Are you seriously claiming the medical opposition to chiropractic is a big pharma conspiracy?

I make a claim that's more complex than that.

Conspiracy assumes not being open. It has nothing to do with a university rather funding research that produces patents that a pharma company can use than the university doing research that's beneficial for individuals doing various kind of manual therapy.

As far as real conspiracy goes, there plenty of evidence of pharma companies having to pay huge fines because they bribe doctors in various ways to do what's good for the pharma company.

If a doctor gives his patients a drug from a big pharma company that company invites him to a fancy all-costs payed luxury vacation conference. It's not as bad as it used to be, but it was bad over decades and that made certain memes win memetic competition.

Chiropractors don't have similar systems for paying doctors who refer clients kickbacks.

In the 20st century big corporations very often won conflicts because the have more power than a bunch of individual practitioners.

It also seems to me more and more silly to believe that the blind man sees more and that blinding in general is the key to knowledge gathering. It's one of those things, were a kid in a hundred years will have a hard time understanding history because the idea is just so silly. Just like we today have a hard time understanding what people in the middle ages used to believe.

It's also interesting that the ideal of blindness is so strong in the medical field and not as strong in any other domain.

A medical professor usually teaches the "evidence-based method" with teaching methods for which he as no evidence that they work. Somehow they succeed to do this without feeling weird. It's quite remarkable. I don't think you can solve the puzzle of why that double standard exists without acknowledging that well-funded parties have an interest in things being that way.

Nobody makes money based on a platform of "evidence-based teaching" so we don't have it in our society but we do have "evidence-based medicine" because a coalition lead by big pharma payed to establish that meme.

I think it's a defensible position to argue that everything should be evidence-based but I see no intellectual reason to have it concentrated into one domain. The best way to explain the status quo is through analyzing the interests of those in power for meme generation.