Thanks very much for your comments; we are always open to hearing others' opinions on any of the numerous issues we tackle.

As you noted, we often cite Quackwatch. In the article you mention, there is a section entitled "Tips on Choosing a Chiropractor," which says, in part:

If you decide to consult a chiropractor, try to find one whose practice is limited to conservative treatment of musculoskeletal problems.... If the chiropractor claims to treat infections or a wide range of other diseases, look elsewhere.

And this addresses one of our primary concerns with chiropractic. We "medical types" (an interesting assumption on your part; apparently, you didn't bother to read anything on our site other than this Rant) are concerned with fraudulent claims made by members of a profession ostensibly dedicated to health care. You say:

Remove the fringe elements from our profession, refine our methods, and continue research.....this is the goal of a chriropractic degree at FSU.

Refine your methods? Continue research? Perhaps your methods and research should be up to snuff, scientifically, before being validated by a curriculum at an accredited university.

It also seems odd to us that what you seem to call the "fringe elements" are, in fact, the practitioners of chiropractic as it was conceived by Daniel David Palmer about a century ago. As Quackwatch's sister site, Chirobase, mentions:

[Palmer] concluded that "A subluxated vertebrae . . . is the cause of 95 percent of all diseases. . . . The other five percent is caused by displaced joints other than those of the vertebral column."

Ninety-five percent of all diseases, Palmer says, are caused by "a subluxated vertebrae" (we won't even bother to comment on his confusion between the singular and plural, or the fact that "subluxated" doesn't even seem to be a real word). We didn't make this up. Chirobase didn't make this up. Palmer himself concluded this in his The Science, Art and Philosophy of Chiropractic (1910). And this is the foundation of chiropractic that encourages many practitioners today to claim that they can pretty much cure anything. Chirobase does mention that...

Over the years, chiropractors have gone beyond Palmer's theories, although some still cling to them for dear life. Some describe subluxations as "bones out of place" and/or "pinched nerves"; some think in terms of "fixations" and/or loss of joint mobility; some occupy a middle ground that includes any or all of these concepts; and a small percentage renounce Palmer's notions as biotheistic nonsense.

[our emphasis]

So a very few chiropractors have admitted that the "cure-all" aspect of chiropractic is bullshit. Hey, we applaud them, and you, if you're one of them; but we still don't think it's a good idea to validate the many chiropractors who claim that they possess the ultimate cure to everything, just to offer a little ego boost to those chiropractors who understand the real limits of their knowledge and skills.

That's one thing this controversy seems to be about, honestly — the ego boost that comes along with the title of "doctor," and the public perception of what that title means.

Back in middle school, we had a teacher who held a doctorate degree — we naturally called him "Doctor K." At the gym where we work out, they have a chiropractor on staff — he calls himself (as it says on the window of his office) "Doctor G." The difference here is that, with our teacher, we had no confusion as to whether he could cure us of illness or disease — he wasn't that kind of doctor, and nobody thought he was. However, there is a tremendous expectation — on the part of the public — of anyone in the health care (or fitness) industry who claims the title of "doctor."

Dr. G. earned himself a bachelor's degree, and then an education in chiropractic. At no point has he earned a medical degree. The general public, unfortunately, would not be aware of this distinction, despite the controversy it has created within the health care industry. Because of this, it simply amounts to deception when Dr. G. calls himself "doctor" — because he works in health care, but does not have the knowledge or skills that the layman expects of someone with that title. (A competent medical specialist, such as a gastroenterologist, may not have "all" of the knowledge and skills that a layman expects of a "doctor" — but he does have all the medical knowledge and skills expected of his specialty.)

What kind of education does a chiropractor receive? As Chirobase points out, chiropractic schools are approved "by the two national chiropractic associations; none of the chiropractic schools is accredited by any recognized educational accrediting agency in the United States."

a definition of "spurious" degrees was obtained from the Office of Education of the US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. In "Academic Degrees," a publication of that Department, more than 2,400 academic degrees are listed. The Doctor of Chiropractic (DC) degree is listed under the heading "spurious." A "spurious" degree is defined by the Office of Education as one purporting to be a legitimate degree, duplicating those given by legitimate institutions, but granted by "diploma mills," or a degree not granted or offered by a legitimate institution, but unique to the granting institution.

So according to chiropractic education logic, the Two Percent Company could claim that nearly all diseases are caused by a "discomfurfalated pituitary gland," and that this can be treated by monotreme therapy; then we could set up a National Organization of Echidnapractors, and open a Two Percent School of Echidnapractic. Some echidnapractors would come to believe that rubbing a spiny anteater on someone's back is just "relaxing" as opposed to "curative," but we would continue to claim that it heals a variety of ailments by fixing your discomfurfalated pituitary gland. We would call ourselves "doctors," since, hey — we're interested in healing people, right? Then, despite a complete lack of scientific proof that attests to the efficacy of echidnapractic, we would push an accredited university to open a College of Echidnapractic in order to validate our profession. As evidence of our competence and validity, we would point to our Doctor of Echidnapractic degrees, which we earned at the Two Percent School of Echidnapractic, which is approved by the National Organization of Echidnapractors...which we founded.

Does this sound silly? Of course it does — but replace all of the echidnapractic terms with chiropractic terms, and you're describing exactly what's going on right now.

Every brand of bullshit has its advocates — from UFO abductees, to Reiki Masters, to palm readers and psychics. They all form their own organizations, which "approve" or "license" their colleagues (usually for money) — and that approval means nothing unless you already believe the legitimacy of that organization's fantastic claims. The beauty of official academia is that the accrediting entities do not have questionable ties to the schools they accredit, and they have defined standards of accreditation which can be objectively tested for and upheld.

There is an element of legitimate physical therapy to chiropractic, at least as it is practiced by honest chiropractors — but if that's what you're interested in, you should get yourself a degree in physical therapy, as offered by innumerable accredited schools (you can even get a doctorate in physical therapy, if you're still hung up on the ego boost you can get from being a "doctor").

Can chiropractors be the good guys? Certainly, provided that their "practice is limited to conservative treatment of musculoskeletal problems," and they don't claim "to treat infections or a wide range of other diseases." Until such claims are withdrawn, however, there is a cloud of flim-flammery that will taint the reputations of all chiropractors.