Timothy Thomas Bertsch alias Root-Cause Chiropractic Empire

Timothy Thomas Bertsch is not licensed or approved by Minnesota Board of Chiropractic Examiners to diagnose, treat, or cure Autism.

Autism

Supports

There is some very low-quality evidence suggesting that chiropractic spinal manipulation might improve certain behavioral or symptom scores in children with autism, but it is not high-quality and is not considered definitive. A small randomized clinical trial of upper cervical versus full-spine chiropractic care in 14 autistic children reported reductions in Autism Treatment Evaluation Checklist (ATEC) scores in most children in both groups, with larger improvement in the upper cervical group, and two children reportedly no longer met criteria for autism after treatment; however, this trial was non-blinded, relied on parent-reported outcomes, and involved a tiny sample size. Systematic reviews of spinal manipulation in pediatric populations have identified this and a few other small trials or case series suggesting symptom improvements in autistic children, but they consistently emphasize that these data are preliminary and methodologically weak. Overall, existing evidence is exploratory and insufficient to establish efficacy, but it does show that formal trials and case series have been conducted rather than purely anecdotal claims.

Contradicts

High-quality evidence (systematic reviews and broader CAM reviews) consistently concludes that there is no convincing or conclusive evidence that chiropractic treatment or spinal manipulation is effective for autism or core autism-related impairments. A systematic review of spinal manipulation for pediatric conditions found only one small randomized trial and a few case reports for autism and characterized the evidence as weak, with major limitations such as small samples, poor controls, and reliance on subjective measures. A more recent scoping review of spinal manipulation and mobilization in infants, children, and adolescents reported that there is no explicit evidence supporting effectiveness of spinal manipulation for any pediatric condition and described findings for autism-related impairments as inconclusive, with available data mostly from case reports. Reviews of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) for autism specifically state that evidence for chiropractic therapy is inconclusive and that there is a lack of proof of efficacy for CAM therapies overall in autism. Commentaries summarizing this literature also stress that claims that chiropractic can treat autism are not supported by robust data and highlight concerns about potential harms and opportunity costs when families pursue unproven manual therapies instead of evidence-based developmental, behavioral, educational, and medical interventions. Major autism treatment guidelines and consensus statements do not recommend chiropractic manipulation as a treatment for autism, reflecting the absence of credible RCTs, meta-analyses, or guideline-level support.

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical and scientific position is that chiropractic treatment or spinal manipulation is not an evidence-based therapy for autism and should not be promoted as a means to treat core autism features or to modify the underlying neurodevelopmental condition. Autism is understood as a neurodevelopmental condition with multifactorial genetic and environmental contributions; recommended interventions focus on structured behavioral and developmental therapies (such as applied behavior analysis, pivotal response treatment, and social skills programs), educational supports, speech and occupational therapy, and targeted pharmacologic treatment for co-occurring conditions, all of which have substantially stronger evidence from randomized controlled trials and structured outcome measures than chiropractic care. Existing research on chiropractic or spinal manipulation for autism is sparse, methodologically weak (small, often unblinded trials, case series, and case reports), and yields inconclusive results that do not meet modern standards for efficacy evaluation. Major guidelines and CAM reviews consequently advise that chiropractic manipulation for autism should be considered experimental at best and not used as a primary treatment or substitute for established evidence-based care. The prevailing view in pediatrics, neurology, and autism specialty care is that any use of chiropractic for autistic individuals should be limited to managing clearly defined musculoskeletal complaints and not framed as a treatment for autism itself.

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Autism”

Rule: Minnesota Statutes 148.01, Subdivision 1(1) and (4); Subdivision 4

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

Timothy Thomas Bertsch is not licensed or approved by Minnesota Board of Chiropractic Examiners to diagnose, treat, or cure Autoimmune.

Autoimmune

Supports

High-quality evidence specifically supporting chiropractic treatment as an effective natural therapy for autoimmune thyroid disease (Hashimoto’s or Graves’) is essentially absent. A randomized, placebo-controlled trial in primary hypothyroidism evaluated Neuro‑Emotional Technique (NET), a chiropractic-associated biopsychosocial intervention, and found no statistically significant or clinically relevant benefits on thyroid-related outcomes versus placebo over 7 weeks or 6 months, although the intervention appeared safe. This is evidence that such chiropractic-linked interventions can be delivered without major harm, but not that they treat thyroid disease. A 2025 pragmatic randomized controlled trial showed that 12 weeks of chiropractic spinal adjustments can modulate biomarkers such as BDNF, IL‑6, TNF‑α, cortisol, and IFN‑γ compared with sham care, suggesting possible effects on stress and inflammatory pathways, but it did not study thyroid autoimmunity or clinical thyroid outcomes, so any relevance to autoimmune thyroid disease is indirect and speculative. More generally, there are RCTs and trials of non‑pharmacologic or "natural" adjuncts in Hashimoto thyroiditis such as acupuncture, EMDR, selenium, curcumin, and dietary approaches, showing that some non‑drug strategies can modestly influence antibodies, inflammatory markers, symptoms, or quality of life; however, these are not chiropractic interventions.

Contradicts

The best available evidence contradicts the idea that chiropractic treatment is an effective primary therapy for thyroid autoimmune disease. The randomized, placebo‑controlled trial of NET in primary hypothyroidism found that NET did not confer any clinical benefit and was unlikely to be of therapeutic use in a hypothyroid population, despite being safe. Systematic review data on spinal manipulative therapy and immune outcomes report no clinical evidence from acceptable‑ or high‑quality randomized trials to support or refute claims that spinal manipulation prevents or improves disease‑specific outcomes via immune modulation, indicating that claims of meaningful immune or autoimmune disease control through chiropractic are not evidence‑based. The broader chiropractic literature, including critical reviews, emphasizes that high‑quality evidence for disease-modifying effects outside musculoskeletal conditions is very limited and often confined to case reports, which are low on the evidence hierarchy. In contrast, randomized trials and prospective studies of other adjunctive non‑pharmacologic interventions in Hashimoto’s (e.g., selenium, curcumin plus anti‑inflammatory diet, acupuncture, EMDR) show at most modest effects on antibody levels, inflammatory indices, or symptoms and are framed as adjuncts to standard medical care rather than replacements; this underscores that even better‑studied "natural" interventions are not curative and must be integrated with conventional management.

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical and scientific view is that autoimmune thyroid diseases such as Hashimoto thyroiditis and Graves disease are primarily managed with evidence‑based medical therapies (levothyroxine for hypothyroidism, antithyroid drugs, radioactive iodine, or surgery for hyperthyroidism) guided by endocrinology and major clinical practice guidelines, with goals of normalizing thyroid hormone levels, controlling symptoms, and monitoring long‑term risks. Chiropractic care is recognized in mainstream medicine mainly for short‑term relief of certain musculoskeletal conditions, not as a disease‑modifying treatment for autoimmune or endocrine disorders. There are no major guidelines or high‑quality trials endorsing spinal manipulation or chiropractic protocols as effective treatment for autoimmune thyroid disease, and current systematic reviews find no robust clinical evidence that spinal manipulation can meaningfully alter immune function or autoimmune disease outcomes. Non‑pharmacologic or "natural" adjuncts (such as optimized nutrition, some supplements, stress‑reduction techniques, or selected mind–body therapies) may have roles in symptom relief or modest improvement in inflammatory or antibody markers, but they are considered complementary and must not replace guideline‑directed medical management.

Papers listed for this claim:[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][13][14][15][16]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Autoimmune”

Rule: Minnesota Statutes 148.01, Subdivision 2

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

Timothy Thomas Bertsch is not licensed or approved by Minnesota Board of Chiropractic Examiners to diagnose, treat, or cure ADHD.

ADHD

Supports

There is very limited supportive evidence for chiropractic treatment of ADHD/ADD, and what exists is low quality or shows, at best, non-specific effects rather than clear clinical benefit. A recent pilot randomized controlled trial in 67 children compared chiropractic adjustments plus usual ADHD care to sham chiropractic plus usual care; both groups improved over 4–8 weeks, but there were no significant differences between real and sham treatment, so no specific efficacy of chiropractic adjustment was demonstrated. A crossover RCT on spinal manipulation in children with ADHD found feasibility and some short-term changes in oculomotor control and reading time after a single manipulation, but it did not demonstrate robust or sustained improvements in core ADHD symptoms. Case reports and small uncontrolled case series report improvements in ADHD-like symptoms after chiropractic care, but these are considered very low-level evidence and are prone to bias. Overall, there are no large, high-quality RCTs or meta-analyses showing that chiropractic treatment meaningfully improves ADHD/ADD outcomes, and mainstream ADHD guidelines do not list chiropractic as an evidence-based treatment.

Contradicts

A systematic review dedicated to chiropractic care for pediatric and adolescent ADHD concluded that there is insufficient evidence to evaluate efficacy and that claims of benefit are supported only by low levels of scientific evidence, with no qualifying randomized controlled trials meeting inclusion criteria at that time. A 2025 narrative review of chiropractic care in children similarly notes that, although spinal manipulation may be feasible in children with ADHD, there is little evidence of efficacy, and the only randomized study showed no advantage of chiropractic adjustment over sham. The 2024 pilot RCT adding chiropractic care to usual ADHD treatment found no significant between-group improvements in ADHD outcomes, directly contradicting claims that chiropractic adjustments provide a clinically important additive effect over standard care. Mainstream ADHD treatment guidelines and high-quality reviews of ADHD management emphasize stimulant and non-stimulant medications, behavioral and psychosocial interventions, educational support, and selected nonpharmacologic modalities (such as structured exercise, digital cognitive-physical programs, or neuromodulation), but do not recommend chiropractic therapy as an evidence-based option, reflecting the lack of convincing data. Compared with these better-studied nonpharmacologic interventions, chiropractic for ADHD lacks replicated RCTs, long-term outcome data, and systematic reviews demonstrating benefit, so the overall evidence base is weak and does not support chiropractor treatment as an effective therapy for ADHD/ADD.

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical and scientific position is that chiropractic treatment is not an evidence-based therapy for ADHD/ADD and should not replace proven first-line treatments. Current ADHD management is guided by large guideline-driven frameworks, which prioritize pharmacologic treatments (stimulants and certain non-stimulants) and structured behavioral, psychological, and educational interventions, sometimes complemented by specific nonpharmacologic adjuncts such as exercise-based programs, digital cognitive-physical interventions, and neuromodulatory approaches that have RCT support. In contrast, chiropractic spinal manipulation has, at most, very limited and low-quality evidence for ADHD, with the best controlled trial showing no specific benefit over sham manipulation. Case reports and small uncontrolled series are viewed as insufficient to establish efficacy for a neurodevelopmental disorder that otherwise has multiple well-validated treatment options. Major pediatric, psychiatric, and neurology guidelines do not list chiropractic care as a recommended treatment for ADHD. Chiropractic may be used by some families as an adjunct for general musculoskeletal complaints, but for ADHD symptom control itself, the mainstream view is that its benefits are unproven and any use should be clearly framed as experimental and not a substitute for guideline-based care.

Papers listed for this claim:[1][2][3][5][4][6][7][8][17][18][19][20]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“ADHD”

Rule: Minnesota Statutes 148.01, Subdivision 1(4)

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

Timothy Thomas Bertsch is not licensed or approved by Minnesota Board of Chiropractic Examiners to diagnose, treat, or cure Thyroid.

Thyroid

Supports

High-quality evidence specifically supporting chiropractic treatment as an effective natural therapy for autoimmune thyroid disease (Hashimoto’s or Graves’) is essentially absent. A randomized, placebo-controlled trial in primary hypothyroidism evaluated Neuro‑Emotional Technique (NET), a chiropractic-associated biopsychosocial intervention, and found no statistically significant or clinically relevant benefits on thyroid-related outcomes versus placebo over 7 weeks or 6 months, although the intervention appeared safe. This is evidence that such chiropractic-linked interventions can be delivered without major harm, but not that they treat thyroid disease. A 2025 pragmatic randomized controlled trial showed that 12 weeks of chiropractic spinal adjustments can modulate biomarkers such as BDNF, IL‑6, TNF‑α, cortisol, and IFN‑γ compared with sham care, suggesting possible effects on stress and inflammatory pathways, but it did not study thyroid autoimmunity or clinical thyroid outcomes, so any relevance to autoimmune thyroid disease is indirect and speculative. More generally, there are RCTs and trials of non‑pharmacologic or "natural" adjuncts in Hashimoto thyroiditis such as acupuncture, EMDR, selenium, curcumin, and dietary approaches, showing that some non‑drug strategies can modestly influence antibodies, inflammatory markers, symptoms, or quality of life; however, these are not chiropractic interventions.

Contradicts

The best available evidence contradicts the idea that chiropractic treatment is an effective primary therapy for thyroid autoimmune disease. The randomized, placebo‑controlled trial of NET in primary hypothyroidism found that NET did not confer any clinical benefit and was unlikely to be of therapeutic use in a hypothyroid population, despite being safe. Systematic review data on spinal manipulative therapy and immune outcomes report no clinical evidence from acceptable‑ or high‑quality randomized trials to support or refute claims that spinal manipulation prevents or improves disease‑specific outcomes via immune modulation, indicating that claims of meaningful immune or autoimmune disease control through chiropractic are not evidence‑based. The broader chiropractic literature, including critical reviews, emphasizes that high‑quality evidence for disease-modifying effects outside musculoskeletal conditions is very limited and often confined to case reports, which are low on the evidence hierarchy. In contrast, randomized trials and prospective studies of other adjunctive non‑pharmacologic interventions in Hashimoto’s (e.g., selenium, curcumin plus anti‑inflammatory diet, acupuncture, EMDR) show at most modest effects on antibody levels, inflammatory indices, or symptoms and are framed as adjuncts to standard medical care rather than replacements; this underscores that even better‑studied "natural" interventions are not curative and must be integrated with conventional management.

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical and scientific view is that autoimmune thyroid diseases such as Hashimoto thyroiditis and Graves disease are primarily managed with evidence‑based medical therapies (levothyroxine for hypothyroidism, antithyroid drugs, radioactive iodine, or surgery for hyperthyroidism) guided by endocrinology and major clinical practice guidelines, with goals of normalizing thyroid hormone levels, controlling symptoms, and monitoring long‑term risks. Chiropractic care is recognized in mainstream medicine mainly for short‑term relief of certain musculoskeletal conditions, not as a disease‑modifying treatment for autoimmune or endocrine disorders. There are no major guidelines or high‑quality trials endorsing spinal manipulation or chiropractic protocols as effective treatment for autoimmune thyroid disease, and current systematic reviews find no robust clinical evidence that spinal manipulation can meaningfully alter immune function or autoimmune disease outcomes. Non‑pharmacologic or "natural" adjuncts (such as optimized nutrition, some supplements, stress‑reduction techniques, or selected mind–body therapies) may have roles in symptom relief or modest improvement in inflammatory or antibody markers, but they are considered complementary and must not replace guideline‑directed medical management.

Papers listed for this claim:[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][13][14][15][16]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“[Thyroid]”

Rule: Minnesota Statutes 148.01, Subdivision 2

See every doc bro who says they can treat or advise on Thyroid disease and Hashimoto

Timothy Thomas Bertsch is not licensed or approved by Minnesota Board of Chiropractic Examiners to diagnose, treat, or cure Natural Treatment For Thyroid Autoimmune.

Natural Treatment For Thyroid Autoimmune

Supports

High-quality evidence specifically supporting chiropractic treatment as an effective natural therapy for autoimmune thyroid disease (Hashimoto’s or Graves’) is essentially absent. A randomized, placebo-controlled trial in primary hypothyroidism evaluated Neuro‑Emotional Technique (NET), a chiropractic-associated biopsychosocial intervention, and found no statistically significant or clinically relevant benefits on thyroid-related outcomes versus placebo over 7 weeks or 6 months, although the intervention appeared safe. This is evidence that such chiropractic-linked interventions can be delivered without major harm, but not that they treat thyroid disease. A 2025 pragmatic randomized controlled trial showed that 12 weeks of chiropractic spinal adjustments can modulate biomarkers such as BDNF, IL‑6, TNF‑α, cortisol, and IFN‑γ compared with sham care, suggesting possible effects on stress and inflammatory pathways, but it did not study thyroid autoimmunity or clinical thyroid outcomes, so any relevance to autoimmune thyroid disease is indirect and speculative. More generally, there are RCTs and trials of non‑pharmacologic or "natural" adjuncts in Hashimoto thyroiditis such as acupuncture, EMDR, selenium, curcumin, and dietary approaches, showing that some non‑drug strategies can modestly influence antibodies, inflammatory markers, symptoms, or quality of life; however, these are not chiropractic interventions.

Contradicts

The best available evidence contradicts the idea that chiropractic treatment is an effective primary therapy for thyroid autoimmune disease. The randomized, placebo‑controlled trial of NET in primary hypothyroidism found that NET did not confer any clinical benefit and was unlikely to be of therapeutic use in a hypothyroid population, despite being safe. Systematic review data on spinal manipulative therapy and immune outcomes report no clinical evidence from acceptable‑ or high‑quality randomized trials to support or refute claims that spinal manipulation prevents or improves disease‑specific outcomes via immune modulation, indicating that claims of meaningful immune or autoimmune disease control through chiropractic are not evidence‑based. The broader chiropractic literature, including critical reviews, emphasizes that high‑quality evidence for disease-modifying effects outside musculoskeletal conditions is very limited and often confined to case reports, which are low on the evidence hierarchy. In contrast, randomized trials and prospective studies of other adjunctive non‑pharmacologic interventions in Hashimoto’s (e.g., selenium, curcumin plus anti‑inflammatory diet, acupuncture, EMDR) show at most modest effects on antibody levels, inflammatory indices, or symptoms and are framed as adjuncts to standard medical care rather than replacements; this underscores that even better‑studied "natural" interventions are not curative and must be integrated with conventional management.

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical and scientific view is that autoimmune thyroid diseases such as Hashimoto thyroiditis and Graves disease are primarily managed with evidence‑based medical therapies (levothyroxine for hypothyroidism, antithyroid drugs, radioactive iodine, or surgery for hyperthyroidism) guided by endocrinology and major clinical practice guidelines, with goals of normalizing thyroid hormone levels, controlling symptoms, and monitoring long‑term risks. Chiropractic care is recognized in mainstream medicine mainly for short‑term relief of certain musculoskeletal conditions, not as a disease‑modifying treatment for autoimmune or endocrine disorders. There are no major guidelines or high‑quality trials endorsing spinal manipulation or chiropractic protocols as effective treatment for autoimmune thyroid disease, and current systematic reviews find no robust clinical evidence that spinal manipulation can meaningfully alter immune function or autoimmune disease outcomes. Non‑pharmacologic or "natural" adjuncts (such as optimized nutrition, some supplements, stress‑reduction techniques, or selected mind–body therapies) may have roles in symptom relief or modest improvement in inflammatory or antibody markers, but they are considered complementary and must not replace guideline‑directed medical management.

Papers listed for this claim:[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][13][14][15][16]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“[Natural Treatment For Thyroid Autoimmune]”

Rule: Minnesota Statutes 148.01, Subdivision 1(2)

See every doc bro who says they can treat or advise on Thyroid disease and Hashimoto

Timothy Thomas Bertsch is not licensed or approved by Minnesota Board of Chiropractic Examiners to diagnose, treat, or cure ADD/ADHD.

ADD/ADHD

Supports

There is very limited supportive evidence for chiropractic treatment of ADHD/ADD, and what exists is low quality or shows, at best, non-specific effects rather than clear clinical benefit. A recent pilot randomized controlled trial in 67 children compared chiropractic adjustments plus usual ADHD care to sham chiropractic plus usual care; both groups improved over 4–8 weeks, but there were no significant differences between real and sham treatment, so no specific efficacy of chiropractic adjustment was demonstrated. A crossover RCT on spinal manipulation in children with ADHD found feasibility and some short-term changes in oculomotor control and reading time after a single manipulation, but it did not demonstrate robust or sustained improvements in core ADHD symptoms. Case reports and small uncontrolled case series report improvements in ADHD-like symptoms after chiropractic care, but these are considered very low-level evidence and are prone to bias. Overall, there are no large, high-quality RCTs or meta-analyses showing that chiropractic treatment meaningfully improves ADHD/ADD outcomes, and mainstream ADHD guidelines do not list chiropractic as an evidence-based treatment.

Contradicts

A systematic review dedicated to chiropractic care for pediatric and adolescent ADHD concluded that there is insufficient evidence to evaluate efficacy and that claims of benefit are supported only by low levels of scientific evidence, with no qualifying randomized controlled trials meeting inclusion criteria at that time. A 2025 narrative review of chiropractic care in children similarly notes that, although spinal manipulation may be feasible in children with ADHD, there is little evidence of efficacy, and the only randomized study showed no advantage of chiropractic adjustment over sham. The 2024 pilot RCT adding chiropractic care to usual ADHD treatment found no significant between-group improvements in ADHD outcomes, directly contradicting claims that chiropractic adjustments provide a clinically important additive effect over standard care. Mainstream ADHD treatment guidelines and high-quality reviews of ADHD management emphasize stimulant and non-stimulant medications, behavioral and psychosocial interventions, educational support, and selected nonpharmacologic modalities (such as structured exercise, digital cognitive-physical programs, or neuromodulation), but do not recommend chiropractic therapy as an evidence-based option, reflecting the lack of convincing data. Compared with these better-studied nonpharmacologic interventions, chiropractic for ADHD lacks replicated RCTs, long-term outcome data, and systematic reviews demonstrating benefit, so the overall evidence base is weak and does not support chiropractor treatment as an effective therapy for ADHD/ADD.

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical and scientific position is that chiropractic treatment is not an evidence-based therapy for ADHD/ADD and should not replace proven first-line treatments. Current ADHD management is guided by large guideline-driven frameworks, which prioritize pharmacologic treatments (stimulants and certain non-stimulants) and structured behavioral, psychological, and educational interventions, sometimes complemented by specific nonpharmacologic adjuncts such as exercise-based programs, digital cognitive-physical interventions, and neuromodulatory approaches that have RCT support. In contrast, chiropractic spinal manipulation has, at most, very limited and low-quality evidence for ADHD, with the best controlled trial showing no specific benefit over sham manipulation. Case reports and small uncontrolled series are viewed as insufficient to establish efficacy for a neurodevelopmental disorder that otherwise has multiple well-validated treatment options. Major pediatric, psychiatric, and neurology guidelines do not list chiropractic care as a recommended treatment for ADHD. Chiropractic may be used by some families as an adjunct for general musculoskeletal complaints, but for ADHD symptom control itself, the mainstream view is that its benefits are unproven and any use should be clearly framed as experimental and not a substitute for guideline-based care.

Papers listed for this claim:[1][2][3][5][4][6][7][8][17][18][19][20]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“ADD/ADHD”

Rule: Minnesota Statutes 148.01, Subdivision 1(4)

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

Timothy Thomas Bertsch is not licensed or approved by Minnesota Board of Chiropractic Examiners to diagnose, treat, or cure Anxiety & Depression.

Anxiety & Depression

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Anxiety & Depression”

Rule: Minnesota Statutes 148.01, Subdivision 2

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

Timothy Thomas Bertsch is not licensed or approved by Minnesota Board of Chiropractic Examiners to diagnose, treat, or cure What Does “Hormone Imbalance” Actually Mean?.

What Does “Hormone Imbalance” Actually Mean?

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“What Does “Hormone Imbalance” Actually Mean?”

Rule: Minnesota Statutes 148.01, Subdivision 2

Timothy Thomas Bertsch is not licensed or approved by Minnesota Board of Chiropractic Examiners to advertise The Nervous System And Autism as within their scope of practice.

The Nervous System And Autism

Supports

There is some very low-quality evidence suggesting that chiropractic spinal manipulation might improve certain behavioral or symptom scores in children with autism, but it is not high-quality and is not considered definitive. A small randomized clinical trial of upper cervical versus full-spine chiropractic care in 14 autistic children reported reductions in Autism Treatment Evaluation Checklist (ATEC) scores in most children in both groups, with larger improvement in the upper cervical group, and two children reportedly no longer met criteria for autism after treatment; however, this trial was non-blinded, relied on parent-reported outcomes, and involved a tiny sample size. Systematic reviews of spinal manipulation in pediatric populations have identified this and a few other small trials or case series suggesting symptom improvements in autistic children, but they consistently emphasize that these data are preliminary and methodologically weak. Overall, existing evidence is exploratory and insufficient to establish efficacy, but it does show that formal trials and case series have been conducted rather than purely anecdotal claims.

Contradicts

High-quality evidence (systematic reviews and broader CAM reviews) consistently concludes that there is no convincing or conclusive evidence that chiropractic treatment or spinal manipulation is effective for autism or core autism-related impairments. A systematic review of spinal manipulation for pediatric conditions found only one small randomized trial and a few case reports for autism and characterized the evidence as weak, with major limitations such as small samples, poor controls, and reliance on subjective measures. A more recent scoping review of spinal manipulation and mobilization in infants, children, and adolescents reported that there is no explicit evidence supporting effectiveness of spinal manipulation for any pediatric condition and described findings for autism-related impairments as inconclusive, with available data mostly from case reports. Reviews of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) for autism specifically state that evidence for chiropractic therapy is inconclusive and that there is a lack of proof of efficacy for CAM therapies overall in autism. Commentaries summarizing this literature also stress that claims that chiropractic can treat autism are not supported by robust data and highlight concerns about potential harms and opportunity costs when families pursue unproven manual therapies instead of evidence-based developmental, behavioral, educational, and medical interventions. Major autism treatment guidelines and consensus statements do not recommend chiropractic manipulation as a treatment for autism, reflecting the absence of credible RCTs, meta-analyses, or guideline-level support.

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical and scientific position is that chiropractic treatment or spinal manipulation is not an evidence-based therapy for autism and should not be promoted as a means to treat core autism features or to modify the underlying neurodevelopmental condition. Autism is understood as a neurodevelopmental condition with multifactorial genetic and environmental contributions; recommended interventions focus on structured behavioral and developmental therapies (such as applied behavior analysis, pivotal response treatment, and social skills programs), educational supports, speech and occupational therapy, and targeted pharmacologic treatment for co-occurring conditions, all of which have substantially stronger evidence from randomized controlled trials and structured outcome measures than chiropractic care. Existing research on chiropractic or spinal manipulation for autism is sparse, methodologically weak (small, often unblinded trials, case series, and case reports), and yields inconclusive results that do not meet modern standards for efficacy evaluation. Major guidelines and CAM reviews consequently advise that chiropractic manipulation for autism should be considered experimental at best and not used as a primary treatment or substitute for established evidence-based care. The prevailing view in pediatrics, neurology, and autism specialty care is that any use of chiropractic for autistic individuals should be limited to managing clearly defined musculoskeletal complaints and not framed as a treatment for autism itself.

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“The Nervous System And Autism”

Rule: Minnesota Statutes 148.01, Subdivision 1(4)

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

Timothy Thomas Bertsch is not licensed or approved by Minnesota Board of Chiropractic Examiners to diagnose, treat, or cure Anxiety.

Anxiety

Supports

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

Contradicts

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

Mainstream view

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

Papers listed for this claim:[21][22][23][24]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Anxiety”

Rule: Minnesota Statutes 148.01, Subdivision 2

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

Timothy Thomas Bertsch is not licensed or approved by Minnesota Board of Chiropractic Examiners to diagnose, treat, or cure Functional Medicine.

Functional Medicine

Supports

There is some emerging evidence that particular interventions often used within functional or integrative medicine frameworks (for example, elimination diets with lifestyle/health coaching, acupuncture, herbal formulas, exercise, and nutritional adjuncts) can improve symptoms or functional outcomes in specific conditions and sometimes act via identifiable biochemical or physiological mechanisms. A randomized controlled trial of functional medicine health coaching plus an elimination diet in clinicians reported better dietary adherence and improved patient‑reported health outcomes compared with a self‑guided elimination diet, suggesting that a structured functional‑medicine‑style program can positively affect multisystem symptoms, although this mainly reflects behavioral and subjective outcomes rather than direct correction of underlying “chemistry.” Systematic reviews and randomized trials in integrative and traditional medicine (e.g., Chinese herbal medicine and Saam acupuncture for functional dyspepsia) demonstrate symptom relief and quality‑of‑life improvements compared with conventional prokinetics or usual care, implying that specific non‑conventional interventions can modulate gastrointestinal function and possibly related biochemical pathways. Lifestyle‑based RCTs (heavy resistance training after muscle strain, structured rehabilitation for Achilles tendon rupture) show that targeted interventions can normalize muscle strength, reduce pain, and improve functional scores, consistent with the idea that targeted changes to physiology can “fix” or substantially improve functional consequences of underlying pathology. Nutritional adjuncts such as vitamin D supplementation added to antidepressants have shown associations between improved serum vitamin D levels, better mood scores, and preserved brain connectivity, indicating that correcting a specific biochemical deficiency can improve both symptoms and objective neurobiological measures. Collectively, these lines of evidence support only a narrow reading of the claim: in some conditions, adjusting identified biochemical or physiological factors (e.g., nutrient status, physical deconditioning, dyspeptic symptom mechanisms) through structured interventions can lead to symptom improvement.

Contradicts

High‑quality evidence does not support the broad, marketing‑style assertion that “advanced functional medicine” as a generalized care model reliably fixes the chemistry behind any patient’s symptoms across conditions. Critical commentaries on functional medicine acknowledge that the overall model lacks robust randomized controlled trials directly comparing it to standard care and still relies heavily on unproven suppositions and case reports, with ongoing but as yet incomplete efforts to generate higher‑quality evidence. Even supportive overviews emphasize that functional medicine’s evidence base is uneven: some individual tools are evidence‑based, but the comprehensive diagnostic and therapeutic framework (including extensive specialty testing and individualized protocols claimed to “fix chemistry”) has not been validated by large, rigorous trials or major guidelines as a superior or reliably effective system of care. Many RCTs in complementary and traditional modalities show modest or condition‑specific benefits, but they do not demonstrate that broad functional medicine programs can systematically identify and correct underlying biochemical abnormalities in a way that consistently eliminates symptoms; instead, effects are often limited, mediated through lifestyle changes, or indistinguishable from well‑designed conventional interventions. Furthermore, several trials of biologically plausible interventions (e.g., oxytocin/vasopressin for social cognition, platelet‑rich plasma or stem‑cell‑based orthobiologics for musculoskeletal conditions) show either null results or only partial functional benefits, underscoring that changing measurable biology does not automatically translate into robust symptom resolution and that mechanistic promises frequently exceed what trials deliver. Overall, the claim that “advanced functional medicine” can generally fix the chemistry behind symptoms overstates the current evidence, extrapolates from condition‑specific or adjunctive interventions, and implies a level of mechanistic control and outcome certainty that is not supported by mainstream data or guidelines.

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical position is that specific biochemical or physiological abnormalities (such as nutrient deficiencies, endocrine disorders, metabolic disease, or structural injuries) can sometimes be identified and effectively treated, resulting in symptom improvement, but this must be demonstrated via condition‑specific diagnostic criteria and high‑quality trials or guideline‑endorsed therapies, not by broad functional‑medicine branding. Evidence‑based medicine relies on randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, and major clinical guidelines to validate both mechanisms and outcomes, and currently recognizes some integrative or lifestyle interventions (e.g., structured exercise therapy, certain nutritional corrections, selected traditional therapies with solid RCT support) as useful options in particular indications, while viewing the comprehensive functional medicine model as promising but still insufficiently validated and mechanistically over‑stated. Mainstream practice generally accepts individualized care and attention to diet, exercise, sleep

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“[Functional Medicine]”

Rule: Minnesota Statutes 148.01, Subdivision 2

Timothy Thomas Bertsch is not licensed or approved by Minnesota Board of Chiropractic Examiners to diagnose, treat, or cure Functional Neurology.

Functional Neurology

Supports

High-quality evidence for chiropractic 'functional neurology' as a distinct therapeutic approach is extremely limited. The main scoping and systematic reviews of functional neurology in a chiropractic context report that there are almost no randomized controlled trials or higher-level studies specifically testing functional neurology protocols as used by chiropractors for neurological or functional disorders; most reports are case studies or uncontrolled series. These reviews conclude that while spinal manipulation can produce measurable changes in brain-related physiological parameters in some small trials, there is no robust evidence that these changes translate into clinically meaningful neurological outcomes. Evidence from broader chiropractic RCTs shows that standard chiropractic care can modestly improve pain and function in musculoskeletal conditions (e.g., cervical radiculopathy, subclinical spinal pain), and can modulate neurotrophic and inflammatory markers in the short term, but these are not studies of chiropractic functional neurology as branded and do not establish disease‑specific neurological benefits. Existing neurologic treatment guidelines and general principles documents from major bodies (e.g., American Academy of Neurology) support using novel or unconventional therapies only when evidence is limited and after careful risk–benefit discussion, but they do not endorse chiropractic functional neurology as a standard treatment for neurological disorders.

Contradicts

The key peer‑reviewed syntheses examining chiropractic functional neurology characterize it as lacking an adequate evidence base and likely pseudoscientific when promoted as a neurologic treatment system. These reviews emphasize that there are no randomized controlled trials demonstrating that chiropractic functional neurology improves clinical outcomes in patients with diagnosed neurological conditions, and that available work consists almost entirely of case reports and low‑quality evidence, which would be rated as very low certainty under GRADE criteria. Broader systematic reviews on spinal manipulation and brain function report inconsistent physiological findings and explicitly state that it is premature to claim brain‑function or neurologic benefits from such interventions. Major neurologic guidelines and position statements instead recommend evidence‑based treatments (such as physiotherapy plus cognitive behavioral therapy for functional movement disorders, or stroke and traumatic brain injury rehabilitation) and do not list chiropractic functional neurology among recommended therapies, highlighting that current neurologic care standards rest on modalities with substantially stronger trial and guideline support. Overall, the evidence base for chiropractic functional neurology is weak, indirect, and insufficient to substantiate influencer‑style claims of broad neurological efficacy.

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical and neurologic position is that chiropractic care has an established but limited role in managing certain musculoskeletal pain conditions, while chiropractic functional neurology—as a separate branded system claiming to diagnose and treat a wide range of neurological and functional disorders via complex sensory, vestibular, and manipulation‑based protocols—does not currently have robust supporting evidence and is not incorporated into major neurology or rehabilitation guidelines. High‑quality care for neurological and functional disorders focuses on interventions backed by randomized trials and systematic reviews (for example, multidisciplinary physiotherapy plus cognitive behavioral therapy for functional movement disorders, structured stroke and TBI rehabilitation, and pharmacologic or neuromodulation therapies with demonstrated benefits), and novel or unconventional approaches are considered only cautiously, with explicit acknowledgement of limited evidence. Within this framework, chiropractic functional neurology is generally regarded as experimental or unproven rather than an evidence‑based standard of care.

Papers listed for this claim:[1][2][3][5][4][6][7][8][29][30][31][32]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“[Functional Neurology]”

Rule: Minnesota Statutes 148.01, Subdivision 2

Timothy Thomas Bertsch is not licensed or approved by Minnesota Board of Chiropractic Examiners to diagnose, treat, or cure NAET Allergy Treatment.

NAET Allergy Treatment

Supports

High-quality evidence for NAET (Nambudripad’s Allergy Elimination Techniques) as an allergy treatment is extremely limited and does not meet mainstream standards for establishing efficacy. One small randomized controlled study in children with “allergy-related autism” has been cited in secondary sources, but it is preliminary, involves a highly selected population, and is not replicated in independent trials. The available publications and reports on NAET primarily consist of case reports, uncontrolled series, or NAET-sponsored materials, which are low in the evidence hierarchy and do not provide robust proof of efficacy as an allergy treatment. In contrast, strong evidence for allergy treatment comes from large randomized trials and systematic reviews of established modalities such as oral immunotherapy, sublingual immunotherapy, and epicutaneous immunotherapy, none of which involve NAET techniques or chiropractic manipulation. For example, contemporary reviews of peanut allergy management highlight immunotherapeutic approaches (oral, sublingual, epicutaneous) and monoclonal antibodies, not NAET or chiropractic care, as evidence-based strategies for long-term relief and risk reduction. Similarly, randomized clinical trials for egg allergy and other food allergies evaluate oral immunotherapy protocols, allergen avoidance, and desensitization strategies, again without reference to NAET or chiropractic interventions as validated treatments. For chiropractic care and allergies, mainstream academic literature notes at best modest, non-specific effects on symptoms, with no high-quality evidence that spinal manipulation is an effective primary treatment for allergic disease. A key review of chiropractic care in asthma and allergy reports that no primary clinical trials demonstrate objective improvements in lung function or allergy outcomes from spinal manipulation; subjective improvements (quality of life, symptom scores) did not differ significantly from controls, leading the authors to conclude there is currently no evidence to support chiropractic spinal manipulation as a primary treatment for asthma or allergy. Some experimental and mechanistic studies in chiropractic research have observed changes in immune markers or autonomic balance after spinal manipulation, but these are small, often uncontrolled, and do not show clear, clinically meaningful allergy outcomes. Overall, there is no high-quality evidence (large RCTs, strong meta-analyses, or major guidelines) that specifically supports chiropractor-delivered NAET as an effective allergy treatment.

Contradicts

Major allergy and immunology guidelines and high-quality clinical research on food and respiratory allergies do not mention NAET or chiropractic manipulation as recommended treatments, which indirectly contradicts the claim that “chiropractor treatment of NAET allergy treatment” is evidence-based. Contemporary comprehensive reviews of peanut allergy and other food allergies emphasize strategies such as strict allergen avoidance, emergency management (e.g., epinephrine), and immunotherapy (oral, sublingual, epicutaneous), as well as biologic agents, but they do not include NAET or chiropractic approaches among evidence-based options. Randomized trials for egg allergy and other food allergies demonstrate benefit from structured oral immunotherapy protocols while also documenting significant risks and adverse events; these trials follow conventional immunology principles and again do not incorporate NAET or chiropractic manipulation. A widely cited review of chiropractic care in asthma and allergy explicitly states that there were no primary clinical trials on spinal manipulation and allergy, and that existing randomized studies showed no statistically significant differences between chiropractic and control groups in objective measures, leading to the conclusion that chiropractic spinal manipulation cannot be recommended as a primary treatment for allergy. This stands in clear tension with influencer claims that chiropractic NAET can treat or cure allergies. Beyond allergy-specific evidence, mainstream evidence-evaluation frameworks (such as GRADE) emphasize the importance of randomized controlled trials, adequate sample size, and precision in effect estimates when rating the quality of evidence; techniques like NAET, supported mainly by case series or single small trials with substantial risk of bias, would be rated as very low-quality evidence, with high imprecision and serious limitations. Clinical practice guidelines in other areas (hypertension, nutrition, headache, transfusion) illustrate how therapies are only recommended once they are supported by multiple high-quality studies and consistent benefit; NAET and chiropractic allergy treatments do not meet this standard and are therefore absent from guideline recommendations. This pattern—absence from rigorous guidelines, lack of robust randomized data, and explicit negative conclusions in chiropractic-allergy reviews—collectively contradicts the assertion that chiropractor-provided NAET is an established, evidence-based allergy treatment.

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical and scientific position is that NAET (Nambudripad’s Allergy Elimination Techniques) and chiropractic spinal manipulation are not established, evidence-based

Papers listed for this claim:[1][2][3][5][4][6][7][8][33][34][35][36]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“[NAET Allergy Treatment]”

Rule: Minnesota Statutes 148.01, Subdivision 1(2)

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

Timothy Thomas Bertsch is not licensed or approved by Minnesota Board of Chiropractic Examiners to diagnose, treat, or cure Brain-Balance.

Brain-Balance

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“[Brain-Balance]”

Rule: Minnesota Statutes 148.01, Subdivision 2

Timothy Thomas Bertsch is not licensed or approved by Minnesota Board of Chiropractic Examiners to advertise We use advanced functional medicine to fix the chemistry behind your symptoms as within their scope of practice.

We use advanced functional medicine to fix the chemistry behind your symptoms

Supports

There is some emerging evidence that particular interventions often used within functional or integrative medicine frameworks (for example, elimination diets with lifestyle/health coaching, acupuncture, herbal formulas, exercise, and nutritional adjuncts) can improve symptoms or functional outcomes in specific conditions and sometimes act via identifiable biochemical or physiological mechanisms. A randomized controlled trial of functional medicine health coaching plus an elimination diet in clinicians reported better dietary adherence and improved patient‑reported health outcomes compared with a self‑guided elimination diet, suggesting that a structured functional‑medicine‑style program can positively affect multisystem symptoms, although this mainly reflects behavioral and subjective outcomes rather than direct correction of underlying “chemistry.” Systematic reviews and randomized trials in integrative and traditional medicine (e.g., Chinese herbal medicine and Saam acupuncture for functional dyspepsia) demonstrate symptom relief and quality‑of‑life improvements compared with conventional prokinetics or usual care, implying that specific non‑conventional interventions can modulate gastrointestinal function and possibly related biochemical pathways. Lifestyle‑based RCTs (heavy resistance training after muscle strain, structured rehabilitation for Achilles tendon rupture) show that targeted interventions can normalize muscle strength, reduce pain, and improve functional scores, consistent with the idea that targeted changes to physiology can “fix” or substantially improve functional consequences of underlying pathology. Nutritional adjuncts such as vitamin D supplementation added to antidepressants have shown associations between improved serum vitamin D levels, better mood scores, and preserved brain connectivity, indicating that correcting a specific biochemical deficiency can improve both symptoms and objective neurobiological measures. Collectively, these lines of evidence support only a narrow reading of the claim: in some conditions, adjusting identified biochemical or physiological factors (e.g., nutrient status, physical deconditioning, dyspeptic symptom mechanisms) through structured interventions can lead to symptom improvement.

Contradicts

High‑quality evidence does not support the broad, marketing‑style assertion that “advanced functional medicine” as a generalized care model reliably fixes the chemistry behind any patient’s symptoms across conditions. Critical commentaries on functional medicine acknowledge that the overall model lacks robust randomized controlled trials directly comparing it to standard care and still relies heavily on unproven suppositions and case reports, with ongoing but as yet incomplete efforts to generate higher‑quality evidence. Even supportive overviews emphasize that functional medicine’s evidence base is uneven: some individual tools are evidence‑based, but the comprehensive diagnostic and therapeutic framework (including extensive specialty testing and individualized protocols claimed to “fix chemistry”) has not been validated by large, rigorous trials or major guidelines as a superior or reliably effective system of care. Many RCTs in complementary and traditional modalities show modest or condition‑specific benefits, but they do not demonstrate that broad functional medicine programs can systematically identify and correct underlying biochemical abnormalities in a way that consistently eliminates symptoms; instead, effects are often limited, mediated through lifestyle changes, or indistinguishable from well‑designed conventional interventions. Furthermore, several trials of biologically plausible interventions (e.g., oxytocin/vasopressin for social cognition, platelet‑rich plasma or stem‑cell‑based orthobiologics for musculoskeletal conditions) show either null results or only partial functional benefits, underscoring that changing measurable biology does not automatically translate into robust symptom resolution and that mechanistic promises frequently exceed what trials deliver. Overall, the claim that “advanced functional medicine” can generally fix the chemistry behind symptoms overstates the current evidence, extrapolates from condition‑specific or adjunctive interventions, and implies a level of mechanistic control and outcome certainty that is not supported by mainstream data or guidelines.

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical position is that specific biochemical or physiological abnormalities (such as nutrient deficiencies, endocrine disorders, metabolic disease, or structural injuries) can sometimes be identified and effectively treated, resulting in symptom improvement, but this must be demonstrated via condition‑specific diagnostic criteria and high‑quality trials or guideline‑endorsed therapies, not by broad functional‑medicine branding. Evidence‑based medicine relies on randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, and major clinical guidelines to validate both mechanisms and outcomes, and currently recognizes some integrative or lifestyle interventions (e.g., structured exercise therapy, certain nutritional corrections, selected traditional therapies with solid RCT support) as useful options in particular indications, while viewing the comprehensive functional medicine model as promising but still insufficiently validated and mechanistically over‑stated. Mainstream practice generally accepts individualized care and attention to diet, exercise, sleep

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“We use advanced functional medicine to fix the chemistry behind your symptoms”

Rule: Minnesota Statutes 148.01, Subdivision 2