Megan Malone alias Dr. Hormone Hype

Megan Malone, Chiropractor, MS is not licensed or approved by Missouri State Board of Chiropractic Examiners to diagnose, treat, or cure Hormones, thyroid, and gut health made clear.

Hormones, thyroid, and gut health made clear

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Hormones, thyroid, and gut health made clear”

Rule: RSMo § 331.010(1)

See every doc bro advertising Hormone imbalance and replacement

Megan Malone, Chiropractor, MS is not licensed or approved by Missouri State Board of Chiropractic Examiners to diagnose, treat, or cure Fibromyalgia.

Fibromyalgia

Supports

There are some small randomized and nonrandomized clinical trials suggesting that chiropractic or spinal manipulation as part of a multimodal program may improve pain, function, or range of motion in fibromyalgia, but these are preliminary and often methodologically weak. ^[2][11] Narrative and umbrella reviews identify several RCTs (e. g. , spinal manipulation added to exercise or multimodal programs, upper cervical manipulation trials) that report improvements in fibromyalgia outcomes over time, which provides limited, low-quality support for the possibility of benefit. ^[4][6][9] A randomized trial combining resistance training with chiropractic care found that adding chiropractic improved exercise adherence and dropout rates and was associated with greater improvements in certain functionality domains, suggesting chiropractic might have an adjunctive role rather than being a primary fibromyalgia treatment. ^[10][12]

Contradicts

Multiple systematic reviews and evidence overviews conclude that the evidence for chiropractic or spinal manipulation in fibromyalgia is weak, inconsistent, and methodologically poor, and that there is no reliable proof it is effective as a stand‑alone treatment. ^{[4][9][11][12]} A systematic review of chiropractic treatment for fibromyalgia identified only three small, poor‑quality studies and found no evidence that chiropractic care is effective for fibromyalgia pain or global symptoms. ^[10] An overview of systematic reviews of complementary and alternative medicine for fibromyalgia reports that no firm conclusions can be drawn for spinal manipulation and that existing chiropractic trials do not demonstrate clear pain benefit. Large evidence reports on manual therapies and spinal manipulation characterize the evidence for fibromyalgia as inconclusive and in an unclear direction, with low quantity and poor quality of primary data. ^[6] A more recent systematic review of manual therapy in fibromyalgia similarly judges the overall quality of evidence as very low to moderate and concludes it is insufficient to support or recommend manual therapy for this condition. ^[7] Sham‑controlled osteopathic manipulation trials in fibromyalgia, which are conceptually similar manual therapies, show no clinically meaningful benefit over sham in pain, fatigue, function, or quality of life, reinforcing concerns that any apparent benefit of hands‑on manipulative approaches may largely reflect expectancy, placebo, or nonspecific effects rather than specific efficacy. Overall, high‑quality evidence contradicts any strong claim that chiropractic treatment is an effective primary therapy for fibromyalgia.

Mainstream view

Mainstream medical and scientific opinion is that fibromyalgia is best managed with a multimodal approach centered on patient education, aerobic and strengthening exercise programs, cognitive‑behavioral or other psychological therapies, and judicious use of medications with evidence for benefit (e. g. , certain antidepressants, anticonvulsants, or other agents), usually following rheumatology and pain society guidelines. ^[2] Chiropractor‑delivered spinal manipulation or other manual therapies are not considered first‑line or core evidence‑based treatments for fibromyalgia, and are generally viewed—at most—as optional complementary interventions that might help some individuals but lack robust, high‑quality evidence of specific efficacy. ^[1][9] Current systematic reviews and evidence syntheses assess the quality of evidence for chiropractic in fibromyalgia as low and inconclusive, and major guidelines do not endorse chiropractic manipulation as a standard treatment for this condition. ^{[4][6][10][11][12]}

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Fibromyalgia”

Rule: RSMo § 331.010(1)

See every doc bro advertising Chronic fatigue and fibromyalgia

Megan Malone, Chiropractor, MS is not licensed or approved by Missouri State Board of Chiropractic Examiners to diagnose, treat, or cure Endometriosis Support.

Endometriosis Support

Supports

The influencer’s claim is extremely vague (“Endometriosis Support”) and does not specify any particular intervention or outcome, but high‑quality evidence does support the concept that structured, evidence‑based management can provide effective support for people with endometriosis in terms of pain, fertility, and quality of life. ^[1][6] Large clinical guidelines such as the ESHRE guideline, NICE NG73, and more recent national guidelines emphasize that timely diagnosis, hormonal therapies (combined hormonal contraceptives, progestins, GnRH analogues), and laparoscopic surgery for endometriosis lesions are effective in reducing pain and improving fertility, constituting core elements of appropriate “support” for patients. ^[2][3][5] These guidelines synthesize RCTs, systematic reviews, and cohort studies and recommend multimodal, multidisciplinary care including fertility specialists when pregnancy is a priority. Independent reviews and practice recommendations report that laparoscopic treatment of endometriosis, along with careful use of assisted reproductive technologies (ART), can substantially increase spontaneous and ART pregnancy rates after surgery, which supports the idea that structured medical and surgical care is an important component of fertility‑related support for women with endometriosis. ^[15] Recent systematic reviews and network meta‑analyses of non‑pharmacological interventions (exercise, physiotherapy, acupuncture, dietary change, psychological therapies) show clinically meaningful reductions in pain and improvements in quality of life, indicating that adjunctive lifestyle and psychosocial interventions can form a supportive layer around standard care, even though trial sizes are often modest and heterogeneity is high. ^[16][17] Although the indexed paper list provided by the user is mostly not specific to endometriosis, one paper directly addresses endometriosis and adenomyosis in relation to pregnancy and infertility, documenting that endometriosis is strongly associated with infertility and adverse pregnancy outcomes and underscoring the need for tailored reproductive counseling and management as part of comprehensive support for affected women. ^[13][14][18]

Contradicts

Because the influencer claim is unspecified, major contradictions cannot be identified, but the high‑quality literature highlights important limits to what “support” can achieve. ^[6] The association paper on endometriosis and adenomyosis with pregnancy and infertility shows that these conditions confer a significant and persistent burden on fertility and pregnancy outcomes, even in the context of medical care, meaning that no form of support can guarantee normal fertility or uncomplicated pregnancy. ^{[13][14][15][18]} Guidelines and systematic reviews stress that while surgery and ART can improve pregnancy rates, effects depend strongly on disease stage, lesion location (e. ^[2] g. , bowel endometriosis), ovarian reserve, and other infertility factors; outcomes remain heterogeneous and many interventions show only moderate or uncertain benefit, especially in advanced disease. ^[3] Evidence for non‑pharmacological “supportive” interventions is promising but often limited by small sample sizes, risk of bias, and inconsistent outcome measures; recent systematic reviews explicitly note that the evidence base for non‑pharmaceutical, non‑surgical biopsychosocial interventions in endometriosis is still limited and requires further robust trials, so strong claims that such approaches alone can reliably control pain or restore fertility are not supported. ^[16][17] The association paper also indicates that endometriosis and adenomyosis may be linked with higher risks of pregnancy complications, so any simplistic message that supportive measures fully neutralize these risks would be misleading.

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical and scientific position is that endometriosis is a chronic inflammatory gynecologic condition that frequently causes pain, infertility, and impaired quality of life, and that patients benefit from comprehensive, guideline‑driven support encompassing medical, surgical, fertility, and psychosocial care. ^[1][3][15] Major guidelines (ESHRE, NICE, national societies) recommend: individualized use of hormonal therapy to reduce pain and suppress disease activity; laparoscopic excision or ablation of endometriosis lesions in appropriate candidates to improve pain and, in many cases, spontaneous pregnancy rates; careful integration of assisted reproductive technologies (such as IVF) for those with endometriosis‑associated infertility, often using tools like the Endometriosis Fertility Index to guide prognosis and management; and multidisciplinary support including fertility specialists, pain specialists, and psychological support when needed. ^{[2][14][5][7][18]} Non‑pharmacological interventions (exercise, pelvic‑floor physiotherapy, dietary changes, CBT, mindfulness, acupuncture) are viewed as adjuncts that can improve pain and quality of life but are not considered standalone replacements for evidence‑based medical or surgical care, given the still‑developing evidence base. ^[6][16][17] The mainstream view explicitly recognizes that endometriosis and adenomyosis are associated with increased risks of infertility and adverse pregnancy outcomes and that supportive care aims to reduce these burdens, optimize fertility and symptom control, and support informed decision‑making rather than promising full ^[13]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Endometriosis Support”

Rule: RSMo § 331.010(1)

See every doc bro advertising Endometriosis

Megan Malone, Chiropractor, MS is not licensed or approved by Missouri State Board of Chiropractic Examiners to diagnose, treat, or cure Menopause and Perimenopause.

Menopause and Perimenopause

Supports

High-quality evidence specifically supporting chiropractic treatment as an effective therapy for menopause or perimenopause symptoms (such as hot flushes, night sweats, vasomotor symptoms, sleep disturbance, mood changes, genitourinary syndrome) is essentially absent. ^{[6][7][19][20][21][22]} A review of chiropractic intervention for postmenopausal climacteric symptoms and insomnia concluded that epidemiological data demonstrated a lack of evidence for chiropractic as a complementary or alternative therapeutic method for menopausal symptoms and insomnia, and explicitly stated that there is no evidence for effectiveness and that better designed studies are needed. This indicates that current evidence does not robustly support the claim, rather than providing positive support. At best, chiropractic care has evidence for musculoskeletal complaints (e. g. , neck or back pain) and general biomarker modulation in adults with spinal pain, but these trials are not menopause- or perimenopause-specific and therefore cannot be taken as direct support for treating menopausal syndrome. Evidence-based menopause guidelines and RCTs support non-hormonal and hormonal therapies (e. ^[1][2] g. , menopausal hormone therapy, CBT, certain nonhormonal drugs, vaginal estrogen or hyaluronic acid, and lifestyle interventions) as effective treatments, but they do not list chiropractic as an evidence-based therapy for core menopausal symptoms.

Contradicts

The available peer-reviewed evidence directly contradicts the idea that chiropractic treatment is an established or evidence-based therapy for menopause or perimenopause. ^{[1][4][6][7][19][20]} The review of chiropractic intervention for postmenopausal climacteric symptoms and insomnia reports that large epidemiological surveys show a lack of evidence for chiropractic as a complementary or alternative method in the management of menopausal symptoms and insomnia and concludes that there is no evidence for effectiveness of chiropractic intervention for menopausal symptoms and insomnia, calling for better methodological studies. ^[21] Major menopause guidelines and management documents focus on hormone therapy, nonhormonal pharmacologic options (such as certain SSRIs/SNRIs when HRT is not suitable), CBT, lifestyle modification, and selected complementary approaches with evidence; they do not recommend chiropractic for vasomotor symptoms or other core menopausal complaints. ^[2][5][22] NICE-style and WHO-style menopause guidelines emphasize HRT, CBT, nonhormonal agents, lifestyle (exercise, diet, trigger avoidance) and explicitly advise against unproven or experimental interventions (e. g. , vaginal lasers outside trials), underscoring that therapies must have demonstrable clinical benefit, which chiropractic for menopause currently lacks. Existing RCTs and trials of chiropractic largely concern musculoskeletal pain (low back pain, neck pain, premenstrual syndrome, general spinal pain) and demonstrate some benefit in those domains, but they do not show that chiropractic alters menopausal vasomotor symptoms, hormonal milieu, or genitourinary syndrome, so extrapolating from them to menopause is not supported by evidence.

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical and scientific position is that menopause and perimenopause are primarily managed with evidence-based hormonal and nonhormonal therapies, along with lifestyle and psychological interventions, and that chiropractic care is not an established or recommended treatment for core menopausal symptoms. ^{[1][4][6][19][20]} Major guidelines for menopause management prioritize menopausal hormone therapy for vasomotor symptoms and genitourinary syndrome when not contraindicated, and consider nonhormonal pharmacologic options, cognitive behavioural therapy, and lifestyle measures (exercise, diet, trigger avoidance, weight management) when HRT is unsuitable or declined. ^{[2][5][7][21][22]} They do not list chiropractic adjustments or spinal manipulation as treatments for hot flashes, night sweats, vasomotor symptoms, insomnia due to menopause, or hormonal imbalance. Chiropractic is considered within mainstream care as a nonpharmacologic option for musculoskeletal conditions (e. g. , low back pain, neck pain), and some chiropractic clinical pathways for menopause focus on musculoskeletal health, exercise, and general wellness rather than claiming to treat menopause itself or its endocrine drivers. Overall, mainstream practice may accept chiropractic for coexisting musculoskeletal pain in midlife women but regards claims that chiropractic treats menopause or perimenopause themselves (e. g. , resolves hot flashes or corrects hormonal imbalance) as unsupported by high-quality evidence.

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Menopause and Perimenopause”

Rule: RSMo § 331.010(1)

See every doc bro advertising Menopause

Megan Malone, Chiropractor, MS is not licensed or approved by Missouri State Board of Chiropractic Examiners to diagnose, treat, or cure You are not crazy, it is just menopause.

You are not crazy, it is just menopause

Supports

Menopause is a biologically real, common transition that can cause symptoms such as hot flashes, sleep disruption, mood changes, and cognitive complaints; these symptoms can be mistaken for psychiatric or neurologic problems, so the statement that symptoms may be due to menopause is medically plausible. However, none of the indexed papers provided directly evaluate menopause or the claim itself, so there is no index-paper support for the exact wording of the influencer’s statement. ^[23]

Contradicts

The claim is too absolute as written. Symptoms attributed to menopause are not specific to menopause, and complaints such as anxiety, depression, irritability, fatigue, and brain fog can also reflect primary mental health conditions, thyroid disease, anemia, medication effects, sleep disorders, or other medical problems. Because the user-supplied index papers are unrelated to menopause, they do not validate the claim. The evidence base would require menopause-focused guidelines, systematic reviews, or randomized trials, none of which are present in the index list. The open-label placebo paper is unrelated to menopause and does not support the claim. ^[23] The remaining indexed ClinicalTrials. gov items are also unrelated and do not inform menopause diagnosis or symptom attribution .

Mainstream view

Mainstream medical guidance recognizes menopause as a common cause of vasomotor symptoms and can contribute to mood and sleep changes, but clinicians should not assume that all emotional or cognitive symptoms are due to menopause without evaluation for alternative causes. The accepted view is that menopause is a possible explanation, not a blanket dismissal of psychiatric or medical symptoms. ^[23]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“You are not crazy, it is just menopause”

Rule: RSMo § 331.010(1)

See every doc bro advertising Menopause

Megan Malone, Chiropractor, MS is not licensed or approved by Missouri State Board of Chiropractic Examiners to diagnose, treat, or cure Menopause Support.

Menopause Support

Supports

High-quality clinical practice guidelines and systematic reviews agree that targeted menopause support is beneficial and often necessary for many women with bothersome symptoms. Multiple guidelines conclude that systemic menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) is the most effective treatment for vasomotor symptoms (hot flashes, night sweats) and also treats genitourinary syndrome of menopause and prevents bone loss and fractures in appropriately selected women. These sources emphasize individualized risk–benefit assessment, especially for women younger than 60 years or within 10 years of menopause onset and without major contraindications.^[11] Clinical guidelines consistently recommend low-dose vaginal estrogen or other approved local therapies when vulvovaginal symptoms are not controlled by nonhormonal measures.^[11] Recent umbrella reviews and evidence syntheses of MHT show consistent benefits on vasomotor symptoms, vaginal atrophy, sexual function, and fracture risk, while also documenting important risks (cardiovascular events, venous thromboembolism, stroke, gallbladder disease, and certain cancers) that must be weighed in shared decision-making.^[11] A 2024 systematic review of menopause clinical practice guidelines found that high-quality guidelines consistently recommend MHT for vasomotor symptoms and menopause‑associated mood disturbance in appropriate candidates, but not for prevention of cardiometabolic disease or dementia, reinforcing a focused, symptom‑based support approach.^[12] Beyond hormone therapy, randomized controlled trials show that structured psychological support (such as compassionate mind training) is feasible and may improve depression and anxiety during the menopause transition, supporting a biopsychosocial model of menopause care.^[17] RCTs also demonstrate that nonpharmacologic interventions like yoga can reduce menopausal symptoms and improve sleep quality in peri‑ and postmenopausal women, offering additional supportive options for symptom management and wellbeing.^[22]

Contradicts

Umbrella reviews of menopausal hormone therapy highlight that although MHT is effective for symptom relief and bone health, it is associated with increased risks of cardiovascular disease incidence and recurrence, stroke, venous thromboembolism, deep vein thrombosis, gallbladder disease requiring surgery, and some cancers when used in certain populations or regimens, contradicting any claim that menopause support via hormone therapy is uniformly safe or risk‑free.^[11] Evidence syntheses and guidelines state that MHT is not an appropriate intervention for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease, dementia, or broad cardiometabolic risk reduction, which challenges any assertion that menopause support therapy can or should routinely be used for disease prevention beyond bone health and symptom control.^[11][12] High‑quality guidelines also emphasize age and timing constraints (benefits are more favorable in women younger than 60 years or within 10 years of menopause), meaning that broad claims that all postmenopausal women should receive hormone‑based support are not supported by current evidence.^[11][12] Additionally, although emerging RCTs suggest possible benefits of probiotics and other novel nonhormonal interventions for menopausal symptoms and mental health, these trials are small, short‑term, and often single‑center, so any strong claim that such products are established, evidence‑based core menopause support would be premature given the current state of evidence.^[16][21][23]

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical view is that menopause is a normal life stage but can be associated with significant vasomotor, genitourinary, mood, sleep, and quality‑of‑life symptoms for many women, and that offering structured, evidence‑based support is appropriate when symptoms are bothersome or health risks (such as osteoporosis) are elevated. Current major guidelines and evidence reviews converge on the position that menopausal hormone therapy is the most effective treatment for vasomotor and genitourinary symptoms and for preventing bone loss and fractures, but should be used at the lowest effective dose for the shortest duration needed, primarily in women younger than 60 years or within 10 years of menopause onset who lack contraindications, with careful counseling on risks and alternatives.^[11][12] For women in whom systemic hormone therapy is not appropriate or desired, mainstream practice recommends a combination of nonhormonal pharmacologic options (for vasomotor symptoms), local vaginal estrogen or other approved local therapies for genitourinary symptoms, and lifestyle and behavioral interventions (such as exercise, weight management, stress reduction, yoga, and structured psychological therapies) to address mood, sleep, and overall wellbeing.^[17][22] Major guidelines do not support using MHT for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease, dementia, or broad cardiometabolic risk, and emphasize shared decision‑making, individualized risk assessment (including cardiovascular and cancer risk), and periodic re‑evaluation of ongoing therapy

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Menopause Support”

Rule: RSMo § 331.010(1)

See every doc bro advertising Menopause

Megan Malone, Chiropractor, MS is not licensed or approved by Missouri State Board of Chiropractic Examiners to diagnose, treat, or cure Hair analysis.

Hair analysis

Supports

High-quality evidence and major clinical guidelines focus on chiropractic care for musculoskeletal conditions (e. ^[2][6] g. , low back pain, some types of neck pain and headache) and do not address hair analysis as a diagnostic or treatment modality, so there is no direct supportive evidence for chiropractor treatment based on hair analysis for systemic health problems. ^[1][4] My academic search did not identify any systematic reviews, RCTs, or major guidelines endorsing hair mineral analysis or other forms of hair analysis as a clinically validated tool for chiropractors to diagnose or manage general medical conditions.

Contradicts

Mainstream guidelines for conditions commonly targeted by alternative diagnostic methods (e. g. , hypertension, inflammatory bowel disease, headache) define diagnosis and management using validated clinical assessments, blood tests, imaging, and standardized criteria, without recommending hair analysis by chiropractors or other clinicians. ^[7] The hypertension management guideline update emphasizes evidence-based blood pressure measurement, cardiovascular risk assessment, and established pharmacologic and lifestyle interventions with no mention of hair analysis as a diagnostic or monitoring tool. ^[1] The ESPEN guideline on clinical nutrition in inflammatory bowel disease specifies use of clinical examination, laboratory markers, imaging, endoscopy, and validated scoring systems; it does not include hair analysis or chiropractic-based hair testing in diagnostic or therapeutic pathways. ^[3] EFNS tension-type headache guidelines describe medication, behavioral interventions, and in some cases manual therapies, but do not endorse hair analysis for diagnosis of headache or systemic causes. ^[4] Major nutrition support guidelines (ASPEN-FELANPE, parenteral nutrition appropriateness) likewise rely on clinical and laboratory assessments and do not recognize hair analysis as a basis for therapy decisions. ^[2][5] Overall, evidence reviews and guideline frameworks emphasize rating evidence quality using GRADE, where tests or interventions lacking validated clinical utility (like unvalidated hair analysis protocols) would be graded as very low-quality and not recommended. ^[6] Academic searches show that hair mineral analysis for broad health assessment is frequently criticized for poor standardization, contamination risk, high inter-laboratory variability, and limited correlation with blood or tissue nutrient status, and it is generally considered unreliable for clinical decision-making, which contradicts using it as a central diagnostic tool in chiropractic practice.

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical and scientific position is that chiropractic care has a limited, evidence-based role in managing certain musculoskeletal complaints (e. ^[1] g. , some low back pain and possibly some tension-type headache) but that hair analysis is not a validated, guideline-supported diagnostic tool for systemic disease or for directing treatment decisions in conventional or chiropractic practice. ^[4] Major guidelines for cardiovascular disease, clinical nutrition, inflammatory bowel disease, and headache do not include hair analysis in recommended diagnostic workups or treatment algorithms and instead rely on established clinical examinations, blood tests, imaging, and standardized criteria. ^[2][3][5][7] Within evidence-based frameworks such as GRADE, unvalidated tests like broad hair analysis panels are regarded as very low-quality evidence and are not recommended for routine care or for making treatment decisions. ^[6] Consequently, chiropractor treatment plans based primarily on hair analysis are viewed as outside mainstream, evidence-based practice and as lacking robust scientific support.

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“hair analysis”

Rule: RSMo § 331.010(1)

Megan Malone, Chiropractor, MS is not licensed or approved by Missouri State Board of Chiropractic Examiners to diagnose, treat, or cure Nutritional support.

Nutritional support

Supports

The influencer’s claim is too vague (“Nutritional support”) to map to a specific intervention or outcome, but there is substantial high‑quality evidence that structured nutritional support (oral supplements, enteral or parenteral nutrition, often with individualized targets) benefits clearly malnourished or high‑risk patients. Multiple systematic reviews and meta‑analyses of randomized trials in malnourished medical inpatients show that nutritional support improves energy and protein intake, body weight, and reduces mortality and unplanned readmissions, particularly when high‑protein strategies and longer durations of support are used.^[15][22] Post‑discharge oral or enteral nutritional support in malnourished adults similarly increases intake and body weight and is associated with lower long‑term mortality.^[5][19] In surgical and oncologic populations, early or home enteral nutrition after major gastrointestinal or gastric cancer surgery improves nutritional markers, reduces postoperative complications, shortens hospital stay, and may improve quality of life without clear safety concerns.^[6][17][18] In chronic disease settings such as COPD and CKD, systematic reviews report that nutritional support (often oral nutritional supplements) improves nutritional intake, anthropometric measures, and some aspects of strength and physical function, especially when combined with exercise programs.^[10][16][21] Major clinical guidelines (for example, on oral nutrition support, enteral tube feeding, and parenteral nutrition) endorse targeted nutritional support for patients who are malnourished or at risk and unable to meet needs orally, specifying energy and protein ranges and routes of delivery.^[8][9] Collectively, this body of evidence strongly supports the use of structured nutritional support in patients with documented or high‑risk malnutrition, rather than as a blanket intervention for all populations.

Contradicts

Despite overall benefits in clearly malnourished or high‑risk groups, evidence is not uniformly positive across all populations or outcomes, which limits any broad, unqualified claim about “nutritional support.” A systematic review in medical inpatients at risk of malnutrition found that while nutritional support increases caloric and protein intake and body weight, effects on many clinical outcomes are modest, with clear benefit mainly for nonelective hospital readmissions and less consistent effects on other endpoints.^[11] In well‑nourished patients with cancer undergoing surgery, meta‑analysis suggests that nutritional support (including immunonutrition) reduces infectious complications and may shorten hospital stay, but does not improve mortality, indicating that benefits are smaller or outcome‑specific when baseline nutritional status is adequate.^[6] Systematic overviews of oral nutritional supplements note that, although many trials report improved intake and small gains in weight, the overall quality of evidence is variable, heterogeneity is high, and results for harder outcomes (mortality, readmissions, function) can be discordant depending on patient group and setting.^[12][14] Some meta‑analyses in older adults after hospital discharge show improved intake and weight but no statistically significant reduction in mortality or readmissions, again suggesting that benefits are context‑dependent rather than universal.^[12] Even in areas where recent meta‑analyses report mortality benefits (e.g., high‑protein, longer‑duration strategies in malnourished medical inpatients or post‑discharge support), authors emphasize moderate study quality, heterogeneity, and the need for further large, high‑quality RCTs before translating findings into indiscriminate use.^[15][19][22] Overall, the literature contradicts any simplistic claim that nutritional support is broadly necessary or beneficial for all individuals regardless of nutritional status, clinical context, or implementation details.

Mainstream view

Mainstream medical and scientific opinion is that nutritional support is a targeted medical therapy indicated for patients who are malnourished or at substantial risk of malnutrition, particularly when they cannot meet requirements with normal food intake, and that it should be individualized in route, composition, and duration. Guidelines recommend oral nutritional support first, progressing to enteral tube feeding when the gastrointestinal tract is functional but oral intake is inadequate or unsafe, and to parenteral nutrition only when the gut cannot be used, with careful monitoring to avoid complications.^[8][9] High‑quality evidence supports that, in malnourished or nutritionally at‑risk medical inpatients, structured nutritional support improves intake and weight and can reduce mortality and unplanned readmissions, especially with high‑protein, longer‑duration regimens.^[15][19][22] In surgical and specific chronic disease populations, early or home enteral nutrition and appropriately prescribed supplements can reduce complications, preserve nutritional status, and improve selected functional outcomes.^{[6][10][17][18][21]} However, in well‑nourished

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“nutritional support”

Rule: Mo. Rev. Stat. §331.010 (20 CSR 2070)

Megan Malone, Chiropractor, MS is not licensed or approved by Missouri State Board of Chiropractic Examiners to advertise Hair Analysis for Whole Person Healthcare as within their scope of practice.

Hair Analysis for Whole Person Healthcare

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“hair analysis”

Rule: RSMo § 331.010(1)

Megan Malone, Chiropractor, MS is not licensed or approved by Missouri State Board of Chiropractic Examiners to advertise Nutritional Support for Systemic Health as within their scope of practice.

Nutritional Support for Systemic Health

Supports

The influencer’s claim is too vague (“Nutritional support”) to map to a specific intervention or outcome, but there is substantial high‑quality evidence that structured nutritional support (oral supplements, enteral or parenteral nutrition, often with individualized targets) benefits clearly malnourished or high‑risk patients. Multiple systematic reviews and meta‑analyses of randomized trials in malnourished medical inpatients show that nutritional support improves energy and protein intake, body weight, and reduces mortality and unplanned readmissions, particularly when high‑protein strategies and longer durations of support are used.^[15][22] Post‑discharge oral or enteral nutritional support in malnourished adults similarly increases intake and body weight and is associated with lower long‑term mortality.^[5][19] In surgical and oncologic populations, early or home enteral nutrition after major gastrointestinal or gastric cancer surgery improves nutritional markers, reduces postoperative complications, shortens hospital stay, and may improve quality of life without clear safety concerns.^[6][17][18] In chronic disease settings such as COPD and CKD, systematic reviews report that nutritional support (often oral nutritional supplements) improves nutritional intake, anthropometric measures, and some aspects of strength and physical function, especially when combined with exercise programs.^[10][16][21] Major clinical guidelines (for example, on oral nutrition support, enteral tube feeding, and parenteral nutrition) endorse targeted nutritional support for patients who are malnourished or at risk and unable to meet needs orally, specifying energy and protein ranges and routes of delivery.^[8][9] Collectively, this body of evidence strongly supports the use of structured nutritional support in patients with documented or high‑risk malnutrition, rather than as a blanket intervention for all populations.

Contradicts

Despite overall benefits in clearly malnourished or high‑risk groups, evidence is not uniformly positive across all populations or outcomes, which limits any broad, unqualified claim about “nutritional support.” A systematic review in medical inpatients at risk of malnutrition found that while nutritional support increases caloric and protein intake and body weight, effects on many clinical outcomes are modest, with clear benefit mainly for nonelective hospital readmissions and less consistent effects on other endpoints.^[11] In well‑nourished patients with cancer undergoing surgery, meta‑analysis suggests that nutritional support (including immunonutrition) reduces infectious complications and may shorten hospital stay, but does not improve mortality, indicating that benefits are smaller or outcome‑specific when baseline nutritional status is adequate.^[6] Systematic overviews of oral nutritional supplements note that, although many trials report improved intake and small gains in weight, the overall quality of evidence is variable, heterogeneity is high, and results for harder outcomes (mortality, readmissions, function) can be discordant depending on patient group and setting.^[12][14] Some meta‑analyses in older adults after hospital discharge show improved intake and weight but no statistically significant reduction in mortality or readmissions, again suggesting that benefits are context‑dependent rather than universal.^[12] Even in areas where recent meta‑analyses report mortality benefits (e.g., high‑protein, longer‑duration strategies in malnourished medical inpatients or post‑discharge support), authors emphasize moderate study quality, heterogeneity, and the need for further large, high‑quality RCTs before translating findings into indiscriminate use.^[15][19][22] Overall, the literature contradicts any simplistic claim that nutritional support is broadly necessary or beneficial for all individuals regardless of nutritional status, clinical context, or implementation details.

Mainstream view

Mainstream medical and scientific opinion is that nutritional support is a targeted medical therapy indicated for patients who are malnourished or at substantial risk of malnutrition, particularly when they cannot meet requirements with normal food intake, and that it should be individualized in route, composition, and duration. Guidelines recommend oral nutritional support first, progressing to enteral tube feeding when the gastrointestinal tract is functional but oral intake is inadequate or unsafe, and to parenteral nutrition only when the gut cannot be used, with careful monitoring to avoid complications.^[8][9] High‑quality evidence supports that, in malnourished or nutritionally at‑risk medical inpatients, structured nutritional support improves intake and weight and can reduce mortality and unplanned readmissions, especially with high‑protein, longer‑duration regimens.^[15][19][22] In surgical and specific chronic disease populations, early or home enteral nutrition and appropriately prescribed supplements can reduce complications, preserve nutritional status, and improve selected functional outcomes.^{[6][10][17][18][21]} However, in well‑nourished

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“nutritional support”

Rule: Mo. Rev. Stat. §331.010 (20 CSR 2070)

Megan Malone, Chiropractor, MS is not licensed or approved by Missouri State Board of Chiropractic Examiners to advertise PCOS and Irregular Cycles as within their scope of practice.

PCOS and Irregular Cycles

Supports

High-quality evidence supporting chiropractic treatment for PCOS or irregular cycles is lacking. ^[6] The search results include no systematic reviews, meta-analyses, randomized controlled trials, or major guidelines showing that chiropractic care treats PCOS itself or normalizes menstrual cycles. ^{[2][34][35][37]} Existing higher-level evidence for PCOS management instead supports lifestyle intervention and, in some cases, other medical therapies, not chiropractic care. ^[1]

Contradicts

The available evidence base does not support the claim that chiropractic treatment is an effective therapy for PCOS-related irregular cycles. ^{[6][7][35][36]} The PCOS guideline emphasizes evidence-based medical and lifestyle management and does not list chiropractic care as a treatment option . ^[1][4][37] The index papers provided are unrelated to PCOS treatment, and none of them provide evidence for chiropractic management of menstrual irregularity or PCOS . Search results did identify some low-level or indirect reports involving osteopathic manipulation, visceral manipulation, or chiropractic care in other menstrual conditions, but these are not strong evidence for PCOS and are not sufficient to establish efficacy for irregular cycles in PCOS. ^[34] Evidence for chiropractic treatment of menstrual symptoms is therefore weak, indirect, and insufficient.

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical view is that PCOS and irregular menstrual cycles should be managed with guideline-based care, typically including lifestyle measures, hormonal therapy, insulin-sensitizing strategies in selected patients, and evaluation for other causes of menstrual irregularity. ^{[1][4][7][34][35][36]} Chiropractic treatment is not a standard or evidence-based treatment for PCOS or cycle regulation, and there is no credible high-quality evidence that it treats the underlying endocrine disorder. ^[6][37]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“PCOS and Irregular Cycles”

Rule: Mo. Rev. Stat. §331.010 (20 CSR 2070)

See every doc bro advertising PCOS