Debra Jean Proechel alias The Hormone Hustler

Debra Jean Proechel is not licensed or approved by Minnesota Board of Chiropractic Examiners to diagnose, treat, or cure Female Hormone Profile.

Female Hormone Profile

Supports

There is some limited evidence that spinal manipulation can produce short-term changes in certain endocrine biomarkers such as cortisol and some neuropeptides in adults, suggesting that chiropractic-type interventions can acutely interact with neuro‑endocrine pathways. A systematic review and meta-analysis of spinal manipulation and biochemical markers reported low-quality evidence that manipulation can elicit immediate changes in cortisol and some inflammatory markers, although effects on sex hormones like testosterone were not demonstrated. Individual randomized or controlled studies have also shown transient changes in salivary or serum cortisol after cervical or thoracic manipulation, indicating that chiropractic adjustments can modulate stress-related hormonal responses in the short term. There are small randomized and pilot trials examining chiropractic manipulation in women with menstrual symptoms (e.g., primary dysmenorrhea, PMS) that report improvements in pain and symptom scores, sometimes associated with changes in prostaglandins or distress ratings, which indirectly implies some interaction with hormonally mediated processes, but these studies are small and often methodologically limited. Case reports and small case series describe improvements in menstrual symptoms after chiropractic care; these are hypothesis-generating but very low-level evidence.

Contradicts

High-quality evidence directly supporting chiropractic treatment as a way to diagnose, normalize, or systematically “treat” a female hormone profile (e.g., estrogen, progesterone, LH/FSH patterns, PCOS, menopause-related endocrine status, thyroid function) is lacking. A rigorous systematic review of spinal manipulative therapy and immune outcomes concluded that although some basic science and biomarker work suggests short-term changes in immunological and endocrine markers, there is no clinical evidence from acceptable- or high-quality RCTs that spinal manipulation meaningfully changes disease-specific outcomes through endocrine or immune mechanisms, and the clinical relevance of biomarker shifts is unknown. A more recent systematic review on biochemical markers found only low-quality evidence for immediate cortisol changes, and very low- or low-quality evidence that spinal manipulation does not significantly change key neuropeptides or sex hormones such as testosterone, and it did not identify robust or durable hormone normalization effects. There are no major clinical guidelines in endocrinology, gynecology, or primary care (including broad evidence-based guideline methodologies such as GRADE) that recommend chiropractic care as a treatment for female hormone imbalances; guideline-driven management of systemic medical conditions instead relies on pharmacologic, lifestyle, and condition-specific interventions rather than spinal manipulation. Where menstrual symptom trials show benefit, they often involve small samples, short follow-up, potential placebo effects, and do not demonstrate objective normalization of reproductive hormone profiles, so they cannot support strong claims that chiropractic care “treats” the female hormonal milieu. Overall, current high-quality evidence does not show that chiropractic treatment can reliably or specifically correct female endocrine disorders, and the evidence that exists is indirect, short-term, and often of low methodological quality.

Mainstream view

Mainstream medical and scientific opinion is that chiropractic care has an established role primarily in musculoskeletal conditions such as certain types of back and neck pain, but not as a standard treatment for female hormone disorders or for systematic management of the female hormone profile. Evidence-based guidelines for internal medicine, cardiometabolic disease, and nutrition use structured frameworks like GRADE to rate evidence and reserve treatment recommendations for interventions with clear, clinically meaningful benefits supported by higher-quality trials; spinal manipulation for endocrine or gynecologic conditions does not meet these thresholds and is not recommended in major guidelines. Transient changes in cortisol or other biomarkers after manipulation are regarded as physiological responses of uncertain clinical significance, not as proof of hormone-profile correction or endocrine disease treatment. For conditions such as PMS, dysmenorrhea, PCOS, menopause-related symptoms, thyroid disease, and other female hormonal issues, mainstream care emphasizes evidence-based pharmacologic therapies, lifestyle changes, and, when appropriate, specialist gynecologic or endocrine management, while chiropractic may be considered only as an adjunct for coexisting musculoskeletal pain rather than a hormone-targeted therapy.

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Female Hormone Profile”

Rule: Minnesota Statutes § 148.01, subd. 1(4) and (5)

See every doc bro who says they can treat or advise on Hormone imbalance and replacement

Debra Jean Proechel is not licensed or approved by Minnesota Board of Chiropractic Examiners to diagnose, treat, or cure Neuro-Emotional Technique.

Neuro-Emotional Technique

Supports

No high-quality evidence in the listed papers supports chiropractic treatment of Neuro-Emotional Technique. The listed papers are on hypertension, nutrition, headache, evidence grading, transfusion, and pericarditis, and none evaluate Neuro-Emotional Technique or chiropractic care for this indication.

Contradicts

The claim is contradicted by the absence of relevant peer-reviewed clinical evidence in the list, and the listed guideline papers do not provide support for Neuro-Emotional Technique as a chiropractic treatment. EFNS tension-type headache guidance discusses established headache management rather than Neuro-Emotional Technique, and the evidence-based guideline papers cited here do not endorse this intervention. GRADE guidance emphasizes that treatment claims require direct, high-quality evidence, which is not provided here.

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical view is that Neuro-Emotional Technique is not an evidence-based chiropractic treatment and is not recommended by major guidelines because there is no robust clinical evidence demonstrating efficacy for medical or psychological conditions. In practice, it is generally regarded as an alternative technique with insufficient supporting data rather than a validated therapy.

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Neuro-Emotional Technique”

Rule: Minnesota Statutes § 148.01, subd. 1(2) and (6)

Debra Jean Proechel is not licensed or approved by Minnesota Board of Chiropractic Examiners to diagnose, treat, or cure Bio-Terrain Testing.

Bio-Terrain Testing

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Bio-Terrain Testing”

Rule: Minnesota Statutes § 148.01, subd. 1(5)

Debra Jean Proechel is not licensed or approved by Minnesota Board of Chiropractic Examiners to diagnose, treat, or cure Hair Analysis.

Hair Analysis

Supports

High-quality evidence and major clinical guidelines focus on chiropractic care for musculoskeletal conditions (e.g., low back pain, some types of neck pain and headache) and do not address hair analysis as a diagnostic or treatment modality, so there is no direct supportive evidence for chiropractor treatment based on hair analysis for systemic health problems. This academic search did not identify any systematic reviews, RCTs, or major guidelines endorsing hair mineral analysis or other forms of hair analysis as a clinically validated tool for chiropractors to diagnose or manage general medical conditions.

Contradicts

Mainstream guidelines for conditions commonly targeted by alternative diagnostic methods (e.g., hypertension, inflammatory bowel disease, headache) define diagnosis and management using validated clinical assessments, blood tests, imaging, and standardized criteria, without recommending hair analysis by chiropractors or other clinicians. The hypertension management guideline update emphasizes evidence-based blood pressure measurement, cardiovascular risk assessment, and established pharmacologic and lifestyle interventions with no mention of hair analysis as a diagnostic or monitoring tool. The ESPEN guideline on clinical nutrition in inflammatory bowel disease specifies use of clinical examination, laboratory markers, imaging, endoscopy, and validated scoring systems; it does not include hair analysis or chiropractic-based hair testing in diagnostic or therapeutic pathways. EFNS tension-type headache guidelines describe medication, behavioral interventions, and in some cases manual therapies, but do not endorse hair analysis for diagnosis of headache or systemic causes. Major nutrition support guidelines (ASPEN-FELANPE, parenteral nutrition appropriateness) likewise rely on clinical and laboratory assessments and do not recognize hair analysis as a basis for therapy decisions. Overall, evidence reviews and guideline frameworks emphasize rating evidence quality using GRADE, where tests or interventions lacking validated clinical utility (like unvalidated hair analysis protocols) would be graded as very low-quality and not recommended. Academic searches show that hair mineral analysis for broad health assessment is frequently criticized for poor standardization, contamination risk, high inter-laboratory variability, and limited correlation with blood or tissue nutrient status, and it is generally considered unreliable for clinical decision-making, which contradicts using it as a central diagnostic tool in chiropractic practice.

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical and scientific position is that chiropractic care has a limited, evidence-based role in managing certain musculoskeletal complaints (e.g., some low back pain and possibly some tension-type headache) but that hair analysis is not a validated, guideline-supported diagnostic tool for systemic disease or for directing treatment decisions in conventional or chiropractic practice. Major guidelines for cardiovascular disease, clinical nutrition, inflammatory bowel disease, and headache do not include hair analysis in recommended diagnostic workups or treatment algorithms and instead rely on established clinical examinations, blood tests, imaging, and standardized criteria. Within evidence-based frameworks such as GRADE, unvalidated tests like broad hair analysis panels are regarded as very low-quality evidence and are not recommended for routine care or for making treatment decisions. Consequently, chiropractor treatment plans based primarily on hair analysis are viewed as outside mainstream, evidence-based practice and as lacking robust scientific support.

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Hair Analysis”

Rule: Minnesota Statutes § 148.01, subd. 1(5)

Debra Jean Proechel is not licensed or approved by Minnesota Board of Chiropractic Examiners to diagnose, treat, or cure Stool Analysis.

Stool Analysis

Supports

High-quality peer-reviewed evidence directly supporting chiropractic treatment as an effective intervention specifically for stool analysis or for gastrointestinal disorders diagnosed/monitored via stool analysis is essentially absent. A narrative review on chiropractic and GI disorders identifies only a small number of case reports and one preliminary randomized clinical trial (e.g., GERD, constipation), suggesting possible symptom improvements but without robust methodology, blinding, or appropriate controls; these do not constitute high-quality evidence and do not specifically involve stool analysis outcomes. Systematic reviews of chiropractic for gastrointestinal conditions conclude that available trials (one RCT, one pilot study) have serious methodological flaws and provide no reliable evidence of efficacy for GI disorders, and they do not support chiropractic treatment as part of stool-based diagnostic management. Major gastroenterology and infectious disease practices, as reflected in stool examination manuals and laboratory guidelines, treat stool analysis as a laboratory diagnostic procedure (for infection, malabsorption, inflammatory bowel disease) and do not include chiropractic or spinal manipulation as a treatment modality influencing test interpretation or outcomes. ASPEN and ESPEN guidelines on nutrition in GI disease and inflammatory bowel disease focus on evidence-based medical, nutritional, and sometimes surgical therapies and do not describe chiropractic interventions as evidence-based treatments in relation to stool analysis findings.

Contradicts

Systematic review evidence on chiropractic for gastrointestinal disorders reports that there is no supportive evidence that chiropractic is an effective treatment for gastrointestinal problems and emphasizes that the few available clinical trials are methodologically weak, underpowered, and often uncontrolled. This directly contradicts any strong claim that chiropractic treatment is an evidence-based therapy for GI conditions, let alone something that should be linked to stool analysis as a management tool. Narrative reviews similarly conclude that spinal manipulation and related manual therapies for visceral or GI disorders remain speculative and unsupported by high-quality randomized controlled trials or meta-analyses. Laboratory and public health guidelines on stool specimen collection and analysis (e.g., for infections, parasites, malabsorption, IBD) treat stool testing purely as a diagnostic/monitoring tool, with subsequent treatment based on antimicrobial, anti-inflammatory, nutritional, or other conventional medical therapies; they do not mention or recommend chiropractic care as influencing stool test results or as a treatment derived from stool analysis. Major clinical nutrition and GI guidelines (ASPEN-FELANPE for nutrition support, ESPEN for inflammatory bowel disease) similarly do not list chiropractic as a recommended treatment modality for conditions where stool analysis is central to diagnosis or monitoring, indicating a lack of guideline-level support.

Mainstream view

Mainstream medical and scientific practice regards stool analysis as a laboratory diagnostic and monitoring procedure used to evaluate infections (bacterial, viral, parasitic), malabsorption syndromes, and inflammatory bowel diseases, with subsequent management based on evidence-based pharmacologic, nutritional, and sometimes surgical interventions. Chiropractors may provide symptomatic care for musculoskeletal pain in patients who also have GI disease, but chiropractic treatment is not considered a validated or guideline-recommended therapy for conditions identified or followed via stool analysis, nor is it thought to alter stool test results in a clinically meaningful, predictable way. Systematic reviews and narrative reviews of chiropractic for gastrointestinal complaints consistently state that there is no reliable evidence that chiropractic treatment is effective for GI disorders and that existing data are insufficient and of low quality. Major guidelines on clinical nutrition and GI management (e.g., ASPEN-FELANPE, ESPEN IBD guideline) are based on randomized trials and high-quality observational data and focus on medical and nutritional care; they do not include chiropractic in treatment algorithms, reflecting consensus that chiropractic has no established role in the management of diseases where stool analysis is central.

Papers listed for this claim:[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][13][14][15][16]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Stool Analysis”

Rule: Minnesota Statutes § 148.01, subd. 1(4)

Debra Jean Proechel is not licensed or approved by Minnesota Board of Chiropractic Examiners to diagnose, treat, or cure Zinc Tally.

Zinc Tally

Supports

The influencer claim is very vague, but appears to refer to using the “zinc tally” (zinc sulfate taste test) in a chiropractic setting to assess zinc status or guide treatment. There is some evidence that taste-based zinc tests can show limited correlation with zinc status in specific contexts, but this is weak and inconsistent. One older study in pregnant women reported that a zinc taste test correlated reasonably with serum zinc levels and could provide a “fair idea” of deficiency, with reported accuracy per individual between 70–100%, though this was not a high‑quality randomized trial or guideline and the method has not been widely adopted in mainstream practice. A more recent study found that zinc sulfate taste acuity (a specific metric using TIVAS) was modestly correlated with dietary zinc intake in males, suggesting some potential utility of taste acuity measures as one component of nutritional assessment in that subgroup, but even in that study the correlation was small and not seen in females. Systematic review and meta‑analysis evidence supports that zinc supplementation can improve certain taste disorders when zinc deficiency or idiopathic taste disorder is present, confirming a biological link between zinc status and taste function, though this addresses treatment of taste disorders rather than the diagnostic validity of zinc tally itself. Mainstream nutrition guidelines for broader conditions (e.g., ASPEN and ESPEN clinical nutrition guidelines) recognize zinc deficiency as clinically important and support targeted zinc assessment and supplementation in specific disease states, but they do not specifically endorse the zinc tally test or chiropractic administration of such a test.

Contradicts

Multiple sources indicate that the zinc tally / zinc taste test is not an accurate, reliable, or validated stand‑alone diagnostic tool for zinc deficiency. A critical review of the zinc taste test method concluded that its validity has not been firmly established and that no available tests, including the zinc taste test, are both sensitive and specific enough to accurately assess marginal zinc status in humans; the authors explicitly state that the commonly used zinc tally test does not fill this diagnostic void and further research is needed. Another study evaluating a taste test kit for determining zinc status reported that the taste test was unreliable and should not be used to determine zinc status, reinforcing concerns about using taste‑based tests for individual diagnostic decisions. Additional clinical commentary from professional sources reviewing zinc taste tests note that, despite widespread use by alternative health practitioners, pharmacies, and some medical practices, evidence for reliability and accuracy is lacking and current expert positions recommend avoiding clinical use of zinc taste testing due to risk of misdiagnosis and inappropriate supplementation. A study of zinc sulfate taste acuity found only a weak correlation with dietary zinc intake in males and no correlation in females, undermining the idea that this method robustly reflects zinc nutrition across populations. Mainstream evidence‑based guidelines on nutrition support, hypertension, inflammatory bowel disease, and parenteral nutrition emphasize laboratory and clinical assessment of nutritional status and do not mention zinc tally or chiropractic administration of zinc taste tests as validated tools or recommended practice. Overall, there is no high‑quality guideline, randomized trial, or meta‑analysis that endorses chiropractors using zinc tally as a reliable diagnostic or treatment tool; where taste tests have been studied, results are inconsistent and often negative, and the method is regarded as non‑validated and potentially misleading.

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical and scientific position is that zinc deficiency is clinically important but should be assessed using a combination of clinical history, risk factors, and appropriate laboratory tests (e.g., serum zinc, possibly copper/zinc ratio or other markers), rather than relying on subjective taste tests like zinc tally as a primary diagnostic tool. Evidence‑based guidelines from major societies in clinical nutrition or disease‑specific areas (such as ASPEN, ESPEN, and other guideline documents) do not recommend zinc taste tests or zinc tally as validated diagnostic tools, and they do not identify chiropractic practitioners as standard providers of micronutrient diagnostic testing or management. High‑quality reviews emphasize that no available test, including the zinc tally test, has adequate sensitivity and specificity to accurately detect marginal zinc deficiency, and therefore zinc taste tests are considered unvalidated screening instruments at best, with a significant risk of false positives and false negatives.

Papers listed for this claim:[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][17][18][19][20]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Zinc Tally”

Rule: Minnesota Statutes § 148.01, subd. 1(4)

Debra Jean Proechel is not licensed or approved by Minnesota Board of Chiropractic Examiners to diagnose, treat, or cure Naturopathy.

Naturopathy

Supports

No high-quality peer-reviewed evidence in the listed papers supports the broad claim of chiropractor treatment of naturopathy. The listed guidelines and reviews address hypertension, nutrition, headache, transfusion therapy, pericarditis, and evidence-quality methods, not chiropractic treatment as a therapy for naturopathy or naturopathy as a condition .

Contradicts

The claim is poorly specified and appears to conflate two different fields rather than describe a testable medical intervention. The listed papers do not support chiropractic treatment for naturopathy, and several are unrelated clinical guidelines that do not establish benefit for such a claim . This search does not identify chiropractic care as an evidence-based treatment for naturopathy itself; naturopathy is a distinct alternative medicine system, not a standard medical diagnosis, so the claim lacks a clear clinical target and outcome. Evidence for chiropractic care is condition-specific and limited to selected musculoskeletal complaints, not naturopathy as a whole.

Mainstream view

Mainstream medicine does not recognize naturopathy as a disease to be treated by chiropractic care, and there is no established evidence base supporting chiropractic treatment of naturopathy. Chiropractic may have limited, condition-specific evidence for some musculoskeletal pain syndromes, but that does not validate the claim as stated.

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Naturopathy”

Rule: Minnesota Statutes § 148.01, subd. 1(1) and (2)

Debra Jean Proechel is not approved to offer Homeopathics within a Chiropractor scope of practice under Minnesota Board of Chiropractic Examiners.

Homeopathics

Supports

There is no high-quality evidence base specifically supporting “chiropractic treatment of homeopathics” as a combined or integrated modality. Existing randomized trials and systematic reviews examine chiropractic and homeopathy separately, not chiropractors delivering or manipulating homeopathic remedies as a distinct intervention. Contemporary RCTs and meta-analyses in homeopathy do report some statistically positive findings beyond placebo for certain indications, for example a 2023 systematic review of meta-analyses of placebo-controlled randomized trials found overall significant positive effects for homeopathy beyond placebo with GRADE ratings high for individualized homeopathy and moderate for non-individualized homeopathy and all homeopathy, though these remain methodologically controversial in the broader scientific community. Recent RCTs in homeopathy (e.g., for acute otitis media in children, hypothyroidism adjunctive to levothyroxine, and acute viral tonsillitis) show some favorable clinical or biochemical outcomes versus control or standard care, suggesting that in some specific contexts homeopathic treatment may achieve non-inferior or modestly superior results; however, these are condition-specific and do not involve chiropractic practice. For chiropractic itself, multiple recent RCTs report benefits for musculoskeletal and some functional outcomes (e.g., subclinical spinal pain, cervical disc herniation, cervical spondylotic radiculopathy, and postconcussion visual/cognitive symptoms), indicating chiropractic care can be effective for certain spine-related pain and functional syndromes, but these studies do not use homeopathic remedies and therefore cannot be taken as evidence for “chiropractor treatment of homeopathics.” Major evidence-based guideline methodology such as the GRADE framework emphasizes that recommendations must be tied to clearly defined interventions and patient-important outcomes, and by this standard there is no direct high-quality evidence that a chiropractor using or “treating with” homeopathic medicines constitutes an established, evidence-supported therapeutic approach.

Contradicts

Extensive high-quality evidence reviews by national and international health authorities and independent academic groups conclude that homeopathy in general lacks convincing efficacy beyond placebo for any specific medical condition when trials are pooled and assessed with stringent quality criteria, and that apparent positive findings tend to diminish as trial rigor increases. Large umbrella reviews and policy assessments (e.g., by national health services and governmental science committees) have stated there is no good-quality evidence that homeopathic products work better than placebo for any health condition, and therefore they do not recommend homeopathy as an evidence-based treatment in mainstream care. Systematic reviews of systematic reviews of homeopathy have found no individual homeopathic remedy or indication with robust, reproducible effects clearly distinguishable from placebo once bias and small-study effects are accounted for. This directly undermines any strong claim that a chiropractor delivering homeopathic products or “treating with homeopathics” is practicing an intervention supported by high-quality evidence. For chiropractic specifically, evidence and clinical guidelines in mainstream medicine support its use, where appropriate, mainly for mechanical spinal pain and certain musculoskeletal conditions, but not as a route or justification for prescribing or administering homeopathic medicines. Modern evidence-based guidelines in areas such as hypertension management, clinical nutrition in IBD, parenteral nutrition, and headache management exemplify that recommended therapies are pharmacologic, lifestyle, or procedure-based interventions with demonstrated efficacy in randomized trials and systematic reviews; they do not include homeopathy or chiropractor-led homeopathic treatment among standard-of-care options.

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical and scientific position is that chiropractic and homeopathy are distinct modalities and that combining them—“chiropractor treatment of homeopathics”—is not an evidence-based, guideline-supported practice. Chiropractic care may have a role for certain musculoskeletal conditions, particularly spine-related pain, within an evidence-informed, regulated scope of practice; however, this does not extend to endorsing homeopathic remedies as effective treatments for general medical conditions. Major health organizations, national guideline bodies, and leading evidence reviews generally conclude that homeopathy lacks robust, high-quality evidence of efficacy beyond placebo for any specific indication and therefore should not replace proven treatments or be promoted as a primary medical therapy. Evidence-based clinical guidelines across internal medicine, neurology, and clinical nutrition areas instead recommend interventions with demonstrated benefit in high-quality RCTs and systematic reviews, and they do not recommend homeopathic products or chiropractor-delivered homeopathy as standard care.

Papers listed for this claim:[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][21][22][23][24]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Homeopathics”

Rule: Minnesota Statutes § 148.01, subd. 1(2)

Debra Jean Proechel is not licensed or approved by Minnesota Board of Chiropractic Examiners to diagnose, treat, or cure Bach Flower Remedies.

Bach Flower Remedies

Supports

High-quality evidence specifically supporting chiropractor treatment with Bach Flower Remedies is essentially absent. Existing randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews on Bach Flower Remedies (BFRs) for psychological symptoms (test anxiety, exam anxiety, ADHD, dental anxiety) and for advanced cancer show no specific benefit over placebo on primary outcomes, though they suggest BFRs are generally safe. Multiple systematic reviews of randomized clinical trials conclude that Bach Flower Remedies do not demonstrate efficacy beyond placebo for psychological problems and pain, and that the most rigorous trials fail to show clinically meaningful effects. Some recent small RCTs in pediatric dental anxiety and behavior guidance report modest reductions in physiological parameters (heart rate, pulse, blood pressure) or baseline anxiety with Bach Flower Therapy, but not consistent improvements in clinically relevant intra-treatment anxiety or behavior; these findings are exploratory, with small samples, and are framed as adjunctive behavior-modification techniques rather than stand‑alone medical treatments. Overall, the best available evidence suggests at most a placebo-like or minor adjunctive effect of BFRs on subjective anxiety in narrow settings, not robust therapeutic efficacy, and provides no direct evidence for any synergy or specific indication within chiropractic practice.

Contradicts

Systematic reviews of randomized trials on Bach Flower Remedies consistently report that placebo-controlled RCTs fail to demonstrate efficacy beyond placebo for psychological problems, pain, or anxiety, directly contradicting broad therapeutic claims. Multiple RCTs in exam-related test anxiety and ADHD show no significant differences between Bach Flower Remedies and placebo, indicating that any improvement is likely due to non-specific or placebo effects rather than a specific pharmacologic or mechanistic action. Reviews emphasize that available studies are few, small, often at high risk of bias, and that the hypothesis that flower remedies have effects beyond placebo is not supported by rigorous trial data. More recent randomized trials in pediatric dental anxiety show limited, inconsistent effects (e.g., small changes in heart rate or pulse) without clear clinical benefit in intraoperative anxiety or behavior, reinforcing that evidence for meaningful therapeutic efficacy is weak. Crucially, there is no high-quality evidence that adding Bach Flower Remedies to chiropractic treatment improves musculoskeletal outcomes, pain, function, or any other clinically relevant measure, so claims of chiropractor-delivered Bach Flower therapy as an effective medical treatment are not supported by the current evidence base.

Mainstream view

Mainstream medical and scientific consensus is that Bach Flower Remedies are a form of complementary or alternative therapy lacking robust evidence of efficacy beyond placebo for any medical condition. They are generally regarded as safe from a toxicity standpoint, but major guidelines in internal medicine, neurology, nutrition, hypertension, pain, or headache management do not recommend Bach Flower Remedies as treatments or adjuncts, reflecting their marginal status in evidence-based care. For conditions typically addressed by chiropractors (e.g., musculoskeletal pain, back or neck pain, tension-type headache), mainstream management relies on modalities with established evidence such as exercise therapy, manual therapy with demonstrated benefits, pharmacologic treatments when appropriate, and guideline-driven nonpharmacologic strategies; Bach Flower Remedies are not included in these guideline frameworks. Within evidence-based practice, using Bach Flower Remedies is considered optional at best, primarily as a patient-chosen, low-risk placebo-like modality, and clinicians are expected to be transparent with patients that these remedies have not been shown in high-quality trials to improve clinical outcomes. Integrating Bach Flower Remedies into chiropractic treatment is therefore viewed as outside mainstream evidence-based care and should not be presented as a proven medical intervention.

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Bach Flower Remedies”

Rule: Minnesota Statutes § 148.01, subd. 1(2)

Debra Jean Proechel is not licensed or approved by Minnesota Board of Chiropractic Examiners to diagnose, treat, or cure NET remedies.

NET remedies

Supports

The influencer’s phrase “Chiropractor treatment of NET remedies” likely refers to Neuro Emotional Technique (NET), a chiropractic-origin “mind–body” approach that uses muscle testing and brief exposure to distressing memories to address presumed mind–body links. High‑quality evidence is limited but does include several randomized controlled trials (RCTs), mostly small, condition‑specific, and not replicated by independent groups. For pain conditions, there are RCTs suggesting short‑term benefit in specific contexts. A randomized, double‑blind, placebo‑controlled trial in chronic low back pain (about 100+ patients) reported that a short course of NET produced statistically and clinically significant reductions in pain and disability scores plus improvements in inflammatory biomarkers and quality‑of‑life measures versus sham treatment, with benefits maintained up to several months. Another controlled trial in chronic neck pain found that a brief NET course reduced trigger point tenderness and visual analog pain scores more than sham NET. A more recent RCT in women with chronic pelvic pain reported reductions in pain interference and intensity plus improvements in anxiety and depression in the NET group relative to a wait‑list control, with associated changes in functional connectivity in brain regions involved in pain and emotion (e.g., amygdala, cerebellum, somatosensory cortex). For musculoskeletal pain in pregnancy, a pilot RCT compared exercise, spinal manipulation, and NET for pregnancy‑related low back pain; all three groups showed clinically meaningful improvement in disability scores, and NET performed roughly similarly to the other arms on some outcomes, suggesting it may be acceptable and potentially helpful for some patients, although the study was underpowered for definitive between‑group comparisons. Outside pain, there are small RCTs and clinical trials suggesting possible symptomatic benefit but with important caveats. A randomized trial in adults with primary hypothyroidism found that adding NET to usual medical care was safe but did not improve depression scores, thyroid function, autoantibodies, or quality‑of‑life measures more than placebo at 7 weeks or 6 months, indicating no detectable additional clinical benefit. A randomized trial of NET as an adjunct in children with ADHD reported statistically significant improvements in ADHD rating scales and global indices with medium–large effect sizes, suggesting potential benefit in that specific context, but this work is from a single research group, and details of blinding and risk of bias limit generalizability. A small RCT on flexibility showed NET improved sit‑and‑reach performance more than active and passive controls, but this is an unusual surrogate outcome with unclear clinical importance. Safety data from these trials suggest that NET, when delivered by trained practitioners, is associated mainly with short‑lived, minor adverse effects (e.g., temporary symptom flares) similar in frequency and severity to those in placebo or control arms, which supports its short‑term safety profile under study conditions. Observational cohorts of NET patients also show high baseline anxiety and depression burden and suggest NET is being used in psychosomatic and pain populations, although these data do not establish efficacy. Overall, existing RCTs and controlled studies provide some supportive evidence for NET as a short‑term adjunctive intervention for certain pain conditions and possibly ADHD in children, with generally good short‑term safety, but the total evidence base is small, heterogeneous, and predominantly from investigators sympathetic to NET.

Contradicts

Despite a handful of positive RCTs, the evidence base for Neuro Emotional Technique is modest, condition‑specific, and lacks the volume, replication, and independent confirmation that would be expected before describing it as a broadly effective or standard “remedy” delivered by chiropractors. There are no large, multicenter randomized trials, no high‑quality systematic reviews or meta‑analyses in major journals, and no endorsements for NET in major evidence‑based clinical guidelines for chronic pain, mental health disorders, endocrine disease, or other major conditions. Contemporary guideline documents in areas like hypertension, clinical nutrition, inflammatory bowel disease, headache, and parenteral nutrition that exemplify rigorous GRADE‑based evidence appraisal do not list NET or other chiropractic mind–body techniques among recommended therapies, reflecting that NET is not part of the guideline‑supported therapeutic toolkit in mainstream medicine. For primary hypothyroidism specifically, a well‑designed randomized, placebo‑controlled trial found that NET added to standard thyroid hormone replacement did not improve depression, thyroid function, autoantibodies, or quality‑of‑life outcomes more than placebo over 7 weeks or 6 months, indicating a lack of clinically relevant benefit for that endocrine condition

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“NET remedies”

Rule: Minnesota Statutes § 148.01, subd. 1(2)

Debra Jean Proechel is not licensed or approved by Minnesota Board of Chiropractic Examiners to advertise Carbon Block Water Filters as within their scope of practice.

Carbon Block Water Filters

Supports

There is no peer-reviewed evidence in the listed papers relating chiropractic treatment to carbon block water filters or any specific health benefits from chiropractors recommending or managing such filters. The listed articles instead address guideline-based management of hypertension, clinical nutrition, headache management, parenteral nutrition, transfusion therapy, and evidence grading, none of which involve chiropractic care or water filtration technologies. High-quality water treatment literature (outside the list) describes carbon or granular activated carbon filters as engineering devices that remove certain contaminants from drinking water, but does not involve or require chiropractic intervention. Any supportive evidence is therefore limited to the general fact that properly designed and certified carbon filters can improve drinking water quality, not that chiropractors provide unique or validated treatment involving these filters.

Contradicts

The absence of any mention of chiropractic involvement in water filtration or carbon block filter management in major guidelines and high‑quality clinical evidence suggests that the idea of a specific “chiropractor treatment of carbon block water filters” is not grounded in established medical or public health practice. Clinical guidelines for hypertension, nutrition, headache, and other conditions focus on pharmacologic therapy, lifestyle interventions, and evidence-based medical or surgical treatments and do not endorse chiropractic manipulation or office‑based chiropractic services as a recognized modality for managing water quality, water filters, or environmental water contaminants. Environmental health and drinking water safety are addressed through engineering standards, environmental regulations, and public health guidelines, not through chiropractic treatment, so any claim that chiropractors provide a medically validated “treatment” of carbon block water filters is unsupported by high-quality evidence.

Mainstream view

Mainstream medical and public health positions recognize that drinking water quality can affect health and that appropriate filtration (including certified activated carbon or carbon block systems) may reduce exposure to specific contaminants, but this is considered a matter of environmental engineering, regulatory oversight, and individual consumer choices, not a clinical treatment delivered by chiropractors. Chiropractors are licensed to provide musculoskeletal and neuromuscular care, primarily via spinal and joint manipulation, and mainstream guidelines do not assign them a special, evidence-based role in designing, prescribing, or “treating” carbon block water filters. When health professionals advise on water filters, it is typically in the context of environmental health or nephrology, not chiropractic practice.

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Carbon Block Water Filters”

Rule: Minnesota Statutes § 148.01, subd. 1(2) and (6)

Debra Jean Proechel is not licensed or approved by Minnesota Board of Chiropractic Examiners to advertise First Line therapy books as within their scope of practice.

First Line therapy books

Supports

The influencer’s wording is unclear, but a reasonable interpretation is that they are promoting chiropractic treatment (particularly spinal manipulative therapy delivered by chiropractors) as a first-line therapy for common musculoskeletal conditions such as low back pain, neck pain, and some headache types. High-quality evidence supports that spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) and multimodal chiropractic care can be effective nonpharmacologic treatments for spinal pain, with effects generally similar to other guideline-recommended options (e.g., exercise and education). A large systematic review and meta-analysis of 26 RCTs in acute low back pain found that SMT was associated with statistically significant, modest improvements in pain and function up to six weeks compared with usual care or other interventions, supporting its use as one evidence-based option in conservative management pathways. A broad evidence report and systematic review of manual therapy concluded that spinal manipulation/mobilisation is effective in adults for acute, subacute, and chronic low back pain, migraine and cervicogenic headache, cervicogenic dizziness, several extremity joint conditions, and thoracic manipulation/mobilisation for acute/subacute neck pain, indicating a role for manual therapy (including chiropractic SMT) in multimodal care for these conditions. More recent syntheses note that SMT is generally recommended in multiple clinical guidelines as a first-line or adjunct nonpharmacologic therapy for spinal pain, and that its effects on pain and disability are comparable to other recommended therapies such as exercise and education. A very large meta-analysis including 161 RCTs of SMT for spinal pain reported that SMT procedures produced small-to-moderate improvements in pain and spine-related disability that were, on average, similar to guideline interventions and slightly more effective than some other treatments, aligning with guideline recommendations that include SMT among recommended nonpharmacologic options for spinal pain. Guideline-focused work on chiropractic care for low back pain indicates that chiropractic care, which typically includes SMT, exercise instruction, and self-care advice, is considered a reasonable nonpharmacologic component of care in low back pain management; implementation research is now examining how to increase adoption of chiropractic care as part of guideline-concordant first-line management in primary care settings. Together, these data support that chiropractic/manual therapy is an evidence-based option within first-line conservative management for several musculoskeletal pain conditions, especially low back pain, where guidelines commonly recommend nonpharmacologic therapies including SMT before or alongside medications.

Contradicts

The claim as stated (“Chiropractor treatment of First Line therapy”) is overly broad and could be interpreted as suggesting chiropractic treatment is uniquely or universally the first-line therapy for a wide range of conditions. High-quality evidence does not support such a broad, preferential claim. Several systematic reviews of spinal manipulation have found that, beyond low back pain and a few specific conditions, the evidence for efficacy is limited, inconsistent, or absent. An influential review of systematic reviews concluded that collectively the data did not demonstrate that spinal manipulation is an effective intervention for any condition in a way that would justify it as a recommendable stand-alone treatment, noting the lack of convincing evidence across conditions and raising concern about adverse effects. An updated review of systematic reviews similarly reported that the notion of spinal manipulation as an effective treatment option for any condition is not supported by compelling evidence from the majority of RCTs, emphasizing that effectiveness is not convincingly demonstrated for many purported indications. For chronic low back pain, a major systematic review and meta-analysis reported that SMT produced similar outcomes to other recommended therapies (education, exercise, etc.) and small functional benefits compared with non-recommended or sham therapies, but it explicitly noted that SMT is not currently recommended as a first-line treatment for chronic low back pain, and that its effects on pain are modest and of uncertain clinical importance. Overall, high-quality evidence and guidelines indicate that while SMT/chiropractic care can be part of first-line conservative management options, it is generally not superior to other recommended nonpharmacologic therapies and is not universally endorsed as the single primary or exclusive first-line therapy for most conditions.

Mainstream view

Mainstream medical and scientific consensus is that chiropractic care, particularly spinal manipulative therapy, is an evidence-based nonpharmacologic option for certain musculoskeletal conditions (notably acute and chronic low back pain, some types of neck pain, and specific headache types) within a broader package of conservative first-line care, but it is not uniquely preferred or universally first-line for all conditions. Clinical guidelines for low back pain and related spinal conditions typically recommend a

Papers listed for this claim:[33][34][35][36]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“First Line therapy books”

Rule: Minnesota Statutes § 148.01, subd. 1(2) and (6)