Geniosteo’s editorial and scientific charter

Geniosteo is a platform dedicated to osteopathy, its practice, its professional environment and its place in the healthcare system.

Our priority is patients’ interests, the quality of their care, and the search for what can reasonably be considered true in light of the available knowledge.

Our role is neither to defend osteopathy at any cost nor to repeat, without analysis, the positions of an institution, a profession, a learned society or an authority.

Osteopathy must be open to rigorous questioning, evaluation and criticism. It must also be defended when the facts, the law or the available evidence justify it.

This standard applies to all healthcare professions, institutions and practices.

A claim is examined according to its arguments, sources, context and available level of evidence.

A conclusion favourable to osteopathy receives no preferential treatment. Neither does an unfavourable conclusion.

When the facts support an osteopathic practice, Geniosteo must be able to say so clearly. When they contradict it or reveal a risk, Geniosteo must also be able to say so.

Our aim is not to be right from the outset. Our aim is to reach the most defensible conclusion.

Medical and scientific knowledge includes areas of uncertainty.

“We do not know yet” is a legitimate conclusion.

A lack of sufficient evidence of effectiveness does not automatically constitute evidence of ineffectiveness. Conversely, a lack of evidence of ineffectiveness is not evidence of effectiveness.

We distinguish between what is firmly established, probable, preliminary, controversial, insufficiently documented, contradicted by the best available evidence, or insufficiently studied.

Geniosteo refuses to turn uncertainty artificially into certainty, in either direction.

In healthcare, words have consequences. The certainty of the language must match the certainty of the knowledge.

• “not demonstrated” does not automatically mean “ineffective”;
• “limited evidence” does not mean “no effect”;
• “encouraging evidence” does not mean “demonstrated effectiveness”;
• “association” does not mean “causation”;
• “recommended” does not necessarily mean “mandatory”;
• “advised against” does not necessarily mean “prohibited”;
• “recommendation” does not mean “law”;
• “plausible hypothesis” does not mean “established fact”;
• “possible risk” does not mean “demonstrated danger”.

We reject shortcuts in language that give the reader more certainty than the facts allow.

An important claim must be placed in context.

Where relevant, Geniosteo seeks to identify the author or organisation, their profession, expertise, role, mandate, the organisation they represent, the date of their statement, the sources used, declared interests, and professional, economic or institutional interests that can be objectively documented.

This information helps us understand the context of a claim, never to refute it automatically.

A conflict of interest or connection does not mean someone is wrong. The absence of a conflict of interest does not mean they are right.

We document interests; we do not assume them.

Geniosteo rejects imputations of motive, insinuations, and the use of “lobby” as a mere discrediting label when no serious, documentable evidence supports it.

An institution may hold considerable regulatory, scientific or professional authority. That does not make its conclusions impossible to analyse or discuss.

When examining a recommendation or institutional position, we seek in particular to determine:

• what question was actually asked;
• what methodology was used;
• what evidence was examined;
• up to what date the literature was analysed;
• what its level of evidence was;
• what limitations were acknowledged;
• who took part in developing it;
• how interests were managed;
• what knowledge has been published since.

We also distinguish the actual powers of each actor: legislators, ministries, health authorities, regional health agencies (ARS), professional regulatory bodies, learned societies, unions, associations and other organisations.

The authority of the speaker does not replace the quality of the argument.

Geniosteo rejects double standards.

A claim favourable to osteopathy must be examined as rigorously as an unfavourable claim.

Conversely, osteopathy must not be held to a scientific or intellectual standard that is overlooked for other healthcare practices.

Medicine, surgery, physiotherapy, midwifery, psychology, nursing, osteopathy and other disciplines include practices with varying levels of evidence.

However, insufficient documentation of a practice in another profession never justifies lowering the standard applied to osteopathy.

The same question, the same standard, the same intellectual honesty.

Health sciences progress because hypotheses are proposed, studied, refuted, confirmed or modified.

A practice whose effectiveness has not yet been sufficiently demonstrated may deserve to be studied rather than rejected on principle.

This openness never gives a right to do anything one wishes. It must remain compatible with applicable law, professional competence, patient information, consent where required, professional ethics, the benefit–risk balance, referral to another professional when necessary, and avoiding a loss of opportunity for appropriate care.

Scientific uncertainty must never be used to delay a necessary diagnosis, divert a patient from a treatment with established benefit, or justify disproportionate risk.

Research involving human participants is also subject to specific legal and ethical frameworks.

Openness to progress never excludes caution.

Defending a profession only makes sense when it remains compatible with patients’ interests.

Geniosteo defends patients’ right to receive understandable and honest information, know the limits of available knowledge and relevant risks, avoid being misled by excessive promises, receive appropriate referrals, and access coordinated care when needed.

We also defend professionals when criticism, media coverage, an institutional position or an interpretation of evidence appears unjustified or disproportionate.

Patients and professionals should not be adversaries.

Patients’ health should not become a conflict over professional territories.

Doctors, physiotherapists, midwives, osteopaths and other professionals have different skills, responsibilities and scopes of practice that may complement one another.

Geniosteo encourages a culture in which professionals recognise their limits, identify warning signs, refer when necessary, communicate with each other, critically discuss their practices, share knowledge and develop their methods.

The confrontation of ideas is useful. Professional turf wars rarely are.

Rigour requires neither aggression nor contempt.

Geniosteo can firmly challenge a study, recommendation, institutional statement or practice without attacking the people who defend it.

An error does not necessarily imply bad intentions. Scientific disagreement is not a personal conflict. A profession cannot be reduced to the poor practices of some of its members.

We seek to understand before judging, demonstrate before accusing, explain before caricaturing, and correct without humiliating.

Kindness does not prohibit disagreement. It requires fairness in how it is expressed.

We do not consider work rigorous simply because it contains sources.

For controversial subjects, Geniosteo actively seeks evidence and arguments that could contradict its initial analysis.

What is the strongest argument against our own conclusion?

A conclusion that withstands a real examination of opposing arguments is stronger than one built solely from sources that support it.

Knowledge evolves.

A Geniosteo position may change when new evidence, better studies, regulatory developments or new information emerge.

Where relevant, our positions are dated and reassessed.

Changing a conclusion in response to better evidence is not a weakness. It is a basic requirement of an intellectually honest approach.

Seek the truth. Use precise language. Accept not knowing. Examine who is speaking and in what context. Document interests without imputing motives. Apply the same standards to everyone. Protect patients. Defend professionals when the facts justify it. Encourage collaboration. Criticise with kindness. And change our position when knowledge requires it.