We, the undersigned licensed healthcare professionals (including physicians, physical therapists, occupational therapists, speech language pathologists, respiratory therapist, and registered nurses) respectfully urge our professional organizations including the The American Medical Association, APTA, AOTA, ASHA, AARC, ANA to take a stance against The University of Pittsburgh’s School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences launch of their Doctor of Chiropractic program.

As professionals trained in science based rehab, rehabilitation and evidence based interventions, we are deeply concerned about the message this sends to the public and the implications it holds for healthcare quality, safety, and professional integrity. 

Why this matters:

1. Chiropractic Care Does Not Consistently Adhere to Evidence Based Practices: Many chiropractic programs continue to promote outdated or debunked concepts, such as for vertebral subluxation as a root cause of disease, adjustments for newborns and anti-vax rhetoric, ideas unsupported by modern science. Even if Pitt adheres to the highest academic standards within its curriculum, nothing will prevent its graduates from immediately accessing continuing education units on infant spinal manipulation, energy detoxification and subluxation theory. All of which are still approved for licensure renewal in many states, and none of which are backed by credible scientific evidence. 
2. Conflating Chiropractic and Allied Healthcare Undermines Patient Safety: When chiropractic programs are legitimized under respected academic medical institutions, it can confuse patients and policy makers, diluting the public understanding of what distinguishes physical therapy and other allied health positions from less regulated, non-medical models of care. Quackery isn’t just silly. It delays real care leading to worse patient outcomes. 
3. Pitt PT and UMPC Have Long Been Leaders in Scientific Rehabilitation: the University of Pittsburgh is a globally recognized institution for excellence and physical therapy and rehab science. Supporting a DC program risks undermining that reputation and may strain relationships across allied health professions. 
4. We Support Innovation, But Not at the Cost of Ethics: While interdisciplinary collaboration is essential, this must occur under shared standards of research, evidence, and ethical responsibility to patients, not by aligning with pseudoscientific models that have a long resisted scientific scrutiny. 

Just as homeopathy was excluded from academic medical institutions due to its lack of scientific basis, we believe that chiropractic, in its current unreformed state, should not be granted academic legitimacy. Medicine drew a clear boundary when homeopathy failed to meet evidence based standards. Granting a chiropractic program institutional backing without first addressing it’s ongoing promotion of disproven practices will harm our patients. 

We call upon the American Medical Association other respective professional associations and the University of Pittsburgh to:

Oppose the legitimization of chiropractic training under academic healthcare centers until standards are aligned with evidence based medicine. 

Protect the identity and integrity of science driven professions in allied health. 

Prioritize patient safety.