My 2c to get beyond the stalemale is to let skeptics raise all controversies surrounding chiropractic, find the best sources to neutrally present the material and roll into into a Criticisms section.  Then those who really care about intricacies and details of the chiropractic story can get on with the show and make the article interesting and not some big stats/research battleground.  For the record, I completely agree 100% that effectiveness of chiropractic care is well established for low back disorders (just as good if not better) that manual therapy is effectiveness in neck pain (Task Force 2008) that the results seem favourable for certain types of headaches (TTH, migraine, cervicogenic/headache of cervical origin) and inconclusive and controversial for non-musculoskeletal disorders.  Part of effectiveness too is patient satisfaction scores which patients routinely display a far greater preference for chiropractic care than medical care for LBP.  This is the most succint and precise summary there is.  We can toss the reference in and call it a day.  A majority of editors agree that the current and past evidence, both in research and 3rd parties (governments) favours chiropractic care.  We can't let Ernst' conclusions (which have been rebutted and invalidated) skew what is now generally accepted.  Notice the terms too, generally, etc.