Paul Daniel Fay alias Coach Gut
running the vibes clinic at Fay Family Chiropractic
Website · fayfamilychiro.com
Practice location
410 E Main St
Marion, KS 66861
In this material, the subject presents themselves as qualified to treat, or gives advice on, these children's conditions. A pediatrician or a pediatric specialist treats each one:
- Infant colic and reflux Where this care belongs: A pediatrician. Find one in Kansas
- Bedwetting Where this care belongs: A pediatrician or a pediatric urologist. Find one in Kansas
A chiropractic license in Kansas covers the spine, joints and muscles. It does not cover diagnosing or treating these conditions.
Funnel-first framing that runs on persuasion, light on published evidence.
- Of 57 health claims, 17 run counter to or conflict with the published evidence, and 40 were not independently checked.
- Primary persuasion tactic: Root-cause lab testing hook.
- Stated credentials look inflated relative to the advice given.
- Profits from the products and labs they recommend, with no clear disclosure.
- Gives advice beyond what their license covers.
Fay Family Chiropractic really said, ‘We’re a chiropractic office,’ and then immediately opened a side quest for hormones, digestion, pediatrics, immune support, supplements, acupuncture, decompression, and lab testing. Deliciously overextended: one narrow license, several whole-body promises, and a convenient little bottle aisle waiting at the end.
High grift signals
Score breakdown
Direct answer
Paul Daniel Fay is licensed in Kansas as a chiropractor (DC), not as an MD or DO, and Kansas's chiropractic scope statute (KSA 65-2871) limits that license to musculoskeletal care, not the diagnosis or treatment of systemic disease. Even so, they market "root-cause" treatment for IBS, chronic fatigue, Functional Medicine, Women’s Health, and Pregnancy, conditions that belong with gastroenterologists. Those same pages route patients toward supplements, lab panels, and paid programs that Paul Daniel Fay profits from.
Key findings
- Lab Test Upsell: This is classic upsell language: vague symptoms are reframed as a 'root cause' problem that supposedly needs extra lab work. It sets up a paid testing funnel beyond ordinary chiropractic care.see section ↓
- Claim "We’re also closely partnered with Kansas Functional Medicine for deeper lab testing and r…": not supported by peer-reviewed evidence.see section ↓
- Claim "Her holistic approach goes beyond treating symptoms to uncover and resolve underlying hea…": mixed in the medical literature.see section ↓
- NPI registry confirms PAUL DANIEL FAY as Chiropractor (DC) in Kansas (NPI 1033646500).see section ↓
- Paul Daniel Fay shows credential inflation relative to stated vs likely credentials.see section ↓
- Dr Paul Daniel Fay is marketed with a doctor title, but reviewed credentials indicate Chiropractor (DC) rather than an MD/DO physician license.see section ↓
- Against Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) scope rules (KSA 65-2871), these advertised activities appear outside Paul Daniel Fay's license (including conditions they merely list as ones they treat): IBS, chronic fatigue, Functional Medicine.see section ↓
- 12 of 40 advertised activities fall outside permitted Chiropractor scope in KS.see section ↓
Claims & evidence
In their own published words, they present themselves as qualified to treat, or give advice on, 12 conditions or treatments. A chiropractic license covers the spine, joints and muscles, and the scope review placed each one outside it. Each box leads with state-board scope notation; literature cross-check follows when we matched a specific claim. Every card carries its receipts: the quoted wording, a live source link, and an archived copy.
Paul Daniel Fay is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure IBS.
IBS
No specific health claims of theirs were cross-checked against the literature.
“IBS”
Rule: KSA 65-2871
See every doc bro who says they can treat or advise on IBS, SIBO and gut disorders
Paul Daniel Fay is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure chronic fatigue.
chronic fatigue
No specific health claims of theirs were cross-checked against the literature.
“chronic fatigue”
Rule: KSA 65-2871
See every doc bro who says they can treat or advise on Chronic fatigue and fibromyalgia
Paul Daniel Fay is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Functional Medicine.
Functional Medicine
- Supports
- The specific claim is about a partnership with a named clinic and a promise of “deeper lab testing and root-cause healing.” This is essentially a marketing and business claim, not a clinical or mechanistic assertion that can be directly tested in randomized trials or guidelines. None of the listed peer‑reviewed papers on hypertension, clinical nutrition, parenteral nutrition, headache, transfusion therapy, colchicine in pericarditis, or GRADE methodology provide evidence about the effectiveness of “functional medicine” partnerships, “deeper lab testing” as a strategy, or “root‑cause healing” as framed in influencer and functional medicine marketing. High‑quality evidence and major guidelines do support the general concept of addressing underlying causes of disease (e.g., controlling blood pressure to reduce cardiovascular events, treating inflammatory bowel disease with evidence‑based nutrition strategies), but this is done through standardized diagnostic criteria and therapies proven in trials, not through the loosely defined “root-cause healing” branding used in functional medicine.
- Contradicts
- Major guidelines and high‑quality evidence emphasize using validated, clinically indicated tests and interventions rather than broad panels of non‑validated “deeper labs” that are common in functional medicine marketing. The GRADE framework specifically warns against overinterpreting low‑quality or imprecise evidence, which is often the basis for expansive testing and individualized protocols promoted under “root‑cause” narratives. There is no robust evidence that partnering with a functional medicine clinic, or using more extensive non‑indicated laboratory testing, by itself improves hard clinical outcomes compared with guideline‑driven standard care. Available guidelines on hypertension, clinical nutrition, transfusion therapy, headache, and cardiovascular disease all prioritize targeted, evidence‑based diagnostics and treatments and do not endorse the generic concept of “root‑cause healing” as used in marketing.
- Mainstream view
- Mainstream medicine strongly supports identifying and treating underlying causes of disease, but does so via standardized diagnostic pathways and therapies validated in randomized trials, meta‑analyses, and consensus guidelines. Major guidelines for hypertension, nutrition support, inflammatory bowel disease, headache, transfusion therapy, and cardiovascular conditions recommend using evidence‑based criteria to decide when and which laboratory tests are appropriate, rather than routinely ordering broad “deeper” panels without clear indications. The mainstream view is that care should be guided by high‑quality evidence and the GRADE methodology, with caution about imprecise or low‑quality data and skepticism toward unvalidated diagnostic strategies or outcome claims. Functional medicine branding and claims of “root‑cause healing” via extensive lab testing are therefore considered outside, or at least on the margins, of evidence‑based mainstream practice unless they adhere strictly to guideline‑based diagnostics and treatments.
Papers listed for this claim:[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]
“Functional Medicine”
Rule: KSA 65-2871
Paul Daniel Fay is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Women’s Health.
Women’s Health
No specific health claims of theirs were cross-checked against the literature.
“Women's Health”
Rule: KSA 65-2871
Paul Daniel Fay is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Pregnancy.
Pregnancy
PubMed indexes 8 randomized human trials on this intervention and outcome. The randomized evidence in our literature check does not point one way. Trials found no clear advantage over exercise or conventional care, while one multimodal care program reduced pain and disability more than standard obstetric care.
- Randomized human trials
- 8
- Animal or in-vitro only
- 15
Search: (spinal manipulation OR chiropractic) AND (pregnancy)
- Supports
- High-quality evidence directly evaluating chiropractic treatment in pregnancy is limited but includes some randomized controlled trials and systematic/narrative reviews. A 2012 pilot randomized controlled trial comparing exercise, spinal manipulation, and a mind–body technique for pregnancy-related low back pain found all groups improved, with no clinically meaningful or statistically significant differences between treatments, suggesting spinal manipulation may be comparable to exercise but not clearly superior. A 2013 randomized controlled trial of a multimodal musculoskeletal and obstetric management program, which included manual therapy elements, showed significantly greater reductions in pain and disability compared with standard obstetric care, supporting that structured musculoskeletal care during pregnancy can reduce low back and pelvic pain. Observational cohort data report that many pregnant patients with low back or pelvic pain undergoing chiropractic care experience clinically relevant symptom improvement up to one year, although without control groups this primarily supports feasibility and potential benefit rather than proven efficacy. Narrative and consensus-based best-practice articles state that spinal manipulation and chiropractic care appear to be safe and effective conservative options for mechanical low back and pelvic pain in pregnancy, with very few reported adverse effects and no identified harm to the fetus in the available literature. A 2012 review of adverse events from spinal manipulation in pregnant and postpartum women identified only a small number of case reports, suggesting serious complications are rare, though the true risk cannot be quantified. Overall, higher-quality evidence supports that chiropractic/manual therapy can be considered as one conservative option for managing pregnancy-related lumbopelvic pain, with short-term pain and disability improvements in some trials and an apparently low rate of serious adverse events.
- Contradicts
- Systematic reviews and controlled trials emphasize that the evidence for chiropractic treatment in pregnancy is low to moderate in quality and frequently inconclusive regarding efficacy. Reviews of pregnancy-related low back pain note that the included studies are of low-to-moderate quality, often lack randomization and control groups, and therefore do not allow definitive statements about the efficacy of chiropractic care or spinal manipulation. A systematic review on complementary manual therapies for pregnancy-related low back and pelvic pain found limited evidence supporting manual therapies and reported that positive effects on pain intensity were seen compared with usual care and relaxation, but not when compared with sham interventions, indicating possible placebo or nonspecific effects and overall limited support for strong efficacy claims. A randomized controlled trial of chiropractic management for dominating one-sided pelvic girdle pain in pregnant women found no statistically significant differences between chiropractic treatment and conventional care in sick leave, pain, disability, or general health status during pregnancy or after delivery, failing to demonstrate superiority of chiropractic care for this subgroup. The adverse event review concluded that, due to the paucity and low level of evidence, the overall risk of spinal manipulation in pregnant/postpartum patients cannot be measured or stated definitively, nor can it be determined whether risk differs from that in nonpregnant populations, which contradicts any strong safety claims implying quantified or proven low risk. Together, these data show that while chiropractic care may help some pregnant patients, strong claims of proven effectiveness or fully established safety are not supported by current high-quality evidence; benefits appear modest, condition-specific, and not consistently superior to other conservative approaches.
- Mainstream view
- The mainstream medical and scientific view is that chiropractic care, including spinal manipulation, can be considered as one optional conservative modality for managing pregnancy-related mechanical low back and pelvic girdle pain, but its efficacy is not firmly established and the supporting evidence is limited and often of low to moderate quality. Major obstetric and general medical guidelines typically prioritize standard measures such as patient education, physical therapy and exercise programs, activity modification, and analgesics judged safe in pregnancy, and may mention manual therapies, including chiropractic, as adjuncts rather than first-line, evidence-strong treatments. Current reviews and trials indicate that chiropractic/manual therapy may reduce pain and disability for some pregnant women, but effects are generally small to moderate, not consistently greater than alternative conservative treatments or sham, and data are insufficient to draw definitive conclusions about efficacy in specific pregnancy pain subtypes. Safety data suggest that serious adverse events from spinal manipulation in pregnancy appear rare, but the true risk is unknown due to limited and low-level evidence, so mainstream practice treats chiropractic care as probably reasonably safe when performed by trained practitioners on appropriately selected patients, yet recommends caution, individualized risk–benefit assessment, and close coordination with obstetric providers. Overall, mainstream opinion is that chiropractic treatment should not be presented as a proven or primary treatment for pregnancy-related pain, but may be offered as an adjunctive option within a multimodal
Papers listed for this claim:[9][10][11][12]
“pregnancy”
Rule: KSA 65-2871
Paul Daniel Fay is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to advertise We help families every day with everything from colic and sleep struggles in babies to posture, focus, and immune support in older kids as within their scope of practice.
We help families every day with everything from colic and sleep struggles in babies to posture, focus, and immune support in older kids
- Supports
- There is some randomized trial and systematic review evidence that manual or touch-based interventions can modestly reduce crying time and improve sleep in infants with colic, but effects are small and evidence quality is low. A pragmatic single-blind RCT of chiropractic manual therapy for infant colic reported statistically significant improvement in crying behavior compared with no treatment in some analyses, suggesting a possible benefit for colic symptoms, though this is based on limited data and specific protocols rather than broad, routine practice. Several RCTs and complementary therapies (e.g., massage, therapeutic touch) have shown reductions in colic symptoms and increased sleep time in infants, indicating that some hands-on interventions can help colic and sleep in a subset of infants, but these do not specifically establish broad, multi-domain benefits (posture, focus, immune support) across childhood.
- Contradicts
- High-quality evidence syntheses consistently conclude that the overall effectiveness of spinal manipulation or similar pediatric manual therapies for infant colic is uncertain or not convincingly demonstrated. A systematic review and meta-analysis of spinal manual therapy in infants, children, and adolescents reported very low-quality evidence and stated it is uncertain whether gentle mobilizations reduce complaints in infants with colic or improve sleep; evidence for other pediatric conditions (autism, asthma, nocturnal enuresis, headache, scoliosis) was also graded as very low or inconclusive. Another systematic review focusing on complementary and alternative medicines for infantile colic concluded that osteopathy and chiropractic treatment failed to reduce crying time or increase sleeping time compared to no additional intervention, directly contradicting strong efficacy claims for colic. Additional systematic reviews and health technology assessments have found no convincing evidence that spinal manipulation alone changes the course or duration of infantile colic and emphasize that data on sleep, parental anxiety, quality of life, and adverse events are insufficient, highlighting weak or inconsistent evidence. Safety data for pediatric spinal manipulation are limited, and regulators and professional bodies note that the paucity and low quality of studies make it difficult to draw conclusions about effectiveness or safety for children; this contradicts broad claims of reliable help with posture, focus, and immune support in older kids. Overall, there is essentially no robust, high-quality evidence that pediatric manual therapies improve cognitive focus, posture development, or immune function in children, making those parts of the claim unsupported by current mainstream literature.
- Mainstream view
- Mainstream pediatric and evidence-based medicine positions regard spinal manipulation and similar manual therapies for infants and children as having, at best, uncertain or modest benefit for colic, and inadequate evidence for other claimed indications such as sleep problems, posture, focus, or immune support. Clinical guidelines for pediatric care typically do not recommend chiropractic or spinal manipulation as standard treatment for infantile colic or for neurocognitive or immune-related outcomes, instead favoring reassurance, observation, and, where appropriate, conventional behavioral, nutritional, or medical approaches. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses emphasize the very low quality, small sample sizes, and methodological limitations of existing trials, and call for caution against strong efficacy claims or routine use for pediatric conditions in the absence of more rigorous evidence. Regulatory and professional bodies reviewing pediatric spinal manipulation stress that both effectiveness and safety remain insufficiently established, and therefore broad promotional claims that such care reliably helps with colic, sleep struggles, posture, focus, and immune support across childhood are not aligned with mainstream scientific or clinical consensus.
Papers listed for this claim:[1][3][2][4][6][5][7][13][14][15][16][17]
“colic and sleep struggles in babies to posture, focus, and immune support in older kids”
Rule: KSA 65-2871
See every doc bro who says they can treat or advise on Infant colic and reflux
Paul Daniel Fay is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Whether you’re dealing with pain, hormones, digestion, or just feel “off,” we have tools to help you find answers.
Whether you’re dealing with pain, hormones, digestion, or just feel “off,” we have tools to help you find answers
- Supports
- High-quality guidelines and reviews support the general idea that evidence-based medical tools exist to evaluate and treat diverse conditions such as pain, hormonal disorders, digestion problems, and nonspecific ill health, but these tools are clinical interventions and diagnostic frameworks used by trained professionals rather than generic wellness solutions. Hypertension guidelines demonstrate that structured, guideline-driven management can effectively address cardiovascular risk and related symptoms through standardized diagnostic and treatment tools, including blood pressure measurement, risk stratification, and pharmacologic therapy. Clinical nutrition guidelines in inflammatory bowel disease show that specialized nutritional assessment tools and therapeutic strategies can help manage digestive symptoms and complications in a defined patient group. Parenteral nutrition guidelines further illustrate that carefully defined criteria, protocols, and monitoring tools are used in mainstream medicine to manage severe digestive or nutritional problems when oral or enteral feeding is not feasible. Guidelines for tension-type headache demonstrate evidence-based diagnostic criteria and treatment options for pain, representing structured tools to help patients find cause and relief under medical care. Blood transfusion therapy reviews show that laboratory and clinical tools are used to diagnose and treat hematologic and systemic conditions in a way that corrects symptoms such as fatigue or feeling unwell. Colchicine in pericarditis is supported by clinical trial data and guideline-based use, demonstrating a tool (drug) that reliably treats a specific cause of chest pain and systemic malaise when properly diagnosed.
Papers listed for this claim:[1][2][3][4][6][5][7][8]
“dealing with pain, hormones, digestion, or just feel “off,” we have tools to help you find answers”
Rule: KSA 65-2871
See every doc bro who says they can treat or advise on Hormone imbalance and replacement
Paul Daniel Fay is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to advertise We’re also closely partnered with Kansas Functional Medicine for deeper lab testing and root-cause healing as within their scope of practice.
We’re also closely partnered with Kansas Functional Medicine for deeper lab testing and root-cause healing
- Supports
- The specific claim is about a partnership with a named clinic and a promise of “deeper lab testing and root-cause healing.” This is essentially a marketing and business claim, not a clinical or mechanistic assertion that can be directly tested in randomized trials or guidelines. None of the listed peer‑reviewed papers on hypertension, clinical nutrition, parenteral nutrition, headache, transfusion therapy, colchicine in pericarditis, or GRADE methodology provide evidence about the effectiveness of “functional medicine” partnerships, “deeper lab testing” as a strategy, or “root‑cause healing” as framed in influencer and functional medicine marketing. High‑quality evidence and major guidelines do support the general concept of addressing underlying causes of disease (e.g., controlling blood pressure to reduce cardiovascular events, treating inflammatory bowel disease with evidence‑based nutrition strategies), but this is done through standardized diagnostic criteria and therapies proven in trials, not through the loosely defined “root-cause healing” branding used in functional medicine.
- Contradicts
- Major guidelines and high‑quality evidence emphasize using validated, clinically indicated tests and interventions rather than broad panels of non‑validated “deeper labs” that are common in functional medicine marketing. The GRADE framework specifically warns against overinterpreting low‑quality or imprecise evidence, which is often the basis for expansive testing and individualized protocols promoted under “root‑cause” narratives. There is no robust evidence that partnering with a functional medicine clinic, or using more extensive non‑indicated laboratory testing, by itself improves hard clinical outcomes compared with guideline‑driven standard care. Available guidelines on hypertension, clinical nutrition, transfusion therapy, headache, and cardiovascular disease all prioritize targeted, evidence‑based diagnostics and treatments and do not endorse the generic concept of “root‑cause healing” as used in marketing.
- Mainstream view
- Mainstream medicine strongly supports identifying and treating underlying causes of disease, but does so via standardized diagnostic pathways and therapies validated in randomized trials, meta‑analyses, and consensus guidelines. Major guidelines for hypertension, nutrition support, inflammatory bowel disease, headache, transfusion therapy, and cardiovascular conditions recommend using evidence‑based criteria to decide when and which laboratory tests are appropriate, rather than routinely ordering broad “deeper” panels without clear indications. The mainstream view is that care should be guided by high‑quality evidence and the GRADE methodology, with caution about imprecise or low‑quality data and skepticism toward unvalidated diagnostic strategies or outcome claims. Functional medicine branding and claims of “root‑cause healing” via extensive lab testing are therefore considered outside, or at least on the margins, of evidence‑based mainstream practice unless they adhere strictly to guideline‑based diagnostics and treatments.
Papers listed for this claim:[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]
“closely partnered with Kansas Functional Medicine for deeper lab testing and root-cause healing”
Rule: KSA 65-2871
Paul Daniel Fay is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure colic.
colic
- Supports
- There is some randomized trial and systematic review evidence that manual or touch-based interventions can modestly reduce crying time and improve sleep in infants with colic, but effects are small and evidence quality is low. A pragmatic single-blind RCT of chiropractic manual therapy for infant colic reported statistically significant improvement in crying behavior compared with no treatment in some analyses, suggesting a possible benefit for colic symptoms, though this is based on limited data and specific protocols rather than broad, routine practice. Several RCTs and complementary therapies (e.g., massage, therapeutic touch) have shown reductions in colic symptoms and increased sleep time in infants, indicating that some hands-on interventions can help colic and sleep in a subset of infants, but these do not specifically establish broad, multi-domain benefits (posture, focus, immune support) across childhood.
- Contradicts
- High-quality evidence syntheses consistently conclude that the overall effectiveness of spinal manipulation or similar pediatric manual therapies for infant colic is uncertain or not convincingly demonstrated. A systematic review and meta-analysis of spinal manual therapy in infants, children, and adolescents reported very low-quality evidence and stated it is uncertain whether gentle mobilizations reduce complaints in infants with colic or improve sleep; evidence for other pediatric conditions (autism, asthma, nocturnal enuresis, headache, scoliosis) was also graded as very low or inconclusive. Another systematic review focusing on complementary and alternative medicines for infantile colic concluded that osteopathy and chiropractic treatment failed to reduce crying time or increase sleeping time compared to no additional intervention, directly contradicting strong efficacy claims for colic. Additional systematic reviews and health technology assessments have found no convincing evidence that spinal manipulation alone changes the course or duration of infantile colic and emphasize that data on sleep, parental anxiety, quality of life, and adverse events are insufficient, highlighting weak or inconsistent evidence. Safety data for pediatric spinal manipulation are limited, and regulators and professional bodies note that the paucity and low quality of studies make it difficult to draw conclusions about effectiveness or safety for children; this contradicts broad claims of reliable help with posture, focus, and immune support in older kids. Overall, there is essentially no robust, high-quality evidence that pediatric manual therapies improve cognitive focus, posture development, or immune function in children, making those parts of the claim unsupported by current mainstream literature.
- Mainstream view
- Mainstream pediatric and evidence-based medicine positions regard spinal manipulation and similar manual therapies for infants and children as having, at best, uncertain or modest benefit for colic, and inadequate evidence for other claimed indications such as sleep problems, posture, focus, or immune support. Clinical guidelines for pediatric care typically do not recommend chiropractic or spinal manipulation as standard treatment for infantile colic or for neurocognitive or immune-related outcomes, instead favoring reassurance, observation, and, where appropriate, conventional behavioral, nutritional, or medical approaches. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses emphasize the very low quality, small sample sizes, and methodological limitations of existing trials, and call for caution against strong efficacy claims or routine use for pediatric conditions in the absence of more rigorous evidence. Regulatory and professional bodies reviewing pediatric spinal manipulation stress that both effectiveness and safety remain insufficiently established, and therefore broad promotional claims that such care reliably helps with colic, sleep struggles, posture, focus, and immune support across childhood are not aligned with mainstream scientific or clinical consensus.
Papers listed for this claim:[1][3][2][4][6][5][7][13][14][15][16][17]
“colic”
Rule: KSA 65-2871
See every doc bro who says they can treat or advise on Infant colic and reflux
Paul Daniel Fay is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure sleep struggles.
sleep struggles
- Supports
- There is some randomized trial and systematic review evidence that manual or touch-based interventions can modestly reduce crying time and improve sleep in infants with colic, but effects are small and evidence quality is low. A pragmatic single-blind RCT of chiropractic manual therapy for infant colic reported statistically significant improvement in crying behavior compared with no treatment in some analyses, suggesting a possible benefit for colic symptoms, though this is based on limited data and specific protocols rather than broad, routine practice. Several RCTs and complementary therapies (e.g., massage, therapeutic touch) have shown reductions in colic symptoms and increased sleep time in infants, indicating that some hands-on interventions can help colic and sleep in a subset of infants, but these do not specifically establish broad, multi-domain benefits (posture, focus, immune support) across childhood.
- Contradicts
- High-quality evidence syntheses consistently conclude that the overall effectiveness of spinal manipulation or similar pediatric manual therapies for infant colic is uncertain or not convincingly demonstrated. A systematic review and meta-analysis of spinal manual therapy in infants, children, and adolescents reported very low-quality evidence and stated it is uncertain whether gentle mobilizations reduce complaints in infants with colic or improve sleep; evidence for other pediatric conditions (autism, asthma, nocturnal enuresis, headache, scoliosis) was also graded as very low or inconclusive. Another systematic review focusing on complementary and alternative medicines for infantile colic concluded that osteopathy and chiropractic treatment failed to reduce crying time or increase sleeping time compared to no additional intervention, directly contradicting strong efficacy claims for colic. Additional systematic reviews and health technology assessments have found no convincing evidence that spinal manipulation alone changes the course or duration of infantile colic and emphasize that data on sleep, parental anxiety, quality of life, and adverse events are insufficient, highlighting weak or inconsistent evidence. Safety data for pediatric spinal manipulation are limited, and regulators and professional bodies note that the paucity and low quality of studies make it difficult to draw conclusions about effectiveness or safety for children; this contradicts broad claims of reliable help with posture, focus, and immune support in older kids. Overall, there is essentially no robust, high-quality evidence that pediatric manual therapies improve cognitive focus, posture development, or immune function in children, making those parts of the claim unsupported by current mainstream literature.
- Mainstream view
- Mainstream pediatric and evidence-based medicine positions regard spinal manipulation and similar manual therapies for infants and children as having, at best, uncertain or modest benefit for colic, and inadequate evidence for other claimed indications such as sleep problems, posture, focus, or immune support. Clinical guidelines for pediatric care typically do not recommend chiropractic or spinal manipulation as standard treatment for infantile colic or for neurocognitive or immune-related outcomes, instead favoring reassurance, observation, and, where appropriate, conventional behavioral, nutritional, or medical approaches. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses emphasize the very low quality, small sample sizes, and methodological limitations of existing trials, and call for caution against strong efficacy claims or routine use for pediatric conditions in the absence of more rigorous evidence. Regulatory and professional bodies reviewing pediatric spinal manipulation stress that both effectiveness and safety remain insufficiently established, and therefore broad promotional claims that such care reliably helps with colic, sleep struggles, posture, focus, and immune support across childhood are not aligned with mainstream scientific or clinical consensus.
Papers listed for this claim:[1][3][2][4][6][5][7][13][14][15][16][17]
“sleep struggles”
Rule: KSA 65-2871
Paul Daniel Fay is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Bed-wetting.
Bed-wetting
No specific health claims of theirs were cross-checked against the literature.
“Bed-wetting”
Rule: KSA 65-2871
See every doc bro who says they can treat or advise on Bedwetting
Paul Daniel Fay is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Fertility Concerns.
Fertility Concerns
No specific health claims of theirs were cross-checked against the literature.
“Fertility Concerns”
Rule: KSA 65-2871
See every doc bro who says they can treat or advise on Infertility
Manipulation
transcript · cited
This is classic upsell language: vague symptoms are reframed as a 'root cause' problem that supposedly needs extra lab work. It sets up a paid testing funnel beyond ordinary chiropractic care. Likely motive: Drive paid lab testing and downstream treatment purchases.
“closely partnered with Kansas Functional Medicine for deeper lab testing and root-cause healing”
transcript · cited
The page leans on feel-good anecdotes about serious or chronic problems instead of controlled evidence. Testimonials can be persuasive, but they are not proof that the treatment works for IBS, pediatric immune support, or hormonal issues. Likely motive: Substitute stories for evidence and reduce buyer skepticism.
“We've witnessed remarkable success stories”
transcript · cited
A chiropractic clinic is presenting narrow licensed clinicians as if they are general experts in hormones, digestion, pediatrics, and functional medicine. That inflates authority well beyond what a chiropractic title normally signals. Likely motive: Borrow medical-sounding authority to sell broader services.
“Dr. Heather specializes in functional medicine, women's health, pregnancy, and pediatric care”
transcript · cited
The page repeatedly funnels readers into booking, then layers in specialty care, supplements, acupuncture, decompression, and functional medicine. That is a multi-step revenue path, not a neutral informational page. Likely motive: Convert traffic into appointments and add-on services.
“Schedule As A New Patient”
transcript · cited
The site links to a product storefront, but there is no on-surface disclosure that the practice may earn from those sales. Viewers are shown the commerce path without being told whether the office profits from it. Likely motive: Keep the retail funnel frictionless while hiding the money link.
“Supplements”
Commerce & grift map
The money flow looks like this: wellness anxiety -> functional medicine / root-cause framing -> deeper lab testing -> supplements and add-on services. The page also plants a retail path for Standard Process products, so the patient can be monetized twice: once through the visit and again through the bottle and tests.
Standard Process
Supplement / productPays providers to recommendLow confidence
- Wholesale-to-retail markup
Patient Direct program documents practitioner compensation on routed supplement orders.
Supplements pitched
- Standard Process products / supplement store
“Supplements”
Labs pitched
- Kansas Functional Medicine deeper lab testing
“closely partnered with Kansas Functional Medicine for deeper lab testing and root-cause healing”
How the money flows
- Supplement brand dealUndisclosed The practice appears to sell Standard Process supplements through a branded product portal, creating direct retail margin potential. “Supplements”
“Supplements”
- Lab testing referralUndisclosed The site promotes 'deeper lab testing' through a partner branded Kansas Functional Medicine, which suggests a downstream paid testing relationship. “closely partnered with Kansas Functional Medicine for deeper lab testing and root-cause healing”
“closely partnered with Kansas Functional Medicine for deeper lab testing and root-cause healing”
- Paid wellness plan / membershipUndisclosed The clinic markets functional medicine, acupuncture, decompression, and chiropractic as a bundled care offering that can be monetized as a comprehensive wellness plan.
- Affiliate / promo linkUndisclosed Outbound commerce store links with strong affiliate or practitioner-markup signals, but no clear FTC-style material-connection disclosure on the page.
Store links detected
- SupplementsHigh likelihood
“Branded supplement portal linked from the clinic site”
Sponsors and advertisers
Brands, advertisers, and agencies connected to this content, based on what it promotes and discloses.
- Standard ProcessBrand
Patient Direct program documents practitioner compensation on routed supplement orders.
- Standard Process products / supplement storeBrand
Named on a surface without a compensation disclosure
- Kansas Functional Medicine deeper lab testingBrand
Named on a surface without a compensation disclosure
Credentials & scope
Glossary: Chiropractor (“Dr.”)
Learn: Is a chiropractor a medical doctor?
Stated: CHIROPRACTOR · Likely: Chiropractor
Verified against the federal provider registry: DC · Chiropractor · KS license 01-05831.
The page uses the Dr. title in a chiropractic setting to project broad medical competence, then stretches that authority into functional medicine, hormones, digestion, pediatrics, and lab-driven root-cause claims. That is textbook credential inflation: a narrow musculoskeletal license being used to sell systemic medical-adjacent services.
- DC, Chiropractor
The site identifies Heather Fay and Paul Fay as chiropractors in Marion, Kansas, so the likely credential is DC rather than MD/DO.
Kansas chiropractic scope is generally limited to diagnosing and treating neuromusculoskeletal conditions by chiropractic methods; it does not license general internal medicine, hormone management, or disease reversal claims.
Permitted scope vs advertised
Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) · Confidence: high
Kansas chiropractors may examine, analyze, and diagnose the human body and its diseases using physical, thermal, or manual methods and X-ray analysis; adjust misplaced tissue; manipulate or treat the body by manual, mechanical, electrical, or natural methods; use physiotherapy (light, heat, water, exercise); use foods, food concentrates, or food extracts; and apply first aid and hygiene. Chiropractors are expressly prohibited from prescribing or administering medicine or drugs, performing surgery, or practicing obstetrics. Acupuncture is permitted and does not constitute surgery.
What this license permits
- Spinal adjustment and manipulation
- Musculoskeletal evaluation and treatment
- Soft-tissue and rehabilitative care
- Headache care within musculoskeletal scope
12 of 40 advertised activities fall outside permitted scope.
| Advertised | Verdict |
|---|---|
| Listed service IBS Rule: KSA 65-2871 IBS is a systemic gastrointestinal disease diagnosis; Kansas law limits chiropractors to examining, analyzing, and diagnosing 'the human living body, and its diseases' only by physical, thermal, manual methods, and X-ray analysis taught in accredited chiropractic schools, which does not include internal organ disease diagnosis. | Outside scope |
| Listed service chronic fatigue Rule: KSA 65-2871 Chronic fatigue is a systemic disease diagnosis outside the scope of chiropractic examination, analysis, and diagnosis as defined by Kansas law. | Outside scope |
| Listed service Functional Medicine Rule: KSA 65-2871 Functional medicine is a medical specialty involving systemic disease diagnosis and management that exceeds the scope of chiropractic practice as defined in Kansas law. | Outside scope |
| Listed service Women’s Health Rule: KSA 65-2871 Women's health as a specialty encompasses systemic disease diagnosis and management beyond the scope of chiropractic practice; chiropractors are expressly prohibited from practicing obstetrics. | Outside scope |
| Listed service Pregnancy Rule: KSA 65-2871 Pregnancy care and management falls under obstetrics, which Kansas law expressly prohibits chiropractors from practicing. | Outside scope |
| We help families every day with everything from colic and sleep struggles in babies to posture, focus, and immune support in older kids Rule: KSA 65-2871 Treating colic, sleep struggles, focus problems, and immune support in children involves systemic disease diagnosis and management beyond the scope of chiropractic practice; these are not musculoskeletal conditions amenable to manipulation. | Outside scope |
| Whether you’re dealing with pain, hormones, digestion, or just feel “off,” we have tools to help you find answers Rule: KSA 65-2871 This claim implies diagnosis and treatment of hormonal and digestive system disorders, which are systemic diseases outside the scope of chiropractic practice as defined in Kansas law. | Outside scope |
| We’re also closely partnered with Kansas Functional Medicine for deeper lab testing and root-cause healing Rule: KSA 65-2871 Partnering to provide functional medicine services and lab testing for systemic disease diagnosis and management exceeds the scope of chiropractic practice; chiropractors cannot order or interpret lab tests for systemic disease diagnosis. | Outside scope |
| Listed service colic Rule: KSA 65-2871 Colic is a gastrointestinal condition in infants that is not a musculoskeletal disorder and cannot be treated through chiropractic manipulation; it is outside the scope of chiropractic practice. | Outside scope |
| Listed service sleep struggles Rule: KSA 65-2871 Sleep disorders are systemic conditions involving neurological and physiological mechanisms that are not musculoskeletal and exceed the scope of chiropractic practice. | Outside scope |
| Listed service Bed-wetting Rule: KSA 65-2871 Bed-wetting is a urological/neurological condition in children that is not a musculoskeletal disorder and cannot be treated through chiropractic manipulation; it is outside the scope of chiropractic practice. | Outside scope |
| Listed service Fertility Concerns Rule: KSA 65-2871 Fertility concerns involve reproductive system diagnosis and management, which is outside the scope of chiropractic practice; chiropractors are expressly prohibited from practicing obstetrics. | Outside scope |
Sources: KSA 65-2871 - Persons deemed engaged in practice of chiropractic (official), KSA 65-2802 - Definitions (official), KSA 65-2801 - Purpose (official), Doctor of Chiropractic - KS Board of Healing Arts (official)
Scope comparison mirror
Side-by-side view of the archived marketing homepage and what a Chiropractor scope permits near Marion, KS. Open the mirror for the full comparison: archive on the left, permitted scope and licensed-care paths on the right.
Mirror generated 2026-10-21 12:40 UTC. The archive pane loads styles and images from the intake snapshot.
6 licensed-care paths linked for out-of-scope claims.
Disclaimer hypocrisy
A polite legal shrug lives in the footer while the site happily hands out condition-specific guidance and treatment promises. That is disclaimer cosplay: the liability shield says 'informational only,' but the page sells diagnosis-flavored answers anyway.
Validated associated properties
Surfaces tied to this Doc Bro by domain, branding, or funnel routing. Third-party platforms are labeled as routes, not as owned properties.
Analyzed
- OwnedPaul Fay clinic / principal site (ffc.standardprocess.com)
- OwnedOfficial site (fayfamilychiro.com)
Tip the jar
Report useful? Optional tips help keep scans, archives, and literature cross-checks running. They never change conclusions.
Submission eZh08VVOI24vr8yfHHM53
Fight disinformation
Log a public thread where Paul Daniel Fay is spreading nonsense, get a copy-paste reply with this report link.
Reply snippets
Before you buy the protocol: Dr. Trust Me Bro fact-checked Paul Daniel Fay's claims with peer-reviewed sources, https://drtrustmebro.com/analyze/eZh08VVOI24vr8yfHHM53. White-coat charisma isn't evidence.
Full DTMB scan on Paul Daniel Fay: https://drtrustmebro.com/analyze/eZh08VVOI24vr8yfHHM53
Drop these in YouTube comments, Reddit threads, and forums, link back to this scan, not vibes.
Recent mentions (this doc)
No conversation links logged yet. Be the first above.
Nudge the Doc Bro
We could not find a public contact email for Paul Daniel Fay. Reach them through their own site and ask them to review this dossier and correct anything we got wrong.
Know someone who can help?
If you think someone has firsthand information about Paul Daniel Fay, send them an encouraging note. We email a short, respectful message with this report and clear instructions on how to write in, on the record or anonymously.
Whambulance
Challenge this scan or Wall of Fame entry for Paul Daniel Fay. Public log, not legal arbitration.
Public challenge log
No posted Wall of Fame challenges linked yet.
Challenges are public on the Wall of Fame card. DTMB does not remove entries for hurt feelings, primary sources or copy corrections only.
File a challenge
Include in your email:
- Doc Bro ID: LTO4Ym_A3l2tpL6fohLPp
- Wall entry: /influencer/LTO4Ym_A3l2tpL6fohLPp
- Analysis ID: eZh08VVOI24vr8yfHHM53
- Source: https://fayfamilychiro.com/
- Why this entry or scan should change
- Supporting links (one per line)
- Your business email (for verified disputes)
Verified challenges are posted publicly on the report. Public log, not legal arbitration.
Citations
Peer-reviewed and index sources cited in this report.
- [1] Guideline-Driven Management of Hypertension: An Evidence-Based Update.
- [2] ASPEN-FELANPE Clinical Guidelines.
- [3] ESPEN guideline: Clinical nutrition in inflammatory bowel disease.
- [4] When Is Parenteral Nutrition Appropriate?
- [5] EFNS guideline on the treatment of tension-type headache - report of an EFNS task force.
- [6] GRADE guidelines 6. Rating the quality of evidence--imprecision.
- [7] Blood Transfusion Therapy.
- [8] Colchicine in Pericarditis.
- [9] Chiropractic Care for Adults With Pregnancy-Related Low Back ...
- [10] Evidence Based Chiropractic: Pregnancy & Women's Health
- [11] Chiropractic Treatment of Pregnancy-Related Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review of the Evidence
- [12] Chiropractic management of dominating one-sided pelvic girdle ...
- [13] A nephrology guide to reading and using systematic reviews of observational studies.
- [14] Efficacy of chiropractic manual therapy on infant colic
- [15] An overview of systematic reviews of complementary and alternative therapies for infantile colic
- [16] Spinal manual therapy in infants, children and adolescents: A systematic review and meta-analysis on treatment indication, technique and outcomes
- [17] Chiropractic spinal manipulation for infant colic: a ...