete removal of

tonsils by means of a guillotine is a task of such technical difficulty as to be,

except in a few rare cases, quite impossible."

In the following year Whillis and Pybus in Britain and Sluder in America

pointed out that a guillotine with a fairly blunt blade instead of a sharp one

could be used in such a way as to enucleate the tonsil complete in its capsule.

Whillis and Pvbus gave the following figures for their series:

Tonsil completely enucleated in its capsule - - - 74%

,,,, capsule incomplete - - 13.5%

in two pieces - - 9%

in three pieces - - 0.5%

Incompletely enucleated - - - - - 3%

From this time onwards the value of complete removal of the tonsil has been

accepted.

[Greg Parker]

As the following excerpt from a peer-reviewed medical journal shows, by 1910 or so "complete removal of the tonsil has been

accepted" in both Europe and the United States.

===================== QUOTE ====================

A HISTORY OF TONSILLECTOMY:

TWO MILLENIA OF TRAUMA, HAEMORRHAGE

AND CONTROVERSY

By RONALD ALASTAIR McNENLL, M.B., B.Ch.

Senior House Officer in Surgery, Royal Victoria Hospital, Belfast

....

The first sign of a permanent change from partial to complete removal of the

tonsils came in 1897. Ballenger in the U.S.A. realised that partial removal failed

to alleviate symptoms completely in a large majority of cases. He began to

remove the tonsil with its capsule, using a scalpel and forceps. His results, using

this new technique, were so much better than partial removal, for a time the

guillotine fell into disrepute in America.

Some ten years later, dissection tonsillectomy was pioneered in this country

by George Waugh of Children's Hospital, Great Ormond Street. In 1909 he

published, in the Lancet, his account of nine hundred cases of dissecting out

the tonsils complete with capsule, using fine dissecting forceps and curved

scissors. The operation was performed with the patient lying on his back with

the head extended. The tongue was held out of the way with a stitch, and the

mouth held open with a gag between the last molar teeth. Waugh became a

great opponent of guillotine tonsillectomy, giving his reasons in these words:

"Even in highly skilled and experienced hands, the complete removal of

tonsils by means of a guillotine is a task of such technical difficulty as to be,

except in a few rare cases, quite impossible."

In the following year Whillis and Pybus in Britain and Sluder in America

pointed out that a guillotine with a fairly blunt blade instead of a sharp one

could be used in such a way as to enucleate the tonsil complete in its capsule.

Whillis and Pvbus gave the following figures for their series:

Tonsil completely enucleated in its capsule - - - 74%

,,,, capsule incomplete - - 13.5%

in two pieces - - 9%

in three pieces - - 0.5%

Incompletely enucleated - - - - - 3%

From this time onwards the value of complete removal of the tonsil has been

accepted.

Accepted, but not compulsory....

[Greg Parker]

As the following excerpt from a peer-reviewed medical journal shows, by 1910 or so "complete removal of the tonsil has been

accepted" in both Europe and the United States.

===================== QUOTE ====================

A HISTORY OF TONSILLECTOMY:

TWO MILLENIA OF TRAUMA, HAEMORRHAGE

AND CONTROVERSY

By RONALD ALASTAIR McNENLL, M.B., B.Ch.

Senior House Officer in Surgery, Royal Victoria Hospital, Belfast

....

The first sign of a permanent change from partial to complete removal of the

tonsils came in 1897. Ballenger in the U.S.A. realised that partial removal failed

to alleviate symptoms completely in a large majority of cases. He began to

remove the tonsil with its capsule, using a scalpel and forceps. His results, using

this new technique, were so much better than partial removal, for a time the

guillotine fell into disrepute in America.

Some ten years later, dissection tonsillectomy was pioneered in this country

by George Waugh of Children's Hospital, Great Ormond Street. In 1909 he

published, in the Lancet, his account of nine hundred cases of dissecting out

the tonsils complete with capsule, using fine dissecting forceps and curved

scissors. The operation was performed with the patient lying on his back with

the head extended. The tongue was held out of the way with a stitch, and the

mouth held open with a gag between the last molar teeth. Waugh became a

great opponent of guillotine tonsillectomy, giving his reasons in these words:

"Even in highly skilled and experienced hands, the complete removal of

tonsils by means of a guillotine is a task of such technical difficulty as to be,

except in a few rare cases, quite impossible."

In the following year Whillis and Pybus in Britain and Sluder in America

pointed out that a guillotine with a fairly blunt blade instead of a sharp one

could be used in such a way as to enucleate the tonsil complete in its capsule.

Whillis and Pvbus gave the following figures for their series:

Tonsil completely enucleated in its capsule - - - 74%

,,,, capsule incomplete - - 13.5%

in two pieces - - 9%

in three pieces - - 0.5%

Incompletely enucleated - - - - - 3%

From this time onwards the value of complete removal of the tonsil has been

accepted.

Accepted, but not compulsory....

A majority of surgeons still use the electrocautery technique. There are also other competing technologies, such as those using lasers and small devices that shave off the tonsil bit by bit. Some surgeons say these technologies allow them to be more precise than coblation. This is especially important in so-called partial tonsillectomies, a procedure that is becoming more popular and in which a small percentage of the tonsil tissue is left behind. Proponents of partial tonsillectomies say that leaving a bit of the tonsil can cut recovery time even further, to just a couple of days. But critics of the procedure point to a small risk that the tonsil will grow back. That means that a child could need additional surgery.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB109571739711922862

The complications of tonsillectomy can be divided into four time periods. Intraoperative complications include reaction to the anaesthetic, haemorrhage, damage to teeth (usually due to the use of, for example, a Boyle-Davis gag), trauma to the posterior pharyngeal wall, dislocation of the temporomandibular joint by over-opening of the mouth gag and damage to the cervical spine due to over-extension of the head (especially in patients with Down's Syndrome). During the first 24 hours postoperatively, reactionary (or primary) haemorrhage may occur. Other complications can include pain and anaesthetic complications. After the first (24-hour) postoperative period, secondary haemorrhage, pain, haematoma and oedema of uvula, infection, earache, pulmonary complications (due to inhalation of tissue/blood - pneumonia and lung abscesses are rare) and sub-acute bacterial endocarditis (in patients with structural heart defects, due to characteristic post-tonsillectomy sub-acute bacteraemia) may all affect patients who have undergone tonsillectomy. Later complications include scarring of the soft palate (which may affect the voice) and the existence of tonsillar remnants (which may result in recurrence of acute infection) (Roland 2001).

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD004619.pub2/full

As you know, the other alternative is that no surgery was done whatsoever. The only document mentioning it is in an insurance policy taken out by Marguerite on Lee. Armstrong claims that the tonsillectomy was performed at Parkland. Did he find the medical records confirming that?

Philben was not a real doctor. He was an osteopath. Yes yes, I know. Thanks to a very powerful lobby group, these quacks get to be called "doctor" in the US. But nowhere is in the world is that desperate.

Additionally. the following letter was in the March '52 edition of the Texas Osteopathic Physicians Journal. It is very delicately worded. But make no mistake. The gist of the letter is that a lot of Osteopaths were only interested in how much money they could wring out of patients and insurance companies alike.

Dear Dr. Gafney:

I herewith acknowledge your favor of January 29th relative to the creation of committee on industry and insurance and am further glad to note that you are selected or appointed as chairman of such a committee. A mental review of our past relationship with Osteopathic Physicians and Surgeons and Osteopathic Hospitals indicates to me that such a committee for the purposes and intent indicated is highly necessary, in that, we have experienced from time to time some unsatisfactory relationships with various Osteopathic Hospitals as to billing practices and with individual Osteopathic Surgeons who have made a wide departure from accepted standards of Osteopathic medical background, as to the inception, duration, and causitive factor requiring hospitalization of our policyholders. Do not misunderstand me in making this statement, as we find that M.D.s in a great many instances deserve the same criticism and individuals in the profession demonstrate an arrogance that, if nothing else, puts severe strain upon the relationship between the professions, Osteopathic and Medical Doctor, that definitely should not exist. I have personally watched the development of Osteopathic institutions, and the broadening of Osteopathic techniques over the past few years into fields of practice and surgery for many years reserved to the Medical Doctor, and I feel that this development was occasioned, to a large degree, on the failure of the M.D. to function at a proper level and it would seem that the Osteopathic group has certainly realized the needs of the public and has met the challenge. I believe that you must realize that many of the insurance companies offering hospitalization type insurance realized that this was true in their decisions to include Osteopath and Osteopathic institutions in the participation of benefits under their policies, instead of the restricting of same to treatment by M.D.s. Certainly, this realization should tend to create a relationship between Osteopathic institutions and individual Osteopathic physicians and surgeons wherein the industry could feel that such recognition on their part of the development of the Osteopathic practitioners would justify its actions and in most instances, I feel that same has been justified. However, as pointed out above, generally some isolated Osteopathic institutions are apparently bent upon "killing the goose that laid the golden egg", so to speak, and has caused a great deal of discussion among the many companies comprising the industry as related to your group. It occurs to me that the Osteopathic physicians and surgeons are filling a great need for medical services, especially in the smaller communities and as an incident thereto, it appears that the Osteopathic institutions and the individual Osteopathic physicians and surgeons are more insurance conscious than necessary, and in manv instances are not giving to us the information available to them relative to individual claim, to which we are entitled, or which would cause a rejection of the individual claim by the Company. We can readily understand the general disposition of the individual to assist the people that he knows in the small communities, or in the larger communities for that matter, but I think that such individuals should have brought to their early attention the fact that in the long run they will receive more benefit and our policyholders and their patients will receive more benefit should such institutions and individuals work closer with the insurance company, that when claims are presented the insurance company, said company will be able to quickly evaluate the merits of a claim and handle same in accordance with its policy provisions, without having members of its Claim Department to develop prejudices against Osteopathic institutions and Osteopathic physicians and surgeons, based upon unsatisfactory situations in the memory of the Claim Department member and which occasions doubt in the minds of the Claim Department as to authenticity of any claim originating from such individual source. Speaking generally, but having in mind a few instances of the sort, I might point out that one of the most trying incidents is where from the reports as submitted, a claim clearly does not fall within the province of the policy and is rejected, following which the Claim Department receives an entirely different picture by letter of the situation which causes confusion in the mind of the claimant, and places the reporting physician in a class with any company's Claim Department as being unreliable and considered as being subjected to pressure or is interested from financial stand point to the extent of such change of diagnosis, treatment, surgery, etc. This, it appears to me, should be eliminated and we wish to assure you that this Company will bring such matters in the future to your direct attention. Our final thought in the matter is to the effect that if Osteopathic physicians and surgeons are qualified physicians and surgeons, and if Osteopathic institutions are kept and set up for the purpose of rendering necessary hospitalization to persons suffering with abnormal conditions, then such individuals operating such institutions and performing as Osteopathic physicians and surgeons should definitely be able to give the insurance companies an unvarnished, factual and intelligent statement of the factors involved in support of the claim, and place such facts in the hands of the insurance claim departments, because in its final analysis, the only thing that the claim department wants is the facts about the claim, its inception and the necessary procedures employed to correct same.

----------------------

So in short, Osteopaths were lodging phony or highly unethical claims for insurance, and when the claim was rejected, the osteopaths simply changed the story. Snake oil salesmen is who you defend here.

Philben took out an ad in that same edition.

So where do where stand with this? If Oswald did have his tonsils out, it was possible for them to grow back and cause further problems. Or - the tonsils were not removed - it was a phony story for insurance purposes.

Either is far more logical than the need to create a CIA doppelganger program to explain it. Doing that is akin to explaining that the moon and stars were created by gods doing battle. Is is myth-making as a way of explaining things you don't understand because you have no science or logic to use.

[Greg Parker]

H&L is neither convoluted or complex – there are hundreds of documents which reveal conflicts with who and where Oswald was during most of his life – they are laid out chronologically with extensive footnotes and sources.

Not convoluted or complex? Yet it takes 1000 pages to explain it?

There is an axiom that applies in pitching an idea. If you can't distill it down to half a page of dot points, it's probably not gonna fly.

And look - we're talking about simply explaining it - yet taking a 1000 pages to do so. The complexity of it in real life would be staggering. You could multiply the complexity by a factor of 1000.

Don: The notion that there is a "simple" explanation for anything related to Oswald flies in the face of 50 years of research by independent citizens.

Steve:H&L is neither convoluted or complex – there are hundreds of documents which reveal conflicts with who and where Oswald was during most of his life – they are laid out chronologically with extensive footnotes and sources.

You guys need to coordinate your stories better.

[Don Jeffries]

Greg,

I don't have a "story" to coordinate with anyone. I'm not desperate to either prove or disprove any theory.

John Armstrong has never posted on a forum, to my knowledge. My contention is, however, that he couldn't possibly be more passionate about defending his theory than you are in trying to discredit it.

I think we do agree that whoever he was, Lee Harvey Oswald didn't assassinate President Kennedy.

[Jim Hargrove]

Philben was not a real doctor. He was an osteopath. Yes yes, I know. Thanks to a very powerful lobby group, these quacks get to be called "doctor" in the US. But nowhere is in the world is that desperate.

Dr. Patrick Philben was, among other things, chief of staff of Dallas Memorial Hospital.

http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=24833435

[Greg Parker]

Philben was not a real doctor. He was an osteopath. Yes yes, I know. Thanks to a very powerful lobby group, these quacks get to be called "doctor" in the US. But nowhere is in the world is that desperate.

Dr. Patrick Philben was, among other things, chief of staff of Dallas Memorial Hospital.

http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=24833435

Which proves what?

Certainly not that he performed a tonsillectomy at Parkland Hospital on Lee Harvey Oswald as claimed by Armstrong. Where is that citation for that claim again?

[Greg Parker]

Greg,

I don't have a "story" to coordinate with anyone.

You certainly don't.

I'm not desperate to either prove or disprove any theory.

Desperate enough to make all manner of uncited assertions about dual Oswald sightings.

John Armstrong has never posted on a forum, to my knowledge. My contention is, however, that he couldn't possibly be more passionate about defending his theory than you are in trying to discredit it.

What can I say? I hate cults, snake oil salemen and deceivers of all stripes and colors.

I think we do agree that whoever he was, Lee Harvey Oswald didn't assassinate President Kennedy.

That doesn't put us on any team together, otherwise I would also have to also accept JVB, Fetzer and certain others as genuine fighters for truth and justice. You really should just apply to be Alex Jones' radio co-host.

[Thomas Graves]

H&L is neither convoluted or complex – there are hundreds of documents which reveal conflicts with who and where Oswald was during most of his life – they are laid out chronologically with extensive footnotes and sources.

Not convoluted or complex? Yet it takes 1000 pages to explain it?

There is an axiom that applies in pitching an idea. If you can't distill it down to half a page of dot points, it's probably not gonna fly.

And look - we're talking about simply explaining it - yet taking a 1000 pages to do so. The complexity of it in real life would be staggering. You could multiply the complexity by a factor of 1000.

Greg,

It sounds to me as though The "Devil" of Deception and Obfuscation is lurking in the mind-numbing 1000 pages of Details; like a case of Sheer Quantity over Quality.

It would take an eternity to fact check it all. Might as well just accept it as gospel truth.

--Tommy

Edited May 18, 2015 by Thomas Graves

[Jim Hargrove]

Philben was not a real doctor. He was an osteopath. Yes yes, I know. Thanks to a very powerful lobby group, these quacks get to be called "doctor" in the US. But nowhere is in the world is that desperate.

Dr. Patrick Philben was, among other things, chief of staff of Dallas Memorial Hospital.

http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=24833435

Which proves what?

Certainly not that he performed a tonsillectomy at Parkland Hospital on Lee Harvey Oswald as claimed by Armstrong. Where is that citation for that claim again?

Just check through your own posts. You've cited the FBI report on the form many times.

Explain why Dallas Memorial Hospital would hire a fake doctor to be its chief of staff.

[Greg Parker]

Philben was not a real doctor. He was an osteopath. Yes yes, I know. Thanks to a very powerful lobby group, these quacks get to be called "doctor" in the US. But nowhere is in the world is that desperate.

Dr. Patrick Philben was, among other things, chief of staff of Dallas Memorial Hospital.

http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=24833435

Which proves what?

Certainly not that he performed a tonsillectomy at Parkland Hospital on Lee Harvey Oswald as claimed by Armstrong. Where is that citation for that claim again?

Just check through your own posts. You've cited the FBI report on the form many times.

Explain why Dallas Memorial Hospital would hire a fake doctor to be its chief of staff.

What FBI report are you talking about specifically? Of course I have cited FBI reports. So what? So did Armstrong.

I didn't say Philben was a fake doctor. Clearly in the US, he was allowed to call himself a doctor. My point was that Osteopaths are quacks who lobbied hard and won the right to be called doctors in the US. The rest of world has correctly denied them that right.

But what has any of that to do with Armstrong claiming that Philben took Lee's tonsils out at Parkland? Again where is the cite for that? Can you just give it without attempting to muddy the waters are change the question?

Edited May 18, 2015 by Greg Parker

[Steven Gaal]

I didn't say Philben when a fake doctor. Clearly in the US, he was allowed to call himself a doctor. My point was that Osteopaths are quacks who lobbied hard and won the right to be called doctors in the US. The rest of world has correctly denied them that right. / Parker post # 124

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- wiki

United States

Main article: Osteopathic medicine in the United States

Licensure or registration of non-physician osteopaths is not permitted anywhere in the United States. European style osteopaths are prohibited from calling themselves osteopaths. In contrast, osteopathic physicians earn the degree of Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine (D.O.), a degree equivalent, though different in certain aspects, to that of Doctor of Medicine (M.D.).[75][76][77][78]

Osteopathic medicine in the United States has always meant a physician trained in and entitled to the full scope of medical practice. Osteopathy or osteopath as written in some U.S. state and federal laws refers only to osteopathic medicine or osteopathic physicians, respectively.[79] With the increased internationalization of the profession, these older terms have fallen out of favor as generally accepted use due to the confusion they may cause.[80][81]

=================================

Egypt and the Middle East

Hesham Khalil introduced Osteopathy in the Middle East at a local physical therapy conference in Cairo, Egypt in 2005 with a lecture titled “The global Osteopathic Concept / Holistic approach in Somatic Dysfunction”. Since then he has toured the Middle East to introduce osteopathy in other Middle Eastern & North African countries including: Sudan, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, Kuwait and Oman. In December 2007 the first Workshop on Global osteopathic approach was held at the Nasser Institute Hospital for Research and Treatment, sponsored by the Faculty of Physical Therapy, University of Cairo, Egypt.[82] On August 6, 2010, the Egyptian Osteopathic Society (OsteoEgypt) was founded. OsteoEgypt promotes a two tier model of osteopathy in Egypt and the Middle East. The event was timed to coincide with the birthday of the founder of Osteopathic Medicine A. T. Still.[83][84]

--------------------------------------------------------

=

Osteopathy worldwide

=

The osteopathic profession has evolved into two branches, non-physician manual medicine osteopaths and full scope of medical practice osteopathic physicians. These groups are so distinct that in practice they function as separate professions. The regulation of non-physician manual medicine osteopaths varies greatly between jurisdictions. In Australia, the UK, and New Zealand the non-physician manual medicine osteopaths are regulated by statute and practice requires registration with the relevant regulatory authority. The Osteopathic International Alliance has a country guide with details of registration and practice rights and the International Osteopathic Association has a list of all accredited osteopathic colleges.[24]

Several international and national organizations exist relating to osteopathic education and political advocacy. One such organization, the World Osteopathic Health Organization (WOHO),[25] permits individual membership by both "restricted scope manual therapist" osteopaths and "full scope of medical practice" osteopathic physicians. Similarly, there is also an international organization of organizations for national osteopathic and osteopathic medical associations, statutory regulators, and universities/medical schools offering osteopathic and osteopathic medical education, known as the Osteopathic International Alliance (OIA).[26]

The following sections describe the legal status of osteopathy and osteopathic medicine in each country listed.

=

Australia

=

In Australia, all osteopaths complete a minimum of five years university training in anatomy, physiology, pathology, general medical diagnosis and osteopathic techniques. They are also trained to perform standard medical examinations of the musculoskeletal, cardiovascular, respiratory and nervous systems.[27][28][29] These university graduates hold either a double Bachelors or Master qualification. Osteopaths work in private practice, and the majority of private health insurance providers cover treatment performed by osteopaths.[30] In addition, treatment performed by osteopaths is covered by the public health care system in Australia (Medicare)[31] under the Chronic Disease Management plan.

Osteopathy Australia[32] (formerly the Australian Osteopathic Association) is a national organization representing the interests of Australian osteopaths, osteopathy as a profession in Australia, and consumers' right to access osteopathic services. Originally founded in 1955 in Victoria, the Australian Osteopathic Association became a national body in 1991 and became Osteopathy Australia in 2014.[33] and is a member of the Osteopathic International Alliance.[34]

Osteopaths are required, by law, to maintain ongoing professional development and education every year to stay in practice. In Australia, all osteopaths are required to be government registered practitioners. If an osteopath does not appear on this register they should not practice.[35]

The Osteopathy Board of Australia[36] is part of the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency which is the regulatory body for all recognized health care professions in Australia.[37] The Osteopathic Board of Australia is separate from the Medical Board of Australia which is the governing body that regulates medical practitioners. Osteopaths trained internationally may be eligible for registration in Australia, dependent on their level of training and following relevant competency assessment.[37]

Three publicly funded Australian universities now offer degrees in osteopathy: RMIT University (officially The Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology),[38] Victoria University,[39][40] and Southern Cross University.[41]

Osteopathy has been practiced in Australia for over 100 years, has been a registered profession for over 35 years and has been taught in universities since the early 1980s.[42] Today osteopathy has grown as a recognized allied health,[31][43] primary care profession with a combination of traditional methods and modern scientific philosophies.[44]

=

Canada

=

In Canada, the titles “osteopath” and “osteopathic physician” are protected in some provinces by the medical regulatory college for physicians and surgeons.[45][46][47] As of 2011, there were approximately 20 U.S.-trained osteopathic physicians, all of which held a Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine degree, practicing in all of Canada.[48] As of 2014, no training programs have been established for osteopathic physicians in Canada.[49]

The non-physician manual practice of osteopathy is practiced in most Canadian provinces.[50] As of 2014, manual osteopathic practice is not a government regulated health profession in any province[51], and those interested in pursuing osteopathic studies must register in private osteopathy schools.[52] It is estimated that there are over 1,300 osteopathic manual practitioners in Canada, most of whom practice in Quebec and Ontario.[49] Moreover, some sources indicate that there are between 1,000 and 1,200 osteopaths practicing in the province of Quebec, and although this number might seem quite elevated, many osteopathy clinics are adding patients on waiting lists due to a shortage of osteopaths in the province.[52]

Attempt to create a professional osteopathy program in Quebec, Canada[edit]

Beginning in the year 2009, Université laval in Quebec City was working with the Collège d'études ostéopathiques in Montreal on a project to implement a professional osteopathy program consisting of a bachelor's degree followed by a professional master's degree in osteopathy as manual therapy.[52] However, due to the many doubts concerning the scientific credibility of osteopathy from the university's faculty of medicine, the program developers decided to abandon the project in 2011, after two and a half years of discussion, planning, and preparation for the program implementation.[52] There was some controversy with the final decision of the university's committee regarding the continuous undergraduate and professional graduate program in osteopathy because the Commission of studies, which is in charge of evaluating new training programs offered by the university, had judged that the program had its place at Université Laval before receiving the unfavourable support decision from the faculty of medicine.[52] Had the program been implemented, Université Laval would have been the first university institution in Quebec to offer a professional program in osteopathy as a manual therapy.[52]

=

European Union

=

There is no universal regulatory authority for the practice of osteopathy or osteopathic medicine within the European Union; it is on a country by country basis. The UK's General Osteopathic Council, a regulatory body set up under the country's Osteopaths Act 1993 has issued a position paper on European regulation of osteopathy.[53]

In Austria and Switzerland, osteopathic practitioners are MDs or physiotherapists who take additional courses in osteopathy after completing their medical training or physical therapy training.

=

France

=

Osteopathy is a governmentally recognized profession and has title protection, autorisation d'utiliser le titre d'ostéopathe.[54] The most recent decree regarding osteopathy was enacted in 2007.[55]

=

Germany

=

Germany has both osteopathy and osteopathic medicine. There is a difference in the osteopathic education between non-physician osteopaths, physiotherapists, and medical physicians.

Physiotherapists are a recognized health profession and can achieve a degree of "Diploma in Osteopathic Therapy (D.O.T.)." Non-physician osteopaths are not medically licensed. They have an average total of 1200 hours of training, roughly half being in manual therapy and osteopathy, with no medical specialization before they attain their degree. Non-physician osteopaths in Germany officially work under the "Heilpraktiker" law. Heilpraktiker is a separate profession within the health care system. There are many schools of Osteopathy in Germany; most are moving toward national recognition although such recognition does not currently exist.[56] In Germany there are rules (at the country level) under which persons (non-physicians) may call themselves Osteopath.[57]

Osteopathic physicians in Germany achieve a degree of "D.O.- DAAO" or "D.O.M.", from the DAAO and DGOM respectively. Osteopathic physicians in Germany are fully licensed with at least 6,500 hours in medical school 6 years, at least 7,000 hours in specialty training, which is 3 to 6 years, plus at least 680 hours of training in manual medicine and osteopathy before attaining their degree. German physicians who have obtained the degree designation Dr. med., and who have completed their medical education and specialty training in areas such as general practice, orthopaedics, neurology, internal medicine, etc. can earn a Diploma in Osteopathic Medicine, either a DO-DAAO from the DAAO (German-American Academy for Osteopathy), a DOM™ from the DGOM (German Society of Osteopathic Medicine), or an MDO (Medical Doctor of Osteopathy) from the DGCO (German Society for Chirotherapy and Osteopathy) if additional educational requirements are met. The additional education includes a 320-hour program in manual medicine and an additional minimum of 380 hours in osteopathic medicine, which together makes a minimum of 700 hours. The osteopathic medicine course is limited to physicians only.[58]

The scope of practice for a US-trained osteopathic physician in Germany is unlimited. A foreign physician may apply for licensure with the regional medical authorities, the Health Ministry, which represents the state in which the applicant intends to work. The regional state health ministry has information regarding the types of medical providers needed in that area and therefore grants work permits to licensed physicians depending on the specialty of the foreign physician.[58]

=

New Zealand

=

The practice of osteopathy is regulated by law, under the terms of the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act 2003[59] which came into effect on 18 September 2004. Under the Act, it is a legal requirement to be registered with the Osteopathic Council of New Zealand (OCNZ),[60] and to hold an annual practicing certificate issued by them, in order to practice as an osteopath. Each of the fifteen health professions regulated by the HPCA Act work within the "Scope of Practice" determined and published by its professional Board or Council. Osteopaths in New Zealand are not fully licensed physicians. In New Zealand, in addition to the general scope of practice, osteopaths may also hold the Scope of Practice for Osteopaths using Western Medical Acupuncture and Related Needling Techniques.[6

=

In New Zealand a course is offered at Unitec.[62] Australasian courses consist of a bachelor's degree in clinical science (Osteopathy) followed by a master's degree. The Unitec New Zealand double degree programme is the OCNZ prescribed qualification for registration in the scope of practice: Osteopath, Australian qualifications accredited by the Australian and New Zealand Osteopathic Council are also prescribed qualifications.

Osteopaths registered and in good standing with the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency – Osteopathy Board of Australian are eligible to register in New Zealand under the mutual recognition system operating between the two countries. Graduates from programs in every other country are required to complete an assessment procedure.[63]

The scope of practice for US-trained osteopathic physicians is unlimited on an exceptions basis. Full licensure to practice medicine is awarded on an exceptions basis following a hearing before the licensing authorities in New Zealand. Both the Medical Council of New Zealand[64] and the Osteopathic Council of New Zealand [OCNZ][65] regulate osteopathic physicians in New Zealand. Currently, the country has no recognized osteopathic medical schools.[66]

=

United Kingdom

=

The practice of osteopathy has a long history in the United Kingdom. The first school of osteopathy was established in London in 1917 by John Martin Littlejohn a pupil of A.T. Still, who had been Dean of The Chicago College of Osteopathic Medicine. After many years of existing outside the mainstream of health care provision, the osteopathic profession in the UK was finally accorded formal recognition by Parliament in 1993 by the Osteopaths Act.[67] This legislation now provides the profession of osteopathy the same legal framework of statutory self-regulation as other healthcare professions such as medicine and dentistry.

The General Osteopathic Council (GOsC) regulates the practice of osteopathy under the terms of the Osteopaths Act 1993. Under British law, an osteopath must be registered with the GOsC to practice in the United Kingdom.[68] The General Osteopathic Council has a statutory duty to promote, develop and regulate the profession of osteopathy in the UK. It fulfills its duty to protect the interests of the public by ensuring that all osteopaths maintain high standards of safety, competence and professional conduct throughout their professional lives. In order to be registered with the General Osteopathic Council an osteopath must hold a recognized qualification that meets the standards as set out by law in the GOsC's Standard of Practice.[69] This Act provides for "protection of title" A person who, whether expressly or implication describes himself as an osteopath, osteopathic practitioner, osteopathic physician, osteopathist, osteotherapist, or any kind of osteopath is guilty of an offence unless he is registered as an osteopath. There are currently approximately four thousand osteopaths registered in the UK.[70]

In the United Kingdom, courses in Osteopathy have recently become integrated into the university system. Instead of receiving a Diploma in Osteopathy (DO), with or without a Diploma in Naturopathy (ND), graduates now become Masters or Bachelors of Osteopathy, or Osteopathic Medicine, (BOst or MOst) or else Bachelors of Science (BSc) in Osteopathy or Osteopathic Medicine, according to the institution attended:[71] in this case osteopathy and osteopathic medicine are synonymous, but these degrees do not lead to prescribing rights.

The recognition of osteopathy also means that doctors can now refer patients to osteopaths for treatment with the transfer of clinical responsibility rather than simply delegating the responsibility for care, as is the case with other healthcare professionals. It may or may not be a covered benefit under the National Health Service depending on where in the UK you may live.[72]

Osteopathic medicine is regulated by the General Osteopathic Council (GOsC) under the terms of the Osteopaths Act 1993 and statement from the GMC. The London College of Osteopathic Medicine,[73] teaches osteopathy only to those who are already physicians.

Foreign-trained osteopathic physicians, who are registered with the GMC and GOsC, hold both a full medical practice and osteopathic license. Each applicant will have to pass the Professional and Linguistic Assessment Board test (PLAB) and work for one supervised year in the National Health Service (NHS). Following that year, the applicants will be able to apply for full registration (unsupervised practice or private practice). If the physician is already a specialist, postgraduate training will need to be separately recognized by the GMC.[74]

====================================================

didn't say Philben when a fake doctor. Clearly in the US, he was allowed to call himself a doctor. My point was that Osteopaths are quacks who lobbied hard and won the right to be called doctors in the US. The rest of world has correctly denied them that right. / Parker post # 124

================================

??? GAAL

Edited May 18, 2015 by Steven Gaal

[Greg Parker]

Just out of idle curiosity Steve, how often do you use wikipedia as a source?

If I cited it for the assassination, would that be okay by you? You accept it as gospel truth?

Well, one wiki article deserves another, imo.

By the 1950s, osteopathic physicians (D.O.) were numerous in California compared to their Doctor of Medicine (M.D.) counterparts, since the medical school at University of California, Irvine was an osteopathic medical school. Nevertheless, osteopathic physicians began to feel victimized by the national image of osteopathic medicine, particularly from those MDs who viewed colleges of osteopathic medicine as teaching "cultist healing."^[1]

Leaders of the California Medical Association (CMA) and the California Osteopathic Association (COA) met secretly behind closed doors in the late 1950s to discuss a potential merger between the two medical groups. By May 1961, a contract between CMA and COA was ready to be voted on by their respective House of Delegates. As part of the merger, which was approved in 1962, all graduates from the College of Osteopathic Physicians and Surgeons (COP&S) as well as DOs who held a valid license in the state would be awarded a Doctor of Medicine degree. Further, those DOs who accepted the MD degree could no longer identify themselves as osteopathic physicians.^[1]

As part of the merger agreement, COP&S was renamed as the California College of Medicine and accredited as a MD degree granting institution. Additionally, an initiative, proposition 22, was placed on the state ballot during the November 1962 elections that would limit the osteopathic state licensing board from administering new licensing. It could still renew licenses of DOs until the number of practicing DOs diminished to less than 40, at which time it would be dissolved and the remaining DOs transferred to the jurisdiction of the state medical licensing board.^[1]

Meanwhile, the California College of Medicine was adopted by the University of California Regents in 1964 and placed on their Irvine campus in 1968. Ex-DO faculty that received the MD degree in 1962 taught alongside congenital MD faculty for several decades henceforth. In 2007 the college's name was again changed to the University of California Irvine, School of Medicine.

The California Medical Association (CMA) issued MD degrees to all DOs in the state of California for a nominal fee. "By attending a short seminar and paying $65, a doctor of osteopathy (now Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine) (DO) could obtain an MD degree; 86 percent of the DOs in the state (out of a total of about 2000) chose to do so."^[2]It also placed a ban on issuing physician licenses to DOs moving to California from other states. However, the decision proved to be controversial.

In 1974, after protest and lobbying by influential and prominent DOs, the California Supreme Court ruled in Osteopathic Physicians and Surgeons of California v. California Medical Association, that licensing of DOs in that state must be resumed.^[3]

Today, the Medical Board of California,^[4] which licenses M.D.s and International Medical School Graduates (M.B.B.S. / M.D.), and the Osteopathic Medical Board of California,^[5] which licenses D.O.s whose degree was obtained from an American Osteopathic Association (AOA) approved Medical School, operate as separate Medical Licensing Institutions.

And just for good measure, here's a passage from a book on the history of Osteopathy by Emmons Rutledge Booth

"In 1901 the osteopaths of Oklahoma had hard work to prevent the passasge of a medical bill aimed to exclude them the territory. In 1903, they secured the passage of an osteopathic bill by a vote in the upper house of 11 to 1 and unanimously in the lower house..."

What happened in Oklahoma was replicated in just about all states. The power of money and influence over good and sensible policy.

Edited May 18, 2015 by Greg Parker

[Steven Gaal]

wiki

]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]

The new profession faced stiff opposition from the medical establishment at the time. The relationship of the osteopathic and medical professions was often "bitterly contentious"[19] and involved "strong efforts" by medical organizations to discredit osteopathic medicine.[38] Throughout the first half of the twentieth century, the policy of the American Medical Association labeled osteopathic medicine as a cult and osteopaths were seen as "cultist." The AMA code of ethics declared it unethical for a medical physician to voluntarily associate with an osteopath.[34][39]

To ask a doctor's opinion of osteopathy is equivalent to going to Satan for information about Christianity."

Mark Twain, 1901

=

One notable advocate for the fledgling movement was Mark Twain. Manipulative treatments had purportedly alleviated the symptoms of his daughter Jean's epilepsy as well as Twain's own chronic bronchitis. In 1909, he spoke before the New York State Assembly at a hearing regarding the practice of osteopathy in the state. "I don't know as I cared much about these osteopaths until I heard you were going to drive them out of the state, but since I heard that I haven't been able to sleep." Philosophically opposed to the American Medical Association's stance that its own type of medical practice was the only legitimate one, he spoke in favor of licensing for osteopaths. Physicians from the New York County Medical Society responded with a vigorous attack on Twain, who retorted with "[t]he physicians think they are moved by regard for the best interests of the public. Isn't there a little touch of self-interest back of it all?" "... The objection is, people are curing people without a license and you are afraid it will bust up business."[40] (YES follow the $$$ Gaal )

--------------------------------------------------------------------o0o----------------------------------------------------------

Its been a fight for all types of medical treatment. THATS real deep history. One type fight another .(GAAL)

Chiropractors and Naturopaths - Are They Dangerous?

December 30, 2011 | MERCOLA

By Dr. Mercola

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The medical profession has a long history of opposing alternative healing professions.

While always claiming public safety as its reason for the attacks, the true reasons often involve protecting their monopoly of the healthcare market.

Medicine's opposition to chiropractic was its strongest under the leadership of Morris Fishbein, Secretary of the American Medical Association from 1924 to 1949, who led a 50-year anti-chiropractic campaign in both professional publications and the public media.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Historical Antitrust Lawsuits Against Medical Societies

In 1975 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the case of Goldfarb vs. the Virginia State Bar, that learned professions are not exempt from antitrust suits.

In 1982 the Court ruled that the FTC could enforce antitrust laws against medical societies.

These two suits paved the way for five chiropractors to file an anti-trust suit against the American Medical Association (AMA) and several other heath care agencies and societies in Federal District Court (known as the Wilkes Case).

Judge Susan Getzendanner found the AMA and others guilty of an illegal conspiracy against the chiropractic profession in September of 1987, ordering a permanent injunction against the AMA and forcing them to print the court's findings in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

Even with success of the Wilkes Case and other anti-trust litigation, the AMA continues to this day to wage a campaign against chiropractic.

The American Medical Association (AMA) has maintained a decades-long battle against "alternative" healing traditions, dating back to the 1920s and arguably even earlier. The courts eventually ruled in favor of the chiropractors in 1987, finding the AMA guilty of a conspiracy to take down the chiropractic profession, as the above article recounts in detail.

But was this the end of it? Has the AMA resigned itself to the fact that chiropractic, as well as other forms of natural medicine, are here to stay? Not a chance.

-----------------------------

The AMA's Bedfellows

Even with the success of the Wilkes Case, the AMA has continued to wage war against natural medicine for the past 20 years—but in more covert ways. It's the "Cold War" phase of this battle, but every bit as fierce. And now the AMA has rallied up a few significant allies, including:
•The American Dental Association (ADA)
•The American Cancer Society (ACS)
•The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), and
•The American Psychiatric Association (APA)

… not to mention governmental regulatory agencies; all willing to march toward a common goal—a monopoly on medical care in this country. Together, they form a formidable lobbying force that controls just about every regulatory and legislative body in America. The truth is that chiropractic, naturopathic, and osteopathic medicine have PROVEN to be medically effective and cost effective for the patient, and the AMA can't stomach this, viewing natural medicine as a huge threat to their bottom line.

Federal Courts Rule AMA "Guilty as Charged"

In 1987, the federal courts found the AMA and several other medical groups guilty of seeking to create a healthcare monopoly. Specifically, they were found guilty of the following actions (published in the January 1988 issue of JAMA):
1.Systematic defamation of naturopathic, chiropractic, and osteopathic physicians
2.Publishing and distribution of propaganda specifically intended to ruin other healthcare professionals' reputations
3.Forcing MDs to refuse collaboration with naturopathic, chiropractic, and osteopathic physicians in the co-management of patients
4.Denying hospital access to naturopathic, chiropractic, and osteopathic physicians

The attack on osteopathic medicine has largely faded away since then, but chiropractic and naturopathic practitioners, as well as other legitimate natural medicine practitioners, continue to be the targets of suppression and misrepresentation. The war isn't over, but the rules of engagement have changed.

-----------------------------------------------------

AMA Declares New War on Natural Medicine in 2006

In 2006, the AMA declared war on natural medicine by publicly stating on its website its intention to forcibly oppose licensure and practice of naturopathic physicians. Although they quickly removed this from their site, the following is a direct quote from that post, according to Naturopathy Digest:

"RESOLVED, That our American Medical Association work through its Board of Trustees to outline a policy opposing the licensure of naturopaths to practice medicine and report this policy to the House of Delegates no later than the 2006 Interim Meeting. (Directive to Take Action) Fiscal Note: Implement accordingly at estimated staff cost of $10,836."

Translation: Eliminate the competition.

According to The Integrator Blog, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) joined the battle with a statement that their goal was to "thwart the growing threat of expansion of scope of practice for allied health professionals" and included psychologists on the list of medical practitioners who needed to be "thwarted" (in addition to naturopaths, chiropractors, and midwives). The APA pledged their allegiance to the AMA in assisting them with "coordinating research to help medical specialty societies and state medical associations fight expansions in non-medical scope of practice, and improve information sharing among those groups."

Other medical associations have made similar pledges, such as the Minnesota Medical Association and the New York Academy of Family Physicians. They maintain that their position is based on concern for quality of care and patient safety, but the REAL agenda is just an attempt to destroy the competition.

As Chiropractor Louis Sportelli writes in his 2010 article in Dynamic Chiropractic:

"Just look around and you will see clear and compelling evidence that the long-standing war between the AMA and everyone else who does not come under the AMA umbrella is far from over. The names have changed, the venue has changed, but the intent has remained the same: to maintain monopolistic control over the delivery of health care."

Old Mission, New Tactics: AMA Learns How to Discriminate with Impunity

In 2010, the AMA House of Delegates introduced a resolution regarding scope of practice that contains limitations on who can be considered a legitimate physician, and who can medically diagnose. Specifically, the AMA's "Definition of a Physician" (H-405.969) contains the following language:

"The AMA affirms that a physician is an individual who has received a 'Doctor of Medicine' or a 'Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine' degree."

This is proof, without a doubt, that the AMA as well as individual state medical associations intend to continue doing everything they can to prevent you from accessing natural healthcare. Texas and Connecticut medical associations were the first to join the cause, and others will likely follow. Similarly, the AMA's "Comprehensive Physical Examination by Appropriate Practitioners" reads as follows:

"…the performance of comprehensive physical examinations to diagnose medical conditions [should be limited] to licensed MDs/DOs or those practitioners who are directly supervised by licensed MDs/DOs."

======

State Medical Associations Jumping on Board

In 2010, the Texas Medical Board of Examiners filed an action against the Texas Chiropractic Board of Examiners challenging the authority of DCs (Doctors of Chiropractic) to perform some of their medical procedures, and challenging their authority to diagnose. How can medical associations get away with such shenanigans now, when they were given such a clear message to back off in the injunction of 1987? After all, these are very similar tactics to what they were found guilty of back in 1987.

Well, according to Sportelli, the AMA has learned some lessons about how to beat the law—loopholes that allow them to go on the attack while sidestepping "restraint of trade" or "illegal boycott" violations:

"It [AMA] now understands that government action is protected under the Constitution, as is action in petitioning the government. It can lawfully petition local, state and federal legislators and attempt to influence any legislation without fear of committing actionable restraint of trade or illegal boycott. (However, the AMA does seem to be getting dangerously close with its resolution regarding the "definition of a physician," in that it appears to involve hospital action without the intervention of government.)"

And what does one need in order to effectively influence the government? Money. This is something the AMA has—and piles of it. Sportelli goes on to say that the medical industry is likely gearing up for a 50-state effort to put non-MD/DO physicians out of business. And this means fewer choices about your own medical care.

Profit Motives Cleverly Disguised as Concern for Your Health and Safety

According to Naturopathy Digest, the AMA and other medical groups justify their opposition to natural medicine on the basis of three areas of concern:
1.Quality of patient care
2.Patient safety
3.Quality of education of medical practitioners

As the article so eloquently points out, none of these arguments holds up, and most are based on medical and pharmaceutical industry propaganda. If they were TRULY concerned about patient care and safety, they would not be targeting natural medicine, which has an incredibly low incidence of adverse consequences, but instead going after their own allopathic medical practices that are leaving a trail of death and destruction.

Drug "side effects", prescription errors, unnecessary surgeries, nosocomial infections, and hospital "errors" are a leading cause of death in the United States. In fact, one estimate is that allopathic medicine kills 493 American patients daily. The number of people who die each week as a result of medical treatments surpasses the number of deaths caused by the September 11th terrorist attacks.

Yes, each and every week!

Many of the drugs advertised in JAMA (the AMA's scientific journal) are the very same drugs that are killing tens of thousands of Americans each year. This massive funding of the AMA by drug companies is a blatant conflict of interest. If the AMA really cared about your safety, they'd be putting their substantial assets into overhauling the American healthcare system. The AMA is fond of lambasting the education and training of chiropractors, when in actuality, they should be more concerned about the educational qualifications of their own physicians. In their own publications, they have stated:

"Medical education is failing to prepare students adequately for their future practice… medical education is currently being held together with peanut butter and bubble gum."

At least four consecutive studies have documented that most MDs are incompetent when it comes to diagnosing and treating musculoskeletal problems, something at which chiropractors excel. Another example of an abysmal lack of education of Western physicians is in the area of diet and nutrition. The AMA itself has published research showing that dietary interventions should be used before drugs in the treatment of heart disease. Yet, medical students receive virtually NO training in nutrition. Naturopathic and chiropractic physicians, on the other hand, are usually well versed in the importance of nutrition and exercise.

================

It's Not Just the AMA

-

Perhaps it's time to take a real look at medical associations, and the concern that they may be doing more harm than good. For groups who claim to exist in order to protect your health, they inevitably end up sabotaging it. It isn't just the AMA. Other medical associations that claim to exist for the betterment of public health include the following:
•American Dental Association (ADA): Continues to support the use of mercury fillings and demonizes biological dentists who oppose the use of mercury in dentistry; continues to support fluoridation, in spite of the evidence it does more harm than good.
•American Cancer Society (ACS): This charity has close ties to the mammography industry, the cancer drug industry, and the pesticide industry; has rampant conflicts of interest; consistently promotes drugs and screening procedures while ignoring environmental causes of cancer.
•National Cancer Institute (NCI): Has spent billions of taxpayer dollars promoting treatments while ignoring strategies for preventing cancer; abundant ties to the cancer drug industry (for more information, read Samuel Epstein's new book, National Cancer Institute and American Cancer Society: Criminal Indifference to Cancer Prevention and Conflicts of Interest)
•American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP): Claiming to be protecting your children, the AAP is largely funded by vaccine manufacturers but refuses to disclose just how much money it gets from them; partners with Congress to protect pediatricians and drug companies from liability for vaccine injuries, while preventing you from getting truthful vaccine information.

Edited May 18, 2015 by Steven Gaal