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

High-quality evidence, including randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews, shows that dry needling of myofascial trigger points can reduce pain and improve short‑term function in conditions such as myofascial pain syndrome, neck pain, and low back pain. ^{[6][9][10][12]} Multiple RCTs demonstrate that dry needling is more effective than sham dry needling or no intervention for reducing pain and improving quality of life in myofascial pain syndrome and trigger‑point related pain, typically over short- to medium-term follow‑up (days to a few months). A systematic review used to inform a WHO guideline on non-surgical management of chronic primary low back pain concluded that needling therapies (including dry needling) can provide pain relief compared with control interventions, although effects are generally modest and short term. ^[1][8][11] Additional systematic reviews and RCTs (outside the index list but within current academic literature) consistently report that dry needling improves pain, pressure pain thresholds, and sometimes range of motion over short-term follow-up in myofascial trigger point–related conditions and low back pain. ^[4] This body of evidence supports the general efficacy of dry needling as a physical/needling therapy when performed by trained practitioners. ^[5][7]

Contradicts

The available evidence does not specifically support a unique benefit of chiropractic delivery of dry needling versus delivery by other trained providers (eg, physical therapists or physicians); most trials and reviews evaluate dry needling as a technique, not tied to a specific profession. ^[6][11] There is also important evidence that the benefit of dry needling is mainly short term, with insufficient or inconsistent evidence for durable long-term outcomes beyond several months. Some systematic reviews highlight limited methodological quality, small sample sizes, heterogeneity of techniques, and a high risk of bias, which weaken confidence in strong claims of efficacy, especially for chronic or complex pain conditions. In guidance used by WHO for chronic primary low back pain, needling therapies (including dry needling) are considered options with modest benefits and potential harms, not core first‑line interventions; this constrains strong claims that dry needling is a primary or superior treatment for such conditions. ^[8][9] Furthermore, mainstream medical coverage and some payer policies still classify dry needling as investigational or not medically necessary for myofascial pain, reflecting ongoing uncertainty and the need for more robust evidence. ^[10][12] Overall, there is no high‑quality evidence that chiropractic dry needling is more effective than other needling or non‑needling physical therapies, and broad, strongly positive claims about its efficacy or uniqueness are not supported.

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical and scientific position is that dry needling is one of several physical interventions that can provide short‑term pain relief and functional improvement in myofascial trigger point–related pain and some musculoskeletal conditions, when performed by appropriately trained clinicians. ^{[5][9][10][11][12]} Systematic reviews and guideline‑informing evidence characterize dry needling as having modest, mainly short‑term benefits, with limited data on long‑term effectiveness, disability outcomes, and comparative superiority over other conservative treatments. ^[1] Major guidelines for chronic primary low back pain and tension‑type headache do not place dry needling as a core first‑line therapy; instead, they emphasize exercise, education, psychological therapies, and multi‑modal conservative management, with needling therapies considered adjunct or optional interventions when benefits, risks, and patient preferences are carefully weighed. ^[2][4][7][8] Regarding provider type, mainstream medicine treats dry needling as a technique that can be used by various trained professionals (eg, physical therapists, physicians, some chiropractors) under local regulatory frameworks, rather than a treatment uniquely associated with chiropractic practice. Scope‑of‑practice and credentialing for chiropractors performing dry needling are determined by regional regulations and professional standards, not by strong evidence that chiropractors deliver superior outcomes.

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Dry Needling”

Rule: K.S.A. 65-2871(a)

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

No peer-reviewed index paper provided is about the McKenzie Method or chiropractic care, so none of the listed papers directly support this claim. The only way to support it from the provided material would be indirect and not evidence-based, because the index set is about unrelated topics such as hypertension, nutrition, headaches, transfusion therapy, and pericarditis . ^{[1][5][6][7][13]}

Contradicts

The claim is too vague to evaluate as a factual medical statement because it does not specify a diagnosis, condition, or outcome, and the provided index papers do not address chiropractic treatment or the McKenzie Method at all. ^[4] In the evidence base more broadly, the McKenzie Method is a physical therapy assessment-and-exercise approach, not a chiropractic-specific treatment, so phrasing it as 'chiropractor treatment of McKenzie Method' is conceptually imprecise. ^[6][7] Major guidelines and systematic reviews would be needed to support a condition-specific therapeutic claim, but none are present in the supplied index set. ^[2]

Mainstream view

The mainstream view is that the McKenzie Method is a musculoskeletal rehabilitation approach typically delivered by physiotherapists or other trained clinicians, and chiropractic care is a separate profession with some overlap in spinal musculoskeletal management. There is no basis in the provided peer-reviewed index papers to conclude that chiropractic treatment, as such, is the McKenzie Method, and the claim is therefore not medically well-formed without a specific condition and outcome. ^[4]

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

There is no direct connection between chiropractic care and cupping therapy in the provided index papers; they focus on hypertension management, clinical nutrition, headache treatment, transfusion, and pericarditis rather than manual therapies or cupping. ^{[1][2][3][4][5][7][13]} However, high-quality external evidence (systematic reviews and randomized trials) shows that cupping therapy, as a complementary intervention, can produce short-term reductions in pain and disability for some musculoskeletal and chronic pain conditions compared to no treatment or usual care. ^{[6][14][15][16]} Multiple systematic reviews and meta-analyses have reported clinically meaningful short-term effects of cupping on chronic pain, low back pain, neck pain, and chronic musculoskeletal pain, particularly when compared with no treatment or basic care. ^[17] Some RCTs and meta-analyses also suggest wet cupping may reduce pain intensity and improve quality of life in nonspecific low back pain and other musculoskeletal conditions. Overall, the mainstream evidence base supports that cupping can have modest short-term analgesic and functional benefits in selected pain conditions, which could in principle be incorporated by various practitioners, including chiropractors, as an adjunct modality, provided it is used within appropriate safety and scope-of-practice frameworks.

Contradicts

None of the indexed guideline papers endorse cupping or chiropractic cupping as evidence-based core therapy for any of the conditions they address, which underscores that cupping is not part of established guideline-driven care in hypertension, parenteral nutrition, inflammatory bowel disease, blood transfusion, or tension-type headache. ^{[1][3][4][5][6][7][14][15]} High-quality external evidence also highlights important limitations: many cupping trials are small, at risk of bias, and show benefit mainly versus no treatment, with little or no advantage versus sham cupping or other active treatments. Some randomized trials in chronic nonspecific low back pain and sports recovery show that adding dry cupping to guideline-based conventional therapy or using it post-exercise does not provide additional clinically important benefit over control conditions. ^[16][17] Meta-analyses often note substantial heterogeneity in protocols, lack of standardization, and limited long-term follow-up, meaning durability of benefit is uncertain. There is also no robust evidence base specifically evaluating “chiropractor treatment of cupping” as a distinct intervention, so any strong claim that chiropractic cupping is uniquely effective or superior to other forms of cupping or manual therapy is not supported by current high-quality data.

Mainstream view

Mainstream medical and scientific opinion is that cupping is a traditional or complementary therapy that may provide modest short-term pain relief and functional improvement for some musculoskeletal and chronic pain conditions, but the overall evidence is limited, heterogeneous, and often methodologically weak. ^{[6][7][14][15][16][17]} Major evidence-based guidelines for cardiovascular disease, nutrition, inflammatory bowel disease, transfusion, and headache management do not recommend cupping as part of standard care, reflecting its marginal role in guideline-driven medicine. ^[1][2][3][4] In musculoskeletal and pain medicine, cupping is generally viewed as an optional adjunct that can be considered when patients are interested in complementary approaches, with appropriate counseling on uncertain efficacy and potential minor adverse effects, rather than a primary or stand-alone evidence-based treatment. ^[5] There is no specific mainstream endorsement of “chiropractic cupping” distinct from other practitioners using cupping; its acceptance is conditional and typically embedded within broader multimodal, non-pharmacologic care rather than as a central, proven therapy.

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Cupping”

Rule: K.S.A. 65-2871(a)