:To address the points one by one: 
 :* The Palmer quote was originally just "filthy animal poison"; this was criticized for being out of context so more context was added and it's now a longer quote. Apparently this is not the context that was desired, so what exactly is meant by the criticism that the Palmer quote is "out of context"? 
 :* I don't see why the Palmer quote is "gratuitous". It provides motivation for chiropractic's early strong opposition to vaccination. We can't expect the casual reader to be familiar with this motivation. 
 :* I was originally opposed to putting the Kansas data in on the grounds that it wasn't published in a refereed journal, but Fyslee liked it on the grounds that it is a reliable source. Fyslee talked me into it so I put it in. I disagree that the Kansas data is "cherry-picking"; it's the most recent survey we have and its results are not hugely different from other surveys. However, it does appear to be two editors to one right now, so for now I removed it. We can revisit this issue if Fyslee chimes in again. 
 :* While it's true that statistics can be manipulated, these statistics (except for the Kansas data) are taken from reliable reviews, not from primary sources. When reliable reviews are reporting numbers, I don't see why the Wikipedia article should settle for vaguer statements. 
 :* As mentioned above the article could use reorganization, but that's a big project; for now many chiropractors do argue against the effectiveness of vaccines (unlike most other skeptics, who focus on safety) so this is the most plausible location for the material now. 
 :* Mentioning other CAM professions would be welcome, obviously supported by a reliable source. I suggest the Ernst 2001 source mentioned above. 
 :