Evan Philip Mladenoff alias Brain-Scan Chiropractic

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

Concussion Treatment

Supports

There is emerging but limited evidence that certain manual therapy interventions directed at the cervical spine can improve some persistent post‑concussion symptoms (e.g., dizziness, headaches, neck pain), and these approaches overlap conceptually with techniques used by chiropractors. A single‑blind randomized controlled trial of chiropractic care in 40 young adults with persistent post‑concussion syndrome reported improvements in oculomotor performance (gaze stability, egocentric localization) and Stroop test scores compared with a control intervention, suggesting possible benefit for specific cognitive and vestibulo‑ocular symptoms; however, this was a small study and not definitive. Independent of chiropractic branding, multiple studies and reviews support the idea that cervical manual therapy (mobilization/manipulation) plus exercise can help cervical dysfunction and cervicogenic dizziness, which can contribute to ongoing post‑concussion symptoms, and may reduce time to symptom resolution when integrated into multidisciplinary rehabilitation. Recent concussion rehabilitation frameworks and scoping reviews emphasize that cervical manual therapy is one non‑pharmacologic tool within a broader program (including vestibular, visual, and aerobic rehabilitation) for selected patients with persistent symptoms, which indirectly supports the plausibility of chiropractors contributing usefully when they follow evidence‑based, guideline‑consistent protocols rather than offering standalone “cure” claims.

Contradicts

No high‑quality systematic reviews, major concussion guidelines, or large randomized trials support chiropractic spinal manipulation or chiropractic care as a primary or standalone treatment for acute concussion or as a disease‑modifying therapy for traumatic brain injury. Existing evidence is mainly small RCTs, retrospective cohorts, pilot studies, and scoping reviews focused on cervical manual therapy in post‑concussion syndrome rather than on chiropractic per se, and the overall quality of evidence is low to moderate, with important imprecision and risk of bias. There is also a lack of data on hard neurological outcomes (e.g., prevention of complications, reduction in structural brain injury, long‑term cognitive recovery), and no major guideline recommends chiropractic manipulation as core concussion management. Standard concussion guidelines stress early medical evaluation, brief rest, graded return to activity, and symptom‑targeted multidisciplinary rehabilitation; they do not identify chiropractic treatment as a validated primary modality, and some explicitly caution against unproven therapies. In addition, cervical spinal manipulation carries a small but real risk of adverse events (e.g., vertebral artery injury) and is generally considered inappropriate in patients with potential cervical spine instability, which can coexist with head trauma, reinforcing that indiscriminate chiropractic manipulation after concussion is not evidence‑based. Overall, the evidence base is too weak and narrow to substantiate broad influencer claims that chiropractic “treats concussion” in a general sense.

Mainstream view

Mainstream medical and scientific consensus is that concussion (mild traumatic brain injury) should be managed according to established, guideline‑based protocols centered on prompt recognition and removal from play or risk, brief relative rest (24–48 hours), followed by a gradual, supervised return to cognitive and physical activity, with symptom‑based multidisciplinary rehabilitation for persistent post‑concussion symptoms. Within this framework, physical therapy interventions—such as cervical manual therapy, vestibular rehabilitation, visual/oculomotor therapy, and sub‑symptom aerobic exercise—may be used as part of a tailored program for patients with documented cervical spine dysfunction, dizziness, and headaches, but these are adjunctive therapies targeting secondary musculoskeletal and vestibular contributors, not primary treatments for the brain injury itself. Chiropractors, if appropriately trained and integrated into a multidisciplinary team, may provide components of this cervical and vestibular rehabilitation, but current mainstream opinion does not consider chiropractic spinal manipulation to be a proven, standalone, or first‑line treatment for concussion. Routine chiropractic manipulation of the cervical spine immediately after head trauma is not recommended; instead, any manual therapy should be carefully selected, low risk, and aligned with broader rehabilitation goals. Thus, the mainstream view is that concussion care is physician‑led, guideline‑driven, and multidisciplinary, with chiropractic‑type manual therapies playing at most a limited, symptom‑focused adjunct role for selected patients rather than serving as a primary concussion treatment.

Papers listed for this claim:[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Concussion Treatment”

Rule: KSA 65-2871

See every doc bro who says they can treat or advise on Concussion and brain injury

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

Brain Balance Tracking

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Brain Balance Tracking”

Rule: KSA 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

There is high-quality evidence that neurological rehabilitation in general uses brain-based scientific approaches, including neuroimaging, biomarkers, and neuroplasticity concepts to design and evaluate interventions for complex neurological conditions such as stroke, traumatic brain injury, disorders of consciousness, and functional neurological disorder. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses show that rehabilitation can induce structural and functional neuroplastic changes on neuroimaging and correlate with functional improvements, confirming a scientific brain-based rationale for neurorehabilitation as a whole. However, none of this evidence specifically validates the proprietary or branded "Functional Neurology Rehab" approach as defined by chiropractic or influencer communities.

Contradicts

A critical review specifically examining "functional neurology" interventions concluded that the available studies were of low methodological quality and that no acceptable scientific evidence supports claims that functional neurology, as marketed in chiropractic and similar settings, has meaningful effects or benefits on the conditions for which it is promoted. This review explicitly states that no robust evidence was found to substantiate the therapeutic claims of functional neurology approaches. The broader rehabilitation literature supports multidisciplinary, evidence-based programs but does not identify or endorse chiropractic-style functional neurology as a validated brain-based treatment. Overall, the evidence base for branded functional neurology is weak, largely uncontrolled, and insufficient to support strong clinical claims.

Mainstream view

Mainstream neurology and rehabilitation medicine accept that evidence-based neurorehabilitation is brain-based and scientific, drawing on neuroplasticity, neuroimaging, biomarkers, and established therapies (physiotherapy, occupational therapy, speech therapy, cognitive-behavioral therapy, and, in some cases, neuromodulation) for complex conditions such as stroke, brain injury, and functional neurological disorder. Guidelines and reviews emphasize multidisciplinary, structured rehabilitation pathways rather than proprietary systems. In contrast, the specific chiropractic-style "functional neurology" paradigm is generally regarded as unproven and not supported by high-quality randomized trials or major guidelines, and is not considered part of mainstream, evidence-based neurological rehabilitation.

Papers listed for this claim:[13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Functional Neurology”

Rule: KSA 65-2871

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

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. 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. 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. 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

Papers listed for this claim:[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][22][23][9][24]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Visual Brain Tracking”

Rule: KSA 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. 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. Separate randomized and proof‑of‑principle studies have found that spinal manipulative therapy can change certain cytokines (e.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. Broader high‑quality trials and guidelines for systemic inflammatory conditions (e.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.

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. 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. 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.” 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.” 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.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 . 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

Papers listed for this claim:[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][25][26][27][28]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Inflammation Score”

Rule: KSA 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 listed 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. The closest relevant chiropractic guideline in the list 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 . 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 listed 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 . 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. 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 .

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. 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.

Papers listed for this claim:[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][29][30][31][32]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Stress System Examination”

Rule: KSA 65-2871

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. 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. 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. None of the listed papers (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.

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Where prenosological approaches are used, they are generally integrated into broader medical preventive frameworks rather than being managed primarily or specifically by chiropractic treatment.

Papers listed for this claim:[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][33][34][35][36]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Prenosological Examination”

Rule: KSA 65-2871

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) is a medical intervention that increases oxygen delivery by having patients breathe 100% oxygen at pressures ≥1.4–2.0 atmospheres absolute, which does enhance tissue oxygenation compared with normobaric air breathing, but this is a pharmacologic/technologic intervention rather than a “natural” process. Some randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews describe HBOT as relatively safe, with most adverse events being minor and self-limited. A systematic review of HBOT adverse effects reported ear discomfort and ocular side effects as the most frequent problems and concluded that HBOT has an acceptable safety profile when delivered under standard protocols. Observational safety series show overall adverse event rates per treatment session under 1%, with middle-ear barotrauma and confinement anxiety as the most common, and serious events (e.g., seizures, pulmonary barotrauma) rare when modern dosing guidelines are followed. Clinical series in specific conditions (e.g., inflammatory bowel disease) report very low absolute numbers of adverse events over thousands of treatment sessions, again supporting that HBOT is relatively safe under appropriate supervision. Narrative and guideline-type overviews emphasise that HBOT is generally well tolerated provided appropriate patient selection, screening for contraindications and adherence to safety standards.

Contradicts

Describing HBOT as providing extra oxygen “naturally” is not supported: by definition it requires a pressurized chamber and administration of 100% oxygen at supra-atmospheric pressure, which is a technologically mediated medical exposure rather than a natural physiologic state. Multiple safety reviews document that side effects are not minimal in an absolute sense: around 15–17% of patients in some series experience at least one adverse event, predominantly middle-ear barotrauma, sinus discomfort, transient myopia, claustrophobia, and anxiety. Middle-ear barotrauma alone can occur in close to 10% of patients in some cohorts, and while most cases are mild, tympanic membrane rupture and more severe barotrauma have been reported. Central nervous system oxygen toxicity presenting as generalized seizures, pulmonary oxygen toxicity, and pulmonary barotrauma are rare but recognized serious complications, meaning the therapy does not have only “minimal” side effects. Authoritative clinical overviews list a spectrum of possible complications, including lung damage, sinus injury, hypoglycemia in diabetics, reversible vision changes, and oxygen poisoning, underscoring that careful monitoring, contraindication screening, and risk–benefit assessment are required. The need for detailed codes of good practice, routine recording and analysis of adverse events, and clear standard operating procedures further indicates that HBOT carries non-trivial risks.

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical view is that hyperbaric oxygen therapy is a specialized medical treatment that increases tissue oxygen tension by exposing patients to high-pressure 100% oxygen, used for specific evidence-based indications (such as decompression sickness, certain types of non-healing wounds, radiation injury, and selected neurologic conditions) rather than a general wellness or “natural” oxygen booster. Major reviews and reference texts regard HBOT as generally safe when performed according to established protocols in appropriate patients, but not free of risk; common adverse events include middle-ear and sinus barotrauma, transient myopia and other ocular changes, anxiety or claustrophobia, and rare but serious events such as oxygen-induced seizures and pulmonary barotrauma. Standard practice involves formal risk stratification, screening for contraindications (e.g., untreated pneumothorax, certain pulmonary bullous diseases), and strict adherence to dosing and pressure limits to balance benefits against potential harms. Clinicians and guideline-type documents therefore characterise HBOT as a reasonably safe but clearly medical, technology-dependent intervention with a defined adverse event profile, not as a natural therapy with only minimal side effects.

Papers listed for this claim:[1][2][3][5][4][6][7][8][37][38][39][40]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“HyperBaric Oxygen Therapy”

Rule: KSA 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 Rehab utilizes a brain-based scientific approach in caring for complex conditions..

Functional Neurology Rehab utilizes a brain-based scientific approach in caring for complex conditions.

Supports

There is high-quality evidence that neurological rehabilitation in general uses brain-based scientific approaches, including neuroimaging, biomarkers, and neuroplasticity concepts to design and evaluate interventions for complex neurological conditions such as stroke, traumatic brain injury, disorders of consciousness, and functional neurological disorder. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses show that rehabilitation can induce structural and functional neuroplastic changes on neuroimaging and correlate with functional improvements, confirming a scientific brain-based rationale for neurorehabilitation as a whole. However, none of this evidence specifically validates the proprietary or branded "Functional Neurology Rehab" approach as defined by chiropractic or influencer communities.

Contradicts

A critical review specifically examining "functional neurology" interventions concluded that the available studies were of low methodological quality and that no acceptable scientific evidence supports claims that functional neurology, as marketed in chiropractic and similar settings, has meaningful effects or benefits on the conditions for which it is promoted. This review explicitly states that no robust evidence was found to substantiate the therapeutic claims of functional neurology approaches. The broader rehabilitation literature supports multidisciplinary, evidence-based programs but does not identify or endorse chiropractic-style functional neurology as a validated brain-based treatment. Overall, the evidence base for branded functional neurology is weak, largely uncontrolled, and insufficient to support strong clinical claims.

Mainstream view

Mainstream neurology and rehabilitation medicine accept that evidence-based neurorehabilitation is brain-based and scientific, drawing on neuroplasticity, neuroimaging, biomarkers, and established therapies (physiotherapy, occupational therapy, speech therapy, cognitive-behavioral therapy, and, in some cases, neuromodulation) for complex conditions such as stroke, brain injury, and functional neurological disorder. Guidelines and reviews emphasize multidisciplinary, structured rehabilitation pathways rather than proprietary systems. In contrast, the specific chiropractic-style "functional neurology" paradigm is generally regarded as unproven and not supported by high-quality randomized trials or major guidelines, and is not considered part of mainstream, evidence-based neurological rehabilitation.

Papers listed for this claim:[13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Functional Neurology Rehab utilizes a brain-based scientific approach in caring for complex conditions.”

Rule: KSA 65-2871

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) is a medical intervention that increases oxygen delivery by having patients breathe 100% oxygen at pressures ≥1.4–2.0 atmospheres absolute, which does enhance tissue oxygenation compared with normobaric air breathing, but this is a pharmacologic/technologic intervention rather than a “natural” process. Some randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews describe HBOT as relatively safe, with most adverse events being minor and self-limited. A systematic review of HBOT adverse effects reported ear discomfort and ocular side effects as the most frequent problems and concluded that HBOT has an acceptable safety profile when delivered under standard protocols. Observational safety series show overall adverse event rates per treatment session under 1%, with middle-ear barotrauma and confinement anxiety as the most common, and serious events (e.g., seizures, pulmonary barotrauma) rare when modern dosing guidelines are followed. Clinical series in specific conditions (e.g., inflammatory bowel disease) report very low absolute numbers of adverse events over thousands of treatment sessions, again supporting that HBOT is relatively safe under appropriate supervision. Narrative and guideline-type overviews emphasise that HBOT is generally well tolerated provided appropriate patient selection, screening for contraindications and adherence to safety standards.

Contradicts

Describing HBOT as providing extra oxygen “naturally” is not supported: by definition it requires a pressurized chamber and administration of 100% oxygen at supra-atmospheric pressure, which is a technologically mediated medical exposure rather than a natural physiologic state. Multiple safety reviews document that side effects are not minimal in an absolute sense: around 15–17% of patients in some series experience at least one adverse event, predominantly middle-ear barotrauma, sinus discomfort, transient myopia, claustrophobia, and anxiety. Middle-ear barotrauma alone can occur in close to 10% of patients in some cohorts, and while most cases are mild, tympanic membrane rupture and more severe barotrauma have been reported. Central nervous system oxygen toxicity presenting as generalized seizures, pulmonary oxygen toxicity, and pulmonary barotrauma are rare but recognized serious complications, meaning the therapy does not have only “minimal” side effects. Authoritative clinical overviews list a spectrum of possible complications, including lung damage, sinus injury, hypoglycemia in diabetics, reversible vision changes, and oxygen poisoning, underscoring that careful monitoring, contraindication screening, and risk–benefit assessment are required. The need for detailed codes of good practice, routine recording and analysis of adverse events, and clear standard operating procedures further indicates that HBOT carries non-trivial risks.

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical view is that hyperbaric oxygen therapy is a specialized medical treatment that increases tissue oxygen tension by exposing patients to high-pressure 100% oxygen, used for specific evidence-based indications (such as decompression sickness, certain types of non-healing wounds, radiation injury, and selected neurologic conditions) rather than a general wellness or “natural” oxygen booster. Major reviews and reference texts regard HBOT as generally safe when performed according to established protocols in appropriate patients, but not free of risk; common adverse events include middle-ear and sinus barotrauma, transient myopia and other ocular changes, anxiety or claustrophobia, and rare but serious events such as oxygen-induced seizures and pulmonary barotrauma. Standard practice involves formal risk stratification, screening for contraindications (e.g., untreated pneumothorax, certain pulmonary bullous diseases), and strict adherence to dosing and pressure limits to balance benefits against potential harms. Clinicians and guideline-type documents therefore characterise HBOT as a reasonably safe but clearly medical, technology-dependent intervention with a defined adverse event profile, not as a natural therapy with only minimal side effects.

Papers listed for this claim:[1][2][3][5][4][6][7][8][37][38][39][40]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

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

Rule: KSA 65-2871

Evan Philip Mladenoff is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to advertise Prenosological diagnostics is focused on borderline states that may pass from health to disease and, vice versa, from disease to recovery. as within their scope of practice.

Prenosological diagnostics is focused on borderline states that may pass from health to disease and, vice versa, from disease to recovery.

Supports

Several peer-reviewed and scholarly sources explicitly define prenosological (pre-nosological, donosological) diagnostics as being focused on functional states that are intermediate or borderline between normal health and manifest disease, and on their possible evolution in either direction. One aviation-medicine oriented paper states directly that “Prenosological diagnostics is focused on borderline states that may pass from health to disease (prenosology and premorbidity) and, vice versa, from disease to recovery (post-nosology),” which matches the influencer’s wording almost verbatim. Multiple methodological and preventive-medicine papers describe prenosological diagnosis as assessment of the functional state and adaptive capacity of “practically healthy” persons, with the goal of identifying conditions “borderline between normal and pathological” or “transition states” between health and disease and tracking their progression toward premorbid and pathological states or, conversely, their regression toward recovery. Other work, including summaries of Roman Baevsky’s concept of pre-nosological diagnosis, emphasizes capturing the transition process from health to disease as an explicit objective of prenosological approaches. Together, these sources support the core claim that prenosological diagnostics is conceptually oriented to borderline states on the health–disease continuum and to transitions both toward disease and toward recovery.

Contradicts

Major international guidelines and evidence-based frameworks in the citation list (e.g., guideline-driven hypertension management, clinical nutrition guidelines for inflammatory bowel disease, parenteral nutrition appropriateness criteria, EFNS guideline for tension-type headache, blood transfusion therapy reviews, and GRADE guidance on rating imprecision) are rooted in conventional nosological diagnosis and risk-factor management. They do not adopt prenosological diagnostics as a standard framework nor describe routine clinical practice in terms of prenosological or pre-nosological staging. This indicates that, while the concept exists and is described in specialized literature, it is not a widely endorsed or operationalized paradigm in mainstream guideline-based medicine. Moreover, the prenosological literature is largely descriptive, conceptual, and based on screening or observational data about adaptive capacity and subclinical states; it does not consistently demonstrate, through large randomized trials or major guideline endorsements, that prenosological diagnostics improves hard clinical outcomes compared with standard risk assessment and early disease detection. Thus, the specific descriptive claim about the focus of prenosological diagnostics is supported by its own theoretical and applied literature, but the broader implication that this is a mainstream, evidence-standard clinical approach is not supported and the evidentiary base for its effectiveness is relatively weak.

Mainstream view

Mainstream evidence-based medicine generally frames health and disease along a continuum that includes risk states and preclinical or “predisease” stages (such as prediabetes, prehypertension, and precancerous lesions), recognizing that there are intermediate conditions between clear health and overt disease. However, in routine practice and major guidelines, these states are typically classified using established diagnostic thresholds, risk scores, and staging systems rather than a dedicated prenosological diagnostic methodology. The prevailing view is that identifying and managing early or subclinical disease and high-risk states is important, but the terminology and operational framework are usually those of conventional epidemiology, risk stratification, and early diagnosis, not the specific prenosological adaptation-state classifications described in the specialized literature. Therefore, the conceptual idea that there are borderline states between health and disease is mainstream, but the formal construct of “prenosological diagnostics” as a distinct clinical methodology remains niche and is not broadly adopted in major international guidelines.

Papers listed for this claim:[1][3][2][5][6][4][7][41][42][36][33][43]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Prenosological diagnostics is focused on borderline states that may pass from health to disease and, vice versa, from disease to recovery.”

Rule: KSA 65-2871

Evan Philip Mladenoff is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to advertise Brain balance tracking / BTrackS as within their scope of practice.

Brain balance tracking / BTrackS

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Brain Balance Tracking”

Rule: KSA 65-2871

Evan Philip Mladenoff is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to advertise Visual brain tracking / eye tracking as within their scope of practice.

Visual brain tracking / eye tracking

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Visual Brain Tracking”

Rule: KSA 65-2871

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

Prenosological diagnostics

Supports

Several peer-reviewed and scholarly sources explicitly define prenosological (pre-nosological, donosological) diagnostics as being focused on functional states that are intermediate or borderline between normal health and manifest disease, and on their possible evolution in either direction. One aviation-medicine oriented paper states directly that “Prenosological diagnostics is focused on borderline states that may pass from health to disease (prenosology and premorbidity) and, vice versa, from disease to recovery (post-nosology),” which matches the influencer’s wording almost verbatim. Multiple methodological and preventive-medicine papers describe prenosological diagnosis as assessment of the functional state and adaptive capacity of “practically healthy” persons, with the goal of identifying conditions “borderline between normal and pathological” or “transition states” between health and disease and tracking their progression toward premorbid and pathological states or, conversely, their regression toward recovery. Other work, including summaries of Roman Baevsky’s concept of pre-nosological diagnosis, emphasizes capturing the transition process from health to disease as an explicit objective of prenosological approaches. Together, these sources support the core claim that prenosological diagnostics is conceptually oriented to borderline states on the health–disease continuum and to transitions both toward disease and toward recovery.

Contradicts

Major international guidelines and evidence-based frameworks in the citation list (e.g., guideline-driven hypertension management, clinical nutrition guidelines for inflammatory bowel disease, parenteral nutrition appropriateness criteria, EFNS guideline for tension-type headache, blood transfusion therapy reviews, and GRADE guidance on rating imprecision) are rooted in conventional nosological diagnosis and risk-factor management. They do not adopt prenosological diagnostics as a standard framework nor describe routine clinical practice in terms of prenosological or pre-nosological staging. This indicates that, while the concept exists and is described in specialized literature, it is not a widely endorsed or operationalized paradigm in mainstream guideline-based medicine. Moreover, the prenosological literature is largely descriptive, conceptual, and based on screening or observational data about adaptive capacity and subclinical states; it does not consistently demonstrate, through large randomized trials or major guideline endorsements, that prenosological diagnostics improves hard clinical outcomes compared with standard risk assessment and early disease detection. Thus, the specific descriptive claim about the focus of prenosological diagnostics is supported by its own theoretical and applied literature, but the broader implication that this is a mainstream, evidence-standard clinical approach is not supported and the evidentiary base for its effectiveness is relatively weak.

Mainstream view

Mainstream evidence-based medicine generally frames health and disease along a continuum that includes risk states and preclinical or “predisease” stages (such as prediabetes, prehypertension, and precancerous lesions), recognizing that there are intermediate conditions between clear health and overt disease. However, in routine practice and major guidelines, these states are typically classified using established diagnostic thresholds, risk scores, and staging systems rather than a dedicated prenosological diagnostic methodology. The prevailing view is that identifying and managing early or subclinical disease and high-risk states is important, but the terminology and operational framework are usually those of conventional epidemiology, risk stratification, and early diagnosis, not the specific prenosological adaptation-state classifications described in the specialized literature. Therefore, the conceptual idea that there are borderline states between health and disease is mainstream, but the formal construct of “prenosological diagnostics” as a distinct clinical methodology remains niche and is not broadly adopted in major international guidelines.

Papers listed for this claim:[1][3][2][5][6][4][7][41][42][36][33][43]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Prenosological diagnostics is focused on borderline states that may pass from health to disease and, vice versa, from disease to recovery.”

Rule: KSA 65-2871