Evan Philip Mladenoff alias Brain Map Chiro

Evan Philip Mladenoff is not approved to offer HyperBaric Oxygen Therapy within a Chiropractor scope of practice under Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic).

HyperBaric Oxygen Therapy

Supports

Hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) clearly increases oxygen delivery to tissues by exposing patients to 100% oxygen under increased atmospheric pressure, which is a well-established physiological mechanism supported by multiple randomized controlled trials and clinical experience. ^{[7][9][10][11]} Several RCTs and cohort studies report HBOT as generally safe, with relatively low rates of serious adverse events when modern protocols and screening are used. ^[4] A large safety study found an adverse-event incidence per treatment session well below 1%, with middle-ear barotrauma, reversible visual changes, anxiety/claustrophobia, and rare oxygen-toxicity seizures being the main issues; most were self-limited and non–life-threatening. ^[5][12] Multiple RCTs in chronic wounds, long COVID, fibromyalgia, sports recovery, and PTSD report clinical benefits without major safety signals, and adverse events are typically described as mild to moderate and manageable within standard practice. Clinical guidelines and codes of good practice emphasize that HBOT is generally well tolerated when contraindications are respected and dosing (pressure, duration, number of sessions) is controlled, which supports the description of HBOT as having a relatively acceptable safety profile compared with many invasive therapies. ^[2][6]

Contradicts

The claim that HBOT provides extra oxygen “naturally” is not supported by mainstream scientific usage of the term: HBOT is a medical, technologically assisted intervention that uses pressurized chambers and high-concentration oxygen; it is not a physiologic or lifestyle exposure like normal breathing or exercise. ^{[9][10][11][12]} Calling it “natural” is more rhetorical than evidence-based and may be misleading. ^[1] The statement that HBOT has “minimal side effects” is an overstatement. Systematic reviews and large observational series document that adverse effects are not rare: middle-ear barotrauma occurs in around 9–17% of patients, transient myopia and other ocular changes in a notable minority, and overall adverse events in roughly 15–20% of patients, although most are mild and reversible. Oxygen toxicity (including seizures), pulmonary barotrauma, sinus barotrauma, and significant anxiety/claustrophobia are well-characterized risks, especially with longer treatment courses or higher pressures. Guidelines stress the need for careful patient selection, monitoring, and documentation of complications, which contradicts the implication that side effects are minimal enough to be trivial. ^[2][6] There is also substantial variability in safety depending on indication, protocol, comorbidities, and chamber type, so a blanket claim of “minimal side effects” across all uses is not supported by high‑quality evidence.

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical view is that hyperbaric oxygen therapy is a specialized medical treatment that increases oxygen delivery by non‑physiologic means (pressurized chambers with high‑fraction inspired oxygen) and has a reasonably favorable, but not side‑effect‑free, safety profile. ^{[5][7][9][10][11][12]} HBOT is considered evidence‑based and indicated for specific, well‑defined conditions (such as decompression sickness, carbon monoxide poisoning, selected ischemic and infectious conditions, and some difficult chronic wounds) under expert supervision. ^[1] For these indications, benefits often outweigh risks when standard protocols and contraindication screening are applied. ^[4] However, HBOT is known to cause predictable adverse effects, mainly barotrauma to the middle ear and sinuses, reversible visual changes, confinement anxiety, and in rare cases oxygen toxicity or pulmonary barotrauma; long treatment courses increase cumulative risk. Current guidelines and expert reviews describe HBOT as “generally safe” or “relatively safe” rather than “minimal side effects,” and emphasize informed consent, risk counseling, and adherence to good‑practice codes. ^[2] As a result, mainstream medicine would accept the part of the claim that HBOT increases tissue oxygen, but would reject calling it natural and would qualify the safety description to acknowledge non‑trivial, though usually manageable, side effects.

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“HyperBaric Oxygen Therapy”

Rule: K.S.A. 65-2871

Evan Philip Mladenoff is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Functional Neurology.

Functional Neurology

Supports

High-quality evidence for chiropractic 'functional neurology' as a distinct therapeutic approach is extremely limited. The main scoping and systematic reviews of functional neurology in a chiropractic context report that there are almost no randomized controlled trials or higher-level studies specifically testing functional neurology protocols as used by chiropractors for neurological or functional disorders; most reports are case studies or uncontrolled series. These reviews conclude that while spinal manipulation can produce measurable changes in brain-related physiological parameters in some small trials, there is no robust evidence that these changes translate into clinically meaningful neurological outcomes. Evidence from broader chiropractic RCTs shows that standard chiropractic care can modestly improve pain and function in musculoskeletal conditions (e.g., cervical radiculopathy, subclinical spinal pain), and can modulate neurotrophic and inflammatory markers in the short term, but these are not studies of chiropractic functional neurology as branded and do not establish disease‑specific neurological benefits.^[15] Existing neurologic treatment guidelines and general principles documents from major bodies (e.g., American Academy of Neurology) support using novel or unconventional therapies only when evidence is limited and after careful risk–benefit discussion, but they do not endorse chiropractic functional neurology as a standard treatment for neurological disorders.^[11]

Contradicts

The key peer‑reviewed syntheses examining chiropractic functional neurology characterize it as lacking an adequate evidence base and likely pseudoscientific when promoted as a neurologic treatment system. These reviews emphasize that there are no randomized controlled trials demonstrating that chiropractic functional neurology improves clinical outcomes in patients with diagnosed neurological conditions, and that available work consists almost entirely of case reports and low‑quality evidence, which would be rated as very low certainty under GRADE criteria.^[5][6] Broader systematic reviews on spinal manipulation and brain function report inconsistent physiological findings and explicitly state that it is premature to claim brain‑function or neurologic benefits from such interventions. Major neurologic guidelines and position statements instead recommend evidence‑based treatments (such as physiotherapy plus cognitive behavioral therapy for functional movement disorders, or stroke and traumatic brain injury rehabilitation) and do not list chiropractic functional neurology among recommended therapies, highlighting that current neurologic care standards rest on modalities with substantially stronger trial and guideline support.^[18] Overall, the evidence base for chiropractic functional neurology is weak, indirect, and insufficient to substantiate influencer‑style claims of broad neurological efficacy.

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical and neurologic position is that chiropractic care has an established but limited role in managing certain musculoskeletal pain conditions, while chiropractic functional neurology—as a separate branded system claiming to diagnose and treat a wide range of neurological and functional disorders via complex sensory, vestibular, and manipulation‑based protocols—does not currently have robust supporting evidence and is not incorporated into major neurology or rehabilitation guidelines. High‑quality care for neurological and functional disorders focuses on interventions backed by randomized trials and systematic reviews (for example, multidisciplinary physiotherapy plus cognitive behavioral therapy for functional movement disorders, structured stroke and TBI rehabilitation, and pharmacologic or neuromodulation therapies with demonstrated benefits), and novel or unconventional approaches are considered only cautiously, with explicit acknowledgement of limited evidence.^[18][11] Within this framework, chiropractic functional neurology is generally regarded as experimental or unproven rather than an evidence‑based standard of care.

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Functional Neurology”

Rule: K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act)

Evan Philip Mladenoff is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Visual Brain Tracking.

Visual Brain Tracking

Supports

There is very limited direct evidence that chiropractic care can modify certain oculomotor functions, but it does not specifically establish effective “treatment” of visual tracking disorders in a robust, clinically meaningful way. A randomized controlled trial in patients with persistent post-concussion symptoms reported that a short course of chiropractic intervention improved some visual-related outcomes such as static and dynamic gaze stability and an attentional (Stroop) test compared with a control intervention, but smooth pursuit (tracking a moving target) performance actually worsened with increased tracking error after chiropractic care.^[10] This suggests chiropractic can influence some aspects of oculomotor control but not necessarily improve visual tracking. A small pilot study in children with ADHD found that a single session of chiropractic intervention led to a statistically significant reduction in total reading time versus a control intervention, using eye-tracker metrics that include saccades and fixations, but did not show significant differences in target acquisition time or off-target distractions; this indicates at best a modest, indirect effect on oculomotor-related reading performance and is underpowered for firm conclusions.^[12] A prospective cohort study of spinal manipulation in adults with visual complaints showed only a very small improvement in visual acuity with a minimal effect size, and the authors explicitly concluded that there is little clinical evidence to recommend spinal manipulation for visual disorders in general.^[17] Overall, the available research consists of small trials and pilot studies with short-term outcomes and surrogate measures (eye tracking metrics, gaze stability) rather than well-defined visual tracking disorders, so the evidence base is preliminary and not high quality.

Contradicts

High-quality evidence and expert commentary emphasize that there is currently little clinical evidence to support spinal manipulation as a treatment for visual disorders broadly, which would include visual tracking problems.^[17] The prospective cohort study on spinal manipulation and vision found only a statistically significant but clinically trivial improvement in visual acuity and explicitly warned against advocating spinal manipulation as an intervention for patients with visual disorders based on existing data.^[17] The randomized controlled trial of chiropractic care in post-concussion patients demonstrated that while gaze stability improved, smooth pursuit tracking of moving targets actually became worse (increased tracking error) after chiropractic intervention compared with control, directly contradicting any generalized claim that chiropractic reliably improves visual tracking performance.^[10] A randomized clinical trial of osteopathic manipulative treatment (another manual therapy) in healthy adults found no greater improvement in smooth pursuit eye movements in the treatment group than in control groups, supporting the idea that manual therapies do not have a clear, reproducible enhancing effect on tracking eye movements even under controlled conditions.^[13] No major clinical guidelines for neurological, ophthalmologic, or rehabilitation management of visual or oculomotor disorders recommend chiropractic treatment as a standard or evidence-based therapy; mainstream guidelines in other areas (e.g., hypertension management, nutrition, headache) show how evidence-based recommendations are typically grounded in large trials and systematic reviews, in contrast to the sparse and low-level evidence for chiropractic and vision.^[0][3] Taken together, this means that strong claims that chiropractors can treat or normalize visual brain tracking are not supported by the current evidence and, in at least one RCT, are partially contradicted by worsening of tracking measures.^[10]

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical and scientific position is that visual tracking and other oculomotor disorders are primarily evaluated and managed by ophthalmology, neurology, and vision/vestibular rehabilitation specialists, using established approaches such as vision therapy, vestibular rehabilitation, targeted eye-movement exercises, management of underlying neurologic or ocular disease, and, when appropriate, pharmacologic or surgical interventions. Chiropractic care is not considered an evidence-based primary treatment for visual tracking or “visual brain tracking” disorders, and major specialty guidelines do not list spinal manipulation as a recommended therapy for these conditions.^[17][0][3] The small number of chiropractic studies in this area use surrogate outcomes, have small samples, short follow-up, and mixed results (with some improvements in gaze stability but worsening smooth pursuit), so they are viewed as exploratory rather than practice-changing evidence.^[10][12] Evidence-based frameworks such as GRADE emphasize the need for precise, consistent, and clinically meaningful outcome data before recommending an intervention; by those standards, the current chiropractic-vision literature is low-certainty and insufficient to justify strong clinical claims about treating visual tracking problems.^[5] Accordingly, mainstream clinicians may allow that chiropractic manipulation might have indirect effects in select contexts (e.g., neck pain, some aspects of post-concussion rehabilitation) but do not regard it as a validated treatment to correct visual tracking or oculomotor

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Visual Brain Tracking”

Rule: K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act)

Evan Philip Mladenoff is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Neeurofeedback.

Neeurofeedback

Supports

There is moderate evidence that neurofeedback (EEG or fMRI-based feedback to train self-regulation of brain activity) can have clinical effects in some conditions, based on randomized controlled trials and position/guideline-type documents from professional societies and health technology assessments. ^{[1][2][3][5][22][24]} Several recent RCTs show short-term benefits of neurofeedback-assisted mindfulness or neurofeedback training versus control conditions for specific outcomes (for example, improved upper-limb motor function after stroke, reduced depression and anxiety in nursing students, or enhanced motor imagery ability), although effects are not always durable and between-group differences are sometimes small or borderline. ^[23] Outside of chiropractic, professional neurofeedback organizations have published standards of practice and guidelines that frame neurofeedback as a potentially useful adjunct in certain mental and neurological conditions, while emphasizing the need for appropriate licensure, training, and rigorous assessment. ^[4][6][21] Overall, the evidence base for neurofeedback itself is growing, but it remains heterogeneous and methodologically mixed, with some promising results in narrow indications. contradicts

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Neeurofeedback”

Rule: K.S.A. 65-2871

Evan Philip Mladenoff is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Inflammation Score.

Inflammation Score

Supports

High-quality evidence specifically showing that chiropractic treatment reliably lowers a generalized “inflammation score” is limited. ^[27] A small randomized or quasi-randomized trial in chronic low back pain patients reported that a short course of chiropractic spinal manipulation (about 9 lumbar adjustments) altered inflammatory mediators such as IL-6 and high-sensitivity CRP in a direction interpreted by authors as “normalization” toward control values, suggesting potential modulation of systemic inflammatory markers, but this was an exploratory study with modest sample size and short follow‑up and provides only low‑quality evidence of benefit. ^[25][26][21] Separate randomized and proof‑of‑principle studies have found that spinal manipulative therapy can change certain cytokines (e. ^[7] g. , TNF‑α, IL‑6, IFN‑γ) acutely, indicating biological effects on inflammatory pathways, but again with low certainty and heterogeneous results. A systematic review of biochemical changes after spinal manipulation concluded there is low‑quality evidence that manipulation can influence biochemical markers, including some inflammation‑related biomarkers, compared with control, but the data were not pooled and were judged imprecise and inconsistent, reinforcing that current supporting evidence is exploratory rather than definitive. ^[6] Broader high‑quality trials and guidelines for systemic inflammatory conditions (e. ^[2] g. , inflammatory bowel disease, rheumatoid arthritis, cardiovascular disease) focus on pharmacologic therapy, nutrition, and lifestyle, and do not feature chiropractic manipulation as a core anti‑inflammatory treatment modality, indirectly supporting the view that any anti‑inflammatory effects of chiropractic care are at most adjunctive and not established as primary therapy. ^[3][5][4]

Contradicts

Multiple randomized and controlled studies examining chiropractic or spinal manipulative therapy show mixed or even opposite effects on inflammatory markers, which contradicts a simple claim that chiropractic treatment reliably reduces an overall inflammation score. ^{[7][25][26][27][21]} In healthy adults, higher‑force spinal manipulative therapy has been shown to acutely elevate certain pro‑inflammatory or dual‑role cytokines such as IL‑6 compared to lower‑force adjustments, demonstrating that manipulation can transiently increase, not decrease, some inflammatory biomarkers. A recent randomized controlled trial of 12 weeks of chiropractic care in adults evaluated systemic inflammatory markers including CRP and IL‑6 and found no significant group effect on CRP and a significant increase in IL‑6 at 12 weeks in the chiropractic group compared with sham, indicating that chiropractic care did not uniformly lower systemic inflammation and may raise some markers over certain time frames. The systematic review on biochemical markers after spinal manipulation judged the overall evidence to be low quality, with heterogeneous, non‑pooled data and imprecision, meaning that any observed changes cannot be confidently interpreted as clinically meaningful reductions in systemic inflammation. ^[6] Major evidence‑based clinical guidelines for chronic inflammatory diseases, nutrition support, hypertension, headache, and cardiovascular inflammatory conditions focus on medications, diet, exercise, and other modalities, and do not recommend chiropractic treatment as a means of reducing systemic inflammation markers such as CRP or IL‑6, which contradicts any strong claim that chiropractic treatment is an established method for lowering an “inflammation score. ^{[1][2][3][5][4]} ” Moreover, contemporary GRADE methodology for rating evidence emphasizes that small, exploratory, imprecise trials like those in chiropractic inflammation research would be considered very low‑certainty evidence for a clinical effect, underscoring that current data are insufficient to substantiate robust anti‑inflammatory claims for chiropractic interventions .

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical and scientific position is that chiropractic and spinal manipulative therapy can have short‑term biomechanical and analgesic effects for some musculoskeletal conditions, but it is not regarded as an evidence‑based primary therapy for lowering systemic inflammation or a generalized “inflammation score. ^{[7][25][26][21]} ” Small exploratory trials and biochemical studies indicate that spinal manipulation can modulate certain cytokines and inflammatory mediators, sometimes upward and sometimes downward, but the evidence is low quality, heterogeneous, and lacks clear, clinically meaningful endpoints such as reduced morbidity or validated composite inflammation scores. Systematic reviews classify the evidence that spinal manipulation influences biochemical markers, including inflammatory biomarkers, as low‑certainty and insufficient for strong clinical recommendations. Major clinical guidelines for inflammatory conditions (e. ^[2] g. , inflammatory bowel disease, rheumatologic disease, cardiovascular disease) and for nutrition support and tension‑type headache management emphasize pharmacologic treatments (anti‑inflammatory drugs, disease‑modifying agents), lifestyle interventions (exercise, diet), and evidence‑based complementary therapies, and they do not include chiropractic manipulation as a recommended strategy to reduce systemic inflammation or standardized inflammation scores . ^[1][3][5][4] Under established evidence‑grading frameworks such as GRADE, the available chiropractic inflammation studies would be rated as very low‑quality and hypothesis‑generating rather than practice‑changing ^[6][27]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Inflammation Score”

Rule: K.S.A. 65-2871

Evan Philip Mladenoff is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Stress System Examination.

Stress System Examination

Supports

High-quality evidence in the provided index papers does not directly support chiropractic treatment for a condition called “Stress System Examination,” because that term is not a standard medical diagnosis or guideline-based indication. ^{[1][6][29][30]} The closest relevant chiropractic guideline in the indexed set addresses headache care and supports spinal manipulation for cervicogenic headache and, for tension-type headache, only as part of multimodal care rather than as a stand-alone cure . ^[5][31] General chiropractic literature also recognizes that psychosocial factors can affect chronic pain and that a focused history and examination should include psychosocial context, but that is not evidence that chiropractic treats a stress system disorder .

Contradicts

The claim is not supported by the indexed peer-reviewed guidelines on hypertension, nutrition, gastrointestinal disease, transfusion, pericarditis, or stress-related GI bleeding, because none of those address chiropractic treatment of a “stress system examination” or validate chiropractic as treatment for stress physiology . ^{[2][3][5][4][6][7][8][30]} Evidence specifically connecting chiropractic care to stress, anxiety, autonomic regulation, or cortisol is limited and mixed: the search results include case reports, small exploratory studies, and lower-level reviews, but not strong clinical trials establishing a reliable treatment effect. ^[28][31] The chiropractic-related evidence located in the search results is not enough to justify a treatment claim for stress-system disorders, especially because at least one source explicitly notes limited scientific evidence for chiropractic management of anxiety and depression, and the broader evidence base is described as low to moderate or uncertain . ^[1][29]

Mainstream view

Mainstream medical and scientific opinion is that chiropractic care is an evidence-based option for certain musculoskeletal complaints, especially some back and neck pain syndromes and selected headache conditions, but it is not an established treatment for a “stress system” condition. ^{[1][5][29][30]} Where stress, anxiety, or autonomic symptoms are present, standard care focuses on identifying the underlying medical or psychological cause and using validated treatments; any autonomic or stress-marker changes reported after manual therapy remain inconsistent and insufficient to support a general clinical indication. ^{[2][7][28][31]}

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Stress System Examination”

Rule: K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act)

Evan Philip Mladenoff is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Prenosological Examination.

Prenosological Examination

Supports

The concept of a prenosological examination refers to assessing functional reserves and adaptive capacity in individuals who are not yet clinically ill, with the aim of identifying risk conditions that precede fully developed disease. ^[32][33][35] Academic sources describe prenosological diagnostics as part of preventive medicine, used to evaluate cardio‑respiratory, muscular, nervous, coordination-motor and morphological systems to identify early functional disturbances and health risks before nosological disease appears. ^[34] According to these sources, prenosological examination is a screening and monitoring tool to stratify health risks and guide targeted preventive measures and rehabilitation programs, not a specific therapeutic intervention. Chiropractic practice does routinely include history-taking, physical examination, orthopaedic tests, neurological assessment, range-of-motion testing, and other clinical evaluations to diagnose and manage mainly musculoskeletal conditions, which aligns in general terms with performing clinical examinations and risk assessments, but the influencer’s specific phrase “chiropractor treatment of prenosological examination” is not directly addressed in major guidelines or high‑quality trials. ^[2][6] None of the indexed papers provided (e. g. , hypertension guidelines, nutrition guidelines, headache treatment guidelines, transfusion therapy, colchicine in pericarditis) discuss chiropractic care or prenosological examinations in the sense used by the influencer. ^[5][4][7][8]

Contradicts

High‑quality guidelines in internal medicine and clinical nutrition emphasize evidence‑based interventions (pharmacologic treatment for hypertension; structured nutrition support for inflammatory bowel disease; specific pharmacologic and non‑pharmacologic management for tension‑type headache; carefully indicated blood transfusion; colchicine for pericarditis) and do not mention chiropractic treatment as a recognized modality for managing prenosological states or for altering the course of these guideline‑defined conditions. ^{[1][2][3][5][4][6][7][8]} The prenosological literature frames prenosological diagnosis and examination as an epidemiologic and preventive medicine method to assess functional reserves and risk factors, typically tied to screening, health promotion, lifestyle modification, and medical follow‑up; it does not present chiropractic manipulation or other chiropractic interventions as standard or validated treatments for prenosological states. ^[32][33][35] Available descriptions of chiropractic practice and education show that chiropractic is focused primarily on musculoskeletal disorders (such as spinal pain) and that its diagnostic methods are those of conventional physical and neurological examination, not specialized prenosological diagnostic systems used in preventive medicine. ^[34] There is a lack of randomized controlled trials, meta‑analyses, or major guidelines demonstrating that chiropractic treatment specifically targets or corrects prenosological conditions as defined in the preventive-medicine literature or improves hard outcomes by treating “prenosological examination. ”

Mainstream view

Mainstream medical and scientific practice views prenosological examination and prenosological diagnostics as part of preventive medicine, aimed at early detection of subclinical functional disturbances and risk conditions, followed by evidence‑based preventive strategies such as lifestyle modification, risk factor control, and appropriate medical management. ^[1][4][32] Chiropractors are recognized in many health systems as providers of musculoskeletal care who use history, physical examination, and imaging to diagnose and treat conditions like low back and neck pain, sometimes within multidisciplinary care. ^[33][34] However, prenosological examination is not established, in major guidelines or high‑quality evidence, as a specific therapeutic target for chiropractic manipulation, nor is “chiropractor treatment of prenosological examination” a standard or validated concept in mainstream evidence‑based medicine. ^[2][6][35] Where prenosological approaches are used, they are generally integrated into broader medical preventive frameworks rather than being managed primarily or specifically by chiropractic treatment.

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Prenosological Examination”

Rule: K.S.A. 65-2871

Evan Philip Mladenoff is not approved to offer Applied Kinesiology within a Chiropractor scope of practice under Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic).

Applied Kinesiology

Supports

The strongest support is indirect and limited: some chiropractic and manual-therapy literature suggests that certain manual muscle testing approaches can be reliable in narrow contexts, but this does not establish Applied Kinesiology as a validated treatment system. ^{[7][36][37][38][39]} A recent systematic review found that reliability of Applied Kinesiology manual muscle testing ranged from nonexistent to very strong depending on method, and concluded that nonmusculoskeletal challenge testing was not recommended for clinical use. ^[2] The peer-reviewed literature also contains some pro-AK claims from within the field, but these are not major guideline-level endorsements and are not sufficient to support the claim as a clinically established treatment approach. ^[5]

Contradicts

Multiple reviews do not support Applied Kinesiology as a valid diagnostic or therapeutic method. A systematic review of kinesiology literature found insufficient evidence for diagnostic accuracy, validity of muscle response, or effectiveness for any condition. Another critical review reported that the studies evaluating unique Applied Kinesiology procedures either refute or cannot support their validity as diagnostic tests, and that use of manual muscle testing for diagnosing organic disease or pre/subclinical conditions is insupportable. ^[36][38][39] A double-blind randomized study found no reliable evidence that Applied Kinesiology works as a useful or reliable diagnostic tool for health decisions. ^[37] The claim is also not supported by any of the index papers provided, because the listed guidelines address unrelated conditions such as hypertension, nutrition, headache, transfusion, and pericarditis rather than Applied Kinesiology. ^{[2][5][4][6][7][8]}

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical and scientific view is that Applied Kinesiology is not an evidence-based diagnostic or treatment system, and its claims are generally considered unproven or unsupported. ^{[1][5][6][36][37][38][39]} Some isolated components of manual therapy may have limited evidence in specific musculoskeletal contexts, but that does not validate Applied Kinesiology as a whole. ^[7] Current evidence is weak, heterogeneous, and largely insufficient for routine clinical use, especially for diagnostic claims. ^[2]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Applied Kinesiology”

Rule: K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act)

Evan Philip Mladenoff is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to advertise uses the patient’s body and environment to assess, diagnose and localize areas of dysfunction within the nervous system as within their scope of practice.

uses the patient’s body and environment to assess, diagnose and localize areas of dysfunction within the nervous system

Supports

The core aspect of the claim – using examination of the patient’s body to assess, diagnose and localize dysfunction in the nervous system – is strongly supported by mainstream neurology, where lesion localization is explicitly based on history and physical (neurologic) examination of the patient.^[9] Clinical localization frameworks describe how specific patterns of motor, sensory, cranial nerve, cerebellar, and gait findings on examination are used to localize lesions to cortex, brainstem, spinal cord, roots, peripheral nerves, neuromuscular junction, or muscle, i.e., using the patient’s body as the primary assessment tool.^[13] These approaches are foundational in neurological practice and medical education, and are considered evidence‑based standards rather than alternative or fringe methods.^[9][13] Environment, in conventional neurology, is recognized mainly as a contextual factor (e.g., psychological state, cognitive abilities, and broader environment influencing pain experience and assessment scores), indicating that the patient’s environment can modulate symptom reporting and measurement but is not itself used as a primary localization tool.^[16]

Contradicts

Major clinical guidelines in hypertension management and related areas (e.g., evidence‑based hypertension guidelines, nutrition and parenteral nutrition guidelines, headache treatment guidelines) do not describe “using the environment” per se as a diagnostic/localization tool for nervous system dysfunction; rather, they focus on standardized clinical assessment, history, examination, laboratory tests, and imaging. This indicates that while environmental and psychosocial factors are clinically relevant, they are not framed as direct tools to localize nervous system lesions. In addition, systematic reviews and overviews of manual or osteopathic approaches targeting the nervous system show that, although osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) may influence autonomic nervous system parameters and brain activity, the evidence base is heterogeneous, often low in methodological quality, and largely exploratory; these papers emphasize that robust conclusions and generalizable diagnostic frameworks are lacking.^{[10][5][4][14][15]} Thus, any strong claim that the environment is routinely and reliably used to diagnose and localize nervous system dysfunction across conditions goes beyond current high‑quality evidence.

Mainstream view

Mainstream neurology and internal medicine accept that the patient’s body – via systematic history and neurologic examination – is the central tool to assess, diagnose, and localize nervous system dysfunction, and this is considered standard of care.^[9][13] Lesion localization frameworks (cortical, subcortical, brainstem, spinal cord, roots, peripheral nerves, neuromuscular junction, muscle) are built on detailed physical and neurological examination, often supplemented by imaging and laboratory tests as needed.^[13][17][20] The patient’s environment and psychosocial context are recognized as important modifiers of symptom expression, pain perception, and functional status, and are taken into account in clinical judgment and outcome assessment, but they are not generally conceptualized as primary, structured diagnostic tools for localizing nervous system dysfunction.^[16] Emerging research in osteopathic and manual therapy suggests the nervous system is a key target of these interventions and that manual inspection may provide information about nervous system function, but mainstream bodies consider this evidence preliminary, with insufficient high‑quality data to establish such methods as standard diagnostic tools.^[5][10][15]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“uses the patient’s body and environment to assess, diagnose and localize areas of dysfunction within the nervous system”

Rule: K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act)

Evan Philip Mladenoff is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to advertise we can help with any questions or issues you may have as within their scope of practice.

we can help with any questions or issues you may have

Supports

There is no clinical or scientific literature directly addressing or supporting the broad, service-level claim that an entity "can help with any questions or issues you may have." The indexed studies relate to specific medical questions (e.g., antifungal resistance in neonates, cancer pharmacokinetics, preterm infant bathing safety, thyroid surgery complications, musculoskeletal interventions for text neck, and GI tract examination technologies), each focused on defined populations, interventions, and outcomes rather than global capability claims. High-quality medical evidence supports only narrowly framed clinical statements tied to specific conditions and interventions, not unrestricted promises of being able to help with any possible question or issue.

Contradicts

Mainstream evidence-based practice stresses that expertise and evidence are domain-specific, and even highly specialized trials or technologies are limited to the particular indications and populations studied. For example, a trial on nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine applies to adults with advanced pancreatic cancer and cholestatic hyperbilirubinemia, not to all medical problems or questions. A trial on anti-aging effects of metformin concerns adults with prediabetes and cannot be generalized to all health or aging questions. Studies on swaddle bathing in preterm infants or risk factors for vocal cord palsy after thyroid surgery are restricted to those clinical contexts, illustrating that evidence and expertise are bounded. The influencer’s claim of being able to help with "any" questions or issues is therefore overgeneralized and not supported by the way clinical evidence is generated and applied, which contradicts the implication of universal capability.

Mainstream view

The mainstream scientific and medical position is that reliable help with questions or issues depends on domain-specific knowledge, training, and evidence, and no individual or service can credibly claim unlimited ability to help with any possible question or problem. Evidence-based medicine requires carefully defined clinical questions, appropriate study designs, and application within the studied populations and indications, as illustrated by focused trials on antifungal resistance in infants, chemotherapy regimens in pancreatic cancer, prediabetes interventions, neonatal care practices, musculoskeletal therapy techniques, and diagnostic technologies. Broad, unrestricted capability claims are regarded as marketing language rather than evidence-based statements.

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“we can help with any questions or issues you may have”

Rule: K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act)

Evan Philip Mladenoff is not approved to offer cold laser technology provides meaningful benefits in treating patients for pain treatment within a Chiropractor scope of practice under Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic).

cold laser technology provides meaningful benefits in treating patients for pain treatment

Supports

Several systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials report that low-level laser therapy (LLLT, often called cold laser or photobiomodulation) can reduce pain in certain musculoskeletal and soft-tissue conditions, though effects are generally modest and protocol-dependent. ^{[7][44][45][46][47]} A meta-analysis of adult musculoskeletal disorders found that LLLT significantly reduced pain compared with control, with greater effects when World Association for Laser Therapy dosage recommendations were followed. ^[4] Additional RCTs and meta-analyses show clinically relevant pain reduction and functional improvement in knee osteoarthritis when specific energy densities and wavelengths are used. Systematic reviews and RCTs focused on neck and myofascial pain report that LLLT can reduce pain intensity and increase pressure pain thresholds, although disability scores often show smaller or nonsignificant changes. Trials in orthopedic and sports-related pain (e. g. , patellar tendinopathy, chronic neck pain, plantar fasciitis, subacromial impingement) suggest LLLT as a safe adjunct that can improve pain and function compared with placebo or some active comparators. Recent RCTs in dental and postpartum settings also show reduced pain (e. g. , nipple trauma in breastfeeding women, post-endodontic pain), supporting that photobiomodulation can provide short-term analgesia in localized soft-tissue pain. The indexed guideline on tension-type headache emphasizes high-quality evidence methods (GRADE) for pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic treatments but does not specifically address cold laser, indirectly highlighting that major neurology guidelines focus on other established modalities for pain control rather than laser therapy at present. ^[1][2][6][5]

Contradicts

Evidence is inconsistent across conditions, and several high-quality trials and reviews find limited or no clinically meaningful benefit of LLLT for pain. ^[6] For nonspecific low-back pain, a Cochrane-style systematic review of randomized trials concluded that although some small studies showed statistically significant pain reductions versus sham, the effects were clinically unimportant and overall data were insufficient to draw firm conclusions, highlighting heterogeneity and risk of bias. Other RCTs in chronic low back pain report similar improvements in both laser and sham groups with no significant between-group differences, suggesting placebo and contextual effects rather than specific laser efficacy. ^[44][46] In osteoarthritis of the hand and some other musculoskeletal conditions, randomized placebo-controlled trials have found no superiority of LLLT over placebo for pain, stiffness, or function. A recent sham-controlled trial in subacute and chronic neck pain reported that a single application of low-level or infrared laser was not effective in the short term, and pressure-induced pain did not change, indicating that dose, frequency, and treatment regimen strongly influence whether any benefit is observed. ^[5][45][47] Comparative trials and systematic reviews note conflicting results and emphasize that many studies are small, underpowered or at risk of bias, with unclear optimal treatment parameters and limited long-term follow-up. Major general clinical guidelines included in the index list (e. ^[2] g. , hypertension, parenteral nutrition, inflammatory bowel disease, blood transfusion) do not discuss cold laser for pain, illustrating that broad evidence-based practice documents have not adopted it as a standard analgesic modality. ^[1][3][4][7]

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical position is that low-level or cold laser therapy may offer modest short-term pain relief in some localized musculoskeletal and soft-tissue conditions, but its benefits are condition-specific, parameter-dependent, and not reliably large or durable. ^{[7][44][45][46][47]} It is generally viewed as an adjunctive option rather than a primary or universal pain treatment. High-quality systematic reviews and evidence-based frameworks (such as those using GRADE methodology) emphasize the need for rigorous randomized trials with standardized dosing, clear clinical relevance of effect sizes, and long-term outcomes before strong recommendations can be made. ^[1][2][6] Major specialty guidelines for common pain conditions (e. g. , tension-type headache) prioritize treatments with robust evidence such as pharmacologic therapies and established nonpharmacologic interventions; cold laser is usually absent or mentioned only as experimental. ^[5] As a result, mainstream practice considers cold laser potentially useful in selected scenarios under appropriate protocols, but not a broadly validated technology that provides substantial, generalizable benefits across pain conditions. ^[4]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“cold laser technology provides meaningful benefits in treating patients for pain treatment”

Rule: K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act)

Evan Philip Mladenoff is not approved to offer Hyperbaric oxygen therapy provides this extra oxygen naturally and with minimal side effects within a Chiropractor scope of practice under Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic).

Hyperbaric oxygen therapy provides this extra oxygen naturally and with minimal side effects

Supports

Hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) clearly increases oxygen delivery to tissues by exposing patients to 100% oxygen under increased atmospheric pressure, which is a well-established physiological mechanism supported by multiple randomized controlled trials and clinical experience. ^{[7][9][10][11]} Several RCTs and cohort studies report HBOT as generally safe, with relatively low rates of serious adverse events when modern protocols and screening are used. ^[4] A large safety study found an adverse-event incidence per treatment session well below 1%, with middle-ear barotrauma, reversible visual changes, anxiety/claustrophobia, and rare oxygen-toxicity seizures being the main issues; most were self-limited and non–life-threatening. ^[5][12] Multiple RCTs in chronic wounds, long COVID, fibromyalgia, sports recovery, and PTSD report clinical benefits without major safety signals, and adverse events are typically described as mild to moderate and manageable within standard practice. Clinical guidelines and codes of good practice emphasize that HBOT is generally well tolerated when contraindications are respected and dosing (pressure, duration, number of sessions) is controlled, which supports the description of HBOT as having a relatively acceptable safety profile compared with many invasive therapies. ^[2][6]

Contradicts

The claim that HBOT provides extra oxygen “naturally” is not supported by mainstream scientific usage of the term: HBOT is a medical, technologically assisted intervention that uses pressurized chambers and high-concentration oxygen; it is not a physiologic or lifestyle exposure like normal breathing or exercise. ^{[9][10][11][12]} Calling it “natural” is more rhetorical than evidence-based and may be misleading. ^[1] The statement that HBOT has “minimal side effects” is an overstatement. Systematic reviews and large observational series document that adverse effects are not rare: middle-ear barotrauma occurs in around 9–17% of patients, transient myopia and other ocular changes in a notable minority, and overall adverse events in roughly 15–20% of patients, although most are mild and reversible. Oxygen toxicity (including seizures), pulmonary barotrauma, sinus barotrauma, and significant anxiety/claustrophobia are well-characterized risks, especially with longer treatment courses or higher pressures. Guidelines stress the need for careful patient selection, monitoring, and documentation of complications, which contradicts the implication that side effects are minimal enough to be trivial. ^[2][6] There is also substantial variability in safety depending on indication, protocol, comorbidities, and chamber type, so a blanket claim of “minimal side effects” across all uses is not supported by high‑quality evidence.

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical view is that hyperbaric oxygen therapy is a specialized medical treatment that increases oxygen delivery by non‑physiologic means (pressurized chambers with high‑fraction inspired oxygen) and has a reasonably favorable, but not side‑effect‑free, safety profile. ^{[5][7][9][10][11][12]} HBOT is considered evidence‑based and indicated for specific, well‑defined conditions (such as decompression sickness, carbon monoxide poisoning, selected ischemic and infectious conditions, and some difficult chronic wounds) under expert supervision. ^[1] For these indications, benefits often outweigh risks when standard protocols and contraindication screening are applied. ^[4] However, HBOT is known to cause predictable adverse effects, mainly barotrauma to the middle ear and sinuses, reversible visual changes, confinement anxiety, and in rare cases oxygen toxicity or pulmonary barotrauma; long treatment courses increase cumulative risk. Current guidelines and expert reviews describe HBOT as “generally safe” or “relatively safe” rather than “minimal side effects,” and emphasize informed consent, risk counseling, and adherence to good‑practice codes. ^[2] As a result, mainstream medicine would accept the part of the claim that HBOT increases tissue oxygen, but would reject calling it natural and would qualify the safety description to acknowledge non‑trivial, though usually manageable, side effects.

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Hyperbaric oxygen therapy provides this extra oxygen naturally and with minimal side effects.”

Rule: K.S.A. 65-2871

Evan Philip Mladenoff is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Learn More.

Learn More

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Learn More”

Rule: K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act)