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