Shannon McCarty alias Dr. Reflex & Anxiety

Shannon McCarty is not licensed or approved by Minnesota Board of Chiropractic Examiners to diagnose, treat, or cure Depression.

Depression

Supports

Evidence specifically testing chiropractic spinal manipulation as a primary treatment for depression is sparse and low quality. One systematic review of psychological outcomes in randomized trials of spinal manipulation (PRISM) found small, short‑term improvements in psychological measures compared with verbal interventions, with effects diminishing and losing statistical significance by 6–12 months; this suggests only modest, transient benefit and not a robust antidepressant effect. Separate systematic reviews and meta‑analyses of manual therapies (osteopathic interventions, massage, acupressure, craniosacral, energetic therapies) report reductions in depression scores in adults, particularly in populations with pain, but these are not chiropractic‑specific and often involve different modalities; they support the idea that hands‑on physical treatments can indirectly improve mood via pain, tension, and sleep rather than directly treating major depressive disorder. A recent systematic review of manual therapy modalities and depression reported that 5 of 6 chiropractic manipulation studies showed statistically significant reductions in depressive symptoms, but the overall evidence quality was rated low to moderate, studies were small and heterogeneous, and manual therapy was framed as a complementary rather than primary treatment for depression. Case reports and small uncontrolled series describe individual patients with chronic pain and comorbid depression experiencing improvement in depressive symptoms after courses of chiropractic care, but such uncontrolled observations are considered very weak evidence and mainly hypothesis‑generating. Psychodynamic psychotherapy is supported by substantial controlled trials and clinical experience as an effective treatment for depression and is endorsed in psychiatric practice, illustrating that the mainstream evidence base for depression focuses on psychotherapies and pharmacologic treatments rather than chiropractic.

Contradicts

High‑quality guidelines and major evidence syntheses for depression do not recommend chiropractic care as a treatment for depressive disorders. The psychodynamic treatment of depression review describes talk‑therapy approaches (psychodynamic psychotherapy and other evidence‑based psychotherapies) and positions them as central modalities for managing depressive illness, without mentioning chiropractic or spinal manipulation as a therapeutic option. More broadly, major clinical guidelines for mental health and primary care, as reflected in the psychiatric and internal medicine literature, emphasize antidepressant medications, evidence‑based psychotherapies (such as CBT, interpersonal therapy, psychodynamic therapy), and structured lifestyle interventions; chiropractic is not included among first‑line or even standard adjunctive treatments for depression. Even within musculoskeletal care, evidence‑based guidelines and task‑force reports indicate that psychological factors and mental health conditions are reasons for referral from chiropractors to mental health professionals, not conditions for which chiropractors themselves provide primary treatment, reinforcing that treatment of depression lies outside usual chiropractic scope of practice. Existing manual‑therapy meta‑analyses and systematic reviews highlight serious limitations: small sample sizes, heterogeneous interventions and patient groups, inadequate blinding and control conditions, reliance on subjective outcomes, short follow‑up, and high or unclear risk of bias; authors consistently call for larger, higher‑quality randomized trials before any firm claims about treating major depressive disorder can be made. Where RCTs include depression outcomes in back‑pain or chronic‑pain populations, depression scores often improve similarly across various physical‑therapy or manual‑therapy arms, suggesting that improvements reflect better pain, function, sleep, and overall quality of life rather than a specific antidepressant effect of chiropractic manipulation. Overall, the existing evidence base does not substantiate chiropractic treatment as an established, independently effective therapy for clinical depression, and any benefit appears indirect, modest, and not comparable to standard psychiatric treatments.

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical and scientific position is that depression is best treated with evidence‑based psychotherapies, pharmacologic antidepressants, and, where appropriate, other validated interventions (for example, digital CBT, mindfulness‑based programs, and sleep‑focused treatments), guided by psychiatric and primary‑care guidelines. Psychodynamic psychotherapy is recognized as one of several established psychotherapeutic approaches with demonstrated efficacy for depressive disorders, alongside cognitive‑behavioral and interpersonal therapies. For somatic and neuromodulation approaches (such as electroconvulsive therapy or repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation), there is robust trial and guideline support in specific patient populations, but spinal manipulation and chiropractic care are not included among recommended treatments for depression. Manual therapies, including chiropractic, may play a role in managing musculoskeletal pain, tension, and sleep disturbance, all of which can contribute to or exacerbate depressive symptoms, so they may be used as adjuncts in holistic care for patients whose primary complaints are pain, with mood improvements considered secondary and indirect. Major guidelines and professional statements emphasize that treating mental health conditions, including major depressive disorder, is outside the primary scope of chiropractic practice; chiropractors are expected to screen for mental health problems and refer

Papers listed for this claim:[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Depression”

Rule: Minn. Stat. § 148.01, subd. 1(1)-(2); subd. 4

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

Shannon McCarty is not licensed or approved by Minnesota Board of Chiropractic Examiners to diagnose, treat, or cure Diagnosing and treating psychiatric disorders (Anxiety, Depression, PTSD) as part of chiropractic services..

Diagnosing and treating psychiatric disorders (Anxiety, Depression, PTSD) as part of chiropractic services.

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Anxiety”

Rule: Minn. Stat. § 148.01, subd. 1(2); subd. 4

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

Shannon McCarty is not licensed or approved by Minnesota Board of Chiropractic Examiners to diagnose, treat, or cure Treatment of Anxiety and Depression.

Treatment of Anxiety and Depression

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Anxiety”

Rule: Minn. Stat. § 148.01, subd. 1(2); subd. 4

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

Shannon McCarty is not licensed or approved by Minnesota Board of Chiropractic Examiners to diagnose, treat, or cure Anxiety.

Anxiety

Supports

Evidence directly supporting chiropractic treatment as an effective therapy for anxiety is limited and low quality. One small randomized controlled trial from the late 1980s found that thoracic spine chiropractic adjustments reduced blood pressure and state anxiety acutely compared with placebo and no-treatment control, but it involved only 21 patients with elevated blood pressure and measured anxiety as a secondary outcome, not a diagnosed anxiety disorder. This provides at most weak, short-term support that spinal manipulation may transiently reduce anxiety scores in a specific context. Systematic reviews of spinal manipulation and manual therapies show some positive effects on psychological outcomes, including anxiety, but the evidence is heterogeneous, often focuses on massage or osteopathic manipulation rather than chiropractic specifically, and trials are generally small and at risk of bias. Overall, the best available high-quality evidence suggests that certain manual therapies can modestly reduce anxiety symptoms, but this cannot be confidently extrapolated to chiropractic adjustments as a primary, stand-alone treatment for clinical anxiety disorders.

Contradicts

Multiple systematic reviews emphasize that evidence from randomized controlled trials of spinal manipulation for non-musculoskeletal outcomes, including psychological conditions, is contradictory and often unconvincing. These reviews highlight methodological limitations (small samples, poor blinding, high risk of bias, heterogeneous interventions and outcomes) and conclude that spinal manipulation cannot be recommended as an evidence-based treatment for anxiety or other psychiatric disorders. More recent meta-analyses of manual therapies targeting anxiety typically find modest improvements at best, with wide confidence intervals, high heterogeneity, and a predominance of massage and osteopathic techniques rather than chiropractic manipulation. Importantly, major adverse-effects reviews of spinal manipulation stress that potential risks exist (e.g., rare but serious neurological events) while robust benefits for anxiety have not been demonstrated, which weighs against promoting chiropractic treatment as a reliable or safe primary therapy for anxiety. Guidelines for anxiety management from psychiatry and primary care do not list chiropractic care as a recommended treatment; instead they strongly support evidence-based psychological therapies and pharmacologic treatments. Thus, the claim that chiropractic treatment is an established, effective intervention for anxiety is not supported and conflicts with mainstream interpretations of the available evidence.

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical and scientific position is that chiropractic care is primarily a treatment for musculoskeletal conditions, such as low back and neck pain, and not a validated therapy for anxiety disorders. Anxiety is generally treated with evidence-based psychological interventions (such as cognitive behavioral therapy and other structured psychotherapies), pharmacologic treatments (such as SSRIs, SNRIs, and other anxiolytics), and lifestyle and behavioral strategies supported by clinical trials and guidelines. While manual therapies, including massage or osteopathic manipulation, may have short-term relaxing effects and modest reductions in anxiety scores in some studies, major clinical guidelines do not recognize chiropractic spinal manipulation as a recommended or first-line treatment for generalized anxiety disorder, panic disorder, social anxiety disorder, or other anxiety-related conditions. Chiropractic care might be used adjunctively to address coexisting musculoskeletal pain, which can indirectly influence well-being and perceived stress, but it is not regarded as a primary, evidence-based treatment for anxiety.

Papers listed for this claim:[13][14][15][12]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Anxiety”

Rule: Minn. Stat. § 148.01, subd. 1(1)-(2); subd. 4

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

Shannon McCarty is not licensed or approved by Minnesota Board of Chiropractic Examiners to diagnose, treat, or cure PTSD.

PTSD

Supports

High-quality PTSD treatment guidelines consistently recommend trauma-focused psychotherapies (such as cognitive behavioral therapy, cognitive processing therapy, prolonged exposure, EMDR, narrative exposure therapy) and certain antidepressants (SSRIs like sertraline and paroxetine, and SNRIs like venlafaxine) as first-line evidence-based care for PTSD in adults. There is robust evidence from randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews that these psychotherapies and medications significantly reduce PTSD symptom severity, improve functioning, and are considered the standard of care; however, chiropractic spinal manipulation or chiropractic care is not mentioned as a recommended PTSD treatment in these guidelines or state-of-the-art reviews. A cross-sectional study of rehabilitation patients found that those with PTSD had poorer improvement in musculoskeletal outcomes after chiropractic and related care than patients without PTSD, suggesting that PTSD may be associated with worse response to typical musculoskeletal interventions rather than showing specific PTSD benefit from chiropractic treatment. Overall, there is no high-quality evidence (RCTs, meta-analyses, or major guidelines) directly supporting chiropractor treatment as an effective intervention for PTSD symptoms or core PTSD pathology.

Contradicts

Comprehensive clinical practice guidelines and systematic reviews for PTSD uniformly emphasize trauma-focused psychotherapy and selected antidepressant pharmacotherapy as first-line treatments, and they do not list chiropractic care or spinal manipulation as a recommended or evidence-based treatment modality for PTSD. State-of-the-art reviews note that, aside from well-studied psychotherapies and a small number of antidepressants (sertraline, paroxetine, fluoxetine, venlafaxine), few interventions have adequate support from high-quality randomized trials, further implying that modalities such as chiropractic are outside the evidence-based PTSD treatment set. Existing data involving PTSD in chiropractic or rehabilitative settings show that PTSD is associated with less improvement in disability outcomes among patients receiving standard musculoskeletal care, rather than demonstrating that chiropractic care alleviates PTSD symptoms. There are no major PTSD guidelines, meta-analyses, or randomized controlled trials demonstrating that chiropractor-delivered spinal manipulation or other chiropractic techniques reliably reduce PTSD symptom severity, improve remission rates, or outperform established psychotherapies or pharmacotherapies, indicating that the claim is unsupported or weakly supported at best.

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical and psychiatric position is that PTSD should be treated primarily with evidence-based trauma-focused psychotherapies (such as cognitive behavioral therapy, cognitive processing therapy, prolonged exposure therapy, and EMDR) and, when indicated or preferred, pharmacologic treatment with certain antidepressants, especially SSRIs like sertraline and paroxetine and SNRIs like venlafaxine. Major guidelines from organizations such as the APA, VA/DoD, and other international bodies consistently recommend these approaches and do not include chiropractic treatment as a recognized or evidence-based therapy for PTSD. Chiropractic care may have a role in managing musculoskeletal pain and some headache disorders, but current mainstream PTSD treatment frameworks view it, at most, as an adjunct for physical comorbidities, not as a direct treatment for PTSD itself.

Papers listed for this claim:[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][16][17][18][19][20]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“PTSD”

Rule: Minn. Stat. § 148.01, subd. 1(1)-(2); subd. 4

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

Shannon McCarty is not licensed or approved by Minnesota Board of Chiropractic Examiners to diagnose, treat, or cure Neonatal (colic, reflux, constipation, gas, irritability).

Neonatal (colic, reflux, constipation, gas, irritability)

Supports

There is some limited evidence that manual therapies, including chiropractic care, can modestly reduce crying time in infants with colic. A randomized controlled trial (RCT) of chiropractic care in infantile colic reported a reduction in daily crying of about half an hour favoring the chiropractic group, with more infants achieving at least a 1‑hour reduction in crying, although the adjusted primary outcome narrowly missed conventional statistical significance and secondary outcomes (sleep, gastrointestinal symptoms) were not improved; this suggests at best a small clinical effect for colic symptoms, not broad neonatal benefits. Another RCT of chiropractic manual therapy in infant colic found statistically significant improvements in crying behavior compared with no treatment, with parent blinding suggesting the effect was not solely due to reporting bias, again supporting a possible modest benefit for colic specifically. A systematic review and meta‑analysis of manipulative therapies for infantile colic found that across five RCTs, manual therapies (including chiropractic) reduced average crying time by about 1.2 hours per day compared with controls, indicating a pooled beneficial effect, though the authors noted methodological limitations in the included trials. A more recent meta‑analysis comparing different manual therapies reported favorable effects of chiropractic therapy on crying time change in infantile colic, but explicitly concluded that the overall evidence is limited and low quality, with substantial heterogeneity, underscoring that any apparent benefit is based on imperfect data. Additional RCTs and systematic reviews of osteopathic or other gentle manual therapies (not necessarily chiropractic) also show reductions in crying time and parental stress in colicky infants, suggesting that some forms of hands‑on therapy may help with colic symptoms, but these findings cannot be directly generalized to all chiropractic interventions or to reflux, constipation, gas, or general irritability. Methodological guidance such as the GRADE framework emphasizes that imprecision and small sample sizes reduce confidence in effect estimates, which applies to much of the manual therapy literature in infantile colic.

Contradicts

High‑quality evidence does not support strong or broad claims that chiropractic treatment effectively treats neonatal colic, reflux, constipation, gas, or general irritability. A randomized, blinded, placebo‑controlled trial of chiropractic spinal manipulation for infantile colic found no significant difference between chiropractic manipulation and placebo, concluding that spinal manipulation was no more effective than placebo for colic. A systematic review specifically assessing chiropractic manipulation for infantile colic concluded there is no convincing evidence that spinal manipulation alone changes the duration of colic symptoms, and that potential harms cannot be adequately assessed given the data, indicating that the evidence base does not justify strong efficacy claims. A more recent systematic review and meta‑analysis of complementary treatments for infantile colic, including osteopathy and chiropractic, found that these interventions failed to significantly reduce crying time or increase sleeping time compared with no additional intervention, again contradicting strong efficacy claims for chiropractic care in colic. A 2022 evidence review on spinal manipulation and mobilisation in pediatric populations reported no explicit evidence supporting the effectiveness of spinal manipulation or mobilisation for any pediatric condition, and judged the evidence for infantile colic to be insufficient and inconclusive, with only one RCT showing medium‑term changes in crying time but not short‑term benefits. Even meta‑analyses that find statistically significant reductions in crying time with manual therapies emphasize low study quality, risk of bias, and heterogeneity, meaning the results are not robust enough to underpin confident clinical claims beyond modest symptom relief in some infants. Importantly, there is virtually no high‑quality evidence that chiropractic manipulations effectively treat neonatal gastroesophageal reflux, constipation, gas, or general irritability; most trials focus narrowly on colic defined by crying time, and do not demonstrate objective improvements in gastrointestinal function. Major guideline‑driven approaches to pediatric care and evidence evaluation, such as GRADE, stress that low‑quality, imprecise evidence should not be used to justify strong recommendations, which applies here.

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical and scientific position is that chiropractic treatment for neonatal conditions such as colic, reflux, constipation, gas, and irritability is not supported by strong, high‑quality evidence, and should not be routinely recommended as a primary treatment. For infantile colic, pediatric and general medical guidelines typically emphasize reassurance, evaluation for underlying disease, optimising feeding practices, and simple behavioral strategies; manual therapies, including

Papers listed for this claim:[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][16][21][22][23][24]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Neonatal (colic, reflux, constipation, gas, irritability)”

Rule: Minn. Stat. § 148.01, subd. 1(2); subd. 4

See every doc bro who says they can treat or advise on Infant colic and reflux

Shannon McCarty is not licensed or approved by Minnesota Board of Chiropractic Examiners to diagnose, treat, or cure Adolescent transitions (hormone changes, bed wetting, growth spurts).

Adolescent transitions (hormone changes, bed wetting, growth spurts)

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Adolescent transitions (hormone changes, bed wetting, growth spurts)”

Rule: Minn. Stat. § 148.01, subd. 1(2); subd. 4

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

Shannon McCarty is not licensed or approved by Minnesota Board of Chiropractic Examiners to diagnose, treat, or cure Birth trauma.

Birth trauma

Supports

There is some evidence that chiropractic manual therapy may modestly reduce excessive crying in otherwise healthy infants with infantile colic, which is sometimes framed by chiropractors as a consequence of musculoskeletal strain around birth. A pragmatic single-blind randomized controlled trial reported that infants receiving chiropractic manual therapy for colic had greater reductions in crying time than untreated controls, with clinically meaningful improvement and a number needed to treat of about 3; parental blinding suggested the effect was not solely due to reporting bias. A recent systematic review and meta-analysis of manual therapies for infant crying found a statistically significant reduction in crying time for infantile colic with chiropractic therapy, although the authors emphasized that overall evidence remains limited and heterogeneous. Narrative and specialty reviews of pediatric chiropractic care note that several small RCTs of spinal manipulation for colic show potential benefit, though these reviews also acknowledge important methodological limitations and do not extend claims to broader “birth trauma” outcomes.

Contradicts

High-quality evidence specifically supporting chiropractic treatment for “birth trauma” (e.g., neurological injury, brachial plexus injury, skull or cervical spine trauma from delivery) in neonates is essentially absent; available RCTs and reviews focus on infantile colic and crying, not on structural birth injuries. A classic randomized, blinded, placebo-controlled trial of chiropractic spinal manipulation for infantile colic found no significant benefit compared with placebo, with similar improvement rates in treated and control infants. A 2012 review of manipulative therapies for infantile colic, including chiropractic, concluded that trials were too small and of insufficient quality to support confident conclusions, and when only adequately blinded studies were considered, there was no reliable evidence of benefit. A pediatric chiropractic policy review reported no guidelines, systematic reviews, or randomized trials supporting spinal manipulation for infant musculoskeletal conditions, highlighting a lack of evidence beyond colic/crying symptoms. More recent analyses of a large RCT dataset indicated wide variation in response to chiropractic care in infants with colic and found that putative “musculoskeletal indicators” did not predict benefit, undermining the idea that birth-related musculoskeletal trauma is a clear, treatable cause of crying. Systematic reviews of manual therapies for newborns emphasize that data are limited, heterogeneous, and generally low quality, and they do not support broad claims that chiropractic care treats birth trauma or prevents long-term sequelae.

Mainstream view

Mainstream medical and scientific opinion is that chiropractic or spinal manipulation for neonates and young infants should be used, if at all, with great caution and only within research settings, because the evidence base is small, methodologically weak, and focused mainly on subjective outcomes like crying rather than on objective measures of birth trauma or long-term health. Major pediatric and neonatal care guidelines emphasize evidence-based management of true birth injuries (such as brachial plexus palsy, intracranial hemorrhage, fractures, and hypoxic-ischemic injury) using established medical and rehabilitative approaches; they do not recommend chiropractic manipulation for these conditions, and chiropractic is not part of standard neonatal or NICU protocols for birth trauma. Current systematic reviews and policy documents indicate that while manual therapies including chiropractic may show some signal for reducing crying in infantile colic, the overall quality of evidence is low, effects are modest and inconsistent, and there is insufficient evidence to claim that chiropractic care treats or reverses birth-related trauma in infants. Safety data in infants are limited; serious adverse events appear rare, but because neonatal structures are fragile and birth trauma can involve serious underlying pathology, mainstream practice favors cautious, conventional assessment rather than spinal manipulation.

Papers listed for this claim:[25][26][27][28]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Birth trauma”

Rule: Minnesota Chiropractic Practice Act (scope limited to musculoskeletal/spine care)

See every doc bro who says they can treat or advise on Torticollis and infant development

Shannon McCarty is not licensed or approved by Minnesota Board of Chiropractic Examiners to diagnose, treat, or cure Stress.

Stress

Supports

High-quality evidence specifically on chiropractic treatment for stress is limited but emerging. A pragmatic randomized controlled trial in adults with subclinical spinal pain found that 12 weeks of chiropractic care modulated stress-related biomarkers, including changes in cortisol and inflammatory markers, suggesting some influence on physiological stress pathways, although the clinical relevance for psychological stress was not fully established. An experimental cross-over study in adults who reported high subjective stress found that thoracic spinal adjustment significantly reduced self-reported stress over time, though it did not significantly alter salivary cortisol levels, indicating potential benefit for perceived stress but not objective endocrine markers. A controlled laboratory pilot study in asymptomatic individuals reported that chiropractic manipulation did not raise salivary cortisol or trigger stress or anxiety, supporting that the procedure itself is not acutely stress-inducing. A small randomized study in patients with elevated blood pressure showed reductions in systolic and diastolic blood pressure and decreases in state anxiety in the active chiropractic treatment group compared with placebo and control, suggesting some anxiolytic effect in a specific clinical context. Integrative reviews in the chiropractic literature have summarized multiple small trials and case series showing mixed but sometimes favorable changes in cortisol and stress-related biomarkers after chiropractic care, and one systematic review/meta-analysis cited in such an integrative review found moderate-quality evidence that spinal manipulation may influence cortisol levels post-intervention. A commentary on the biopsychosocial model in chiropractic care notes that some multidisciplinary guidelines for pain and related conditions include spinal manipulation alongside established stress-management approaches such as mindfulness-based stress reduction, relaxation, CBT, yoga, and tai chi, implying that manipulation may be considered as part of a broader package of care rather than a primary stress-specific treatment.

Contradicts

The available evidence base is small, heterogeneous, and largely indirect with respect to stress as a primary outcome, which weakens support for strong claims that chiropractic treatment effectively treats stress as a distinct mental health condition. The cross-over trial in highly stressed adults found no significant change in salivary cortisol despite reductions in subjective stress, indicating that benefits may be limited to perceived stress without consistent endocrine changes. The pilot study in asymptomatic individuals concluded that chiropractic manipulation did not influence salivary cortisol, suggesting no measurable impact on acute physiological stress responses in healthy subjects. The larger biomarker RCT in subclinical spinal pain showed complex and sometimes counterintuitive changes in cortisol (including higher salivary cortisol at 12 weeks in the chiropractic group) and did not link these biomarker shifts to validated stress or anxiety scales, so it does not provide clear evidence that chiropractic care reduces psychological stress or clinically meaningful stress-related outcomes. Integrative reviews note that the effects of chiropractic care on cortisol are mixed across studies, with some reporting increases, others decreases, and several showing no significant change, which underscores inconsistency and limits firm conclusions about stress reduction. Major RCTs and systematic reviews for stress-related disorders and anxiety overwhelmingly evaluate psychological and behavioral interventions such as CBT, mindfulness-based stress reduction, compassion-based therapy, and psychosocial skills programs, not chiropractic, and consistently show substantial and durable improvements in perceived stress, anxiety, depression, and adjustment disorders; this contrast highlights that chiropractic is not a core evidence-based treatment for stress per se compared with these established modalities. There is no robust guideline-level evidence that recommends chiropractic manipulation as a primary or stand-alone treatment for stress, anxiety disorders, or stress-related psychiatric conditions, and existing references that mention spinal manipulation do so in the context of multimodal management of pain and function rather than targeted stress treatment.

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical and scientific view is that stress, anxiety, and stress-related disorders should be managed primarily with evidence-based psychological and behavioral interventions (such as cognitive-behavioral therapy, mindfulness-based stress reduction, relaxation training, and psychosocial skills programs), sometimes combined with pharmacotherapy when indicated, because these approaches are supported by numerous randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews showing substantial improvements in perceived stress, anxiety, and related outcomes. Chiropractic care and spinal manipulation are regarded as interventions for musculoskeletal conditions, especially spinal pain and associated functional limitations, and while some studies report that chiropractic may influence stress-related biomarkers or reduce subjective stress in certain populations, the evidence is limited, mixed, and not sufficient to consider chiropractic a primary or standalone treatment for stress or stress-related mental disorders. In mainstream practice, chiropractic might be seen as potentially helpful for reducing musculoskeletal pain and improving function, which can indirectly lessen stress burden in some patients, but

Papers listed for this claim:[29][30][13][31]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Stress”

Rule: Minn. Stat. § 148.01, subd. 1(1)-(2); subd. 4

Shannon McCarty is not licensed or approved by Minnesota Board of Chiropractic Examiners to advertise Treatment of PTSD and Trauma as within their scope of practice.

Treatment of PTSD and Trauma

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Trauma”

Rule: Minn. Stat. § 148.01, subd. 1(2); subd. 4

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