Timothy Thomas Bertsch alias Root-Cause Chiropractic Empire

Timothy Thomas Bertsch is not licensed or approved by Minnesota Board of Chiropractic Examiners to diagnose, treat, or cure Autism.

Autism

Supports

There is some very low-quality evidence suggesting that chiropractic spinal manipulation might improve certain behavioral or symptom scores in children with autism, but it is not high-quality and is not considered definitive. A small randomized clinical trial of upper cervical versus full-spine chiropractic care in 14 autistic children reported reductions in Autism Treatment Evaluation Checklist (ATEC) scores in most children in both groups, with larger improvement in the upper cervical group, and two children reportedly no longer met criteria for autism after treatment; however, this trial was non-blinded, relied on parent-reported outcomes, and involved a tiny sample size.^[10] Systematic reviews of spinal manipulation in pediatric populations have identified this and a few other small trials or case series suggesting symptom improvements in autistic children, but they consistently emphasize that these data are preliminary and methodologically weak.^[1][3][10] Overall, existing evidence is exploratory and insufficient to establish efficacy, but it does show that formal trials and case series have been conducted rather than purely anecdotal claims.

Contradicts

High-quality evidence (systematic reviews and broader CAM reviews) consistently concludes that there is no convincing or conclusive evidence that chiropractic treatment or spinal manipulation is effective for autism or core autism-related impairments. A systematic review of spinal manipulation for pediatric conditions found only one small randomized trial and a few case reports for autism and characterized the evidence as weak, with major limitations such as small samples, poor controls, and reliance on subjective measures.^[10] A more recent scoping review of spinal manipulation and mobilization in infants, children, and adolescents reported that there is no explicit evidence supporting effectiveness of spinal manipulation for any pediatric condition and described findings for autism-related impairments as inconclusive, with available data mostly from case reports.^[3] Reviews of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) for autism specifically state that evidence for chiropractic therapy is inconclusive and that there is a lack of proof of efficacy for CAM therapies overall in autism.^[15][9] Commentaries summarizing this literature also stress that claims that chiropractic can treat autism are not supported by robust data and highlight concerns about potential harms and opportunity costs when families pursue unproven manual therapies instead of evidence-based developmental, behavioral, educational, and medical interventions.^[13][15] Major autism treatment guidelines and consensus statements do not recommend chiropractic manipulation as a treatment for autism, reflecting the absence of credible RCTs, meta-analyses, or guideline-level support.

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical and scientific position is that chiropractic treatment or spinal manipulation is not an evidence-based therapy for autism and should not be promoted as a means to treat core autism features or to modify the underlying neurodevelopmental condition. Autism is understood as a neurodevelopmental condition with multifactorial genetic and environmental contributions; recommended interventions focus on structured behavioral and developmental therapies (such as applied behavior analysis, pivotal response treatment, and social skills programs), educational supports, speech and occupational therapy, and targeted pharmacologic treatment for co-occurring conditions, all of which have substantially stronger evidence from randomized controlled trials and structured outcome measures than chiropractic care.^[19][22] Existing research on chiropractic or spinal manipulation for autism is sparse, methodologically weak (small, often unblinded trials, case series, and case reports), and yields inconclusive results that do not meet modern standards for efficacy evaluation.^[3][10][15] Major guidelines and CAM reviews consequently advise that chiropractic manipulation for autism should be considered experimental at best and not used as a primary treatment or substitute for established evidence-based care.^[15][9] The prevailing view in pediatrics, neurology, and autism specialty care is that any use of chiropractic for autistic individuals should be limited to managing clearly defined musculoskeletal complaints and not framed as a treatment for autism itself.

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Autism”

Rule: Minn. Stat. § 148.01, subd. 1(4)

See every doc bro advertising Autism

Timothy Thomas Bertsch is not licensed or approved by Minnesota Board of Chiropractic Examiners to diagnose, treat, or cure Autoimmune.

Autoimmune

Supports

High-quality evidence specifically supporting chiropractic treatment as an effective natural therapy for autoimmune thyroid disease (Hashimoto’s or Graves’) is essentially absent. A randomized, placebo-controlled trial in primary hypothyroidism evaluated Neuro‑Emotional Technique (NET), a chiropractic-associated biopsychosocial intervention, and found no statistically significant or clinically relevant benefits on thyroid-related outcomes versus placebo over 7 weeks or 6 months, although the intervention appeared safe.^[1] This is evidence that such chiropractic-linked interventions can be delivered without major harm, but not that they treat thyroid disease. A 2025 pragmatic randomized controlled trial showed that 12 weeks of chiropractic spinal adjustments can modulate biomarkers such as BDNF, IL‑6, TNF‑α, cortisol, and IFN‑γ compared with sham care, suggesting possible effects on stress and inflammatory pathways, but it did not study thyroid autoimmunity or clinical thyroid outcomes, so any relevance to autoimmune thyroid disease is indirect and speculative.^[6] More generally, there are RCTs and trials of non‑pharmacologic or "natural" adjuncts in Hashimoto thyroiditis such as acupuncture, EMDR, selenium, curcumin, and dietary approaches, showing that some non‑drug strategies can modestly influence antibodies, inflammatory markers, symptoms, or quality of life; however, these are not chiropractic interventions.^{[2][16][17][18][19][21]}

Contradicts

The best available evidence contradicts the idea that chiropractic treatment is an effective primary therapy for thyroid autoimmune disease. The randomized, placebo‑controlled trial of NET in primary hypothyroidism found that NET did not confer any clinical benefit and was unlikely to be of therapeutic use in a hypothyroid population, despite being safe.^[1] Systematic review data on spinal manipulative therapy and immune outcomes report no clinical evidence from acceptable‑ or high‑quality randomized trials to support or refute claims that spinal manipulation prevents or improves disease‑specific outcomes via immune modulation, indicating that claims of meaningful immune or autoimmune disease control through chiropractic are not evidence‑based.^[5][11] The broader chiropractic literature, including critical reviews, emphasizes that high‑quality evidence for disease-modifying effects outside musculoskeletal conditions is very limited and often confined to case reports, which are low on the evidence hierarchy.^[7][10][13] In contrast, randomized trials and prospective studies of other adjunctive non‑pharmacologic interventions in Hashimoto’s (e.g., selenium, curcumin plus anti‑inflammatory diet, acupuncture, EMDR) show at most modest effects on antibody levels, inflammatory indices, or symptoms and are framed as adjuncts to standard medical care rather than replacements; this underscores that even better‑studied "natural" interventions are not curative and must be integrated with conventional management.^{[17][18][19][21][22]}

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical and scientific view is that autoimmune thyroid diseases such as Hashimoto thyroiditis and Graves disease are primarily managed with evidence‑based medical therapies (levothyroxine for hypothyroidism, antithyroid drugs, radioactive iodine, or surgery for hyperthyroidism) guided by endocrinology and major clinical practice guidelines, with goals of normalizing thyroid hormone levels, controlling symptoms, and monitoring long‑term risks.^[4][15] Chiropractic care is recognized in mainstream medicine mainly for short‑term relief of certain musculoskeletal conditions, not as a disease‑modifying treatment for autoimmune or endocrine disorders.^{[7][11][12][13]} There are no major guidelines or high‑quality trials endorsing spinal manipulation or chiropractic protocols as effective treatment for autoimmune thyroid disease, and current systematic reviews find no robust clinical evidence that spinal manipulation can meaningfully alter immune function or autoimmune disease outcomes.^[5][11] Non‑pharmacologic or "natural" adjuncts (such as optimized nutrition, some supplements, stress‑reduction techniques, or selected mind–body therapies) may have roles in symptom relief or modest improvement in inflammatory or antibody markers, but they are considered complementary and must not replace guideline‑directed medical management.^[19][21][22]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Autoimmune”

Rule: Minn. Stat. § 148.01, subd. 1(4)

See every doc bro advertising Autoimmune disease

Timothy Thomas Bertsch is not licensed or approved by Minnesota Board of Chiropractic Examiners to diagnose, treat, or cure ADHD.

ADHD

Supports

High-quality evidence directly supporting chiropractic treatment as an effective therapy for ADHD is essentially absent. A 2024 pilot randomized controlled trial of chiropractic adjustment plus usual care versus sham adjustment plus usual care in children with ADHD found significant improvement in both groups over time but no significant differences between real and sham chiropractic; authors concluded that efficacy could not be established and larger trials are needed.^[1][6] A systematic review of chiropractic care for pediatric and adolescent ADHD reported that available evidence is low quality and insufficient to evaluate efficacy, noting that claims of benefit are only supported by low-level studies such as case reports and small case series.^[5][15] A recent review of chiropractic care in children similarly concluded that, although chiropractic adjustments for ADHD have been theorized to act via prefrontal cortex function, there is little evidence of efficacy and the single RCT showed no difference versus sham.^[6] Overall, current high-quality literature provides at most very weak, inconclusive support that chiropractic might influence ADHD symptoms, and no robust evidence that it is an effective treatment.

Contradicts

Multiple higher-level evidence sources indicate that there is insufficient or negative evidence for chiropractic as an ADHD treatment. A scoping review of spinal manipulation and mobilisation in pediatric populations found no explicit evidence supporting effectiveness for any condition, and specifically reported insufficient evidence to draw conclusions for children with ADHD, with one systematic review showing no significant effects of spinal mobilisation on ADHD outcomes.^[5] A systematic review focused on chiropractic care for pediatric/adolescent ADHD concluded that there is no high-quality evidence (no RCTs with adequate methods) to evaluate efficacy, and that the claim chiropractic improves ADHD is only supported by low-level evidence.^[15] Recent narrative reviews of chiropractic in children emphasize that for ADHD there is minimal research and little evidence of efficacy, with the only RCT showing no difference between chiropractic and sham care.^[6] Case reports and retrospective case series describe symptom improvement after chiropractic care, but these uncontrolled designs cannot establish causal benefit and are considered low-level evidence compared to randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews.^[2][13][14] Major ADHD treatment guidelines and evidence-based management frameworks prioritize pharmacotherapy (e.g., stimulants), behavioral and psychosocial interventions, and do not include chiropractic manipulation as a recommended or standard treatment; guideline methodology such as GRADE underscores that the available chiropractic evidence for ADHD is imprecise and low quality.^[6][15]

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical and scientific position is that chiropractic treatment is not an evidence-based therapy for ADHD. ADHD is understood as a neurodevelopmental disorder typically managed with a combination of stimulant or non-stimulant medications, behavioral interventions, psychoeducation, and school-based supports, supported by numerous randomized trials and guideline statements, whereas chiropractic spinal manipulation has not demonstrated reliable, clinically meaningful benefit in well-controlled studies.^{[6][16][18][19]} Systematic reviews and pediatric chiropractic evidence summaries consistently state that there is insufficient and low-quality evidence for using chiropractic care to treat ADHD in children and adolescents, and that claims of benefit are not supported by robust data.^[5][6][15] Professional guidelines for ADHD management do not list chiropractic as a recommended treatment, and some patient-oriented evidence reviews explicitly advise that current research is inadequate to support chiropractic as an effective ADHD therapy and that it should not replace established medical and behavioral care.^[12][16] Chiropractic may be considered an experimental or adjunctive approach at best, and families are generally advised to focus on guideline-supported interventions and to be cautious about unsupported claims that chiropractic can treat or cure ADHD.

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“ADHD”

Rule: Minn. Stat. § 148.01, subd. 1(4)

See every doc bro advertising ADHD

Timothy Thomas Bertsch is not licensed or approved by Minnesota Board of Chiropractic Examiners to diagnose, treat, or cure Thyroid.

Thyroid

Supports

High-quality evidence specifically supporting chiropractic treatment as an effective natural therapy for autoimmune thyroid disease (Hashimoto’s or Graves’) is essentially absent. A randomized, placebo-controlled trial in primary hypothyroidism evaluated Neuro‑Emotional Technique (NET), a chiropractic-associated biopsychosocial intervention, and found no statistically significant or clinically relevant benefits on thyroid-related outcomes versus placebo over 7 weeks or 6 months, although the intervention appeared safe.^[1] This is evidence that such chiropractic-linked interventions can be delivered without major harm, but not that they treat thyroid disease. A 2025 pragmatic randomized controlled trial showed that 12 weeks of chiropractic spinal adjustments can modulate biomarkers such as BDNF, IL‑6, TNF‑α, cortisol, and IFN‑γ compared with sham care, suggesting possible effects on stress and inflammatory pathways, but it did not study thyroid autoimmunity or clinical thyroid outcomes, so any relevance to autoimmune thyroid disease is indirect and speculative.^[6] More generally, there are RCTs and trials of non‑pharmacologic or "natural" adjuncts in Hashimoto thyroiditis such as acupuncture, EMDR, selenium, curcumin, and dietary approaches, showing that some non‑drug strategies can modestly influence antibodies, inflammatory markers, symptoms, or quality of life; however, these are not chiropractic interventions.^{[2][16][17][18][19][21]}

Contradicts

The best available evidence contradicts the idea that chiropractic treatment is an effective primary therapy for thyroid autoimmune disease. The randomized, placebo‑controlled trial of NET in primary hypothyroidism found that NET did not confer any clinical benefit and was unlikely to be of therapeutic use in a hypothyroid population, despite being safe.^[1] Systematic review data on spinal manipulative therapy and immune outcomes report no clinical evidence from acceptable‑ or high‑quality randomized trials to support or refute claims that spinal manipulation prevents or improves disease‑specific outcomes via immune modulation, indicating that claims of meaningful immune or autoimmune disease control through chiropractic are not evidence‑based.^[5][11] The broader chiropractic literature, including critical reviews, emphasizes that high‑quality evidence for disease-modifying effects outside musculoskeletal conditions is very limited and often confined to case reports, which are low on the evidence hierarchy.^[7][10][13] In contrast, randomized trials and prospective studies of other adjunctive non‑pharmacologic interventions in Hashimoto’s (e.g., selenium, curcumin plus anti‑inflammatory diet, acupuncture, EMDR) show at most modest effects on antibody levels, inflammatory indices, or symptoms and are framed as adjuncts to standard medical care rather than replacements; this underscores that even better‑studied "natural" interventions are not curative and must be integrated with conventional management.^{[17][18][19][21][22]}

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical and scientific view is that autoimmune thyroid diseases such as Hashimoto thyroiditis and Graves disease are primarily managed with evidence‑based medical therapies (levothyroxine for hypothyroidism, antithyroid drugs, radioactive iodine, or surgery for hyperthyroidism) guided by endocrinology and major clinical practice guidelines, with goals of normalizing thyroid hormone levels, controlling symptoms, and monitoring long‑term risks.^[4][15] Chiropractic care is recognized in mainstream medicine mainly for short‑term relief of certain musculoskeletal conditions, not as a disease‑modifying treatment for autoimmune or endocrine disorders.^{[7][11][12][13]} There are no major guidelines or high‑quality trials endorsing spinal manipulation or chiropractic protocols as effective treatment for autoimmune thyroid disease, and current systematic reviews find no robust clinical evidence that spinal manipulation can meaningfully alter immune function or autoimmune disease outcomes.^[5][11] Non‑pharmacologic or "natural" adjuncts (such as optimized nutrition, some supplements, stress‑reduction techniques, or selected mind–body therapies) may have roles in symptom relief or modest improvement in inflammatory or antibody markers, but they are considered complementary and must not replace guideline‑directed medical management.^[19][21][22]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“[Thyroid]”

Rule: Minn. Stat. § 148.01, subd. 1(4)

See every doc bro advertising Thyroid disease and Hashimoto

Timothy Thomas Bertsch is not licensed or approved by Minnesota Board of Chiropractic Examiners to diagnose, treat, or cure Natural Treatment For Thyroid Autoimmune.

Natural Treatment For Thyroid Autoimmune

Supports

High-quality evidence specifically supporting chiropractic treatment as an effective natural therapy for autoimmune thyroid disease (Hashimoto’s or Graves’) is essentially absent. A randomized, placebo-controlled trial in primary hypothyroidism evaluated Neuro‑Emotional Technique (NET), a chiropractic-associated biopsychosocial intervention, and found no statistically significant or clinically relevant benefits on thyroid-related outcomes versus placebo over 7 weeks or 6 months, although the intervention appeared safe.^[1] This is evidence that such chiropractic-linked interventions can be delivered without major harm, but not that they treat thyroid disease. A 2025 pragmatic randomized controlled trial showed that 12 weeks of chiropractic spinal adjustments can modulate biomarkers such as BDNF, IL‑6, TNF‑α, cortisol, and IFN‑γ compared with sham care, suggesting possible effects on stress and inflammatory pathways, but it did not study thyroid autoimmunity or clinical thyroid outcomes, so any relevance to autoimmune thyroid disease is indirect and speculative.^[6] More generally, there are RCTs and trials of non‑pharmacologic or "natural" adjuncts in Hashimoto thyroiditis such as acupuncture, EMDR, selenium, curcumin, and dietary approaches, showing that some non‑drug strategies can modestly influence antibodies, inflammatory markers, symptoms, or quality of life; however, these are not chiropractic interventions.^{[2][16][17][18][19][21]}

Contradicts

The best available evidence contradicts the idea that chiropractic treatment is an effective primary therapy for thyroid autoimmune disease. The randomized, placebo‑controlled trial of NET in primary hypothyroidism found that NET did not confer any clinical benefit and was unlikely to be of therapeutic use in a hypothyroid population, despite being safe.^[1] Systematic review data on spinal manipulative therapy and immune outcomes report no clinical evidence from acceptable‑ or high‑quality randomized trials to support or refute claims that spinal manipulation prevents or improves disease‑specific outcomes via immune modulation, indicating that claims of meaningful immune or autoimmune disease control through chiropractic are not evidence‑based.^[5][11] The broader chiropractic literature, including critical reviews, emphasizes that high‑quality evidence for disease-modifying effects outside musculoskeletal conditions is very limited and often confined to case reports, which are low on the evidence hierarchy.^[7][10][13] In contrast, randomized trials and prospective studies of other adjunctive non‑pharmacologic interventions in Hashimoto’s (e.g., selenium, curcumin plus anti‑inflammatory diet, acupuncture, EMDR) show at most modest effects on antibody levels, inflammatory indices, or symptoms and are framed as adjuncts to standard medical care rather than replacements; this underscores that even better‑studied "natural" interventions are not curative and must be integrated with conventional management.^{[17][18][19][21][22]}

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical and scientific view is that autoimmune thyroid diseases such as Hashimoto thyroiditis and Graves disease are primarily managed with evidence‑based medical therapies (levothyroxine for hypothyroidism, antithyroid drugs, radioactive iodine, or surgery for hyperthyroidism) guided by endocrinology and major clinical practice guidelines, with goals of normalizing thyroid hormone levels, controlling symptoms, and monitoring long‑term risks.^[4][15] Chiropractic care is recognized in mainstream medicine mainly for short‑term relief of certain musculoskeletal conditions, not as a disease‑modifying treatment for autoimmune or endocrine disorders.^{[7][11][12][13]} There are no major guidelines or high‑quality trials endorsing spinal manipulation or chiropractic protocols as effective treatment for autoimmune thyroid disease, and current systematic reviews find no robust clinical evidence that spinal manipulation can meaningfully alter immune function or autoimmune disease outcomes.^[5][11] Non‑pharmacologic or "natural" adjuncts (such as optimized nutrition, some supplements, stress‑reduction techniques, or selected mind–body therapies) may have roles in symptom relief or modest improvement in inflammatory or antibody markers, but they are considered complementary and must not replace guideline‑directed medical management.^[19][21][22]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“[Natural Treatment For Thyroid Autoimmune]”

Rule: Minn. Stat. § 148.01, subd. 1(1)-(2)

See every doc bro advertising Thyroid disease and Hashimoto

Timothy Thomas Bertsch is not licensed or approved by Minnesota Board of Chiropractic Examiners to diagnose, treat, or cure got a better handle on his ADHD and mood.

got a better handle on his ADHD and mood

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“get a better handle on his ADHD and mood”

Rule: Minn. Stat. § 148.01, subd. 1(2), (6)

Timothy Thomas Bertsch is not licensed or approved by Minnesota Board of Chiropractic Examiners to diagnose, treat, or cure struggling with depression, anxiety, bipolar 2, BPD, and insomnia.

struggling with depression, anxiety, bipolar 2, BPD, and insomnia

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“struggling with depression, anxiety, bipolar 2, BPD, and insomnia”

Rule: Minn. Stat. § 148.01, subd. 1(4)

See every doc bro advertising Depression

Timothy Thomas Bertsch is not licensed or approved by Minnesota Board of Chiropractic Examiners to diagnose, treat, or cure ADD/ADHD.

ADD/ADHD

Supports

There is very limited supportive evidence for chiropractic treatment of ADHD/ADD, and what exists is low quality or shows, at best, non-specific effects rather than clear clinical benefit. A recent pilot randomized controlled trial in 67 children compared chiropractic adjustments plus usual ADHD care to sham chiropractic plus usual care; both groups improved over 4–8 weeks, but there were no significant differences between real and sham treatment, so no specific efficacy of chiropractic adjustment was demonstrated.^[1][12] A crossover RCT on spinal manipulation in children with ADHD found feasibility and some short-term changes in oculomotor control and reading time after a single manipulation, but it did not demonstrate robust or sustained improvements in core ADHD symptoms.^[15] Case reports and small uncontrolled case series report improvements in ADHD-like symptoms after chiropractic care, but these are considered very low-level evidence and are prone to bias.^{[2][8][9][10][11][13]} Overall, there are no large, high-quality RCTs or meta-analyses showing that chiropractic treatment meaningfully improves ADHD/ADD outcomes, and mainstream ADHD guidelines do not list chiropractic as an evidence-based treatment.

Contradicts

A systematic review dedicated to chiropractic care for pediatric and adolescent ADHD concluded that there is insufficient evidence to evaluate efficacy and that claims of benefit are supported only by low levels of scientific evidence, with no qualifying randomized controlled trials meeting inclusion criteria at that time.^[3] A 2025 narrative review of chiropractic care in children similarly notes that, although spinal manipulation may be feasible in children with ADHD, there is little evidence of efficacy, and the only randomized study showed no advantage of chiropractic adjustment over sham.^[12] The 2024 pilot RCT adding chiropractic care to usual ADHD treatment found no significant between-group improvements in ADHD outcomes, directly contradicting claims that chiropractic adjustments provide a clinically important additive effect over standard care.^[1][7][12] Mainstream ADHD treatment guidelines and high-quality reviews of ADHD management emphasize stimulant and non-stimulant medications, behavioral and psychosocial interventions, educational support, and selected nonpharmacologic modalities (such as structured exercise, digital cognitive-physical programs, or neuromodulation), but do not recommend chiropractic therapy as an evidence-based option, reflecting the lack of convincing data.^{[16][18][19][20][21][24]} Compared with these better-studied nonpharmacologic interventions, chiropractic for ADHD lacks replicated RCTs, long-term outcome data, and systematic reviews demonstrating benefit, so the overall evidence base is weak and does not support chiropractor treatment as an effective therapy for ADHD/ADD.

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical and scientific position is that chiropractic treatment is not an evidence-based therapy for ADHD/ADD and should not replace proven first-line treatments. Current ADHD management is guided by large guideline-driven frameworks, which prioritize pharmacologic treatments (stimulants and certain non-stimulants) and structured behavioral, psychological, and educational interventions, sometimes complemented by specific nonpharmacologic adjuncts such as exercise-based programs, digital cognitive-physical interventions, and neuromodulatory approaches that have RCT support.^{[16][18][19][20][21][24]} In contrast, chiropractic spinal manipulation has, at most, very limited and low-quality evidence for ADHD, with the best controlled trial showing no specific benefit over sham manipulation.^{[1][3][12][15]} Case reports and small uncontrolled series are viewed as insufficient to establish efficacy for a neurodevelopmental disorder that otherwise has multiple well-validated treatment options. Major pediatric, psychiatric, and neurology guidelines do not list chiropractic care as a recommended treatment for ADHD. Chiropractic may be used by some families as an adjunct for general musculoskeletal complaints, but for ADHD symptom control itself, the mainstream view is that its benefits are unproven and any use should be clearly framed as experimental and not a substitute for guideline-based care.

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“ADD/ADHD”

Rule: Minn. Stat. § 148.01, subd. 1(4)

See every doc bro advertising ADHD

Timothy Thomas Bertsch is not licensed or approved by Minnesota Board of Chiropractic Examiners to diagnose, treat, or cure Anxiety & Depression.

Anxiety & Depression

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Anxiety & Depression”

Rule: Minn. Stat. § 148.01, subd. 1(4)

See every doc bro advertising Depression

Timothy Thomas Bertsch is not licensed or approved by Minnesota Board of Chiropractic Examiners to diagnose, treat, or cure Seizure Safe Profile.

Seizure Safe Profile

Supports

The phrase Seizure Safe Profile appears to refer to a safety feature or informational profile used in epilepsy/seizure-related contexts, but the evidence base in the materials retrieved supports seizure safety planning in general rather than a distinct, validated medical intervention. ^[6] Major epilepsy safety resources emphasize individualized seizure action plans and first aid guidance, which are consistent with the broader concept of a seizure safety profile. ^[23][24][25]

Contradicts

None of the provided peer-reviewed index papers establish Seizure Safe Profile as a standard evidence-based medical term, treatment, or guideline-backed intervention. ^[1][6][5] The indexed papers available are about hypertension, nutrition, transfusion, headache, and colchicine, so they do not directly support this claim. ^[4][7][8] The retrieved web material suggests the closest evidence-based concept is SUDEP and seizure safety risk assessment, but that is a clinician-facing risk discussion tool rather than evidence for a specific influencer-branded profile. ^[23][24][25] Evidence for any specific branded or named Seizure Safe Profile is therefore weak or absent.

Mainstream view

Mainstream epilepsy care supports individualized seizure safety planning, seizure first aid, and adherence to antiseizure treatment; it does not recognize Seizure Safe Profile as a distinct standard medical diagnosis or universally validated therapy. ^{[7][23][24][25]} If the phrase refers to a safety setting or profile in a device or app, its medical value would depend on implementation details and would need direct clinical validation before being considered evidence-based. ^[1][2][6]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Seizure Safe Profile”

Rule: Minn. Stat. § 148.01, subd. 1(4)

Timothy Thomas Bertsch is not licensed or approved by Minnesota Board of Chiropractic Examiners to diagnose, treat, or cure ADHD Friendly Mode.

ADHD Friendly Mode

Supports

High-quality evidence directly supporting chiropractic treatment as an effective therapy for ADHD is essentially absent. A 2024 pilot randomized controlled trial of chiropractic adjustment plus usual care versus sham adjustment plus usual care in children with ADHD found significant improvement in both groups over time but no significant differences between real and sham chiropractic; authors concluded that efficacy could not be established and larger trials are needed.^[1][6] A systematic review of chiropractic care for pediatric and adolescent ADHD reported that available evidence is low quality and insufficient to evaluate efficacy, noting that claims of benefit are only supported by low-level studies such as case reports and small case series.^[5][15] A recent review of chiropractic care in children similarly concluded that, although chiropractic adjustments for ADHD have been theorized to act via prefrontal cortex function, there is little evidence of efficacy and the single RCT showed no difference versus sham.^[6] Overall, current high-quality literature provides at most very weak, inconclusive support that chiropractic might influence ADHD symptoms, and no robust evidence that it is an effective treatment.

Contradicts

Multiple higher-level evidence sources indicate that there is insufficient or negative evidence for chiropractic as an ADHD treatment. A scoping review of spinal manipulation and mobilisation in pediatric populations found no explicit evidence supporting effectiveness for any condition, and specifically reported insufficient evidence to draw conclusions for children with ADHD, with one systematic review showing no significant effects of spinal mobilisation on ADHD outcomes.^[5] A systematic review focused on chiropractic care for pediatric/adolescent ADHD concluded that there is no high-quality evidence (no RCTs with adequate methods) to evaluate efficacy, and that the claim chiropractic improves ADHD is only supported by low-level evidence.^[15] Recent narrative reviews of chiropractic in children emphasize that for ADHD there is minimal research and little evidence of efficacy, with the only RCT showing no difference between chiropractic and sham care.^[6] Case reports and retrospective case series describe symptom improvement after chiropractic care, but these uncontrolled designs cannot establish causal benefit and are considered low-level evidence compared to randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews.^[2][13][14] Major ADHD treatment guidelines and evidence-based management frameworks prioritize pharmacotherapy (e.g., stimulants), behavioral and psychosocial interventions, and do not include chiropractic manipulation as a recommended or standard treatment; guideline methodology such as GRADE underscores that the available chiropractic evidence for ADHD is imprecise and low quality.^[6][15]

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical and scientific position is that chiropractic treatment is not an evidence-based therapy for ADHD. ADHD is understood as a neurodevelopmental disorder typically managed with a combination of stimulant or non-stimulant medications, behavioral interventions, psychoeducation, and school-based supports, supported by numerous randomized trials and guideline statements, whereas chiropractic spinal manipulation has not demonstrated reliable, clinically meaningful benefit in well-controlled studies.^{[6][16][18][19]} Systematic reviews and pediatric chiropractic evidence summaries consistently state that there is insufficient and low-quality evidence for using chiropractic care to treat ADHD in children and adolescents, and that claims of benefit are not supported by robust data.^[5][6][15] Professional guidelines for ADHD management do not list chiropractic as a recommended treatment, and some patient-oriented evidence reviews explicitly advise that current research is inadequate to support chiropractic as an effective ADHD therapy and that it should not replace established medical and behavioral care.^[12][16] Chiropractic may be considered an experimental or adjunctive approach at best, and families are generally advised to focus on guideline-supported interventions and to be cautious about unsupported claims that chiropractic can treat or cure ADHD.

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“ADHD Friendly Mode”

Rule: Minn. Stat. § 148.01, subd. 1(2), (6)

Timothy Thomas Bertsch is not licensed or approved by Minnesota Board of Chiropractic Examiners to diagnose, treat, or cure Epilepsy Safe Mode.

Epilepsy Safe Mode

Supports

There is no recognized clinical entity or guideline called “Epilepsy Safe Mode” in the peer‑reviewed literature or major epilepsy guidelines. ^[2][3] The academic search results include seizure first‑aid recommendations and safety advice for people with epilepsy (for example, community seizure first‑aid reviews and public health resources), but none describe or endorse a formal intervention, mode, or setting named “Epilepsy Safe Mode. ^{[24][26][27][28]} ” Therefore, there is no high‑quality evidence (RCTs, systematic reviews, meta‑analyses, or major medical guidelines) directly supporting a specific intervention under this label. Some digital accessibility and web‑design materials describe website or video settings that reduce flashing or high‑contrast visual stimuli to lower the risk of triggering seizures in people with photosensitive epilepsy. These are based on the well‑established concept that flickering stimuli in certain frequency ranges (typically around 3–60 Hz) can provoke seizures in susceptible individuals, and on broader epilepsy safety guidance that recommends minimizing exposure to seizure triggers. This indirectly supports the idea that technical “safe modes” which remove flashing images and risky color combinations could be helpful for photosensitive epilepsy, but this is an extrapolation from general knowledge on triggers rather than from controlled trials of a branded or standardized “Epilepsy Safe Mode. ” The indexed guideline and evidence papers provided (hypertension management, nutrition guidelines, parenteral nutrition appropriateness, GRADE imprecision, tension‑type headache treatment, blood transfusion therapy, colchicine in pericarditis) are unrelated to epilepsy and do not provide any support for a concept like “Epilepsy Safe Mode. ^{[1][4][6][5][7][8]} ”

Contradicts

Because there is no recognized medical or scientific construct called “Epilepsy Safe Mode” in the peer‑reviewed literature or major guidelines, any claim that such a mode is established, evidence‑based epilepsy treatment or an officially recommended clinical protocol is not supported. ^[2][6] The absence of RCTs, systematic reviews, meta‑analyses, or guideline statements using this term indicates that the evidence base for the specific branded or influencer concept is weak or nonexistent, even though general epilepsy safety advice is well supported. Existing epilepsy guidelines and seizure‑first‑aid resources emphasize evidence‑based pharmacologic treatment, individualized seizure action plans, and broad safety strategies (e. ^{[24][26][27][28]} g. , avoiding known triggers, using rescue medications, and following established first‑aid steps), rather than a single “mode” that can universally make people with epilepsy safe. This contradicts any suggestion that activating a setting or following a simple, standardized “safe mode” protocol alone is sufficient to control epilepsy or prevent all seizures. The indexed guideline papers on hypertension, nutrition in inflammatory bowel disease, parenteral nutrition, GRADE methodology, tension‑type headache, blood transfusion, and colchicine in pericarditis illustrate how mainstream medicine formalizes evidence‑based recommendations under clear guideline frameworks, but none mention epilepsy or an “epilepsy safe mode,” underscoring that such a term is not part of mainstream guideline nomenclature. ^{[1][3][4][5][7][8]}

Mainstream view

Mainstream medical and scientific practice recognizes epilepsy as a chronic neurological disorder managed with a combination of antiepileptic medications, occasionally surgery or neuromodulation, individualized seizure action plans, and safety measures tailored to each patient’s risks and triggers. ^[28] For photosensitive epilepsy, reducing exposure to flickering lights and certain visual patterns is widely accepted as prudent safety advice, and some digital tools or accessibility features that limit flashing content are consistent with this principle, but they are regarded as supportive risk‑reduction measures, not as standalone treatments. Standard epilepsy guidelines and first‑aid resources emphasize: keeping the person safe during a seizure (protecting from injury, not restraining, not placing objects in the mouth), timing the seizure, turning the person on their side when possible, and seeking emergency care for prolonged or repeated seizures. ^{[2][4][6][24][26][27]} Broader safety guidance covers bathing, driving, and occupational hazards. These are described as seizure‑first‑aid and safety practices, not as a unified “safe mode. ” Consequently, the mainstream position is that while technical or environmental modifications that reduce seizure triggers (such as limiting flashing images online) can be useful adjuncts, there is no established, guideline‑endorsed entity called “Epilepsy Safe Mode,” and any such branded concept should be viewed as a descriptive or commercial term ^[5]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Epilepsy Safe Mode”

Rule: Minn. Stat. § 148.01, subd. 1(1)-(4)

Timothy Thomas Bertsch is not licensed or approved by Minnesota Board of Chiropractic Examiners to diagnose, treat, or cure Next PostWhat Does “Hormone Imbalance” Actually Mean?.

Next PostWhat Does “Hormone Imbalance” Actually Mean?

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Next PostWhat Does “Hormone Imbalance” Actually Mean?”

Rule: Minn. Stat. § 148.01, subd. 1(4)

Timothy Thomas Bertsch is not licensed or approved by Minnesota Board of Chiropractic Examiners to advertise Next PostThe Nervous System And Autism as within their scope of practice.

Next PostThe Nervous System And Autism

Supports

There is some very low-quality evidence suggesting that chiropractic spinal manipulation might improve certain behavioral or symptom scores in children with autism, but it is not high-quality and is not considered definitive. A small randomized clinical trial of upper cervical versus full-spine chiropractic care in 14 autistic children reported reductions in Autism Treatment Evaluation Checklist (ATEC) scores in most children in both groups, with larger improvement in the upper cervical group, and two children reportedly no longer met criteria for autism after treatment; however, this trial was non-blinded, relied on parent-reported outcomes, and involved a tiny sample size.^[10] Systematic reviews of spinal manipulation in pediatric populations have identified this and a few other small trials or case series suggesting symptom improvements in autistic children, but they consistently emphasize that these data are preliminary and methodologically weak.^[1][3][10] Overall, existing evidence is exploratory and insufficient to establish efficacy, but it does show that formal trials and case series have been conducted rather than purely anecdotal claims.

Contradicts

High-quality evidence (systematic reviews and broader CAM reviews) consistently concludes that there is no convincing or conclusive evidence that chiropractic treatment or spinal manipulation is effective for autism or core autism-related impairments. A systematic review of spinal manipulation for pediatric conditions found only one small randomized trial and a few case reports for autism and characterized the evidence as weak, with major limitations such as small samples, poor controls, and reliance on subjective measures.^[10] A more recent scoping review of spinal manipulation and mobilization in infants, children, and adolescents reported that there is no explicit evidence supporting effectiveness of spinal manipulation for any pediatric condition and described findings for autism-related impairments as inconclusive, with available data mostly from case reports.^[3] Reviews of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) for autism specifically state that evidence for chiropractic therapy is inconclusive and that there is a lack of proof of efficacy for CAM therapies overall in autism.^[15][9] Commentaries summarizing this literature also stress that claims that chiropractic can treat autism are not supported by robust data and highlight concerns about potential harms and opportunity costs when families pursue unproven manual therapies instead of evidence-based developmental, behavioral, educational, and medical interventions.^[13][15] Major autism treatment guidelines and consensus statements do not recommend chiropractic manipulation as a treatment for autism, reflecting the absence of credible RCTs, meta-analyses, or guideline-level support.

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical and scientific position is that chiropractic treatment or spinal manipulation is not an evidence-based therapy for autism and should not be promoted as a means to treat core autism features or to modify the underlying neurodevelopmental condition. Autism is understood as a neurodevelopmental condition with multifactorial genetic and environmental contributions; recommended interventions focus on structured behavioral and developmental therapies (such as applied behavior analysis, pivotal response treatment, and social skills programs), educational supports, speech and occupational therapy, and targeted pharmacologic treatment for co-occurring conditions, all of which have substantially stronger evidence from randomized controlled trials and structured outcome measures than chiropractic care.^[19][22] Existing research on chiropractic or spinal manipulation for autism is sparse, methodologically weak (small, often unblinded trials, case series, and case reports), and yields inconclusive results that do not meet modern standards for efficacy evaluation.^[3][10][15] Major guidelines and CAM reviews consequently advise that chiropractic manipulation for autism should be considered experimental at best and not used as a primary treatment or substitute for established evidence-based care.^[15][9] The prevailing view in pediatrics, neurology, and autism specialty care is that any use of chiropractic for autistic individuals should be limited to managing clearly defined musculoskeletal complaints and not framed as a treatment for autism itself.

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Next PostThe Nervous System And Autism”

Rule: Minnesota Chiropractic Practice Act (scope limited to musculoskeletal/spine care)

Timothy Thomas Bertsch is not licensed or approved by Minnesota Board of Chiropractic Examiners to diagnose, treat, or cure Anxiety.

Anxiety

Supports

Evidence directly supporting chiropractic treatment as an effective therapy for anxiety is limited and low quality. One small randomized controlled trial from the late 1980s found that thoracic spine chiropractic adjustments reduced blood pressure and state anxiety acutely compared with placebo and no-treatment control, but it involved only 21 patients with elevated blood pressure and measured anxiety as a secondary outcome, not a diagnosed anxiety disorder. ^[29][30][31] This provides at most weak, short-term support that spinal manipulation may transiently reduce anxiety scores in a specific context. Systematic reviews of spinal manipulation and manual therapies show some positive effects on psychological outcomes, including anxiety, but the evidence is heterogeneous, often focuses on massage or osteopathic manipulation rather than chiropractic specifically, and trials are generally small and at risk of bias. ^[32] Overall, the best available high-quality evidence suggests that certain manual therapies can modestly reduce anxiety symptoms, but this cannot be confidently extrapolated to chiropractic adjustments as a primary, stand-alone treatment for clinical anxiety disorders.

Contradicts

Multiple systematic reviews emphasize that evidence from randomized controlled trials of spinal manipulation for non-musculoskeletal outcomes, including psychological conditions, is contradictory and often unconvincing. These reviews highlight methodological limitations (small samples, poor blinding, high risk of bias, heterogeneous interventions and outcomes) and conclude that spinal manipulation cannot be recommended as an evidence-based treatment for anxiety or other psychiatric disorders. More recent meta-analyses of manual therapies targeting anxiety typically find modest improvements at best, with wide confidence intervals, high heterogeneity, and a predominance of massage and osteopathic techniques rather than chiropractic manipulation. ^[31][32] Importantly, major adverse-effects reviews of spinal manipulation stress that potential risks exist (e. g. , rare but serious neurological events) while robust benefits for anxiety have not been demonstrated, which weighs against promoting chiropractic treatment as a reliable or safe primary therapy for anxiety. Guidelines for anxiety management from psychiatry and primary care do not list chiropractic care as a recommended treatment; instead they strongly support evidence-based psychological therapies and pharmacologic treatments. ^[29][30] Thus, the claim that chiropractic treatment is an established, effective intervention for anxiety is not supported and conflicts with mainstream interpretations of the available evidence.

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical and scientific position is that chiropractic care is primarily a treatment for musculoskeletal conditions, such as low back and neck pain, and not a validated therapy for anxiety disorders. Anxiety is generally treated with evidence-based psychological interventions (such as cognitive behavioral therapy and other structured psychotherapies), pharmacologic treatments (such as SSRIs, SNRIs, and other anxiolytics), and lifestyle and behavioral strategies supported by clinical trials and guidelines. ^[31] While manual therapies, including massage or osteopathic manipulation, may have short-term relaxing effects and modest reductions in anxiety scores in some studies, major clinical guidelines do not recognize chiropractic spinal manipulation as a recommended or first-line treatment for generalized anxiety disorder, panic disorder, social anxiety disorder, or other anxiety-related conditions. ^[29][30][32] Chiropractic care might be used adjunctively to address coexisting musculoskeletal pain, which can indirectly influence well-being and perceived stress, but it is not regarded as a primary, evidence-based treatment for anxiety.

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Anxiety”

Rule: Minn. Stat. § 148.01, subd. 1(4)

See every doc bro advertising Anxiety

Timothy Thomas Bertsch is not licensed or approved by Minnesota Board of Chiropractic Examiners to diagnose, treat, or cure Functional Medicine.

Functional Medicine

Supports

There is some emerging evidence that particular interventions often used within functional or integrative medicine frameworks (for example, elimination diets with lifestyle/health coaching, acupuncture, herbal formulas, exercise, and nutritional adjuncts) can improve symptoms or functional outcomes in specific conditions and sometimes act via identifiable biochemical or physiological mechanisms. A randomized controlled trial of functional medicine health coaching plus an elimination diet in clinicians reported better dietary adherence and improved patient‑reported health outcomes compared with a self‑guided elimination diet, suggesting that a structured functional‑medicine‑style program can positively affect multisystem symptoms, although this mainly reflects behavioral and subjective outcomes rather than direct correction of underlying “chemistry.”^[2][3][6] Systematic reviews and randomized trials in integrative and traditional medicine (e.g., Chinese herbal medicine and Saam acupuncture for functional dyspepsia) demonstrate symptom relief and quality‑of‑life improvements compared with conventional prokinetics or usual care, implying that specific non‑conventional interventions can modulate gastrointestinal function and possibly related biochemical pathways.^{[4][8][20][14]} Lifestyle‑based RCTs (heavy resistance training after muscle strain, structured rehabilitation for Achilles tendon rupture) show that targeted interventions can normalize muscle strength, reduce pain, and improve functional scores, consistent with the idea that targeted changes to physiology can “fix” or substantially improve functional consequences of underlying pathology.^[21][25] Nutritional adjuncts such as vitamin D supplementation added to antidepressants have shown associations between improved serum vitamin D levels, better mood scores, and preserved brain connectivity, indicating that correcting a specific biochemical deficiency can improve both symptoms and objective neurobiological measures.^[17] Collectively, these lines of evidence support only a narrow reading of the claim: in some conditions, adjusting identified biochemical or physiological factors (e.g., nutrient status, physical deconditioning, dyspeptic symptom mechanisms) through structured interventions can lead to symptom improvement.

Contradicts

High‑quality evidence does not support the broad, marketing‑style assertion that “advanced functional medicine” as a generalized care model reliably fixes the chemistry behind any patient’s symptoms across conditions. Critical commentaries on functional medicine acknowledge that the overall model lacks robust randomized controlled trials directly comparing it to standard care and still relies heavily on unproven suppositions and case reports, with ongoing but as yet incomplete efforts to generate higher‑quality evidence.^[9][13] Even supportive overviews emphasize that functional medicine’s evidence base is uneven: some individual tools are evidence‑based, but the comprehensive diagnostic and therapeutic framework (including extensive specialty testing and individualized protocols claimed to “fix chemistry”) has not been validated by large, rigorous trials or major guidelines as a superior or reliably effective system of care.^{[1][5][10][11][12]} Many RCTs in complementary and traditional modalities show modest or condition‑specific benefits, but they do not demonstrate that broad functional medicine programs can systematically identify and correct underlying biochemical abnormalities in a way that consistently eliminates symptoms; instead, effects are often limited, mediated through lifestyle changes, or indistinguishable from well‑designed conventional interventions.^{[4][8][14][20]} Furthermore, several trials of biologically plausible interventions (e.g., oxytocin/vasopressin for social cognition, platelet‑rich plasma or stem‑cell‑based orthobiologics for musculoskeletal conditions) show either null results or only partial functional benefits, underscoring that changing measurable biology does not automatically translate into robust symptom resolution and that mechanistic promises frequently exceed what trials deliver.^{[16][19][22][24]} Overall, the claim that “advanced functional medicine” can generally fix the chemistry behind symptoms overstates the current evidence, extrapolates from condition‑specific or adjunctive interventions, and implies a level of mechanistic control and outcome certainty that is not supported by mainstream data or guidelines.

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical position is that specific biochemical or physiological abnormalities (such as nutrient deficiencies, endocrine disorders, metabolic disease, or structural injuries) can sometimes be identified and effectively treated, resulting in symptom improvement, but this must be demonstrated via condition‑specific diagnostic criteria and high‑quality trials or guideline‑endorsed therapies, not by broad functional‑medicine branding. Evidence‑based medicine relies on randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, and major clinical guidelines to validate both mechanisms and outcomes, and currently recognizes some integrative or lifestyle interventions (e.g., structured exercise therapy, certain nutritional corrections, selected traditional therapies with solid RCT support) as useful options in particular indications, while viewing the comprehensive functional medicine model as promising but still insufficiently validated and mechanistically over‑stated.^{[1][9][10][11][12][14]} Mainstream practice generally accepts individualized care and attention to diet, exercise, sleep

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“[Functional Medicine]”

Rule: Minn. Stat. § 148.01, subd. 1(1)-(2)

Timothy Thomas Bertsch is not licensed or approved by Minnesota Board of Chiropractic Examiners to diagnose, treat, or cure Functional Neurology.

Functional Neurology

Supports

High-quality evidence for chiropractic 'functional neurology' as a distinct therapeutic approach is extremely limited. The main scoping and systematic reviews of functional neurology in a chiropractic context report that there are almost no randomized controlled trials or higher-level studies specifically testing functional neurology protocols as used by chiropractors for neurological or functional disorders; most reports are case studies or uncontrolled series. These reviews conclude that while spinal manipulation can produce measurable changes in brain-related physiological parameters in some small trials, there is no robust evidence that these changes translate into clinically meaningful neurological outcomes. Evidence from broader chiropractic RCTs shows that standard chiropractic care can modestly improve pain and function in musculoskeletal conditions (e.g., cervical radiculopathy, subclinical spinal pain), and can modulate neurotrophic and inflammatory markers in the short term, but these are not studies of chiropractic functional neurology as branded and do not establish disease‑specific neurological benefits.^[15] Existing neurologic treatment guidelines and general principles documents from major bodies (e.g., American Academy of Neurology) support using novel or unconventional therapies only when evidence is limited and after careful risk–benefit discussion, but they do not endorse chiropractic functional neurology as a standard treatment for neurological disorders.^[11]

Contradicts

The key peer‑reviewed syntheses examining chiropractic functional neurology characterize it as lacking an adequate evidence base and likely pseudoscientific when promoted as a neurologic treatment system. These reviews emphasize that there are no randomized controlled trials demonstrating that chiropractic functional neurology improves clinical outcomes in patients with diagnosed neurological conditions, and that available work consists almost entirely of case reports and low‑quality evidence, which would be rated as very low certainty under GRADE criteria.^[5][6] Broader systematic reviews on spinal manipulation and brain function report inconsistent physiological findings and explicitly state that it is premature to claim brain‑function or neurologic benefits from such interventions. Major neurologic guidelines and position statements instead recommend evidence‑based treatments (such as physiotherapy plus cognitive behavioral therapy for functional movement disorders, or stroke and traumatic brain injury rehabilitation) and do not list chiropractic functional neurology among recommended therapies, highlighting that current neurologic care standards rest on modalities with substantially stronger trial and guideline support.^[18] Overall, the evidence base for chiropractic functional neurology is weak, indirect, and insufficient to substantiate influencer‑style claims of broad neurological efficacy.

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical and neurologic position is that chiropractic care has an established but limited role in managing certain musculoskeletal pain conditions, while chiropractic functional neurology—as a separate branded system claiming to diagnose and treat a wide range of neurological and functional disorders via complex sensory, vestibular, and manipulation‑based protocols—does not currently have robust supporting evidence and is not incorporated into major neurology or rehabilitation guidelines. High‑quality care for neurological and functional disorders focuses on interventions backed by randomized trials and systematic reviews (for example, multidisciplinary physiotherapy plus cognitive behavioral therapy for functional movement disorders, structured stroke and TBI rehabilitation, and pharmacologic or neuromodulation therapies with demonstrated benefits), and novel or unconventional approaches are considered only cautiously, with explicit acknowledgement of limited evidence.^[18][11] Within this framework, chiropractic functional neurology is generally regarded as experimental or unproven rather than an evidence‑based standard of care.

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“[Functional Neurology]”

Rule: Minnesota Chiropractic Practice Act (scope limited to musculoskeletal/spine care)

Timothy Thomas Bertsch is not licensed or approved by Minnesota Board of Chiropractic Examiners to diagnose, treat, or cure NAET Allergy Treatment.

NAET Allergy Treatment

Supports

High-quality evidence for NAET (Nambudripad’s Allergy Elimination Techniques) as an allergy treatment is extremely limited and does not meet mainstream standards for establishing efficacy. One small randomized controlled study in children with “allergy-related autism” has been cited in secondary sources, but it is preliminary, involves a highly selected population, and is not replicated in independent trials. The available publications and reports on NAET primarily consist of case reports, uncontrolled series, or NAET-sponsored materials, which are low in the evidence hierarchy and do not provide robust proof of efficacy as an allergy treatment. In contrast, strong evidence for allergy treatment comes from large randomized trials and systematic reviews of established modalities such as oral immunotherapy, sublingual immunotherapy, and epicutaneous immunotherapy, none of which involve NAET techniques or chiropractic manipulation. For example, contemporary reviews of peanut allergy management highlight immunotherapeutic approaches (oral, sublingual, epicutaneous) and monoclonal antibodies, not NAET or chiropractic care, as evidence-based strategies for long-term relief and risk reduction.^[18] Similarly, randomized clinical trials for egg allergy and other food allergies evaluate oral immunotherapy protocols, allergen avoidance, and desensitization strategies, again without reference to NAET or chiropractic interventions as validated treatments.^[19][22][24] For chiropractic care and allergies, mainstream academic literature notes at best modest, non-specific effects on symptoms, with no high-quality evidence that spinal manipulation is an effective primary treatment for allergic disease. A key review of chiropractic care in asthma and allergy reports that no primary clinical trials demonstrate objective improvements in lung function or allergy outcomes from spinal manipulation; subjective improvements (quality of life, symptom scores) did not differ significantly from controls, leading the authors to conclude there is currently no evidence to support chiropractic spinal manipulation as a primary treatment for asthma or allergy.^[4][13] Some experimental and mechanistic studies in chiropractic research have observed changes in immune markers or autonomic balance after spinal manipulation, but these are small, often uncontrolled, and do not show clear, clinically meaningful allergy outcomes. Overall, there is no high-quality evidence (large RCTs, strong meta-analyses, or major guidelines) that specifically supports chiropractor-delivered NAET as an effective allergy treatment.

Contradicts

Major allergy and immunology guidelines and high-quality clinical research on food and respiratory allergies do not mention NAET or chiropractic manipulation as recommended treatments, which indirectly contradicts the claim that “chiropractor treatment of NAET allergy treatment” is evidence-based. Contemporary comprehensive reviews of peanut allergy and other food allergies emphasize strategies such as strict allergen avoidance, emergency management (e.g., epinephrine), and immunotherapy (oral, sublingual, epicutaneous), as well as biologic agents, but they do not include NAET or chiropractic approaches among evidence-based options.^[18][22] Randomized trials for egg allergy and other food allergies demonstrate benefit from structured oral immunotherapy protocols while also documenting significant risks and adverse events; these trials follow conventional immunology principles and again do not incorporate NAET or chiropractic manipulation.^[19][20][21] A widely cited review of chiropractic care in asthma and allergy explicitly states that there were no primary clinical trials on spinal manipulation and allergy, and that existing randomized studies showed no statistically significant differences between chiropractic and control groups in objective measures, leading to the conclusion that chiropractic spinal manipulation cannot be recommended as a primary treatment for allergy.^[4][13] This stands in clear tension with influencer claims that chiropractic NAET can treat or cure allergies. Beyond allergy-specific evidence, mainstream evidence-evaluation frameworks (such as GRADE) emphasize the importance of randomized controlled trials, adequate sample size, and precision in effect estimates when rating the quality of evidence; techniques like NAET, supported mainly by case series or single small trials with substantial risk of bias, would be rated as very low-quality evidence, with high imprecision and serious limitations.^[5] Clinical practice guidelines in other areas (hypertension, nutrition, headache, transfusion) illustrate how therapies are only recommended once they are supported by multiple high-quality studies and consistent benefit; NAET and chiropractic allergy treatments do not meet this standard and are therefore absent from guideline recommendations.^{[0][1][2][3][6][7]} This pattern—absence from rigorous guidelines, lack of robust randomized data, and explicit negative conclusions in chiropractic-allergy reviews—collectively contradicts the assertion that chiropractor-provided NAET is an established, evidence-based allergy treatment.

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical and scientific position is that NAET (Nambudripad’s Allergy Elimination Techniques) and chiropractic spinal manipulation are not established, evidence-based ^{[1][2][3][5][4][6][7][8][41][42][43][44]}

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“[NAET Allergy Treatment]”

Rule: Minn. Stat. § 148.01, subd. 1(2), (6)

See every doc bro advertising Allergies, asthma and food sensitivities

Timothy Thomas Bertsch is not licensed or approved by Minnesota Board of Chiropractic Examiners to diagnose, treat, or cure Brain-Balance.

Brain-Balance

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“[Brain-Balance]”

Rule: Minn. Stat. § 148.01, subd. 1(2), (6)

Timothy Thomas Bertsch is not approved to offer Red Light Therapy within a Chiropractor scope of practice under Minnesota Board of Chiropractic Examiners.

Red Light Therapy

Supports

Red light therapy for musculoskeletal pain is usually discussed under the broader term photobiomodulation or low-level laser therapy (LLLT), which frequently uses red to near‑infrared wavelengths. ^{[7][45][46][47]} Multiple systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials indicate that PBM/LLLT can reduce pain and improve function in several musculoskeletal conditions, including knee osteoarthritis, tendinopathies, chronic neck pain, myofascial pain, and post‑operative pain, with clinically relevant reductions in visual analogue scale (VAS) pain scores and functional indices compared with sham or conventional therapies. ^[48] These data support the general therapeutic potential of red‑to‑near‑infrared light as an adjuvant in musculoskeletal rehabilitation when appropriately dosed. ^[4] Recent reviews also highlight a favorable safety profile with few serious adverse events. Some RCTs show LLLT superiority over therapeutic ultrasound or faster short‑term relief versus pharmacotherapy in chronic neck pain or myofascial pain, suggesting it can be integrated into conservative care frameworks similar to those used by chiropractors. The GRADE framework paper reminds that even when positive effects are seen, imprecision and heterogeneity must be carefully considered when rating overall evidence quality, which is consistent with the cautious but potentially favorable interpretation of PBM data. ^[6]

Contradicts

Evidence for red light therapy/LLLT is inconsistent across conditions, and some high‑quality trials and reviews report no clinically important benefit, particularly for non‑specific low back pain. ^[6][46][47] A notable meta‑analysis concluded that PBM did not meaningfully decrease pain or disability in acute/subacute or chronic low back pain compared to sham or exercise alone, indicating that routine use for this indication is not supported. ^[48] Other older double‑blind trials found no significant difference between LLLT and placebo for musculoskeletal pain, reinforcing the presence of negative or null results. Systematic reviews emphasize substantial heterogeneity in wavelength, dose, treatment parameters, patient populations, and trial quality, which limits generalizability and makes it difficult to define standard, evidence‑based protocols. Long‑term outcomes are rarely reported, and benefits often diminish over time, indicating that short‑term improvements may not translate into durable relief. Importantly, none of the major clinical guidelines listed in the index papers (hypertension, nutrition support, inflammatory bowel disease, tension‑type headache, blood transfusion, pericarditis) endorse chiropractic red light therapy or PBM as a core, guideline‑driven treatment for any of their covered conditions, highlighting that such use lies outside established guideline frameworks. ^{[1][2][3][5][4][7][8][45]}

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical view is that photobiomodulation/LLLT using red to near‑infrared light is a promising but still evolving modality with moderate‑quality evidence for short‑term pain reduction and functional improvement in selected musculoskeletal conditions (e. ^[46][48] g. , knee osteoarthritis, some tendinopathies, myofascial pain, certain chronic neck pain presentations), but with inconsistent or negative evidence for others such as non‑specific low back pain. It is generally regarded as a safe adjuvant rather than a standalone, first‑line therapy and is best considered within multidisciplinary rehabilitation programs that prioritize exercise, education, and established conservative measures. Major general medical guidelines, including those cited in the index papers for cardiovascular disease, nutrition support, inflammatory bowel disease, headache, transfusion practice, and pericarditis, do not presently position red light therapy or chiropractor‑delivered PBM as standard of care for their respective conditions, and guideline methodology frameworks such as GRADE stress the need to account for imprecision and heterogeneity when judging such interventions. ^{[2][3][5][4][6][7][8][45][47]} In chiropractic practice, use of red light or LLLT is typically adjunctive and not universally endorsed; professional bodies and insurers often treat it as optional or investigational rather than a guideline‑mandated therapy. Overall, mainstream consensus is cautiously open but calls for better‑designed, larger RCTs with standardized dosing, longer follow‑up, and condition‑specific protocols before broad, strong recommendations can be made for “chiropractor treatment with red light therapy” across the board.

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“[Red Light Therapy]”

Rule: Minnesota Chiropractic Practice Act (scope limited to musculoskeletal/spine care)

Timothy Thomas Bertsch is not licensed or approved by Minnesota Board of Chiropractic Examiners to diagnose, treat, or cure Shockwave Therapy.

Shockwave Therapy

Supports

There is peer-reviewed evidence that extracorporeal shockwave therapy (ESWT) can improve pain and function for some musculoskeletal conditions, especially plantar fasciitis and some tendinopathies, but this is condition-specific rather than a general endorsement of chiropractic treatment. ^{[7][49][50][51]} Systematic reviews and meta-analyses have found benefits in chronic low back pain, although the evidence is heterogeneous and often short-term. ^[6][52] Some more recent reviews also report positive effects in hip/pelvic tendinopathies and certain post-rehabilitation settings, but these are still specific indications with variable certainty.

Contradicts

The claim is too vague to be supported as stated, because it does not specify a diagnosis, outcome, shockwave modality, or whether the chiropractor is using ESWT as an adjunct to evidence-based care. ^{[1][6][50][51]} Several reviews find mixed or low-certainty evidence for conditions commonly treated in chiropractic settings, and for some problems the effect is negligible or inconsistent. ^[49][52] The strongest evidence base is not for “chiropractor treatment” in general, but for ESWT in selected orthopedic indications; some guideline and payer documents still describe evidence as insufficient for many uses outside a narrow set of approved or better-studied conditions. ^[5]

Mainstream view

Mainstream medical view: shockwave therapy is an evidence-based option for a limited set of musculoskeletal conditions, most consistently plantar fasciitis and some tendinopathies, and it may help some cases of chronic low back pain, but the overall evidence is condition-specific and not enough to support a broad claim that chiropractic shockwave treatment is generally effective. ^{[1][5][6][7][49][50][51][52]} It is best viewed as an adjunctive modality with variable quality of evidence, not a universal chiropractic treatment.

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“[Shockwave Therapy]”

Rule: Minnesota Chiropractic Practice Act (scope limited to musculoskeletal/spine care)

Timothy Thomas Bertsch is not licensed or approved by Minnesota Board of Chiropractic Examiners to advertise Pain, Focus, and Full-Body Health as within their scope of practice.

Pain, Focus, and Full-Body Health

Supports

Chiropractic or spinal manipulation has some evidence of benefit for certain musculoskeletal pain conditions, especially low back pain, and recent guidelines/reviews include multimodal care with spinal manipulation among recommended options for nonspecific low back pain. ^{[2][6][53][54][55][56]} Evidence syntheses and guidelines also support spinal manipulation for some headache disorders, particularly tension-type and cervicogenic headache, but these are condition-specific rather than general whole-body claims. ^[5]

Contradicts

The claim is not supported as a broad statement about treatment of pain, focus, and full-body health, because the best evidence is limited to specific pain syndromes and does not establish chiropractic as a general treatment for overall health. ^[6][53][55] For attention/focus or ADHD, the available systematic review found insufficient evidence to evaluate efficacy, and later research has continued to report little evidence of benefit. ^[54][56] The provided index papers are mostly unrelated nutrition or medical guideline papers and do not support chiropractic treatment for focus or whole-body health. ^[3][4][5]

Mainstream view

Mainstream medical and scientific opinion is that chiropractic spinal manipulation may help some patients with specific musculoskeletal complaints, especially low back pain, and possibly some headache disorders, but evidence does not support claims that it improves focus/ADHD or provides general full-body health benefits. ^[53][55] For non-pain claims, evidence is weak or insufficient, so chiropractic should not be presented as a treatment for overall wellness or cognitive performance. ^[56]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Honest Answers, Lasting Solutions for Pain, Focus, and Full-Body Health”

Rule: Minnesota Chiropractic Practice Act (scope limited to musculoskeletal/spine care)