As for your allegation that you can refute efficacy of most chiropractic interventions with competing studies consider this. Most research trials on pharma interventions are funded by drug companies so the outcome of many of those studies might be forgone conclusion because, well, that’s how the game is played. The chiropractic research world has no such luxury of drug companies funding studies.
So, this argument makes no sense.
First off, the studies that show a lack of efficacy to chiropractic aren’t funded by Big Pharma, and they have nothing to do with that industry. Studies showing chiro doesn’t work aren’t part of some kind of plot to make only drugs look like they work. And yes, of course financial bias in the pharma industry is a problem. That has nothing to do with whether or not chiro works, though, it’s just a distraction.
If your pint is that drugs have evidence showing they work where chiro doesn’t only because of funding bias, then you’re ignoring 1) the regulatory oversight which reduces funding bias, 2) the study methodology which reduces funding bias, and 3) all of the studies showing therapies other than drugs work. Funding bias shifts the balance of the literature in favor of drugs, but it doesn’t make the entire medical literature wrong or irrelevant.
And if you are worried about funding bias, then you should be worried about the chiro industry too. The industry generates billions of dollars in revenue, and this supports colleges of chiropractic and journals which conduct and publish chiro research. Research money doesn’t materialize magically. Someone always pays for medical research, and usually that money comes from an industry interested in using and/or selling the therapy. The chiro industry has its own professional lobby, which contributes to campaigns and lobbies politicians just like every other industry. So you can’t simply say that the research for chiro is pure and the research for other medical therapies, including drugs, is so corrupt it should be ignored.
Finally, you ignore all the other kinds of bias that influence studies. That vast majority of the sources of error in medical research have nothing to do with money, but with confirmation bias, selection bias, placebo effects, and all kind sof othe rmethodological and cognitive errors that obscure the truth about therapies being tested.
What you are doing here is constructing a narrative where research is meaningful if it supports your position and worthless if it doesn’t. That’s the mark of a true crusader.