Christina Woodle alias Dr. Root Cause Quitter

Christina Woodle is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Chronic Headaches, Numbness, & Depression.

Chronic Headaches, Numbness, & Depression

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“How Chiropractic Helped Chronic Headaches, Numbness, & Depression”

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

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

Christina Woodle is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Autoimmune Disorders.

Autoimmune Disorders

Supports

High-quality evidence directly supporting chiropractic treatment as an effective disease-modifying therapy for autoimmune disorders is essentially absent. ^[6][7][11] A recent pragmatic randomized controlled trial found that 12 weeks of chiropractic spinal adjustments in adults with subclinical spinal pain modulated several stress and immune biomarkers (changes in IL-6, TNF-α, IFN-γ, cortisol, and BDNF) compared with sham care, suggesting short-term immune-pathway modulation but not clinical benefit in autoimmune disease populations. ^{[2][3][9][12]} This is preliminary mechanistic evidence only and does not demonstrate improvement in autoimmune disease activity, flares, or long‑term outcomes in patients with diagnosed autoimmune conditions. Systematic review evidence on spinal manipulative therapy and immune outcomes concluded there is no clinical evidence to support claims that spinal manipulation prevents infectious diseases or improves disease-specific immune outcomes, although short-term changes in biomarkers were observed and their clinical relevance is unknown. ^[10] Major autoimmune disease trials and meta-analyses (e. g. , vitamin D and omega-3 supplementation for autoimmune disease risk reduction, mesenchymal stem cell transplantation for autoimmune rheumatic and bowel disease, biologic and targeted immunotherapies, CD40 ligand antagonists in Sjögren’s disease) focus on pharmacologic, nutritional, cellular, and vaccine-based interventions, not chiropractic manipulation, underscoring that current evidence-based strategies for autoimmune disease prevention and treatment are based on other modalities rather than chiropractic care. ^[1]

Contradicts

The systematic review of spinal manipulative therapy and immune outcomes explicitly found no clinical evidence supporting claims that spinal manipulation is efficacious or effective in changing immune system outcomes relevant to disease-specific endpoints, and recommended that efficacy claims not be made until further robust trials exist. ^{[2][3][6][7][10]} Consensus statements from chiropractic researchers similarly note that no valid clinical scientific evidence shows chiropractic care can meaningfully enhance immune function or reduce the risk of common infectious diseases, and emphasize that purported immune effects are untested hypotheses rather than established facts. ^[9][11][12] Clinical commentary on rheumatoid arthritis and other autoimmune conditions highlights that there are no high‑quality studies demonstrating chiropractic is a safe or effective primary treatment for autoimmune joint disease; in fact, manipulation of inflamed joints may worsen symptoms and chiropractic does not affect the underlying autoimmunity. ^[4] Current autoimmune research and guidelines emphasize disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, biologics, targeted synthetic agents, nutritional interventions, stem cell therapies, and appropriate vaccination, with no role for chiropractic manipulation as a disease-modifying therapy in standard care pathways, which contradicts any claim that chiropractic on its own can treat or control autoimmune disorders in an evidence-based way. ^[1][5]

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical and scientific position is that autoimmune disorders are chronic conditions driven by dysregulated immune responses, primarily managed with evidence-based pharmacologic therapies (e. ^[1] g. , conventional synthetic disease-modifying drugs, biologics, targeted synthetic agents), lifestyle measures, appropriate vaccinations, and in select cases advanced interventions such as mesenchymal stem cell transplantation, vitamin D or omega-3 supplementation, or novel biologic agents targeting specific immune pathways. ^[5][10] Major guidelines and trials do not recommend chiropractic spinal manipulation as a disease-modifying treatment for autoimmune disorders. ^[2][9][12] Chiropractic may have a limited, adjunctive role for musculoskeletal pain, stiffness, or functional complaints in carefully selected patients, provided it is integrated with standard rheumatology or specialty care and avoids direct manipulation of acutely inflamed or unstable joints. However, there is no high-quality evidence that chiropractic care alters the underlying autoimmune process, reduces disease activity or flares, or prevents incident autoimmune disease. ^[6][11] Mainstream practice therefore views chiropractic, at best, as a complementary symptom-management modality rather than a core or curative treatment for autoimmune disorders.

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Autoimmune Disorders”

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

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

Christina Woodle is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Autism Spectrum.

Autism Spectrum

Supports

There is no high-quality evidence such as large randomized controlled trials, meta-analyses, or major clinical guidelines showing that chiropractic treatment is effective for core symptoms of autism spectrum disorder (ASD). ^[2][6] Existing literature consists mainly of case reports, small case series, and one small randomized clinical trial comparing upper cervical versus full spine chiropractic techniques in autistic children, with subjective parent-reported improvements in behavior and Autism Treatment Evaluation Checklist scores. ^[16] These studies suggest possible symptomatic improvements but are underpowered, lack rigorous controls, and do not establish causality or generalizable efficacy. Systematic reviews of chiropractic care in children and of chiropractic for neurodevelopmental disorders report that evidence for autism specifically is sparse and of low methodological quality, concluding that effectiveness cannot be determined. ^[15] A 2011 systematic review cited in a 2024 review of chiropractic care in children explicitly states that there is insufficient research to determine effectiveness of chiropractic care for treatment of autism in children. ^[13][14] Overall, current evidence provides only weak, low-quality support for any benefit, and no robust support for chiropractic as a treatment for ASD itself.

Contradicts

Systematic reviews of spinal manipulative therapy and chiropractic in pediatric conditions consistently find that health claims for pediatric chiropractic care, including for neurodevelopmental disorders such as autism, are supported only by low-level evidence and that there is insufficient research to determine effectiveness. ^{[7][13][14][15]} High-quality pediatric chiropractic reviews emphasize lack of substantive shift in the evidence base and caution against strong therapeutic claims. ^[6] Broader evidence-based reviews of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) for autism conclude that evidence for interventions like chiropractic is inconclusive and insufficient to recommend them as effective treatments for ASD. Major ASD management literature and guidelines focus on behavioral, educational, speech-language, occupational, and parent-mediated interventions, and do not list chiropractic adjustment or spinal manipulation as recommended or evidence-based treatments for autism spectrum disorder. ^[1][2][16] The absence of chiropractic from guideline-driven care for neurodevelopmental disorders, combined with explicit findings of insufficient and low-quality evidence, contradicts any strong claim that chiropractic treatment is an established or proven therapy for ASD. ^[4]

Mainstream view

Mainstream medical and scientific consensus is that autism spectrum disorder is a neurodevelopmental condition best managed with evidence-based behavioral, educational, speech-language, occupational, and parent-mediated interventions, sometimes supplemented by medications for co-occurring conditions such as irritability, anxiety, or ADHD. ^[1] Chiropractic treatment is not recognized as an evidence-based therapy for ASD in major guidelines or consensus statements, and it is generally not recommended as a primary or core treatment for autism. ^{[2][6][7][15]} Complementary approaches, including chiropractic, may be used by some families, but current evidence is considered insufficient, low quality, and not adequate to support claims of efficacy for core ASD symptoms. The mainstream position is that chiropractic care should not be presented as a proven treatment for autism, and if used at all, it should be considered experimental, discussed transparently with families, and not replace established, guideline-supported interventions. ^{[4][13][14][16]}

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Autism Spectrum”

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

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

Christina Woodle is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Fertility & Infertility.

Fertility & Infertility

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Fertility & Infertility”

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

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

Christina Woodle is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Fibromyalgia Disorder.

Fibromyalgia Disorder

Supports

There is limited randomized trial evidence suggesting that spinal manipulation, delivered in a chiropractic-like manner and added to usual pharmacologic care, can improve pain and some fibromyalgia severity and functional scores versus sham or no manipulation in the short to medium term. A recent randomized, placebo-controlled three-arm trial in young/middle‑aged women with fibromyalgia found that adding spinal manipulation to pharmacologic treatment reduced pain scores and showed some improvements in fibromyalgia impact and functionality at 1–3 months compared with both a control group and a sham manipulation group, leading the authors to conclude spinal manipulation could be an effective adjunctive treatment for pain, disease severity, and functionality in this population. ^{[17][18][19][20]} Earlier small randomized work suggested that chiropractic management (spinal manipulation plus soft‑tissue therapy and stretching) improved cervical and lumbar range of motion, straight leg raise, and reported pain levels over a short 4‑week period in fibromyalgia patients, although this was a preliminary, small trial and the authors emphasized results were only clinically important within their sample. One trial in women with fibromyalgia showed that resistance training improved strength and fibromyalgia impact, and that adding chiropractic treatment mainly improved adherence and dropout rates while also facilitating greater improvements in some functionality domains, suggesting a potential supportive role of chiropractic care in maintaining engagement with effective exercise therapy.

Contradicts

Multiple systematic reviews and evidence overviews have assessed chiropractic spinal manipulation and other manual therapies for fibromyalgia and consistently judged the evidence to be weak, low quality, or inconclusive. ^[18] A systematic review of randomized clinical trials on chiropractic care for fibromyalgia identified only three small, methodologically poor trials and concluded that there was no evidence to suggest chiropractic care is effective for fibromyalgia and that current trial evidence is insufficient to support chiropractic as an effective treatment. ^[19] A broader evidence report on manual therapies, which included fibromyalgia, found inconclusive evidence in an unclear direction for spinal manipulation in fibromyalgia and summarized the existing systematic reviews as showing weak evidence of efficacy for chiropractic/manual/massage therapy and stating that trial evidence is insufficient to conclude that chiropractic is effective. An overview of systematic reviews on spinal manipulation for pain reported that, for fibromyalgia, the best available data fail to demonstrate that chiropractic spinal manipulation is an effective intervention for pain, again highlighting poor quality and low quantity of primary data. ^[20] A more recent systematic review focused on manual therapy for fibromyalgia concluded that, based on very low to moderate quality evidence, current data are inconclusive and insufficient to recommend manual therapy (including spinal and other manipulative techniques) for fibromyalgia, with only general osteopathic treatment achieving clinically relevant pain improvement compared with control in one study. Furthermore, a well‑designed sham‑controlled randomized trial of osteopathic manipulation—a related manual therapy often sought by the same patient population—found no benefit over sham treatment on pain, fatigue, functioning, or quality of life, and explicitly stated that these findings do not support the use of osteopathy in fibromyalgia, indirectly reinforcing concerns that manual manipulative approaches may not provide meaningful benefit beyond placebo. ^[17] Overall, the bulk of higher‑level evidence indicates that any positive findings from individual chiropractic or spinal manipulation trials are not robust enough to overturn the prevailing view of limited or uncertain efficacy in fibromyalgia.

Mainstream view

Mainstream medical and scientific opinion, as reflected in major evidence syntheses and clinical guidance, is that fibromyalgia management should focus on multimodal approaches with the strongest evidence base, including graded aerobic and resistance exercise, cognitive‑behavioral and other psychological therapies, patient education, and selected pharmacologic options such as certain antidepressants and anticonvulsants, rather than relying on chiropractic or spinal manipulation as primary treatment. Manual therapies, including chiropractic manipulation, may be used by some patients as adjunctive or supportive modalities, but current systematic reviews and evidence reports classify the evidence for chiropractic and spinal manipulation in fibromyalgia as weak, low quality, and inconclusive, and do not recommend these interventions as core or first‑line therapies. ^[18][19][20] Guidelines and expert reviews typically emphasize that while individual patients might report short‑term symptomatic relief from manipulative or manual therapies, such approaches should be considered optional add‑ons, used cautiously, and not promoted as proven disease‑modifying treatments for fibromyalgia given the lack of consistent, high‑quality randomized trial data demonstrating durable benefit over credible sham or active comparators. ^[17]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Fibromyalgia Disorder”

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

See every doc bro who says they can treat or advise on Chronic fatigue and fibromyalgia

Christina Woodle is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Menopause.

Menopause

Supports

High-quality evidence specifically supporting chiropractic treatment as an effective therapy for menopause or menopausal symptoms is essentially absent. A focused review of chiropractic intervention for postmenopausal climacteric symptoms and insomnia concluded that there is no evidence for the effectiveness of chiropractic care for menopausal symptoms and insomnia, and that existing data are limited and of poor quality.^[2] Major menopause position statements summarizing randomized and observational data on nonhormonal therapies state that there have been no clinical trials showing benefit of chiropractic interventions for vasomotor symptoms (hot flashes, night sweats) and do not recommend chiropractic for these indications.^[7][11] No RCTs or meta-analyses demonstrate that spinal manipulation or standard chiropractic protocols reliably improve vasomotor symptoms, urogenital symptoms, or other core menopausal complaints beyond placebo. There is some evidence that manual therapies or body-based treatments (for example, craniofacial massage) can modestly improve mental health and some menopausal symptom scores in small RCTs, but these are not standard chiropractic spinal manipulation and cannot be generalized to chiropractic as a treatment for menopause.^[15]

Contradicts

A dedicated review of chiropractic intervention for postmenopausal climacteric symptoms and insomnia identified only three small studies and concluded that there is no evidence supporting chiropractic as an effective complementary therapy for menopausal symptoms or insomnia; large epidemiologic surveys also showed no benefit.^[2] Evidence-based menopause reviews and position statements report that complementary therapies such as chiropractic manipulation do not perform better than placebo for menopausal symptoms when tested in quality blinded randomized trials, and they explicitly state that there are no supporting quality data for chiropractic manipulation in the treatment of menopause.^[7][11] A recent North American menopause guideline on nonhormone therapies notes that there are no clinical trials of chiropractic interventions for vasomotor symptoms and finds no association between chiropractic use and improvement in hot flashes in survey data, concluding that chiropractic interventions are not recommended for vasomotor symptom management.^[7] Overall, the available literature and guideline assessments characterize the evidence for chiropractic in menopause as lacking, methodologically weak, and not demonstrating clinically meaningful benefit over placebo. The index guideline papers provided by the user deal with hypertension, nutrition support, headache, and other topics, and illustrate that guideline-based management of chronic conditions relies on treatments backed by robust RCTs and systematic reviews, which is not the case for chiropractic in menopause.

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical and scientific position is that chiropractic care is not an evidence-based treatment for menopause itself or for key menopausal symptoms such as vasomotor symptoms, urogenital atrophy, or overall climacteric syndrome. Major menopause societies and evidence-based reviews recommend established therapies—such as menopausal hormone therapy where appropriate, and selected nonhormonal pharmacologic or behavioral interventions—for symptom control, and they either do not mention chiropractic at all or explicitly state that chiropractic interventions are not recommended due to lack of supporting clinical trial evidence and absence of demonstrated benefit beyond placebo.^[7][11] Chiropractic treatment may have a role for clearly musculoskeletal complaints (for example, low back pain) in peri- or postmenopausal women, but this is distinct from treating menopause or its systemic symptoms. Consequently, mainstream practice considers chiropractic manipulation an unproven and non-recommended therapy for menopause, and women are generally advised to use treatments with demonstrated efficacy and safety profiles instead.

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Menopause”

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

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

Christina Woodle is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Quit Smoking.

Quit Smoking

Supports

There is very limited preliminary evidence that chiropractors can participate in delivering standard, guideline‑concordant smoking cessation counseling and referral, and that this may be feasible and acceptable to patients. ^[1] A feasibility randomized clinical trial found that adding chiropractic spinal manipulation to standard tobacco cessation counseling in a chiropractic setting was logistically possible and suggested a potential added benefit on short‑term smoking reduction and 7‑day abstinence, though the sample size was extremely small and the primary aim was feasibility rather than efficacy. ^{[2][25][26][27]} Other pilot and implementation studies show that chiropractors can be trained to identify tobacco users, advise them to quit, and refer them to established cessation services, integrating into broader evidence‑based tobacco treatment systems. Major smoking‑cessation guidelines and high‑quality trials, however, support behavioral counseling plus pharmacotherapy (nicotine replacement therapy, varenicline, bupropion, cytisinicline) as effective strategies, not chiropractic manipulation per se. ^[6][7]

Contradicts

There are no large, high‑quality randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, or major clinical guidelines demonstrating that chiropractic manipulation or chiropractic treatment alone is an effective method to help people quit smoking. ^[2] Existing chiropractic trials for smoking cessation are small pilot or feasibility studies with limited power, high risk of bias, and often no long‑term follow‑up; they cannot establish efficacy. ^[25][26][28] Broader reviews of alternative therapies for smoking cessation report that modalities outside the standard pharmacologic and behavioral approaches (e. ^[4][27] g. , acupuncture, hypnosis, homeopathy) have not demonstrated reliable efficacy, and chiropractic is not recommended as an evidence‑based cessation method in these analyses. ^[1] Major evidence‑based guidelines for tobacco treatment focus on proven pharmacotherapies and structured behavioral support and do not list chiropractic treatment as a recommended or standard approach, indicating that the evidence for chiropractic as a primary quitting aid is weak or absent. ^[6]

Mainstream view

Mainstream medical and public health guidance is that effective smoking cessation relies on a combination of behavioral support (counseling, digital or phone programs) and proven pharmacologic agents such as nicotine replacement therapy, varenicline, bupropion, or cytisinicline, delivered according to established guidelines. ^[2][7] Chiropractic clinicians may appropriately participate in tobacco control by screening for tobacco use, advising patients to quit, and referring or linking them to these evidence‑based treatments, but chiropractic spinal manipulation or other chiropractic modalities are not considered established or recommended primary treatments for smoking cessation. ^{[1][25][26][27][28]} At present, chiropractic care is viewed, at best, as a possible adjunct context in which standard cessation counseling might be delivered, not as an independently validated method for quitting smoking.

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Quit Smoking”

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

Christina Woodle is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Neuropathy.

Neuropathy

Supports

There is very limited high-quality evidence directly assessing chiropractic treatment for peripheral neuropathy. ^[6] Existing controlled trials and systematic reviews on chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) focus mainly on spine pain (low back pain, neck pain, migraine), not on primary peripheral neuropathies. ^{[7][12][29][30][31]} A mechanistic rat and human study suggests that spinal manipulative therapy can reduce peripheral neuropathic leg pain and modulate pain pathways, but this is preclinical/early-stage and not definitive clinical evidence for neuropathy treatment in humans. ^[2] Some evidence exists for non-pharmacologic, physical treatment approaches (such as neural mobilisation and neuromuscular training) improving nerve conduction and neuropathic symptoms in specific contexts, but these are not chiropractic SMT per se and often come from physiotherapy or exercise-based interventions, not chiropractic care. Overall, there is no major guideline or high-quality systematic review that clearly supports chiropractic manipulation as an evidence-based primary treatment for peripheral neuropathy. ^[1][4]

Contradicts

Major clinical practice guidelines for neuropathic pain and peripheral neuropathy do not list chiropractic spinal manipulation as a standard, recommended treatment; they instead emphasize pharmacologic therapies, disease-specific management (e. ^{[2][3][30][31]} g. , glycemic control in diabetes), physical therapy, and in some cases neuromodulation or structured exercise programs. ^[7] Where high-quality evidence exists for neuropathy (e. g. , diabetic peripheral neuropathy, chemotherapy-induced neuropathy), it focuses on medications, neuromuscular training, compression or cryotherapy, spinal cord stimulation, acupuncture, and other modalities, not chiropractic SMT. Systematic reviews of SMT indicate that for spine pain the efficacy of SMT versus sham or placebo remains uncertain and that SMT is not clearly superior to other conventional interventions, which indirectly argues against strong claims that SMT can reliably treat neuropathic conditions. ^[29] Evidence for neural mobilisation and similar manual therapies in neuropathic pain is graded as low to moderate quality and is largely limited to short-term improvements in specific measures, suggesting that manual techniques may have some effect but the data are weak and not specific to chiropractic practice. Overall, the evidence base for chiropractic treatment of neuropathy is sparse, low-quality, and indirect, and strong claims of efficacy are not supported by randomized trials or major guidelines. ^[4][6][12]

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical view is that peripheral neuropathy should be managed according to its cause (e. g. , diabetes, chemotherapy, autoimmune disease, compression neuropathies) using established evidence-based strategies: risk factor control, pharmacologic agents for neuropathic pain, physical therapy, neuromuscular or sensorimotor training, and selected non-pharmacologic modalities that have randomized trial support. ^{[1][7][12][31]} Chiropractic spinal manipulation is sometimes used as an adjunct for musculoskeletal pain (especially back and neck pain), but it is not regarded as an established or guideline-recommended primary treatment for peripheral neuropathy. ^[4][30] Use of chiropractic care for neuropathy is therefore considered experimental or complementary, with insufficient high-quality evidence to endorse it as a standard therapy. ^[6] Patients with neuropathy are typically advised to be evaluated by clinicians experienced in neurology, endocrinology, oncology, or pain medicine, and to use chiropractic or other manual therapies only, if at all, as adjuncts within a broader, medically supervised treatment plan. ^[29]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Neuropathy”

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

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

Christina Woodle is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Seasonal Allergies.

Seasonal Allergies

Supports

High-quality evidence specifically supporting chiropractic treatment for seasonal allergies (allergic rhinitis) is essentially absent. A key narrative review on chiropractic care in asthma and allergy reports that no primary clinical trials on spinal manipulation and allergy were found and concludes that there is currently no evidence to support the use of chiropractic spinal manipulation therapy as a primary treatment for asthma or allergy.^[2][7] Animal work suggests possible immunologic effects of chiropractic-like interventions: a rat model of allergic airway inflammation found that chiropractic therapy modulated gut microbiota and attenuated Th2 responses and allergic airway inflammation, leading the authors to suggest it may be a useful adjunct therapy for children with asthma and other allergic diseases.^[4] However, this is preclinical evidence, not human clinical data, and it concerns asthma rather than seasonal allergic rhinitis. Major allergic rhinitis guidelines comprehensively review effective treatments such as intranasal corticosteroids, second-generation oral antihistamines, intranasal antihistamines, saline irrigation, and allergen immunotherapy, but do not list chiropractic or spinal manipulation as recommended or optional therapies.^{[5][8][10][11][13][15]} This omission, in the context of broad guideline searches for nonpharmacologic therapies, indirectly indicates a lack of supportive high-quality evidence for chiropractic treatment of seasonal allergies.^[10][11]

Contradicts

The most directly relevant peer-reviewed evidence explicitly states that there is currently no evidence to support the use of chiropractic spinal manipulation therapy as a primary treatment for asthma or allergy, and that existing claims are mainly anecdotal or based on uncontrolled case studies.^[2][7] A systematic review of randomized clinical trials of spinal manipulation for asthma likewise found no clinically important effects on objective lung function outcomes, undermining claims that spinal manipulation effectively treats allergic or atopic respiratory conditions.^[6][2] Major allergic rhinitis clinical practice guidelines, including international consensus statements and specialty society guidelines, provide detailed recommendations for pharmacologic and selected nonpharmacologic treatments but do not recommend chiropractic care; instead, they focus on intranasal corticosteroids, second-generation antihistamines, intranasal antihistamines, saline irrigation, leukotriene modifiers (with caveats), and allergen immunotherapy.^{[8][10][11][13][15]} One guideline explicitly considers nonpharmacologic options such as acupuncture and notes that acupuncture may be offered to interested patients, yet still makes no recommendation for chiropractic or spinal manipulation, suggesting that available evidence for such approaches is weak or absent.^[9][10] Taken together, current clinical trials, systematic reviews, and guidelines contradict strong claims that chiropractic treatment is an effective or evidence-based therapy for seasonal allergies, either as primary treatment or as a standard adjunct.

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical and scientific position is that seasonal allergies (allergic rhinitis) should be managed with evidence-based therapies such as allergen avoidance, intranasal corticosteroids, second-generation oral antihistamines, intranasal antihistamines, saline irrigation, and allergen immunotherapy when indicated.^{[8][10][11][13][15]} These approaches are consistently endorsed in major guidelines and consensus statements from otolaryngology, allergy, and immunology societies and are supported by multiple randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews.^{[8][10][11][13]} Nonpharmacologic options like acupuncture may be offered to interested patients because limited evidence suggests symptom benefit and harms appear minimal, but they are considered adjuncts rather than replacements for core pharmacologic and immunotherapy-based treatment.^[9][10] Chiropractic care and spinal manipulation are not recognized in mainstream allergic rhinitis guidelines as effective treatments, and available reviews state there is currently no evidence to support spinal manipulation as a primary treatment for allergy.^[2][6][7] Chiropractic may have a role in musculoskeletal conditions such as low back pain, headache, or some neurological or functional outcomes in other contexts, but this does not extend to treating seasonal allergic rhinitis based on present evidence.^[18][22][24]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“How Chiropractic and Acupuncture Care Can Help with Seasonal Allergies”

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

See every doc bro who says they can treat or advise on Allergies, asthma and food sensitivities

Christina Woodle is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Migraines During Pregnancy.

Migraines During Pregnancy

Supports

Evidence directly supporting chiropractic treatment for migraine during pregnancy is limited to low-level data. A case report/clinical report exists describing intractable migraine headaches during pregnancy under chiropractic care, but case reports cannot establish efficacy. ^[36][38] A narrative review of spinal manipulation in pregnancy reported low apparent rates of adverse events across 724 participants, but it also stated that reporting was inconsistent and that relative safety could not be determined. ^[39] A pregnancy/chiropractic narrative review and related reviews suggest that manipulative therapy may be considered when contraindications are absent, but these sources are not high-quality efficacy evidence and do not specifically demonstrate benefit for migraine in pregnancy. ^[37]

Contradicts

The peer-reviewed evidence base does not show that chiropractic care is an established or recommended treatment for migraine during pregnancy. ^[36][38] A systematic review of manipulative therapy in pregnancy found only limited evidence for pregnancy-related back pain and other symptoms, not migraine, and the evidence for spinal manipulative therapy was unclear or inconclusive. ^[37] A systematic review and meta-analysis of manual therapies for pregnancy-related low back and pelvic pain concluded there is insufficient evidence to recommend these therapies even for those conditions, which makes extrapolation to migraine even weaker. Current migraine-in-pregnancy guidance focuses on evidence-based acute and preventive strategies and collaborative obstetric-neurology management, not chiropractic treatment. Pregnancy also changes the risk context because migraine itself is associated with hypertensive and vascular complications, and spinal manipulation in pregnancy has been discussed in the context of rare but serious adverse events and uncertain safety. ^[39]

Mainstream view

Mainstream medical practice does not consider chiropractic treatment a standard, evidence-based therapy for migraines during pregnancy. ^[36][37][38] The prevailing view is that migraine in pregnancy should be managed with guideline-based obstetric and neurologic care, using treatments with established maternal-fetal safety, while chiropractic or spinal manipulation may be viewed at most as an adjunct for selected musculoskeletal complaints and only with careful screening for obstetric or neurologic red flags. ^[39] Evidence for migraine-specific benefit is weak, and safety data are insufficient to support routine use as a migraine treatment in pregnancy.

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“How Chiropractic Helps with Migraines During Pregnancy”

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

Christina Woodle is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to advertise Root Cause of Their Condition as within their scope of practice.

Root Cause of Their Condition

Supports

The indexed papers provided are unrelated to chiropractic and instead address topics such as root canal treatment, albumin use in sepsis, neonatal antifungal resistance, chemotherapy pharmacokinetics, metformin for anti-aging, swaddle bathing, remote GI examination, and thyroid surgery complications, so they do not offer direct support that chiropractors can generally treat the “root cause” of diverse medical conditions. ^[42][43] High-quality evidence outside these refs indicates that chiropractic spinal manipulation can modestly reduce pain and disability in acute and chronic low back pain and some other musculoskeletal conditions, and is considered one of several nonpharmacologic options in some clinical guidelines, but this is symptom-focused rather than proof of addressing a universal root cause of disease. ^[40][41] Some guidelines and systematic reviews support spinal manipulation as a reasonable option for low back pain within a multimodal conservative care plan, not as a comprehensive root-cause therapy for systemic conditions.

Contradicts

The indexed papers do not evaluate chiropractic, and therefore cannot corroborate a broad claim that chiropractors treat the root cause of most conditions. ^[42] External evidence shows that the central chiropractic dogma of vertebral subluxation as a root cause of diverse diseases lacks experimental support, epidemiologic causation data, or plausible mechanistic evidence; multiple reviews have found no reliable link between chiropractic subluxation and specific diseases or general health outcomes. ^[43] Systematic reviews of spinal manipulation report, at best, modest short-term benefit for some pain conditions and often conclude there is no convincing evidence of effectiveness for non-musculoskeletal disorders such as asthma, infant colic, gastrointestinal problems, fibromyalgia, or general wellness, contradicting claims that chiropractic care commonly addresses root causes across many organ systems. ^[40][41] Major discussions within and outside the chiropractic profession have characterized the broad subluxation-based disease model as unsubstantiated and sometimes as pseudoscientific, specifically because claims of correcting a root cause of disease are not supported by clinical trials or high-quality causation data.

Mainstream view

Mainstream medical and scientific opinion is that chiropractic is a manual therapy primarily aimed at neuromusculoskeletal complaints, especially back and neck pain, with evidence that is mixed but generally supports modest short-term symptomatic relief as part of a broader conservative management plan. The mainstream view does not accept the traditional chiropractic concept that spinal subluxations are the root cause of a wide range of systemic diseases, because this model lacks robust mechanistic, epidemiologic, and clinical trial evidence. ^[40][42][43] For most non-musculoskeletal conditions, mainstream guidelines do not recommend chiropractic as a first-line or disease-modifying therapy, and when it is mentioned it is usually framed as adjunctive, symptom-oriented care rather than an intervention that treats underlying pathophysiology. ^[41] Overall, mainstream evidence-based practice considers chiropractors appropriate providers for certain localized pain and functional musculoskeletal problems, but does not support claims that chiropractic can routinely identify and treat the root cause of diverse medical conditions.

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“address the root cause of their condition”

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

Christina Woodle is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure ASFCA.

ASFCA

Supports

The acronym ASFCA in the search results consistently refers to Advanced Sports & Family Chiropractic & Acupuncture, i. e. , a branded multi-clinic chiropractic/acupuncture practice rather than a recognized medical diagnosis or disease entity. Available peer‑reviewed literature does support the use of chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy for some musculoskeletal conditions, particularly spine-related pain (e. ^[7] g. , cervical facet joint pain, nonspecific low back pain). Multiple randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews (outside the provided index list) conclude that spinal manipulation can provide modest short‑term improvements in pain and function for acute and some chronic low back pain and certain neck pain conditions, and major guidelines for low back pain often list spinal manipulation as an option among nonpharmacologic therapies. ^[2][6] One RCT of women with cervical facet joint pain found that chiropractic joint manipulation and low‑level laser therapy (alone or in combination) all led to clinical improvement in pain and range of motion over 3 weeks, suggesting that chiropractic manipulation is a potentially beneficial treatment option for cervical facet dysfunction, which is a specific facet-related neck pain disorder. ^[44] Broader health‑system and implementation studies show interest in integrating chiropractic care as a nonpharmacologic approach to spine-related pain within primary care settings, partly to reduce reliance on opioids and imaging, and economic analyses suggest that episodes where chiropractic is used as first-line care for spine-related musculoskeletal pain are often associated with lower downstream health-care utilization and costs. A 2024 systematic review reported that patients with spine-related musculoskeletal pain who initially consulted chiropractors used fewer opioids and other high-cost downstream services and had lower overall costs compared with those managed in conventional medical pathways, although most data were observational and U. S. -based. These lines of evidence support the general idea that chiropractic care may have a role in managing some spine-related musculoskeletal pain conditions under appropriate clinical circumstances, within multimodal conservative care, and when delivered by qualified practitioners using evidence-informed approaches. ^[5]

Contradicts

There is no evidence that ASFCA, as a branded clinic chain, corresponds to a distinct diagnosis; without a clear definition of the condition, no high-quality evidence can specifically support “chiropractor treatment of ASFCA” as a disease entity. ^[6] The indexed guideline papers supplied by the user concern hypertension management, clinical nutrition in various settings, tension-type headache treatment, pericarditis management, blood transfusion therapy, and evidence‑grading methodology, and none provide support for chiropractic treatment of any entity called ASFCA or endorse chiropractic care for cardiovascular, nutritional, hematologic, or inflammatory conditions. ^{[1][2][3][4][7][8][44]} Major guidelines for hypertension, pericarditis, blood transfusion, and parenteral nutrition do not list chiropractic or spinal manipulation as a treatment modality, underscoring that chiropractic is not considered evidence‑based therapy for these systemic conditions. ^[5] Evidence for chiropractic manipulation is condition‑specific and generally limited to musculoskeletal pain; it does not extend to broad claims that chiropractic offered at a particular branded clinic (such as ASFCA) can treat a wide range of non-musculoskeletal diseases. Where chiropractors or clinics claim to treat conditions like hypertension, inflammatory bowel disease, or systemic inflammatory disorders with manipulation alone, this is not supported by the guideline-level evidence or RCTs and conflicts with standard-of-care recommendations that emphasize pharmacologic, nutritional, and other medical treatments. Moreover, for facet joint pain in general, systematic reviews of facet joint interventions show only limited and heterogeneous evidence for various therapies, and while one RCT supports short-term benefit of chiropractic manipulation for cervical facet pain, the overall evidence base remains modest, with small trials and methodologic limitations, so any strong or universal claims of effectiveness are not well substantiated. Safety concerns also exist: serious but rare complications have been reported with cervical manipulation (e. g. , arterial dissection), and patient safety frameworks in chiropractic stress the need for careful risk-benefit assessment, which would contradict any blanket assertion that chiropractic treatment is appropriate or risk-free for all patients with an ill-defined entity such as “ASFCA. ”

Mainstream view

Mainstream medical and scientific opinion is that chiropractic care, particularly spinal manipulation, is an option for some patients with nonspecific low back pain, certain neck pain, and other mechanical musculoskeletal conditions, usually as part of a broader, conservative treatment plan that also emphasizes exercise, self-management, and, when necessary, pharmacologic and interventional options. ^[5][44] Major evidence-based ^[1]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“ASFCA”

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

Christina Woodle is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Patient Testimonials.

Patient Testimonials

Supports

There is moderate- to high-quality evidence that chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy (SMT), a core chiropractic treatment, can provide modest short-term improvements in pain and function for conditions such as nonspecific or chronic low back pain and some neck pain, with effectiveness similar to other recommended conservative therapies like physical therapy or standard medical care.^{[1][2][5][11][12][16]} Several clinical practice guidelines and best-practice statements for musculoskeletal and spine-related pain include SMT or chiropractic care as an acceptable or recommended nonpharmacologic option for low back pain and some headache and neck pain presentations, generally as part of multimodal care rather than a standalone cure.^{[7][8][13][15][16]} Systematic reviews suggest SMT may have small specific treatment effects beyond sham for nonspecific low back pain, indicating some true physiological benefit rather than pure placebo.^[18] Economic evaluations indicate that manual therapies including chiropractic manipulation can be at least as cost-effective, and sometimes more cost-effective, than usual general practitioner care or physiotherapy for certain musculoskeletal conditions such as low back and neck pain.^[19]

Contradicts

High-quality evidence shows that the benefits of chiropractic SMT for spine-related pain are on average modest, not large or curative, and often comparable rather than superior to other guideline-supported conservative treatments; this contradicts any implication that chiropractic treatment is uniquely powerful or dramatically more effective than mainstream care.^{[1][3][4][5][11][12][14][16][17][18]} Some systematic reviews and randomized trials report no additional benefit of adding chiropractic manipulation to standard medical therapy for nonchronic, nonradicular low back pain, suggesting limits to its incremental value in certain acute settings.^[3][21] For neck pain, early trials did not convincingly demonstrate superiority of chiropractic spinal manipulation over conventional exercise therapies, and guideline bodies for headache and neck pain generally emphasize pharmacologic options, exercise, and other modalities over manipulation alone.^[4] Evidence for chiropractic care in many non-musculoskeletal conditions (e.g., systemic diseases) remains weak, inconsistent, or absent, so testimonials claiming broad systemic cures (beyond musculoskeletal pain and some headaches) are not supported by robust RCTs or guidelines.^[16] Research on chiropractic care in specific populations such as postpartum women with low back or pelvic girdle pain finds insufficient and inconsistent evidence to make strong recommendations, highlighting important gaps despite frequent testimonial use in marketing.^[20] Patient testimonials themselves are considered very low-level evidence: they are subject to placebo effects, regression to the mean, natural recovery, selection bias, and marketing bias, and high-quality guidelines rate such anecdotal reports as very low on evidence hierarchies such as GRADE.^[6]

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical and scientific position is that chiropractic spinal manipulation is one of several acceptable nonpharmacologic options for certain musculoskeletal conditions—especially nonspecific low back pain, some neck pain, and some primary headache types—when provided by appropriately trained practitioners and integrated into guideline-based, multimodal care, but its benefits are generally modest and comparable to other conservative therapies rather than uniquely superior.^{[1][2][5][11][12][15][16]} Major clinical guidelines for low back pain and musculoskeletal pain typically place SMT/chiropractic care alongside exercise therapy, physical therapy, education, and self-management, emphasizing shared decision-making and informed consent about potential small benefits and rare but possible harms, rather than recommending chiropractic manipulation as a first-line or exclusive treatment.^{[7][8][13][15][16]} In evidence-based frameworks like GRADE, individual patient testimonials are regarded as very low-quality evidence and are not considered a reliable basis for determining efficacy or safety; they can sometimes illustrate patient experience but cannot substitute for randomized trials, systematic reviews, or formal guidelines.^[6] Therefore, while mainstream medicine acknowledges a legitimate, evidence-based role for chiropractic SMT in selected musculoskeletal conditions, broad efficacy claims based primarily on patient testimonials are viewed as scientifically unsupported and potentially misleading if not clearly contextualized by the limitations of the evidence.

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Patient Testimonials”

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

Christina Woodle is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Read More.

Read More

Supports

The provided claim is incomplete and does not specify a clinical condition, intervention details, comparator, or outcome, so there is no high-quality evidence in the supplied index papers that directly supports it. ^[2][6] The indexed guideline papers address unrelated topics such as hypertension, nutrition, headache, transfusion, and pericarditis, and none evaluate chiropractic treatment for the missing condition stated in the claim . ^{[1][3][4][5][7][8]}

Contradicts

Because the claim is truncated and nonspecific, it cannot be verified against the indexed literature. In general, chiropractic or spinal manipulation has condition-specific evidence rather than broad medical efficacy, and major guideline papers in the provided set do not support a general therapeutic claim for chiropractic treatment . ^[4] For several common indications, evidence-based guidelines prioritize standard medical management or other specific interventions rather than chiropractic care, but those recommendations do not directly map to the incomplete claim here . ^[1][2][6]

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical view is that chiropractic treatment may have limited, condition-specific benefit for some musculoskeletal complaints, but it is not a broadly established treatment for unspecified medical conditions, and claims must be judged by the exact diagnosis and outcome. ^[4] For this truncated claim, the evidence is insufficient to support any general conclusion. ^[6]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Read More”

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

Christina Woodle is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Shockwave Therapy.

Shockwave Therapy

Supports

There is peer-reviewed evidence that extracorporeal shockwave therapy (ESWT) can improve pain and function for some musculoskeletal conditions, especially plantar fasciitis and some tendinopathies, but this is condition-specific rather than a general endorsement of chiropractic treatment. ^{[7][49][50][51]} Systematic reviews and meta-analyses have found benefits in chronic low back pain, although the evidence is heterogeneous and often short-term. ^[6][52] Some more recent reviews also report positive effects in hip/pelvic tendinopathies and certain post-rehabilitation settings, but these are still specific indications with variable certainty.

Contradicts

The claim is too vague to be supported as stated, because it does not specify a diagnosis, outcome, shockwave modality, or whether the chiropractor is using ESWT as an adjunct to evidence-based care. ^{[1][6][50][51]} Several reviews find mixed or low-certainty evidence for conditions commonly treated in chiropractic settings, and for some problems the effect is negligible or inconsistent. ^[49][52] The strongest evidence base is not for “chiropractor treatment” in general, but for ESWT in selected orthopedic indications; some guideline and payer documents still describe evidence as insufficient for many uses outside a narrow set of approved or better-studied conditions. ^[4]

Mainstream view

Mainstream medical view: shockwave therapy is an evidence-based option for a limited set of musculoskeletal conditions, most consistently plantar fasciitis and some tendinopathies, and it may help some cases of chronic low back pain, but the overall evidence is condition-specific and not enough to support a broad claim that chiropractic shockwave treatment is generally effective. ^{[1][4][6][7][49][50][51][52]} It is best viewed as an adjunctive modality with variable quality of evidence, not a universal chiropractic treatment.

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Shockwave Therapy”

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

Christina Woodle is not approved to offer Cold Laser Therapy within a Chiropractor scope of practice under Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic).

Cold Laser Therapy

Supports

High-intensity or class IV laser therapy (HILT) has been studied in multiple randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews for musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) such as neck and low back pain, knee osteoarthritis, plantar fasciitis, and other orthopedic pain conditions. ^{[7][53][54][55][56]} These reviews generally find that class IV/HILT can reduce pain and improve function compared with placebo or conservative therapy, though effect sizes are modest and evidence quality is often rated low to moderate. ^[6] Several RCTs show that class IV laser used as an adjunct to exercise or physiotherapy yields better pain and disability outcomes than control or placebo laser. There are also trials of class IV laser in specific conditions (e. g. , plantar fasciitis, post‑operative recovery, veterinary orthopedic surgery) showing some improvement in pain or gait compared with placebo. Overall, for short‑term pain relief and functional improvement in MSDs, there is some supportive evidence for class IV laser therapy as a complementary modality.

Contradicts

The available evidence for class IV cold laser therapy is limited by small sample sizes, heterogeneous protocols (different wavelengths, power, dosing, and treatment schedules), and high or unclear risk of bias in many trials. ^[53][55][56] Systematic reviews often rate the overall quality of evidence as low or very low, meaning that confidence in the effect estimates is limited and future, better-designed studies could substantially change current conclusions. ^[6][54] Some RCTs and reviews comparing high‑intensity (class IV) laser with low‑level laser or other conservative treatments find no clear superiority of one modality over another, suggesting that any benefit may be comparable to other noninvasive adjuncts rather than uniquely large. Evidence is concentrated on short‑term symptom relief in selected musculoskeletal conditions; there is little robust data on long‑term outcomes, prevention of disease progression, or on many other conditions sometimes promoted in chiropractic or influencer marketing. There are no high‑quality major guidelines among the provided index papers that recommend class IV cold laser as standard therapy for any condition. The provided guidelines on hypertension, clinical nutrition, tension‑type headache, parenteral nutrition, transfusion therapy, and pericarditis do not mention or endorse class IV cold laser therapy for those conditions. ^{[2][3][4][5][7][8]}

Mainstream view

Mainstream medical and scientific opinion views class IV cold (high‑intensity) laser therapy as an experimental or adjunctive treatment for certain musculoskeletal pain conditions rather than a core, first‑line therapy. ^{[53][54][55][56]} It may be considered by some physical medicine, rehabilitation, or pain practitioners as a complementary modality when standard evidence‑based treatments (e. ^[1][5] g. , exercise therapy, pharmacologic pain management, manual therapy) are insufficient or as part of multi‑modal care. However, because most evidence comes from small, heterogeneous trials with low to moderate quality and high risk of bias, major general medical, cardiology, neurology, nutrition, and transfusion guidelines among the index papers do not include class IV cold laser therapy in their recommended treatment algorithms for their respective conditions. ^[2][4][6][7] Current evidence does not support broad claims that class IV cold laser therapy provided by chiropractors is highly effective across many diseases; its plausible role is limited, condition‑specific, and adjunctive, pending more rigorous RCTs and guideline‑level endorsement.

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Cold Laser Therapy”

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

Christina Woodle is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Disc Decompression Therapy.

Disc Decompression Therapy

Supports

There is some randomized controlled trial evidence that non-surgical spinal decompression therapy can improve pain, function, and related outcomes in lumbar radiculopathy and disc herniation, but the evidence base is small and heterogeneous. A 2022 randomized controlled trial in lumbar radiculopathy found that adding non-surgical spinal decompression to routine physical therapy produced greater improvements in pain, lumbar range of motion, back muscle endurance, disability, and certain quality-of-life domains compared with physical therapy alone over 4 weeks.^[17] Another randomized controlled trial in patients with lumbar radiculopathy reported that decompression therapy improved walking duration more than a similar program without decompression.^[16] Prospective and clinical trial data suggest non-surgical spinal decompression can reduce pain and may increase disc height, with MRI evidence of disc-height restoration, although these studies call for larger randomized trials to confirm efficacy.^[4][10] For chiropractic care more broadly (especially spinal manipulation) in lumbar disc herniation and radiculopathy, multiple randomized trials and systematic reviews summarized in an evidence-based chiropractic review and in a thesis indicate that spinal manipulation can reduce pain and improve function with moderate-quality evidence and a good safety profile.^[2][9] Observational and case-report data support that chiropractic mechanical-force, manually assisted adjusting procedures may be effectively implemented in some lumbar disc disorder cases.^[15] Non-operative management reviews and guidelines list manipulation by chiropractors among conservative options that may help symptomatic lumbar disc herniations when there is no progressive neurologic deficit or cauda equina syndrome.^[14]

Contradicts

High-quality reviews and critical appraisals highlight that the scientific literature for non-surgical spinal decompression therapy is very limited, with only one small randomized trial and several lower-quality efficacy studies, and overall questionable study quality.^[3][19] These analyses conclude that there is insufficient evidence to warrant routine use of non-surgical spinal decompression, especially given the availability of less expensive conservative treatments with stronger evidence such as exercise therapy, standard traction, manual therapy, and usual medical care.^[3][19] A randomized controlled trial comparing DRX9000 non-surgical decompression with conventional motorized traction in lumbar disc herniation found that both were effective, but decompression was not superior to standard traction in pain, function, depression, or quality of life, suggesting little unique benefit of proprietary decompression devices over simpler traction modalities.^[5] Contemporary reviews of chiropractic evidence find only inconsistent, weak evidence that chiropractic interventions specifically for disc herniation provide clinically important benefits beyond general low back pain management, and stress that no strong evidence supports spinal decompression devices as uniquely effective.^[2] Major narrative and guideline-style reviews of non-operative management of lumbar disc herniation emphasize medications, physical therapy, general manipulation, and epidural steroid injections, and typically do not recommend specialized non-surgical decompression devices as a standard first-line therapy.^[12][14] Overall, there are no large, high-quality systematic reviews or major clinical guidelines that endorse chiropractor-delivered disc decompression therapy as a proven, superior treatment for disc herniation or radiculopathy, and existing evidence is short-term, device-specific, and often industry-linked, which weakens confidence in broad efficacy claims.^[3][19]

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical and scientific position is that lumbar disc herniation and radiculopathy should usually be managed initially with conservative care including analgesics (especially nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs), physical therapy, activity modification, and possibly spinal manipulation or standard traction, reserving surgery for cauda equina syndrome, progressive neurologic deficits, or failure of conservative measures over several weeks.^[12][14] Chiropractic spinal manipulation is generally viewed as one of several conservative options that can reduce pain and improve function in low back disorders, including some disc herniation cases, but it is not considered uniquely curative and should be integrated into multidisciplinary care rather than used as an exclusive treatment.^[2][9][14] Non-surgical spinal decompression therapy (as marketed decompression/traction devices often used by chiropractors) is regarded as an experimental or adjunctive modality with limited, short-term evidence of benefit; current literature and critical reviews state that there is insufficient high-quality evidence to justify its routine use or to support claims that it is superior to standard traction, exercise therapy, or other established conservative treatments.^[3][5][19] Major guidelines and evidence-based reviews therefore do not endorse chiropractor disc decompression therapy as a standard-of-care or high-evidence intervention; instead, they emphasize comprehensive conservative management and careful patient selection, with decompression devices, if used at all, considered optional and

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Disc Decompression Therapy”

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

Christina Woodle is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Sports Injury Treatment.

Sports Injury Treatment

Supports

High-quality evidence specific to chiropractic treatment of sports injuries is limited but includes some randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews. A randomized controlled trial in semi-elite Australian Rules footballers found that adding a sports chiropractic manual therapy program (spinal and extremity manipulation/mobilization plus soft-tissue work) to standard sports medicine care significantly reduced primary lower-limb muscle strains and weeks missed due to non-contact knee injuries compared with standard care alone, although effects on hamstring and knee injury incidence narrowly missed conventional statistical significance thresholds. ^[61] A systematic review of randomized and controlled clinical trials on chiropractic manipulation in sports reported that a minority of low-quality trials suggested benefit of chiropractic for sports injury treatment or rehabilitation (for example, faster recovery from ankle inversion sprain or low-back pain), indicating possible short-term improvements in pain and rehabilitation time, though methods were heterogeneous and often biased. ^[63] The more recent narrative/systematic reviews of chiropractic in sports, including those focusing on spinal manipulation and performance, note some individual trials where chiropractic care was associated with improved performance tests or injury rehabilitation metrics in athletes, but they emphasize that these findings are exploratory and based on small samples and short follow-up. ^[62] Overall, there is some RCT-level evidence that sports chiropractic manual therapy can be a helpful adjunct within a multidisciplinary program for certain musculoskeletal sports injuries, particularly lower-limb strains, but the quality and consistency of this supportive evidence are modest. ^[64]

Contradicts

Several systematic reviews of chiropractic or spinal manipulative therapy in athletes conclude that the evidence base is sparse and methodologically weak, and that the therapeutic value for prevention or treatment of sports injuries remains uncertain. ^[64] One systematic review of controlled clinical trials on chiropractic for prevention or treatment of sports injuries found only a few small RCTs and controlled trials, with poor Jadad scores; across these, some trials showed no difference versus control for injury treatment, and one trial reported no benefit for injury prevention, leading the authors to state that firm conclusions in favor of chiropractic could not be drawn. ^[63] A high-quality systematic review examining spinal manipulative therapy and sports performance (including athlete populations) found that, in asymptomatic adults, spinal manipulation generally did not improve performance-related outcomes compared with sham or other interventions; where small positive immediate effects were reported (e. ^[61][62] g. , free-throw accuracy), their clinical relevance was unclear and results were inconsistent. Other RCTs in healthy athletes have reported neutral or even slightly negative acute performance effects after pre-exercise spinal manipulation, with no meaningful advantage over sham treatment. Taken together, these reviews and trials contradict strong claims that chiropractic treatment alone is a proven, broadly effective therapy for sports injuries or performance enhancement, and highlight that benefits, when present, are modest, condition-specific, and often embedded within larger multidisciplinary care rather than being stand-alone effects attributable solely to chiropractic manipulation.

Mainstream view

Mainstream sports medicine views chiropractic as one of several manual-therapy approaches that can be integrated into multidisciplinary management of musculoskeletal sports injuries, but not as a primary or universally effective treatment. ^[64] Major sports medicine and orthopedic guidelines for common sports injuries (e. g. , ankle sprain, hamstring strain, knee ligament or cartilage injury, shoulder injury) typically emphasize accurate diagnosis, graded exercise-based rehabilitation, neuromuscular training and warm-up programs, load management, and, where appropriate, pharmacologic or surgical interventions; chiropractic or spinal manipulation is usually mentioned, if at all, as an optional adjunct for spinal or some peripheral joint pain rather than a core evidence-based treatment for sports injuries. ^[62] Current evidence is considered insufficient to recommend routine chiropractic manipulation as a stand-alone therapy for either prevention or treatment of most sports injuries, and performance-enhancement claims are regarded as unproven. ^[61][63] The mainstream position is that chiropractic care may be reasonable as part of individualized, multimodal care for selected athletes with musculoskeletal pain or dysfunction, provided it is integrated with established rehabilitation and injury-prevention strategies, but it should not replace guideline-recommended sports medicine assessment and management.

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Sports Injury Treatment”

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

Christina Woodle is not approved to offer Class IV Cold Laser Therapy within a Chiropractor scope of practice under Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic).

Class IV Cold Laser Therapy

Supports

High-intensity or class IV laser therapy (HILT) has been studied in multiple randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews for musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) such as neck and low back pain, knee osteoarthritis, plantar fasciitis, and other orthopedic pain conditions. ^{[7][53][54][55][56]} These reviews generally find that class IV/HILT can reduce pain and improve function compared with placebo or conservative therapy, though effect sizes are modest and evidence quality is often rated low to moderate. ^[6] Several RCTs show that class IV laser used as an adjunct to exercise or physiotherapy yields better pain and disability outcomes than control or placebo laser. There are also trials of class IV laser in specific conditions (e. g. , plantar fasciitis, post‑operative recovery, veterinary orthopedic surgery) showing some improvement in pain or gait compared with placebo. Overall, for short‑term pain relief and functional improvement in MSDs, there is some supportive evidence for class IV laser therapy as a complementary modality.

Contradicts

The available evidence for class IV cold laser therapy is limited by small sample sizes, heterogeneous protocols (different wavelengths, power, dosing, and treatment schedules), and high or unclear risk of bias in many trials. ^[53][55][56] Systematic reviews often rate the overall quality of evidence as low or very low, meaning that confidence in the effect estimates is limited and future, better-designed studies could substantially change current conclusions. ^[6][54] Some RCTs and reviews comparing high‑intensity (class IV) laser with low‑level laser or other conservative treatments find no clear superiority of one modality over another, suggesting that any benefit may be comparable to other noninvasive adjuncts rather than uniquely large. Evidence is concentrated on short‑term symptom relief in selected musculoskeletal conditions; there is little robust data on long‑term outcomes, prevention of disease progression, or on many other conditions sometimes promoted in chiropractic or influencer marketing. There are no high‑quality major guidelines among the provided index papers that recommend class IV cold laser as standard therapy for any condition. The provided guidelines on hypertension, clinical nutrition, tension‑type headache, parenteral nutrition, transfusion therapy, and pericarditis do not mention or endorse class IV cold laser therapy for those conditions. ^{[2][3][4][5][7][8]}

Mainstream view

Mainstream medical and scientific opinion views class IV cold (high‑intensity) laser therapy as an experimental or adjunctive treatment for certain musculoskeletal pain conditions rather than a core, first‑line therapy. ^{[53][54][55][56]} It may be considered by some physical medicine, rehabilitation, or pain practitioners as a complementary modality when standard evidence‑based treatments (e. ^[1][5] g. , exercise therapy, pharmacologic pain management, manual therapy) are insufficient or as part of multi‑modal care. However, because most evidence comes from small, heterogeneous trials with low to moderate quality and high risk of bias, major general medical, cardiology, neurology, nutrition, and transfusion guidelines among the index papers do not include class IV cold laser therapy in their recommended treatment algorithms for their respective conditions. ^[2][4][6][7] Current evidence does not support broad claims that class IV cold laser therapy provided by chiropractors is highly effective across many diseases; its plausible role is limited, condition‑specific, and adjunctive, pending more rigorous RCTs and guideline‑level endorsement.

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Class IV Cold Laser Therapy”

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

Christina Woodle is not approved to offer Dry Needling within a Chiropractor scope of practice under Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic).

Dry Needling

Supports

High-quality evidence, including randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews, shows that dry needling of myofascial trigger points can reduce pain and improve short‑term function in conditions such as myofascial pain syndrome, neck pain, and low back pain. ^{[6][66][67][69]} Multiple RCTs demonstrate that dry needling is more effective than sham dry needling or no intervention for reducing pain and improving quality of life in myofascial pain syndrome and trigger‑point related pain, typically over short- to medium-term follow‑up (days to a few months). A systematic review used to inform a WHO guideline on non-surgical management of chronic primary low back pain concluded that needling therapies (including dry needling) can provide pain relief compared with control interventions, although effects are generally modest and short term. ^[1][65][68] Additional systematic reviews and RCTs (outside the index list but within current academic literature) consistently report that dry needling improves pain, pressure pain thresholds, and sometimes range of motion over short-term follow-up in myofascial trigger point–related conditions and low back pain. ^[4] This body of evidence supports the general efficacy of dry needling as a physical/needling therapy when performed by trained practitioners. ^[5][7]

Contradicts

The available evidence does not specifically support a unique benefit of chiropractic delivery of dry needling versus delivery by other trained providers (eg, physical therapists or physicians); most trials and reviews evaluate dry needling as a technique, not tied to a specific profession. ^[6][68] There is also important evidence that the benefit of dry needling is mainly short term, with insufficient or inconsistent evidence for durable long-term outcomes beyond several months. Some systematic reviews highlight limited methodological quality, small sample sizes, heterogeneity of techniques, and a high risk of bias, which weaken confidence in strong claims of efficacy, especially for chronic or complex pain conditions. In guidance used by WHO for chronic primary low back pain, needling therapies (including dry needling) are considered options with modest benefits and potential harms, not core first‑line interventions; this constrains strong claims that dry needling is a primary or superior treatment for such conditions. ^[65][66] Furthermore, mainstream medical coverage and some payer policies still classify dry needling as investigational or not medically necessary for myofascial pain, reflecting ongoing uncertainty and the need for more robust evidence. ^[67][69] Overall, there is no high‑quality evidence that chiropractic dry needling is more effective than other needling or non‑needling physical therapies, and broad, strongly positive claims about its efficacy or uniqueness are not supported.

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical and scientific position is that dry needling is one of several physical interventions that can provide short‑term pain relief and functional improvement in myofascial trigger point–related pain and some musculoskeletal conditions, when performed by appropriately trained clinicians. ^{[5][66][67][68][69]} Systematic reviews and guideline‑informing evidence characterize dry needling as having modest, mainly short‑term benefits, with limited data on long‑term effectiveness, disability outcomes, and comparative superiority over other conservative treatments. ^[1] Major guidelines for chronic primary low back pain and tension‑type headache do not place dry needling as a core first‑line therapy; instead, they emphasize exercise, education, psychological therapies, and multi‑modal conservative management, with needling therapies considered adjunct or optional interventions when benefits, risks, and patient preferences are carefully weighed. ^{[2][4][7][65]} Regarding provider type, mainstream medicine treats dry needling as a technique that can be used by various trained professionals (eg, physical therapists, physicians, some chiropractors) under local regulatory frameworks, rather than a treatment uniquely associated with chiropractic practice. Scope‑of‑practice and credentialing for chiropractors performing dry needling are determined by regional regulations and professional standards, not by strong evidence that chiropractors deliver superior outcomes.

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Dry Needling”

Rule: K.S.A. 65-2921

Christina Woodle 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(a)

Christina Woodle is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Nutritional Programs.

Nutritional Programs

Supports

There is substantial high-quality evidence that structured nutritional programs and counseling, when delivered by appropriately trained professionals (typically registered dietitians, physicians, or multidisciplinary teams), can improve outcomes in many conditions (e. ^{[5][6][74][75][77]} g. , inflammatory bowel disease, cancer, pediatric undernutrition), but these data are not specific to chiropractors as the providers of such programs. ^[3] Large guidelines on clinical nutrition (e. ^[2] g. , ASPEN-FELANPE, ESPEN) emphasize that individualized nutrition assessment, planning, and monitoring are effective components of medical care and can be protocolized in “nutritional programs. ” Randomized controlled trials and systematic programs of nutritional counseling show benefits in contexts like undernourished children, older adults with cancer, and others, again demonstrating that structured nutrition programs themselves can be effective parts of evidence-based care. ^[1] This indirectly supports the limited idea that if chiropractors adhere to the same evidence-based nutrition principles and collaborate appropriately, the nutrition advice they deliver could be beneficial, but this is extrapolated from general nutrition science rather than chiropractic-specific trials. ^[76]

Contradicts

There is almost no high-quality evidence (RCTs, systematic reviews, or major guidelines) demonstrating that chiropractic-specific nutritional programs, as uniquely designed or branded by chiropractors, provide superior outcomes compared with standard evidence-based nutrition care delivered by dietitians or physicians. ^[6][75] An RCT in patients with high-normal or stage I hypertension found that adding chiropractic spinal manipulation to a dietary modification program did not improve blood pressure more than the dietary program alone, indicating no added value of the chiropractic component to the nutritional intervention. ^[74][76][77] Major nutrition guidelines (ASPEN-FELANPE, ESPEN, and parenteral nutrition appropriateness criteria) specify assessment, indications, and monitoring strategies but do not identify chiropractors as core providers of medical nutrition therapy or as having a distinct therapeutic nutritional approach. ^[2][3][5] Hypertension management guidelines emphasize lifestyle and dietary measures but do not call for chiropractor-directed nutritional programs; instead, they highlight physician- or team-based care using established dietary patterns (e. g. , DASH, sodium restriction) within a broader cardiovascular risk framework. Across major guideline documents provided (nutrition, hypertension, parenteral nutrition, transfusion, headache, pericarditis), chiropractors are not listed as recognized prescribers or managers of formal nutritional therapy, and there is no endorsement of chiropractic-branded nutrition programs as a distinct evidence-based modality. ^[1][4][7][8]

Mainstream view

Mainstream medical and nutrition science strongly supports structured, evidence-based nutritional interventions, but considers them within the scope of clinicians trained in clinical nutrition (dietitians, physicians, specialist nurses, and multidisciplinary teams) and guided by established nutrition and disease-specific guidelines. ^{[1][2][3][6][75]} These guidelines focus on indications such as malnutrition, gastrointestinal disease, cancer, and critical illness, and emphasize standardized assessment (e. g. , nutritional risk scores), appropriate route of feeding (oral, enteral, parenteral), and evidence-based dietary patterns, not chiropractor-specific nutritional philosophies or supplements. ^[5] Chiropractors may provide general lifestyle and dietary advice within their scope in some jurisdictions, but this is viewed as adjunctive health promotion rather than as a uniquely therapeutic “chiropractic nutritional program,” and major guidelines do not assign them a primary role in clinical nutrition management. ^[74][76] Therefore, the mainstream position is that nutrition programs can be effective, but their effectiveness does not depend on being delivered by chiropractors, and claims that chiropractic-designed nutritional programs have special or superior therapeutic effects are not supported by high-quality evidence. ^[77]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Nutritional Programs”

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

Christina Woodle is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Food Sensitivity Testing.

Food Sensitivity Testing

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Food Sensitivity Testing”

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