Conditions doc bros advertise outside their license

How this list is built

Who is counted. Only people we could confirm in the federal provider registry with a profession license number, whose scope review ran at high or medium confidence, and who are not registry-confirmed medical doctors or osteopathic physicians.

What counts as a condition. Only advertised activities our review classified as outside scope under the cited state rule text. Gray-area and unclear items never appear. Musculoskeletal care, lab panels, techniques, devices, and books or courses about a condition are not offers to treat it and are not counted. Around half of eligible rows map to no condition at all and never render.

What the two labels mean. Checked against the cited rule text means the advertised activity was compared with the permitted activities in that statute. As we read the published rules means a reviewer reading without that confirmation. The two labels say how the comparison was made, not how firm the scope statement is. For a chiropractic license the scope statement is not a reading: the license covers the spine, joints and muscles, and none of the conditions on this page are inside it. For every other license type, scope is set state by state, so there the label is our reading of public pages, not an adjudicated finding. Boards decide whether to act; we do not allege.

How we avoid misattribution. Pages that host guests, and single posts that name another practitioner, are left out so one person's words are never attributed to another. Patient testimonials are never shown as a practitioner's own words. A single social post can support a claim but never puts a name on a page by itself.

Naming. Every person named on a condition reached the same bar: a federal registry match with a license number, a scope review at high or medium confidence, an active Wall of Fame entry, and at least one advertised activity the review placed outside the cited rule text. One person is enough. A condition gets its own page once an archived receipt of that wording exists; until then it stays a row on this hub, and every row links to the report it came from.

Why children come first. In a 2017 clinical report the American Academy of Pediatrics said the risk of adverse events from spinal manipulation may be highest in infants and children, because the spine is not yet stable, and that high-quality evidence for using it on non-musculoskeletal problems is lacking. Australia's national chiropractic regulator has advised chiropractors not to use spinal manipulation on children under two since March 2019, advice replaced in November 2023 and reinstated in June 2024 at the request of that country's health ministers. British Columbia's chiropractic regulator has told registrants since October 2018 that they must not represent chiropractic as helping childhood conditions such as ADHD and autism spectrum disorders. US research rules give children and pregnant people their own protections. US consumer-protection penalty enhancements cover seniors and disabled people, not minors, so we rank children first on medical and regulator grounds and say so here.

What this page does not measure. Our corpus is where we scanned, not a national survey, and a handful of states dominate it. A condition missing here is not evidence that nobody advertises it.

Report an errorSubmit a link for analysis

Records may share a common name with someone else, may be incomplete, or may have since been resolved, dismissed, or overturned. This section is analysis and opinion, not legal advice.