The implication seems to be that medical doctors must have a monopoly on knowledge and wisdom. Therefore, whatever your opinion might happen to be, their expert medical opinion will always eclipse yours, a handy thing indeed if their experts know nothing about the subject at hand. This problem is again best handled during the direct examination, which precedes the cross examination. By the time this is finished, most jurors will realize that you were the right choice of provider and had the most to offer. And needless to say, those cross examination questions will no longer be effective, because the jury will already know that you don't, for example, prescribe drugs.
Alternative medicine is in.
When I was a new DC, we really didn't have much in the way of high quality scientific validation. So when our detractors argued that we were unscientific and unproven, we really didn't have any stinging riposte to send their way. Gradually, though, the shoes have changed feet. While almost all medical remedies for back pain have failed to pass scientific muster, chiropractic continues to come up smelling like roses. My answer is that with regard to pathology, there shouldn't be any difference at all in the interpretation between DCs and MDs.