::::::::*"It is not Wikipedia policy to use a court-hearing transcript style" Can you show me where it states that? Anyway, this is really strawman. I'm suggesting simply clearly stating the two sides in the introduction. 
 ::::::::* "It is policy to present reliable sources fairly." I agree. And the biggest weight at the moment would be the Ernst systematic review study of systematic review studies. At present, the article simply does not give any impression there is a 'strong' body of researchers who review chiropractic as simply ineffective. 
 ::::::::* "No reliable source makes the claim that "the positive results came from badly-designed studies or studies designed by chiropractors". Not even Ernst makes that claim." Really? How do you interpret this comment by Ernst: 
 :::::::: Our previous work has shown that the conclusions of reviews of SM for back pain appear to be influenced by authorship and methodological quality such that authorship by osteopaths or chiropractors and low methodological quality are associated with a positive conclusion.