Convince the rest of the world of what!? I think a great part of the "problem" is that, just as it is difficult to explain certain medical concepts to PhDs, not because they aren't intelligent or can't understand them, but because they didn't go to medical school and, therefore, do not really speak the same language as a physician if you will, in the same way, it is difficult to "explain" or "prove" OMT and osteopathic theory to an MD, in 5 minutes or less. The "proof" for OMT comes, and for the most part has presented a strong body or research not only from osteopathic medical schools, but also from others school who engage in manual therapy, such as physiatry, chripractic and physical therapy.There are research articles regarding the efficacy of specific manual therapies,but the articles are limited to the non-mainstream osteopathic literature, as well as the literature of other manual medicine journals. Most MDs arent even sure of what physiatry is, and it is the closest thing among MDs to OMT. As far as the philosophy, prevention and a holistic approach are now en vogue among allopathic schools. The difference is now historical; they were always enunciated by osteopathic medicine, from its inception. As far as the amazing moment when "DOs prove the somatic dysfunction and the OMT technique that fixed it" to the world, it's not going to happen that way. MD's don't recognize somatic dysfunctions in their patients because they can't; they were never trained to. What is evident to a DO as a somatic dysfunction, in the presence of a universally-recongized pathphysiologic state, will go unseen by the MD (and many a DO's) untrained (or long-forgotten) eye. There is no magic to OMT, there is no voodoo, there is long hours of skill-development and a different focus on the physical exam. It's like teaching Spanish literature to a student who only speaks English. I work with an MD internist who is "amazed" every time I treat thoracic outlet syndrome or a headache using OMT. Meanwhile, I know many an FAAO would probably "kringe" at my comparably rustic technique, compared to their skill. It is all realtive. I think the osteopathic profession should stop trying to "prove" OMT to the allopathic world. Personally, I think MDs should learn OMT. It is as valid as surgery or Ob. How do you do Surgery research? By introducing a new surgical approach. And, at first, only a handful of surgeons are apt enough to perform the new technique. Once it is shown to "work" ie; patients get better, more and more surgeons learn it. Same with OMT. At first the technique developers are good at it. After it proves itself to work on patients, then other DOs learn it. THe proof is in the results. It is easier to compare OMT to surgery than pharmacology. As such, OMT research should follow those lines, rather than trying to mimic pharmacologic research.