000043514 001__ 43514
000043514 005__ 20240718125427.0
000043514 0247_ $$2doi$$a10.6083/bpxhc43514
000043514 041__ $$aeng
000043514 245__ $$aOsteopathy and its aspect to public health
000043514 260__ $$bUniversity of Oregon
000043514 269__ $$a1925-1926
000043514 336__ $$aThesis
000043514 520__ $$aRegarding the allopath’s outlook upon osteopathy, the osteopath points to the decision of the Supreme Court of Missouri that one school of practice is incompetent to testify against another. This decision covers the point of allopathic testimony versus osteopathic. Even though this seems to be regarded by the osteopathic profession as a victory, by no means can it justly be considered as such. No court will admit what is legally termed prejudice to testimony, no matter what may be the subject under consideration. Such a decision merely emphasizes the fact that prejudice exists between the allopath and osteopath. In an effort to free my remarks as far as possible from such prejudice, I Shall let their own authorities speak for them. 
000043514 540__ $$fCC BY
000043514 542__ $$fPublic domain
000043514 650__ $$aOsteopathic Physicians$$038264
000043514 650__ $$aPublic Health$$024885
000043514 650__ $$aOsteopathic Medicine$$023356
000043514 6531_ $$aallopath
000043514 691__ $$aUniversity of Oregon. Medical School.
000043514 692__ $$aDepartment of Bacteriology, Hygiene and Public Health
000043514 7001_ $$aGrow, Horace M. C.$$uUniversity of Oregon$$041359
000043514 8564_ $$9040c94f6-94e4-4789-86b4-f29c713aa8f2$$s2539436$$uhttps://digitalcollections.ohsu.edu/record/43514/files/Grow.Horace.ETD.pdf
000043514 909CO $$ooai:digitalcollections.ohsu.edu:43514$$pstudent-work
000043514 980__ $$aTheses and Dissertations