Michelle Rae Lelwica alias The Fullscript Chiropractor

Michelle Rae Lelwica is not licensed or approved by Minnesota Board of Chiropractic Examiners to diagnose, treat, or cure Chronic Lyme Disease.

Chronic Lyme Disease

Supports

There is no high-quality evidence from randomized clinical trials, systematic reviews, or major guidelines showing that chiropractic spinal manipulation or typical chiropractic modalities can treat chronic Lyme disease or post-treatment Lyme disease syndrome (PTLDS) in terms of eradicating infection, altering disease course, or providing disease-specific benefit. Major guidelines and reviews on Lyme disease and PTLDS emphasize antibiotic therapy for acute Lyme and multidisciplinary symptomatic management for persistent symptoms, not chiropractic treatment.^{[3][4][6][8][10][13]} Chiropractic care is not discussed as a recommended or evidence‑based therapy in these documents, which suggests that if it has any role, it is limited and nonspecific (e.g., general musculoskeletal care) rather than a disease‑targeted treatment. Symptom-focused approaches such as physical rehabilitation, low-impact exercise, cognitive-behavioral therapy, and other supportive measures are endorsed for PTLDS, and in principle some manual therapy might contribute to general musculoskeletal comfort, but this is indirect and not specific evidence that chiropractic care treats chronic Lyme disease.^{[3][4][6][8][12]}

Contradicts

Mainstream infectious disease and neurology guidelines for Lyme disease and PTLDS focus on appropriate antibiotic regimens for acute infection and on multidisciplinary, symptom‑based management for persistent symptoms; they do not list chiropractic therapy as a recommended or evidence‑supported treatment.^{[3][4][6][8][10][13]} In fact, for patients with persistent nonspecific symptoms such as fatigue, pain, or cognitive impairment after guideline‑recommended treatment, major guidelines recommend against additional disease‑directed therapies like prolonged antibiotics due to lack of benefit and potential harm, highlighting that proposed alternative disease‑targeted approaches (including those without evidence such as chiropractic cures) should be viewed cautiously.^{[4][6][13][19]} A systematic review of diagnosis and treatment of “chronic Lyme” stresses the ethical imperative of avoiding unproven, potentially harmful interventions and notes high rates of overdiagnosis and adverse events from off‑label treatments, underscoring that many chronic Lyme treatment claims are not evidence‑based.^[19] Overall, the absence of chiropractic therapy from guidelines, trials, and high‑quality reviews, coupled with the emphasis on avoiding unproven disease‑directed treatments, contradicts any claim that chiropractic care is an effective, evidence‑based treatment for chronic Lyme disease or PTLDS.

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical position is that Lyme disease is an infectious illness treated with evidence‑based antibiotic regimens for defined durations, guided by major bodies such as the Infectious Diseases Society of America, American Academy of Neurology, and American College of Rheumatology.^{[8][10][13][15]} A subset of patients develop post‑treatment Lyme disease syndrome (PTLDS), characterized by persistent fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, and cognitive difficulties despite appropriate antibiotic therapy; for these patients, current evidence does not support ongoing infection or benefit from extended antibiotics, and guidelines recommend against such treatment.^{[3][4][6][13][19]} Management of PTLDS is individualized, multidisciplinary, and symptom‑focused, emphasizing physical rehabilitation, graded exercise, psychological support, sleep and nutrition optimization, and sometimes rheumatologic or pain‑management approaches.^{[3][4][6][8][11][12][13]} Chiropractic therapy is not recognized in major guidelines as a disease‑specific treatment for chronic Lyme or PTLDS; at most, it may be used as a general musculoskeletal comfort measure, similar to other non‑specific physical therapies, but it is not considered an evidence‑based way to treat the underlying condition or its core pathophysiology.^{[3][4][6][8][10][13]}

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Chronic Lyme Disease”

Rule: Minn. Stat. § 148.01, subds. 1(1), 1(2), 1(4), 2; Minn. Stat. § 148.08

See every doc bro advertising Lyme disease

Michelle Rae Lelwica is not licensed or approved by Minnesota Board of Chiropractic Examiners to advertise Vaccine Induced Long Covid as within their scope of practice.

Vaccine Induced Long Covid

Supports

I did not find any peer-reviewed index paper supporting chiropractic treatment for vaccine-induced long COVID. The provided index papers are about hypertension, nutrition, headache, transfusion, pericarditis, and GRADE methodology, and none address this claim directly . ^{[4][5][6][7][8]}

Contradicts

The claim is not supported by the listed index papers, and there is no high-quality evidence in the provided set that chiropractic care treats vaccine-induced long COVID . ^[6] In mainstream medical evidence, long COVID management relies on symptom-directed care and multidisciplinary rehabilitation when indicated, not chiropractic treatment as a disease-specific therapy. ^[1][5][7] The phrase vaccine-induced long COVID is also not a standard medical diagnosis, and claims of a distinct chiropractic-responsive syndrome would require direct clinical evidence that is not present here. ^[2]

Mainstream view

Mainstream medicine does not recognize chiropractic treatment as an evidence-based treatment for vaccine-induced long COVID. There is no established clinical trial or guideline support in the provided literature, and the appropriate approach is evaluation of symptoms, exclusion of alternative diagnoses, and evidence-based rehabilitation or specialty referral when needed. ^{[1][2][3][4][5][6]}

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Vaccine Induced Long Covid”

Rule: Minn. Stat. § 148.01, subds. 1(1), 1(2), 1(4), 2; Minn. Stat. § 148.08

See every doc bro advertising Epstein-Barr and chronic viral infection

Michelle Rae Lelwica is not licensed or approved by Minnesota Board of Chiropractic Examiners to diagnose, treat, or cure Adrenal Insufficiency/Fatigue.

Adrenal Insufficiency/Fatigue

Supports

There is no high-quality evidence from randomized trials, systematic reviews, or major endocrine guidelines showing that chiropractic treatment improves or treats adrenal insufficiency (primary, secondary, tertiary, or glucocorticoid-induced) or any condition that would correspond to “adrenal fatigue. ^[13][14][15] ” The indexed papers provided are unrelated to adrenal or chiropractic care and therefore do not support the claim. Major endocrine guidelines on adrenal insufficiency emphasize pharmacologic hormone replacement (hydrocortisone, fludrocortisone, sometimes prednisolone) and patient education, not manual therapies, as evidence-based treatment.

Contradicts

Authoritative guidelines from the Endocrine Society, European Society of Endocrinology, and NICE state that adrenal insufficiency is a potentially life-threatening endocrine disorder that requires glucocorticoid (and often mineralocorticoid) replacement and emergency stress-dosing; they do not recommend or even mention chiropractic manipulation as a treatment modality. ^[13][14][15] These guidelines are based on strong evidence that inadequate hormone replacement and failure to provide emergency steroid coverage can lead to adrenal crisis, hospitalization, and death, which manual therapies cannot prevent or correct. The concept of “adrenal fatigue” itself is not recognized as a valid diagnosis in mainstream endocrinology; expert reviews and guidelines consistently note that patients with nonspecific fatigue should be evaluated for true adrenal insufficiency with appropriate testing rather than treated on the assumption of “fatigue. ” This absence of recognition and formal diagnostic criteria means there is no robust evidence base for treating “adrenal fatigue,” chiropractic or otherwise. Any indirect evidence about chiropractic influencing general stress biomarkers does not establish correction of adrenal hormone deficiency or validated HPA-axis pathology, and does not substitute for the proven need for endocrinologist-led management in adrenal insufficiency.

Mainstream view

Mainstream medical and scientific opinion is that proven adrenal insufficiency is an endocrine disease requiring lifelong or long-term glucocorticoid replacement (typically hydrocortisone 15–25 mg/day in divided doses) and, in primary adrenal insufficiency, mineralocorticoid replacement with fludrocortisone, plus education on stress dosing and emergency parenteral steroids. ^[13][14][15] Management is guided by endocrinology specialists and evidence-based protocols; non-hormonal interventions such as chiropractic manipulation are not considered effective treatments for adrenal insufficiency and are absent from major guidelines. The mainstream view is that “adrenal fatigue” is not a recognized medical diagnosis; patients presenting with fatigue should be assessed for established conditions (including properly tested adrenal insufficiency) rather than treated with unproven manual therapies. Chiropractic may have a role in musculoskeletal pain and possibly general well-being in some contexts, but it is not regarded as a therapy for adrenal hormone disorders in evidence-based medicine.

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Adrenal Insufficiency/Fatigue”

Rule: Minn. Stat. § 148.01, subds. 1(1), 1(2), 1(4), 2; Minn. Stat. § 148.08

See every doc bro advertising Adrenal fatigue and cortisol

Michelle Rae Lelwica is not licensed or approved by Minnesota Board of Chiropractic Examiners to diagnose, treat, or cure Mast Cell Activation Syndrome (MCAS).

Mast Cell Activation Syndrome (MCAS)

Supports

There are currently no high-quality randomized trials, systematic reviews, or major guidelines indicating that chiropractic manipulation or chiropractic neurology is an evidence-based treatment for mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS). Academic and guideline-style sources instead describe MCAS management with trigger avoidance and pharmacologic therapies such as H1/H2 antihistamines, mast cell stabilizers, leukotriene antagonists, aspirin, epinephrine for anaphylaxis, and, in refractory cases, biologics or targeted agents.^[23][21][9] Recent clinical and review papers on MCAS management focus on antihistamines, mast-cell–directed drugs, omalizumab, imatinib, diet and other medical strategies, not chiropractic or spinal manipulation.^{[3][4][5][6][7][8][10][19][24]} The indexed guideline papers provided (hypertension, parenteral nutrition, IBD nutrition, tension-type headache, transfusion, colchicine) do not address MCAS or chiropractic care and therefore do not support the claim.

Contradicts

Mainstream MCAS references explicitly define evidence-based management as trigger avoidance plus pharmacologic therapy targeting mast cell mediators and do not list chiropractic treatment as a recommended or studied intervention.^{[23][21][9][24]} A concise practical guide on mast cell activation disease states that evidence-based therapy consists of trigger avoidance, antihistamines, mast cell membrane–stabilizing compounds, and symptom-targeted medications, with no mention of manual therapies.^[23] Major overviews and clinical yardsticks for MCAS and related mast cell disorders similarly focus on medical therapies (antihistamines, cromolyn, ketotifen, leukotriene antagonists, omalizumab, imatinib) rather than chiropractic care.^{[3][4][6][7][9]} The provided index guidelines on hypertension, clinical nutrition, tension-type headache, and transfusion therapy show the standard of care in other conditions and reinforce that guideline-driven management relies on therapies with demonstrable efficacy, not untested manual interventions. Overall, there is an absence of controlled data, guidelines, or mechanistic human studies supporting chiropractic as a disease-modifying or primary treatment for MCAS, which effectively contradicts any strong therapeutic claims.

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical position is that mast cell activation syndrome is an immunologic disorder characterized by inappropriate activation and mediator release from mast cells, leading to multisystem symptoms and episodic anaphylaxis.^{[9][21][23][24]} Diagnosis requires typical multisystem episodes, objective evidence of increased mast cell mediators (such as event-related rises in serum tryptase or urinary mediator metabolites), and clinical improvement with anti–mast-cell therapy.^[21][23][24] Standard management is stepwise and includes: strict avoidance of known triggers (foods, drugs, temperature changes, mechanical irritation, venoms, alcohol); H1 and H2 antihistamines; mast cell stabilizers (e.g., cromolyn, ketotifen); leukotriene antagonists; prostaglandin blockers such as aspirin when appropriate; epinephrine auto-injectors for anaphylaxis; and, in refractory cases, agents such as omalizumab or imatinib under specialist supervision.^{[3][4][6][7][21][23][24][19]} Nutritional and dietary approaches (e.g., low-FODMAP or low-histamine diets) and management of comorbid conditions (IBS-D, ME/CFS, dysautonomia) may be used as adjuncts but are medical, dietetic, or pharmacologic rather than chiropractic.^[8][10][5] Chiropractic manipulation or chiropractic neurology is not included in major immunology, allergy, or hematology references as a recognized or recommended treatment for MCAS, and any use would be considered non-evidence-based adjunctive care at best.

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Mast Cell Activation Syndrome (MCAS)”

Rule: Minn. Stat. § 148.01, subds. 1(1), 1(2), 1(4), 2

See every doc bro advertising MCAS and histamine intolerance

Michelle Rae Lelwica is not licensed or approved by Minnesota Board of Chiropractic Examiners to advertise ZRT Neurotransmitter Test+ Cortisol + CortisonePrice$339.00 as within their scope of practice.

ZRT Neurotransmitter Test+ Cortisol + CortisonePrice$339.00

No specific health claims of theirs were cross-checked against the literature.

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“ZRT Neurotransmitter Test+ Cortisol + CortisonePrice$339.00”

Rule: Minn. Stat. § 148.01, subds. 1(2), 1(4), 2, 3

Michelle Rae Lelwica is not licensed or approved by Minnesota Board of Chiropractic Examiners to diagnose, treat, or cure Hashimotos.

Hashimotos

Supports

High-quality evidence and major guidelines on Hashimoto’s thyroiditis focus on etiology, diagnosis, and medical management (primarily levothyroxine replacement), micronutrient supplementation (e.g., selenium), and emerging areas such as microbiome modulation and immunologic pathways, not on chiropractic or spinal manipulation.^[9] These reviews and guidelines do not list chiropractic care as a therapeutic option for Hashimoto’s, and there are no systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials, or major endocrine guidelines showing that chiropractic treatment improves thyroid autoimmunity, normalizes thyroid hormone levels, or alters disease course. The available academic literature on Hashimoto’s pathophysiology and treatment discusses endocrine, immunologic, nutritional, and microbiome-targeted strategies, but does not include chiropractic interventions as evidence-based therapy.^{[3][4][5][7][9]} Any suggestion that chiropractic might indirectly help via stress reduction or general wellness is speculative and not supported by high‑quality interventional data in Hashimoto’s patients.

Contradicts

Evidence-based guides to Hashimoto’s thyroiditis emphasize that hypothyroidism due to Hashimoto’s is treated with thyroid hormone replacement (levothyroxine), with management tailored to thyroid function and clinical status; they do not mention chiropractic as a treatment and implicitly contradict the idea that manual spinal manipulation can treat or reverse the condition.^[9] Major endocrine and thyroid literature describing Hashimoto’s as an autoimmune destruction of thyrocytes requiring hormone replacement and, in some cases, monitoring for cancer risk, provides a mechanistic framework that is not plausibly modifiable by spinal or musculoskeletal manipulation alone.^[5][7][9] No high-quality trials demonstrate that chiropractic care can reduce thyroid antibody titers, improve thyroid function tests, or decrease the need for levothyroxine; claims of substantial benefit from chiropractic for Hashimoto’s are therefore unsupported and conflict with current evidence-based management paradigms. The absence of chiropractic from major clinical guidelines and evidence syntheses on Hashimoto’s, despite extensive coverage of other therapies, is itself strong negative evidence against the claim that chiropractic treatment is effective for Hashimoto’s.

Mainstream view

Mainstream medical and scientific consensus is that Hashimoto’s thyroiditis is an autoimmune thyroid disease characterized by lymphocytic infiltration and antibody-mediated destruction of thyroid tissue, leading frequently to hypothyroidism.^[5][7][9] Standard care relies on appropriate diagnosis (thyroid function tests and antibodies) and individualized thyroid hormone replacement (usually levothyroxine), with monitoring for progression and associated conditions; adjunctive approaches such as selenium supplementation or microbiome-targeted strategies are under study but still secondary to hormone replacement.^[3][4][5][9] Chiropractic care is not recognized as a treatment for Hashimoto’s in mainstream guidelines or endocrine practice; at most, it may be considered a complementary modality for general musculoskeletal or stress-related symptoms, not a disease-modifying therapy for autoimmune thyroiditis. Patients with Hashimoto’s are advised to seek care from physicians, typically endocrinologists, for diagnosis and management, rather than relying on chiropractic treatment to manage or reverse the condition.

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Hashimotos”

Rule: Minn. Stat. § 148.01, subds. 1(1), 1(4), 2; Minn. Stat. § 148.08

See every doc bro advertising Thyroid disease and Hashimoto

Michelle Rae Lelwica is not licensed or approved by Minnesota Board of Chiropractic Examiners to diagnose, treat, or cure Auto Immune Disorders.

Auto Immune Disorders

Supports

The peer-reviewed index papers do not provide direct evidence that chiropractic treats autoimmune disorders. The closest index papers address other conditions or general guideline-based care rather than autoimmune disease treatment, so they do not support the claim . ^[1][3][4] A separate systematic review of spinal manipulative therapy and immune outcomes found no clinical evidence from acceptable- or high-quality randomized trials to support claims that spinal manipulation improves immune system outcomes or infectious disease outcomes, which is the most relevant higher-quality evidence against a broad immune-treatment claim. ^{[2][6][7][24][25][26]} A consensus statement from the global chiropractic research community also stated that available reports provided no valid clinical scientific evidence that chiropractic care can impact the immune system. ^[23]

Contradicts

The claim is contradicted by the absence of direct evidence in major reviews and by a 2021 systematic review finding no clinical evidence from acceptable- or high-quality randomized trials to support or refute immune-system benefit from spinal manipulative therapy; importantly, even this review did not find supportive clinical evidence. ^{[2][6][7][24][26]} A 2020 statement by the global chiropractic research community further concluded there was no valid clinical scientific evidence that chiropractic care can impact the immune system. ^[23] The evidence base for chiropractic specifically treating autoimmune disorders appears very weak, indirect, and not guideline-supported. ^[1][4] Some manual-therapy studies in autoimmune populations suggest symptom relief for pain or fatigue, but that is not evidence of treating the autoimmune disease process itself. ^[25]

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical and scientific view is that chiropractic or spinal manipulation is not an evidence-based treatment for autoimmune disorders. ^{[1][4][6][23][24][26]} At most, manual therapies may sometimes be used as adjuncts for musculoskeletal symptoms, pain, or function in selected patients, but they do not treat autoimmunity itself and are not recommended by major guidelines as disease-modifying therapy. ^[2][7][25] Claims that chiropractic can treat autoimmune disease or broadly boost immune function are not supported by high-quality clinical evidence . ^[3]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Auto Immune Disorders”

Rule: Minn. Stat. § 148.01, subds. 1(1), 1(4), 2; Minn. Stat. § 148.08

See every doc bro advertising Autoimmune disease

Michelle Rae Lelwica is not licensed or approved by Minnesota Board of Chiropractic Examiners to diagnose, treat, or cure Alzheimers.

Alzheimers

Supports

The available higher-level evidence does not show that chiropractic treatment can cure or meaningfully treat Alzheimer’s disease, but a very small amount of exploratory work suggests spinal manipulation may acutely alter brain electrophysiology or networks in people with Alzheimer’s or related cognitive impairment. ^[30] A 2024 pilot randomized cross‑over trial in 14 adults with Alzheimer’s and 14 with Parkinson’s disease found that a single chiropractic spinal adjustment changed somatosensory evoked potentials (15% reduction in N30 peak) and increased resting‑state EEG power and connectivity in the default mode network, but the authors explicitly cautioned that these findings are preliminary and do not establish clinical benefit for Alzheimer’s symptoms or progression. ^[27][28] This supports only the feasibility of studying chiropractic effects on brain activity, not treatment efficacy for Alzheimer’s disease. Narrative reviews aimed at manual therapy providers emphasize that chiropractors can play a role in general supportive care—particularly encouraging exercise, mental activity, and healthy lifestyle—but do not present evidence that spinal manipulation treats Alzheimer’s pathology or reverses dementia. ^[29]

Contradicts

There are no high‑quality randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, or major clinical guidelines showing that chiropractic treatment is an effective disease‑modifying or symptomatic treatment for Alzheimer’s disease. Existing pilot studies focus on short‑term changes in EEG or evoked potentials after a single adjustment, with very small samples, surrogate neurophysiologic endpoints, and no demonstration of sustained cognitive improvement, slowed decline, or reduced Alzheimer’s biomarkers. ^[27] Major Alzheimer’s trials and guidelines focus on pharmacologic therapies (such as anti‑amyloid antibodies, iron chelation, or other disease‑modifying agents) and comprehensive multidisciplinary care; chiropractic spinal manipulation is not listed among recommended treatments or preventive interventions. ^[28][30] High‑quality evidence on spinal manipulative therapy in older adults shows benefit only for chronic spinal pain conditions, not neurodegenerative dementias, underscoring that the evidence base for Alzheimer’s is essentially absent or extremely weak. ^[29] Overall, the current data contradict any strong claim that chiropractic treatment can meaningfully treat, slow, or reverse Alzheimer’s disease.

Mainstream view

Mainstream medical and scientific consensus is that Alzheimer’s disease is a progressive neurodegenerative disorder for which evidence‑based management consists of a combination of pharmacologic therapies (including recently approved disease‑modifying drugs that target amyloid or other pathways), vascular and lifestyle risk reduction, cognitive and functional support, and multidisciplinary care. ^[29] Chiropractic care is not considered a disease‑modifying treatment for Alzheimer’s and is not recommended in major neurology or dementia guidelines as a specific therapy for cognitive decline. ^[28][30] At most, manual therapy may be used for musculoskeletal complaints (such as back or neck pain) in people who also have Alzheimer’s, and chiropractors may help reinforce general health behaviors, but spinal manipulation itself is not recognized as an effective treatment for dementia. Any suggestion that chiropractic treatment can treat, cure, or substantially alter the course of Alzheimer’s is therefore outside the mainstream evidence‑based position and should be regarded as unproven. ^[27]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Alzheimers”

Rule: Minn. Stat. § 148.01, subds. 1(1), 1(4), 2; Minn. Stat. § 148.08

See every doc bro advertising Dementia and Alzheimer disease

Michelle Rae Lelwica is not licensed or approved by Minnesota Board of Chiropractic Examiners to diagnose, treat, or cure Functional Medicine.

Functional Medicine

Supports

There is moderate-quality evidence that chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy is about as effective as other recommended therapies (such as standard medical care and physical therapy) for short‑term pain relief and small improvements in function in adults with chronic low back pain.^[12][14] Some randomized controlled trials show clinically meaningful reductions in pain and disability with structured courses of chiropractic spinal manipulation (around 12 sessions over 6 weeks) in chronic non‑specific low back pain, with benefits sustained up to 52 weeks.^{[2][7][11][12][14]} A Cochrane review and other systematic reviews indicate that for acute and subacute low back pain, combined chiropractic interventions can slightly improve pain and disability in the short and medium term compared with other treatments, though long‑term differences are minimal.^{[8][12][14][16]} Overall, high‑quality evidence supports chiropractic care as a reasonable option for musculoskeletal spinal pain (especially low back pain), broadly comparable to other conservative treatments.^[5][12][14] contradicts

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Functional Medicine”

Rule: Minn. Stat. § 148.01, subds. 1(2), 1(6), 2, 3; Minn. Rules pt. 2500.0100

Michelle Rae Lelwica is not licensed or approved by Minnesota Board of Chiropractic Examiners to diagnose, treat, or cure Bio Identical Hormone Therapy.

Bio Identical Hormone Therapy

Supports

There is no high-quality evidence that specifically supports chiropractors providing or managing bioidentical hormone therapy. The available high-quality evidence and guidelines on bioidentical hormones focus on medically supervised menopausal hormone therapy by physicians (endocrinology, gynecology, primary care), not chiropractic providers. Systematic reviews and guidelines indicate that FDA‑approved bioidentical menopausal hormone therapy can be effective and generally safe for appropriately selected women when prescribed and monitored according to established medical protocols, but they do not involve chiropractic management.^[11][23][24]

Contradicts

Major endocrine and menopause society position statements and clinical practice guidelines emphasize that compounded bioidentical hormone therapy lacks robust evidence for long‑term safety and efficacy, and they recommend using regulated, FDA‑approved hormone preparations under physician supervision rather than compounded products.^[11][18][23] These documents explicitly state there is no evidence‑based need for compounded hormone therapy when approved preparations exist and warn against unsubstantiated claims of superior safety or efficacy.^[11][18][23] Consensus statements from organizations such as the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and other menopause societies caution against routine use of bioidentical hormone therapy and highlight concerns around variable purity, potency, and lack of outcome data, again in the context of physician‑led care rather than chiropractic practice.^[16][22][23] Overall, the evidence base for bioidentical hormone therapy itself is still incomplete (especially for compounded preparations), and there is no high‑quality evidence or guideline support for chiropractors to diagnose hormone disorders, prescribe hormone therapy, or manage complex endocrine risks, so any claim that chiropractic treatment of bioidentical hormone therapy is evidence‑based is contradicted by current mainstream guidance.^{[11][18][22][23]}

Mainstream view

Mainstream medical and scientific opinion is that menopausal hormone therapy, including FDA‑approved bioidentical formulations, can be an effective treatment for vasomotor and other menopausal symptoms when used in carefully selected patients, with individualized dosing, route, and duration, and managed by appropriately trained medical professionals following established endocrine and menopause guidelines.^{[10][20][21][23][24]} Professional societies emphasize that FDA‑approved bioidentical hormones are acceptable options, but that custom‑compounded bioidentical hormone therapy should generally not be first‑line because of insufficient evidence on long‑term safety and variable quality.^[11][18][23] Management of hormone therapy—including assessing indications and contraindications, balancing cardiovascular, thrombotic, oncologic, and metabolic risks, and monitoring for adverse effects—is viewed as a physician‑level responsibility; chiropractors are not recognized in major guidelines as appropriate prescribers or primary managers of bioidentical hormone therapy.^{[11][18][22][23]}

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Bio Identical Hormone Therapy”

Rule: Minn. Stat. § 148.01, subds. 1(2), 1(6), 2; Minn. Stat. § 148.08

See every doc bro advertising Hormone imbalance and replacement

Michelle Rae Lelwica is not licensed or approved by Minnesota Board of Chiropractic Examiners to diagnose, treat, or cure Genetic/Genomic Testing.

Genetic/Genomic Testing

No specific health claims of theirs were cross-checked against the literature.

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Genetic/Genomic Testing”

Rule: Minn. Stat. § 148.01, subds. 1(2), 1(4), 3

Michelle Rae Lelwica is not licensed or approved by Minnesota Board of Chiropractic Examiners to diagnose, treat, or cure IV Nutritional Needs.

IV Nutritional Needs

Supports

High-quality evidence supports intravenous micronutrients when there is a clear, clinically significant deficiency, malabsorption, or an established medical indication (e.g., parenteral nutrition, certain anemia states, or critically ill patients who cannot meet needs enterally). A randomized controlled trial in adults with vitamin B12 deficiency anemia found that intravenous, intranasal, and intramuscular B12 all produced comparable hematologic recovery over 28 days, indicating IV B12 is effective but not superior to other routes in this deficiency context.^[16] Systematic reviews and meta-analyses in critically ill adults indicate that parenteral micronutrient supplementation (including IV routes) can be associated with reduced mortality in some pooled analyses, though benefits are modest and context-specific to critical illness, not general wellness.^[5] Several randomized trials and meta-analyses show that IV vitamin C can safely achieve pharmacologic plasma levels and may modestly reduce ICU and hospital length of stay or mortality in some subgroups of critically ill patients, suggesting a role as adjunctive therapy in selected intensive-care settings rather than for routine nutritional needs.^[8][10][11]

Contradicts

For generally healthy individuals, high-quality evidence does not show that IV nutrient therapy is necessary or superior to meeting nutritional needs via diet or standard oral supplementation, and most data supporting IV micronutrients are restricted to situations of documented deficiency, malabsorption, or critical illness rather than routine wellness. A double-blind randomized trial in healthy office workers found that a single high-dose IV vitamin C infusion reduced fatigue over 24 hours, but this short-term effect does not demonstrate a general nutritional need for IV therapy nor long-term benefit.^[9] Systematic reviews of IV vitamin C in cancer and other chronic conditions emphasize that existing human data are preliminary, with limited high-quality clinical evidence and no conclusive benefit on major outcomes, indicating that routine use for nonspecific health or “anti-aging” is not supported.^[13][17][20] Large randomized trials in sepsis and hospitalized COVID-19 patients show that IV vitamin C did not improve organ-support–free days, survival, or organ dysfunction and, in some analyses, was associated with worse composite outcomes, underscoring that even in severe illness, benefits are uncertain and context-dependent rather than establishing a broad nutritional indication.^{[6][7][22][23]} Reviews of IV micronutrient infusions in aesthetic or wellness contexts consistently conclude that evidence for benefits such as longevity, skin rejuvenation, or general energy enhancement is weak or absent; potential risks include infusion reactions, electrolyte imbalance, renal complications, and issues with sterility and inappropriate patient selection, which further argues against the idea that people generally “need” IV nutrients.^[2]

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical and scientific position is that most people can meet their nutritional needs through a balanced diet and, when indicated, oral supplements, and do not have a physiologic need for intravenous nutrient therapy. IV micronutrients are considered appropriate in specific medical situations: documented deficiencies that cannot be corrected orally (e.g., severe B12 deficiency with malabsorption), parenteral nutrition for patients unable to eat or absorb nutrients, and certain critical illness contexts where enteral intake is impaired or specific adjunctive protocols are being tested.^[5][16] Professional guidelines and evidence reviews emphasize that IV nutrient therapy for otherwise healthy individuals as a wellness, anti-aging, or general health intervention lacks robust evidence of benefit and carries avoidable risks compared with standard oral nutrition. In oncology, intensive care, and infectious disease, IV vitamin C and other micronutrients are viewed as experimental or adjunctive therapies with mixed or inconclusive evidence, and their routine use is not recommended outside of clearly defined clinical indications or research settings.^{[6][7][13][17][20]}

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“IV Nutritional Needs”

Rule: Minn. Stat. § 148.01, subds. 1(2), 1(6), 2; Minn. Stat. § 148.08

Michelle Rae Lelwica is not licensed or approved by Minnesota Board of Chiropractic Examiners to diagnose, treat, or cure DUTCH Complete™ Test.

DUTCH Complete™ Test

No specific health claims of theirs were cross-checked against the literature.

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“DUTCH Complete™ Test”

Rule: Minn. Stat. § 148.01, subds. 1(4), 3; Minn. Rules pt. 2500.0100

Michelle Rae Lelwica is not licensed or approved by Minnesota Board of Chiropractic Examiners to advertise DUTCH Test Cycle Mapping as within their scope of practice.

DUTCH Test Cycle Mapping

Supports

High-quality evidence exists that the DUTCH (Dried Urine Test for Comprehensive Hormones) methodology can analytically measure certain hormones and metabolites with reasonable reliability in dried urine format, including estrogen, progesterone, cortisol and their metabolites, with published validation and reliability papers showing good correlation between dried and liquid urine and between 4‑spot sampling and 24‑hour urine in technical terms.^[7] Some more recent manufacturer-associated and affiliated publications and white papers report good analytical agreement and stability of dried urine hormones and metabolites, and technical validation of the 4‑spot and cycle mapping approaches as surrogates for standard urine collections. Independent summaries note that mass‑spectrometric dried urine methods can approximate liquid urine results for some analytes, which is a necessary precondition for any use in clinical practice. This provides limited support only for the test’s analytical performance, not for specific therapeutic benefits of chiropractic or other interventions guided by it.

Contradicts

No randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, or major clinical guidelines evaluate or endorse chiropractor treatment protocols specifically based on DUTCH Test Cycle Mapping, nor do they show improved clinical outcomes when chiropractic care is guided by this test. ^[2][5] Major endocrine and gynecology guidelines that address menstrual irregularities, infertility, PCOS, perimenopause, or hormone replacement therapy rely on serum, standard urine, and sometimes salivary assays interpreted by physicians; they do not mention DUTCH testing or dried‑urine cycle mapping as a recommended diagnostic or monitoring tool. ^[7][44] Independent evidence reviews explicitly state that DUTCH testing, while technically capable of measuring hormones, is not recommended as a routine clinical tool because of insufficient evidence for clinical utility and lack of guideline endorsement. ^[1][3] There is no controlled evidence that chiropractic manipulation or typical chiropractic modalities can meaningfully modify ovarian, pituitary, or adrenal hormone patterns across the menstrual cycle, and claims that spinal adjustments normalize cycle mapping patterns or treat endocrine disorders are not supported by high‑quality trials or guidelines. ^[6] The available validation work for DUTCH is limited to analytical and methodological comparisons; it does not demonstrate that using DUTCH Cycle Mapping to direct any treatment (chiropractic or otherwise) improves patient‑important outcomes such as fertility rates, symptom scores, or quality of life. ^[4] Overall, the gap between analytical validation and demonstrated clinical benefit remains large, and no peer‑reviewed data close that gap for chiropractor-led DUTCH Cycle Mapping protocols.

Mainstream view

Mainstream medical and scientific practice accepts that dried‑urine mass‑spectrometry methods can, in some settings, accurately quantify certain hormones and metabolites, but it does not consider the commercial DUTCH Test Cycle Mapping a standard or guideline‑recommended tool for diagnosing or managing menstrual or endocrine disorders. ^[44] Endocrinologists and gynecologists generally base hormone-related decisions on clinical history, examination, and conventional laboratory testing (serum hormones, sometimes 24‑hour urine for specific indications), within evidence‑based frameworks for conditions such as PCOS, infertility, and menopausal symptoms. ^[1][2] Major professional bodies do not recommend chiropractic care as a treatment for endocrine or menstrual cycle disorders, and there is no recognized role for chiropractors in managing hormonal conditions via specialized testing such as DUTCH Cycle Mapping. The mainstream position is that DUTCH Cycle Mapping may be an experimental or adjunctive laboratory approach whose clinical utility has not been established, and that using it to drive chiropractic treatment plans goes beyond the evidence base and outside current guideline-supported care pathways. ^[3][4][6]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“DUTCH Test Cycle Mapping”

Rule: Minn. Stat. § 148.01, subds. 1(4), 3; Minn. Stat. § 148.08

Michelle Rae Lelwica is not licensed or approved by Minnesota Board of Chiropractic Examiners to advertise 3x4 Comprehensive Genetic Test as within their scope of practice.

3x4 Comprehensive Genetic Test

Supports

There is no high-quality evidence from systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials, or major clinical guidelines that specifically supports a chiropractor using or "treating" results of a 3x4 Comprehensive Genetic Test to guide care. ^[2][6] Major guidelines on hypertension, nutrition, headache, transfusion, and pericarditis management do not recommend chiropractor-directed genomics-based interventions as a standard or evidence-based therapy. ^[1][5][7][8] Academic literature on clinical genetics supports the use of validated pharmacogenomic and disease-risk panels in certain medical contexts, but this is generally under physician or genetics specialist supervision, not chiropractic practice. ^[3] Any perceived support for the claim would be extrapolative, not grounded in robust RCTs or guidelines.

Contradicts

Mainstream, guideline-driven care for common conditions such as hypertension, inflammatory bowel disease, tension-type headache, and cardiovascular disease relies on well-established clinical and pharmacologic interventions rather than chiropractic manipulation guided by commercial genetic tests. ^[1][3][4] For example, hypertension guidelines emphasize lifestyle changes and antihypertensive drugs with strong outcome data and do not include chiropractor-managed genetic test interpretation as an evidence-based strategy. ESPEN and ASPEN-FELANPE nutrition guidelines similarly base decisions on clinical status, standard lab markers, and validated risk scores, not chiropractic genomics panels. ^[2][5] Evidence methods such as GRADE explicitly stress the need for high-quality, precise data before recommending new interventions; no such data exist for chiropractic treatment based on 3x4 Comprehensive Genetic Testing. ^[6] Overall, the available guideline and trial literature contradicts the notion that this practice is established, validated, or outcome-improving compared with standard care.

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical position is that genetic testing should be used selectively and interpreted by appropriately trained medical or genetics professionals, within the framework of conditions where its clinical utility is supported by evidence. ^[6] Current major guidelines across cardiology, neurology, gastroenterology, and clinical nutrition do not endorse chiropractor-directed treatment plans based on commercial multi-gene tests like a 3x4 Comprehensive Genetic Test. ^[2][3][5] Standard of care remains guideline-based management using proven lifestyle, pharmacologic, and procedural interventions evaluated by rigorous methods such as GRADE, with genomics integrated only where strong evidence supports benefit. ^[1] Use of unvalidated genetic panels to drive chiropractic treatment is considered outside evidence-based mainstream practice and is generally viewed as experimental or commercial rather than medically established.

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“3x4 Comprehensive Genetic Test”

Rule: Minn. Stat. § 148.01, subds. 1(4), 3

Michelle Rae Lelwica is not licensed or approved by Minnesota Board of Chiropractic Examiners to diagnose, treat, or cure ZRT Neurotransmitter Test.

ZRT Neurotransmitter Test

Supports

There is no high-quality evidence such as randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, or major guidelines specifically supporting “chiropractic treatment of ZRT Neurotransmitter Test” results as a basis for diagnosis or management of neurological, psychiatric, or general health conditions. Academic reviews of urinary neurotransmitter testing note that neurotransmitters excreted in urine may have some role as biomarkers of nervous system activity, but this is framed as potential or limited applicability rather than a well-validated clinical decision tool.^[18] One review suggests urinary neurotransmitters may have a place in clinical practice as biomarkers of nervous system function to assess disturbances and monitor treatment efficacy, but does not tie this to chiropractic care or to comprehensive treatment decisions based solely on these tests.^[5][15] Overall, any support is indirect, theory-based, and not grounded in high-quality interventional trials or guideline endorsements.

Contradicts

Peer‑reviewed analyses of spot baseline urinary monoamine/neurotransmitter assays directly challenge the validity of using such tests for individualized clinical treatment decisions. A comprehensive review concludes that there is currently no scientific basis, value, or predictability in obtaining baseline monoamine assays for diagnosing central or peripheral nervous system neurotransmitter dysfunction or guiding treatment in typical patients, apart from screening for monoamine‑secreting tumors such as pheochromocytoma or carcinoid syndrome.^[16][10] Another study shows that repeated spot urinary serotonin, dopamine, norepinephrine, and epinephrine measurements from the same subjects differ significantly between days and are not reproducible, leading the authors to conclude that such assays are of no value in clinical decision‑making for neurotransmitter deficiency disorders in patients without monoamine‑secreting tumors.^[3][10] These papers explicitly state that the “spot baseline urinary neurotransmitter testing marketing model” used to sell such assays has no valid scientific foundation and has not been clinically proven for individualized patient treatment.^[16][10] Major evidence‑based guidelines included in the index list (hypertension, clinical nutrition, tension‑type headache, parenteral nutrition, blood transfusion therapy) do not incorporate urinary neurotransmitter testing or chiropractic interpretation of such tests as part of standard management, underscoring that these practices lie outside guideline‑driven care.^{[0][1][2][3][4][6][7]} There is no peer‑reviewed guideline or high‑quality trial supporting chiropractors using ZRT urinary neurotransmitter results to diagnose or manage conditions, and existing methodological critiques indicate the evidence base is weak and inconsistent for this type of test as a general clinical tool.^[10][16]

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical and scientific position is that spot urinary neurotransmitter testing (including commercial panels such as those offered by ZRT) is not a validated tool for diagnosing central nervous system neurotransmitter imbalances, psychiatric disorders, or most chronic conditions, and should not be used as a stand‑alone basis for treatment decisions. Evidence‑based reviews emphasize that baseline urinary monoamine assays lack reproducibility and predictive value for individual patient management, and their only clearly established clinical use is as part of screening for specific monoamine‑secreting tumors (e.g., pheochromocytoma, carcinoid syndrome).^[10][16][3] Major guidelines in internal medicine and neurology focus on established diagnostic methods and do not recommend urinary neurotransmitter testing or chiropractic interpretation of such tests for routine care.^{[0][1][2][3][4][6][7]} Use of ZRT Neurotransmitter Test panels to direct chiropractic treatment—whether for mood, pain, fatigue, or other systemic complaints—is therefore considered outside mainstream, evidence‑based practice. When urinary neurotransmitter measurements are discussed in the academic literature, they are viewed as potential or adjunct biomarkers with limited and context‑specific applicability, not as core tools for diagnosis or therapeutic decision‑making, and certainly not specifically linked to chiropractic interventions.^[5][15][18]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“ZRT Neurotransmitter Test”

Rule: Minn. Stat. § 148.01, subds. 1(4), 3; Minn. Stat. § 148.08

Michelle Rae Lelwica is not licensed or approved by Minnesota Board of Chiropractic Examiners to advertise ZRT Adrenal stress Profile as within their scope of practice.

ZRT Adrenal stress Profile

Supports

The ZRT Adrenal Stress Profile is a commercial salivary hormone panel measuring diurnal cortisol and DHEA‑S and is marketed as assessing adrenal stress or imbalance, but this is a laboratory diagnostic product description rather than peer‑reviewed clinical outcome evidence for chiropractic treatment of such profiles.^{[8][9][10][11][14][15][16][17][18][19]} Salivary cortisol is accepted in mainstream endocrinology as a valid biomarker for certain indications, especially late‑night salivary cortisol for Cushing’s syndrome and for research use in stress assessment, which indirectly supports the general validity of salivary cortisol measurement but not any specific therapeutic intervention based on ZRT profile results.^[19] One chiropractic case report describes management of a patient with chronic fatigue where a saliva “adrenal function panel” (similar in concept to an adrenal stress profile) showed low diurnal cortisol, and after multimodal care including spinal manipulation, nutrition, botanicals, diet, and exercise, both symptoms and cortisol values improved, but this is uncontrolled anecdotal evidence and not high‑quality proof that chiropractic treatment of an adrenal stress profile is effective.^[21] No systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials, or major guidelines were found that specifically evaluate outcomes of patients whose ZRT Adrenal Stress Profile abnormalities are treated by chiropractors, so there is no high‑quality direct support for the influencer’s claim.

Contradicts

Major endocrine and hypertension guidelines focus on established diagnostic pathways (clinical evaluation, serum hormone assays, imaging, guideline‑driven risk factor management) and do not endorse commercial adrenal stress panels or chiropractic manipulation as validated treatments for adrenal dysfunction or stress‑related HPA axis disorders.^[0][3][4] Endocrine Society–type guidance and similar expert sources emphasize that no single salivary cortisol test is sufficient to diagnose adrenal disease and that panels like adrenal stress profiles should not be used as stand‑alone diagnostic tools for conditions such as Cushing’s or Addison’s disease, which undermines using such profiles as primary clinical targets for treatment.^[22] The concept of “adrenal fatigue” and broad adrenal stress panels is generally considered unproven by mainstream endocrinology; evidence for using them to guide specific therapies is weak and largely outside guideline‑based practice, and no high‑quality trials support chiropractic manipulation as a means to normalize salivary adrenal stress profiles or improve clinically important endocrine outcomes. The single chiropractic case report involving an adrenal function panel is low‑quality, uncontrolled, subject to placebo effects, regression to the mean, and multiple co‑interventions, so it cannot establish causality or generalizable benefit of chiropractic treatment directed at such panels.^[21] Overall, the absence of randomized trials, meta‑analyses, or guideline endorsement contradicts strong claims of efficacy for chiropractor treatment of ZRT Adrenal Stress Profile abnormalities.

Mainstream view

Mainstream medical and scientific practice accepts salivary cortisol testing as a useful tool in specific, evidence‑based contexts (for example late‑night salivary cortisol in suspected Cushing’s syndrome and research on stress physiology), but does not endorse broad commercial adrenal stress panels as primary diagnostic instruments for adrenal disease or generalized fatigue. Endocrinology and internal medicine guidelines recommend using validated diagnostic criteria and confirmatory testing (such as serum assays, 24‑hour urine free cortisol, or dexamethasone suppression tests) rather than proprietary profiles when assessing adrenal disorders.^[22] The notion of treating “adrenal stress” or “adrenal fatigue” by chiropractic manipulation is not part of standard evidence‑based care; chiropractic is mainly accepted for some musculoskeletal pain conditions, not as a recognized therapy for HPA axis dysfunction or adrenal hormone abnormalities. There is no guideline from major societies (endocrine, internal medicine, neurology, nutrition) that recommends chiropractor‑directed treatment of ZRT Adrenal Stress Profile results, and any such use is considered alternative or experimental, lacking robust clinical evidence.^[0][3][4]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“ZRT Adrenal stress Profile”

Rule: Minn. Stat. § 148.01, subds. 1(4), 3; Minn. Stat. § 148.08

Michelle Rae Lelwica is not licensed or approved by Minnesota Board of Chiropractic Examiners to advertise Genova Micronutrient Plasma NutraEval Test as within their scope of practice.

Genova Micronutrient Plasma NutraEval Test

Supports

The influencer’s claim appears to be that using the Genova NutrEval micronutrient plasma panel and then treating based on those results (in this case by a chiropractor) is evidence-based. There is some general evidence that biochemical markers of micronutrient status can be clinically useful in certain contexts, but this is indirect and not specific to the NutrEval test or chiropractic practice. For example, routine biochemical tests and micronutrient deficiency biomarkers have been used to predict poor nutritional status and malnutrition risk in older adults, with reasonable diagnostic performance, suggesting that lab-based nutrient assessment can help identify at-risk patients.^[3] This supports the very broad idea that objective biochemical assessment of nutrition can have clinical value in medical care, though not specifically via NutrEval or chiropractic treatment.^[3] There is also evidence that biomarker panels targeting micronutrient deficiencies and metabolic/oxidative stressors can change physician behavior and improve diagnostic recognition of treatable factors in chronic pain (Foundation Pain Index trial), showing that a specialized biomarker panel can have clinical utility in guiding non-opioid interventions.^[7] However, this panel is not NutrEval and was studied in primary care physicians, not chiropractors.^[7]

Contradicts

No high-quality randomized trials, systematic reviews, or major guidelines were identified that validate Genova’s NutrEval micronutrient plasma/urine testing as improving hard clinical outcomes (symptom relief, reduced morbidity, mortality) when used to guide treatment of any condition, let alone specifically chiropractic treatment. Current major evidence-based guidelines in hypertension management, parenteral nutrition, inflammatory bowel disease nutrition, and headache care do not recommend broad proprietary micronutrient panels such as NutrEval as standard diagnostic tools or as required for management decisions.^{[0][1][2][3][4]} Insufficient or imprecise evidence is explicitly highlighted as a concern in guideline methodology, emphasizing the need for robust outcome data before adopting new diagnostics.^[5] Several contemporary payer and policy documents (which synthesize available evidence) classify NutrEval FMV and similar nutrient/nutritional panels as investigational or not medically necessary for all indications, citing lack of studies that demonstrate improved patient outcomes or changes in management that translate into benefit over standard vitamin/mineral testing and clinical assessment. These policy summaries also note that NutrEval and related intracellular micronutrient panels have not undergone FDA review for analytic/clinical validity or utility and that no controlled studies show that use of these panels leads to better health outcomes.^{[10][17][18][21]} This directly contradicts any strong claim that NutrEval-based treatment is established, evidence-based standard of care. There is also no evidence base specific to chiropractic practice showing that chiropractors using NutrEval testing achieve superior outcomes compared with usual chiropractic care or standard medical nutritional assessment. Overall, evidence remains weak, largely promotional, and observational for NutrEval itself, and essentially absent for its integration into chiropractic treatment plans.^{[9][11][12][16][19][20][22]}

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical and scientific position is that micronutrient status is important and should be assessed when clinically indicated, but broad proprietary panels such as Genova’s NutrEval are not currently endorsed by major guidelines as routine or necessary tools. Standard practice relies on targeted testing (e.g., vitamin D, B12, iron studies) when there is a clear clinical suspicion, along with evidence-based nutritional support where appropriate.^[1][2][3] Intracellular and multi-biomarker micronutrient panel testing, including NutrEval FMV, is generally considered investigational, with payers and policy reviews noting a lack of validation studies showing improved patient outcomes or superiority over conventional testing.^[17][18][21] No major specialty societies recommend NutrEval for diagnosis or management of hypertension, inflammatory bowel disease, headache, or in guideline-based nutrition support.^{[0][1][2][3][4]} Use of such panels is primarily confined to integrative/functional medicine and wellness practices, often without robust outcome data. Mainstream care does not recognize chiropractor-directed treatment based on NutrEval results as an evidence-based standard; if micronutrient abnormalities are suspected, assessment and management are typically led by appropriately trained medical or nutrition professionals following established guidelines.^[1][2][3]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Genova Micronutrient Plasma NutraEval Test”

Rule: Minn. Stat. § 148.01, subds. 1(4), 3; Minn. Rules pt. 2500.0100

Michelle Rae Lelwica is not licensed or approved by Minnesota Board of Chiropractic Examiners to diagnose, treat, or cure Genova GI Effects Test.

Genova GI Effects Test

Supports

There is no high-quality evidence indicating that chiropractic treatment specifically based on the Genova GI Effects stool test improves gastrointestinal outcomes, symptom control, or hard clinical endpoints such as IBD control, nutritional status, or need for hospitalization. ^{[4][6][52][53]} Existing descriptions of the GI Effects test come mainly from company materials and functional medicine marketing, not from randomized controlled trials or major guidelines. Major evidence-based GI and nutrition guidelines (for example, ESPEN guideline on clinical nutrition in inflammatory bowel disease) discuss standard stool tests and biomarkers such as fecal calprotectin, but do not mention the GI Effects proprietary panel or chiropractic use of such testing in managing GI disease. ^[1][2][3][5]

Contradicts

Mainstream evidence-based guidelines for gastrointestinal and systemic conditions emphasize validated diagnostics and treatments (e. g. , endoscopy, standard microbiology, fecal calprotectin, evidence-based nutrition, pharmacologic therapies) and do not support using proprietary functional stool panels like GI Effects to direct chiropractic interventions. The ESPEN guideline on clinical nutrition in inflammatory bowel disease focuses on nutritional assessment, enteral and parenteral nutrition, and conventional medical treatment; it does not recommend chiropractic care or proprietary stool panels for diagnosis or management of IBD. ^{[2][3][4][5][52]} Likewise, major evidence frameworks such as GRADE emphasize the need for precise estimates of benefit and harm, and there is no GRADE-quality evidence supporting chiropractic treatment plans derived from a GI Effects test. ^[6][53] Overall, there is an absence of RCTs, systematic reviews, or guideline statements showing that using the GI Effects test within chiropractic practice changes patient-important outcomes compared with usual evidence-based GI care. ^[1]

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical position is that gastrointestinal disorders should be evaluated and managed using validated diagnostic tools and treatments supported by high-quality evidence, including conventional stool tests, imaging, endoscopy, standard microbiology, and guideline-directed nutrition and pharmacologic therapy. ^[1][3][5][7] Proprietary functional stool panels like the Genova GI Effects test are generally considered adjunctive or experimental, with limited independent validation and no demonstrated impact on major clinical outcomes. ^[2][52] Chiropractic care is not a standard, guideline-recommended primary treatment for gastrointestinal disease, and there is no established role for chiropractors using the GI Effects panel as a basis for managing GI pathology. ^[4][53] Evidence-based practice frameworks such as GRADE would classify the evidence base for such an approach as very low quality due to imprecision, indirectness, and high risk of bias. ^[6]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Genova GI Effects Test”

Rule: Minn. Stat. § 148.01, subds. 1(4), 3; Minn. Stat. § 148.08

Michelle Rae Lelwica is not licensed or approved by Minnesota Board of Chiropractic Examiners to diagnose, treat, or cure Functional medicine root-cause care.

Functional medicine root-cause care

No specific health claims of theirs were cross-checked against the literature.

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Functional Medicine”

Rule: Minn. Stat. § 148.01, subds. 1(2), 1(6), 2, 3; Minn. Rules pt. 2500.0100