` ::brian, when a portion of an article is challenged, it's up to the person who originally put it in there to provides sources for their claim (the burden of proof is on the ``information inserter``).  I'm not terribly fond of chiropractic myself, but this claim seems a bit dubious, not to mention POV (see NPOV).  For the most part, the bad parts of chiropractic would qualify as pseudo-science, not mysticism, so I think it's necessary for whoever inserted that POV claim to substantiate it.   `