Eric James Johnson alias Dr. Functional Faux

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 structured, disease-specific medical therapies rather than being left untreated or managed solely with lifestyle approaches. Multiple sclerosis (MS), a prototypical autoimmune disease of the central nervous system, has extensive evidence from randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews demonstrating that disease‑modifying therapies (DMTs) such as alemtuzumab, natalizumab, fingolimod, ocrelizumab, siponimod, interferon‑beta, glatiramer acetate, dimethyl fumarate, teriflunomide, and others reduce relapses, MRI lesion activity, and disability progression compared with placebo or older therapies.^{[2][3][9][12][14]} Rehabilitation for people with MS is supported by multiple Cochrane reviews summarized in an overview, which report benefits of multidisciplinary rehabilitation, exercise, and physiotherapy on activity and participation, showing that non‑pharmacologic rehabilitation can improve function and quality of life in this autoimmune disease. Autoimmune rheumatologic diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis are treated using disease‑modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), and systematic reviews indicate that early, aggressive treat‑to‑target strategies with DMARDs substantially reduce joint damage, disability, and radiographic progression, and that adjunct rehabilitation improves function and quality of life.^[19][22] Autoimmune inner ear disease responds to immunosuppressive therapy; a systematic review and meta‑analysis reports that DMARDs including methotrexate, azathioprine, cyclophosphamide, rituximab, and TNF‑alpha blockers improve auditory outcomes and subjective vestibular symptoms, with acceptable adverse event rates, supporting pharmacologic treatment of this specific autoimmune condition.^[16] Autoimmune gastrointestinal conditions are also treated with guideline‑driven medical therapy; for inflammatory bowel disease, ESPEN clinical nutrition guidelines emphasize that nutrition support is part of comprehensive management but is adjunctive to established immunosuppressive or biologic therapies. Celiac disease, an autoimmune enteropathy, is primarily treated with a strict gluten‑free diet, and a recent systematic review highlights emerging immune‑targeted treatments such as transglutaminase‑2 inhibitors and regulatory T‑cell–based approaches as promising adjuncts, reinforcing that autoimmune pathology is addressed with immune‑modifying interventions.^[21] For primary biliary cholangitis, an autoimmune liver disease, a systematic review and meta‑analysis shows that seladelpar significantly improves biochemical markers and symptoms, demonstrating that targeted pharmacologic therapy can modify disease course in autoimmune cholestatic disease.^[23] Guidelines and reviews of autoimmune encephalitis and autoimmune psychosis describe standard treatment with high‑dose corticosteroids, intravenous immunoglobulin, plasma exchange, and in some cases additional immunosuppressants, again confirming that autoimmune disorders are actively treated with immunotherapy rather than simply observed.^[15][24] Overall, across multiple organ systems, high‑quality evidence and major guidelines support the general claim that autoimmune disorders are treated using disease‑specific, often immunomodulatory, pharmacologic regimens, frequently combined with rehabilitation, nutrition, and other supportive care.

Contradicts

Although autoimmune disorders are treated, the evidence does not support the idea that they are typically cured or reversed in a simple or uniform way; most conditions remain chronic and require long‑term, often lifelong management. In multiple sclerosis, systematic reviews and guidelines emphasize that while DMTs reduce relapses and slow progression, they do not eradicate the disease, and patients may continue to accrue disability or experience breakthrough activity despite treatment.^{[2][3][9][14]} Overviews of rehabilitation in MS show functional gains but do not indicate that rehabilitation alone can treat or cure the autoimmune process; rehabilitation is an adjunct to disease‑modifying therapy, not a replacement. In rheumatoid arthritis, systematic reviews on treat‑to‑target strategies and rehabilitation document that early and sustained DMARD therapy can halt or greatly reduce radiographic progression and improve disability, but relapse and progression can occur if therapy is withdrawn, and non‑pharmacologic interventions cannot control the autoimmune inflammation by themselves.^[19][22] For autoimmune inner ear disease, the systematic review of DMARDs reports clinical benefit but also adverse events and the need for further research, indicating that treatment is imperfect and not uniformly effective; long‑term safety and comparative effectiveness remain uncertain.^[16] In celiac disease, the systematic review on transglutaminase‑2 inhibitors and regulatory T‑cell therapies stresses that these approaches are investigational; the standard of care remains strict gluten avoidance, and there is insufficient evidence to claim routine immune‑targeted cures.^[21] For autoimmune‑mediated

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“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)

See every doc bro who says they can treat or advise on Autoimmune disease

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

High-quality evidence strongly supports that heart disease (including heart failure and coronary artery disease) should be treated with guideline-directed medical therapy, appropriate procedures, and lifestyle change, rather than a single simple remedy.^{[1][4][6][9][10][11][14][18][19][21]} Contemporary heart failure guidelines recommend a foundational combination of four drug classes for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF): renin–angiotensin system inhibition (ACE inhibitor, ARB, or ARNI), beta‑blocker, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA), and SGLT2 inhibitor, all shown in large randomized trials and meta-analyses to reduce mortality and hospitalizations.^{[6][9][11][14][18][19][21]} Diuretics are recommended for relief of congestion and symptoms in acute and chronic heart failure; a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials confirms diuretic strategies as central to acute heart failure management.^[3] Device therapies (implantable defibrillators, cardiac resynchronization) and revascularization procedures (PCI, CABG) improve outcomes in selected patients with ischemic heart disease and heart failure, with meta-analyses showing modest but statistically significant mortality benefits of revascularization compared with medical therapy alone.^[13][18][19] The DASH dietary pattern—rich in fruits, vegetables, whole grains, low-fat dairy, and low in red meat, saturated fat, and sugar—has strong evidence from umbrella reviews and meta-analyses showing reduced blood pressure and lower risk of cardiovascular disease, coronary heart disease, stroke, and heart failure, providing supportive lifestyle therapy for prevention and secondary prevention.^{[4][7][8][15]} DASH and other heart-healthy diets are incorporated into major cardiovascular prevention and hypertension guidelines as part of comprehensive treatment.^[4][15]

Contradicts

The broad, unspecified claim to “treat heart disease” is misleading because it suggests a single, generic approach, whereas high-quality evidence shows that treatment must be individualized by type of heart disease (coronary artery disease, heart failure with reduced or preserved ejection fraction, valvular disease, arrhythmias), severity, and comorbidities.^{[1][4][6][9][10][14][18][19][21]} Major guidelines and meta-analyses emphasize that no single diet, supplement, or non-specific intervention can replace guideline-directed medical therapy for established heart failure or significant coronary artery disease; lifestyle interventions are supportive, not standalone cures.^{[4][6][8][9][14][15][18][19][21]} Evidence also contradicts simplistic “natural” or non-pharmacologic cure narratives: while DASH-like diets reduce risk and may lower incident heart failure and cardiovascular events, they do not reverse advanced heart failure or severe coronary disease without appropriate drugs and procedures.^[4][8][15] Network meta-analyses and guideline reviews indicate that over-reliance on diuretics without the four foundational drug classes, or on revascularization without good medical therapy, does not optimally treat heart disease and can leave substantial residual risk.^{[3][6][13][14][18][21]}

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical position is that heart disease is treated using evidence-based, guideline-directed, multimodal therapy: disease-specific pharmacologic treatment (for example, ARNI/ACE inhibitor/ARB, beta‑blocker, MRA, SGLT2 inhibitor for HFrEF), judicious use of diuretics, consideration of devices and revascularization when indicated, and comprehensive risk-factor and lifestyle modification including heart-healthy diets like DASH.^{[3][4][6][8][9][11][14][15][18][19][21]} Major international guidelines from cardiology societies and national bodies consistently endorse this approach, grounded in large randomized trials, meta-analyses, and systematic reviews, and explicitly reject single-remedy or non-specific treatments as adequate for clinically significant heart disease.^{[1][4][6][9][10][14][18][19][21]}

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“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)

See every doc bro who says they can treat or advise on Heart disease and cholesterol

Eric James Johnson is not licensed or approved by Wisconsin Chiropractic Examining Board to diagnose, treat, or cure treat cancer.

treat cancer

Supports

The indexed umbrella reviews and guidelines focus on cancer risk factors, complications, and supportive care, not on curing or eradicating cancer itself. ^[23][27] Several high-quality evidence syntheses show that structured exercise programs improve health-related quality of life, physical function, fatigue, and some treatment-related symptoms in people with cancer, acting as supportive therapy alongside standard oncologic care. ^[25] The ASCO guideline on venous thromboembolism prophylaxis and treatment in patients with cancer provides strong evidence that appropriate anticoagulation regimens effectively prevent and treat cancer-associated thrombosis, thereby reducing morbidity and mortality from this complication but not treating the underlying malignancy. ^[24] The systematic review of Reiki in cancer patients concludes that Reiki may reduce pain and some symptoms in certain studies, suggesting benefit as an adjunct for symptom relief, not as a primary antitumor treatment. ^{[22][28][29][30][32]} Taken together, high-quality trials and syntheses support the use of evidence-based interventions (exercise, physical therapy for lymphedema, thrombosis prophylaxis, and possibly some complementary modalities like Reiki) to treat cancer-related symptoms and complications and to modestly improve outcomes when used in conjunction with standard oncologic therapies, but they do not show that these approaches alone can treat or cure cancer. ^[21][26][31]

Contradicts

None of the indexed papers provide evidence that physical therapy, exercise, lymphedema management, Reiki, or risk-factor modification can independently eradicate cancer or substitute for surgery, radiotherapy, systemic anticancer drugs, or other standard oncologic treatments. ^[29][32] The ASCO guideline on venous thromboembolism explicitly frames anticoagulation as prophylaxis and treatment for thrombosis in patients with cancer, not as therapy for the cancer itself, underscoring that managing complications is distinct from treating the malignancy. ^[24] Umbrella reviews on endometrial and ovarian cancer highlight modifiable and non-modifiable risk factors and associations but do not claim that altering these factors can reliably treat established cancer, reflecting the limits of etiologic evidence for therapeutic purposes. ^[23][27] The umbrella review and systematic review on exercise in cancer show improvements in fatigue, physical function, and quality of life, yet they do not demonstrate consistent, large survival effects that would justify describing exercise alone as a treatment for cancer in the curative sense. ^{[21][25][26][31]} The systematic review of Reiki in cancer patients reports mixed and sometimes null results for pain and other symptoms and does not provide evidence of tumor shrinkage, remission induction, or survival benefit, indicating that Reiki should not be represented as a treatment for cancer itself. ^[22][28][30] Overall, the available evidence contradicts any broad claim that these supportive or complementary interventions can treat or cure cancer as standalone therapies.

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical and scientific position is that treating cancer in the disease-modifying or curative sense requires evidence-based oncologic therapies tailored to tumor type and stage, including surgery, radiotherapy, systemic treatments such as chemotherapy, endocrine therapy, targeted agents, immunotherapy, and participation in clinical trials when appropriate. ^[23] Supportive interventions such as structured exercise, physical therapy for lymphedema, and venous thromboembolism prophylaxis are recommended to improve symptoms, functional status, and management of complications and may modestly influence outcomes, but they are adjuncts rather than primary anticancer treatments. ^[21][24][26] Complementary modalities like Reiki may be used in integrative oncology settings for symptom and quality-of-life support when patients find them helpful and when they do not interfere with standard care, but current evidence does not support using Reiki or similar energy therapies as standalone treatments to control or cure cancer. ^{[22][28][29][30][31][32]} Mainstream guidelines emphasize that any therapy promoted as “treating cancer” must demonstrate tumor response or survival benefit in robust randomized controlled trials or meta-analyses; supportive and complementary approaches that only affect symptoms are classified as palliative or supportive, not curative. ^[25][27]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“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)

See every doc bro who says they can treat or advise on Cancer

Eric James Johnson is not licensed or approved by Wisconsin Chiropractic Examining Board to diagnose, treat, or cure treat diabetes.

treat diabetes

Supports

The influencer’s claim is too vague to directly match a specific intervention or outcome, but there is strong evidence that type 2 diabetes can be effectively treated and in some cases achieve remission through a combination of lifestyle and medical interventions. A protocol for a network meta-analysis of non‑pharmacological strategies in primary care reflects the expectation that diet, exercise, and behavioral programs have clinically meaningful effects on glycaemic control and cardiovascular risk in type 2 diabetes management, which is why they warrant comparative evaluation. ^[33] An umbrella review of dietary approaches in adults with type 2 diabetes shows that structured diets (e. ^[35] g. , low‑carbohydrate, Mediterranean, low‑fat, and energy‑restricted regimens) improve glycaemic control and weight and that intensive, energy‑restricted programs can induce diabetes remission in a subset of patients. A narrative review of the Mediterranean diet concludes that this pattern is associated with better glycaemic control, reduced cardiovascular risk, and lower incidence of type 2 diabetes, supporting its use as a core component of treatment. ^[37] An umbrella review of high‑intensity interval training reports that such exercise improves HbA1c, insulin sensitivity, and cardiorespiratory fitness in people with type 2 diabetes, indicating that structured exercise is an effective treatment component. ^[36] Mobile health interventions, including smartphone-based programs, have been shown in a large umbrella review of chronic disease management to improve clinical outcomes and self‑management behaviors in conditions such as diabetes, supporting the role of digital tools as adjuncts to standard care. ^[34][2] International guidelines on diabetic foot prevention and management emphasize that comprehensive treatment of diabetes includes tight glycaemic control, risk‑factor management, foot care, and infection management to prevent complications. ^[6][5]

Contradicts

Because the influencer’s statement is only “treat diabetes” with no specified method, there is no direct evidence that any unnamed, single, or alternative remedy alone can adequately treat diabetes, especially type 1 diabetes. High‑quality dietary and exercise reviews consistently describe these as components of management or remission strategies, not as universal cures or replacements for pharmacologic therapy in all patients. For many individuals with type 2 diabetes, particularly with longer disease duration or significant beta‑cell failure, lifestyle interventions alone are insufficient, and sustained pharmacologic therapy is needed to control hyperglycaemia and reduce complications; this is reflected in the fact that remission is achieved only in a subset of participants in intensive diet trials rather than universally. ^[35][36][37] Mobile phone and digital interventions are similarly framed as adjuncts that support, but do not replace, standard medical care. ^[34] Guidelines on diabetic foot disease make clear that good glycaemic control must be combined with regular foot examination, off‑loading, wound care, and appropriate antibiotics or surgery when infections or ulcers occur; they do not support any simplistic or single‑modality “treat diabetes” solution. ^[6][5] There is also no high‑quality evidence that type 1 diabetes can be “treated” without lifelong insulin; current standards of care require exogenous insulin as the cornerstone therapy, and lifestyle measures alone cannot substitute for it (this is supported by general guideline consensus, not specifically by the listed index papers). ^[33][2]

Mainstream view

Mainstream medical consensus is that diabetes is a chronic disease that requires long‑term, multifactorial management, and that the specific treatment approach depends on diabetes type and individual patient characteristics. For type 1 diabetes, the standard of care is lifelong insulin therapy combined with diet, exercise, education, and monitoring; no lifestyle or alternative intervention replaces insulin. ^[33][37] For type 2 diabetes, mainstream practice combines individualized diet therapy (e. g. , Mediterranean, low‑carbohydrate, or energy‑restricted patterns), regular physical activity including aerobic and resistance or interval training, weight management, and pharmacologic agents (such as metformin, GLP‑1 receptor agonists, SGLT2 inhibitors, insulin, and others) as needed to achieve glycaemic and cardiovascular risk targets. Evidence from diet and exercise reviews supports that some people with relatively recent-onset type 2 diabetes can achieve remission with intensive lifestyle or weight‑loss programs, sometimes aided by very‑low‑energy diets or bariatric surgery; however, this is not guaranteed and may not be durable for all. ^[35][36] Digital health tools and mobile interventions are increasingly used as adjuncts to improve adherence, self‑monitoring, and outcomes, but are not stand‑alone treatments. ^[34] Major guidelines also emphasize systematic screening and specialized management of complications such as diabetic foot disease as integral to treatment, including preventive foot care, off‑loading, wound management, and infection control. ^[6][5] Overall, the mainstream position is that diabetes can be effectively treated

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“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)

See every doc bro who says they can treat or advise on Diabetes and blood sugar

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)

Supports

High-quality evidence and major guidelines support that small intestinal bacterial overgrowth (SIBO) is treated primarily with antibiotics, alongside correction of nutritional deficiencies and underlying causes. ^[39][40][41] Multiple clinical reviews and guidelines (ACG guideline, Mayo Clinic, Merck Manual, StatPearls, national position papers) consistently state that the cornerstone of therapy is a course of oral antibiotics aimed at reducing or eradicating bacterial overgrowth, typically for about 10–14 days, with options including rifaximin, metronidazole, ciprofloxacin, amoxicillin–clavulanate, neomycin and other broad-spectrum agents. ^[38] Systematic reviews and meta-analyses show rifaximin to be effective and generally safe for SIBO eradication, with pooled eradication rates commonly in the 50–70% range and evidence that breath-test normalization correlates with symptom improvement. Randomized and observational data suggest antibiotics are superior to placebo for breath test normalization and symptom relief, and some studies indicate that rotating antibiotic regimens may improve remission rates compared with a single course. Several recent national and specialty society position papers (e. g. , Brazilian Federation of Gastroenterology, ACG-derived documents) explicitly recommend antibiotics, particularly rifaximin, as first-line therapy for symptomatic SIBO, with neomycin plus rifaximin for methane-dominant overgrowth. These documents also support adjunctive strategies: managing underlying anatomical or motility disorders, avoiding or minimizing long-term proton pump inhibitor use when possible, and addressing nutritional deficiencies such as vitamin B12, iron and fat-soluble vitamins. Evidence reviews and narrative reviews indicate that diet therapy (often a low-FODMAP or low-fermentable carbohydrate approach) and selected probiotics can be used as adjuncts, with some small trials and meta-analyses suggesting they may help symptom control and possibly breath-test outcomes, though the quality of evidence is lower than for antibiotics. Overall, there is strong support that SIBO is a treatable condition and that the standard medical approach is to combine targeted antibiotic therapy with correction of predisposing factors, nutritional support, and sometimes dietary modification.

Contradicts

Despite broad consensus that antibiotics (especially rifaximin) can treat SIBO, the evidence base has important limitations and areas of uncertainty that weaken strong or universal claims of cure. ^[40] Meta-analyses show substantial heterogeneity in eradication rates (often 50–70%) and some randomized controlled trials comparing rifaximin with placebo or other active antibiotics do not demonstrate a large or consistent superiority, indicating that not all patients respond and that breath-test normalization does not always translate into durable symptom relief. ^[39] Recurrence rates after antibiotic treatment are high in many cohorts, with roughly half of patients experiencing relapse within months; this contradicts any implication that a single course of antibiotics reliably cures SIBO in the long term. The quality of evidence for probiotics, herbal agents and specific diets (e. g. , low-FODMAP) is generally low to very low: existing trials are small, use heterogeneous protocols and outcomes, and systematic reviews often grade this evidence as low quality, so claims that these modalities alone can effectively treat or cure SIBO are not well supported. ^[38][41] Position papers also emphasize that breath tests are imperfect, with substantial false-positive and false-negative rates, and that SIBO frequently overlaps with conditions like IBS; this makes it uncertain whether improvement is always due to treating SIBO versus broader effects on gut microbiota or placebo. There are no robust data to support long-term continuous antibiotic use for SIBO in most patients, and concerns remain about resistance, adverse effects, and microbiome disruption. Pediatric data and data in certain comorbid populations (e. g. , those on chronic PPIs, or with complex motility disorders) are sparse, so generalizing adult treatment strategies to these groups is not evidence-based. In summary, while SIBO can be treated and many patients improve, evidence contradicts any simple or universal claim that SIBO is easily or permanently cured, and non-antibiotic approaches currently have weaker, less reliable support.

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical position is that small intestinal bacterial overgrowth is a real but heterogeneous condition best managed by a combination of: identifying and correcting underlying predisposing factors (anatomic abnormalities, motility disorders, chronic proton pump inhibitor use, postsurgical loops, strictures), treating nutritional deficiencies, and administering a time-limited course of antibiotics as first-line therapy for symptomatic patients. ^{[38][39][40][41]} Professional society guidelines and major reviews treat rifaximin (often at medium to higher doses) as a preferred agent because of its non-systemic profile and reasonable evidence of efficacy, with other systemic antibiotics used as alternatives or in combination (e. g

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“he effectively diagnosed and helped me (with herbal antimicrobials and diet) with SIBO (small intestinal bacteria overgrowth)”

Rule: Wis. Stat. § 446.01(2)

See every doc bro who says they can treat or advise on IBS, SIBO and gut disorders

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

Supports

High-quality evidence supports that autism-related behavior issues (such as irritability, aggression, self-injury, tantrums, and other challenging behaviors) can be treated using a combination of behavioral/psychosocial interventions and selected medications, but not that autism itself is “treated away.” Randomized controlled trials of intensive early behavioral interventions (e.g., the Early Start Denver Model) show improvements in cognitive and adaptive behavior and reductions in severity of autism symptoms, which indirectly includes improvements in behavior regulation and disruptive behaviors.^[1][9] Systematic reviews and RCTs of behavioral interventions report positive impacts on behavioral problems across multiple modalities (parent training, functional communication training, mindfulness-based and attention-based interventions, etc.), indicating that structured behavioral and parent-mediated approaches can effectively reduce challenging behaviors in autistic children.^{[2][14][18][20][21]} Parent-focused and family-centered interventions such as group behavioral parenting programs and Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy for parents of children with ASD demonstrate reductions in observed or parent-rated child behavior problems and improvements in compliance and facilitative parenting, supporting a role for parent training and parent mental-health interventions in improving child behavior.^[14][18][17] Functional Communication Training delivered via telehealth in young children with ASD produced very large reductions (~98%) in problem behaviors compared with treatment as usual, indicating strong evidence that function-based communication training is effective for severe behavior problems.^[21] Pharmacologic evidence from systematic reviews and meta-analyses shows that certain atypical antipsychotics—especially risperidone and aripiprazole—have the strongest RCT-based evidence for short‑term reduction of irritability, aggression, and related severe behavioral problems in children and adolescents with ASD.^{[6][7][10][13]} A comprehensive review and meta-analytic work conclude that risperidone and aripiprazole, and parent training among non‑pharmacological interventions, can be recommended for irritability in ASD, with clinically significant effect sizes but nontrivial side‑effect profiles.^{[5][6][10][13]} Major clinical guidelines (e.g., those from NICE) support the use of antipsychotic medication for severe behavior that challenges only when psychosocial interventions are insufficient or cannot be delivered, and within a closely monitored, time‑limited trial as part of a multimodal care plan.^[8][12] Overall, high-quality evidence supports that autism-related behavior issues can be treated—often effectively—through evidence-based behavioral interventions and, where necessary, carefully selected pharmacologic agents for specific symptom domains, rather than a cure of autism itself.

Contradicts

Evidence does not support the idea that autism itself or all of its associated behaviors can be completely reversed or cured by current treatments; rather, treatments target specific behavior problems and co-occurring symptoms. Comprehensive reviews emphasize that no pharmacologic intervention reliably targets the core social-communication and restricted/repetitive symptom domains of ASD; medications are mainly used to manage associated irritability, aggression, anxiety, attention difficulties, and sleep problems with modest and variable efficacy and notable side effects.^[5] Systematic reviews of pharmacologic treatments highlight that, beyond risperidone and aripiprazole for irritability/aggression, evidence for other drug classes is limited or negative, with many compounds showing no clear benefit over placebo for behavior outcomes.^{[6][10][3][4]} A randomized, placebo-controlled trial of omega‑3 fatty acid supplementation in young children with ASD found no improvement in autism-related behavior composite scores and even some worsening in externalizing problems, contradicting claims that common supplements reliably improve behavior issues in autism.^[24] Randomized trials of cannabinoids, including whole-plant extracts and purified CBD/THC combinations, show mixed and insufficient evidence for behavior improvements: while some global clinician ratings and social responsiveness measures show small benefits, primary outcome measures of behavioral problems often do not significantly differ from placebo, and a strong placebo effect is evident.^[23][19] A randomized trial of everolimus in children with tuberous sclerosis complex and autism showed no improvement in cognitive function, autism symptoms, or behavioral problems, arguing against the use of this targeted agent for behavior issues in this context.^[22] Guidelines caution against routine or first‑line use of antipsychotics or other medications purely to “treat behavior” in autistic people; they recommend psychosocial and environmental interventions as first-line approaches and restrict medication use to situations where other interventions are insufficient or cannot be delivered, with careful monitoring and planned discontinuation if ineffective.^[8][12] Some behavioral parenting and attention-based interventions show improvements in specific behaviors (e.g., temper tantrums, arguing, anger coping) but limited transfer

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“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)

See every doc bro who says they can treat or advise on Autism

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

Supports

The broad claim that connective tissue autoimmune disorders can be treated is supported by multiple high-quality guidelines and reviews on specific diseases such as systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and systemic sclerosis. ^[3][52] Modern SLE guidelines emphasize structured, evidence-based treatment using glucocorticoids as basic anti-inflammatory therapy, with careful dose minimization and tapering, plus conventional immunosuppressants (e. ^[8] g. , mycophenolate mofetil, azathioprine, methotrexate) and biologics (e. g. , belimumab, anifrolumab) as needed to control disease activity and prevent organ damage. These guidelines are developed using formal GRADE methodology to rate evidence quality and recommendation strength, which is consistent with how high-quality guidelines should be constructed. ^[47] Major rheumatology guidelines (EULAR, ACR, national societies) agree that long-term hydroxychloroquine is a cornerstone of SLE treatment for almost all patients without contraindications, reflecting strong evidence from randomized trials and observational data that it reduces flares, improves survival, and allows glucocorticoid sparing. ^[49] Multiple guideline documents and state-of-the-art reviews published since 2018 reiterate these points and provide graded recommendations for organ-specific involvement such as lupus nephritis, diffuse alveolar hemorrhage, and other severe manifestations. ^[7][50] For systemic sclerosis, contemporary guidelines (e. g. , British Society for Rheumatology and other national societies) describe evidence-based use of immunosuppressive agents such as mycophenolate mofetil or methotrexate to modify disease course, as well as targeted management of complications (pulmonary arterial hypertension, interstitial lung disease, renal crisis) with specific drugs supported by randomized trials and high-quality observational studies. ^[2] Mixed connective tissue disease (MCTD) is less well supported by RCTs, but expert reviews outline pragmatic use of glucocorticoids, antimalarials, and immunosuppressants based on extrapolation from SLE and systemic sclerosis and on lower-level evidence, indicating that treatment is possible even though formal recommendations are limited. ^[51] Overall, across these diseases, there is strong guideline- and trial-based evidence that structured immunomodulatory therapy, combined with comorbidity management and regular monitoring, can effectively treat connective tissue autoimmune disorders, reduce flares, prevent organ damage, and improve survival and quality of life.

Contradicts

The claim as stated is extremely vague (“treat connective tissue autoimmune disorder”) and does not specify any particular therapy, mechanism, or outcome, so it cannot be directly evaluated against high-quality evidence. ^[47][8] Major guidelines emphasize that treatment must be tailored to the specific disease (e. ^[3][7] g. , SLE, systemic sclerosis, MCTD), disease activity, and organ involvement; there is no single universal treatment that works for all connective tissue autoimmune disorders. ^[52] Evidence for some conditions, especially mixed connective tissue disease, is relatively weak: high-quality reviews explicitly note that there have been no randomized controlled trials in MCTD and that there is no agreed-upon standard regimen for initial or long-term management, with recommendations relying on low-level evidence and expert opinion. ^[50][51] Furthermore, guidelines developed with GRADE methods highlight imprecision and uncertainty in many areas of autoimmune disease management, especially regarding optimal dosing, duration, and combinations of therapies. They also stress that current treatments control disease and reduce damage but generally do not cure these conditions, and long-term immunosuppression carries significant risks (infection, malignancy, metabolic complications), meaning that claims implying simple, universally effective or risk-free treatment would contradict mainstream evidence. Without specification of which therapy the influencer is promoting, many potential interpretations (e. g. , diet-only cures, detoxes, non-evidence-based supplements, or unproven procedures) would be inconsistent with guideline-based care and with the requirement for therapies to be supported by randomized trials or robust observational data. ^[2] Thus, while the general idea that these disorders are treatable is correct, any implication of a generic, non-individualized, or curative treatment lacking immunomodulatory therapy would be contradicted by current evidence and major guidelines. ^[49]

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical view is that connective tissue autoimmune disorders such as SLE, systemic sclerosis, and mixed connective tissue disease are chronic, often serious diseases that can be treated but not reliably cured. ^[50][51][52] Treatment is evidence-based and disease-specific, guided by international and national rheumatology guidelines that use formal methods such as GRADE to rate evidence quality and recommendation strength. ^{[2][3][47][49]} For

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“I have begun to roll back the effects of 10+ years with a connective tissue autoimmune disorder.”

Rule: Wis. Stat. § 446.01(2)

See every doc bro who says they can treat or advise on Autoimmune disease

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.

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“one of which needed to be IV infused”

Rule: Wis. Stat. § 446.01(2)

See every doc bro who says they can treat or advise on Depression

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

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“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: Wis. Stat. § 446.01(2)

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

The influencer’s claim is extremely broad, but high‑quality evidence does support that certain interventions can help treat and prevent many chronic, complex conditions, especially via lifestyle change and risk‑factor management. ^[56] Systematic reviews and guidelines consistently show that lifestyle interventions (dietary changes, increased physical activity, smoking cessation, reduced harmful alcohol use) substantially reduce risk of major chronic diseases such as cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, and obesity, which are archetypal chronic and complex conditions. ^[53] These reviews also report that combined lifestyle interventions have the greatest preventive impact on chronic disease burden at the population level. Evidence from workplace and community health promotion trials indicates that structured nutrition and physical activity programs can improve risk factors and reduce absenteeism, reflecting better management of chronic conditions. Major multimorbidity guidelines emphasize multifactorial treatment strategies (medication optimization, physical activity, nutrition, fall prevention, pain management, continence care, and psychosocial support) as effective in treating people with multiple long‑term conditions, which are by definition chronic and complex. There is also emerging RCT‑level evidence exploring metformin for aging‑related processes and autophagy in adults with prediabetes (including NCT03309007), and large meta‑analyses suggest metformin improves mortality and aging‑related outcomes in people with diabetes, but this is disease‑specific rather than a universal cure for all complex conditions. ^[54]

Contradicts

The claim as stated is too general and implies a near‑universal ability to treat and prevent all chronic, complex conditions, which is not supported by high‑quality evidence. ^[56] Chronic conditions such as neurodegenerative diseases, many cancers, autoimmune disorders, and advanced multimorbidity often cannot be fully prevented or cured; evidence supports risk reduction and symptomatic management rather than elimination of disease. ^[54] Systematic reviews of physical activity promotion note that while physical activity is a foundation for prevention and management of many chronic and complex diseases, the effectiveness of current promotion strategies is inconclusive and highly variable, meaning real‑world impact is often modest and dependent on context. Nutrigenomics and microbiome‑based strategies (such as specific probiotics or Akkermansia muciniphila supplementation) show promise in animal studies and early human data for modulating obesity and metabolic risk, but systematic reviews emphasize that translation to broad, personalized prevention of chronic complex disease is still limited by sparse human trials and methodological constraints. ^[53] Many complex conditions, including multimorbidity, require ongoing treatment and multidisciplinary management; guidelines stress that even best‑practice care improves function and reduces complications but does not reliably prevent all future disease or fully resolve long‑standing complexity. The specific indexed trials (miconazole resistance in infants, nab‑paclitaxel plus gemcitabine in advanced pancreatic cancer, swaddle bathing safety, remote GI capsule endoscopy, thyroid surgery vocal cord palsy, text‑neck stretching, hepatic‑impairment pharmacokinetics) each address narrow, well‑defined clinical questions and do not provide evidence that any single intervention can broadly treat and prevent chronic, complex conditions.

Mainstream view

Mainstream medical and scientific consensus is that chronic, complex conditions are best addressed through a combination of population‑level prevention (healthy diet, regular physical activity, tobacco and alcohol control, vaccination, and environmental measures), early detection and risk‑factor management (e. g. , treating hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and prediabetes), and individualized long‑term treatment plans for people who already have disease. Guidelines for multimorbidity and chronic disease prevention emphasize realistic goals: reducing incidence where possible, delaying progression, minimizing complications, and improving quality of life, rather than promising complete prevention or reversal of all complex conditions. ^[53] Evidence‑based practice accepts that many chronic diseases have multifactorial causes including age, genetics, social determinants, and environmental exposures; therefore, no single product, protocol, or modality can reliably treat and prevent the entire spectrum of chronic, complex conditions. ^[54][55][56] Experimental avenues such as geroprotective drugs (e. g. , metformin), nutrigenomics, and microbiome modulation are active research fields but are not yet established as broad preventive or curative strategies; they are considered adjuncts or investigational rather than replacements for standard evidence‑based care.

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“However, the acute care focus of conventional medicine lacks the tools and methodology to treat and prevent chronic, complex conditions.”

Rule: Wis. Stat. § 446.01(2)

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 claim as written is too vague to evaluate directly, but high‑quality evidence shows that a wide range of interventions can effectively treat specific mental illnesses. Umbrella reviews of randomized trials of digital health interventions (e. ^[57] g. , internet CBT, app-based programs) report significant benefits for depression, anxiety, and other common mental disorders compared with control conditions, supporting their use as part of treatment for certain mental illnesses. ^[62] Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of pharmacologic agents such as valproate show efficacy for acute mania, bipolar depression, and maintenance in bipolar disorder, indicating that mood stabilizers can effectively treat bipolar-spectrum mental illness. ^[58][64] Major clinical guidelines for major depressive disorder synthesize RCT and meta-analytic evidence confirming that antidepressants, structured psychotherapies (such as CBT, interpersonal therapy), and combined treatments are effective for many patients with depression. ^[60] Umbrella reviews of exercise interventions indicate that physical activity provides small-to-moderate improvements in cognition and executive function, which can be clinically relevant for some patients with depression and other psychiatric or neurocognitive conditions when used as adjunctive treatment. ^[59] Evidence from umbrella reviews shows solution-focused brief therapy achieves small-to-moderate improvements in various mental health outcomes, supporting its role as a time-limited psychotherapy option for some mental health problems. ^[61] Umbrella reviews of single-session psychological interventions report small but meaningful benefits for certain mental health symptoms and improved service engagement, suggesting they can contribute to treatment, particularly in low-resource or preventive contexts. ^[63]

Contradicts

Because the claim is unspecified (“treat mental illness”), it risks implying that any single modality alone can adequately treat all forms of mental illness, which is not supported by evidence. Umbrella evidence on digital health interventions shows effectiveness primarily for common mild-to-moderate conditions (e. ^[57] g. , depression, anxiety) and often as an adjunct, with more limited or inconsistent data for severe disorders such as psychotic illnesses and severe bipolar disorder. ^[58] The overview of valproate demonstrates that its benefits are specific to bipolar mood episodes and not a universal treatment across all mental illnesses, and that effect sizes and certainty vary by indication and outcome. CANMAT depression guidelines emphasize stepped and personalized care, recommending different first-line and second-line treatments based on severity, comorbidities, and prior response, which contradicts any suggestion of a one-size-fits-all treatment for “mental illness. ^[60] ” Exercise meta-meta-analytic data show cognitive benefits, but these effects are modest and heterogeneous and do not replace disorder-specific treatments such as pharmacotherapy or structured psychotherapy for most psychiatric diagnoses. ^[59][62] Evidence on solution-focused brief therapy and single-session interventions shows useful but generally small effects and limited data for severe, chronic, or complex psychiatric conditions, so they cannot be viewed as comprehensive stand-alone “treatments for mental illness” in general. ^[61][63] Some mental illnesses (e. g. , schizophrenia, severe bipolar disorder, functional neurological disorder) require multimodal, often long-term care; umbrella reviews of functional neurological disorder treatments highlight that even with specialized therapy, many patients have partial or incomplete response, underscoring that effective treatment is nuanced and often only partially successful rather than universally curative. ^[64]

Mainstream view

Mainstream medical and psychiatric consensus is that mental illnesses are heterogeneous and require diagnosis-specific, often multimodal treatment plans rather than a single universal treatment. Evidence-based care is typically grounded in combinations of pharmacotherapy, structured psychotherapies, digital or remote interventions, lifestyle measures such as exercise, and social/rehabilitative supports, selected and sequenced according to disorder type, severity, patient preference, comorbidities, and prior treatment history. ^[59][64] Major guidelines (e. g. , CANMAT for major depressive disorder) recommend stepped-care algorithms, where first-line options often include antidepressants and evidence-based psychotherapies, with augmentation, switching, neuromodulation, and other strategies reserved for more resistant or severe cases. ^[60][62] For bipolar disorder, mood stabilizers such as lithium and valproate, sometimes in combination with atypical antipsychotics and psychotherapy, are standard of care rather than any single intervention being sufficient across all phases. ^[58] For many conditions, adjunctive interventions (digital therapies, brief therapies, single-session interventions, exercise) are supported as useful components of care but are not considered complete stand-alone treatments for more severe or complex mental illnesses. ^[57][63] Overall, mainstream practice recognizes that mental illnesses can be effectively treated or substantially improved in many patients, but treatment must be tailored, is often ongoing, and rarely consists of a single, universal solution. ^[61]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“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)

See every doc bro who says they can treat or advise on Other mental health conditions

Eric James Johnson is not licensed or approved by Wisconsin Chiropractic Examining Board to diagnose, treat, or cure treat lymphedema.

treat lymphedema

Supports

High-quality evidence shows that lymphedema, especially breast cancer‑related lymphedema (BCRL), can be effectively treated and managed with conservative and, in selected cases, surgical approaches, though it is generally chronic rather than curable. ^[71] Multiple systematic reviews and meta-analyses support **complete/complex decongestive therapy (CDT or CLT)** as the core evidence-based treatment, typically combining manual lymphatic drainage (MLD), compression bandaging/garments, exercise, and skin care to reduce limb volume and improve quality of life. ^{[2][69][70][72]} These bundled CDT interventions consistently show significant limb-volume reductions and functional/QOL benefits in both adult and pediatric lymphedema patients, although the evidence quality is moderate. Manual lymphatic drainage: For breast cancer-related lymphedema, systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials report that adding MLD to standard compression/exercise regimens can produce small to modest additional improvements in arm volume or symptoms, although effects are not large and may be stage‑dependent. ^{[65][66][26][67][68]} Exercise and resistance training: Several systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and umbrella reviews indicate that supervised resistance and aerobic exercise programs are safe for women with BCRL and can be part of treatment, with benefits in symptoms, function, and quality of life, and without meaningful worsening of lymphedema. Some RCT-based meta-analyses show that structured exercise-based rehabilitation after breast cancer surgery improves shoulder function and may help control or reduce BCRL symptoms. Guideline support: Contemporary oncology and lymphedema guidelines endorse early diagnosis, prospective surveillance, and conservative, nonpharmacologic treatment as standard of care for cancer treatment–related lymphedema, with CDT (MLD, compression, exercise, self-management) recommended as the principal active treatment strategy. ^[3] National or regional lymphedema guidelines similarly describe CDT/DLT as internationally recommended best practice for lymphedema treatment. Surgical and invasive treatments: Systematic reviews and evidence mappings indicate that, for more advanced or refractory lymphedema, microsurgical procedures such as lymphovenous anastomosis and vascularized lymph node transfer, as well as liposuction‑based approaches, can significantly reduce limb volume, cellulitis episodes, and improve quality of life when added to or following conservative care. These interventions are generally reserved for patients who have not achieved sufficient control with standard conservative therapy. Overall, the claim that lymphedema can be treated and its symptoms reduced is well supported by systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and major guidelines focused on CDT, compression, exercise, and selected surgical procedures.

Contradicts

Although lymphedema can be treated and substantially improved, high‑quality evidence and clinical guidelines consistently emphasize that it is typically a chronic, incurable condition; treatment aims at volume reduction, symptom control, and prevention of complications rather than cure. ^[3][69][71] Evidence quality limitations: Systematic reviews of CDT highlight that, despite apparent efficacy, the overall evidence is moderate because many studies are small, lack optimal controls, and use heterogeneous outcome measures. ^[70] This means that while CDT is accepted standard practice, the precise contribution of each component (MLD, compression, exercise) and optimal dosing are not firmly established. Manual lymphatic drainage: Recent meta-analyses of RCTs in BCRL show that MLD often yields only modest or inconsistent additional benefits beyond compression and exercise, with some analyses finding limited impact on limb volume reduction. ^{[65][66][26][67][68]} This contradicts any strong claim that MLD alone can “treat” lymphedema in a robust, curative sense.

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“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: Wis. Stat. § 446.01(2)

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 moderate-quality evidence that chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy is about as effective as other recommended therapies (such as standard medical care and physical therapy) for short‑term pain relief and small improvements in function in adults with chronic low back pain.^[12][14] Some randomized controlled trials show clinically meaningful reductions in pain and disability with structured courses of chiropractic spinal manipulation (around 12 sessions over 6 weeks) in chronic non‑specific low back pain, with benefits sustained up to 52 weeks.^{[2][7][11][12][14]} A Cochrane review and other systematic reviews indicate that for acute and subacute low back pain, combined chiropractic interventions can slightly improve pain and disability in the short and medium term compared with other treatments, though long‑term differences are minimal.^{[8][12][14][16]} Overall, high‑quality evidence supports chiropractic care as a reasonable option for musculoskeletal spinal pain (especially low back pain), broadly comparable to other conservative treatments.^[5][12][14] contradicts

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“functional medicine”

Rule: Wis. Stat. § 446.01(2)

Eric James Johnson is not approved to offer Applied Kinesiology within a Chiropractor scope of practice under Wisconsin Chiropractic Examining Board.

Applied Kinesiology

Supports

The strongest support is indirect and limited: some chiropractic and manual-therapy literature suggests that certain manual muscle testing approaches can be reliable in narrow contexts, but this does not establish Applied Kinesiology as a validated treatment system. ^{[8][77][78][79][80]} A recent systematic review found that reliability of Applied Kinesiology manual muscle testing ranged from nonexistent to very strong depending on method, and concluded that nonmusculoskeletal challenge testing was not recommended for clinical use. ^[3] The peer-reviewed literature also contains some pro-AK claims from within the field, but these are not major guideline-level endorsements and are not sufficient to support the claim as a clinically established treatment approach. ^[7]

Contradicts

Multiple reviews do not support Applied Kinesiology as a valid diagnostic or therapeutic method. A systematic review of kinesiology literature found insufficient evidence for diagnostic accuracy, validity of muscle response, or effectiveness for any condition. Another critical review reported that the studies evaluating unique Applied Kinesiology procedures either refute or cannot support their validity as diagnostic tests, and that use of manual muscle testing for diagnosing organic disease or pre/subclinical conditions is insupportable. ^[77][79][80] A double-blind randomized study found no reliable evidence that Applied Kinesiology works as a useful or reliable diagnostic tool for health decisions. ^[78] The claim is also not supported by any of the index papers provided, because the listed guidelines address unrelated conditions such as hypertension, nutrition, headache, transfusion, and pericarditis rather than Applied Kinesiology. ^{[3][7][46][47][8][48]}

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical and scientific view is that Applied Kinesiology is not an evidence-based diagnostic or treatment system, and its claims are generally considered unproven or unsupported. ^{[2][7][47][77][78][79][80]} Some isolated components of manual therapy may have limited evidence in specific musculoskeletal contexts, but that does not validate Applied Kinesiology as a whole. ^[8] Current evidence is weak, heterogeneous, and largely insufficient for routine clinical use, especially for diagnostic claims. ^[3]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“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

Supports

No high-quality evidence from the provided index papers supports the standalone claim “blood work. ^[47] ” The listed papers are guidelines and methods papers on hypertension, nutrition, inflammatory bowel disease, transfusion therapy, headache, pericarditis, and evidence grading, but none evaluate or substantiate a general claim that “blood work” by itself has a specific medical meaning or benefit . ^{[2][3][4][8][7][48]}

Contradicts

The claim is too vague to be directly assessed as a medical assertion, and the index papers do not provide evidence for it. ^[47] In the medical literature, “blood work” is a nonspecific colloquial term for laboratory blood tests, so without a specific claim about a diagnosis, treatment, or outcome, there is no testable proposition to support or refute. ^[8][7] The provided evidence base is therefore largely irrelevant to the claim as written .

Mainstream view

Mainstream medicine treats “blood work” as a broad, nonspecific term for laboratory testing rather than a claim with inherent clinical validity. ^[3][8] Whether blood tests are appropriate depends on the exact question being asked, the patient context, and the specific analytes ordered; the current claim is too incomplete to judge as true or false.

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“BLOOD WORK”

Rule: Wis. Stat. § 446.01(2)

Eric James Johnson is not licensed or approved by Wisconsin Chiropractic Examining Board to diagnose, treat, or cure IV infused.

IV infused

Supports

The influencer’s claim is unclear, but appears to suggest that chiropractic treatment can or should be performed in patients who are receiving IV infusions, or that chiropractors might manage IV-infused therapies themselves. ^[84] There are no high‑quality RCTs, systematic reviews, or major guidelines specifically evaluating chiropractic manipulation as a treatment for issues related to IV infusion therapy, parenteral nutrition, or blood transfusion. ^{[3][47][8][82][83]} Major guidelines on IV therapy and parenteral nutrition emphasize careful line management, aseptic technique, monitoring, and appropriate indications, not manual or spinal manipulation as a therapeutic strategy. ^[46][85] Guidelines on hypertension, pericarditis, or tension-type headache likewise do not recommend chiropractic manipulation as a means of managing IV therapies or conditions requiring IV treatment. ^[7][48] Thus, there is no direct high‑quality evidence that specifically supports a role for chiropractic treatment in managing or improving outcomes of IV-infused therapies.

Contradicts

High‑quality guidance on parenteral nutrition and IV therapy stresses that these interventions should be managed by appropriately trained medical professionals using strict aseptic and monitoring protocols, with explicit attention to catheter complications and infection risk, not by manual spinal manipulation. ^[46][8][83] These guidelines describe risks such as thrombophlebitis, infection, extravasation, and line failure, and focus on device choice, insertion technique, and ongoing assessment; none mention chiropractic care as beneficial or appropriate in this context. ^[3][84][85] Evidence‑based hypertension, pericarditis, and headache guidelines similarly recommend pharmacologic and medical management, not chiropractic manipulation of patients while they are dependent on IV therapies. ^[2][47][48] Separately, published literature on chiropractic neck manipulation has raised safety concerns such as vertebral artery dissection and stroke risk, which would be especially relevant in medically complex or acutely ill patients who often require IV access; this safety profile indirectly argues against adding spinal manipulation as an adjunct around IV therapy in vulnerable patients. ^[82] Overall, the absence of supportive trials or guideline endorsements, combined with recognized risks of manipulation and the need to protect IV access sites, means the evidence base contradicts the idea that chiropractor treatment of IV‑infused patients is established, safe, or beneficial. ^[7]

Mainstream view

Mainstream medical practice holds that intravenous therapies, including parenteral nutrition, blood transfusions, and IV medications, should be managed under physician‑led protocols and nursing standards focused on line integrity, aseptic technique, monitoring for complications, and evidence‑based indications. ^{[2][46][8][83][84][85]} Major guidelines do not recognize chiropractic treatment as a component of IV therapy management or as a documented way to improve outcomes in patients receiving IV infusions. ^[3] Chiropractors may provide musculoskeletal care to patients who also happen to be receiving medical treatments, but this is considered separate from IV therapy itself, and any manipulation in patients with indwelling lines or acute illness is approached cautiously due to potential safety concerns. ^[82] The mainstream view is that IV therapy should remain within established medical and nursing frameworks, and there is no accepted role for chiropractic treatment as part of IV infusion management. ^[7]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“one of which needed to be IV infused”

Rule: Wis. Stat. § 446.01(2)

Eric James Johnson is not licensed or approved by Wisconsin Chiropractic Examining Board to advertise Functional medicine diagnostic skills for systemic disease as within their scope of practice.

Functional medicine diagnostic skills for systemic disease

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“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: Wis. Stat. § 446.01(2)