Half the proponents of chiropractic say this. The other half are busy citing examples of chipropractic-alleopathic cooperation. Read this threat and you will find both.
Personally, I think that the allopathic profession, at its best, stands for evidence based empirical medicine, in the same way that the US in 1800 stood for liberty. Empiricism, like liberty, is an ideal to be striven for even though we will always debate what it teaches us and we might be far from reaching it. Allopaths who believe in what their profession stands for are constantly changing what they do as new and better evidence comes in, even if it goes 100% against prevailing wisdom. A few studies can thus wipe out an entire subspecialty, as happenned to surgical TB treatment in 1950. By contrast, chiropractors who believe in what their profession stands for believe that the cause of all disease -- misalignment of the spine -- was discovered once and for all times by Dr. Daniel David Palmer of Davenport Iowa in 1895. What they chiropractors do can, maybe, be changed a bit at the edges by research, but if a chiropractor is really open-minded about giving his patients the best possible care, he is quite simply a traitor to everything he was taught of his profession.
Do the alleopaths always live up to what their profession stands for? NO! And that is precisely why I have a lot of respect for the small minority of FSU alleopaths willing to give up some of their income for their principles.
"he is quite simply a traitor to everything he was taught of his profession."
Not really. Knowing chiros as I do, I those that I have known have all said that medical practitioners have their place and physical healers do as well. It is the horrible chiros that think they can treat all things. The Palmer college is still the most recognized, but each chiro I have known are all graduates of Palmer and none think they can treat all things.