Paul Daniel Fay alias Coach Gut

Paul Daniel Fay is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Functional Medicine.

Functional Medicine

Supports

The specific claim is about a partnership with a named clinic and a promise of “deeper lab testing and root-cause healing. ” This is essentially a marketing and business claim, not a clinical or mechanistic assertion that can be directly tested in randomized trials or guidelines. ^[2] None of the indexed peer‑reviewed papers on hypertension, clinical nutrition, parenteral nutrition, headache, transfusion therapy, colchicine in pericarditis, or GRADE methodology provide evidence about the effectiveness of “functional medicine” partnerships, “deeper lab testing” as a strategy, or “root‑cause healing” as framed in influencer and functional medicine marketing. ^{[1][4][5][7][8]} High‑quality evidence and major guidelines do support the general concept of addressing underlying causes of disease (e. ^[6] g. , controlling blood pressure to reduce cardiovascular events, treating inflammatory bowel disease with evidence‑based nutrition strategies), but this is done through standardized diagnostic criteria and therapies proven in trials, not through the loosely defined “root-cause healing” branding used in functional medicine. ^[3]

Contradicts

Major guidelines and high‑quality evidence emphasize using validated, clinically indicated tests and interventions rather than broad panels of non‑validated “deeper labs” that are common in functional medicine marketing. The GRADE framework specifically warns against overinterpreting low‑quality or imprecise evidence, which is often the basis for expansive testing and individualized protocols promoted under “root‑cause” narratives. ^[6] There is no robust evidence that partnering with a functional medicine clinic, or using more extensive non‑indicated laboratory testing, by itself improves hard clinical outcomes compared with guideline‑driven standard care. ^[1] Available guidelines on hypertension, clinical nutrition, transfusion therapy, headache, and cardiovascular disease all prioritize targeted, evidence‑based diagnostics and treatments and do not endorse the generic concept of “root‑cause healing” as used in marketing. ^{[2][3][4][5][7]}

Mainstream view

Mainstream medicine strongly supports identifying and treating underlying causes of disease, but does so via standardized diagnostic pathways and therapies validated in randomized trials, meta‑analyses, and consensus guidelines. ^[2] Major guidelines for hypertension, nutrition support, inflammatory bowel disease, headache, transfusion therapy, and cardiovascular conditions recommend using evidence‑based criteria to decide when and which laboratory tests are appropriate, rather than routinely ordering broad “deeper” panels without clear indications. ^[1][3][4][7] The mainstream view is that care should be guided by high‑quality evidence and the GRADE methodology, with caution about imprecise or low‑quality data and skepticism toward unvalidated diagnostic strategies or outcome claims. ^[6] Functional medicine branding and claims of “root‑cause healing” via extensive lab testing are therefore considered outside, or at least on the margins, of evidence‑based mainstream practice unless they adhere strictly to guideline‑based diagnostics and treatments. ^[5]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Functional Medicine”

Rule: K.S.A. 65-2871

Paul Daniel Fay is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Women’s Health.

Women’s Health

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Women's Health”

Rule: K.S.A. 65-2871

Paul Daniel Fay is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Pregnancy.

Pregnancy

Supports

High-quality evidence directly evaluating chiropractic treatment in pregnancy is limited but includes some randomized controlled trials and systematic/narrative reviews. A 2012 pilot randomized controlled trial comparing exercise, spinal manipulation, and a mind–body technique for pregnancy-related low back pain found all groups improved, with no clinically meaningful or statistically significant differences between treatments, suggesting spinal manipulation may be comparable to exercise but not clearly superior.^[11] A 2013 randomized controlled trial of a multimodal musculoskeletal and obstetric management program, which included manual therapy elements, showed significantly greater reductions in pain and disability compared with standard obstetric care, supporting that structured musculoskeletal care during pregnancy can reduce low back and pelvic pain.^[12] Observational cohort data report that many pregnant patients with low back or pelvic pain undergoing chiropractic care experience clinically relevant symptom improvement up to one year, although without control groups this primarily supports feasibility and potential benefit rather than proven efficacy.^[10] Narrative and consensus-based best-practice articles state that spinal manipulation and chiropractic care appear to be safe and effective conservative options for mechanical low back and pelvic pain in pregnancy, with very few reported adverse effects and no identified harm to the fetus in the available literature.^{[7][13][6][9]} A 2012 review of adverse events from spinal manipulation in pregnant and postpartum women identified only a small number of case reports, suggesting serious complications are rare, though the true risk cannot be quantified.^[15] Overall, higher-quality evidence supports that chiropractic/manual therapy can be considered as one conservative option for managing pregnancy-related lumbopelvic pain, with short-term pain and disability improvements in some trials and an apparently low rate of serious adverse events.

Contradicts

Systematic reviews and controlled trials emphasize that the evidence for chiropractic treatment in pregnancy is low to moderate in quality and frequently inconclusive regarding efficacy. Reviews of pregnancy-related low back pain note that the included studies are of low-to-moderate quality, often lack randomization and control groups, and therefore do not allow definitive statements about the efficacy of chiropractic care or spinal manipulation.^[3][8] A systematic review on complementary manual therapies for pregnancy-related low back and pelvic pain found limited evidence supporting manual therapies and reported that positive effects on pain intensity were seen compared with usual care and relaxation, but not when compared with sham interventions, indicating possible placebo or nonspecific effects and overall limited support for strong efficacy claims.^[5] A randomized controlled trial of chiropractic management for dominating one-sided pelvic girdle pain in pregnant women found no statistically significant differences between chiropractic treatment and conventional care in sick leave, pain, disability, or general health status during pregnancy or after delivery, failing to demonstrate superiority of chiropractic care for this subgroup.^[4][16] The adverse event review concluded that, due to the paucity and low level of evidence, the overall risk of spinal manipulation in pregnant/postpartum patients cannot be measured or stated definitively, nor can it be determined whether risk differs from that in nonpregnant populations, which contradicts any strong safety claims implying quantified or proven low risk.^[15] Together, these data show that while chiropractic care may help some pregnant patients, strong claims of proven effectiveness or fully established safety are not supported by current high-quality evidence; benefits appear modest, condition-specific, and not consistently superior to other conservative approaches.

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical and scientific view is that chiropractic care, including spinal manipulation, can be considered as one optional conservative modality for managing pregnancy-related mechanical low back and pelvic girdle pain, but its efficacy is not firmly established and the supporting evidence is limited and often of low to moderate quality. Major obstetric and general medical guidelines typically prioritize standard measures such as patient education, physical therapy and exercise programs, activity modification, and analgesics judged safe in pregnancy, and may mention manual therapies, including chiropractic, as adjuncts rather than first-line, evidence-strong treatments. Current reviews and trials indicate that chiropractic/manual therapy may reduce pain and disability for some pregnant women, but effects are generally small to moderate, not consistently greater than alternative conservative treatments or sham, and data are insufficient to draw definitive conclusions about efficacy in specific pregnancy pain subtypes.^{[3][5][11][12][16]} Safety data suggest that serious adverse events from spinal manipulation in pregnancy appear rare, but the true risk is unknown due to limited and low-level evidence, so mainstream practice treats chiropractic care as probably reasonably safe when performed by trained practitioners on appropriately selected patients, yet recommends caution, individualized risk–benefit assessment, and close coordination with obstetric providers.^[7][13][15] Overall, mainstream opinion is that chiropractic treatment should not be presented as a proven or primary treatment for pregnancy-related pain, but may be offered as an adjunctive option within a multimodal

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“pregnancy”

Rule: K.S.A. 65-2871

Paul Daniel Fay is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Sports injuries.

Sports injuries

Supports

High-quality evidence specifically on chiropractic treatment of sports injuries is limited but includes a small number of randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews. A key RCT in semi-elite Australian Rules footballers found that adding a sports chiropractic manual therapy program (spinal/extremity manipulation and soft-tissue techniques) to usual medical/sports science care significantly reduced primary lower-limb muscle strains and weeks missed due to non-contact knee injuries over a season, suggesting potential benefit for injury prevention and rehabilitation in that context.^[7][9][11] Systematic reviews of controlled clinical trials in sports report that in several trials chiropractic care was associated with improved outcomes in injury treatment and medical rehabilitation (for example, faster recovery from ankle sprains or reduced injury time), indicating possible usefulness as an adjunct therapy.^{[7][8][10][16][17]} Narrative and evidence-based reviews note that chiropractic care is commonly used within multidisciplinary sports medicine teams, and some controlled trials suggest benefit for pain and function in musculoskeletal conditions relevant to athletes (e.g., ankle sprain, low back pain), though these are not always sport-specific.^{[7][12][17][19]} Overall, the best available evidence supports a modest, context-dependent role for chiropractic/manual therapy as an adjunct within comprehensive sports injury management, rather than a stand‑alone primary treatment.

Contradicts

Systematic reviews focusing on chiropractic for prevention and treatment of sports injuries emphasize that the number of rigorous trials is small and methodological quality is generally low, making firm conclusions difficult.^{[7][10][13][17]} In the main systematic review of controlled clinical trials, one RCT and two controlled clinical trials suggested efficacy, but two RCTs found no difference between chiropractic and control groups for treating sports injuries, and one RCT found chiropractic ineffective for sports injury prevention, underscoring inconsistent results and substantial uncertainty.^[7][13][17] Reviews from sports chiropractic and multidisciplinary perspectives explicitly state that there is insufficient high‑quality evidence to convincingly support the idea that chiropractic treatment directly improves athletic performance, and attempts to show such effects have often had questionable methodology and yielded dubious conclusions.^[12][18][21] A pilot RCT in elite soccer players using spinal manipulative therapy with a validated sham control found no immediate improvement in sprint or change-of-direction performance, reinforcing that performance enhancement claims are not supported by robust evidence.^[21] Evidence-based overviews therefore caution that the therapeutic value of chiropractic manipulation for athletes remains uncertain and should not be presented as a proven primary treatment or performance enhancer.^{[7][12][17][18]}

Mainstream view

Mainstream sports medicine and general medical practice regard musculoskeletal sports injuries as best managed with an evidence-based multidisciplinary approach that prioritizes accurate diagnosis, load management, exercise-based rehabilitation, injury-prevention programs (such as neuromuscular warm-ups), and, where appropriate, pharmacologic or surgical interventions.^[3][6] Within this framework, chiropractic/manual therapy may be used as an optional adjunct for selected musculoskeletal problems, particularly spinal and some peripheral joint conditions, but it is not considered a primary or stand-alone standard of care for most sports injuries.^[7][12][17] Major guidelines and methodological frameworks (e.g., those using GRADE) emphasize that the existing evidence for chiropractic in sports is limited, heterogeneous, and often imprecise, so effect estimates are rated as low or very low certainty and clinical decisions should be individualized and integrated into broader, guideline-driven management rather than relying on chiropractic alone.^{[6][7][13][17]} Mainstream consensus is that chiropractic treatment can be considered as part of multidisciplinary care for some athletes, but claims that it broadly prevents sports injuries or reliably enhances performance are not supported by high-quality evidence and should be presented cautiously.^{[7][12][17][18][21]}

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“sports injuries”

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

Paul Daniel Fay is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Performance enhancement.

Performance enhancement

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“performance enhancement”

Rule: K.S.A. 65-2871

Paul Daniel Fay is not approved to offer Acupuncture within a Chiropractor scope of practice under Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic).

Acupuncture

Supports

The influencer’s claim is vague, but the closest interpretable version is that chiropractic care can be combined with acupuncture as a therapeutic approach, particularly for musculoskeletal pain and related conditions. ^[17][19][20] High-quality evidence relevant to this includes systematic reviews and meta-analyses that examine acupuncture, chiropractic, or their combination for chronic nonspecific low back pain and cervical conditions. ^[6] A systematic review and meta-analysis on chronic nonspecific low back pain reported that acupuncture, acupressure, and chiropractic interventions have favorable effects on self-reported pain and functional limitations, indicating that each modality has at least moderate supportive evidence for pain relief and functional improvement. ^[18] Additional systematic reviews and meta-analyses focused on cervical spondylotic or cervical vertigo suggest that both acupuncture and chiropractic (or bone-setting/chiropractic manipulation) reduce pain and improve function, and that combined therapy may provide greater overall clinical efficacy than either therapy alone, though the trials are largely from single countries and often have methodological limitations. ^[2][7] More recent randomized controlled trials of warm acupuncture combined with cervical and lumbar chiropractic manipulation for lumbar disc herniation show higher total effective rates, greater improvements in disability and lumbar function scores, and greater reductions in inflammatory markers compared with chiropractic manipulation alone, reinforcing a possible additive benefit of combining the two modalities for short-term outcomes. Narrative and comprehensive reviews of alternative therapies for chronic pain generally conclude that non-pharmacologic approaches such as acupuncture and chiropractic can serve as effective adjuncts for musculoskeletal pain, with substantial patient-reported benefit, further supporting the idea that these therapies can be used together within an integrative pain-management framework.

Contradicts

There is limited high-quality evidence directly addressing the superiority of chiropractic plus acupuncture over either modality alone, and at least one randomized feasibility trial comparing integrative care (spinal manipulative therapy plus acupuncture) versus either therapy alone for low back pain found clinically meaningful improvements in all groups but no clear between-group differences in outcomes, suggesting that combination therapy may not necessarily be more effective than monotherapy. ^{[6][17][19][20]} Many of the meta-analyses and systematic reviews evaluating acupuncture and chiropractic, especially those for cervical spondylotic conditions and cervical vertigo, highlight important methodological weaknesses, including small sample sizes, unclear randomization and blinding, heterogeneity of interventions, and limited generalizability; this reduces confidence in strong claims that combined chiropractic–acupuncture treatment is definitively superior. ^[18] Furthermore, the index guidelines provided (hypertension management, parenteral nutrition, IBD nutrition, tension-type headache, blood transfusion therapy, colchicine in pericarditis) do not endorse chiropractic or acupuncture for their respective conditions and illustrate that these modalities are not considered evidence-based primary treatments in major guideline-driven care for cardiovascular disease, hypertension, IBD, or pericarditis, indicating that any broad claim that chiropractic treatment of acupuncture is a general or mainstream medical therapy across conditions is unsupported by guideline-level evidence. ^{[1][2][3][5][4][7][8]}

Mainstream view

Mainstream medical and scientific consensus is that both chiropractic spinal manipulation and acupuncture can be considered adjunctive, non-pharmacologic options for selected musculoskeletal pain conditions, such as chronic low back pain and some neck disorders, when delivered by appropriately trained practitioners, and when patients are screened for contraindications. ^[4][18] Major guidelines for non-specific low back pain from organizations like the American College of Physicians and various pain societies typically list acupuncture and spinal manipulation as optional therapies with modest benefit, but do not prioritize or specifically recommend their combined use over evidence-based core treatments such as exercise therapy, physical therapy, and psychosocial interventions. ^[2][6][7] For non-musculoskeletal conditions (e. g. , hypertension, IBD, pericarditis, transfusion indications), mainstream guideline-driven care relies on pharmacologic, nutritional, and procedural interventions supported by strong randomized and mechanistic evidence, and does not recommend chiropractic or acupuncture as primary disease-modifying therapies. ^{[1][3][8][20]} The prevailing view is that combining chiropractic and acupuncture may be reasonable within an integrative care model for chronic musculoskeletal pain, but the evidence base for superior outcomes of combination therapy versus single-modality therapy remains limited and methodologically weak, so strong claims of unique or broadly superior benefit are not part of mainstream evidence-based practice. ^[17][19]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Acupuncture”

Rule: K.S.A. 65-2871

Paul Daniel Fay is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Supplements.

Supplements

Supports

High-quality evidence and guidelines support the use of specific nutritional supplements in clearly defined medical contexts, but this evidence pertains to medically supervised care rather than chiropractic practice itself. ^[23] For example, major nutrition guidelines for parenteral and enteral nutrition emphasize targeted supplementation (macro- and micronutrients) based on documented deficiencies or disease states such as critical illness and malnutrition, with structured protocols and monitoring. ^[2][4] Clinical nutrition guidelines for inflammatory bowel disease similarly endorse evidence-based use of nutritional support as part of multidisciplinary care, again under physician/dietitian supervision. ^[3] Hypertension guidelines recommend evidence-based dietary interventions (e. ^[1] g. , sodium restriction, potassium-rich diet) and sometimes specific supplements in very defined circumstances, but framed within comprehensive cardiovascular risk management led by medical professionals. The GRADE framework stresses that supplement recommendations must be based on high-quality evidence and careful assessment of imprecision, underscoring that strong treatment claims require robust data. ^[5][6] Academic and regulatory sources indicate that in many jurisdictions chiropractors are legally allowed to recommend vitamins, minerals, and other dietary supplements as adjuncts to musculoskeletal care, provided documentation, safety, and non-experimental use, which aligns conceptually with evidence-based nutrition but does not itself show outcome benefit for chiropractic-led supplement treatment. ^[21][22][24] Survey data from chiropractic practice show that most chiropractors do recommend dietary supplements (e. g. , for general health, bone health, rheumatologic and musculoskeletal conditions), indicating that such practice is widespread, though this reflects behavior rather than high-quality outcome evidence.

Contradicts

Major evidence syntheses and clinical guidelines consistently show that for many chronic conditions, nutritional supplements have limited or low-certainty benefit, contradicting broad or strong claims that chiropractic treatment of supplements is broadly effective. ^[2] A large meta-review of randomized trials on nutritional supplements and diets for cardiovascular outcomes found no high-certainty evidence that supplements or dietary interventions improve mortality or major cardiovascular events, with most effects small, uncertain, or absent, which conflicts with any generalized claim that supplement-based treatment is robustly effective. ^[1][21] Systematic review evidence for supplements in osteoarthritis shows at best short-term, moderate effects on pain and function with very low-quality evidence, and no clinically important benefit at medium- or long-term follow-up, which contradicts strong claims that supplements alone, even when recommended by chiropractors, offer durable musculoskeletal relief. ^[24] Clinical nutrition guidelines for IBD, parenteral nutrition, and hypertension consistently embed supplementation within multidisciplinary, medically supervised care and do not endorse chiropractic as a primary provider for managing complex nutritional therapies, highlighting a scope-of-practice and evidence gap. ^[3][4][23] The GRADE guidelines emphasize that imprecision and low-quality evidence should lead to cautious or weak recommendations, directly at odds with influencer-style strong assurances about supplement efficacy and safety when managed by chiropractors. ^[6][22] Overall, there is little to no high-quality evidence that chiropractor-directed supplement regimens, as a distinct intervention, improve hard clinical outcomes compared with standard medical or dietitian-led care, so broad claims of effectiveness are not supported.

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical and scientific position is that nutritional supplements can be appropriate and beneficial in specific, well-defined situations (documented deficiencies, certain disease states, or when evidence-based products are used for specific indications), but they should be recommended within an evidence-based, regulated framework, usually under physician or qualified nutrition professional oversight. ^{[4][6][21][23][24]} Guidelines in clinical nutrition and chronic disease management treat supplements as one component of a broader care plan, not as stand-alone or primary therapy, and emphasize individualized assessment, monitoring for adverse effects, and attention to drug–nutrient interactions. ^[2][3][7] Mainstream evidence reviews highlight that for many common uses (general health, cardiovascular prevention, chronic musculoskeletal pain), supplements have limited, uncertain, or condition-specific benefits and should not be overpromoted as universally effective. Regarding chiropractors, mainstream regulatory and professional policy in many regions allows chiropractors to recommend or sell supplements as adjuncts to musculoskeletal care, with documentation and safety requirements, but this is framed as scope-of-practice permission rather than an endorsement that chiropractic management of supplements is superior or strongly evidence-based. ^[1][22] The prevailing view is that any clinician, including chiropractors, who uses supplements should follow the same evidence-based standards, avoid exaggerated claims, and collaborate with medical and nutrition specialists for complex conditions.

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Supplements”

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

Paul Daniel Fay is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Probiotics.

Probiotics

Supports

The influencer’s claim is unclear, but the closest interpretable version is that probiotics can be used as a therapeutic modality within musculoskeletal care (including settings such as chiropractic or other manual therapy practices). ^[7] There is no direct high-quality evidence that probiotics are a specific “chiropractic treatment,” but there is emerging evidence that probiotics may modestly reduce pain and improve function in certain musculoskeletal conditions, particularly knee osteoarthritis. ^[6] Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials in osteoarthritis report that some probiotic strains (especially Lactobacillus casei Shirota and certain multistrain formulations) can reduce pain scores (VAS), improve WOMAC functional scores, and lower inflammatory markers such as high-sensitivity C‑reactive protein compared with placebo, although effects are generally small to moderate and evidence certainty is low to moderate. ^[26][28] High-quality RCTs in knee osteoarthritis show that specific probiotic strains can improve pain and function versus placebo over 12 weeks to 6 months, with good short-term safety. A randomized trial in chronic low back pain found a very small, statistically significant but clinically marginal reduction in pain after probiotics compared with placebo, with no meaningful changes in disability. Overall, the mainstream evidence supports the idea that probiotics may have a role as an adjunct in musculoskeletal pain (especially knee osteoarthritis) via gut–joint and gut–pain pathways, but does not support framing them as a chiropractic-specific treatment or a primary therapy for musculoskeletal disorders. ^[5][25][27]

Contradicts

Major musculoskeletal and pain guidelines do not recommend probiotics as a standard or first-line treatment for low back pain, neck pain, tension-type headache, or generalized musculoskeletal pain, instead emphasizing pharmacologic treatments, physical therapy, exercise, psychological interventions (such as CBT), and other nonpharmacologic modalities with stronger evidence. ^{[2][5][6][7][27]} The available probiotic evidence is largely limited to knee osteoarthritis and is characterized by small sample sizes, heterogeneous strains and doses, short follow-up, and variable risk of bias, leading to low or very low certainty of evidence in many systematic reviews. ^[25][26][28] A high-quality RCT in chronic low back pain showed only a small reduction in pain that was unlikely to be clinically meaningful and found no significant benefits in disability or global outcomes, suggesting probiotics are not a robust treatment for back pain. Evidence for probiotics in other musculoskeletal conditions (e. g. , widespread pain, neck pain, non-arthritic joint pain) is sparse or absent, and there are no major guidelines specifically endorsing probiotics as a routine musculoskeletal therapy. Importantly, there is no peer-reviewed evidence that chiropractic manipulation is required to make probiotics effective, nor that probiotics are uniquely a “chiropractor treatment”; probiotics are generally managed as a nutrition or gastroenterology-related intervention within broader medical care. ^[4] The claim that probiotics are a chiropractic treatment therefore overstates and misrepresents the current evidence base.

Mainstream view

Mainstream medical and scientific consensus is that probiotics are primarily microbiome-modulating nutrition or medical interventions, not chiropractic procedures. ^[4][28] They have established roles in certain gastrointestinal and infectious indications, and emerging but still limited evidence for musculoskeletal pain—especially knee osteoarthritis—where specific strains may modestly improve pain and function as adjuncts to standard osteoarthritis management. ^[25][26][27] Probiotics are not recognized as first-line therapy for low back pain, neck pain, tension-type headache, or general musculoskeletal pain in major guidelines, and their use in these settings is considered experimental or adjunctive rather than standard of care. ^[2][5][7] Current best practice in musculoskeletal care focuses on evidence-based interventions such as exercise therapy, weight management, pharmacologic agents (e. ^[1] g. , NSAIDs, duloxetine), and nonpharmacologic strategies (e. g. , CBT, acupuncture) with stronger evidence bases, while probiotics may be considered on an individual basis, particularly in knee osteoarthritis, acknowledging strain specificity and limited long-term data. From a mainstream perspective, claiming probiotics as a chiropractic treatment is inaccurate: probiotics, when used, are part of general medical or nutritional management, and any integration into chiropractic practice would be as a non-manipulative adjunct rather than a core or defining chiropractic therapy.

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“probiotics”

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

Paul Daniel Fay is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to advertise Her holistic approach goes beyond treating symptoms to uncover and resolve underlying health issues as within their scope of practice.

Her holistic approach goes beyond treating symptoms to uncover and resolve underlying health issues

Supports

High-quality evidence and major frameworks support the general idea that moving beyond narrow symptom control toward more comprehensive, whole‑person care can improve outcomes for many chronic conditions, but this is a property of integrative/biopsychosocial models rather than of one individual influencer’s “holistic approach.” Integrative medicine is defined as care that addresses spiritual, emotional, mental, environmental, and physical aspects, and observational and controlled studies show benefits such as reduced pain, improved appetite, fatigue, cognitive and emotional functioning, anxiety, sleep, and overall global health in oncology and hospital settings.^[14][20] Functional and integrative medicine models explicitly aim to identify and modify lifestyle, psychosocial, and environmental contributors to disease (nutrition, sleep, exercise, stress, relationships), and cohort data from large centers report clinically meaningful improvements in health-related quality of life compared with conventional primary care, suggesting that more comprehensive, root‑cause‑focused care can lead to better medium‑term outcomes.^[21] The revitalized biopsychosocial model and related whole‑person frameworks emphasize that causes and outcomes of chronic disease involve interacting biological, psychological, and social factors, and they recommend comprehensive multimodal interventions that address the whole person rather than only symptoms, particularly in chronic pain and rehabilitation.^[13][17] Randomized trials and feasibility studies of whole‑person or biopsychosocial self‑management programs for conditions like chronic back-related leg pain and type 2 diabetes show that such programs are feasible, acceptable, and can produce meaningful improvements in pain, disability, or self‑management outcomes, indicating that structured whole‑person interventions can outperform or complement symptom‑focused pharmacologic care in some contexts.^[9][10][15] Systematic reviews and guideline-oriented chapters on integrative medicine and holistic multidisciplinary teams (for example in inflammatory bowel disease and cancer care) highlight that multidisciplinary, patient-centered, integrative models are associated with improved clinical outcomes, quality of life, and sometimes reduced costs compared with usual care, reinforcing that moving beyond symptom relief to address broader contributors to illness can be beneficial in complex chronic disease.^{[4][14][16][20]}

Contradicts

The influencer’s broad, unqualified assertion that a holistic approach “uncovers and resolves underlying health issues” overstates what current evidence shows: while integrative and whole‑person models can improve symptoms, functioning, and quality of life, robust evidence that they consistently identify and definitively resolve underlying pathology across conditions is limited and context‑dependent.^[14][16][21] Many studies in integrative and complementary medicine are observational, retrospective, or feasibility designs rather than large, high‑quality randomized controlled trials, so claims of causally resolving underlying disease mechanisms rely more on theoretical models and lower‑grade evidence than on definitive trials.^[14][16] Even in areas with encouraging data (e.g., chronic pain, diabetes self‑management, functional medicine cohorts), reported benefits are typically improvements in pain, disability, psychosocial outcomes, and health‑related quality of life, not documented cure or full resolution of underlying disease processes, and conventional biomedical treatments remain necessary.^{[9][10][15][21]} Major frameworks like the biopsychosocial and integrative medicine models emphasize complexity and multimodal management rather than promising that holistic care alone can routinely identify and eliminate root causes; they present whole‑person care as complementary to, not a replacement for, evidence‑based biomedical diagnostics and treatments.^[17][20] There is also a risk of conflating “holistic” branding with evidence-based integrative practice: not all self-described holistic approaches adhere to guideline-based diagnostics, use validated outcome measures, or participate in rigorous research, so the specific influencer’s approach cannot be assumed effective or able to uncover and resolve underlying issues without direct clinical data.^[14][16]

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical and scientific position is that comprehensive, whole‑person care—often framed as integrative, biopsychosocial, or multidisciplinary care—can improve outcomes and patient experience partly because it addresses contributing biological, psychological, social, and environmental factors rather than focusing solely on isolated symptoms, but this must be grounded in evidence-based practice and used alongside standard biomedical evaluation and treatment.^{[13][14][17][20]} Guidelines and health‑system frameworks increasingly endorse multidisciplinary and integrative models for complex chronic conditions (e.g., chronic pain, inflammatory bowel disease, cancer rehabilitation), recognizing that symptoms often arise from multiple interacting factors and that addressing these factors can enhance quality of life, adherence, and sometimes clinical endpoints.^{[4][13][14][16][20]} However, mainstream medicine does not generally claim that “holistic” care, in the generic or influencer sense, reliably uncovers and resolves

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“uncover and resolve underlying health issues”

Rule: K.S.A. 65-2871

Paul Daniel Fay is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to advertise we're here to help you get answers—and relief as within their scope of practice.

we're here to help you get answers—and relief

Supports

The statement is a broad, promotional phrase about offering help and relief and does not make a specific clinical, mechanistic, or therapeutic claim that can be tested in randomized trials or observational studies. None of the indexed clinical studies on topics such as antifungal resistance in infants, chemotherapy pharmacokinetics, metformin for aging, swaddle bathing, remote endoscopy, thyroid surgery complications, text neck treatments, or camlipixant pharmacology evaluate or support the generic assertion that a particular influencer or service will “help you get answers—and relief.”

Contradicts

Because the claim is vague, non-specific, and promotional rather than a concrete statement about a defined intervention, condition, or outcome, it is not directly contradicted by peer‑reviewed medical evidence. However, evidence-based medicine standards require that claims of providing “relief” from health problems be backed by data about specific interventions, patient populations, outcomes, and comparators, which this claim lacks. The cited index trials focus on specific drugs, procedures, or techniques and do not address any general promise of answers or relief delivered by an unnamed influencer or service.

Mainstream view

Mainstream medical and scientific practice holds that health-related claims should be specific, testable, and supported by appropriate clinical evidence such as randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, or guideline recommendations. Broad, non-specific assurances of help and relief are considered marketing language, not evidence-based statements, unless tied to clearly defined interventions with demonstrated benefits and harms. Clinicians and health organizations are expected to qualify such statements, describing what kind of relief is expected, in which conditions, over what time frame, and with what level of supporting evidence.

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“help you get answers—and relief”

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

Paul Daniel Fay is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to advertise We help families every day with everything from colic and sleep struggles in babies to posture, focus, and immune support in older kids as within their scope of practice.

We help families every day with everything from colic and sleep struggles in babies to posture, focus, and immune support in older kids

Supports

There is some randomized trial and systematic review evidence that manual or touch-based interventions can modestly reduce crying time and improve sleep in infants with colic, but effects are small and evidence quality is low. ^{[1][6][33][35][36]} A pragmatic single-blind RCT of chiropractic manual therapy for infant colic reported statistically significant improvement in crying behavior compared with no treatment in some analyses, suggesting a possible benefit for colic symptoms, though this is based on limited data and specific protocols rather than broad, routine practice. ^[7][34][37] Several RCTs and complementary therapies (e. g. , massage, therapeutic touch) have shown reductions in colic symptoms and increased sleep time in infants, indicating that some hands-on interventions can help colic and sleep in a subset of infants, but these do not specifically establish broad, multi-domain benefits (posture, focus, immune support) across childhood.

Contradicts

High-quality evidence syntheses consistently conclude that the overall effectiveness of spinal manipulation or similar pediatric manual therapies for infant colic is uncertain or not convincingly demonstrated. ^[6][34][37] A systematic review and meta-analysis of spinal manual therapy in infants, children, and adolescents reported very low-quality evidence and stated it is uncertain whether gentle mobilizations reduce complaints in infants with colic or improve sleep; evidence for other pediatric conditions (autism, asthma, nocturnal enuresis, headache, scoliosis) was also graded as very low or inconclusive. ^[7][36] Another systematic review focusing on complementary and alternative medicines for infantile colic concluded that osteopathy and chiropractic treatment failed to reduce crying time or increase sleeping time compared to no additional intervention, directly contradicting strong efficacy claims for colic. ^[35] Additional systematic reviews and health technology assessments have found no convincing evidence that spinal manipulation alone changes the course or duration of infantile colic and emphasize that data on sleep, parental anxiety, quality of life, and adverse events are insufficient, highlighting weak or inconsistent evidence. ^[33] Safety data for pediatric spinal manipulation are limited, and regulators and professional bodies note that the paucity and low quality of studies make it difficult to draw conclusions about effectiveness or safety for children; this contradicts broad claims of reliable help with posture, focus, and immune support in older kids. Overall, there is essentially no robust, high-quality evidence that pediatric manual therapies improve cognitive focus, posture development, or immune function in children, making those parts of the claim unsupported by current mainstream literature.

Mainstream view

Mainstream pediatric and evidence-based medicine positions regard spinal manipulation and similar manual therapies for infants and children as having, at best, uncertain or modest benefit for colic, and inadequate evidence for other claimed indications such as sleep problems, posture, focus, or immune support. ^{[1][34][35][36]} Clinical guidelines for pediatric care typically do not recommend chiropractic or spinal manipulation as standard treatment for infantile colic or for neurocognitive or immune-related outcomes, instead favoring reassurance, observation, and, where appropriate, conventional behavioral, nutritional, or medical approaches. ^[2][4][37] Systematic reviews and meta-analyses emphasize the very low quality, small sample sizes, and methodological limitations of existing trials, and call for caution against strong efficacy claims or routine use for pediatric conditions in the absence of more rigorous evidence. ^[6][33] Regulatory and professional bodies reviewing pediatric spinal manipulation stress that both effectiveness and safety remain insufficiently established, and therefore broad promotional claims that such care reliably helps with colic, sleep struggles, posture, focus, and immune support across childhood are not aligned with mainstream scientific or clinical consensus.

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“colic and sleep struggles in babies to posture, focus, and immune support in older kids”

Rule: K.S.A. 65-2871

See every doc bro advertising Infant colic and reflux

Paul Daniel Fay is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Whether you’re dealing with pain, hormones, digestion, or just feel “off,” we have tools to help you find answers.

Whether you’re dealing with pain, hormones, digestion, or just feel “off,” we have tools to help you find answers

Supports

High-quality guidelines and reviews support the general idea that evidence-based medical tools exist to evaluate and treat diverse conditions such as pain, hormonal disorders, digestion problems, and nonspecific ill health, but these tools are clinical interventions and diagnostic frameworks used by trained professionals rather than generic wellness solutions. ^[2][6] Hypertension guidelines demonstrate that structured, guideline-driven management can effectively address cardiovascular risk and related symptoms through standardized diagnostic and treatment tools, including blood pressure measurement, risk stratification, and pharmacologic therapy. ^[1] Clinical nutrition guidelines in inflammatory bowel disease show that specialized nutritional assessment tools and therapeutic strategies can help manage digestive symptoms and complications in a defined patient group. ^[3] Parenteral nutrition guidelines further illustrate that carefully defined criteria, protocols, and monitoring tools are used in mainstream medicine to manage severe digestive or nutritional problems when oral or enteral feeding is not feasible. ^[4] Guidelines for tension-type headache demonstrate evidence-based diagnostic criteria and treatment options for pain, representing structured tools to help patients find cause and relief under medical care. ^[5] Blood transfusion therapy reviews show that laboratory and clinical tools are used to diagnose and treat hematologic and systemic conditions in a way that corrects symptoms such as fatigue or feeling unwell. ^[7] Colchicine in pericarditis is supported by clinical trial data and guideline-based use, demonstrating a tool (drug) that reliably treats a specific cause of chest pain and systemic malaise when properly diagnosed. ^[8] contradicts

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“dealing with pain, hormones, digestion, or just feel “off,” we have tools to help you find answers”

Rule: K.S.A. 65-2871

See every doc bro advertising Hormone imbalance and replacement

Paul Daniel Fay is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to advertise We’re also closely partnered with Kansas Functional Medicine for deeper lab testing and root-cause healing as within their scope of practice.

We’re also closely partnered with Kansas Functional Medicine for deeper lab testing and root-cause healing

Supports

The specific claim is about a partnership with a named clinic and a promise of “deeper lab testing and root-cause healing. ” This is essentially a marketing and business claim, not a clinical or mechanistic assertion that can be directly tested in randomized trials or guidelines. ^[2] None of the indexed peer‑reviewed papers on hypertension, clinical nutrition, parenteral nutrition, headache, transfusion therapy, colchicine in pericarditis, or GRADE methodology provide evidence about the effectiveness of “functional medicine” partnerships, “deeper lab testing” as a strategy, or “root‑cause healing” as framed in influencer and functional medicine marketing. ^{[1][4][5][7][8]} High‑quality evidence and major guidelines do support the general concept of addressing underlying causes of disease (e. ^[6] g. , controlling blood pressure to reduce cardiovascular events, treating inflammatory bowel disease with evidence‑based nutrition strategies), but this is done through standardized diagnostic criteria and therapies proven in trials, not through the loosely defined “root-cause healing” branding used in functional medicine. ^[3]

Contradicts

Major guidelines and high‑quality evidence emphasize using validated, clinically indicated tests and interventions rather than broad panels of non‑validated “deeper labs” that are common in functional medicine marketing. The GRADE framework specifically warns against overinterpreting low‑quality or imprecise evidence, which is often the basis for expansive testing and individualized protocols promoted under “root‑cause” narratives. ^[6] There is no robust evidence that partnering with a functional medicine clinic, or using more extensive non‑indicated laboratory testing, by itself improves hard clinical outcomes compared with guideline‑driven standard care. ^[1] Available guidelines on hypertension, clinical nutrition, transfusion therapy, headache, and cardiovascular disease all prioritize targeted, evidence‑based diagnostics and treatments and do not endorse the generic concept of “root‑cause healing” as used in marketing. ^{[2][3][4][5][7]}

Mainstream view

Mainstream medicine strongly supports identifying and treating underlying causes of disease, but does so via standardized diagnostic pathways and therapies validated in randomized trials, meta‑analyses, and consensus guidelines. ^[2] Major guidelines for hypertension, nutrition support, inflammatory bowel disease, headache, transfusion therapy, and cardiovascular conditions recommend using evidence‑based criteria to decide when and which laboratory tests are appropriate, rather than routinely ordering broad “deeper” panels without clear indications. ^[1][3][4][7] The mainstream view is that care should be guided by high‑quality evidence and the GRADE methodology, with caution about imprecise or low‑quality data and skepticism toward unvalidated diagnostic strategies or outcome claims. ^[6] Functional medicine branding and claims of “root‑cause healing” via extensive lab testing are therefore considered outside, or at least on the margins, of evidence‑based mainstream practice unless they adhere strictly to guideline‑based diagnostics and treatments. ^[5]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“closely partnered with Kansas Functional Medicine for deeper lab testing and root-cause healing”

Rule: K.S.A. 65-2871

Paul Daniel Fay is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Deeper lab testing.

Deeper lab testing

Supports

The specific claim is about a partnership with a named clinic and a promise of “deeper lab testing and root-cause healing. ” This is essentially a marketing and business claim, not a clinical or mechanistic assertion that can be directly tested in randomized trials or guidelines. ^[2] None of the indexed peer‑reviewed papers on hypertension, clinical nutrition, parenteral nutrition, headache, transfusion therapy, colchicine in pericarditis, or GRADE methodology provide evidence about the effectiveness of “functional medicine” partnerships, “deeper lab testing” as a strategy, or “root‑cause healing” as framed in influencer and functional medicine marketing. ^{[1][4][5][7][8]} High‑quality evidence and major guidelines do support the general concept of addressing underlying causes of disease (e. ^[6] g. , controlling blood pressure to reduce cardiovascular events, treating inflammatory bowel disease with evidence‑based nutrition strategies), but this is done through standardized diagnostic criteria and therapies proven in trials, not through the loosely defined “root-cause healing” branding used in functional medicine. ^[3]

Contradicts

Major guidelines and high‑quality evidence emphasize using validated, clinically indicated tests and interventions rather than broad panels of non‑validated “deeper labs” that are common in functional medicine marketing. The GRADE framework specifically warns against overinterpreting low‑quality or imprecise evidence, which is often the basis for expansive testing and individualized protocols promoted under “root‑cause” narratives. ^[6] There is no robust evidence that partnering with a functional medicine clinic, or using more extensive non‑indicated laboratory testing, by itself improves hard clinical outcomes compared with guideline‑driven standard care. ^[1] Available guidelines on hypertension, clinical nutrition, transfusion therapy, headache, and cardiovascular disease all prioritize targeted, evidence‑based diagnostics and treatments and do not endorse the generic concept of “root‑cause healing” as used in marketing. ^{[2][3][4][5][7]}

Mainstream view

Mainstream medicine strongly supports identifying and treating underlying causes of disease, but does so via standardized diagnostic pathways and therapies validated in randomized trials, meta‑analyses, and consensus guidelines. ^[2] Major guidelines for hypertension, nutrition support, inflammatory bowel disease, headache, transfusion therapy, and cardiovascular conditions recommend using evidence‑based criteria to decide when and which laboratory tests are appropriate, rather than routinely ordering broad “deeper” panels without clear indications. ^[1][3][4][7] The mainstream view is that care should be guided by high‑quality evidence and the GRADE methodology, with caution about imprecise or low‑quality data and skepticism toward unvalidated diagnostic strategies or outcome claims. ^[6] Functional medicine branding and claims of “root‑cause healing” via extensive lab testing are therefore considered outside, or at least on the margins, of evidence‑based mainstream practice unless they adhere strictly to guideline‑based diagnostics and treatments. ^[5]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“closely partnered with Kansas Functional Medicine for deeper lab testing and root-cause healing”

Rule: K.S.A. 65-2871

Paul Daniel Fay is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Supplements / probiotics.

Supplements / probiotics

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Supplements”

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