Dani Steffen alias The Root-Cause Chiropractor

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 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: K.S.A. 65-2871

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

The peer-reviewed index papers provided are unrelated to DOT physicals or chiropractic practice and therefore do not supply direct clinical evidence supporting chiropractors specifically as DOT examiners. However, DOT physicals are standardized, protocol-driven evaluations based on FMCSA regulations and are not intended to be complex diagnostic or therapeutic procedures; where chiropractors are trained and certified as FMCSA medical examiners, they are expected to apply the same federally mandated criteria as MDs, DOs, PAs, and NPs. ^[7] This regulatory framework functionally supports the claim that chiropractors can perform DOT physicals when properly certified, but it is regulatory and policy-based rather than supported by RCTs or systematic reviews comparing examiner types.

Contradicts

There is no high-quality evidence (systematic reviews, meta-analyses, RCTs) in the provided index papers directly addressing outcomes or safety of DOT physicals performed by chiropractors versus other clinicians. The absence of comparative outcome data means any claim that chiropractor-performed DOT exams are superior, safer, or more effective than those performed by other qualified examiners is not evidence based. Additionally, occasional regulatory actions against individual chiropractic medical examiners for non-compliant high-volume DOT exams (as reported in agency communications) highlight that examiner quality can vary and that being a chiropractor alone does not guarantee appropriate performance of DOT physicals; these issues are about individual practice, not the profession as a whole, but they contradict any blanket claim that chiropractor DOT exams are inherently reliable or problem-free. ^[6][7]

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical and regulatory position is that DOT physicals are standardized fitness-for-duty examinations governed by FMCSA rules, and may be performed by any licensed clinician type that meets state scope-of-practice requirements and is certified and listed on the FMCSA National Registry of Certified Medical Examiners, including doctors of chiropractic. ^[5][6][7] This position is grounded in regulation rather than comparative clinical trial evidence. Current evidence does not show that chiropractor-performed DOT exams differ in clinical effectiveness or safety from exams performed by other certified examiner types, because rigorous comparative studies have not been published. Therefore, the accepted mainstream view is that chiropractors can appropriately conduct DOT physicals when they are properly trained, certified, and compliant with FMCSA standards, but no evidence-based preference is assigned to any particular professional group.

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“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

The influencer’s claim is very broad, but there is reasonably strong evidence that dry needling (a Western medical technique using solid filiform needles in myofascial trigger points) can reduce musculoskeletal pain and improve short‑term function, irrespective of whether the practitioner is a physical therapist, physician, or chiropractor. Multiple randomized controlled trials in neck pain, low back pain, shoulder pain, knee pain, and other trigger-point related conditions show that adding dry needling to usual rehabilitation or physiotherapy leads to greater reductions in pain and sometimes better disability or range-of-motion outcomes than control or sham needling. Several systematic reviews and meta‑analyses on dry needling for myofascial trigger points and musculoskeletal pain conclude that dry needling is superior to sham/placebo or no intervention for short‑term pain relief and often at least as effective as other standard interventions. ^[10] Major clinical practice documents and dry needling guidelines describe it as an accepted adjunct treatment for neuromusculoskeletal pain and dysfunction, including myofascial trigger point pain, when applied by appropriately trained clinicians under proper safety protocols. ^[8][11] Overall, high‑quality evidence supports dry needling as a useful short‑term analgesic and functional adjunct in musculoskeletal conditions, and chiropractors with formal training in dry needling are included among the practitioners who may safely use it in that context. ^[9]

Contradicts

The claim does not specify benefit size, safety profile, or long‑term outcomes, and here the evidence is weaker or mixed. Several systematic reviews highlight that most benefits of dry needling are short‑term, with limited or inconsistent evidence for sustained long‑term improvements in pain, disability, or quality of life beyond a few months. ^[8][11] Evidence is heterogeneous, many trials are small, and methodological quality varies, so precise estimates of effect size and durability are uncertain. Some reviews and policy documents explicitly judge the evidence as insufficient to conclude clear health outcome benefits across all indications, and certain payers still classify dry needling as unproven for many musculoskeletal conditions. ^[9] There is also no specific high‑quality evidence that dry needling performed by chiropractors is superior to the same technique performed by other trained clinicians; most research is profession‑agnostic or involves physical therapists. ^[10] Safety data indicate that, while serious adverse events are rare when dry needling is performed by appropriately trained practitioners, there is potential risk (e. g. , infection, pneumothorax, neurovascular injury) if performed without proper training or technique, which contradicts any implication that it is universally benign or effective in all hands. Separate from dry needling, acupuncture in the traditional Chinese medicine sense has its own evidence base, but not specifically tied to chiropractic practice, so strong claims about chiropractor-delivered acupuncture are not fully supported by the current high‑quality literature.

Mainstream view

Mainstream musculoskeletal and rehabilitation medicine views dry needling as a potentially useful adjunct for short‑term relief of myofascial and other musculoskeletal pain when performed by trained clinicians within a broader exercise‑ and rehabilitation‑focused treatment plan. ^[9][10][11] It is not considered a stand‑alone cure for chronic pain, and its long‑term benefits remain uncertain. Professional bodies and clinical guidelines that address dry needling typically emphasize appropriate training, patient selection, and risk management, and they frame it as one of several options alongside manual therapy, exercise therapy, and pharmacologic approaches. ^[8] Some insurers and guideline panels still regard dry needling as investigational or unproven for many indications because of heterogeneity and limited long‑term data. Regarding acupuncture, mainstream opinion is that certain acupuncture applications may confer modest benefit for some pain conditions, but evidence is mixed and often condition‑specific, and effectiveness is not dependent on the provider being a chiropractor. Overall, the mainstream position is that chiropractic dry needling or acupuncture can be reasonable adjunctive therapies for selected musculoskeletal pain conditions when integrated into evidence‑based care and delivered by appropriately trained practitioners, but they are not universally endorsed as primary or definitive treatments.

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“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

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“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

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“functional medicine”

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