Dennis Ray Scharenberg alias The Colic Chiro

Dennis Ray Scharenberg is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Colic Treatment.

Colic Treatment

Supports

High-quality evidence supports the use of certain probiotics, especially Lactobacillus (Limosilactobacillus) reuteri DSM 17938, as an effective treatment for infantile colic in predominantly or exclusively breastfed infants. ^[1] A network meta-analysis comparing multiple treatments for colic found L. reuteri DSM 17938 and dietary approaches superior to other interventions in reducing crying duration. A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials reported that L. reuteri DSM 17938 increased treatment effectiveness at 2–3 weeks and significantly decreased daily crying time without serious adverse events. Another meta-analysis focused on infant colic showed that probiotic intervention, predominantly L. reuteri DSM 17938, reduced crying duration with a large effect size. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of probiotics for infantile colic conclude that L. ^[3] reuteri DSM 17938 significantly reduces crying time in term, breastfed infants compared with placebo and increases treatment success, with moderate-quality evidence for breastfed infants. A systematic review of reviews and guidelines comparing common interventions for infantile colic found the strongest evidence for treatment to be probiotics in breastfed infants, indicating that this is currently the best-supported active intervention. ^[2][4] Clinical guidelines from North American and Irish bodies, as well as practice reviews, recommend supplementation with L. reuteri DSM 17938 for exclusively breastfed infants when a treatment option is desired.

Contradicts

Evidence is less robust or inconsistent for the use of probiotics, including L. reuteri DSM 17938, in formula-fed infants with colic. ^[1] Several systematic reviews and guidelines note that while probiotics are effective in breastfed infants, their efficacy in formula-fed infants remains unresolved and requires further study. ^{[3][5][6][7][8]} Some analyses show benefit in mixed-feeding or other subgroups but highlight limited and lower-quality evidence, making generalization to all infants uncertain. Additionally, prevention trials suggest probiotics may make little or no difference to the occurrence (incidence) of colic, even if they modestly reduce crying time, indicating that probiotics are not clearly effective for preventing colic onset. ^[2][4] Overall, while there is substantial evidence of benefit for treatment in breastfed infants, evidence across all infant populations and for all probiotic strains is heterogeneous and not uniformly strong.

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical position is that infantile colic is a self-limited, benign condition that typically resolves by 4–6 months of age and that core management should focus on parental reassurance, support, and exclusion of serious underlying disease. ^[4] Within this framework, probiotics—particularly Limosilactobacillus reuteri DSM 17938—are recognized as an evidence-based therapeutic option for reducing crying and fussing in otherwise healthy, predominantly or exclusively breastfed infants with colic, and are often recommended when parents seek an active treatment. ^[2][3] Major reviews and guidelines consider L. reuteri DSM 17938 the probiotic strain with the strongest evidence and acceptable safety profile for colic treatment in this group, but they emphasize that evidence for formula-fed infants and for routine, generalized probiotic use is limited and should be approached cautiously. ^[1] Thus, probiotics are viewed as a useful adjunct, not a universal cure, and are typically embedded in a broader supportive care strategy for families coping with colic.

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Colic Treatment”

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

Dennis Ray Scharenberg is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Prostate Treatment.

Prostate Treatment

Supports

The only indexed paper directly related to prostate treatment is the systematic review and network meta-analysis of metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer patients with visceral disease, which evaluates systemic treatments such as androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) plus docetaxel, darolutamide, and other androgen receptor pathway inhibitors. ^{[10][11][12][13][15][16][17]} This high-level evidence shows that treatment intensification with triplet therapy (ADT + docetaxel + darolutamide) provides the greatest overall survival benefit in mHSPC patients with visceral disease, and that doublet regimens including chemotherapy (ADT + docetaxel) or abiraterone are also effective options. Major contemporary guidelines (e. ^[5] g. , NCCN, EAU, AUA) and multiple RCT-based network meta-analyses outside the index set consistently support the principle of intensifying systemic therapy beyond ADT alone for metastatic castration-sensitive/hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, with options including AR pathway inhibitors (abiraterone, apalutamide, enzalutamide, darolutamide), docetaxel, and selected triplet combinations. ^[14] This constitutes strong support for guideline-directed, evidence-based prostate cancer treatment, particularly in metastatic hormone-sensitive disease. ^[9][6]

Contradicts

None of the indexed papers support unqualified or vague claims about prostate treatment in general, such as universal efficacy of a single therapy or non–evidence-based approaches. ^{[9][13][15][16][17]} The cited network meta-analysis is specific to metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer with visceral disease and does not extrapolate its findings to localized disease, benign prostatic hyperplasia, or prostate health interventions. ^{[10][11][12][14]} It also emphasizes that treatment benefits and rankings differ by disease volume and visceral status, implying that a one-size-fits-all prostate treatment claim would be inconsistent with the evidence. Furthermore, contemporary meta-analyses and guidelines highlight trade-offs between survival benefit and toxicity (e. ^[5] g. , more adverse events with triplet therapy), which would contradict any claim that intensified systemic therapy is free of significant risks or universally appropriate for all men with prostate conditions.

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical position is that prostate treatment must be individualized based on disease type (e. g. , localized vs metastatic), hormone sensitivity, volume of disease, visceral involvement, comorbidities, and patient preferences, and should follow high-quality guideline-directed care. ^[6] For metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, major guidelines and multiple randomized controlled trials support ADT as the backbone plus treatment intensification with either androgen receptor pathway inhibitors or docetaxel, with triplet combinations (ADT + docetaxel + an ARPI such as darolutamide or abiraterone) reserved for selected patients with high-volume or visceral disease who can tolerate chemotherapy, as supported by the network meta-analysis in patients with visceral disease. ^{[5][10][11][12][13][14]} In localized disease, mainstream care relies on shared decision-making around options such as active surveillance, surgery, and radiotherapy, not on the systemic triplet regimens described for metastatic hormone-sensitive disease.

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Prostate Treatment”

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

Dennis Ray Scharenberg is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Children.

Children

Supports

There is no specific, actionable claim provided beyond the word “Children,” so no concrete clinical or scientific statement can be evaluated. None of the indexed papers directly support a general, unspecified influencer claim about children, because they each address narrow topics (e. ^{[22][23][24][5][25][6][26]} g. , glucocorticosteroids in pediatric sepsis, septic arthritis risk factors, rapid recovery pathways after surgery, posterior scleral reinforcement for high myopia). ^{[18][19][20][21]} Without a defined claim, high-quality evidence cannot be said to support it.

Contradicts

Because the influencer claim is undefined, the existing evidence cannot be said to contradict it either. The indexed papers provide specific findings (e. ^{[22][23][24][5][25][6][26]} g. , low-to-very-low certainty benefits and risks of corticosteroids in pediatric sepsis; mixed and still-uncertain evidence for posterior scleral reinforcement in children with high myopia) but these only contradict or qualify specific, testable claims (such as “steroids are clearly lifesaving for all septic children” or “posterior scleral reinforcement is definitively safe and effective for all myopic children”), not an undefined statement. ^{[18][19][20][21]} In general, where these papers find low-quality or uncertain evidence, they would contradict any influencer claim that presents these interventions as universally proven or risk-free.

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical and scientific position is that claims about children’s health must be specific, evidence-based, and grounded in high‑quality studies, especially RCTs, systematic reviews, and major guidelines. For pediatric sepsis and septic shock, current systematic reviews and meta-analyses indicate that corticosteroids may modestly reduce mortality and length of stay but the certainty of evidence in children is low, and benefits and harms remain debated, so routine use is not universally endorsed. ^[20] For pediatric high myopia, posterior scleral reinforcement shows promise in slowing axial length growth and myopia progression, but evidence is limited, complications are possible, and long‑term safety and effectiveness remain uncertain; major guidelines emphasize less invasive myopia‑control strategies first. ^[18][19][21] Overall, mainstream practice is cautious, individualized, and avoids broad, absolute statements about treatments for “children” without specifying condition, intervention, and evidence quality.

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Children”

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

Dennis Ray Scharenberg is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Adult Treatments.

Adult Treatments

Supports

The indexed papers show that adult major depressive disorder treatments have been evaluated in systematic reviews and network meta-analyses for an American College of Physicians clinical guideline, indicating that evidence exists for multiple adult treatment options .

Contradicts

The claim is too vague to verify because it says only 'Adult Treatments' and does not specify a condition, intervention, or outcome. The indexed papers are specifically about treatments for adult patients with major depressive disorder, so they do not support a broad, general claim about adult treatments in general . Evidence from the indexed records is also insufficient to conclude any specific treatment is effective without the full paper results. Several listed items are not directly relevant peer-reviewed treatment studies, including clinical trial registry entries, which do not establish efficacy on their own.

Mainstream view

Mainstream medical evidence recognizes that adult major depressive disorder has multiple treatment options, including pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic approaches, and that treatment selection depends on patient characteristics and preferences. However, there is no meaningful basis to endorse the undefined claim 'Adult Treatments' as written because it lacks a specific clinical assertion. Deterministic PubMed cross-check found no matching indexed studies for these terms (absence of indexed evidence is not evidence against the claim).

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Adult Treatments”

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