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.   21:58, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)