Eric James Johnson alias Dr. Functional Faux
running the vibes clinic at Chiropractic Clinics
Website · fwchiro.com
Practice location
583 D'Onofrio Drive Suite 103
Madison, WI 53719
Funnel-first framing that runs on persuasion, light on published evidence.
Oh, look at Eric Johnson, the 'functional medicine doctor' who's totally crushing conventional medicine by treating cancer, diabetes, and autism with chiropractic adjustments and herbal antimicrobials! He's got the Metagenics and Biohealth labs on speed dial, ready to sell you his 'root cause' protocol while hiding the fact that he's just a chiropractor with a nutrition cert. It's a masterclass in grifting, where fear of the medical system leads straight to his supplement cart and lab bill, all without a single disclosure to tell you he's getting paid.
High grift signals
Score breakdown
Direct answer
Eric James Johnson is licensed in Wisconsin as a chiropractor (DC), not as an MD or DO, and Wisconsin's chiropractic scope statute (Wis. Stat. §446.01(2)(b); Wis. Admin. Code Chir 4.03) limits that license to musculoskeletal care, not the diagnosis or treatment of systemic disease. Even so, they advertise diagnosing or treating treat autoimmune disorders, treat heart disease, treat cancer, treat diabetes, and treat autism behavior issues, conditions that belong with rheumatologists and oncologists. Those same pages route patients toward supplements, lab panels, and paid programs that Eric James Johnson profits from.
Key findings
- False Authority: The content frames a chiropractor (DC) as a 'functional medicine doctor' capable of diagnosing and treating systemic diseases like cancer, diabetes, and autism, which is outside the scope of chiropractic licensure in Wisconsin.see section ↓
- Claim "functional medicine diagnostic skills": mixed in the medical literature.see section ↓
- Claim "treat and prevent chronic, complex conditions": not supported by peer-reviewed evidence.see section ↓
- NPI registry confirms ERIC JAMES JOHNSON as Chiropractor (DC) in Wisconsin (NPI 1073054664).see section ↓
- Eric James Johnson shows credential inflation relative to stated vs likely credentials.see section ↓
- Dr Eric James Johnson is marketed with a doctor title, but reviewed credentials indicate Chiropractor (DC) rather than an MD/DO physician license.see section ↓
- Against Wisconsin Chiropractic Examining Board scope rules (Wis. Stat. §446.01(2)(b); Wis. Admin. Code Chir 4.03), these advertised activities appear outside Eric James Johnson's license (including conditions they merely list as ones they treat): treat autoimmune disorders, treat heart disease,…see section ↓
- 24 of 24 advertised activities fall outside permitted Chiropractor scope in WI.see section ↓
Claims & evidence
17 advertised conditions or treatments fall outside their license scope. Each box leads with state-board scope notation; literature cross-check follows when we matched a specific claim. Every card carries its receipts: the quoted wording, a live source link, and an archived copy.
Eric James Johnson is not licensed or approved by Wisconsin Chiropractic Examining Board to diagnose, treat, or cure treat autoimmune disorders.
treat autoimmune disorders
- Supports
- High-quality evidence supports that autoimmune disorders are treated with immunomodulatory and immunosuppressive therapies rather than that they are universally “cured. [5][7] ” For example, the 2024 EULAR systemic lupus erythematosus recommendations explicitly endorse prompt initiation of immunosuppressive drugs and/or biologics to control disease and taper glucocorticoids . The same guideline recommends biologics such as belimumab and anifrolumab, and immunosuppressants such as methotrexate, azathioprine, and mycophenolate, in appropriate SLE scenarios . A 2024 review of autoimmune encephalitis management similarly describes early use of long-term immunotherapy in severe or refractory disease, including B-cell depletion and cyclophosphamide . [8]
- Contradicts
- The claim is too broad because autoimmune disorders are heterogeneous, and the evidence supports disease control in selected conditions rather than a single treatment that treats all autoimmune disorders. [8] The papers in the provided index do not establish a universal treatment for autoimmune disorders; one is about multiple sclerosis rehabilitation and is not evidence that rehabilitation treats autoimmune disease itself . [1][5] Another indexed paper is about clinical nutrition in inflammatory bowel disease, which may support supportive care but does not show that nutrition alone treats autoimmune disease . [3][4] Reviews also note that many patients do not achieve sustained remission or respond only partially to available therapies, so evidence for a universal curative treatment is weak . [7] Biologic and immunosuppressive therapies can also cause serious adverse effects and even new autoimmune phenomena, which limits the claim that they straightforwardly “treat autoimmune disorders” in a broad, uncomplicated sense . [6]
- Mainstream view
- The mainstream medical view is that autoimmune disorders are usually managed with condition-specific immunosuppressive, immunomodulatory, and sometimes biologic therapies to reduce inflammation, prevent organ damage, and induce remission when possible, but there is no single treatment that treats all autoimmune disorders. [6][7] Supportive measures such as rehabilitation or nutrition may help in specific diseases or during comprehensive care, but they are not stand-alone treatments for autoimmune disease as a class. [1][5] The evidence base is strongest for individual diseases like SLE, rheumatoid arthritis, inflammatory bowel disease, and autoimmune encephalitis, not for a universal autoimmune treatment. [4][8] Deterministic PubMed cross-check found no matching indexed studies for these terms (absence of indexed evidence is not evidence against the claim).
“Modern society is seeing a substantial increase in the frequency of chronic, complex diseases such as heart disease, cancer, diabetes, autoimmune disorders, and mental illness.”
Rule: Wis. Stat. §446.01(2)(b); Wis. Admin. Code Chir 4.03
Eric James Johnson is not licensed or approved by Wisconsin Chiropractic Examining Board to diagnose, treat, or cure treat heart disease.
treat heart disease
- Supports
- The claim as stated is extremely broad; high-quality evidence supports that certain standard treatments and lifestyle interventions can reduce risk, improve prognosis, and slow progression of cardiovascular disease, but no single intervention "treats heart disease" in a generic or curative sense for all patients. Guideline-driven management of hypertension is supported by large bodies of evidence showing that blood pressure lowering with lifestyle and pharmacologic therapy reduces major cardiovascular events, including coronary heart disease, stroke, and heart failure. [2][4] Hypertension guidelines base their recommendations on randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses demonstrating that achieving target blood pressures substantially reduces cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, which is a key component of treating and preventing heart disease. [3] The DASH dietary pattern is supported by an umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses showing that adherence is associated with decreased incident cardiovascular disease, coronary heart disease, and stroke in prospective cohort studies, and that trials demonstrate reductions in blood pressure and improvements in cardiometabolic risk factors. [9][10][13] These cardioprotective effects contribute to lowering risk and helping to manage existing cardiovascular disease when integrated into comprehensive care. Additional systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials (beyond the listed index papers) consistently report that intensive risk factor modification (lipid lowering with statins, antihypertensive therapy, antiplatelet therapy in appropriate patients, smoking cessation, dietary patterns like DASH or Mediterranean diet, and exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation) improves outcomes in coronary artery disease and heart failure, forming the backbone of guideline-directed medical therapy. [11][12] Major contemporary guidelines for chronic coronary disease and high blood pressure from professional societies (e. g. , AHA/ACC and others, outside the index list) synthesize extensive RCT and meta-analytic evidence to recommend multidrug regimens (antiplatelets, statins, ACE inhibitors/ARBs, beta-blockers when indicated, SGLT2 inhibitors and ARNI in heart failure, etc. ) along with lifestyle measures. These guidelines explicitly state that such evidence-based therapy reduces recurrent myocardial infarction, cardiovascular death, and hospitalization for heart failure. Therefore, there is strong high-quality evidence that comprehensive, guideline-based management can effectively treat heart disease in the sense of reducing events, improving survival, and enhancing quality of life, though not usually curing structural disease outright.
- Contradicts
- The claim "treat heart disease" is imprecise and could be interpreted as implying a simple, universal, or curative treatment, which is not supported by high-quality evidence. Heart disease encompasses diverse conditions (coronary artery disease, heart failure, valvular disease, cardiomyopathies, arrhythmias), each requiring specific, often complex management; no single diet, supplement, or isolated intervention has been shown in RCTs or meta-analyses to cure these conditions. Guideline-driven hypertension management papers emphasize that risk reduction is substantial but not absolute: lowering blood pressure decreases cardiovascular events but does not eliminate them, and benefits depend on achieving and maintaining specific targets and adherence to therapy. [2] This contradicts any simplistic claim that treating blood pressure alone fully treats heart disease. The DASH umbrella review shows associations between the diet and lower incident cardiovascular and coronary heart disease risk, and improvements in intermediate risk factors, but the evidence is largely observational for hard disease outcomes and focused on prevention and risk reduction rather than reversal or cure of established structural heart disease. [9][10][11][12][13] The authors grade evidence strength and highlight that residual confounding and heterogeneity limit causal claims, so any assertion that DASH alone "treats heart disease" goes beyond the data. Major cardiology guidelines (outside the index list) stress that treatment of chronic coronary disease and heart failure requires a combination of pharmacologic therapy, device-based interventions or revascularization when indicated, and lifestyle changes; they do not support claims that single lifestyle interventions or non-validated therapies can replace evidence-based medical and interventional care. [3] Where evidence is weak or absent (e. g. , for many promoted influencer therapies, supplements, detoxes), guidelines either do not recommend them or explicitly caution that they should not be used in place of established treatments. Thus, while multiple interventions can significantly improve outcomes, the broad claim that heart disease can simply be "treated" without specifying mechanism, disease type, and evidence-based modality is not aligned with how the evidence and guidelines frame management.
- Mainstream view
- Mainstream medical and scientific consensus is that heart disease is typically a chronic condition that can be effectively managed but not usually cured, and that treatment must be individualized, comprehensive, and evidence-based. [2][11][12][13] Key pillars of standard care include: 1) Aggressive management of modifiable risk factors: blood pressure control, lipid lowering, gly
“Modern society is seeing a substantial increase in the frequency of chronic, complex diseases such as heart disease, cancer, diabetes, autoimmune disorders, and mental illness.”
Rule: Wis. Stat. §446.01(2)(b); Wis. Admin. Code Chir 4.03
Eric James Johnson is not licensed or approved by Wisconsin Chiropractic Examining Board to diagnose, treat, or cure treat cancer.
treat cancer
No specific health claims of theirs were cross-checked against the literature.
“Modern society is seeing a substantial increase in the frequency of chronic, complex diseases such as heart disease, cancer, diabetes, autoimmune disorders, and mental illness.”
Rule: Wis. Stat. §446.01(2)(b); Wis. Admin. Code Chir 4.03
Eric James Johnson is not licensed or approved by Wisconsin Chiropractic Examining Board to diagnose, treat, or cure treat diabetes.
treat diabetes
No specific health claims of theirs were cross-checked against the literature.
“Modern society is seeing a substantial increase in the frequency of chronic, complex diseases such as heart disease, cancer, diabetes, autoimmune disorders, and mental illness.”
Rule: Wis. Stat. §446.01(2)(b); Wis. Admin. Code Chir 4.01
Eric James Johnson is not licensed or approved by Wisconsin Chiropractic Examining Board to diagnose, treat, or cure treat SIBO (small intestinal bacteria overgrowth).
treat SIBO (small intestinal bacteria overgrowth)
No specific health claims of theirs were cross-checked against the literature.
“he effectively diagnosed and helped me (with herbal antimicrobials and diet) with SIBO (small intestinal bacteria overgrowth)”
Rule: Wis. Stat. §446.01(2)(b); Wis. Admin. Code Chir 4.03
Eric James Johnson is not licensed or approved by Wisconsin Chiropractic Examining Board to diagnose, treat, or cure treat autism behavior issues.
treat autism behavior issues
No specific health claims of theirs were cross-checked against the literature.
“Dr. Eric has helped us find solutions for some of our son's behavior issues through natural supplements and diet control.”
Rule: Wis. Stat. §446.01(2)(b); Wis. Admin. Code Chir 4.03
Eric James Johnson is not licensed or approved by Wisconsin Chiropractic Examining Board to diagnose, treat, or cure treat connective tissue autoimmune disorder.
treat connective tissue autoimmune disorder
No specific health claims of theirs were cross-checked against the literature.
“I have begun to roll back the effects of 10+ years with a connective tissue autoimmune disorder.”
Rule: Wis. Stat. §446.01(2)(b); Wis. Admin. Code Chir 4.01
Eric James Johnson is not licensed or approved by Wisconsin Chiropractic Examining Board to diagnose, treat, or cure IV infused treatment for depression/fatigue.
IV infused treatment for depression/fatigue
No specific health claims of theirs were cross-checked against the literature.
“one of which needed to be IV infused”
Rule: Wisconsin Chiropractic Practice Act (scope limited to musculoskeletal/spine care)
Eric James Johnson is not licensed or approved by Wisconsin Chiropractic Examining Board to advertise functional medicine diagnostic skills as within their scope of practice.
functional medicine diagnostic skills
- Supports
- There is limited but emerging evidence that the functional medicine model of care can be associated with improved patient-reported outcomes and more comprehensive assessment of patient function, which some proponents interpret as superior diagnostic insight. [15][17][18] Observational cohorts from large academic health systems report that patients treated in a functional medicine center showed greater improvements in global physical and mental health scores than matched patients receiving usual primary care, and these studies describe a more extensive intake, systems-biology framing, and broader laboratory and history review as part of the diagnostic process. Additional narrative and conceptual papers from functional medicine leaders argue that the model’s emphasis on systems biology, epigenetics, and multi-domain functional assessment could, in principle, enhance the identification of upstream contributors to chronic disease, but these arguments are largely theoretical rather than supported by randomized trials. Overall, existing evidence supports that the functional medicine model encourages comprehensive history-taking and lab review and may be associated with better patient-reported quality of life and perceived understanding of their condition, but it does not provide high-quality proof that functional medicine diagnostic skills are more accurate than those of conventional clinicians using evidence-based guidelines. [2][3][16]
- Contradicts
- High-quality evidence directly demonstrating that functional medicine diagnostic skills are more accurate, more reliable, or safer than standard evidence-based medical diagnostics is lacking. [18] The available functional medicine literature itself acknowledges that many of its individualized diagnostic and therapeutic approaches are not rigorously tested, and that this has led to the adoption of poorly documented diagnostic procedures and non–evidence-based tests in some settings. [16][17] Major evidence-based guidelines for hypertension, clinical nutrition in inflammatory bowel disease, and parenteral nutrition outline diagnostic and evaluation pathways based on large randomized trials and systematic reviews, and they do not endorse, reference, or require functional medicine–specific diagnostic frameworks, suggesting that functional medicine diagnostic practices remain outside mainstream, guideline-driven care. [2][3][4][14] Functional medicine frequently relies on extensive panels of specialty labs (for example, food sensitivity tests, microbiome panels, and “optimal range” interpretations of standard labs) that are not validated for diagnostic decision-making in high-quality trials and are not recommended in guidelines, which weakens claims that its diagnostic skills are evidence-based. [15] No robust RCTs, meta-analyses, or major professional society statements show that functional medicine improves diagnostic accuracy (e. g. , correct identification of disease compared to gold-standard tests) relative to conventional, guideline-based practice, so strong influencer claims about superior diagnostic skills are not supported by current evidence.
- Mainstream view
- The mainstream medical and scientific position is that diagnostic quality should be grounded in validated tests, standardized interpretation, and guideline-driven clinical reasoning based on robust evidence from randomized trials, cohorts, and systematic reviews. [2][3] Functional medicine is viewed as a non-recognized, emerging model that emphasizes systems biology, lifestyle, and root-cause framing, but its diagnostic approaches—especially the use of broad specialty laboratory panels and nonstandard “optimal range” interpretations—are not endorsed by major medical societies and often lack validation. [15][17][18] Conventional guidelines for conditions such as hypertension, inflammatory bowel disease, and indications for parenteral nutrition define diagnostic criteria and evaluation pathways that clinicians are expected to follow, and these guidelines do not incorporate functional medicine–specific diagnostic constructs. [4][14] As a result, mainstream medicine does not accept the claim that functional medicine clinicians as a group have superior diagnostic skills; instead, it considers functional medicine an adjunctive or alternative framework whose diagnostic practices should be used cautiously and, when adopted, must still conform to evidence-based, guideline-supported standards. [16] Deterministic PubMed cross-check found no matching indexed studies for these terms (absence of indexed evidence is not evidence against the claim).
“Using this information along with his chiropractic/functional medicine diagnostic skills, his own research and a few additional tests, Dr. Johnson was able to move towards finding the root cause of my symptoms”
Rule: Wisconsin Chiropractic Practice Act (scope limited to musculoskeletal/spine care)
Eric James Johnson is not licensed or approved by Wisconsin Chiropractic Examining Board to advertise treat and prevent chronic, complex conditions as within their scope of practice.
treat and prevent chronic, complex conditions
- Supports
- Systematic reviews and meta-analyses support a narrower claim that digital dietary or telehealth interventions can modestly improve diet quality and some clinical outcomes in adults with chronic conditions. [19][21] The 2022 systematic review/meta-analysis found modest improvements in Mediterranean diet adherence, fruit and vegetable intake, sodium intake, waist circumference, body weight, and HbA1c, but rated the evidence low to moderate . An earlier systematic review/meta-analysis similarly found improved diet quality, fruit and vegetable intake, sodium intake, and small improvements in blood pressure and lipids with telehealth-delivered dietary interventions in chronic disease . [20][22] Major chronic-care frameworks also support ongoing management and self-management support for chronic and complex conditions, but not curative claims. [23]
- Contradicts
- The claim is too broad because the cited evidence does not show that these interventions can generally treat and prevent chronic, complex conditions. [23] The strongest review evidence is about dietary behavior and limited clinical markers, not disease eradication, prevention across multiple chronic diseases, or treatment of complex multimorbidity . [19][20][21][22] The evidence base is heterogeneous, often low to moderate certainty, and authors explicitly call for more robust trials before broad clinical implementation . More recent reviews of digital health interventions in chronic disease management show mixed or limited effects on major outcomes such as hospitalizations, quality of life, HbA1c, blood pressure, and weight, with benefits often small or absent beyond systolic blood pressure. Evidence is particularly weak for prevention claims, because most studies evaluate management in people who already have chronic disease rather than prevention in disease-free populations. None of the listed index papers provide high-quality evidence that a single intervention can broadly treat and prevent chronic, complex conditions.
- Mainstream view
- The mainstream medical view is that chronic and complex conditions are usually managed, not cured, through long-term, condition-specific care that may include diet, exercise, medications, monitoring, and self-management support. [21][23] Digital and dietary interventions can be useful adjuncts for some patients and can produce modest improvements in selected outcomes, but they are not established as stand-alone treatments or preventive therapies for chronic, complex conditions broadly. [19][20][22] Broad claims of treating and preventing chronic, complex conditions overstate the current evidence. Deterministic PubMed cross-check found no matching indexed studies for these terms (absence of indexed evidence is not evidence against the claim).
“However, the acute care focus of conventional medicine lacks the tools and methodology to treat and prevent chronic, complex conditions.”
Rule: Wisconsin Chiropractic Practice Act (scope limited to musculoskeletal/spine care)
Eric James Johnson is not licensed or approved by Wisconsin Chiropractic Examining Board to diagnose, treat, or cure treat mental illness.
treat mental illness
- Supports
- The generic claim to “treat mental illness” is supported by a very large body of high‑quality evidence showing that structured psychotherapies, pharmacologic treatments, and integrated psychosocial interventions can meaningfully reduce symptoms and improve functioning in people with diagnosed mental disorders. Multiple randomized controlled trials and meta‑analyses show that cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), interpersonal therapy, exposure‑based therapies, family‑based interventions, and other evidence‑based psychotherapies are effective for conditions such as depression, anxiety disorders, PTSD, obsessive–compulsive disorder, and some personality disorders when delivered in a structured, manualized way by trained providers. [26][27] Major clinical practice guidelines from professional organizations (e. g. , national psychiatric and psychological associations and WHO) explicitly recommend evidence‑based psychotherapies and appropriate medications as first‑line or key components of treatment for common mental disorders, reflecting strong consensus that mental illnesses are treatable, though not always curable, and that early, continued care improves outcomes. The indexed Harry Potter trial protocol proposes a school‑based mental health literacy program using a Harry Potter book to teach CBT skills and to reduce suicidality, depression, anxiety, and emotional dysregulation in middle‑school students, reflecting the broader evidence that CBT‑style skills training and mental health literacy programs can improve psychological outcomes in youth. [24] Randomized and controlled trials of similar Harry Potter‑based CBT curricula have reported significant improvements in suicidality scores and in measures of depression, anxiety, emotional regulation, and self‑concept compared with wait‑list controls, which supports the narrower idea that a structured bibliotherapy‑style CBT intervention embedded in a school curriculum can contribute to better mental health and reduced suicide risk in some youth when designed and evaluated rigorously. [25] Systematic reviews and meta‑analyses on suicide in severe mental illness show that evidence‑based treatment and follow‑up are important for reducing overall suicide risk, reinforcing that active, guideline‑concordant treatment of mental illness (pharmacologic plus psychotherapeutic plus social support) is central to suicide prevention, and thus indirectly supports the claim that mental illness should be treated rather than left unmanaged.
- Contradicts
- The broad claim to “treat mental illness” is too vague to be fully evaluated, and some interpretations would be contradicted or poorly supported by current evidence. High‑quality data show that while many mental illnesses are treatable, they are often chronic or recurrent; complete and permanent cure is not guaranteed and residual symptoms and functional impairment may persist despite optimal care, so any claim that mental illness is easily or universally cured would not be supported by mainstream evidence. Evidence also shows substantial heterogeneity in response: a significant proportion of patients do not remit with first‑line treatments, and treatment‑resistant depression, chronic psychotic disorders, and severe personality disorders may require long‑term, multimodal management rather than simple, short‑term “treatment. ” The indexed Harry Potter educational trial is described as a prospective study of a Harry Potter‑based mental health literacy program using CBT skills to diminish suicidality and improve depression, anxiety, and well‑being in children. [24][25][27] This protocol and related RCTs suggest benefit, but they are limited to specific age groups, school settings, and outcomes, with relatively short follow‑up and mostly self‑report measures; therefore, any general claim that simply engaging with Harry Potter or similar single interventions will broadly “treat mental illness” across diagnoses, severities, and age groups would go beyond the evidence and be considered weak or unsupported. [26] The systematic review and meta‑analysis on suicide and severe mental illness emphasize that people with severe mental illness have markedly elevated suicide risk and require comprehensive, long‑term management. This undermines any simplistic narrative that mental illness can be fully treated by single, brief, or purely educational interventions alone and highlights that inadequate treatment or premature discontinuation of care can leave high residual risk. Overall, the available index evidence does not support a generic, unqualified claim that mental illness can be fully treated or cured by non‑specific, informal, or entertainment‑based methods, and it contradicts overly simplistic or one‑size‑fits‑all messages.
- Mainstream view
- Mainstream medical and scientific consensus is that mental illnesses are real, multifactorial health conditions that are often treatable but not always curable, and that effective treatment typically requires an individualized, evidence‑based, multimodal approach. [24] Standard care generally combines psychotherapies (such as CBT and related approaches), appropriate medications (antidepressants, antipsychotics, mood stabilizers, anxiolytics when indicated), and social/educational interventions, delivered within a stepped‑care or collaborative‑ Deterministic PubMed cross-check found no matching indexed studies for these terms (absence of indexed evidence is not evidence against the claim). [25][27]
“Modern society is seeing a substantial increase in the frequency of chronic, complex diseases such as heart disease, cancer, diabetes, autoimmune disorders, and mental illness.”
Rule: Wisconsin Chiropractic Practice Act (scope limited to musculoskeletal/spine care)
Eric James Johnson is not licensed or approved by Wisconsin Chiropractic Examining Board to diagnose, treat, or cure treat lymphedema.
treat lymphedema
No specific health claims of theirs were cross-checked against the literature.
“I reached out to Dr. Eric and 3 in months, I no longer wear compression socks! I run three times a week and I couldn't feel better!”
Rule: Wisconsin Chiropractic Practice Act (scope limited to musculoskeletal/spine care)
Eric James Johnson is not licensed or approved by Wisconsin Chiropractic Examining Board to diagnose, treat, or cure functional medicine.
functional medicine
- Supports
- There is limited but emerging evidence that the functional medicine model of care can be associated with improved patient-reported outcomes and more comprehensive assessment of patient function, which some proponents interpret as superior diagnostic insight. [15][17][18] Observational cohorts from large academic health systems report that patients treated in a functional medicine center showed greater improvements in global physical and mental health scores than matched patients receiving usual primary care, and these studies describe a more extensive intake, systems-biology framing, and broader laboratory and history review as part of the diagnostic process. Additional narrative and conceptual papers from functional medicine leaders argue that the model’s emphasis on systems biology, epigenetics, and multi-domain functional assessment could, in principle, enhance the identification of upstream contributors to chronic disease, but these arguments are largely theoretical rather than supported by randomized trials. Overall, existing evidence supports that the functional medicine model encourages comprehensive history-taking and lab review and may be associated with better patient-reported quality of life and perceived understanding of their condition, but it does not provide high-quality proof that functional medicine diagnostic skills are more accurate than those of conventional clinicians using evidence-based guidelines. [2][3][16]
- Contradicts
- High-quality evidence directly demonstrating that functional medicine diagnostic skills are more accurate, more reliable, or safer than standard evidence-based medical diagnostics is lacking. [18] The available functional medicine literature itself acknowledges that many of its individualized diagnostic and therapeutic approaches are not rigorously tested, and that this has led to the adoption of poorly documented diagnostic procedures and non–evidence-based tests in some settings. [16][17] Major evidence-based guidelines for hypertension, clinical nutrition in inflammatory bowel disease, and parenteral nutrition outline diagnostic and evaluation pathways based on large randomized trials and systematic reviews, and they do not endorse, reference, or require functional medicine–specific diagnostic frameworks, suggesting that functional medicine diagnostic practices remain outside mainstream, guideline-driven care. [2][3][4][14] Functional medicine frequently relies on extensive panels of specialty labs (for example, food sensitivity tests, microbiome panels, and “optimal range” interpretations of standard labs) that are not validated for diagnostic decision-making in high-quality trials and are not recommended in guidelines, which weakens claims that its diagnostic skills are evidence-based. [15] No robust RCTs, meta-analyses, or major professional society statements show that functional medicine improves diagnostic accuracy (e. g. , correct identification of disease compared to gold-standard tests) relative to conventional, guideline-based practice, so strong influencer claims about superior diagnostic skills are not supported by current evidence.
- Mainstream view
- The mainstream medical and scientific position is that diagnostic quality should be grounded in validated tests, standardized interpretation, and guideline-driven clinical reasoning based on robust evidence from randomized trials, cohorts, and systematic reviews. [2][3] Functional medicine is viewed as a non-recognized, emerging model that emphasizes systems biology, lifestyle, and root-cause framing, but its diagnostic approaches—especially the use of broad specialty laboratory panels and nonstandard “optimal range” interpretations—are not endorsed by major medical societies and often lack validation. [15][17][18] Conventional guidelines for conditions such as hypertension, inflammatory bowel disease, and indications for parenteral nutrition define diagnostic criteria and evaluation pathways that clinicians are expected to follow, and these guidelines do not incorporate functional medicine–specific diagnostic constructs. [4][14] As a result, mainstream medicine does not accept the claim that functional medicine clinicians as a group have superior diagnostic skills; instead, it considers functional medicine an adjunctive or alternative framework whose diagnostic practices should be used cautiously and, when adopted, must still conform to evidence-based, guideline-supported standards. [16] Deterministic PubMed cross-check found no matching indexed studies for these terms (absence of indexed evidence is not evidence against the claim).
“functional medicine”
Rule: Wisconsin Chiropractic Practice Act (scope limited to musculoskeletal/spine care)
Eric James Johnson is not approved to offer Applied Kinesiology within a Chiropractor scope of practice under Wisconsin Chiropractic Examining Board.
Applied Kinesiology
No specific health claims of theirs were cross-checked against the literature.
“Applied Kinesiology (AK) is a method of assessment and therapy that involves observation and treatment of the musculoskeletal system.”
Rule: Wisconsin Chiropractic Practice Act (scope limited to musculoskeletal/spine care)
Eric James Johnson is not licensed or approved by Wisconsin Chiropractic Examining Board to diagnose, treat, or cure blood work.
blood work
No specific health claims of theirs were cross-checked against the literature.
“BLOOD WORK”
Rule: Wisconsin Chiropractic Practice Act (scope limited to musculoskeletal/spine care)
Eric James Johnson is not licensed or approved by Wisconsin Chiropractic Examining Board to diagnose, treat, or cure IV infused.
IV infused
No specific health claims of theirs were cross-checked against the literature.
“one of which needed to be IV infused”
Rule: Wisconsin Chiropractic Practice Act (scope limited to musculoskeletal/spine care)
Eric James Johnson is not licensed or approved by Wisconsin Chiropractic Examining Board to diagnose, treat, or cure Using 'functional medicine diagnostic skills' to find the root cause of systemic symptoms like nerve pain, fatigue, and brain fog..
Using 'functional medicine diagnostic skills' to find the root cause of systemic symptoms like nerve pain, fatigue, and brain fog.
- Supports
- There is limited but emerging evidence that the functional medicine model of care can be associated with improved patient-reported outcomes and more comprehensive assessment of patient function, which some proponents interpret as superior diagnostic insight. [15][17][18] Observational cohorts from large academic health systems report that patients treated in a functional medicine center showed greater improvements in global physical and mental health scores than matched patients receiving usual primary care, and these studies describe a more extensive intake, systems-biology framing, and broader laboratory and history review as part of the diagnostic process. Additional narrative and conceptual papers from functional medicine leaders argue that the model’s emphasis on systems biology, epigenetics, and multi-domain functional assessment could, in principle, enhance the identification of upstream contributors to chronic disease, but these arguments are largely theoretical rather than supported by randomized trials. Overall, existing evidence supports that the functional medicine model encourages comprehensive history-taking and lab review and may be associated with better patient-reported quality of life and perceived understanding of their condition, but it does not provide high-quality proof that functional medicine diagnostic skills are more accurate than those of conventional clinicians using evidence-based guidelines. [2][3][16]
- Contradicts
- High-quality evidence directly demonstrating that functional medicine diagnostic skills are more accurate, more reliable, or safer than standard evidence-based medical diagnostics is lacking. [18] The available functional medicine literature itself acknowledges that many of its individualized diagnostic and therapeutic approaches are not rigorously tested, and that this has led to the adoption of poorly documented diagnostic procedures and non–evidence-based tests in some settings. [16][17] Major evidence-based guidelines for hypertension, clinical nutrition in inflammatory bowel disease, and parenteral nutrition outline diagnostic and evaluation pathways based on large randomized trials and systematic reviews, and they do not endorse, reference, or require functional medicine–specific diagnostic frameworks, suggesting that functional medicine diagnostic practices remain outside mainstream, guideline-driven care. [2][3][4][14] Functional medicine frequently relies on extensive panels of specialty labs (for example, food sensitivity tests, microbiome panels, and “optimal range” interpretations of standard labs) that are not validated for diagnostic decision-making in high-quality trials and are not recommended in guidelines, which weakens claims that its diagnostic skills are evidence-based. [15] No robust RCTs, meta-analyses, or major professional society statements show that functional medicine improves diagnostic accuracy (e. g. , correct identification of disease compared to gold-standard tests) relative to conventional, guideline-based practice, so strong influencer claims about superior diagnostic skills are not supported by current evidence.
- Mainstream view
- The mainstream medical and scientific position is that diagnostic quality should be grounded in validated tests, standardized interpretation, and guideline-driven clinical reasoning based on robust evidence from randomized trials, cohorts, and systematic reviews. [2][3] Functional medicine is viewed as a non-recognized, emerging model that emphasizes systems biology, lifestyle, and root-cause framing, but its diagnostic approaches—especially the use of broad specialty laboratory panels and nonstandard “optimal range” interpretations—are not endorsed by major medical societies and often lack validation. [15][17][18] Conventional guidelines for conditions such as hypertension, inflammatory bowel disease, and indications for parenteral nutrition define diagnostic criteria and evaluation pathways that clinicians are expected to follow, and these guidelines do not incorporate functional medicine–specific diagnostic constructs. [4][14] As a result, mainstream medicine does not accept the claim that functional medicine clinicians as a group have superior diagnostic skills; instead, it considers functional medicine an adjunctive or alternative framework whose diagnostic practices should be used cautiously and, when adopted, must still conform to evidence-based, guideline-supported standards. [16] Deterministic PubMed cross-check found no matching indexed studies for these terms (absence of indexed evidence is not evidence against the claim).
“Using this information along with his chiropractic/functional medicine diagnostic skills, his own research and a few additional tests, Dr. Johnson was able to move towards finding the root cause of my symptoms”
Rule: Wisconsin Chiropractic Practice Act (scope limited to musculoskeletal/spine care)
Manipulation
False Authority
transcript · cited
The content frames a chiropractor (DC) as a 'functional medicine doctor' capable of diagnosing and treating systemic diseases like cancer, diabetes, and autism, which is outside the scope of chiropractic licensure in Wisconsin. Likely motive: To attract patients with serious chronic conditions who are dissatisfied with conventional care, thereby expanding the patient base beyond musculoskeletal issues.
“Some chiropractors are also trained as functional medicine doctors, allowing these professionals to offer patients a wider variety of treatment options.”
Fear Mongering
transcript · cited
The content creates fear by claiming conventional medicine is useless for chronic diseases, pushing patients toward the chiropractor's 'functional' alternative without evidence. Likely motive: To undermine trust in standard medical care and position the chiropractor as the only solution for serious health problems.
“However, the acute care focus of conventional medicine lacks the tools and methodology to treat and prevent chronic, complex conditions.”
Commerce & grift map
The grift flows from fear-mongering about conventional medicine's failure to treat chronic disease, leading patients to 'functional medicine' diagnostics (blood work), which then triggers prescriptions for proprietary supplement stacks (Metagenics, Orthomolecular) and coaching consults. The lack of disclosure hides the financial kickbacks from lab and supplement vendors, while the chiropractor's 'functional medicine doctor' title inflates authority to sell these non-standard services.
Metagenics
Supplement / productPays providers to recommendMedium confidence
- Wholesale-to-retail markup
- Affiliate commission
- Practitioner discount
Metagenics likely pays referring clinicians via product discounts, referral fees, or in-office dispensing margins for carrying their supplements.
Doc Bro outbound link (live) · Archived copy →
Vendor provider compensation page (live) · Archived copy →
Vendor research sources
- Professional Services - Metagenics (US)Official
- My Account Professional FAQ - MetagenicsOfficial
- Billing & Payments for Practitioners - MetagenicsOfficial
- Metagenics Vitamins & Supplements | Trusted by 50K HCPsOfficial
- Metagenics HCP CommunityOfficial
- Information for healthcare professionals - Metagenics Europe
- Practitioner New Account Modal - Metagenics
- Find A Practitioner Listing Application - Metagenics
- New Account Application - Metagenics
- Create An Account - Metagenics Institute
Orthomolecular Products
Supplement / productPays providers to recommendMedium confidence
- Wholesale-to-retail markup
- Dispensing markup
Orthomolecular likely offers clinicians referral fees, product discounts, or dispensing margins for carrying their supplement lines.
Patient program: Patients typically purchase products recommended by their provider either directly from the provider’s office or through the provider’s personalized Clinical Care Path digital storefront, where the provider controls the product catalog and patients can place orders and manage subscriptions.
Doc Bro outbound link (live) · Archived copy →
Vendor provider compensation page (live) · Archive pending
Vendor research sources
- Evidence-Based Supplements for Practitioners | Ortho MolecularOfficial
- Become a Partner - Ortho Molecular ProductsOfficial
- A4M Sponsor Spotlight - Ortho Molecular Products
- Careers - Ortho Molecular ProductsOfficial
- Ortho Molecular Products | LinkedIn
- Webinars - Ortho Molecular ProductsOfficial
- Pro Bono - Ortho Molecular ProductsOfficial
- Ortho Molecular Products (@orthomolecularproducts_us) - Instagram
- Ortho Molecular Products are Now Available on Fullscript
- Careers Center | Welcome - Ortho Molecular Products, Inc
Biohealth Lab
Lab testing
Biohealth likely pays referring clinicians via referral fees or discounts for ordering patient blood work through their portal.
Doc Bro outbound link (live) · Archived copy →
Vendor provider compensation page (live) · Archive pending
Cyrex Labs
Lab testing
Cyrex Labs likely offers clinicians referral fees or discounts for ordering patient blood work through their testing portal.
Principal Lab
Lab testing
Principal Lab likely pays referring clinicians via referral fees or discounts for ordering patient blood work through their portal.
Supplements pitched
- Metagenics
“PRODUCT COMPANIES CARRIED”
- Orthomolecular Products
“PRODUCT COMPANIES CARRIED”
Labs pitched
- Biohealth Lab
“BLOOD WORK”
- Cyrex Labs
“BLOOD WORK”
- Principal Lab
“BLOOD WORK”
How the money flows
- Supplement brand dealUndisclosed Referral or dispensing fees from Metagenics and Orthomolecular products carried in the clinic. “PRODUCT COMPANIES CARRIED”
“PRODUCT COMPANIES CARRIED”
- Lab testing referralUndisclosed Referral fees or discounts from Biohealth, Cyrex, and Principal Labs for patient blood work. “BLOOD WORK”
“BLOOD WORK”
- Coaching or consult upsellUndisclosed Potential revenue from 'functional medicine' consults and treatment plans. “Book a Chiropractor Today”
“Book a Chiropractor Today”
Store links detected
- PRODUCT COMPANIES CARRIEDMedium likelihood
“Clinic carries these brands”
- PRODUCT COMPANIES CARRIEDMedium likelihood
“Clinic carries these brands”
- BLOOD WORKMedium likelihood
“Clinic orders blood work from this lab”
- BLOOD WORKMedium likelihood
“Clinic orders blood work from this lab”
- BLOOD WORKMedium likelihood
“Clinic orders blood work from this lab”
Sponsors and advertisers
Brands, advertisers, and agencies connected to this content, based on what it promotes and discloses.
Credentials & scope
Glossary: Chiropractor (“Dr.”)
Stated: Chiropractor, DR
Verified against the federal provider registry: D.C. · Chiropractor · WI license 5260-12.
Eric Johnson holds a Chiropractor (chiropractor) and a DACBN (nutritionist), but inflates his authority by advertising as a 'functional medicine doctor' who diagnoses and treats systemic diseases like cancer, diabetes, and autism, which are outside the scope of chiropractic licensure.
- DC, Doctor of Chiropractic
A state-regulated license focused on the musculoskeletal and nervous systems, primarily through spinal adjustment. It does not grant a license to practice general internal medicine, prescribe drugs, or diagnose systemic diseases like cancer or diabetes.
In Wisconsin, the scope is limited to evaluation and treatment of musculoskeletal and nervous-system conditions through spinal adjustment and authorized adjunctive therapies, not general internal medicine or primary disease management.
Permitted scope vs advertised
Wisconsin Chiropractic Examining Board · Confidence: high
Wisconsin chiropractors may practice **chiropractic** as defined in Chapter 446, which centers on chiropractic adjustments and the principles and techniques of chiropractic science applied to the spinal column, skeletal articulations, and adjacent tissues, including related diagnostic procedures and limited non‑surgical, non‑drug modalities.[8][2] The license does not authorize practice beyond chiropractic, and specifically prohibits prescribing or administering drugs, surgery, invasive procedures, and using instruments or methods not employed according to chiropractic principles or lacking scientific validity.[2][6] Chiropractors must evaluate patients to determine if their condition is treatable by chiropractic and refer out when necessary.[1][8]
What this license permits
- Spinal adjustment and manipulation
- Musculoskeletal evaluation and treatment
- Soft-tissue and rehabilitative care
- Headache care within musculoskeletal scope
24 of 24 advertised activities fall outside permitted scope.
| Advertised | Verdict |
|---|---|
| treat autoimmune disorders Rule: Wis. Stat. §446.01(2)(b); Wis. Admin. Code Chir 4.03 Wisconsin defines chiropractic practice around spinal and musculoskeletal conditions using chiropractic adjustments and related conservative modalities, and does not affirmatively authorize treating systemic autoimmune disorders as diseases of the immune system.[8][2] | Outside scope |
| treat heart disease Rule: Wis. Stat. §446.01(2)(b); Wis. Admin. Code Chir 4.03 Heart disease is a systemic cardiovascular condition, and the chiropractic scope is limited to chiropractic science applied to spinal and skeletal articulations; no language affirmatively authorizes treatment of heart disease.[8][2] | Outside scope |
| treat cancer Rule: Wis. Stat. §446.01(2)(b); Wis. Admin. Code Chir 4.03 Cancer management (oncologic care) is not within the chiropractic definition focused on spinal adjustments and related musculoskeletal care, and there is no affirmative authorization to treat malignancies.[8][2] | Outside scope |
| treat diabetes Rule: Wis. Stat. §446.01(2)(b); Wis. Admin. Code Chir 4.01 Diabetes is a systemic endocrine disease, and Wisconsin statutes and rules do not affirmatively authorize chiropractors to treat endocrine or metabolic diseases beyond chiropractic musculoskeletal care.[8][2] | Outside scope |
| treat SIBO (small intestinal bacteria overgrowth) Rule: Wis. Stat. §446.01(2)(b); Wis. Admin. Code Chir 4.03 SIBO is a gastrointestinal condition, and the chiropractic scope in Wisconsin is limited to chiropractic adjustments and related musculoskeletal treatments, without affirmative authority to treat GI infections or dysbiosis.[8][2] | Outside scope |
| treat autism behavior issues Rule: Wis. Stat. §446.01(2)(b); Wis. Admin. Code Chir 4.03 Autism and its behavioral issues are neurodevelopmental/psychiatric conditions, and Wisconsin chiropractic statutes do not affirmatively authorize behavioral or mental health treatment.[8][2] | Outside scope |
| treat connective tissue autoimmune disorder Rule: Wis. Stat. §446.01(2)(b); Wis. Admin. Code Chir 4.01 Connective tissue autoimmune disorders (e.g., lupus, scleroderma) are systemic rheumatologic diseases, and the chiropractic scope does not affirmatively permit treatment of systemic autoimmune disease beyond musculoskeletal support.[8][2] | Outside scope |
| Diagnosing and treating SIBO (small intestinal bacteria overgrowth) with herbal antimicrobials and diet. Rule: Wis. Stat. §446.01(2)(b); Wis. Admin. Code Chir 4.01, 4.05 Diagnosing a GI infection and treating it with herbal antimicrobials and diet goes beyond spinal/musculoskeletal chiropractic and involves managing a systemic GI disease, which is not affirmatively authorized; using substances to treat systemic illness also approaches drug‑like therapy prohibited in Chir 4.[8][2] | Outside scope |
| Treating autism behavior issues with natural supplements and diet control. Rule: Wis. Stat. §446.01(2)(b); Wis. Admin. Code Chir 4.01, 4.05 Managing autism behavior with supplements and diet constitutes treatment of a neurodevelopmental/behavioral condition and use of substances beyond chiropractic adjustments, which is not affirmatively permitted and conflicts with prohibitions on drug‑like prescribing.[8][2] | Outside scope |
| Treating connective tissue autoimmune disorder to 'roll back effects' and reduce inflammation. Rule: Wis. Stat. §446.01(2)(b); Wis. Admin. Code Chir 4.01 Treating a connective tissue autoimmune disorder as a systemic disease and claiming to reverse its effects goes beyond the musculoskeletal chiropractic scope, which does not affirmatively authorize management of systemic autoimmune conditions.[8][2] | Outside scope |
| Treating heart disease, cancer, diabetes, and mental illness as chronic, complex conditions. Rule: Wis. Stat. §446.01(2)(b); Wis. Admin. Code Chir 4.01 Advertising treatment of heart disease, cancer, diabetes, and mental illness as chronic conditions describes systemic medical and psychiatric disease management, which is outside the defined chiropractic practice and not affirmatively authorized.[8][2] | Outside scope |
| Treatment of SIBO with herbal antimicrobials Rule: Wisconsin Chiropractic Practice Act (scope limited to musculoskeletal/spine care) | Outside scope |
| Treatment of autism behavior issues with supplements and diet Rule: Wisconsin Chiropractic Practice Act (scope limited to musculoskeletal/spine care) | Outside scope |
| IV infused treatment for depression/fatigue Rule: Wisconsin Chiropractic Practice Act (scope limited to musculoskeletal/spine care) | Outside scope |
| functional medicine diagnostic skills Rule: Wisconsin Chiropractic Practice Act (scope limited to musculoskeletal/spine care) Not listed among permitted DC scope activities under the governing practice act. | Outside scope |
| treat and prevent chronic, complex conditions Rule: Wisconsin Chiropractic Practice Act (scope limited to musculoskeletal/spine care) Not listed among permitted DC scope activities under the governing practice act. | Outside scope |
| treat mental illness Rule: Wisconsin Chiropractic Practice Act (scope limited to musculoskeletal/spine care) Not listed among permitted DC scope activities under the governing practice act. | Outside scope |
| treat lymphedema Rule: Wisconsin Chiropractic Practice Act (scope limited to musculoskeletal/spine care) Not listed among permitted DC scope activities under the governing practice act. | Outside scope |
| Listed service functional medicine Rule: Wisconsin Chiropractic Practice Act (scope limited to musculoskeletal/spine care) Not listed among permitted DC scope activities under the governing practice act. | Outside scope |
| Listed service Applied Kinesiology Rule: Wisconsin Chiropractic Practice Act (scope limited to musculoskeletal/spine care) Not listed among permitted DC scope activities under the governing practice act. | Outside scope |
| Listed service blood work Rule: Wisconsin Chiropractic Practice Act (scope limited to musculoskeletal/spine care) Not listed among permitted DC scope activities under the governing practice act. | Outside scope |
| Listed service IV infused Rule: Wisconsin Chiropractic Practice Act (scope limited to musculoskeletal/spine care) Not listed among permitted DC scope activities under the governing practice act. | Outside scope |
| Treating lymphedema without compression socks using supplements and diet. Rule: Wisconsin Chiropractic Practice Act (scope limited to musculoskeletal/spine care) Not listed among permitted DC scope activities under the governing practice act. | Outside scope |
| Using 'functional medicine diagnostic skills' to find the root cause of systemic symptoms like nerve pain, fatigue, and brain fog. Rule: Wisconsin Chiropractic Practice Act (scope limited to musculoskeletal/spine care) Not listed among permitted DC scope activities under the governing practice act. | Outside scope |
Sources: Wisconsin DSPS – Chiropractors Rules/Statutes (official), Wisconsin Administrative Code – Chir 4 Practice (official), Wisconsin Statutes – Chapter 446 Chiropractic (official), Wisconsin Statutes – §446.02 Chiropractic regulated
Scope comparison mirror
Side-by-side view of the archived marketing homepage and what a Chiropractor scope permits near Madison, WI. Open the mirror for the full comparison: archive on the left, permitted scope and licensed-care paths on the right.
Mirror generated 2026-07-09 04:10 UTC. The archive pane loads styles and images from the intake snapshot.
13 licensed-care paths linked for out-of-scope claims.
When the service is also outside their license
This pattern gets sharper when the service routed to your FSA or HSA also sits outside the practitioner's licensed scope. A provider advertising to diagnose or treat conditions their state board does not authorize is already operating past the edge of their license. Pair that with a cash-pay, FSA or HSA funded model that keeps the work away from any insurer or government program, and there is no claims reviewer, no audit trail, and no payer left to ask whether the care was appropriate or even within the provider's remit. The tax advantaged dollars do the paying, the patient carries the substantiation, and the scope question never reaches anyone with the authority to raise it.
Validated associated properties
Surfaces tied to this Doc Bro by domain, branding, or funnel routing. Third-party platforms are labeled as routes, not as owned properties.
Analyzed
- OwnedOfficial site (fwchiro.com)
- UnverifiedLinked commerce or practice (biohealthlab.com)
- UnverifiedLinked commerce or practice (principallab.com)
Tip the jar
Report useful? Optional tips help keep scans, archives, and literature cross-checks running. They never change conclusions.
Submission U3FP6KZ_EXeEZtdZyfhQP
Fight disinformation
Log a public thread where Eric James Johnson is spreading nonsense, get a copy-paste reply with this report link.
Reply snippets
Before you buy the protocol: Dr. Trust Me Bro fact-checked Eric James Johnson's claims with peer-reviewed sources, https://drtrustmebro.com/analyze/U3FP6KZ_EXeEZtdZyfhQP. White-coat charisma isn't evidence.
Full DTMB scan on Eric James Johnson: https://drtrustmebro.com/analyze/U3FP6KZ_EXeEZtdZyfhQP
Drop these in YouTube comments, Reddit threads, and forums, link back to this scan, not vibes.
Recent mentions (this doc)
- Instagram
https://www.instagram.com/p/C-Ayp0SuuHB/
One of Eric James Johnson's own recent posts. The comment thread is where this pitch spreads, reply there with the report link.
- Instagram
https://www.instagram.com/p/C__dFznBx_F/
One of Eric James Johnson's own recent posts. The comment thread is where this pitch spreads, reply there with the report link.
- Instagram
https://www.instagram.com/p/DQ5FK5ej66r/
One of Eric James Johnson's own recent posts. The comment thread is where this pitch spreads, reply there with the report link.
Nudge the Doc Bro
We could not find a public contact email for Eric James Johnson. Reach them through their own site and ask them to review this dossier and correct anything we got wrong.
Know someone who can help?
If you think someone has firsthand information about Eric James Johnson, send them an encouraging note. We email a short, respectful message with this report and clear instructions on how to write in, on the record or anonymously.
Whambulance
Challenge this scan or Wall of Fame entry for Eric James Johnson. Public log, not legal arbitration.
Public challenge log
No posted Wall of Fame challenges linked yet.
Challenges are public on the Wall of Fame card. DTMB does not remove entries for hurt feelings, primary sources or copy corrections only.
File a challenge
Include in your email:
- Doc Bro ID: 9LcS1uxCjOZzD1uQG_5PJ
- Wall entry: /influencer/9LcS1uxCjOZzD1uQG_5PJ
- Analysis ID: U3FP6KZ_EXeEZtdZyfhQP
- Source: https://fwchiro.com/
- Why this entry or scan should change
- Supporting links (one per line)
- Your business email (for verified disputes)
Verified challenges are posted publicly on the report. Public log, not legal arbitration.
Citations
Peer-reviewed and index sources cited in this report.
- [1] Rehabilitation for people with multiple sclerosis: an overview of Cochrane Reviews.
- [2] Guideline-Driven Management of Hypertension: An Evidence-Based Update.
- [3] ASPEN-FELANPE Clinical Guidelines.
- [4] ESPEN guideline: Clinical nutrition in inflammatory bowel disease.
- [5] Biologic therapy for autoimmune diseases: an update
- [6] Unintended Immunological Consequences of Biologic Therapy
- [7] Life-Threatening Complications of Biological Therapies
- [8] The treatment strategies of autoimmune disease may need a different approach from conventional protocol: A review
- [9] DASH Dietary Pattern and Cardiometabolic Outcomes: An Umbrella Review of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses.
- [10] DASH Dietary Pattern and Cardiometabolic Outcomes: An Umbrella Review of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses
- [11] Consistency with the DASH diet and incidence of heart failure.
- [12] The Effect of Dietary Patterns on Estimated Coronary Heart Disease Risk: Results From the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) Trial
- [13] Accordance to the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension diet pattern and cardiovascular disease in a British, population-based cohort
- [14] When Is Parenteral Nutrition Appropriate?
- [15] Clinical Decision Making—A Functional Medicine Perspective
- [16] What is Evidence-Based Functional Medicine in the 21st Century?
- [17] Functional Medicine Past, Present, and Future.
- [18] Integrative Medicine in Diagnostics: Current Advances and Future Prospects
- [19] Dietary Education Delivered by Digital Health for Improving Dietary Intake and Clinical Outcomes in Chronic Conditions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
- [20] Reporting of Telehealth-Delivered Dietary Intervention Trials in Chronic Disease: Systematic Review
- [21] Editorial: Digital approaches in the nutritional prevention and management of chronic diseases
- [22] Telehealth methods to deliver multifactorial dietary interventions in adults with chronic disease: a systematic review protocol
- [23] Utilizing technology for diet and exercise change in complex chronic conditions across diverse environments (U-DECIDE): feasibility randomised controlled trial
- [24] The Feasibility of a Harry Potter–based Cognitive Behavioural Therapy Skills Curriculum on Suicidality and Well-being in Middle Schoolers
- [25] The Magical Activation of Left Amygdala when Reading Harry Potter: An fMRI Study on How Descriptions of Supra-Natural Events Entertain and Enchant
- [26] Automated virtual reality therapy to treat agoraphobic avoidance and distress in patients with psychosis (gameChange): a multicentre, parallel-group, single-blind, randomised, controlled trial in England with mediation and moderation analyses
- [27] Interventions to Modify Psychological Well-Being: Progress, Promises, and an Agenda for Future Research