I concur with Mr. C. Fish. This discussion seems to be generating a fair amount of controversy, but MAP loves controversy. Ah, I see what you mean. I think I misappropriated the word 'logic' and perhaps in my haste to rebut the issue at hand, flung some words around carelessly. Late as it may seem, I do apologise for what may have been a fiery denunciation of your subsequent response. Holistic is actually a buzz word used by the up-and-coming medical practioners of the next generation. Chiropractic, or indeed, osteopathy, acupuncture, Chinese herbal medicine...etc. cannot by themselves be considered holistic. A holistic view of medicine includes immunology, neuroscience, behavioural science, anatomy, physiology, biology, histology, pharmacology, sociology, epidemiology, law, ethics, complementary medicine and clinical aspects. In the end, the psychiatrist will focus mainly on the mental state, the dermatologist will focus on the skin, the epidemiologist will focus on population statistics; yes, the acupuncturists will 'stick needles in you', the homeopaths will prescribe 'expensive' water and the chiropractor will do these spine adjustments. Together, all these medicine-related practitioners and academics form this so-called 'buzz-word' of holistic treatment. No one practitioner is ever going to be awesome at all of the above fields, so that's why we have a referral system. This is so we can treat the whole person whilst being fairly open-minded (if cautious) about our methods. On top of that, we have academics conducting research into health and society, and it may be annoying, but medical law can be essential in preventing one from getting sued in a clinical situation. Keeping up to date with current research also ensures holistic treatment. Well, put it like this: evidence from 2008 or evidence from 1950? Which one would you pick? Don't get me wrong, I mostly agree with you, but recent evidence is certainly more convincing than a custom originating in the early 20th century, and at least likely to be more convincing than evidence from around the second world war. If there was solid evidence against a type of treatment, one would dismiss the treatment. If there was solid evidence in favour of a type of treatment, one might embrace the treatment. I would think, then, that if there was a lack of evidence for or against, one would be more holistic if they neither dismissed or embraced alternative treatment. One would have to simply provide information and caution if necessary and allow them the autonomy to decide what is best for themselves.