This phrase might warrant a dictionary entry (if a definition can be pinned down), but it should be removed from the encyclopedia.  

 There is too much highly speculative dribble over a controversial hypotheses (neurological interference theory of disease) about putative phenomena (vertebral subluxation) that "may" or "does" result in disease, that the article devolves into numerous equivocations, lack of conditonal terminology such as "may" (as appropriate for a hypothesis) instead of "can," the misstatement of facts (Andrew still coined the neologism "subluxation" which means something entire different to chiropractor's "vertebral subluxation," coined by B. J. Palmer) the article is an incoherent and unintelligible morass. If chiropractors cannot agree, much less don't know, what a vertebral subluxation is  as evidenced in different places and in different contexts to refer to "putative phenomenon," then to "putative phenomena," then to a "putative syndrome," which is "treated adjusting bones,"  compounded by the string of Virgil Strange's speculative hypotheses, the hypothesis of "vertebral subluxation" remains too amorphous, too controversial, and too often denied  including by chiropractors  to merit consideration in the encyclopedia. Let it be debated elsewhere. Let's stick to evidentiary claims, not speculations on speculation. 

 D.S.H.