Charles & Harry Still: A Legacy Rooted in Osteopathy’s Rise

Introduction – An Osteopathic Dynasty

Osteopathy, as founded by Andrew Taylor Still, was not simply transmitted by manuals or protocols. Above all, it was transmitted through an art of connection , between generations, between visions, and between minds. The relationship he maintained with his sons, Charles E. Still and Harry M. Still , perfectly illustrates this living transmission , based not on imposition, but on shared wisdom , mutual respect , and a profound recognition of intellectual autonomy .

Andrew Taylor Still, a man both rigorous and visionary, knew that the sustainability of his vision depended on his ability to trust . He did not seek to create simple disciples, but enlightened successors , capable of developing osteopathy in a constantly changing world. It is with this in mind that he raised his sons, considering them from a very young age as partners in the making , free spirits to whom he offered a solid foundation… but never a cage.

This particular dynamic between father and son is reflected in an emblematic anecdote: while one day observing Charles practicing a technique slightly different from his own, Still did not correct him. He simply said:

“If your mind and hands have led you there honestly, then you are on your own path.”

This sentence alone sums up the essence of transmission according to Still : knowledge is only worth it if it allows the other to discover himself. In other words, to transmit is not to duplicate, it is to accompany a metamorphosis , leaving room for experimentation, error, and creativity.

Charles and Harry M. Still evolved in a climate of listening , constructive doubt , and constant dialogue . Their family exchanges were not only medical. They were philosophical, human, and sometimes even spiritual. The Still household was a place of clinical observation… but also of self-observation.

This transmission was therefore made on several levels : technical, certainly, but also ethical, relational and philosophical. Andrew Taylor Still bequeathed to them a vision of health , but above all, a way of inhabiting care . An inner posture. A relationship with the living.

Even today, this unique bond between father and son remains an inspiring model for all osteopaths . It reminds us that transmission is not measured by the number of techniques taught, but by the quality of presence , the depth of exchange , and the ability to trust those who continue the path.

By passing on this wisdom, Andrew Taylor Still didn’t just train his sons. He planted a seed of osteopathic wisdom that continues to spread well beyond the generations.

The Art of Passing On: The Bond Between Father and Son

The transmission of knowledge is much more than simply passing on knowledge. It is a living act, a dynamic movement between the giver and the receiver. In the history of osteopathy, the relationship between Andrew Taylor Still and his sons, Charles E. Still and Harry M. Still, is a remarkable illustration of this. It testifies to a model of transmission based not on authority or repetition, but on trust, dialogue, and freedom of thought .

Andrew Taylor Still, physician, researcher, and founder of osteopathy, possessed a resolutely innovative vision of health. But what distinguishes his approach is his approach to teaching : he did not want to train imitators, but free spirits capable of enriching his vision. In this context, his own children were not submissive students, but partners in training, living heirs of his thinking .

Charles and Harry grew up in the intellectual ferment of a changing era. In the Still household, the body was discussed as a whole, classical medicine was questioned, observed, felt, and discussed relentlessly. It was not a classical academic training, but a deep immersion in a philosophy of care .

Still was a demanding man, but deeply respectful of each individual’s process. He allowed his sons to experiment, make mistakes, and find their own answers. An anecdote reported by several sources evokes a symbolic moment: seeing his son Charles apply a technique different from the one he was teaching, Still did not express disapproval. He is said to have simply stated:

“Let your hands learn, and your mind will follow.”This seemingly simple phrase captures the entire philosophy of empowerment that characterized his teaching.

According to Andrew Taylor Still, transmission was not top-down; it was circular . He firmly believed that each practitioner must appropriate the principles of osteopathy to fully embody them. Charles and Harry were not copies of their father. They were sensitive interpreters , each bringing their own nuance, their own approach, their own tone.

Charles E. Still, in particular, distinguished himself by his academic rigor and his desire to structure osteopathic training. He helped lay the foundations for a more organized teaching style, without ever denying the foundations laid by his father. As for Harry M. Still, more discreet, he distinguished himself by his spirit of research and his desire to bring osteopathy and emerging medicine into dialogue, in a resolutely integrative approach.

In father-son relationships, there is often a mixture of admiration and a desire to differentiate. But in the Stills’ case, a profound intellectual harmony prevails. A complicity based on the idea that truth is never fixed, and that care cannot be transmitted without relational intelligence .

This bond between the founder and his sons goes beyond the family. It embodies an ethical model of transmission for the entire osteopathic profession. Transmission is not about transmitting fixed techniques, but living principles , adaptable, questioned, and implemented with discernment. It is also about transmitting a relationship with others, a respect for the body, and listening to the being in its entirety.

By cultivating this approach, Still not only transmitted knowledge, but a way of being in the world , a sensitive relationship with the living. This is what makes his transmission a lasting work. And it is this same vision, nourished by the intellectual autonomy of his sons, which continues to inspire osteopaths today.

Charles E. Still: The Passer of Knowledge

A discreet builder in the service of a living ideal

In the history of osteopathy, some names shine through the strength of their ideas, others through their ability to make a legacy bear fruit. Charles E. Still admirably embodies this second path. The eldest son of Andrew Taylor Still, he not only received a medical legacy: he was its demanding guardian, its enlightened disseminator , its patient teacher. If the founder laid the foundations of a new medicine, Charles was its discreet, but essential architect.

From a young age, Charles was immersed in the bustling world of Kirksville, Missouri. He grew up surrounded by patients from all over the country and passionate discussions about structure, function, and the subtle connections between body and mind. But unlike his father, Charles wasn’t a man of rupture. He was a man of construction , consistency, and continuity. He understood that for osteopathy to survive its father figure, it would have to be organized, structured, and made teachable without being rigid.

Through his involvement with the American School of Osteopathy, Charles played a silent pivotal role . He created a solid educational framework there, emphasizing rigorous training that was both faithful to the founding principles and open to the scientific advances of his time. Unlike some proponents of rigid dogmatism, he advocated for an evolutionary osteopathy , nourished by clinical observation, rigorous study, and constant questioning.

His strength ? A rare ability to transmit without betrayal. He does not seek to innovate to stand out, but to deepen in order to perpetuate. He sees in the repetition of gestures, in the refinement of clinical protocols, a way to honor tradition while making it useful to future generations .

Charles E. Still also embodies a philosophy of care centered on the person , in their totality. He never saw the patient as a simple body to be treated, but as a complex being, traversed by emotions, memories and forces in tension. He encourages his students to develop a sensitive intelligence , a listening to the tissues and the person, to move away from mechanical treatment to enter into a living therapeutic relationship.

His work of transmission was not limited to academic teaching. He also worked to enhance the image of osteopathy among medical authorities and the public, contributing to the growing recognition of the profession in the United States. Through his writings, his lectures, and above all through his profoundly human stance, he embodied a noble and demanding vision of the osteopath: neither technician nor guru , but craftsman of the living, at the service of care.

Many saw him as his father’s true successor , not because he had the charismatic stature, but because he ensured his father’s longevity. He understood that great ideas only survive if they become practices that are transmitted, adapted, and embodied in everyday gestures.

Charles E. Still, in this sense, was a transmitter of knowledge, values, and meaning . He not only contributed to bringing osteopathy to life: he gave it a lasting framework, an educational spirit, and a profoundly human vision.

Even today, through the textbooks, schools, and generations of osteopaths he indirectly trained, his influence is felt. In the shadow of the flamboyant founder, Charles was the quiet light , the one that illuminates without burning, the one that guides without imposing. And perhaps that, deep down, is the most beautiful art of transmission.

The Vision of Charles E. Still

A holistic, sensitive and deeply human approach

Charles E. Still never saw osteopathy as a simple series of techniques to be applied, but as a therapeutic art deeply rooted in the holistic understanding of the human being. As opposed to a strictly biomechanical or symptomatic approach, he always defended the idea that care should begin with authentic listening to the patient in all their dimensions: bodily, emotional, mental, and relational.

Influenced from childhood by the teachings of his father, Andrew Taylor Still, Charles quickly integrated this notion of the body’s entirety and its interconnections. But he brought his own unique sensibility to it, tinged with clinical rigor, gentle teaching, and a deep respect for each patient’s individuality. For him, each consultation was an encounter, an opportunity to enter a person’s inner world to reveal their imbalances, but also their resources.

Charles insisted on the need to develop a quality of presence in the osteopath: to be there, fully, without judgment, in silent attention to the tissues, the breaths, the rhythms. This intuitive approach did not oppose medical rationality, but rather complemented it. He firmly believed that the osteopath’s hands should be guided as much by knowledge as by empathy.

His vision of care was also based on a dynamic concept of health: for Charles, health was not the absence of symptoms, but the body’s ability to adapt, to self-regulate, to regain its inner balance. He encouraged his students to observe the patient in their overall context: environment, emotions, diet, stress, lifestyle. Everything potentially carried information.

Charles E. Still was also one of the first to emphasize the importance of the psychological dimension in functional disorders. Long before psychosomatic medicine became a recognized field, he sensed that emotional tensions could imprint themselves on bodily tissues and generate lasting dysfunctions. He therefore encouraged careful listening to the patient’s story, their silences, their words laden with experience.

This holistic approach was not a theory for Charles, but an ethic of care. He saw the osteopath as a process guide, a facilitator of transformation, not a mechanical repairer. He taught his students humility toward the body, the importance of doubt, and the need to never stop learning, through contact with each patient.

Even today, this sensitive and deeply human vision of Charles E. Still resonates as a valuable guide for practitioners in search of meaning and authenticity. It reminds us that true osteopathy is not limited to the hands, but is rooted in the heart and mind of the person providing care.

The Contributions of Charles E. Still

Structuring, pedagogy and institutional recognition

If Andrew Taylor Still was the flamboyant inspiration behind osteopathy, Charles E. Still was its patient architect. His role goes beyond that of a mere heir: he transformed a pioneering vision into a structured, recognized, and sustainable discipline. Through his rigor, commitment, and keen understanding of educational and political issues, he gave osteopathy the academic and institutional foundations that allowed it to flourish far beyond the borders of Kirksville.

One of Charles’s first major contributions lay in the structuring of osteopathic knowledge. Aware that any emerging discipline needed a clear framework for its transmission, he undertook essential pedagogical formalization work. He helped codify his father’s teachings, organize them into coherent curricula, and establish rigorous academic standards. This initiative helped transform a medicine still perceived as marginal into a serious field of training, equipped with methods and assessments.

Charles was not just a teacher, but a visionary one. He understood that transmitting osteopathy was not simply a matter of teaching techniques, but of awakening a posture, a perspective, an ethic. He emphasized to his students the importance of listening to the body as a living whole, of integrating empathy with rigor, and of combining science with intuition. Under his leadership, the American School of Osteopathy became a true intellectual melting pot, combining tradition and openness to innovation.

This educational work, however, would not have been sufficient without a patient effort to secure institutional recognition. At a time when osteopathy aroused mistrust and skepticism in established medical circles, Charles made it his mission to defend and legitimize the discipline. He led numerous dialogues with educational and health authorities, participated in conferences, wrote founding texts, and actively contributed to the creation of regulatory frameworks that allowed osteopathy to become part of the official medical landscape.

It is thanks to his discreet but strategic work that osteopathy was recognized in several American states as a fully-fledged medical field, with its own schools, diplomas, and regulatory bodies. This recognition was neither immediate nor easy. It was the result of constant commitment, subtle diplomacy, and an ability to engage in dialogue with sometimes hostile interlocutors, without ever compromising the founding values ​​of osteopathy.

Finally, it should be noted that Charles E. Still never stuck to a dogmatic stance. True to his father’s spirit, he saw osteopathy as a living discipline, destined to evolve with scientific discoveries and the needs of society. He encouraged research, questioning, and constructive challenge. He laid the foundations for a teaching model that combines rigor and freedom, tradition and modernity.

In short, Charles E. Still’s contributions are immense: he gave osteopathy an institutional framework, academic legitimacy, and political visibility. But above all, he endowed it with a lasting educational impetus, training generations of practitioners capable of bringing to life, each in their own way, the original spirit of the discipline.

Even today, in schools, clinics, and offices, Charles E. Still’s influence continues to resonate, silent but powerful, like the beat of a founding heart.

Harry M. Still: The Innovator

The scientific breath of an emerging osteopathy

In Andrew Taylor Still’s shadow, there is another figure, often overlooked, but essential: Harry M. Still , the founder’s youngest son. Where Charles provided stability and structure, Harry brought fertile doubt, research, and a push toward the future. Together, they formed a remarkable balance: one kept the flame burning, the other fanned it so that it would grow.

Harry M. Still distinguished himself by an insatiable curiosity . Where some would have seen osteopathy as a closed system, he saw it as a field of exploration . Passionate about natural sciences, fascinated by the mechanics of life, Harry never stopped asking questions: Why does this gesture provide relief? What happens at the cellular level? How can palpation be linked to emerging physiology?

This constant questioning led him to an essential role: that of a bridge between osteopathic tradition and emerging biomedical research . In a world where medicine was becoming rapidly technological, Harry was able to preserve the manual essence of osteopathy while enriching it with a rigorous scientific approach .

He was not a radical reformer. He did not deny his father’s intuition, nor his sensitive approach to the body as a whole. But he understood that for this intuition to prevail in the medical world, it had to be tested, analyzed, and transmitted with evidence and protocols . He was one of the first to campaign for the integration of measuring instruments , systematic observations, and comparative studies into osteopathic training.

We owe him, among other things, the development of observation protocols intended to standardize osteopathic diagnoses without reducing them to cold mechanics. He knew that the subtlety of the hands had to meet the demands of the data. And in this balance, he was able to lay the first stones of an osteopathy open to research, to interdisciplinarity, to the medicine of tomorrow .

But Harry didn’t stop at technique. He also championed open-mindedness , collaboration between disciplines, and the breaking down of barriers between fields of knowledge. Where others saw osteopathy as an alternative, he saw it as a bridge . An interface capable of interacting with neurology, biology, and psychology—without dissolving each other, but enriching each other.

His vision of the structure-function relationship went beyond biomechanics. He perceived the organism as a complex , reactive, adaptable system, embedded in an environment that also had to be taken into account. In this, he announced, without saying so, the beginnings of today’s systemic and integrative approaches.

Harry M. Still may not have had the media following of his father or brother. But his scientific mind, his intellectual rigor, and his faith in living knowledge enabled osteopathy to withstand the headwinds of skepticism. He provided the discipline with a solid conceptual backbone and a horizon for growth.

More than an innovator, Harry was a pathfinder . He looked the future straight in the eye, without denying his roots. He knew how to honor the gesture while questioning it. And thanks to him, osteopathy was able to think of itself differently: not as a simple alternative, but as a discipline in permanent dialogue with the complexity of the human being .

The Vision of Harry M. Still

The integration of biomedical research and emerging sciences

Harry M. Still distinguished himself with an innovative, forward-looking, and resolutely scientific approach. While his father, Andrew Taylor Still, had paved the way for a medicine based on listening to the body and its capacity for self-healing, Harry saw in this philosophy a foundation that needed to be confronted with contemporary knowledge in order to evolve it. He was never content with simply preserving the osteopathic heritage: he sought to bring it into dialogue with the scientific advances of his time.

Endowed with a curious and rigorous mind, Harry M. Still was as interested in biology as he was in mechanics, embryology as he was in neurology. He perceived the human body as a complex living system, subject to dynamic interactions, and saw research as a means of better understanding the osteopathic principles at work. For him, clinical intuition should be enriched by a solid scientific basis, and empirical observation should be complemented by rigorous protocols.

With this in mind, he invested in the development of more refined analytical methods, better structured diagnoses, and evidence-based educational tools. He was one of the first to encourage the use of emerging technologies to objectify the effects of osteopathic treatments. In his writings and in his practice, he advocated for an osteopathy that does not reject science, but is a critical and inspired partner with it.

Harry M. Still also understood that for osteopathy to gain lasting traction, it had to cease being perceived as a marginal alternative. He therefore worked to build bridges between disciplines, convinced that interdisciplinary dialogue was essential to the recognition of osteopathy in the medical world. He promoted collaborations with researchers in physiology, internal medicine, and cognitive science—thus anticipating what is now called integrative medicine.

But beyond the scientific method, Harry held a profound vision of care as an act of understanding the living. For him, the osteopath had to be both a sensitive clinician and a thinker of the body, capable of questioning himself, opening himself to other paradigms, and evolving his practice. He rejected dogmas and certainties. He preferred hypotheses, observations, and constructive doubts.

This vision has enriched osteopathic practice with a foundation of scientific legitimacy without losing its soul. Harry M. Still never sacrificed human connection, subtle palpation, or listening to the patient. He simply wanted these dimensions to be better understood, better taught, and better defended in a world where medicine was becoming increasingly technological.

In short, Harry M. Still’s vision was that of a bridge. A bridge between tradition and modernity, between therapeutic intuition and scientific rigor, between man and his biological environment. Thanks to him, osteopathy has gained in depth, credibility, and the ability to engage with the challenges of his time—and ours.

A Brotherhood in the Service of the Living

Two paths, one star: making osteopathy a sustainable art

Charles and Harry. Two sons, two faces, two temperaments. And yet, the same inner fire: that of extending the visionary spirit of their father, Andrew Taylor Still. One a builder of institutions, the other a seeker of truths. One roots osteopathy in academic transmission, the other pushes it to question itself, to evolve, to confront reality.

Between them, there was no rivalry but a precious complementarity , like the two hemispheres of the same brain. Charles structured, trained, supervised; Harry explored, questioned, adapted. Together, they embodied this dynamic essential to any living discipline: the fertile tension between memory and momentum , between fidelity and innovation .

What unites them deeply, beyond roles and eras, is an ethic of care centered on the human being in his or her entirety . An osteopathy that does not treat a symptom but a person. That does not impose, but listens. That is not satisfied with certainties, but remains humble in the face of the complexity of life.

Their legacy is not limited to schools, texts, or protocols. It can be seen in every practitioner who today, in a consulting room, places an attentive hand on a suffering body. In every student who learns to feel rather than guess. In every therapist who chooses to combine heart and rigor.

The Still siblings remind us that osteopathy is a path. Not a fixed formula, but a perpetual movement, like life itself. Charles and Harry each understood this in their own way: one kept the fire burning, the other stoked the embers.

And thanks to them, this fire continues to burn.

The Contributions of Harry M. Still

Standardization, interdisciplinary and opening towards integrative medicine

Harry M. Still played a fundamental role in the evolution of osteopathy towards a more structured, scientific practice, and one that was more open to conventional medicine. While he often remained in the shadow of his father, Andrew Taylor Still, and his brother, Charles, his influence was nonetheless decisive in shaping the position of osteopathy at the dawn of the 20th century.

One of his major contributions lies in the standardization of diagnostic and therapeutic practices . Harry understood very early on that for osteopathy to gain credibility, it had to equip itself with reproducible clinical protocols, while preserving the intuitive richness of manual palpation. He therefore worked to develop analysis grids, observation methodologies, and decision-making processes to unify practices while leaving room for the practitioner’s sensitivity.

In this dynamic, he encouraged interdisciplinary research , establishing links with experts in anatomy, physiology, embryology, but also in psychology and social sciences. For him, the body could not be dissociated from its biological, psychological and social context. This global vision favored the emergence of an osteopathy capable of dialoguing with other medical disciplines, thus laying the foundations of a truly integrative approach.

Harry M. Still did not seek to oppose osteopathy to classical medicine. On the contrary, he campaigned for an opening towards integrative medicine , believing that each discipline could enrich the other. He defended the idea of ​​a partnership rather than a competition, arguing for the inclusion of osteopathy in global care protocols, particularly in the contexts of rehabilitation, chronic pain management, or support for the autonomic nervous system.

His work on the structure-function relationship , approached in a more physiological than metaphorical manner, has also contributed to repositioning osteopathy as a science of the living in movement, attentive to emerging data while remaining faithful to its manual essence.

Finally, Harry M. Still worked to train critical, open-minded, and curious practitioners. He encouraged the teaching of research from the earliest years of training, emphasizing the importance of documenting practices, publishing observations, and fostering a constant dialogue between theory and clinical experience.

Today, Harry M. Still’s influence can be found in institutions that value evidence-based practice , in curricula that integrate functional medicine , and in practitioners who place interdisciplinarity at the heart of their approach.

By laying the foundations for an osteopathy that was rigorous, open, and profoundly human, Harry M. Still helped broaden the profession’s horizons. Thanks to him, osteopathy has earned its place not on the fringes, but within the mainstream of contemporary conversations about integrative health.

A Living Legacy

A legacy that is still relevant, between memory and innovation

The history of osteopathy does not end with the lives of its pioneers. It continues in the hands of each practitioner, in the hearts of those who teach, and in the minds of those still exploring the foundations of this living medicine. The legacy of the Still family—from Andrew Taylor to his sons Charles E. Still and Harry M. Still—continues to inspire not nostalgia for the past, but a creative impulse toward the future.

The strength of this legacy lies in its dual nature : it is both a founding memory and an invitation to innovate. The principles established by Andrew Taylor Still, enriched by Charles’s pedagogical rigor and Harry’s scientific curiosity, today form a foundation that is both stable and fertile. An anchor… and a springboard.

In a constantly changing medical world, where health challenges are becoming increasingly complex, this holistic, relational, and integrative vision takes on striking relevance. The osteopathic approach, inherited from the Stills, reminds us that we are not treating a symptom, but an entire human being, embedded in their own history, environment, and dynamics.

The transmission of this heritage , today, is no longer done solely from father to son, but from master to student, from caregiver to caregiver, within communities of practice and teaching throughout the world. Each osteopath who takes the time to listen, to touch with attention, to think with humility, becomes in his own way the custodian of this living tradition.

But a legacy is not a museum. It is not frozen. It demands to be questioned, revisited, sometimes even shaken up. This is the richness of the example offered by Charles and Harry M. Still: they did not sanctify their father’s work, they extended it, transformed it, adapted it. They understood that fidelity and evolution are not opposed, but inseparable .

Today, osteopaths who explore neurophysiology, the links between trauma and structure, or the contributions of complexity sciences, follow in the Stills’ footsteps, not by reproducing their gestures, but by embodying their state of mind: rigor, curiosity, humanity.

In this sense, the Still family legacy is not just a chapter in the history of osteopathy. It is an inner posture , a call to cultivate a medicine of connection, coherence and life.

And as long as there are practitioners who interrogate the body with respect, who honor the patient’s experience, and who believe that the hand can be a bridge between suffering and relief, the Stills’ legacy will remain profoundly… alive.

Conclusion – An Inspiring Transmission for Today

How their model sheds light on the position of the contemporary caregiver

The Still family story is not just about the beginnings of osteopathy. It is a profoundly human story, one that still sheds light today on the role of the caregiver in all its richness and complexity. Through the figures of Andrew Taylor Still, Charles E. Still, and Harry M. Still, a true philosophy of transmission, care, and the therapeutic relationship emerges.

The model that the Stills have left us is based on three essential pillars: listening , autonomy , and the spirit of evolution .

First, listening. Not only to others—patients or students—but also to oneself. Andrew Taylor Still, by choosing to trust his sons, reminds us that caring or teaching is first and foremost about welcoming. It’s about creating a space where others can discover themselves, progress, and experiment. It’s about giving without imposing, supporting without directing. This stance of deep listening remains a central value in today’s care, at a time when medicine sometimes tends to become uniform.

Next, autonomy. Transmission, for the Stills, is never achieved through intellectual cloning. It is embodied in the ability to think for oneself, to adapt, to doubt. Charles and Harry were not the rigid guardians of a tradition; they were its living artisans, faithful to the spirit without being prisoners of the letter. This autonomy, conceived as a vector of growth, is at the heart of any contemporary therapeutic posture: being a caregiver also means being free to question oneself, to evolve, to challenge oneself.

Finally, the spirit of evolution. What the Stills’ trajectory teaches us is that no discipline can survive without movement. True fidelity consists not in repetition, but in deepening, adapting, and nourishing the living. Harry’s view of research, or Charles’s view of pedagogy, is a call to never freeze knowledge, but to bring it into dialogue with the world.

Today, in a context where healthcare is facing multiple challenges – technological, human, ethical – this model invites us to return to the essentials: care centered on the person, embodied transmission, medicine rooted in listening and open to the future .

The stance of the contemporary caregiver, in light of the Stills’ legacy, could be summed up as follows:
be present, be curious, be faithful to humanity.
And it is undoubtedly this, more than any technique, that makes a therapist great.

References

1. Andrew Taylor Still – Wikipedia

A comprehensive biography of the founder of osteopathy, covering his life, medical contributions, and major writings. 🔗 https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Taylor_Still

---

2. Charles E. Still and Harry M. Still: Family Heritage in Osteopathy – Osteomag

A detailed article on the role of Andrew Taylor Still’s sons in the evolution of osteopathy, between transmission, pedagogy, and innovation. 🔗 https://osteomag.ca/fr/charles-e-still-et-harry-m-still-lheritage-familial-en-osteopathie/

---

3. Autobiography of AT Still (1897) – Full text

The seminal work in which Still sets out his vision of medicine and the principles of osteopathy. 🔗 https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25864

---

4. History of Osteopathy – Archive.org

A historical reference work tracing the emergence of osteopathy and its development in the 20th century. 🔗 https://archive.org/details/historyofosteopa00bootuoft

---

5. Andrew Taylor Still and the Birth of Osteopathy – PubMed

An academic analysis of the ideological and cultural influences that have shaped osteopathic doctrine. 🔗 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12639626/