people who don't like chiropractics write: "There is evidence
Of course they'll write that. After all, there is evidence. You were implying that there's good evidence.
RationalWiki then adds that the cost and risks still suggest to that it's good to stay aware from chiropractors.
In other words, the evidence isn't all that good.
Conventional wisdom by people who care about evidence for medical treatment is these days is that chiropractical interventions have effects for alleviate symptoms of low back pain.
This is a no true Scotsman fallacy. You're asserting that anyone who seems to be part of conventional wisdom but doesn't agree doesn't count because he doesn't care about evidence.
In other words, the evidence isn't all that good.
No. Saying that costs and side effects aren't worth something is very different than saying it doesn't work and produces no effect.
Conventional treatment is often cheaper than chiropractics. Dismissing it on those grounds is very different than dismissing it on grounds that it produces no effect. Given that they don't like it they need to make some argument against it ;) Not being able to argue that it doesn't work make them go for risks and cost effectiveness.
...This is a no true Scotsman fallacy. You'r
I just finished the first draft of my essay, "Are Sunk Costs Fallacies?"; there is still material I need to go through, but the bulk of the material is now there. The formatting is too gnarly to post here, so I ask everyone's forgiveness in clicking through.
To summarize:
(If any of that seems unlikely or absurd to you, click through. I've worked very hard to provide multiple citations where possible, and fulltext for practically everything.)
I started this a while ago; but Luke/SIAI paid for much of the work, and that motivation plus academic library access made this essay more comprehensive than it would have been and finished months in advance.