[mellosouls]

If anything I think it's a shame that the quacks and the Good Guys can share the same title. But it's the same in any profession, isn't it?

No. Chiropractic medicine is pseudo-scientific, so inevitably the percentage of quacks will be far greater than in a scientific-based medicine.

So not remotely the same.

[geocrasher]

And I have quite literally watched PhD's ignore science and go based on their feelings- making [incorrect] diagnosis without even standing within 5 feet of the patient. If that isn't pseudo-scientific, then I don't know what is.

So yes, it is remotely the same.

[mellosouls]

You are confusing anecdotal observations of outlier instances (bad docs in medicine) with a general approach (the pseudo-science of chiropractic "medicine"), which is essentially restating your initial comment.

[briantakita]

Everyone claims to be "Science based", yet there is an element of faith that one's worldview is the only correct true worldview while other worldviews are "pseudoscience". It's almost is if fundamentalist religions, with priesthood, are claiming to be "Science based" as a way to have authority over the audience's critical thinking.

If you claim to be "Science based" you have to prove it with your actions. Words are not enough...Vitriolic rants only make you look like the kook...