Luke Avery Moore alias The Pain-Ends-Here Clinic

Luke Avery Moore is not approved to offer Dry Needling within a Chiropractor scope of practice under Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic).

Dry Needling

Supports

Dry needling has some evidence of benefit for certain pain conditions, especially short-term pain reduction and functional improvement in selected musculoskeletal disorders. For headaches, a systematic review and meta-analysis found dry needling may reduce frequency, intensity, or disability in tension-type, cervicogenic, or migraine headaches, although effects were not uniformly large and certainty was limited . ^[1][3] For chronic low back pain and myofascial pain, systematic reviews and meta-analyses suggest dry needling can improve pain and disability in some patients, particularly when trigger points are present, but the magnitude and durability of benefit vary across studies . ^[2][4] Reviews in fibromyalgia and orofacial pain also report possible symptom improvements, supporting a role as an adjunct rather than a stand-alone cure .

Contradicts

The evidence does not support dry needling as a universally effective treatment for all pain conditions, and the findings are often limited by small trials, heterogeneity, risk of bias, and short follow-up. ^[1][2][3][4] Several reviews conclude that benefits are modest, inconsistent, or uncertain depending on condition, comparator, and outcome, which weakens any broad claim that dry needling is generally effective . The available evidence is strongest for short-term symptom relief in specific syndromes, not for durable disease modification or broad superiority over other needling or conservative therapies .

Mainstream view

The mainstream view is that dry needling may provide short-term relief for selected myofascial and musculoskeletal pain conditions, but it is not a broadly proven treatment across all indications. ^[1][2][3][4] Major evidence syntheses generally treat it as an optional adjunctive therapy with uncertain long-term benefit and variable quality of supporting trials . Deterministic PubMed cross-check found no matching indexed studies for these terms (absence of indexed evidence is not evidence against the claim).

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Dry Needling”

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

Luke Avery Moore is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to advertise Instrument-Aided Soft Tissue Manipulation as within their scope of practice.

Instrument-Aided Soft Tissue Manipulation

Supports

Instrument-assisted soft tissue mobilization (IASTM) has moderate evidence from systematic reviews and meta-analyses showing benefits for musculoskeletal pain and range of motion, particularly as part of rehabilitation for neck and other musculoskeletal disorders. ^[5][7][8] Several meta-analyses report that IASTM improves joint range of motion in degrees in healthy individuals with or without range-of-motion deficits and in patients with musculoskeletal disorders, though the certainty of evidence is rated very low to low. A systematic review and meta-analysis focused on musculoskeletal soft tissue injuries concluded that IASTM provides clinically meaningful pain relief and range-of-motion gains, especially when used as an adjunct to conventional rehabilitation rather than as a standalone treatment. Other systematic reviews and effect-size analyses similarly report statistically significant improvements in range of motion and pain in injured patients and uninjured participants receiving IASTM compared with control or other manual therapies, although study quality is often only moderate. A systematic review and meta-analysis specifically examining hamstring flexibility and neural mechanosensitivity (neurodynamic techniques plus instrument-assisted soft tissue techniques) suggests that these instrument-aided approaches can improve flexibility and mechanosensitivity, supporting the idea that instrument-aided soft tissue manipulation can alter soft tissue properties and related symptoms. ^[6]

Contradicts

Despite multiple supportive meta-analyses, at least one large systematic review of randomized controlled trials has concluded that evidence of very low-quality certainty does not support meaningful efficacy of IASTM for function, pain, or range of motion across upper body, lower body, and spinal conditions, raising concern that observed effects may not be clinically significant or robust. ^[5][6][7] Some effect-size analyses have found that while IASTM may increase range of motion in uninjured individuals, it does not consistently improve pain outcomes in injured populations, and heterogeneity in protocols and small sample sizes limit confidence. The certainty of evidence in several of the more recent meta-analyses is rated very low to low, which means that further high-quality trials could change the estimated effects and that current findings should be interpreted cautiously. There are no major musculoskeletal or rehabilitation guidelines that currently endorse IASTM as a first-line or essential treatment; instead, it is typically considered an optional adjunct, reflecting that the evidence base is still evolving and not definitive.

Mainstream view

Mainstream medical and rehabilitation practice views instrument-assisted soft tissue manipulation (IASTM) as a reasonable adjunctive technique within physical therapy or sports medicine for selected musculoskeletal problems, especially to modestly improve range of motion and help with pain when combined with exercise and standard rehabilitation. ^[5][6][7][8] However, it is not regarded as a stand-alone curative treatment, and its benefits are generally considered modest, with substantial uncertainty due to low- to very-low-certainty evidence and heterogeneity in study methods. Major clinical guidelines for musculoskeletal and rehabilitation care emphasize evidence-based exercise therapy, patient education, and conventional manual therapy, and may mention instrument-aided soft tissue techniques only as optional tools rather than core, guideline-mandated interventions, indicating that IASTM occupies a supplementary rather than central role in mainstream care.

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Instrument-Aided Soft Tissue Manipulation”

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

Luke Avery Moore is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure McKenzie Method.

McKenzie Method

Supports

The McKenzie Method (Mechanical Diagnosis and Therapy) has been studied mainly for non-specific low back pain and related spinal pain conditions. ^[9][10] Several systematic reviews and meta-analyses report that McKenzie-based programs can be modestly more effective than certain comparison treatments, especially for chronic low back pain. A 2018 meta-analysis in a leading musculoskeletal journal found moderate- to high-quality evidence that for chronic low back pain the McKenzie Method is superior to some other rehabilitation interventions for reducing disability, though not clearly superior for pain across all comparators. ^[12] Other systematic reviews (including those focusing on chronic low back pain with directional preference) report low- to moderate-certainty evidence that McKenzie can produce clinically important short- to intermediate-term improvements in pain and disability compared with other exercise approaches or minimal interventions. ^[11] Current low back pain clinical practice guidelines note that classification-based, exercise-focused approaches including McKenzie/“directional preference” exercises are reasonable active treatment options and may be more effective than purely passive modalities (e. g. , education booklets, NSAIDs alone, or non-specific strengthening) in the short term.

Contradicts

High-quality evidence does not support strong or universal claims that the McKenzie Method is highly effective or clearly superior to all other evidence-based treatments. Cochrane-standard and other systematic reviews of (sub)acute non-specific low back pain conclude that McKenzie does not produce clinically important improvements in pain or disability compared with advice to stay active or passive therapy; any differences are small and often below thresholds for clinical relevance. ^[9][11] Randomized controlled trials in acute low back pain show that adding McKenzie to guideline-based first-line care does not yield appreciable additional short-term improvements in pain, disability, function, or global perceived effect. ^[10][12] Other RCTs comparing McKenzie with cognitive-behavioral or manual therapy approaches often find few or no meaningful differences in long-term outcomes. Several reviews explicitly state that evidence for classification-based McKenzie is limited or low certainty, especially for acute presentations and for neck pain or other regions, and emphasize common methodological issues (e. g. , lack of blinding, small samples, heterogeneity).

Mainstream view

Mainstream evidence-based medicine considers the McKenzie Method a reasonable, structured, exercise- and self-management–oriented physical therapy approach for low back pain, particularly in selected patients with chronic low back pain and a clear directional preference. ^[10][11][12] It is not regarded as a cure-all or uniquely superior therapy, but as one of several active interventions (exercise therapy, education, graded activity, cognitive-behavioral approaches, manual therapy as adjunct) that can be offered within guideline-based care. For acute non-specific low back pain, current best evidence indicates that McKenzie is at best slightly better than some passive comparators and not clearly better than simple advice to stay active and general exercise; spontaneous recovery is common and differences between active approaches are small. ^[9] For chronic low back pain, there is modest support that McKenzie can improve pain and disability at least as much as, and sometimes more than, other exercise or manual therapy programs, but effect sizes are generally modest and patient preference, therapist expertise, and cost/access often guide choice. Overall, guidelines view McKenzie as an acceptable but non-essential option within a broader biopsychosocial, exercise-centered management strategy rather than a uniquely validated or mandatory treatment. Deterministic PubMed cross-check found no matching indexed studies for these terms (absence of indexed evidence is not evidence against the claim).

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“McKenzie Method”

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

Luke Avery Moore is not approved to offer Cupping within a Chiropractor scope of practice under Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic).

Cupping

Supports

Multiple systematic reviews and meta-analyses report that cupping therapy may provide short‑term reduction in pain intensity and improvement in function for various chronic pain conditions (low back pain, neck pain, knee osteoarthritis, chronic back pain, herpes zoster and other pain syndromes), although the evidence quality is generally low to moderate. ^{[13][14][15][16][17]} A systematic review specifically on ankylosing spondylitis found statistically significant improvements in disease activity and function when cupping was added to conventional Western medicine, although the authors judged the overall evidence as only weak due to methodological limitations. Evidence maps and systematic reviews indicate potential benefit of cupping as an adjunct therapy for plaque psoriasis and other dermatologic conditions, again based on small, often low‑quality trials. A systematic review and meta‑analysis of wet cupping for hypertension found no clinically meaningful effect on blood pressure compared with controls, but did report some favorable changes in selected metabolic parameters such as body weight, BMI, waist circumference, and LDL‑C in metabolic syndrome, with moderate‑to‑high certainty for those metabolic outcomes. Several systematic reviews focused on musculoskeletal and sports rehabilitation report low‑to‑moderate quality evidence that cupping can modestly decrease pain and improve soft‑tissue flexibility and range of motion in the short term. Safety reviews and meta‑analyses generally find that adverse events from cupping are infrequent and mostly mild (local skin reactions such as redness, bruising, itching, burning), suggesting that cupping is relatively safe when performed properly, especially compared with pharmacologic pain treatments.

Contradicts

Across high‑quality evidence syntheses, the methodological quality of trials on cupping is consistently rated as low to very low, with high risk of bias, small sample sizes, poor blinding, heterogeneous protocols, and frequent combination with other unproven traditional therapies, limiting confidence in any claimed efficacy. ^[15] For chronic pain, meta‑analyses show large short‑term benefits when cupping is compared to no treatment, usual care, or wait‑list, but no significant advantage over sham cupping or other active treatments, which undermines the claim that cupping has specific, robust therapeutic effects beyond placebo or nonspecific factors. The systematic review on ankylosing spondylitis explicitly concludes that only weak evidence supports potential benefit, despite statistically significant findings, because of poor trial quality and lack of rigorous methodology. For hypertension and blood pressure control, meta‑analysis indicates no significant effect of wet cupping on systolic or diastolic blood pressure, contradicting any claim that cupping is an effective antihypertensive therapy. ^[13][14] Evidence maps and systematic reviews emphasize that there is no high‑quality evidence (GRADE high) for cupping in any pain‑related outcome, and overall certainty of evidence is very low to moderate at best, which contradicts strong claims of established efficacy. ^[16][17] Major reviews of safety note that while serious adverse events are rare, cupping can cause local tissue injury, burns, infection risk with wet cupping, and increased minor adverse events compared with no treatment, countering any narrative that cupping is risk‑free. There is little to no robust evidence that cupping can treat systemic diseases such as autoimmune conditions, cardiovascular disease, or metabolic syndrome beyond modest changes in some anthropometric or lipid parameters, so broad therapeutic claims are not supported by current data.

Mainstream view

Mainstream medical and scientific opinion regards cupping as a traditional or complementary therapy that may have modest, short‑term benefits for some pain conditions and musculoskeletal complaints, but for which the evidence base is limited by low‑quality trials, inadequate blinding ^{[13][14][15][16][17][18][19]}

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Cupping”

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