Teresa Marie Volner alias The Glucose Chiro

Teresa Marie Volner is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Diabetes and metabolic Wellness.

Diabetes and metabolic Wellness

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Diabetes and metabolic Wellness”

Rule: K.S.A. 65-2871

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

Teresa Marie Volner is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure About Us Winners in Diabetes® Contact Us.

About Us Winners in Diabetes® Contact Us

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“About Us Winners in Diabetes® Contact Us”

Rule: K.S.A. 65-2871

Teresa Marie Volner is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Winners in Diabetes®.

Winners in Diabetes®

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Winners in Diabetes®”

Rule: K.S.A. 65-2871

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

Teresa Marie Volner is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Functional medicine for diabetes and metabolic wellness.

Functional medicine for diabetes and metabolic wellness

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Functional Medicine”

Rule: K.S.A. 65-2871

Teresa Marie Volner is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) 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: K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act)

Teresa Marie Volner is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to advertise Personalized DNA & Metabolic Testing as within their scope of practice.

Personalized DNA & Metabolic Testing

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Personalized DNA & Metabolic Testing”

Rule: K.S.A. 65-2871

Teresa Marie Volner is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Safe Supplement Protocols.

Safe Supplement Protocols

Supports

High-quality evidence and major guidelines support the idea that supplement-like interventions (including micronutrient replacement and specialized nutrition support) can be safe and beneficial when they are used in clearly defined clinical contexts, under professional supervision, and following evidence-based protocols. ^[6][10] The ESPEN guideline on clinical nutrition in inflammatory bowel disease emphasizes structured, guideline-based use of enteral and parenteral nutrition and micronutrient supplementation tailored to disease activity, nutritional status, and specific deficiencies, viewing these as medical therapies that require formal protocols for safety and efficacy. ^[8][9][11] The ASPEN–FELANPE clinical guidelines similarly treat parenteral nutrition and related nutrient supplementation as high-risk but manageable therapies that must follow standardized protocols for indications, dosing, monitoring, and prevention of complications (e. ^[7] g. , refeeding syndrome, catheter infections), underscoring that “safe protocols” are feasible when rigorously defined and monitored. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of selenium supplementation in Hashimoto thyroiditis show modest improvements in thyroid autoantibody levels and well-being with generally acceptable safety when used at studied doses over limited periods, indicating that targeted micronutrient supplementation can be safe if dose, duration, and indication are evidence-based. ^[5]

Contradicts

High-quality evidence and guidelines do not support broad, one-size-fits-all “safe supplement protocols” for the general population; they consistently stress individualized assessment, clear medical indications, and risk–benefit evaluation rather than blanket recommendations. The ASPEN–FELANPE and ESPEN guidelines frame nutrition support and nutrient supplementation as medical interventions with specific indications, contraindications, and monitoring requirements, and they explicitly warn about serious risks (e. ^[7][8][9] g. , infections, metabolic derangements, liver dysfunction) if these interventions are used without proper protocols and oversight. The selenium meta-analysis in Hashimoto thyroiditis notes heterogeneity, limited duration, and variable outcomes, and it does not justify long-term or high-dose selenium use outside defined clinical scenarios, highlighting that even “safe” supplements can carry toxicity risks (e. ^[5] g. , selenosis) if taken indiscriminately. Major hypertension guidelines emphasize lifestyle, pharmacologic therapy, and careful use of adjunctive measures; they do not endorse generic supplement regimens as a primary or universally safe strategy, reflecting a broader caution about non-individualized supplementation. ^[12] GRADE methodology for rating evidence quality underscores that imprecision, small sample sizes, and inconsistent effects are common in supplement trials, so safety and efficacy claims for generalized protocols are often based on low or very low certainty evidence rather than robust data. ^[6][10]

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical position is that supplements and clinical nutrition interventions can be safe and beneficial when used in targeted, evidence-based ways for specific deficiencies or conditions, under professional supervision, and with appropriate dosing and monitoring, but generalized “safe supplement protocols” for broad populations are not supported. ^{[5][6][8][9][10]} Guidelines treating nutrient repletion and parenteral/enteral nutrition as medical therapies stress careful indication, individualized plans, and ongoing safety monitoring rather than routine supplement regimens for everyone. ^[7] Major evidence frameworks such as GRADE highlight that many supplement studies provide only low to moderate certainty evidence, and professional societies typically recommend limiting supplementation to situations with documented deficiency or strong disease-specific evidence, while warning about potential toxicity, interactions, and false assumptions of safety with chronic, unsupervised use.

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Safe Supplement Protocols”

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

Teresa Marie Volner is not approved to offer Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy within a Chiropractor scope of practice under Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic).

Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy

Supports

Hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) is an established medical treatment in which a patient breathes oxygen at elevated atmospheric pressure in a sealed chamber, and it has evidence-based indications for specific conditions such as gas embolism, decompression sickness, severe carbon monoxide poisoning, certain radiation injuries, refractory osteomyelitis, selected non‑healing wounds, and some acute ischemic or traumatic conditions according to major guidelines and consensus statements. ^{[6][7][10][12][14][15][16]} HBOT is therefore legitimately part of mainstream, guideline‑driven medical care, and chiropractors may work within systems that offer HBOT as a modality delivered under appropriate medical supervision. ^[9] There is emerging RCT and mechanistic evidence that HBOT can improve neurological and neuropsychiatric outcomes in selected conditions (for example long‑COVID and traumatic brain injury) and can modulate neuroplasticity, inflammation, and mitochondrial function, but this evidence is independent of chiropractic practice and does not show that HBOT is uniquely or specifically a “chiropractic” treatment.

Contradicts

Mainstream HBOT guidelines list indications such as air or gas embolism, carbon monoxide poisoning, gas gangrene, crush injury and other traumatic ischemias, delayed radiation injury, refractory osteomyelitis, selected non‑healing wounds, and severe anemia when transfusion is not possible; they do not present HBOT as a chiropractic modality or as a treatment that should be managed primarily by chiropractors. ^[7][9][12] There is no high‑quality evidence (systematic reviews, RCTs, or major guidelines) supporting a distinct category of “chiropractor treatment of hyperbaric oxygen therapy,” nor evidence that chiropractic training alone is sufficient to independently prescribe or manage HBOT without broader medical oversight. ^{[10][14][15][16]} Regulatory actions against individual chiropractors have specifically cited inappropriate advertising and use of HBOT, underscoring that use outside evidence‑based indications or without proper medical frameworks is considered problematic. ^[6] Available evidence therefore contradicts any implication that HBOT is a chiropractor‑specific therapy or that combining chiropractic manipulation with HBOT has proven synergistic benefits beyond those of HBOT itself or standard care.

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical position is that hyperbaric oxygen therapy is a specialized medical treatment with a defined set of evidence‑based indications and risks, typically overseen by physicians with training in hyperbaric medicine and delivered in accredited facilities, often as an adjunct to surgery, antibiotics, and other standard therapies. ^{[11][12][14][15][16]} Chiropractors are not central to HBOT guideline development, and HBOT is not categorized as a chiropractic intervention; when HBOT is used in multidisciplinary settings, it is still governed by medical guidelines and regulatory standards rather than chiropractic protocols. ^[7][9] Current high‑quality evidence and major guidelines support HBOT for specific conditions but do not support a unique role for chiropractic management of HBOT or a special “chiropractor treatment of hyperbaric oxygen therapy” as a distinct, evidence‑based practice. ^[6][10]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy”

Rule: K.S.A. 65-2871

Teresa Marie Volner is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure EMSELLA Chair Therapy.

EMSELLA Chair Therapy

Supports

The EMSELLA chair uses high-intensity focused electromagnetic (HIFEM) energy delivered via a chair to induce supramaximal contractions of the pelvic floor muscles, and multiple prospective clinical studies (including randomized controlled trials and comparative cohorts) report symptom improvements in women with stress, urge, and mixed urinary incontinence, as well as in men with post‑prostatectomy incontinence. ^{[7][11][17][19][20]} These studies show clinically meaningful reductions in International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire scores and pad use over short-term follow up, with acceptable safety profiles and few adverse events. Systematic review data focused on chair-based magnetic pelvic floor stimulation report consistent improvements in urinary incontinence severity and meaningful gains in sexual function scores in women, with signals that combining magnetic chair therapy with pelvic floor muscle training yields larger benefits than either alone. ^[12] High‑intensity electromagnetic therapy delivered by EMSELLA or similar chairs has thus emerging evidence as a non‑invasive option for pelvic floor strengthening and urinary incontinence symptom relief. ^[18] Some professional and expert commentary notes that such magnetic chair therapies are not yet incorporated into major, guideline-driven first-line treatment algorithms, but can be considered adjunctive or second‑line when patients cannot perform or have failed standard pelvic floor muscle training. ^[6][9] Chiropractors can, in principle, administer EMSELLA sessions as the device itself is non‑invasive and does not require surgical or pharmacologic intervention, and some clinic descriptions show EMSELLA being offered in chiropractic practices as part of pelvic floor or wellness services.

Contradicts

Major guideline documents for urinary incontinence and pelvic floor disorders still prioritize pelvic floor muscle training, bladder training, lifestyle measures, medications, and surgery, and generally do not list chair-based HIFEM devices like EMSELLA as established first-line therapy; where magnetic stimulation is mentioned, guidelines explicitly state that it has not been fully evaluated or is not typically used in standard primary care practice. ^{[6][7][12][20]} Existing EMSELLA and HIFEM trials are mostly small, single-arm, open-label or short-term randomized studies, often without long-term blinded follow up, which limits certainty about durability of benefit and comparative effectiveness versus established treatments. Some pilot and single-arm studies show only transient or clinically meaningful but statistically non‑significant improvements, highlighting limited statistical power and the need for larger, longer-term randomized trials. ^[18] There is no high-quality evidence that chiropractic-specific training or spinal manipulation adds therapeutic value to EMSELLA chair outcomes beyond what is achieved by the device protocol itself; EMSELLA’s mechanism is direct electromagnetic stimulation of the pelvic floor, not spine manipulation. ^[10][17] No major urology, gynecology, or pelvic floor guideline currently endorses EMSELLA therapy as standard of care, and none specifically recommend chiropractors as primary providers for this treatment, so any claim that “chiropractor treatment of EMSELLA chair therapy” is a proven or guideline-backed approach over usual specialist care is not supported by high-quality evidence. ^[11][19]

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical view is that urinary incontinence and pelvic floor dysfunction should be managed first with evidence-based conservative measures such as pelvic floor muscle training (including supervised Kegel exercises), bladder training, lifestyle modifications, and, when appropriate, pharmacologic or surgical interventions according to established urology and gynecology guidelines. ^{[7][9][10][17]} Chair-based magnetic pelvic floor stimulation devices such as EMSELLA have emerging evidence from small trials and observational studies showing short‑term improvements in incontinence severity, quality of life, and sometimes sexual function, and may be considered as an adjunct or second‑line option, particularly for patients who cannot perform or have not benefited from conventional pelvic floor training. ^[19] However, these devices are not yet incorporated into major first-line guideline recommendations, and their long‑term effectiveness, optimal protocols, cost‑effectiveness, and comparative efficacy versus standard care remain under investigation. ^[18] From a mainstream perspective, EMSELLA therapy is promising but still considered non‑standard and experimental or adjunctive, and its provision by chiropractors is viewed as a service delivery choice rather than a distinct, evidence‑based medical treatment; the key determinant is adherence to appropriate indications, patient selection, and integration with established pelvic floor management rather than the provider’s profession. ^{[6][11][12][20]}

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“EMSELLA® Chair Therapy”

Rule: K.S.A. 65-2871

Teresa Marie Volner is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Naturopathic medicine.

Naturopathic medicine

Supports

High-quality evidence exists that chiropractic spinal manipulation therapy (SMT) can modestly reduce pain and disability in some musculoskeletal conditions, especially low back pain, neck pain, and certain headaches. ^{[10][12][21][23]} Multiple randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews show that SMT is about as effective as other conservative therapies (e. g. , exercise therapy, standard physical therapy, usual medical care) for nonspecific low back pain and spinal pain, with benefits that are generally small to moderate and often short term. ^[24] Clinical practice guidelines and evidence-based reviews for low back pain often include spinal manipulation among recommended nonpharmacologic options for acute and chronic low back pain, typically with low to moderate certainty of evidence. ^[6][7][22] Some RCTs report clinically meaningful short-term improvements in migraine or cervicogenic headache frequency after chiropractic SMT, though study quality is variable and effects are not consistently large across all outcomes. ^[11] Safety data suggest that, for lumbar and general spinal manipulation, serious adverse events are rare, while mild to moderate, transient adverse effects (soreness, stiffness) are common but self-limited.

Contradicts

There is little high-quality evidence supporting broad, disease-modifying claims for chiropractic outside of musculoskeletal conditions, and essentially no strong evidence that chiropractic care constitutes or substitutes for comprehensive naturopathic medicine as a whole system of care. Systematic reviews frequently rate the quality of evidence for SMT as low or very low, particularly when compared with sham or no treatment, indicating uncertainty about true efficacy beyond placebo for some indications. ^[11][10] Several randomized trials and comparative effectiveness studies find that chiropractic care provides outcomes similar to, but not clearly superior to, standard physical therapy, exercise programs, or usual medical care, with some studies showing only small effect sizes that may not be clinically important. ^[21][23][24] Evidence for chiropractic treatment of non-musculoskeletal conditions (e. g. , internal organ diseases, metabolic or autoimmune conditions) is sparse, heterogeneous, and generally not supportive, and major guidelines for hypertension, inflammatory bowel disease, parenteral nutrition, transfusion therapy, or cardiology do not recommend chiropractic or naturopathic approaches as primary treatments for these conditions . ^{[7][8][9][12]} Overall, claims that chiropractic treatment can broadly replace evidence-based medical or nutritional management, or that it is an established core modality of naturopathic medicine for systemic diseases, are not supported by robust clinical trial or guideline-level evidence. ^[6][22]

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical and scientific view is that chiropractic care is a form of manual therapy focused primarily on musculoskeletal complaints, particularly low back pain, neck pain, and some headache disorders. ^{[11][12][21][22][23]} Current evidence supports considering spinal manipulation as one of several nonpharmacologic options for these conditions, often within a multimodal treatment plan that may include exercise, education, and other conservative therapies, recognizing that benefits are modest and comparable to other physical therapies. Chiropractic is not regarded as a comprehensive naturopathic medical system, nor as a primary treatment for internal medicine conditions such as hypertension, inflammatory bowel disease, or cardiac disease; for these, major guidelines recommend pharmacologic therapies, lifestyle modification, and evidence-based nutrition support rather than chiropractic or naturopathic interventions . ^{[6][7][8][9][10]} Mainstream practice also emphasizes appropriate diagnosis, red-flag screening, and coordination with conventional medical care, and generally views chiropractic as adjunctive care for selected musculoskeletal problems, not as a substitute for evidence-based medical management of systemic diseases. ^[24]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Naturopathic medicine”

Rule: K.S.A. 65-2871

Teresa Marie Volner is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Herbal Therapy.

Herbal Therapy

Supports

The influencer’s claim is extremely vague, but if interpreted as “chiropractors can appropriately provide or use herbal therapy as a treatment,” there is only indirect support from the literature. ^[11][12][26] Some clinical practice guidelines and evidence syntheses address herbal medicines as potentially beneficial for specific conditions (for example, herbal therapies are discussed in systematic reviews and RCTs for various pain, gastrointestinal, cardiovascular, and neurologic conditions), but these do not frame herbal therapy as a specifically chiropractic treatment nor as something uniquely indicated when delivered by chiropractors. ^{[7][9][10][25][27][28]} More broadly, pain and complementary medicine research shows that both spinal manipulation (often provided by chiropractors) and herbal medicine are studied as separate complementary modalities for conditions like low back pain and dysmenorrhea, suggesting that in principle they can be combined within an integrative care model, although rigorous trials specifically evaluating “chiropractic plus herbal therapy” are lacking.

Contradicts

High‑quality guidelines and index papers provided (hypertension management, clinical nutrition guidelines, headache treatment, parenteral nutrition appropriateness, blood transfusion therapy, colchicine in pericarditis) emphasize pharmacologic, nutritional, and procedural interventions grounded in robust RCT and cohort data, and they do not identify herbal therapy delivered by chiropractors as standard or evidence‑based treatment for those conditions. ^{[6][7][8][9][10][12][13][27]} The hypertension guideline, for example, focuses on lifestyle modification and antihypertensive drugs and does not recommend herbal medicine, let alone chiropractic‑provided herbal therapy, as a core treatment. ^[11][26][28] Similarly, evidence‑based headache guidelines recommend analgesics, antidepressants, behavioral therapy, and sometimes manual therapy, but they do not endorse herbal therapy administered by chiropractors as a primary or proven intervention. Large evidence reviews of complementary medicine note that the evidence for many herbal medicines is heterogeneous and often of low or moderate quality, with methodological limitations and lack of robust clinical endpoints, which undermines strong claims that chiropractic herbal therapy is broadly effective. ^[25] Overall, there is no strong RCT, meta‑analysis, or major guideline support for the specific idea that “chiropractor treatment” of conditions via herbal therapy is validated as safe, effective, and standard of care.

Mainstream view

Mainstream medical and scientific practice views chiropractic as a manual therapy focused on musculoskeletal conditions (especially low back and neck pain), while herbal medicine is considered a separate branch of complementary and alternative medicine with mixed and condition‑specific evidence. ^[12][25][28] For most major conditions covered by high‑quality guidelines (hypertension, inflammatory bowel disease, tension‑type headache, indications for parenteral nutrition, transfusion, and pericarditis), recommended treatments are conventional medications, diet, procedures, and structured lifestyle interventions; herbal therapies are rarely recommended, and when they are, they are typically managed within medical or integrative medicine frameworks rather than as chiropractic treatments. ^{[7][8][11][9][10][13][27]} The prevailing view is that while individual herbal products may have evidence for certain indications, claims that chiropractors broadly “treat with herbal therapy” as an evidence‑based primary modality go beyond current data; such use is considered complementary or experimental, requiring careful attention to drug–herb interactions, adverse effects, and the need not to replace guideline‑directed medical therapy for serious or chronic disease. ^[6][26]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Herbal Therapy”

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