raeky being a professional in a related field does not give an editor a coi otherwise mds could not edit medical articles and dentists could not edit dental articles etc if you disagree please indicate which category of coi you feel dvmt belongs to and take your concerns to the relevant noticeboard to get consensus and set a precedent at wikipedia for editors editing articles related to their profession otherwise please keep your comments here specific to the text and sources and not about other editors ie remain wp civil what needs to be established here is if the few sources that are 'against the grain' and are highly critical of the efficacy of manipulation are noteworthy or simply represent a wp fringe view imo ernst podsanski are the only authors who make bold statements about manipulation such as 'not effective' whereas the bulk of sources suggest equivalency with usual medical care and other conservative options thus i see ernst podsanski as outliers or fringe with regard to this specific topic of manipulation for back pain even source which you noted says equal to sham still suggests equivalency with other therapies for back pain including usual medical care doc james you seem to want to omit the common finding by multiple high quality sources that manipulation is equivalent to usual medical care and physiotherapy for back pain doesn't policy indicate that the majority view gets more weight which theme has more weight among the available secondary sources that manipulation is not effective for back pain or that manipulation is equal to 'usual medical care' for back pain i think that we will need to decide how much weight each idea should get hopefully this rfc will help also you say you like the current text but how does the current text may be as effective as other manual therapies reflect the well sourced fact that manipulation is also equivalent to usual medical care for back pain treatment