Evan Philip Mladenoff alias Brain-Scan Chiro

Evan Philip Mladenoff is not approved to offer Applied Kinesiology within a Chiropractor scope of practice under Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic).

Applied Kinesiology

Supports

The strongest support is indirect and limited: some chiropractic and manual-therapy literature suggests that certain manual muscle testing approaches can be reliable in narrow contexts, but this does not establish Applied Kinesiology as a validated treatment system. ^{[7][9][10][11][12]} A recent systematic review found that reliability of Applied Kinesiology manual muscle testing ranged from nonexistent to very strong depending on method, and concluded that nonmusculoskeletal challenge testing was not recommended for clinical use. ^[2] The peer-reviewed literature also contains some pro-AK claims from within the field, but these are not major guideline-level endorsements and are not sufficient to support the claim as a clinically established treatment approach. ^[4]

Contradicts

Multiple reviews do not support Applied Kinesiology as a valid diagnostic or therapeutic method. A systematic review of kinesiology literature found insufficient evidence for diagnostic accuracy, validity of muscle response, or effectiveness for any condition. Another critical review reported that the studies evaluating unique Applied Kinesiology procedures either refute or cannot support their validity as diagnostic tests, and that use of manual muscle testing for diagnosing organic disease or pre/subclinical conditions is insupportable. ^[9][11][12] A double-blind randomized study found no reliable evidence that Applied Kinesiology works as a useful or reliable diagnostic tool for health decisions. ^[10] The claim is also not supported by any of the index papers provided, because the listed guidelines address unrelated conditions such as hypertension, nutrition, headache, transfusion, and pericarditis rather than Applied Kinesiology. ^{[2][4][5][6][7][8]}

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical and scientific view is that Applied Kinesiology is not an evidence-based diagnostic or treatment system, and its claims are generally considered unproven or unsupported. ^{[1][4][6][9][10][11][12]} Some isolated components of manual therapy may have limited evidence in specific musculoskeletal contexts, but that does not validate Applied Kinesiology as a whole. ^[7] Current evidence is weak, heterogeneous, and largely insufficient for routine clinical use, especially for diagnostic claims. ^[2]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“APPLIED KINESIOLOGY”

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

Evan Philip Mladenoff is not approved to offer HyperBaric Oxygen Therapy within a Chiropractor scope of practice under Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic).

HyperBaric Oxygen Therapy

Supports

Hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) is an established medical treatment in which a patient breathes oxygen at elevated atmospheric pressure in a sealed chamber, and it has evidence-based indications for specific conditions such as gas embolism, decompression sickness, severe carbon monoxide poisoning, certain radiation injuries, refractory osteomyelitis, selected non‑healing wounds, and some acute ischemic or traumatic conditions according to major guidelines and consensus statements. ^{[1][2][6][7][13][14][15]} HBOT is therefore legitimately part of mainstream, guideline‑driven medical care, and chiropractors may work within systems that offer HBOT as a modality delivered under appropriate medical supervision. ^[5] There is emerging RCT and mechanistic evidence that HBOT can improve neurological and neuropsychiatric outcomes in selected conditions (for example long‑COVID and traumatic brain injury) and can modulate neuroplasticity, inflammation, and mitochondrial function, but this evidence is independent of chiropractic practice and does not show that HBOT is uniquely or specifically a “chiropractic” treatment.

Contradicts

Mainstream HBOT guidelines list indications such as air or gas embolism, carbon monoxide poisoning, gas gangrene, crush injury and other traumatic ischemias, delayed radiation injury, refractory osteomyelitis, selected non‑healing wounds, and severe anemia when transfusion is not possible; they do not present HBOT as a chiropractic modality or as a treatment that should be managed primarily by chiropractors. ^[2][5][7] There is no high‑quality evidence (systematic reviews, RCTs, or major guidelines) supporting a distinct category of “chiropractor treatment of hyperbaric oxygen therapy,” nor evidence that chiropractic training alone is sufficient to independently prescribe or manage HBOT without broader medical oversight. ^{[6][13][14][15]} Regulatory actions against individual chiropractors have specifically cited inappropriate advertising and use of HBOT, underscoring that use outside evidence‑based indications or without proper medical frameworks is considered problematic. ^[1] Available evidence therefore contradicts any implication that HBOT is a chiropractor‑specific therapy or that combining chiropractic manipulation with HBOT has proven synergistic benefits beyond those of HBOT itself or standard care.

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical position is that hyperbaric oxygen therapy is a specialized medical treatment with a defined set of evidence‑based indications and risks, typically overseen by physicians with training in hyperbaric medicine and delivered in accredited facilities, often as an adjunct to surgery, antibiotics, and other standard therapies. ^{[4][7][13][14][15]} Chiropractors are not central to HBOT guideline development, and HBOT is not categorized as a chiropractic intervention; when HBOT is used in multidisciplinary settings, it is still governed by medical guidelines and regulatory standards rather than chiropractic protocols. ^[2][5] Current high‑quality evidence and major guidelines support HBOT for specific conditions but do not support a unique role for chiropractic management of HBOT or a special “chiropractor treatment of hyperbaric oxygen therapy” as a distinct, evidence‑based practice. ^[1][6]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“### HyperBaric Oxygen Therapy”

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

Evan Philip Mladenoff is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Prenosological Examination.

Prenosological Examination

Supports

The concept of a prenosological examination refers to assessing functional reserves and adaptive capacity in individuals who are not yet clinically ill, with the aim of identifying risk conditions that precede fully developed disease. ^[16][17][19] Academic sources describe prenosological diagnostics as part of preventive medicine, used to evaluate cardio‑respiratory, muscular, nervous, coordination-motor and morphological systems to identify early functional disturbances and health risks before nosological disease appears. ^[18] According to these sources, prenosological examination is a screening and monitoring tool to stratify health risks and guide targeted preventive measures and rehabilitation programs, not a specific therapeutic intervention. Chiropractic practice does routinely include history-taking, physical examination, orthopaedic tests, neurological assessment, range-of-motion testing, and other clinical evaluations to diagnose and manage mainly musculoskeletal conditions, which aligns in general terms with performing clinical examinations and risk assessments, but the influencer’s specific phrase “chiropractor treatment of prenosological examination” is not directly addressed in major guidelines or high‑quality trials. ^[2][6] None of the indexed papers provided (e. g. , hypertension guidelines, nutrition guidelines, headache treatment guidelines, transfusion therapy, colchicine in pericarditis) discuss chiropractic care or prenosological examinations in the sense used by the influencer. ^[4][5][7][8]

Contradicts

High‑quality guidelines in internal medicine and clinical nutrition emphasize evidence‑based interventions (pharmacologic treatment for hypertension; structured nutrition support for inflammatory bowel disease; specific pharmacologic and non‑pharmacologic management for tension‑type headache; carefully indicated blood transfusion; colchicine for pericarditis) and do not mention chiropractic treatment as a recognized modality for managing prenosological states or for altering the course of these guideline‑defined conditions. ^{[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]} The prenosological literature frames prenosological diagnosis and examination as an epidemiologic and preventive medicine method to assess functional reserves and risk factors, typically tied to screening, health promotion, lifestyle modification, and medical follow‑up; it does not present chiropractic manipulation or other chiropractic interventions as standard or validated treatments for prenosological states. ^[16][17][19] Available descriptions of chiropractic practice and education show that chiropractic is focused primarily on musculoskeletal disorders (such as spinal pain) and that its diagnostic methods are those of conventional physical and neurological examination, not specialized prenosological diagnostic systems used in preventive medicine. ^[18] There is a lack of randomized controlled trials, meta‑analyses, or major guidelines demonstrating that chiropractic treatment specifically targets or corrects prenosological conditions as defined in the preventive-medicine literature or improves hard outcomes by treating “prenosological examination. ”

Mainstream view

Mainstream medical and scientific practice views prenosological examination and prenosological diagnostics as part of preventive medicine, aimed at early detection of subclinical functional disturbances and risk conditions, followed by evidence‑based preventive strategies such as lifestyle modification, risk factor control, and appropriate medical management. ^[1][5][16] Chiropractors are recognized in many health systems as providers of musculoskeletal care who use history, physical examination, and imaging to diagnose and treat conditions like low back and neck pain, sometimes within multidisciplinary care. ^[17][18] However, prenosological examination is not established, in major guidelines or high‑quality evidence, as a specific therapeutic target for chiropractic manipulation, nor is “chiropractor treatment of prenosological examination” a standard or validated concept in mainstream evidence‑based medicine. ^[2][6][19] Where prenosological approaches are used, they are generally integrated into broader medical preventive frameworks rather than being managed primarily or specifically by chiropractic treatment.

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“### Prenosological Examination”

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

Evan Philip Mladenoff is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Stress System Examination.

Stress System Examination

Supports

High-quality evidence in the provided index papers does not directly support chiropractic treatment for a condition called “Stress System Examination,” because that term is not a standard medical diagnosis or guideline-based indication. ^{[1][6][21][22]} The closest relevant chiropractic guideline in the indexed set addresses headache care and supports spinal manipulation for cervicogenic headache and, for tension-type headache, only as part of multimodal care rather than as a stand-alone cure . ^[4][23] General chiropractic literature also recognizes that psychosocial factors can affect chronic pain and that a focused history and examination should include psychosocial context, but that is not evidence that chiropractic treats a stress system disorder .

Contradicts

The claim is not supported by the indexed peer-reviewed guidelines on hypertension, nutrition, gastrointestinal disease, transfusion, pericarditis, or stress-related GI bleeding, because none of those address chiropractic treatment of a “stress system examination” or validate chiropractic as treatment for stress physiology . ^{[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][22]} Evidence specifically connecting chiropractic care to stress, anxiety, autonomic regulation, or cortisol is limited and mixed: the search results include case reports, small exploratory studies, and lower-level reviews, but not strong clinical trials establishing a reliable treatment effect. ^[20][23] The chiropractic-related evidence located in the search results is not enough to justify a treatment claim for stress-system disorders, especially because at least one source explicitly notes limited scientific evidence for chiropractic management of anxiety and depression, and the broader evidence base is described as low to moderate or uncertain . ^[1][21]

Mainstream view

Mainstream medical and scientific opinion is that chiropractic care is an evidence-based option for certain musculoskeletal complaints, especially some back and neck pain syndromes and selected headache conditions, but it is not an established treatment for a “stress system” condition. ^{[1][4][21][22]} Where stress, anxiety, or autonomic symptoms are present, standard care focuses on identifying the underlying medical or psychological cause and using validated treatments; any autonomic or stress-marker changes reported after manual therapy remain inconsistent and insufficient to support a general clinical indication. ^{[2][7][20][23]}

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“### Stress System Examination”

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

Evan Philip Mladenoff is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Inflammation Score.

Inflammation Score

Supports

High-quality evidence specifically showing that chiropractic treatment reliably lowers a generalized “inflammation score” is limited. ^[26] A small randomized or quasi-randomized trial in chronic low back pain patients reported that a short course of chiropractic spinal manipulation (about 9 lumbar adjustments) altered inflammatory mediators such as IL-6 and high-sensitivity CRP in a direction interpreted by authors as “normalization” toward control values, suggesting potential modulation of systemic inflammatory markers, but this was an exploratory study with modest sample size and short follow‑up and provides only low‑quality evidence of benefit. ^[24][25][27] Separate randomized and proof‑of‑principle studies have found that spinal manipulative therapy can change certain cytokines (e. ^[7] g. , TNF‑α, IL‑6, IFN‑γ) acutely, indicating biological effects on inflammatory pathways, but again with low certainty and heterogeneous results. A systematic review of biochemical changes after spinal manipulation concluded there is low‑quality evidence that manipulation can influence biochemical markers, including some inflammation‑related biomarkers, compared with control, but the data were not pooled and were judged imprecise and inconsistent, reinforcing that current supporting evidence is exploratory rather than definitive. ^[6] Broader high‑quality trials and guidelines for systemic inflammatory conditions (e. ^[2] g. , inflammatory bowel disease, rheumatoid arthritis, cardiovascular disease) focus on pharmacologic therapy, nutrition, and lifestyle, and do not feature chiropractic manipulation as a core anti‑inflammatory treatment modality, indirectly supporting the view that any anti‑inflammatory effects of chiropractic care are at most adjunctive and not established as primary therapy. ^[3][4][5]

Contradicts

Multiple randomized and controlled studies examining chiropractic or spinal manipulative therapy show mixed or even opposite effects on inflammatory markers, which contradicts a simple claim that chiropractic treatment reliably reduces an overall inflammation score. ^{[7][24][25][26][27]} In healthy adults, higher‑force spinal manipulative therapy has been shown to acutely elevate certain pro‑inflammatory or dual‑role cytokines such as IL‑6 compared to lower‑force adjustments, demonstrating that manipulation can transiently increase, not decrease, some inflammatory biomarkers. A recent randomized controlled trial of 12 weeks of chiropractic care in adults evaluated systemic inflammatory markers including CRP and IL‑6 and found no significant group effect on CRP and a significant increase in IL‑6 at 12 weeks in the chiropractic group compared with sham, indicating that chiropractic care did not uniformly lower systemic inflammation and may raise some markers over certain time frames. The systematic review on biochemical markers after spinal manipulation judged the overall evidence to be low quality, with heterogeneous, non‑pooled data and imprecision, meaning that any observed changes cannot be confidently interpreted as clinically meaningful reductions in systemic inflammation. ^[6] Major evidence‑based clinical guidelines for chronic inflammatory diseases, nutrition support, hypertension, headache, and cardiovascular inflammatory conditions focus on medications, diet, exercise, and other modalities, and do not recommend chiropractic treatment as a means of reducing systemic inflammation markers such as CRP or IL‑6, which contradicts any strong claim that chiropractic treatment is an established method for lowering an “inflammation score. ^{[1][2][3][4][5]} ” Moreover, contemporary GRADE methodology for rating evidence emphasizes that small, exploratory, imprecise trials like those in chiropractic inflammation research would be considered very low‑certainty evidence for a clinical effect, underscoring that current data are insufficient to substantiate robust anti‑inflammatory claims for chiropractic interventions .

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical and scientific position is that chiropractic and spinal manipulative therapy can have short‑term biomechanical and analgesic effects for some musculoskeletal conditions, but it is not regarded as an evidence‑based primary therapy for lowering systemic inflammation or a generalized “inflammation score. ^{[7][24][25][27]} ” Small exploratory trials and biochemical studies indicate that spinal manipulation can modulate certain cytokines and inflammatory mediators, sometimes upward and sometimes downward, but the evidence is low quality, heterogeneous, and lacks clear, clinically meaningful endpoints such as reduced morbidity or validated composite inflammation scores. Systematic reviews classify the evidence that spinal manipulation influences biochemical markers, including inflammatory biomarkers, as low‑certainty and insufficient for strong clinical recommendations. Major clinical guidelines for inflammatory conditions (e. ^[2] g. , inflammatory bowel disease, rheumatologic disease, cardiovascular disease) and for nutrition support and tension‑type headache management emphasize pharmacologic treatments (anti‑inflammatory drugs, disease‑modifying agents), lifestyle interventions (exercise, diet), and evidence‑based complementary therapies, and they do not include chiropractic manipulation as a recommended strategy to reduce systemic inflammation or standardized inflammation scores . ^[1][3][4][5] Under established evidence‑grading frameworks such as GRADE, the available chiropractic inflammation studies would be rated as very low‑quality and hypothesis‑generating rather than practice‑changing ^[6][26]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“### Inflammation Score”

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

Evan Philip Mladenoff is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Functional Neurology.

Functional Neurology

Supports

There is no high-quality evidence from randomized trials, systematic reviews, or major guidelines that specifically validates “functional neurology” (as promoted by chiropractic/influencer communities) as a distinct diagnostic system that uses the patient’s body and environment to accurately assess, diagnose, and localize nervous system dysfunction. A critical review of functional neurology literature reports that available studies on functional neurology interventions are low quality and provide no robust evidence of benefit for the claimed indications, including neurological complaints, even when looking at neurophysiological or functional imaging outcomes.^[1][4] Conventional neurology, by contrast, does employ the patient’s history, physical examination, and environmental context to localize nervous system lesions, and this approach is well-established and forms the basis of standard diagnostic reasoning in neurology.^[12] However, this standard neurologic localization is not unique to “functional neurology” and predates it by many decades.^[12] The index guideline and evidence papers provided (hypertension management, clinical nutrition guidelines, blood transfusion therapy, headache treatment, colchicine in pericarditis, and GRADE methodology) support general evidence-based clinical practice and structured assessment, but they do not specifically support functional neurology as a validated diagnostic discipline.^{[0][1][2][3][4][5][6][7]}

Contradicts

A systematic critical review specifically examining functional neurology approaches concluded that there is no acceptable evidence supporting claims that functional neurology interventions have clinically meaningful effects or benefits for the neurological conditions for which they are promoted.^[1] This review notes that existing functional neurology trials are of low methodological quality, lack rigorous controls, and fail to demonstrate robust effects on patient-important outcomes.^[1][4] Mainstream neurology sources emphasize that localization of nervous system dysfunction is accomplished through standard neurologic history and examination, and not via the proprietary or non-validated testing paradigms used in functional neurology training materials.^[12][13] Moreover, major evidence-based guidelines in neurology and internal medicine (e.g., EFNS guideline on tension-type headache, cardiology and nutrition guidelines, transfusion therapy guidance, and hypertension management) do not reference functional neurology as a recognized diagnostic or management framework.^[0][2][4][6] The GRADE methodology paper underscores that clinical recommendations should be based on high-quality, precise evidence; this standard is not met by the current functional neurology literature.^[5] Taken together, there is substantial contradiction between influencer claims about functional neurology’s diagnostic validity and the absence of supporting evidence in high-quality peer-reviewed trials and guidelines.^[1][4][5]

Mainstream view

Mainstream medicine and neurology recognize the concept of clinical localization of nervous system dysfunction, based on detailed history and neurological examination, as a core element of diagnostic reasoning.^[12] In standard practice, clinicians use the patient’s symptoms, signs, and context (including environmental exposures) to infer where in the nervous system a lesion or dysfunction is likely located, and then confirm or refine this with appropriate investigations such as imaging, laboratory tests, and neurophysiology.^[12] This process is embedded in established neurology textbooks and guidelines and does not rely on the proprietary constructs, branded tools, or non-validated examination techniques that characterize functional neurology programs.^[13] Major professional guidelines and evidence-based reviews across neurology and internal medicine emphasize interventions and diagnostic strategies supported by randomized trials, systematic reviews, and rigorous observational data; functional neurology is not included or endorsed in these documents.^{[0][2][4][6][5]} Therefore, the mainstream position is that while using the body and clinical examination to localize neurologic dysfunction is fundamental, “functional neurology” as a separate paradigm with unique diagnostic claims remains unvalidated and is not part of standard evidence-based care.^[1][4][12]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“### Functional Neurology”

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

Evan Philip Mladenoff is not approved to offer Laser Therapy within a Chiropractor scope of practice under Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic).

Laser Therapy

Supports

The indexed guideline papers provided by the user do not address chiropractic laser therapy, musculoskeletal pain, or physical medicine modalities, so they neither support nor refute chiropractic use of laser therapy directly. ^[4][7] Outside these specific references, multiple systematic reviews and meta-analyses in the broader literature report that low‑level laser therapy (LLLT) can reduce pain in various musculoskeletal conditions such as neck pain, nonspecific chronic low back pain, knee osteoarthritis, and myofascial pain, with small‑to‑moderate effect sizes compared with placebo when appropriate wavelengths and dosages are used. ^[5][32] Several randomized trials and reviews also suggest that both low‑level and high‑intensity laser therapy can be effective adjuncts in rehabilitation or pain management for some orthopedic conditions, and these modalities are sometimes delivered in chiropractic as well as physiotherapy or rehabilitation clinics. ^[33][34][35] This constitutes moderate‑quality evidence that laser therapy, as a physical agent, can have short‑term analgesic effects in some musculoskeletal disorders. ^[6]

Contradicts

None of the indexed guideline articles provided by the user endorse or even discuss laser therapy in a chiropractic context, so there is no guideline‑level support for chiropractic laser treatment in these references. ^[4][7] Major clinical guidelines for common musculoskeletal pain conditions (for example, low back pain, neck pain, knee osteoarthritis) generally prioritize exercise, manual therapy, patient education, and pharmacologic measures, and either do not recommend routine use of laser therapy or characterize the evidence as low certainty and not sufficient for strong recommendations. ^[2][6][34] The broader research base on low‑level or high‑intensity laser therapy is heterogeneous, with many small trials at risk of bias, inconsistent protocols (different wavelengths, doses, treatment schedules), and mixed results; several trials show no clinically meaningful advantage over sham or standard care. ^[32][35] There is very limited high‑quality evidence specific to chiropractic delivery of laser therapy (as opposed to laser used in physiotherapy or general rehabilitation), and essentially no large RCTs demonstrating that adding laser therapy in a chiropractic setting meaningfully improves long‑term outcomes compared with established conservative care alone. ^[33]

Mainstream view

Mainstream medical and rehabilitation practice views low‑level laser therapy and related laser modalities as experimental or at best optional adjuncts for certain musculoskeletal and pain conditions, with some evidence for short‑term pain relief but insufficient, inconsistent, or low‑certainty data for broad, guideline‑level endorsement. ^{[1][32][34][35]} The indexed guideline papers supplied focus on hypertension, clinical nutrition, transfusion, and specific cardiologic or neurologic conditions, and do not recognize chiropractic laser therapy as a standard or recommended treatment. ^{[2][3][4][5][7][33]} Current mainstream opinion is that laser therapy should not replace first‑line, evidence‑based treatments (e. g. , exercise, manual therapy, pharmacotherapy where indicated), and that chiropractic use of laser should be framed as an adjunctive option with uncertain long‑term benefit, applied using evidence‑based parameters and with informed consent about the limited and condition‑specific evidence base. ^[6]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“### Laser Therapy”

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

Evan Philip Mladenoff is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Visual Brain Tracking.

Visual Brain Tracking

Supports

There is very limited direct evidence that chiropractic care can modify certain oculomotor functions, but it does not specifically establish effective “treatment” of visual tracking disorders in a robust, clinically meaningful way. A randomized controlled trial in patients with persistent post-concussion symptoms reported that a short course of chiropractic intervention improved some visual-related outcomes such as static and dynamic gaze stability and an attentional (Stroop) test compared with a control intervention, but smooth pursuit (tracking a moving target) performance actually worsened with increased tracking error after chiropractic care.^[10] This suggests chiropractic can influence some aspects of oculomotor control but not necessarily improve visual tracking. A small pilot study in children with ADHD found that a single session of chiropractic intervention led to a statistically significant reduction in total reading time versus a control intervention, using eye-tracker metrics that include saccades and fixations, but did not show significant differences in target acquisition time or off-target distractions; this indicates at best a modest, indirect effect on oculomotor-related reading performance and is underpowered for firm conclusions.^[12] A prospective cohort study of spinal manipulation in adults with visual complaints showed only a very small improvement in visual acuity with a minimal effect size, and the authors explicitly concluded that there is little clinical evidence to recommend spinal manipulation for visual disorders in general.^[17] Overall, the available research consists of small trials and pilot studies with short-term outcomes and surrogate measures (eye tracking metrics, gaze stability) rather than well-defined visual tracking disorders, so the evidence base is preliminary and not high quality.

Contradicts

High-quality evidence and expert commentary emphasize that there is currently little clinical evidence to support spinal manipulation as a treatment for visual disorders broadly, which would include visual tracking problems.^[17] The prospective cohort study on spinal manipulation and vision found only a statistically significant but clinically trivial improvement in visual acuity and explicitly warned against advocating spinal manipulation as an intervention for patients with visual disorders based on existing data.^[17] The randomized controlled trial of chiropractic care in post-concussion patients demonstrated that while gaze stability improved, smooth pursuit tracking of moving targets actually became worse (increased tracking error) after chiropractic intervention compared with control, directly contradicting any generalized claim that chiropractic reliably improves visual tracking performance.^[10] A randomized clinical trial of osteopathic manipulative treatment (another manual therapy) in healthy adults found no greater improvement in smooth pursuit eye movements in the treatment group than in control groups, supporting the idea that manual therapies do not have a clear, reproducible enhancing effect on tracking eye movements even under controlled conditions.^[13] No major clinical guidelines for neurological, ophthalmologic, or rehabilitation management of visual or oculomotor disorders recommend chiropractic treatment as a standard or evidence-based therapy; mainstream guidelines in other areas (e.g., hypertension management, nutrition, headache) show how evidence-based recommendations are typically grounded in large trials and systematic reviews, in contrast to the sparse and low-level evidence for chiropractic and vision.^[0][3] Taken together, this means that strong claims that chiropractors can treat or normalize visual brain tracking are not supported by the current evidence and, in at least one RCT, are partially contradicted by worsening of tracking measures.^[10]

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical and scientific position is that visual tracking and other oculomotor disorders are primarily evaluated and managed by ophthalmology, neurology, and vision/vestibular rehabilitation specialists, using established approaches such as vision therapy, vestibular rehabilitation, targeted eye-movement exercises, management of underlying neurologic or ocular disease, and, when appropriate, pharmacologic or surgical interventions. Chiropractic care is not considered an evidence-based primary treatment for visual tracking or “visual brain tracking” disorders, and major specialty guidelines do not list spinal manipulation as a recommended therapy for these conditions.^[17][0][3] The small number of chiropractic studies in this area use surrogate outcomes, have small samples, short follow-up, and mixed results (with some improvements in gaze stability but worsening smooth pursuit), so they are viewed as exploratory rather than practice-changing evidence.^[10][12] Evidence-based frameworks such as GRADE emphasize the need for precise, consistent, and clinically meaningful outcome data before recommending an intervention; by those standards, the current chiropractic-vision literature is low-certainty and insufficient to justify strong clinical claims about treating visual tracking problems.^[5] Accordingly, mainstream clinicians may allow that chiropractic manipulation might have indirect effects in select contexts (e.g., neck pain, some aspects of post-concussion rehabilitation) but do not regard it as a validated treatment to correct visual tracking or oculomotor

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“### Visual Brain Tracking”

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

Evan Philip Mladenoff is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Brain Balance Tracking.

Brain Balance Tracking

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“### Brain Balance Tracking”

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

Evan Philip Mladenoff is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Concussion Treatment.

Concussion Treatment

Supports

There is emerging but limited evidence that certain manual therapy interventions directed at the cervical spine can improve some persistent post‑concussion symptoms (e. ^[6][7][42] g. , dizziness, headaches, neck pain), and these approaches overlap conceptually with techniques used by chiropractors. A single‑blind randomized controlled trial of chiropractic care in 40 young adults with persistent post‑concussion syndrome reported improvements in oculomotor performance (gaze stability, egocentric localization) and Stroop test scores compared with a control intervention, suggesting possible benefit for specific cognitive and vestibulo‑ocular symptoms; however, this was a small study and not definitive. ^[38] Independent of chiropractic branding, multiple studies and reviews support the idea that cervical manual therapy (mobilization/manipulation) plus exercise can help cervical dysfunction and cervicogenic dizziness, which can contribute to ongoing post‑concussion symptoms, and may reduce time to symptom resolution when integrated into multidisciplinary rehabilitation. ^[5][41] Recent concussion rehabilitation frameworks and scoping reviews emphasize that cervical manual therapy is one non‑pharmacologic tool within a broader program (including vestibular, visual, and aerobic rehabilitation) for selected patients with persistent symptoms, which indirectly supports the plausibility of chiropractors contributing usefully when they follow evidence‑based, guideline‑consistent protocols rather than offering standalone “cure” claims. ^[1][4][40]

Contradicts

No high‑quality systematic reviews, major concussion guidelines, or large randomized trials support chiropractic spinal manipulation or chiropractic care as a primary or standalone treatment for acute concussion or as a disease‑modifying therapy for traumatic brain injury. ^[2][7] Existing evidence is mainly small RCTs, retrospective cohorts, pilot studies, and scoping reviews focused on cervical manual therapy in post‑concussion syndrome rather than on chiropractic per se, and the overall quality of evidence is low to moderate, with important imprecision and risk of bias. ^{[6][38][40][41][42]} There is also a lack of data on hard neurological outcomes (e. g. , prevention of complications, reduction in structural brain injury, long‑term cognitive recovery), and no major guideline recommends chiropractic manipulation as core concussion management. ^[1] Standard concussion guidelines stress early medical evaluation, brief rest, graded return to activity, and symptom‑targeted multidisciplinary rehabilitation; they do not identify chiropractic treatment as a validated primary modality, and some explicitly caution against unproven therapies. In addition, cervical spinal manipulation carries a small but real risk of adverse events (e. g. , vertebral artery injury) and is generally considered inappropriate in patients with potential cervical spine instability, which can coexist with head trauma, reinforcing that indiscriminate chiropractic manipulation after concussion is not evidence‑based. Overall, the evidence base is too weak and narrow to substantiate broad influencer claims that chiropractic “treats concussion” in a general sense.

Mainstream view

Mainstream medical and scientific consensus is that concussion (mild traumatic brain injury) should be managed according to established, guideline‑based protocols centered on prompt recognition and removal from play or risk, brief relative rest (24–48 hours), followed by a gradual, supervised return to cognitive and physical activity, with symptom‑based multidisciplinary rehabilitation for persistent post‑concussion symptoms. ^[1][42] Within this framework, physical therapy interventions—such as cervical manual therapy, vestibular rehabilitation, visual/oculomotor therapy, and sub‑symptom aerobic exercise—may be used as part of a tailored program for patients with documented cervical spine dysfunction, dizziness, and headaches, but these are adjunctive therapies targeting secondary musculoskeletal and vestibular contributors, not primary treatments for the brain injury itself. ^{[7][38][40][41]} Chiropractors, if appropriately trained and integrated into a multidisciplinary team, may provide components of this cervical and vestibular rehabilitation, but current mainstream opinion does not consider chiropractic spinal manipulation to be a proven, standalone, or first‑line treatment for concussion. Routine chiropractic manipulation of the cervical spine immediately after head trauma is not recommended; instead, any manual therapy should be carefully selected, low risk, and aligned with broader rehabilitation goals. Thus, the mainstream view is that concussion care is physician‑led, guideline‑driven, and multidisciplinary, with chiropractic‑type manual therapies playing at most a limited, symptom‑focused adjunct role for selected patients rather than serving as a primary concussion treatment. ^[4]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“### Concussion Treatment”

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

See every doc bro who says they can treat or advise on Concussion and brain injury

Evan Philip Mladenoff is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Comprehensive Drug Free Care.

Comprehensive Drug Free Care

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“### Comprehensive Drug Free Care”

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

Evan Philip Mladenoff is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Functional neurology uses the patient’s body and environment to assess, diagnose and localize areas of dysfunction within the nervous system..

Functional neurology uses the patient’s body and environment to assess, diagnose and localize areas of dysfunction within the nervous system.

Supports

There is no high-quality evidence from randomized trials, systematic reviews, or major guidelines that specifically validates “functional neurology” (as promoted by chiropractic/influencer communities) as a distinct diagnostic system that uses the patient’s body and environment to accurately assess, diagnose, and localize nervous system dysfunction. A critical review of functional neurology literature reports that available studies on functional neurology interventions are low quality and provide no robust evidence of benefit for the claimed indications, including neurological complaints, even when looking at neurophysiological or functional imaging outcomes.^[1][4] Conventional neurology, by contrast, does employ the patient’s history, physical examination, and environmental context to localize nervous system lesions, and this approach is well-established and forms the basis of standard diagnostic reasoning in neurology.^[12] However, this standard neurologic localization is not unique to “functional neurology” and predates it by many decades.^[12] The index guideline and evidence papers provided (hypertension management, clinical nutrition guidelines, blood transfusion therapy, headache treatment, colchicine in pericarditis, and GRADE methodology) support general evidence-based clinical practice and structured assessment, but they do not specifically support functional neurology as a validated diagnostic discipline.^{[0][1][2][3][4][5][6][7]}

Contradicts

A systematic critical review specifically examining functional neurology approaches concluded that there is no acceptable evidence supporting claims that functional neurology interventions have clinically meaningful effects or benefits for the neurological conditions for which they are promoted.^[1] This review notes that existing functional neurology trials are of low methodological quality, lack rigorous controls, and fail to demonstrate robust effects on patient-important outcomes.^[1][4] Mainstream neurology sources emphasize that localization of nervous system dysfunction is accomplished through standard neurologic history and examination, and not via the proprietary or non-validated testing paradigms used in functional neurology training materials.^[12][13] Moreover, major evidence-based guidelines in neurology and internal medicine (e.g., EFNS guideline on tension-type headache, cardiology and nutrition guidelines, transfusion therapy guidance, and hypertension management) do not reference functional neurology as a recognized diagnostic or management framework.^[0][2][4][6] The GRADE methodology paper underscores that clinical recommendations should be based on high-quality, precise evidence; this standard is not met by the current functional neurology literature.^[5] Taken together, there is substantial contradiction between influencer claims about functional neurology’s diagnostic validity and the absence of supporting evidence in high-quality peer-reviewed trials and guidelines.^[1][4][5]

Mainstream view

Mainstream medicine and neurology recognize the concept of clinical localization of nervous system dysfunction, based on detailed history and neurological examination, as a core element of diagnostic reasoning.^[12] In standard practice, clinicians use the patient’s symptoms, signs, and context (including environmental exposures) to infer where in the nervous system a lesion or dysfunction is likely located, and then confirm or refine this with appropriate investigations such as imaging, laboratory tests, and neurophysiology.^[12] This process is embedded in established neurology textbooks and guidelines and does not rely on the proprietary constructs, branded tools, or non-validated examination techniques that characterize functional neurology programs.^[13] Major professional guidelines and evidence-based reviews across neurology and internal medicine emphasize interventions and diagnostic strategies supported by randomized trials, systematic reviews, and rigorous observational data; functional neurology is not included or endorsed in these documents.^{[0][2][4][6][5]} Therefore, the mainstream position is that while using the body and clinical examination to localize neurologic dysfunction is fundamental, “functional neurology” as a separate paradigm with unique diagnostic claims remains unvalidated and is not part of standard evidence-based care.^[1][4][12]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Functional Neurology Rehab utilizes a brain-based scientific approach in caring for complex conditions. Functional neurology uses the patient’s body and environment to assess, diagnose and localize areas of dysfunction within the nervous system.”

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

Evan Philip Mladenoff is not approved to offer cold laser technology provides meaningful benefits in treating patients for pain treatment within a Chiropractor scope of practice under Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic).

cold laser technology provides meaningful benefits in treating patients for pain treatment

Supports

Several systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials report that low-level laser therapy (LLLT, often called cold laser or photobiomodulation) can reduce pain in certain musculoskeletal and soft-tissue conditions, though effects are generally modest and protocol-dependent. ^{[7][32][43][44][34]} A meta-analysis of adult musculoskeletal disorders found that LLLT significantly reduced pain compared with control, with greater effects when World Association for Laser Therapy dosage recommendations were followed. ^[5] Additional RCTs and meta-analyses show clinically relevant pain reduction and functional improvement in knee osteoarthritis when specific energy densities and wavelengths are used. Systematic reviews and RCTs focused on neck and myofascial pain report that LLLT can reduce pain intensity and increase pressure pain thresholds, although disability scores often show smaller or nonsignificant changes. Trials in orthopedic and sports-related pain (e. g. , patellar tendinopathy, chronic neck pain, plantar fasciitis, subacromial impingement) suggest LLLT as a safe adjunct that can improve pain and function compared with placebo or some active comparators. Recent RCTs in dental and postpartum settings also show reduced pain (e. g. , nipple trauma in breastfeeding women, post-endodontic pain), supporting that photobiomodulation can provide short-term analgesia in localized soft-tissue pain. The indexed guideline on tension-type headache emphasizes high-quality evidence methods (GRADE) for pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic treatments but does not specifically address cold laser, indirectly highlighting that major neurology guidelines focus on other established modalities for pain control rather than laser therapy at present. ^[1][2][6][4]

Contradicts

Evidence is inconsistent across conditions, and several high-quality trials and reviews find limited or no clinically meaningful benefit of LLLT for pain. ^[6] For nonspecific low-back pain, a Cochrane-style systematic review of randomized trials concluded that although some small studies showed statistically significant pain reductions versus sham, the effects were clinically unimportant and overall data were insufficient to draw firm conclusions, highlighting heterogeneity and risk of bias. Other RCTs in chronic low back pain report similar improvements in both laser and sham groups with no significant between-group differences, suggesting placebo and contextual effects rather than specific laser efficacy. ^[32][44] In osteoarthritis of the hand and some other musculoskeletal conditions, randomized placebo-controlled trials have found no superiority of LLLT over placebo for pain, stiffness, or function. A recent sham-controlled trial in subacute and chronic neck pain reported that a single application of low-level or infrared laser was not effective in the short term, and pressure-induced pain did not change, indicating that dose, frequency, and treatment regimen strongly influence whether any benefit is observed. ^[4][43][34] Comparative trials and systematic reviews note conflicting results and emphasize that many studies are small, underpowered or at risk of bias, with unclear optimal treatment parameters and limited long-term follow-up. Major general clinical guidelines included in the index list (e. ^[2] g. , hypertension, parenteral nutrition, inflammatory bowel disease, blood transfusion) do not discuss cold laser for pain, illustrating that broad evidence-based practice documents have not adopted it as a standard analgesic modality. ^[1][3][5][7]

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical position is that low-level or cold laser therapy may offer modest short-term pain relief in some localized musculoskeletal and soft-tissue conditions, but its benefits are condition-specific, parameter-dependent, and not reliably large or durable. ^{[7][32][43][44][34]} It is generally viewed as an adjunctive option rather than a primary or universal pain treatment. High-quality systematic reviews and evidence-based frameworks (such as those using GRADE methodology) emphasize the need for rigorous randomized trials with standardized dosing, clear clinical relevance of effect sizes, and long-term outcomes before strong recommendations can be made. ^[1][2][6] Major specialty guidelines for common pain conditions (e. g. , tension-type headache) prioritize treatments with robust evidence such as pharmacologic therapies and established nonpharmacologic interventions; cold laser is usually absent or mentioned only as experimental. ^[4] As a result, mainstream practice considers cold laser potentially useful in selected scenarios under appropriate protocols, but not a broadly validated technology that provides substantial, generalizable benefits across pain conditions. ^[5]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“cold laser technology provides meaningful benefits in treating patients for pain treatment”

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

Evan Philip Mladenoff is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Learn More.

Learn More

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Learn More”

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

Evan Philip Mladenoff is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to advertise Visual brain tracking / RightEye as within their scope of practice.

Visual brain tracking / RightEye

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“### Visual Brain Tracking”

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

Evan Philip Mladenoff is not approved to offer Laser therapy for pain within a Chiropractor scope of practice under Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic).

Laser therapy for pain

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“### Laser Therapy”

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