It is starting to disturb me that there is large number of osteopathic physicians and students who say that manipulation should be used because "they believe that it works." Maybe it's just a semantics issue. I "believe" that manipulation works, but that's no reason to use it. I plan to use it because in some cases I "know" that it works, and in others, I "think" that it works. I realize the philosophical problem of using the word "know", so I'll define it for this purpose. "Know" means that it has been demonstrated in multiple, well-designed studies. "Think" means it has been demonstrated in a single, well-designed study, or at least documented in innumerous patient encounters. And I don't want to hear the BS about "it's hard to design a test for manipulation." That's just a cop-out. Pain is hard to quantify in studies, but it is done routinely. Manual care is subject to the one performing it, but that doesn't preclude a well-designed single-blind study, using the subjects as their own controls. Osteopathy has been around for 128 years. That's more than enough time to get away from the "belief" that manipulation works, and on to the "proof" that it works. (I know, I know. "Proof" is a tricky word. Again, semantics. Different topic.) Osteopathy is not aurveydic medicine, it is not oriental medicine, it is not Native American medicine. All of these are important forms of health care for their people. Osteopathy is western science-based. If you don't believe me, dig up Ol' A.T. himself & ask him.