The point you are missing is this; It does not matter how long you've spent at Uni, it does not matter how much knowledge you have on the human body; this does not alter the fact that chiropractic has never been demonstrated to alter the course of any specific disease entity. Conventional medicine has.
Providing chiropractors stay within their realms of minor muscklo-skeletal problems, I have no specific issue with them. Any that make claims beyond this, in particular subluxations are...
1. Dishonest lying
2. Need psychiatric evaluation
Conventional medicine isn't the leading cause of death either, stop lying. MDs training does not just focus on Pharmaceuticals. Thats a big misconception.
And you aren't doing the chiropractic world any favors either. Attempting to justify the lack of evidence base for chiropractic with a conspiracy theory is just childish. Also, in most of Europe, Pharmaceutical companies have nothing to do with medical schools. And even if they do provide funding to some medical school, this does not make conventional medicine wrong and this STILL does not demonstrate efficacy of Chiropractic.
Your attitude and general opinion of MDs and conventional medicine is part of the reason why chiropractic isn't taken seriously in the medical and scientific community.
============================================
@ Onlymatch4u: There are multiple logical problems with the data you’ve quoted, or rather your interpretation of it. And the use of it in your argument against conventional medicine. I’m at work and we are quite busy so I haven’t got time to have a proper look at your source, but it’s likely that most of the figures you have quoted have been extrapolated.
Regardless of numbers, the problem is this, it’s fallacious to list the negatives without listing the benefits. You have to include the denominator. Unless you include the benefits of conventional medicine, how can you determine that conventional medicine does more harm than good?
How many people owe their lives to conventional medicine? How many peoples lives and quality of life has been prolonged and improved with conventional medicine? Just because conventional medicine has the ability to be harmful and medical errors have been made, does not mean we should abandon conventional medicine and ignore all the benefits- which by far outweigh the risks. Of the people who died as a result of medical negligence, error and drug reactions, how many of those would have died anyway? Ex: technically speaking, hypoglycaemia as a result of insulin, can be classed as an adverse drug reaction, however without the insulin, the patient would die anyway.
Lets take food for example. I, like many people, have a severe allergy to peanuts, if I eat peanuts I would go into anaphylactic shock and without urgent intervention, likely die. Should we ban peanuts too?
Even if conventional medicine killed everyone, this STILL does not demonstrate efficacy of Altmed. Yes homeopathy, etc does not cause side effects, water in normal amounts generally doesn’t, however it does not work either. You cannot determine one is better on the basis it causes less side effects.
You mentioned heart disease, cancer and stroke.Heart disease ( in particular CAD) and cardiovascular events such as MIs and strokes often as a result of it, are to a certain extent a natural part of the ageing process. We are all living longer, so we are bound to see increased instances of these diseases and events. Also, in the case of CAD and a few other chronic diseases, an unhealthy diet and lifestyle (e.g. excess alcohol and food consumption, smoking and lack of exercise) accelerate these problems. Just because conventional medicine cannot undo some of the damage we cause ourselves (I’m not saying all these diseases are a result of damage we cause), does not equate to conventional medicine fail. Cancer is a disease of ageing and the majority of cancers are diagnosed in older people. However, other factors such as genetics, viruses, enviromental factors etc come into play. Just because we cannot cure all cancers, does not equate to conventional medicine fail.
With regards to antibiotics, yes, Doctors were incorrectly prescribing antibiotics for infections that were often of viral origin (e.g. many throat and upper respiratory infections)and this has indeed contributed towards antibiotic resistance. However, steps have been put in place to reduce the number of unnecessary Rx. Again this does not equate to conventional medicine fail. And its not as simple as that either, you haven’t taken patient non -compliance into consideration and numerous other factors.
Finally you haven’t presented any evidence that contradicts what I have said about chiropractic and there have indeed been documented cases of chiropractic causing strokes due to neck adjustments.
Conventional medicine unquestionably has it's limitations, but it is increasing based on evidence and reproducible results. And consider this: conventional medicine actually bothers to review and discards treatments shown to be ineffective. The alties seldom to the same and apparently have never heard of the concept of quality improvement.
FAIL.