Dani Steffen alias The Root-Cause Chiropractor
moving supplement units at Chiropractic
Website · puremovementkc.com
Practice location
273 - 8029 13100 Kansas Ave
Ste. C Bonner Springs, KS 66012
Funnel-first framing that runs on persuasion, light on published evidence.
- Of 6 health claims, 4 run counter to or conflict with the published evidence, and 1 were not independently checked.
- Primary persuasion tactic: Borrowed medical breadth.
- Stated credentials look inflated relative to the advice given.
- Profits from the products and labs they recommend, with no clear disclosure.
- Gives advice beyond what their license covers.
Automatic 100s across the board: this Doc Bro pays followers a commission to refer people, your grandma included, for blood draws and supplement hauls. When the patient pipeline has a compensation plan, the grift debate is over.
Dani Steffen has the tasteful confidence of someone who can adjust your spine, your nutrition, your sauna schedule, and your entire theory of disease in one convenient visit. Why stop at musculoskeletal care when you can slap 'integrative healthcare' on the door and let the broadest possible wellness aura do the selling?
High grift signals
Score breakdown
Direct answer
Dani Steffen is licensed in Kansas as a chiropractor (DC), not as an MD or DO, and Kansas's chiropractic scope statute (K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act)) limits that license to musculoskeletal care, not the diagnosis or treatment of systemic disease. Even so, they advertise diagnosing or treating Functional medicine, DOT physicals, Acupuncture / dry needling, Prenatal / pediatric care, and Infrared sauna, conditions that belong with appropriately board-certified physicians. Those same pages route patients toward paid programs that Dani Steffen profits from.
Key findings
- False Authority: The page bundles chiropractic with physical therapy, functional medicine, acupuncture, DOT physicals, prenatal/pediatric care, and disease-language like 'cause of discomfort, disease, or dysfunction,' which makes a narrow-license clinic sound like general medicine.see section ↓
- Claim "The clinic claims to find the cause of disease/dysfunction and reduce or eliminate it.": mixed in the medical literature.see section ↓
- Claim "functional medicine": mixed in the medical literature.see section ↓
- NPI registry confirms DANI DOLORES STEFFEN as Chiropractor (DC) in Kansas (NPI 1609431501).see section ↓
- Dani Steffen shows credential inflation relative to stated vs likely credentials.see section ↓
- Dr Dani Steffen is marketed with a doctor title, but reviewed credentials indicate Chiropractor (DC) rather than an MD/DO physician license.see section ↓
- Against Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) scope rules (K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act)), these advertised activities appear outside Dani Steffen's license (including conditions they merely list as ones they treat): Functional medicine, DOT physicals, Acupuncture / dry…see section ↓
- 9 of 10 advertised activities fall outside permitted Chiropractor scope in KS.see section ↓
Claims & evidence
5 advertised conditions or treatments fall outside their license scope. Each box leads with state-board scope notation; literature cross-check follows when we matched a specific claim. Every card carries its receipts: the quoted wording, a live source link, and an archived copy.
Dani Steffen is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Functional medicine.
Functional medicine
- Supports
- There is limited peer‑reviewed evidence evaluating functional medicine as a distinct, validated medical model. [2] Some academic reviews describe functional medicine as a systems‑biology, patient‑centered framework that uses evidence‑based modalities such as nutrition, exercise, stress reduction, and certain medications or supplements, all of which individually have supportive evidence in conventional medicine for chronic disease prevention and management. [1] Observational outcome data (e. g. , quality‑of‑life or practice‑based cohorts) have reported patient‑reported improvements after care delivered in a functional‑medicine style clinic, but these are not randomized trials and mainly show associations rather than causation. [3] Lifestyle and nutrition interventions that functional medicine often employs—such as improving diet quality, physical activity, sleep, and stress management—are strongly supported by mainstream RCTs, guidelines, and systematic reviews, but these trials typically evaluate the interventions themselves, not “functional medicine” branding or its broader diagnostic/testing paradigm.
- Contradicts
- Major mainstream bodies have explicitly judged the overall evidence base for functional medicine to be insufficient. [2] A formal review by the American Academy of Family Physicians concluded there was not enough high‑quality evidence to support teaching functional medicine practice techniques in accredited continuing education, and noted that some claims and treatments promoted under the functional‑medicine banner may be potentially dangerous because they rely on unvalidated tests and supplement regimens rather than guideline‑based care. [1] Independent academic and science‑communication critiques describe functional medicine as a rebranding of complementary and alternative medicine, highlight its frequent use of unproven diagnoses (such as adrenal fatigue) and extensive biochemical testing of unproven clinical value, and emphasize that there are no robust randomized controlled trials or large, high‑quality comparative effectiveness studies demonstrating that the functional‑medicine model, as a package, improves hard outcomes (mortality, major morbidity, health‑care utilization) beyond standard, evidence‑based care. [3] Publications promoting functional medicine approaches to specific conditions (for example, long COVID) acknowledge that underlying pathophysiology and treatments remain poorly defined and that suggested protocols rely on extrapolation, low‑level evidence, and expert opinion rather than rigorous trials, underscoring that the model is largely hypothesis‑driven and not yet validated. Overall, high‑quality systematic reviews, meta‑analyses, and major guidelines do not endorse functional medicine itself as an evidence‑based, superior medical paradigm; instead, they support selected lifestyle or nutrition components that functional‑medicine practitioners also use but which are already part of conventional preventive and chronic‑disease care.
- Mainstream view
- Mainstream medicine views functional medicine as a loosely defined, alternative or integrative framework that borrows many legitimate, evidence‑based tools (nutrition counseling, exercise prescriptions, risk‑factor modification) but wraps them in a broader practice model that lacks rigorous validation and often incorporates unproven testing, diagnoses, and supplement protocols. [1][2] Leading professional societies do not recognize functional medicine as a formal medical specialty, and large clinical guidelines do not recommend seeking “functional medicine” per se; instead, they emphasize evidence‑based lifestyle and pharmacologic interventions delivered within conventional care. The prevailing position is that while some individual interventions used by functional‑medicine practitioners are strongly evidence‑based, the branded functional‑medicine model—especially its extensive, non‑standard laboratory panels, root‑cause narratives, and supplement‑heavy regimens—does not have sufficient high‑quality RCTs, comparative trials, or guideline support to be considered a validated, superior approach to diagnosis or treatment, and should be approached with caution, using standard evidence‑based medicine as the primary framework. [3] Deterministic PubMed cross-check found no matching indexed studies for these terms (absence of indexed evidence is not evidence against the claim).
“functional medicine”
Rule: K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act)
Dani Steffen is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure DOT physicals.
DOT physicals
- Supports
- DOT physicals are a real, federally regulated medical certification process for interstate commercial motor vehicle drivers. FMCSA states the exam must be performed by a licensed medical examiner on the National Registry, and it can certify a driver for up to 24 months, with shorter intervals when monitoring a condition such as hypertension is needed. [8] FMCSA also specifies that the standards cover 13 qualification areas tied to driving function, and that vision, hearing, and epilepsy have absolute standards with no examiner discretion. The peer-reviewed literature supports the general rationale for driver medical screening: a systematic review found that several medical conditions are prevalent in commercial drivers and some, including sleep disorders and obesity, are associated with increased crash risk, providing a rationale for health assessment of commercial drivers. [7][9]
- Contradicts
- The claim as written is too vague to assess as a factual medical statement, because it does not specify what aspect of DOT physicals is being asserted. [7] The index papers provided do not directly evaluate DOT physical certification rules, pass/fail criteria, or whether the exam improves safety. The systematic review found evidence was lacking for several highly relevant medical conditions and that cost-effectiveness data were sparse. The included ClinicalTrials. gov entries are trial registrations on unrelated interventions and do not provide peer-reviewed evidence supporting or refuting DOT physicals. Evidence that specific screening components predict driving safety is also limited in the broader literature; for example, assessment tests in some neurologic conditions have lacked validated correlation with actual driving performance, which weakens strong claims that a brief exam can comprehensively determine safe driving fitness. [6][8][9] Overall, there is no high-quality peer-reviewed evidence in the supplied index papers that validates every element of the DOT physical as a predictor of crash prevention.
- Mainstream view
- The mainstream medical and regulatory view is that DOT physicals are a required federal certification for commercial drivers, intended to screen for medical conditions that could impair safe driving, but they are an imperfect administrative and safety filter rather than a guarantee of driving safety. [7] The evidence base supports targeted medical assessment for higher-risk conditions and recognizes that data are incomplete for many conditions; therefore, the exam is widely accepted as a regulatory fitness-to-drive standard, not as a highly precise clinical test. [6][8][9]
“DOT physicals”
Rule: K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act)
Dani Steffen is not approved to offer Acupuncture / dry needling within a Chiropractor scope of practice under Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic).
Acupuncture / dry needling
- Supports
- High-quality evidence suggests acupuncture and dry needling can produce short-term pain relief for some musculoskeletal conditions, especially chronic low back pain and some myofascial pain syndromes, but benefits are usually modest and time-limited. [15] A WHO-informing systematic review of needling therapies for chronic primary low back pain found benefits on pain and function versus sham/usual care in some analyses, supporting that needling can have a measurable clinical effect in this condition. [13] A systematic review and meta-analysis in fibromyalgia also found improvements in pain and function in the short term, although the evidence base was small and heterogeneous. For low back pain, earlier systematic review evidence found dry needling could reduce pain and disability immediately after treatment compared with acupuncture or sham in some trials. [12][14] For upper-quarter myofascial pain, a review concluded dry needling was effective versus sham/placebo for immediate and 4-week pain reduction, but it also emphasized the small number of high-quality RCTs.
- Contradicts
- Evidence is inconsistent across conditions, and several reviews conclude the overall evidence is low quality, heterogeneous, or insufficient for firm conclusions. An umbrella review of dry needling for musculoskeletal pain stated that rigorous evidence for clinical effectiveness is still lacking. For chronic low back pain, a later systematic review found pain benefits were mainly post-intervention or short-term, with no evidence that dry needling alone or combined improves disability, which weakens broad claims of meaningful clinical effectiveness. [13] For masticatory muscle pain, the network meta-analysis reported no pain-reducing effect for acupuncture or dry needling versus placebo and suggested the placebo effect accounted for most of the observed treatment effect. [12][14] The older Cochrane review on acupuncture and dry needling for low back pain also concluded that evidence was insufficient for acute low back pain and that acupuncture was not more effective than other conventional or alternative treatments, which limits any claim that these interventions are generally superior. [15]
- Mainstream view
- The mainstream view is that acupuncture and dry needling may offer small to moderate short-term symptom relief for selected pain conditions, particularly chronic low back pain and some myofascial pain syndromes, but the evidence is condition-specific, often low to moderate quality, and rarely shows durable benefit or broad superiority over other active treatments. [12][13][14][15] For several indications, especially when the claim is generalized across all uses, the evidence is mixed or insufficient, and dry needling/acupuncture are usually considered adjuncts rather than definitive first-line therapies. Deterministic PubMed cross-check found no matching indexed studies for these terms (absence of indexed evidence is not evidence against the claim).
“acupuncture/dry needling”
Rule: K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act)
Dani Steffen is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Prenatal / pediatric care.
Prenatal / pediatric care
- Supports
- Because the influencer’s statement is extremely vague (“Prenatal / pediatric care”) and does not specify any particular recommendation, the only interpretable claim from the indexed papers is that structured, evidence‑based models of prenatal care (including group prenatal care and use of decision aids) can be appropriate and effective components of prenatal care. [18] High‑quality evidence from a systematic review and meta‑analysis of group prenatal care versus traditional prenatal care shows that group care yields similar rates of preterm birth, NICU admission, and breastfeeding to individual care, and may reduce low birth weight in pooled observational data. [16] Other systematic reviews and RCTs outside the index set similarly report that group prenatal care is at least equivalent to standard care for major obstetric outcomes, with potential benefits for some high‑risk subgroups (for example, adolescents or low‑income patients) and for psychosocial outcomes and satisfaction. [17][19] Evidence‑based decision aids for prenatal testing have been evaluated in randomized trials and systematic reviews, showing reductions in decisional conflict and improved informed choice compared with usual counseling, supporting their use as part of high‑quality prenatal care. Major guidelines (for example, ACOG, and pediatric bodies such as the American Academy of Pediatrics based on my prior knowledge) endorse structured, evidence‑based schedules of prenatal and pediatric preventive care including vaccinations, screening tests, and anticipatory guidance; these positions are grounded in systematic reviews and guideline development methodology that explicitly uses systematic reviews in clinical guideline development.
- Contradicts
- Because the influencer’s claim is not specific, there is no direct, testable proposition to contradict. However, if the implied claim were that group prenatal care is clearly superior to traditional care for all outcomes or that standard evidence‑based prenatal and pediatric care (including guideline‑recommended testing and vaccination) is unnecessary or harmful, this would not be supported by the high‑quality evidence. [17][18][19] The systematic review and meta‑analysis of group prenatal care finds no statistically significant reduction in preterm birth rates overall and no significant differences in NICU admission or breastfeeding compared with traditional care, indicating equivalence rather than universal superiority. [16] Similarly, the meta‑analytic data show that the apparent reduction in low birth weight is driven by observational studies and is not confirmed when analysis is restricted to randomized controlled trials, highlighting that benefits are modest and uncertain and that group care is best viewed as an alternative model rather than a replacement for evidence‑based individual care. Guideline‑development methodology documentation stresses that recommendations in prenatal and pediatric care are derived from systematic reviews and graded evidence. This framework contradicts any blanket dismissal of mainstream prenatal testing, immunization, or scheduled pediatric visits as “unnecessary” or “unscientific,” though such specific dismissals are not stated in the provided influencer text. Decision‑aid reviews show that structured tools improve decision quality but do not support claims that standard prenatal counseling is categorically harmful; instead they supplement routine care. Overall, the existing evidence does not support strong claims of harm from guideline‑based prenatal or pediatric care, nor claims that alternative models universally outperform standard care across all populations and outcomes.
- Mainstream view
- The mainstream medical position is that prenatal and pediatric care should follow evidence‑based, guideline‑driven schedules that include routine monitoring, recommended laboratory and ultrasound assessments, vaccinations, and age‑appropriate screening and anticipatory guidance, while also incorporating shared decision‑making tools and flexible models of care (including group prenatal care) when appropriate. [18] For prenatal care specifically, major obstetric guidelines conclude that group prenatal care is a reasonable, evidence‑supported option: systematic reviews and meta‑analyses show obstetric outcomes that are at least equivalent to traditional individual care, with possible advantages in some populations and in satisfaction and psychosocial outcomes, but not a clear, large superiority for all women. [16][17][19] Decision aids for prenatal testing are viewed as useful adjuncts that improve informed consent and reduce decisional conflict without replacing clinician counseling. For pediatric care, mainstream bodies endorse regular well‑child visits, immunization according to national schedules, and early identification and management of developmental, behavioral, and medical issues; these recommendations are grounded in systematic reviews and formal guideline‑development processes. In summary, mainstream practice supports structured, evidence‑based prenatal and pediatric care and accepts innovations like group prenatal care and decision aids as complementary models when supported by high‑quality data. Deterministic PubMed cross-check found no matching indexed studies for these terms (absence of indexed evidence is not evidence against the claim).
“prenatal/pediatric care”
Rule: K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act)
Dani Steffen is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to advertise Functional medicine as a broad disease-management service as within their scope of practice.
Functional medicine as a broad disease-management service
- Supports
- There is limited peer‑reviewed evidence evaluating functional medicine as a distinct, validated medical model. [2] Some academic reviews describe functional medicine as a systems‑biology, patient‑centered framework that uses evidence‑based modalities such as nutrition, exercise, stress reduction, and certain medications or supplements, all of which individually have supportive evidence in conventional medicine for chronic disease prevention and management. [1] Observational outcome data (e. g. , quality‑of‑life or practice‑based cohorts) have reported patient‑reported improvements after care delivered in a functional‑medicine style clinic, but these are not randomized trials and mainly show associations rather than causation. [3] Lifestyle and nutrition interventions that functional medicine often employs—such as improving diet quality, physical activity, sleep, and stress management—are strongly supported by mainstream RCTs, guidelines, and systematic reviews, but these trials typically evaluate the interventions themselves, not “functional medicine” branding or its broader diagnostic/testing paradigm.
- Contradicts
- Major mainstream bodies have explicitly judged the overall evidence base for functional medicine to be insufficient. [2] A formal review by the American Academy of Family Physicians concluded there was not enough high‑quality evidence to support teaching functional medicine practice techniques in accredited continuing education, and noted that some claims and treatments promoted under the functional‑medicine banner may be potentially dangerous because they rely on unvalidated tests and supplement regimens rather than guideline‑based care. [1] Independent academic and science‑communication critiques describe functional medicine as a rebranding of complementary and alternative medicine, highlight its frequent use of unproven diagnoses (such as adrenal fatigue) and extensive biochemical testing of unproven clinical value, and emphasize that there are no robust randomized controlled trials or large, high‑quality comparative effectiveness studies demonstrating that the functional‑medicine model, as a package, improves hard outcomes (mortality, major morbidity, health‑care utilization) beyond standard, evidence‑based care. [3] Publications promoting functional medicine approaches to specific conditions (for example, long COVID) acknowledge that underlying pathophysiology and treatments remain poorly defined and that suggested protocols rely on extrapolation, low‑level evidence, and expert opinion rather than rigorous trials, underscoring that the model is largely hypothesis‑driven and not yet validated. Overall, high‑quality systematic reviews, meta‑analyses, and major guidelines do not endorse functional medicine itself as an evidence‑based, superior medical paradigm; instead, they support selected lifestyle or nutrition components that functional‑medicine practitioners also use but which are already part of conventional preventive and chronic‑disease care.
- Mainstream view
- Mainstream medicine views functional medicine as a loosely defined, alternative or integrative framework that borrows many legitimate, evidence‑based tools (nutrition counseling, exercise prescriptions, risk‑factor modification) but wraps them in a broader practice model that lacks rigorous validation and often incorporates unproven testing, diagnoses, and supplement protocols. [1][2] Leading professional societies do not recognize functional medicine as a formal medical specialty, and large clinical guidelines do not recommend seeking “functional medicine” per se; instead, they emphasize evidence‑based lifestyle and pharmacologic interventions delivered within conventional care. The prevailing position is that while some individual interventions used by functional‑medicine practitioners are strongly evidence‑based, the branded functional‑medicine model—especially its extensive, non‑standard laboratory panels, root‑cause narratives, and supplement‑heavy regimens—does not have sufficient high‑quality RCTs, comparative trials, or guideline support to be considered a validated, superior approach to diagnosis or treatment, and should be approached with caution, using standard evidence‑based medicine as the primary framework. [3] Deterministic PubMed cross-check found no matching indexed studies for these terms (absence of indexed evidence is not evidence against the claim).
“functional medicine”
Rule: K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act)
Manipulation
transcript · cited
The page bundles chiropractic with physical therapy, functional medicine, acupuncture, DOT physicals, prenatal/pediatric care, and disease-language like 'cause of discomfort, disease, or dysfunction,' which makes a narrow-license clinic sound like general medicine. Likely motive: Expand perceived authority beyond chiropractic and attract a wider paying patient base.
“Integrative Healthcare for the whole family”
transcript · cited
A Thomas Edison quote is used as inspirational garnish to validate the clinic's broad 'cause of disease' framing, but it is not clinical evidence and does nothing to support the specific services being marketed. Likely motive: Use a famous quote to lend legitimacy to a weak scientific pitch.
“The doctor of the future will give no medicine, but will interest his patient in the care of the human frame, in diet and in the cause of prevention of disease.”
Affiliate / Recruitment Funnel
source material
The presence of an ambassador signal suggests the brand may be recruiting followers or patients into a referral/advocacy layer that can extend the sales machine beyond direct visits. Likely motive: Turn satisfied followers into low-cost promoters who bring in new customers.
source material
The service menu is a classic one-stop wellness bundle: diagnosis-adjacent language plus many billable add-ons that can turn a visitor into a multi-service customer. Likely motive: Increase per-patient revenue by stacking multiple adjacent services under one brand.
Commerce & grift map
The likely money flow is root-cause wellness framing, then a menu of billable services, with the ambassador angle helping scale reach. It reads like a conversion funnel where the clinic sells breadth and lifestyle legitimacy first, then monetizes the customer's trust through repeated visits and referrals.
Classic doc-bro scaling move: bring people in with wellness language, then let the ambassador layer turn the audience into a little unpaid sales force. Nothing says 'integrated health' like outsourcing your marketing to the converted.
financialConflicts · affiliate program
The brand appears to run or signal an ambassador/referral layer that can recruit followers into promotion rather than just care delivery.
“Funnel signals detected: discount, 1:1, ambassador”
No FTC-style compensation disclosure
compensationDisclosures · scan
Ambassador-style promotional layer implied by the platform scan.
affiliate_program
How the money flows
- Affiliate / ambassador program (operator)Undisclosed Ambassador-style promotional layer implied by the platform scan.
Credentials & scope
Glossary: Chiropractor (“Dr.”)
Stated: none · Likely: Chiropractor
Verified against the federal provider registry: DC · Chiropractor · KS license 01-05976.
Dani Steffen presents as a chiropractor, but the copy leans hard into broad 'integrative healthcare' language that sounds like general medicine. The problem is not the chiropractic title itself; it's the attempt to borrow that title to sell disease-root-cause services and whole-family clinical authority far beyond a spine-focused license.
- DC, Doctor of Chiropractic
A chiropractic doctorate used in state-licensed chiropractic practice.
State chiropractic boards generally allow evaluation and treatment of musculoskeletal and some neuromuscular complaints, not general internal medicine or broad disease management.
Permitted scope vs advertised
Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) · Confidence: low
Kansas licenses chiropractors under the broader healing arts framework, but there is no readily accessible online statute or regulation text clearly defining chiropractic scope beyond spinal and musculoskeletal-related evaluation and treatment. Because the specific scope language is not found in the available Kansas Board of Healing Arts materials here, most non-chiropractic, primary-care-style or systemic-disease services must be treated as outside scope unless explicitly authorized, which cannot be confirmed. As a result, many of these advertised services fall into gray or unclear status due to missing official scope text.
What this license permits
- Spinal adjustment and manipulation
- Musculoskeletal evaluation and treatment
- Soft-tissue and rehabilitative care
- Headache care within musculoskeletal scope
9 of 10 advertised activities fall outside permitted scope.
| Advertised | Verdict |
|---|---|
| Listed service Functional medicine Rule: K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act) Not listed among permitted DC scope activities under the governing practice act. | Outside scope |
| Listed service DOT physicals Rule: K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act) Not listed among permitted DC scope activities under the governing practice act. | Outside scope |
| Listed service Acupuncture / dry needling Rule: K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act) Not listed among permitted DC scope activities under the governing practice act. | Outside scope |
| Listed service Prenatal / pediatric care Rule: K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act) Not listed among permitted DC scope activities under the governing practice act. | Outside scope |
| Diagnosing and treating systemic disease or dysfunction as a root-cause clinic service Rule: K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act) Not listed among permitted DC scope activities under the governing practice act. | Outside scope |
| Functional medicine as a broad disease-management service Rule: K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act) Not listed among permitted DC scope activities under the governing practice act. | Outside scope |
| Whole-family integrative care including prenatal and pediatric care presented as a broad clinic offering Rule: K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act) Not listed among permitted DC scope activities under the governing practice act. | Outside scope |
| Infrared sauna Rule: K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act) Not listed among permitted DC scope activities under the governing practice act. | Outside scope |
| Cold laser Rule: K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act) Not listed among permitted DC scope activities under the governing practice act. | Outside scope |
Sources: Kansas State Board of Healing Arts – Home (official), Kansas State Board of Healing Arts – Licensing Department (official), Kansas Administrative Regulations – Kan. Admin. Regs. § 100-6-4 (Applications for licensure by examination), Kansas State Board of Healing Arts – contact and general guidance (via FSMB/secondary documents referencing KSBHA)
Scope comparison mirror
Side-by-side view of the archived marketing homepage and what a Chiropractor scope permits near Ste. C Bonner Springs, KS. Open the mirror for the full comparison: archive on the left, permitted scope and licensed-care paths on the right.
Mirror generated 2026-07-24 17:50 UTC. The archive pane loads styles and images from the intake snapshot.
3 licensed-care paths linked for out-of-scope claims.
Validated associated properties
Surfaces tied to this Doc Bro by domain, branding, or funnel routing. Third-party platforms are labeled as routes, not as owned properties.
Analyzed
- OwnedOfficial site (puremovementkc.com)
Tip the jar
Report useful? Optional tips help keep scans, archives, and literature cross-checks running. They never change conclusions.
Submission 99Q_Y4VsXyC2EAGCt4LUd
Fight disinformation
Log a public thread where Dani Steffen is spreading nonsense, get a copy-paste reply with this report link.
Reply snippets
Before you buy the protocol: Dr. Trust Me Bro fact-checked Dani Steffen's claims with peer-reviewed sources, https://drtrustmebro.com/analyze/99Q_Y4VsXyC2EAGCt4LUd. White-coat charisma isn't evidence.
Full DTMB scan on Dani Steffen: https://drtrustmebro.com/analyze/99Q_Y4VsXyC2EAGCt4LUd
Drop these in YouTube comments, Reddit threads, and forums, link back to this scan, not vibes.
Recent mentions (this doc)
No conversation links logged yet. Be the first above.
Nudge the Doc Bro
We email a public contact address from their site so Dani Steffen can review this dossier and dispute anything we got wrong.
Know someone who can help?
If you think someone has firsthand information about Dani Steffen, send them an encouraging note. We email a short, respectful message with this report and clear instructions on how to write in, on the record or anonymously.
Whambulance
Challenge this scan or Wall of Fame entry for Dani Steffen. Public log, not legal arbitration.
Public challenge log
No posted Wall of Fame challenges linked yet.
Challenges are public on the Wall of Fame card. DTMB does not remove entries for hurt feelings, primary sources or copy corrections only.
File a challenge
Include in your email:
- Doc Bro ID: T7Qz2euumb2jvFfImOWRY
- Wall entry: /influencer/T7Qz2euumb2jvFfImOWRY
- Analysis ID: 99Q_Y4VsXyC2EAGCt4LUd
- Source: https://puremovementkc.com
- Why this entry or scan should change
- Supporting links (one per line)
- Your business email (for verified disputes)
Verified challenges are posted publicly on the report. Public log, not legal arbitration.
Citations
Peer-reviewed and index sources cited in this report.
- [1] Functional Medicine Past, Present, and Future - PMC - NIH
- [2] Form Follows Function: A Functional Medicine Overview - PMC
- [3] Functional Medicine Model of Care and Patient-Reported Quality of Life
- [4] Colchicine in Pericarditis.
- [5] Blood Transfusion Therapy.
- [6] Fitness to drive
- [7] Commercial Driver Medical Examinations
- [8] Fitness Standards for the Transport Industries
- [9] Neurologic conditions: assessing medical fitness to drive.
- [10] PubMed indexed study
- [11] PubMed indexed study
- [12] Analysis of Research Trends in Ultrasound-Guided Acupuncture and Dry-Needling: A Scoping Review
- [13] Systematic Review to Inform a World Health Organization (WHO) Clinical Practice Guideline: Benefits and Harms of Needling Therapies for Chronic Primary Low Back Pain in Adults
- [14] Efficacy of Dry Needling and Acupuncture in Patients with Fibromyalgia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
- [15] Is dry needling effective for low back pain?
- [16] Group Prenatal Care Compared With Traditional Prenatal Care: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
- [17] Group Prenatal Care and Perinatal Outcomes: A Randomized Controlled Trial
- [18] Group prenatal care: effectiveness and challenges to implementation
- [19] Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial of Group Prenatal Care: Perinatal Outcomes Among Adolescents in New York City Health Centers.