Kyle A Potter alias The Hormone Adjustment Rack

Kyle A Potter is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Hormone replacement therapy.

Hormone replacement therapy

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“prescribed hormone replacement”

Rule: K.S.A. 65-2871(a)

See every doc bro advertising Hormone imbalance and replacement

Kyle A Potter is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Identifying estrogen dominance, adrenal dysfunction, and adrenal fatigue.

Identifying estrogen dominance, adrenal dysfunction, and adrenal fatigue

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“estrogen dominance, estrogen deficiency, progesterone deficiency, androgen (testosterone and DHEA) excesses or deficiencies, adrenal dysfunction and adrenal fatigue”

Rule: K.S.A. 65-2871(a)

See every doc bro advertising Hormone imbalance and replacement

Kyle A Potter is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure People with fatigue, insomnia, stress, immunity problems, blood sugar problems, or overweight should be tested for cortisol and sex hormones.

People with fatigue, insomnia, stress, immunity problems, blood sugar problems, or overweight should be tested for cortisol and sex hormones

Supports

High-quality guidelines from major endocrine societies support targeted cortisol and sex hormone testing when there is a specific clinical suspicion of endocrine disease, not broad testing in everyone with nonspecific symptoms. For cortisol, Endocrine Society guidelines recommend diagnostic testing only to exclude primary adrenal insufficiency in acutely ill patients with symptoms or signs suggestive of adrenal failure, such as hypotension, electrolyte abnormalities, or unexplained hypoglycemia, rather than routine testing in all patients with fatigue or stress.^[18] They also recommend testing for Cushing syndrome in patients with multiple and progressive features highly suggestive of hypercortisolism (e.g., easy bruising, facial plethora, proximal muscle weakness, purple striae, early-onset osteoporosis or hypertension) and in patients with adrenal incidentalomas, not in the general population with nonspecific complaints.^[20][21][19] For sex hormones, Endocrine Society and urological guidelines on male hypogonadism recommend measuring testosterone only in men with specific signs of androgen deficiency and repeatedly low serum testosterone; they explicitly advise screening only in adult men with consistent and multiple symptoms of hypogonadism, rather than in all men with generic fatigue, insomnia, or overweight.^[14][15][17] These guideline-based positions are grounded in GRADE methodology for rating evidence quality and avoiding over-testing, consistent with broader evidence-based frameworks that emphasize imprecision and the need for clear indications before ordering diagnostic tests.^[4]

Contradicts

Major endocrine guidelines explicitly contradict the idea of routine cortisol or sex hormone testing for broad symptom clusters such as fatigue, insomnia, stress, immunity problems, blood sugar issues, or overweight in the absence of clear endocrine red flags. For hypercortisolism, guidelines state that general population screening is not recommended; testing is reserved for patients with specific and progressive features of Cushing syndrome or distinct high-risk contexts (e.g., adrenal incidentaloma, early-onset osteoporosis, resistant diabetes or hypertension at a young age), and they advise against using random serum cortisol as a screening test.^[20][21][19] Similarly, primary adrenal insufficiency guidelines limit cortisol testing to acutely ill or otherwise clearly suggestive cases, not to every patient with tiredness or sleep disturbance.^[18] Hypogonadism guidelines advise measuring testosterone only when there are multiple, consistent symptoms of androgen deficiency and confirmed low levels, and they do not endorse routine sex hormone panels for nonspecific complaints such as stress, minor fatigue, or simple overweight.^[14][15][17] Evidence-based frameworks like GRADE emphasize avoiding diagnostic strategies with low prior probability and high risk of false positives, supporting guideline recommendations against broad, symptom-driven hormone testing without specific clinical suspicion.^[4] Overall, existing high-quality evidence and guidelines discourage the influencer’s proposed broad testing strategy because it would increase unnecessary investigations, misdiagnosis, and cost without demonstrated benefit.

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical and scientific position is that cortisol and sex hormone tests should be ordered only when there is a well-founded clinical suspicion of specific endocrine disorders, based on characteristic signs, symptoms, and risk factors, rather than as routine investigations for common, nonspecific problems like fatigue, insomnia, stress, minor immunity concerns, mild blood sugar abnormalities, or overweight. Endocrine society guidelines recommend targeted cortisol testing for suspected primary adrenal insufficiency or Cushing syndrome in clearly defined high-risk scenarios, and they explicitly oppose generalized screening for hypercortisolism in the general population.^{[18][20][21][19]} Likewise, guidelines on male hypogonadism recommend sex hormone testing only in men with consistent and multiple manifestations of androgen deficiency plus reproducibly low testosterone, not in people whose only complaints are generic fatigue, sleep issues, stress, or weight gain.^[14][15][17] This guideline-driven approach, aligned with GRADE methodology, reflects a consensus to avoid overuse of hormone testing in low-probability settings and to focus on judicious, indication-based diagnostics that balance benefits, harms, and resource use.^[4]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Anyone with symptoms involving fatigue, insomnia, stress, immunity problems, blood sugar problems, and an overweight body should be tested for cortisol levels as well as "sex" hormones”

Rule: K.S.A. 65-2871(a)

See every doc bro advertising Insomnia and sleep disorders

Kyle A Potter is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Most foods promote obesity and increase cancer, diabetes, heart disease, and stroke risk.

Most foods promote obesity and increase cancer, diabetes, heart disease, and stroke risk

Supports

There is strong high-quality evidence that certain dietary patterns and categories of foods increase risk of obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, some cancers, and stroke, but this applies mainly to specific unhealthy foods and ultra-processed dietary patterns, not to “most foods.” Large umbrella reviews and meta-analyses consistently find that high consumption of ultra-processed foods is associated with higher risks of overweight and obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, overall cancer, and all-cause mortality, with dose–response relationships showing higher risk with increasing ultra-processed food intake.^{[11][13][15][16][18][19][21][24]} A meta-analysis of mega cohorts shows that diets high in glycaemic index and glycaemic load (i.e., refined, rapidly absorbed carbohydrates) are associated with increased incidence of type 2 diabetes, total cardiovascular disease, diabetes-related cancers, and all-cause mortality, supporting that frequent intake of high-GI/GL foods promotes obesity and cardiometabolic disease.^[6] Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of ultra-processed foods report positive associations between high intake and cardiometabolic diseases, frailty, irritable bowel syndrome, and overall cancer, including breast cancer, aligning with increased risk of several chronic diseases.^[15][24] Major dietary guidelines and cardiovascular prevention reviews emphasize that dietary patterns high in fruits, vegetables, whole grains, nuts, legumes, and unsaturated fats and low in red and processed meat, refined grains, and sugar-sweetened beverages are associated with decreased risk of coronary heart disease, stroke, obesity, and type 2 diabetes, implying that high intake of refined and processed foods contributes to these diseases.^[14][20][25]

Contradicts

The influencer’s claim that “most foods” promote obesity and increase cancer, diabetes, heart disease, and stroke risk overgeneralizes and is not supported by high-quality evidence. In contrast, numerous systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and guidelines show that many common foods and dietary patterns are protective against these conditions rather than harmful. A large systematic review and meta-analysis of plant-based dietary patterns finds that better adherence to healthy plant-based diets (rich in vegetables, fruits, whole grains, legumes) is associated with significantly lower risks of type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, cancer, and all-cause mortality, contradicting the notion that most foods increase these risks.^[3] Evidence summaries for cardiovascular and cancer prevention show that whole-food, plant-predominant diets protect against cardiovascular disease and certain cancers, again indicating that common healthy foods reduce rather than promote these diseases.^[23] Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of the Mediterranean diet show improvements in metabolic syndrome components, including central obesity, blood pressure, triglycerides, and insulin resistance, thereby lowering cardiovascular and diabetes risk.^[5] Narrative and systematic reviews of the EAT-Lancet planetary diet and similar plant-forward patterns report that these diets prevent and manage abdominal obesity, carbohydrate metabolism disorders, dyslipidemia, and elevated blood pressure, and are associated with reduced risks of diabetes, cardiovascular disease, cancer, and mortality.^[4][7] An umbrella review of nut and seed consumption finds that a daily handful of nuts is associated with reduced cardiovascular disease risk, modest reductions in cancer mortality, and lower all-cause mortality, which directly contradicts the idea that most foods promote these diseases.^[9] Likewise, a systematic review and meta-analysis of olive oil consumption shows reduced risk of cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, and all-cause mortality with higher intake, with no increase in cancer risk.^[8] Major cardiovascular and diabetes guidelines summarize strong and consistent evidence that dietary patterns emphasizing fruits, vegetables, whole grains, nuts, legumes, and healthy fats are associated with decreased risk of cardiovascular disease, stroke, obesity, and type 2 diabetes, indicating that large categories of commonly consumed foods are protective rather than harmful.^[14][20][25]

Mainstream view

Mainstream medical and scientific consensus does not support the statement that most foods promote obesity and increase cancer, diabetes, heart disease, and stroke risk. The prevailing view is that disease risk is strongly influenced by overall dietary pattern and food quality: diets high in ultra-processed foods, refined carbohydrates, sugar-sweetened beverages, and certain processed meats are associated with increased risk of obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and some cancers, while diets rich in minimally processed plant foods, healthy fats, and whole grains are associated with reduced risk of these conditions.^{[11][13][15][16][18][19][21][24][3][4][5][7][8]}[

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Most foods promote obesity, which increases the risk of cancer, diabetes, heart disease and stroke”

Rule: K.S.A. 65-2871(a)

See every doc bro advertising Cancer

Kyle A Potter is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Managing Autoimmune Conditions with Chiropracti.

Managing Autoimmune Conditions with Chiropracti

Supports

High quality evidence on chiropractic or spinal manipulative therapy directly managing autoimmune disease activity (such as reducing flares, modifying autoantibody levels, or inducing remission) is essentially absent. ^[5][7][20] A recent pragmatic RCT shows that 12 weeks of chiropractic spinal adjustments can modulate stress and inflammatory biomarkers (e. ^[17] g. , changes in BDNF, TNF-α, IL‑6, cortisol, IFN‑γ), suggesting some short‑ to medium‑term effects on neurotrophic, stress, and inflammatory pathways, but it does not evaluate clinical outcomes in autoimmune disease populations. ^[2][3] This provides only very preliminary biological plausibility, not proof of benefit in autoimmune conditions. Systematic reviews of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) report low to moderate quality evidence for benefits in musculoskeletal pain conditions (low back pain, neck pain, tension headache, osteoarthritis, fibromyalgia), which are sometimes comorbid with autoimmune disease, indicating that chiropractic care may help pain and function as a supportive, symptom‑focused intervention in some patients, but not as disease‑modifying therapy. ^[6][18][19] There is a small pilot RCT of manual therapy in rheumatoid arthritis (postisometric relaxation and joint mobilization) suggesting reductions in knee pain and improved function when used as a supplement to standard RA management, again supporting a role in symptomatic relief rather than immune modulation. ^[4]

Contradicts

A high‑quality systematic review specifically assessing SMT and immune outcomes concluded that there is no clinical evidence that SMT prevents infectious disease or improves disease‑specific outcomes and that available biomarker data are of uncertain clinical relevance. ^[2][5][18] Independent chiropractic research groups and critical reviews state that claims of immune enhancement or disease prevention through chiropractic adjustments are not supported by robust clinical trials and have never been properly tested for viral or immune‑mediated illnesses. ^[17][19][20] Current data on chiropractic and immune function rely heavily on case reports, small basic science studies, and exploratory biomarker work; these do not demonstrate that chiropractic care can treat, reverse, or control autoimmune pathology. Major evidence‑based guidelines for autoimmune conditions (e. ^[1] g. , rheumatoid arthritis, inflammatory bowel disease, autoimmune thyroid disease, multiple sclerosis) focus on immunomodulatory drugs, targeted biologics, disease‑specific nutrition, and other medical therapies, and do not recommend chiropractic or SMT as a disease‑modifying treatment. ^[3][4] Where manual therapy is mentioned for autoimmune‑related musculoskeletal pain, it is framed strictly as adjunctive, with caution and recognition of limited evidence. ^[7] Overall, there is a clear gap between influencer claims that chiropractic can "manage" autoimmune disease in a causal or primary way and the available peer‑reviewed evidence, which does not support such claims.

Mainstream view

Mainstream medical and scientific opinion is that autoimmune diseases are driven by dysregulated immune responses and require evidence‑based immunomodulatory therapies (e. ^[1] g. , DMARDs and biologics for rheumatoid arthritis, disease‑modifying drugs for multiple sclerosis, targeted therapies and nutrition for inflammatory bowel disease, endocrine therapies for autoimmune thyroid disease). ^[3][4] Chiropractic care and other manual therapies may be used as adjuncts to address mechanical pain, stiffness, or quality‑of‑life issues, provided they are integrated safely into a comprehensive medical plan, but they are not considered treatments for the underlying autoimmune process. ^[5][17][20] Professional bodies and evidence syntheses emphasize that there is no reliable clinical evidence that chiropractic adjustments enhance immune function, prevent autoimmune disease, or alter its natural history, and warn that chiropractic should not replace conventional autoimmune management. ^[2][18] The mainstream position is that any use of chiropractic in patients with autoimmune disease is supportive and symptom‑focused, not disease‑modifying, and claims of primary management or cure are regarded as unsupported and potentially misleading. ^[19]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Managing Autoimmune Conditions with Chiropracti”

Rule: K.S.A. 65-2871(a)

See every doc bro advertising Autoimmune disease

Kyle A Potter is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure ADHD.

ADHD

Supports

No high-quality evidence in the provided index papers supports chiropractor treatment as an effective treatment for ADHD. ^[6][5][23] The best available peer-reviewed evidence located in academic search is weak: an early systematic review found no randomized trials meeting its inclusion criteria and concluded there was insufficient evidence to evaluate efficacy, calling the evidence base an empty review. Later summaries also state that evidence for chiropractic care in ADHD is preliminary, largely limited to case reports/series and small trials, and remains inadequate. ^[21][22] A recent pilot study found no significant between-group improvement in ADHD outcomes when chiropractic spinal adjustment was added to usual care. ^[4]

Contradicts

The claim is contradicted by the overall evidence base showing that chiropractic care is not established as an effective ADHD treatment. ^[21][23] The systematic review literature indicates no robust evidence in favor of chiropractic care for pediatric and adolescent ADHD and no high-quality trial evidence demonstrating benefit. ^[5][22] More recent evidence continues to characterize the literature as low quality and insufficient, with only very limited and inconsistent findings from small studies. The index papers provided to review do not include any guideline recommending chiropractic treatment for ADHD, and none of the listed guideline papers are about ADHD or chiropractic care, so they do not support the claim. ^[6]

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical and scientific view is that chiropractic treatment is not a recommended or evidence-based treatment for ADHD. ^{[1][6][5][22][23]} Standard ADHD management relies on behavioral interventions, psychoeducation, school supports, and medications such as stimulants or atomoxetine when indicated; non-pharmacologic adjuncts like chiropractic care remain unproven and are not included in mainstream ADHD treatment guidelines. ^{[2][4][21][24]} Current evidence for chiropractic interventions is low quality, inconsistent, and insufficient to establish clinical benefit for core ADHD symptoms.

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“ADHD”

Rule: K.S.A. 65-2871(a)

See every doc bro advertising ADHD

Kyle A Potter is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Cardiovascular Disease.

Cardiovascular Disease

Supports

High-quality evidence that chiropractic or spinal manipulation directly treats cardiovascular disease is very limited. ^[28] A 2020 systematic review and meta-analysis of spinal manipulation and mobilization on blood pressure reported a small statistically significant reduction in systolic blood pressure (around 4–5 mmHg) and non‑significant changes in diastolic blood pressure and heart rate, concluding that manipulations may help decrease blood pressure, but with substantial heterogeneity and limited clinical relevance; this provides at best weak support for a minor effect on a single risk factor, not on cardiovascular disease outcomes themselves. ^[2][3][7][8] Major cardiovascular guidelines emphasize controlling risk factors (blood pressure, lipids, diabetes, smoking) and using proven pharmacologic and lifestyle interventions rather than manual therapies for disease treatment and prevention, consistent with the hypertension management guideline which stresses antihypertensive drugs, lifestyle changes, and risk‑based treatment algorithms as the evidence‑based standard of care. ^{[1][6][5][25][26][27]}

Contradicts

Randomized trials examining chiropractic spinal manipulation for hypertension generally show no clinically meaningful benefit compared with control or sham procedures. ^[27] The THAT randomized clinical trial comparing chiropractic spinal manipulation plus diet versus diet alone for high-normal blood pressure or stage I hypertension found similar small reductions in blood pressure in both groups and concluded that spinal manipulation provided no additional advantage in lowering systolic or diastolic blood pressure. ^{[2][7][25][26]} A sham-controlled pilot trial of upper cervical spinal manipulation in prehypertension and stage 1 hypertension likewise found that a sham procedure produced slightly greater blood pressure reduction than manipulation, with no statistically significant difference and no support for proceeding to a larger efficacy trial. ^[28] Other controlled trials of thoracic or multi-level spinal manipulation in hypertensive adults have failed to demonstrate that manipulative treatment can reduce or control elevated systemic blood pressure in a clinically relevant way. A systematic review of spinal manipulation for hypertension concluded that there is a lack of low-bias evidence supporting spinal manipulation as therapy for hypertension and highlighted methodological weaknesses and inconsistent findings across small studies. ^[1] Another systematic review of chiropractic treatment across a range of conditions found no evidence of benefit for primary or early secondary prevention of high blood pressure or cardiovascular outcomes. Taken together, existing randomized and review-level evidence contradicts any strong claim that chiropractic treatment effectively manages hypertension or treats cardiovascular disease itself, and shows that observed blood pressure changes tend to be small, inconsistent, and not clearly superior to placebo or standard care.

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical and scientific position is that cardiovascular disease should be diagnosed, risk-stratified, and treated using approaches supported by robust randomized trials and large-scale guidelines, including pharmacologic therapy (such as antihypertensive agents, statins, antiplatelet drugs where indicated), structured lifestyle interventions (diet, exercise, smoking cessation), and management of comorbidities. ^[2][5][7] Chiropractic care and spinal manipulation are not recognized as evidence-based primary treatments for cardiovascular disease or major cardiovascular risk factors and are not included as therapeutic options in major cardiology or hypertension guidelines. ^[1][26][28] At most, chiropractic may be used as adjunctive care for musculoskeletal complaints (e. g. , chest wall or back pain) in patients who also have or are being evaluated for cardiovascular disease, but it is not considered a modality that modifies the underlying atherosclerotic or hemodynamic processes or reduces cardiovascular events. Mainstream practice therefore views claims that chiropractic treatment of cardiovascular disease is effective or comparable to standard evidence-based cardiovascular therapies as unsupported by high-quality evidence. ^[25][27]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Cardiovascular Disease”

Rule: K.S.A. 65-2871(a)

See every doc bro advertising Heart disease and cholesterol

Kyle A Potter is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Chronic Fatigue.

Chronic Fatigue

Supports

High-quality evidence specific to chiropractic treatment for chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) or chronic fatigue is very limited. ^[30][31][32] The available literature includes a prospective, uncontrolled clinical series of upper cervical chiropractic care in 19 patients with CFS that reported improvements in SF-36 general and mental health scores and sleep quality over 6 months, but this study lacked a control group and was conducted by a single practitioner, making it low-quality evidence rather than robust support. More broadly, systematic reviews of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) for CFS report that some manual therapies (such as massage and tuina) show positive effects on fatigue, mood, and sleep in randomized controlled trials, but they emphasize that methodological weaknesses and high risk of bias prevent firm conclusions about efficacy for CFS as a whole. Recent meta-analyses of massage therapy in CFS, pooling multiple randomized trials, suggest statistically significant reductions in fatigue and improved effective rates compared with control conditions, indicating that some forms of manual therapy can have symptomatic benefit, though these data are not specific to spinal manipulation or chiropractic techniques. Overall, the only support for chiropractic treatment of chronic fatigue is indirect, through the broader manual-therapy/CAM literature and one small uncontrolled chiropractic series, and does not constitute high-quality evidence that chiropractic care is an effective, disease-modifying treatment for chronic fatigue syndrome. ^[29]

Contradicts

Systematic reviews of CAM interventions for CFS consistently conclude that evidence is insufficient to determine efficacy, primarily due to small sample sizes, poor blinding, inadequate controls, and high risk of bias; they explicitly state that even where qigong, massage, or tuina show apparent benefits, the study quality precludes firm claims of effectiveness for CFS. More recent methodological reviews of randomized trials in CFS emphasize that no single intervention, including physical or manual therapies, has demonstrated consistently reproducible, robust effects across high-quality trials, underscoring the experimental and uncertain nature of these approaches. Mainstream guideline and review documents focus on cognitive-behavioral interventions, graded activity programs, symptom-targeted pharmacologic treatment, and pacing/energy management; they do not recommend chiropractic spinal manipulation as a core or evidence-based therapy for CFS. The lack of randomized, controlled, adequately powered trials of chiropractic care in CFS, combined with reliance on case reports and uncontrolled series, directly contradicts any strong claim that chiropractic treatment is a proven or established therapy for chronic fatigue. ^{[29][30][31][32]} Furthermore, because CFS/ME is a complex, multisystem neuroimmune condition, current reviews do not support theoretical models that spinal manipulation alone can correct the underlying pathophysiology or reliably resolve chronic fatigue symptoms.

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical position is that myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) is a chronic, multisystem illness with unclear etiology and no single curative treatment. ^[29][30][32] Evidence-based management focuses on accurate diagnosis, ruling out alternative causes of fatigue, and then using individualized, multimodal strategies such as activity pacing, cognitive-behavioral approaches for coping, treatment of comorbid sleep, pain, mood, or orthostatic intolerance disorders, and careful symptom-directed pharmacologic therapy. Non-pharmacologic adjuncts including certain forms of manual therapy, massage, or other CAM modalities may be considered for some patients on a case-by-case basis, but major guidelines and systematic reviews characterize these as optional, supportive, and of uncertain efficacy rather than primary treatments. Chiropractic care, specifically spinal manipulation by chiropractors, is not recognized in major guidelines as an evidence-based core treatment for CFS/ME or chronic fatigue, and the existing research base is regarded as preliminary, low quality, and insufficient to justify strong claims. ^[31] In mainstream practice, chiropractic interventions might be used to address coexisting musculoskeletal pain or dysfunction, but not as a validated primary therapy for the fatigue syndrome itself.

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Chronic Fatigue”

Rule: K.S.A. 65-2871(a)

See every doc bro advertising Chronic fatigue and fibromyalgia

Kyle A Potter is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Diabetes.

Diabetes

Supports

There is strong high-quality evidence that certain dietary patterns and categories of foods increase risk of obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, some cancers, and stroke, but this applies mainly to specific unhealthy foods and ultra-processed dietary patterns, not to “most foods.” Large umbrella reviews and meta-analyses consistently find that high consumption of ultra-processed foods is associated with higher risks of overweight and obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, overall cancer, and all-cause mortality, with dose–response relationships showing higher risk with increasing ultra-processed food intake.^{[11][13][15][16][18][19][21][24]} A meta-analysis of mega cohorts shows that diets high in glycaemic index and glycaemic load (i.e., refined, rapidly absorbed carbohydrates) are associated with increased incidence of type 2 diabetes, total cardiovascular disease, diabetes-related cancers, and all-cause mortality, supporting that frequent intake of high-GI/GL foods promotes obesity and cardiometabolic disease.^[6] Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of ultra-processed foods report positive associations between high intake and cardiometabolic diseases, frailty, irritable bowel syndrome, and overall cancer, including breast cancer, aligning with increased risk of several chronic diseases.^[15][24] Major dietary guidelines and cardiovascular prevention reviews emphasize that dietary patterns high in fruits, vegetables, whole grains, nuts, legumes, and unsaturated fats and low in red and processed meat, refined grains, and sugar-sweetened beverages are associated with decreased risk of coronary heart disease, stroke, obesity, and type 2 diabetes, implying that high intake of refined and processed foods contributes to these diseases.^[14][20][25]

Contradicts

The influencer’s claim that “most foods” promote obesity and increase cancer, diabetes, heart disease, and stroke risk overgeneralizes and is not supported by high-quality evidence. In contrast, numerous systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and guidelines show that many common foods and dietary patterns are protective against these conditions rather than harmful. A large systematic review and meta-analysis of plant-based dietary patterns finds that better adherence to healthy plant-based diets (rich in vegetables, fruits, whole grains, legumes) is associated with significantly lower risks of type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, cancer, and all-cause mortality, contradicting the notion that most foods increase these risks.^[3] Evidence summaries for cardiovascular and cancer prevention show that whole-food, plant-predominant diets protect against cardiovascular disease and certain cancers, again indicating that common healthy foods reduce rather than promote these diseases.^[23] Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of the Mediterranean diet show improvements in metabolic syndrome components, including central obesity, blood pressure, triglycerides, and insulin resistance, thereby lowering cardiovascular and diabetes risk.^[5] Narrative and systematic reviews of the EAT-Lancet planetary diet and similar plant-forward patterns report that these diets prevent and manage abdominal obesity, carbohydrate metabolism disorders, dyslipidemia, and elevated blood pressure, and are associated with reduced risks of diabetes, cardiovascular disease, cancer, and mortality.^[4][7] An umbrella review of nut and seed consumption finds that a daily handful of nuts is associated with reduced cardiovascular disease risk, modest reductions in cancer mortality, and lower all-cause mortality, which directly contradicts the idea that most foods promote these diseases.^[9] Likewise, a systematic review and meta-analysis of olive oil consumption shows reduced risk of cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, and all-cause mortality with higher intake, with no increase in cancer risk.^[8] Major cardiovascular and diabetes guidelines summarize strong and consistent evidence that dietary patterns emphasizing fruits, vegetables, whole grains, nuts, legumes, and healthy fats are associated with decreased risk of cardiovascular disease, stroke, obesity, and type 2 diabetes, indicating that large categories of commonly consumed foods are protective rather than harmful.^[14][20][25]

Mainstream view

Mainstream medical and scientific consensus does not support the statement that most foods promote obesity and increase cancer, diabetes, heart disease, and stroke risk. The prevailing view is that disease risk is strongly influenced by overall dietary pattern and food quality: diets high in ultra-processed foods, refined carbohydrates, sugar-sweetened beverages, and certain processed meats are associated with increased risk of obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and some cancers, while diets rich in minimally processed plant foods, healthy fats, and whole grains are associated with reduced risk of these conditions.^{[11][13][15][16][18][19][21][24][3][4][5][7][8]}[

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Diabetes”

Rule: K.S.A. 65-2871(a)

See every doc bro advertising Diabetes and blood sugar

Kyle A Potter is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Depression & Anxiety.

Depression & Anxiety

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Depression & Anxiety”

Rule: K.S.A. 65-2871(a)

See every doc bro advertising Depression

Kyle A Potter is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Hypertension.

Hypertension

Supports

There is some low- to moderate-quality evidence that spinal manipulation can produce small, short-term reductions in blood pressure, particularly in experimental or pilot settings rather than routine hypertension care. ^[1][5][25] A 2020 systematic review and meta-analysis of spinal mobilization/manipulation reported statistically significant decreases in systolic and diastolic blood pressure compared with control, but with moderate heterogeneity and important methodological limitations; the authors concluded that spinal manipulations and mobilizations may result in a decrease in blood pressure, within the limitations of the review (low–moderate quality, heterogeneous trials, often short-term and small samples). ^[33][26][34] This supports the possibility of a modest physiological effect but not the efficacy of chiropractic as a primary hypertension treatment. ^[6] More recent work on autonomic responses to spinal manipulation also suggests that manipulation can acutely modulate measures like heart rate variability and blood pressure in some contexts, though the clinical relevance and durability of these changes remain uncertain. ^[2][8] Overall, existing RCTs and physiological studies support that chiropractic or spinal manipulation may transiently lower blood pressure in some individuals, but they do not demonstrate robust, long-term control of hypertension comparable to standard medical therapy. ^[7]

Contradicts

High-quality hypertension guidelines emphasize lifestyle modification (dietary changes, physical activity, weight loss, salt restriction, moderation of alcohol) and evidence-based pharmacologic therapy as the cornerstones of hypertension management, with no recommendation for chiropractic or spinal manipulation as a treatment modality. ^{[1][2][6][5][7][25]} These guidelines are based on large randomized trials and meta-analyses showing substantial reductions in cardiovascular events and mortality with standard therapies, in contrast to the small and inconsistent blood pressure changes seen in spinal manipulation studies. A qualitative systematic review of spinal manipulation for hypertension concluded there is a lack of low-bias evidence supporting spinal manipulation as a therapy for hypertension, highlighting methodological problems, small sample sizes, short follow-up, and inconsistent results across the literature. ^[26][34] More recent systematic work on autonomic nervous system outcomes reports low-quality evidence that spinal manipulation is not better than control or sham in influencing systolic or diastolic blood pressure in either normotensive or hypertensive populations, suggesting that any blood pressure effects are small and not reliably reproducible. ^[33] Randomized clinical trials comparing chiropractic care plus diet versus diet alone in patients with high-normal blood pressure or stage I hypertension found no additional benefit of chiropractic spinal manipulation on blood pressure compared with diet alone, indicating that adding manipulation did not improve blood pressure control beyond established lifestyle interventions. Larger controlled trials of thoracic spinal adjustments have shown statistically significant short-term reductions in blood pressure, but these studies are often conducted in specialized or practice-based settings, use surrogate endpoints only, and lack long-term follow-up or hard cardiovascular outcomes; they are insufficient to establish chiropractic as an effective hypertension treatment. Taken together, the best available evidence and major guidelines contradict any claim that chiropractic care is an effective or recommended primary treatment for hypertension.

Mainstream view

Mainstream medical practice and major cardiovascular guidelines consider hypertension a chronic cardiovascular condition that should be managed with validated lifestyle interventions (dietary modification, physical activity, weight reduction, sodium restriction, limiting alcohol) and, when indicated, antihypertensive medications whose benefits are demonstrated in large randomized trials for reducing stroke, myocardial infarction, heart failure, and mortality. ^{[2][4][8][25]} Chiropractic or spinal manipulation is not recognized or recommended by major guideline bodies as a treatment for hypertension, either as monotherapy or as a standard adjunct. ^[6] The prevailing scientific view is that while spinal manipulation may have short-term autonomic or blood pressure effects in some experimental or pilot studies, the current evidence base is low in quality, heterogeneous, and insufficient to support its use as a clinically meaningful, durable therapy for hypertension. ^{[5][7][33][34]} Therefore, chiropractic treatment of hypertension is regarded as unproven and not part of evidence-based hypertension management; if used at all, it should only be considered an adjunct for musculoskeletal complaints, not a substitute for guideline-directed cardiovascular care. ^[1][26]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Hypertension”

Rule: K.S.A. 65-2871(a)

See every doc bro advertising Heart disease and cholesterol

Kyle A Potter is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Leaky Gut.

Leaky Gut

Supports

High-quality evidence on intestinal permeability and gut barrier function shows that certain medical or lifestyle interventions (e. ^[5] g. , specific probiotics, dietary patterns, medications, and exercise) can modulate intestinal permeability, but these studies do not involve chiropractic spinal manipulation or chiropractic-specific care. Randomized controlled trials demonstrate that probiotics, resistant starch-containing foods, and some pharmacologic treatments can improve intestinal barrier function and related biomarkers in specific patient groups, indicating that leaky gut (increased intestinal permeability) is a modifiable physiological state in some contexts. ^[35][37] However, this only supports the general concept that gut barrier function can be targeted therapeutically, not that chiropractic treatment itself is effective for leaky gut. ^[6][36][38]

Contradicts

A systematic review of chiropractic treatment for gastrointestinal disorders concluded that very few controlled clinical trials exist, the available trials are of very poor methodological quality, and that there is no supportive evidence showing chiropractic treatments are effective for gastrointestinal problems.^[11][16] This directly undermines broad claims that chiropractic care is an evidence-based treatment for GI conditions, including leaky gut, and highlights that current evidence is insufficient to demonstrate efficacy. Narrative and promotional chiropractic sources describe theoretical mechanisms (e.g., effects on autonomic nervous system, gut–brain axis, lifestyle and dietary counseling) and present case reports or feasibility data, but these are low-quality evidence and do not establish that spinal manipulation or standard chiropractic interventions reliably improve intestinal permeability or treat leaky gut. No major clinical guideline among the indexed papers on hypertension, clinical nutrition in inflammatory bowel disease, parenteral nutrition, headache, transfusion therapy, or pericarditis recommends chiropractic care as a treatment for increased intestinal permeability or related GI barrier disorders.^{[0][1][2][4][6][7]} Overall, the peer-reviewed literature and guidelines contradict the idea that chiropractic treatment is a validated, effective therapy for leaky gut.

Mainstream view

Mainstream medical and scientific positions view "leaky gut" primarily as increased intestinal permeability associated with specific diseases (e.g., inflammatory bowel disease, celiac disease, critical illness, metabolic conditions), not as a stand-alone diagnosis treated by spinal manipulation. Major gastroenterology and nutrition guidelines emphasize evidence-based strategies such as disease-specific pharmacologic therapy, nutrition support (including enteral and parenteral nutrition when appropriate), and management of underlying inflammatory or metabolic conditions, rather than chiropractic care, for intestinal barrier-related problems.^[1][2][4][5] The systematic review of chiropractic for gastrointestinal problems finds no supportive evidence that chiropractic treatments are effective GI therapies, reflecting that chiropractic is not considered a standard or guideline-supported treatment for intestinal permeability disorders.^[11][16] Mainstream practice may accept that chiropractors can provide general lifestyle or dietary counseling as part of holistic care, but does not endorse chiropractic manipulation or routine chiropractic regimens as established treatments for leaky gut or increased intestinal permeability.

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Leaky Gut”

Rule: K.S.A. 65-2871(a)

See every doc bro advertising IBS, SIBO and gut disorders

Kyle A Potter is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Hormone Imbalance.

Hormone Imbalance

Supports

High-quality endocrine guidelines support hormone testing when there are specific symptoms, signs, or clinical suspicions of endocrine disease, such as suspected hypogonadism, adrenal insufficiency, androgen excess, hypopituitarism, or menopause-related diagnostic questions. ^[39][41][42] In some situations, targeted hormone testing changes management and is part of standard care, for example in men with suspected hypogonadism or women with suspected androgen excess. ^[40]

Contradicts

The claim is too broad because major guidelines do not support routine screening of generally healthy people for hormone abnormalities to achieve “optimal health. ” The Endocrine Society specifically recommends against routine screening of men in the general population for hypogonadism. ^[39][41][42] European guidance for obesity also says testing for hypercortisolism and IGF1/GH is not routinely applied, and that biochemical testing for hypogonadism is not routinely recommended in obesity without appropriate suspicion. Guidance on sex hormone testing also notes limited value for some common contexts, such as menopause diagnosis and many subfertility evaluations, where history and clinical features are more important than broad hormone panels. ^[40] The phrase “optimal health” is not an evidence-based indication by itself, and I found no randomized trials or systematic reviews showing that knowing one’s specific hormone imbalances in otherwise unselected adults improves overall health outcomes. The indexed papers provided are not directly relevant to the claim and do not provide evidence that broad hormone profiling is necessary for health optimization.

Mainstream view

Mainstream medical practice is that hormone testing should be ordered when there is a specific clinical indication, not as a general requirement for optimal health. ^[39][41][42] Broad testing without symptoms or a defined suspicion is usually low-yield, can produce misleading results because hormone levels vary by time of day, menstrual cycle, illness, medications, and assay limitations, and does not have evidence that it improves health in otherwise healthy people. ^[40]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Hormone Imbalance”

Rule: K.S.A. 65-2871(a)

See every doc bro advertising Hormone imbalance and replacement

Kyle A Potter is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Lyme Disease.

Lyme Disease

Supports

There is no high-quality evidence from randomized trials, systematic reviews, or major guidelines showing that chiropractic treatment can eradicate Borrelia infection, modify the course of acute Lyme disease, or serve as a primary disease-directed therapy. ^{[2][5][7][43]} Major Lyme disease guidelines (e. g. , IDSA/AAN/ACR, CDC, NICE, recent guideline summaries) uniformly recommend antibiotics such as doxycycline, amoxicillin, cefuroxime, or ceftriaxone as the evidence-based treatment for Lyme disease, with treatment durations tailored to the clinical manifestation; they do not list chiropractic care as a disease-specific therapy. ^{[1][3][44][45][46]} From an evidence-rating perspective (e. g. , GRADE methodology), effective Lyme disease treatments are those with proven antimicrobial activity and demonstrated benefit in controlled studies, which chiropractic techniques lack. Chiropractic or other musculoskeletal therapies may have a role in symptomatic management of nonspecific pain or tension-type headaches in general, but this is indirect and not specific to Lyme disease, and existing headache guidelines emphasize pharmacologic and behavioral approaches rather than chiropractic as core treatment. ^[6]

Contradicts

Major clinical guidelines and reviews on Lyme disease consistently state that appropriate antibiotic therapy is required to treat the infection and prevent or reduce complications, and they do not endorse chiropractic treatment as a substitute or primary therapy. ^{[2][3][6][4][7][44][45][46]} Infectious disease guidelines also explicitly advise against non-evidence-based or prolonged non-antibiotic regimens for presumed chronic Lyme without clear diagnostic support, underscoring that non-antimicrobial modalities cannot be relied upon to clear infection. ^[1] The general framework for rating evidence quality and clinical recommendations (e. ^[5] g. , GRADE) would classify chiropractic treatment for Lyme disease as very low-quality or unsupported, since there are no controlled trials, no biologically plausible antimicrobial mechanism, and no guideline endorsement. Furthermore, Lyme disease is a systemic bacterial infection; standard medical texts and guidelines emphasize antibiotic treatment and, for neurologic or cardiac involvement, specific intravenous regimens, again with no mention of chiropractic care as disease-modifying therapy. ^[43]

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical and scientific position is that Lyme disease is a bacterial infection (usually Borrelia burgdorferi) that requires timely diagnosis and evidence-based antibiotic therapy to treat the infection and prevent complications. ^{[1][5][7][46]} Recommended treatments include oral doxycycline, amoxicillin, cefuroxime, or azithromycin for early localized or some disseminated forms, and intravenous ceftriaxone or similar agents for certain neurologic or cardiac manifestations, with durations typically between 10 and 28 days depending on the clinical presentation. ^[2] Chiropractic care is not recognized as a disease-directed treatment for Lyme disease; at most, it may be considered an adjunctive option for general musculoskeletal pain or functional complaints, provided it does not delay or replace appropriate antibiotic therapy. ^[4][44] Mainstream guidelines do not list chiropractic treatment among recommended interventions for Lyme disease, and evidence-based practice frameworks would regard claims that chiropractic can treat or cure Lyme disease as unsupported. ^[43][45]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Lyme Disease”

Rule: K.S.A. 65-2871(a)

See every doc bro advertising Lyme disease

Kyle A Potter is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Cortisol.

Cortisol

Supports

High-quality guidelines from major endocrine societies support targeted cortisol and sex hormone testing when there is a specific clinical suspicion of endocrine disease, not broad testing in everyone with nonspecific symptoms. For cortisol, Endocrine Society guidelines recommend diagnostic testing only to exclude primary adrenal insufficiency in acutely ill patients with symptoms or signs suggestive of adrenal failure, such as hypotension, electrolyte abnormalities, or unexplained hypoglycemia, rather than routine testing in all patients with fatigue or stress.^[18] They also recommend testing for Cushing syndrome in patients with multiple and progressive features highly suggestive of hypercortisolism (e.g., easy bruising, facial plethora, proximal muscle weakness, purple striae, early-onset osteoporosis or hypertension) and in patients with adrenal incidentalomas, not in the general population with nonspecific complaints.^[20][21][19] For sex hormones, Endocrine Society and urological guidelines on male hypogonadism recommend measuring testosterone only in men with specific signs of androgen deficiency and repeatedly low serum testosterone; they explicitly advise screening only in adult men with consistent and multiple symptoms of hypogonadism, rather than in all men with generic fatigue, insomnia, or overweight.^[14][15][17] These guideline-based positions are grounded in GRADE methodology for rating evidence quality and avoiding over-testing, consistent with broader evidence-based frameworks that emphasize imprecision and the need for clear indications before ordering diagnostic tests.^[4]

Contradicts

Major endocrine guidelines explicitly contradict the idea of routine cortisol or sex hormone testing for broad symptom clusters such as fatigue, insomnia, stress, immunity problems, blood sugar issues, or overweight in the absence of clear endocrine red flags. For hypercortisolism, guidelines state that general population screening is not recommended; testing is reserved for patients with specific and progressive features of Cushing syndrome or distinct high-risk contexts (e.g., adrenal incidentaloma, early-onset osteoporosis, resistant diabetes or hypertension at a young age), and they advise against using random serum cortisol as a screening test.^[20][21][19] Similarly, primary adrenal insufficiency guidelines limit cortisol testing to acutely ill or otherwise clearly suggestive cases, not to every patient with tiredness or sleep disturbance.^[18] Hypogonadism guidelines advise measuring testosterone only when there are multiple, consistent symptoms of androgen deficiency and confirmed low levels, and they do not endorse routine sex hormone panels for nonspecific complaints such as stress, minor fatigue, or simple overweight.^[14][15][17] Evidence-based frameworks like GRADE emphasize avoiding diagnostic strategies with low prior probability and high risk of false positives, supporting guideline recommendations against broad, symptom-driven hormone testing without specific clinical suspicion.^[4] Overall, existing high-quality evidence and guidelines discourage the influencer’s proposed broad testing strategy because it would increase unnecessary investigations, misdiagnosis, and cost without demonstrated benefit.

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical and scientific position is that cortisol and sex hormone tests should be ordered only when there is a well-founded clinical suspicion of specific endocrine disorders, based on characteristic signs, symptoms, and risk factors, rather than as routine investigations for common, nonspecific problems like fatigue, insomnia, stress, minor immunity concerns, mild blood sugar abnormalities, or overweight. Endocrine society guidelines recommend targeted cortisol testing for suspected primary adrenal insufficiency or Cushing syndrome in clearly defined high-risk scenarios, and they explicitly oppose generalized screening for hypercortisolism in the general population.^{[18][20][21][19]} Likewise, guidelines on male hypogonadism recommend sex hormone testing only in men with consistent and multiple manifestations of androgen deficiency plus reproducibly low testosterone, not in people whose only complaints are generic fatigue, sleep issues, stress, or weight gain.^[14][15][17] This guideline-driven approach, aligned with GRADE methodology, reflects a consensus to avoid overuse of hormone testing in low-probability settings and to focus on judicious, indication-based diagnostics that balance benefits, harms, and resource use.^[4]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Cortisol”

Rule: K.S.A. 65-2871(a)

See every doc bro advertising Adrenal fatigue and cortisol

Kyle A Potter is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Salivary Hormone Testing.

Salivary Hormone Testing

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Salivary Hormone Testing”

Rule: K.S.A. 65-2871(a)

Kyle A Potter is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Saliva testing assesses hormone balancing needs.

Saliva testing assesses hormone balancing needs

Supports

High-quality evidence supports saliva testing for specific hormones and niche clinical contexts, not as a general tool to determine “hormone balancing needs. ^[2][5] ” Several clinical and analytical studies show that salivary cortisol and cortisone can be accurate for assessing adrenal reserve and cortisol excess/deficiency and hydrocortisone replacement, especially when binding proteins make serum total cortisol misleading, and are endorsed in endocrine practice for selected uses. ^[4][49][50] Salivary testosterone measured by LC-MS/MS has been validated analytically and clinically, with good correlation to serum testosterone and acceptable precision, suggesting saliva can be a reliable matrix for some sex steroid measurements when using high-quality mass spectrometry methods. ^[47][48] Research and diagnostic reviews conclude that salivary steroid testing has a recognized place in research and in some diagnostic medicine applications, provided its limitations are acknowledged, indicating that saliva can be useful but within clearly defined indications rather than for broad “hormone balancing. ”

Contradicts

Mainstream clinical policies and guidelines explicitly state that salivary sex hormone testing is inaccurate and imprecise for general clinical use, showing large intra-individual variability and poor correlation with serum levels, particularly when exogenous hormones are used, and therefore consider it investigational or not medically necessary for screening, diagnosis, or monitoring of menopause, infertility, PMS, PCOS, osteoporosis, sexual dysfunction, and age-related conditions. ^{[2][4][47][48][49][50]} Professional bodies such as ACOG and ASRM have issued consensus statements that salivary testing does not offer accurate or precise assessment of hormone levels for tailoring hormone therapy, directly contradicting the idea that saliva testing can guide “hormone balancing” decisions across the board. ^[7] Reviews of salivary steroid testing emphasize that it is clearly not desirable for androgen assays, ovarian function assessment, or monitoring absorption of steroids from transdermal creams, which are common areas where influencers promote saliva panels for hormone balancing. Even where analytical validity is demonstrated (e. g. , LC-MS/MS assays measuring multiple steroids in saliva), these papers stress method development and feasibility, not broad clinical utility for routine dose-titration or holistic hormone balancing, and note that for several analytes results are only semi-quantitative or qualitative. Overall, the evidence base for using salivary testing to decide how to “balance” complex hormone regimens, especially in general wellness, menopause management, or bioidentical HRT, is weak or negative. ^[1][5]

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical position is that saliva is a useful, non-invasive matrix for selected hormone measurements (notably late-night salivary cortisol for Cushing syndrome screening, selected adrenal assessments, and some research applications) when high-quality, validated assays are used, but that serum (blood) testing remains the reference standard for most endocrine diagnosis and hormone therapy management. ^{[4][5][7][47][49][50]} Major guidelines and payer medical policies state that salivary hormone testing lacks sufficient clinical validity and is not medically necessary for routine evaluation or monitoring of sex hormones and most endocrine conditions, and professional societies advise against basing hormone therapy dosing or “balancing” decisions on salivary panels. ^[2][48] In practice, saliva hormone testing is accepted as a niche tool in tightly defined contexts and research, not as a general method to assess an individual’s overall “hormone balancing needs,” which is viewed as a marketing concept rather than an evidence-based clinical framework. ^[1]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Saliva testing is an easy and noninvasive way of assessing your hormone balancing needs”

Rule: K.S.A. 65-2871(a)

Kyle A Potter is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure You need to know your specific hormone imbalances to achieve optimal health.

You need to know your specific hormone imbalances to achieve optimal health

Supports

High-quality endocrine guidelines support hormone testing when there are specific symptoms, signs, or clinical suspicions of endocrine disease, such as suspected hypogonadism, adrenal insufficiency, androgen excess, hypopituitarism, or menopause-related diagnostic questions. ^[39][41][42] In some situations, targeted hormone testing changes management and is part of standard care, for example in men with suspected hypogonadism or women with suspected androgen excess. ^[40]

Contradicts

The claim is too broad because major guidelines do not support routine screening of generally healthy people for hormone abnormalities to achieve “optimal health. ” The Endocrine Society specifically recommends against routine screening of men in the general population for hypogonadism. ^[39][41][42] European guidance for obesity also says testing for hypercortisolism and IGF1/GH is not routinely applied, and that biochemical testing for hypogonadism is not routinely recommended in obesity without appropriate suspicion. Guidance on sex hormone testing also notes limited value for some common contexts, such as menopause diagnosis and many subfertility evaluations, where history and clinical features are more important than broad hormone panels. ^[40] The phrase “optimal health” is not an evidence-based indication by itself, and I found no randomized trials or systematic reviews showing that knowing one’s specific hormone imbalances in otherwise unselected adults improves overall health outcomes. The indexed papers provided are not directly relevant to the claim and do not provide evidence that broad hormone profiling is necessary for health optimization.

Mainstream view

Mainstream medical practice is that hormone testing should be ordered when there is a specific clinical indication, not as a general requirement for optimal health. ^[39][41][42] Broad testing without symptoms or a defined suspicion is usually low-yield, can produce misleading results because hormone levels vary by time of day, menstrual cycle, illness, medications, and assay limitations, and does not have evidence that it improves health in otherwise healthy people. ^[40]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Your hormones are like your fingerprints and in order to achieve optimal health, you need to know what your specific imbalances are”

Rule: K.S.A. 65-2871(a)

See every doc bro advertising Hormone imbalance and replacement

Kyle A Potter is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Saliva testing is the most accurate tool to measure and monitor hormone status.

Saliva testing is the most accurate tool to measure and monitor hormone status

Supports

Salivary testing can validly measure several steroid hormones (e.g., cortisol, testosterone, estradiol, progesterone, DHEA) and reflect the free, biologically active fraction, making it useful for research and for assessing dynamic patterns such as diurnal cortisol or menstrual cycle changes.^[18] Some comparative and correlation studies report strong correlations between salivary and plasma free levels for cortisol and testosterone and moderate correlations for estradiol and progesterone, suggesting saliva can reasonably track hormone fluctuations when carefully timed and processed.^[17][14] Research has shown that salivary assays can achieve acceptable analytical sensitivity and intra/inter-assay precision for estradiol, progesterone, and free testosterone when modern immunoassay or LC-based methods are used, supporting technical feasibility.^[14][20] Population-based and psychobiological studies have successfully used salivary sex hormone measurements (estradiol, progesterone, DHEA, testosterone) with a high proportion of adequate specimens, indicating saliva is a practical matrix for large-scale hormone research.^[12][13] Reliability studies indicate that salivary cortisol and testosterone in particular can be highly reliable across repeated measures, and progesterone reasonably reliable when data are aggregated, underscoring utility for repeated sampling and within-person designs.^[11] Machine‑learning work on menstrual cycle staging shows that multiple, well‑timed salivary estradiol and progesterone samples can improve phase prediction when other methods (cycle counting, ovulation kits) are inadequate, demonstrating that salivary hormones can add value in specific research scenarios.^[4] Overall, the research literature supports saliva as a useful and valid medium for measuring certain hormones under controlled conditions, especially for free steroid hormones and for research or monitoring of patterns rather than absolute diagnostic thresholds.^[13][18]

Contradicts

Major professional societies and payer medical policies explicitly state that salivary hormone testing is not accurate or precise enough to be relied upon for clinical hormone management, particularly for tailoring menopausal hormone therapy or other systemic hormone treatments.^[6][8][19] Guidance from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, and the North American Menopause Society describes salivary hormone testing as inaccurate, unreliable, and lacking evidence that salivary levels are biologically meaningful for dosing decisions, directly contradicting the claim that it is the most accurate tool to measure and monitor hormone status.^[6][8][19] These policies emphasize that salivary assessments often show large within‑patient variability, poor correlation with serum levels (especially with exogenous hormone use), and marked differences between serum, saliva, and tissue concentrations, and note that there are no FDA‑approved salivary tests for routine steroid hormone measurement.^[8][19] A critical review of salivary steroid assays concluded that, although technically feasible, multiple samples are usually required for reliable information; the diagnostic accuracy of salivary tests must be at least equal to serum or urine for routine use, and that this standard was not met, so introducing these assays into routine laboratory testing was not justified.^[16] Scoping and methodological reviews highlight complexities in salivary (and urinary) hormone detection—issues with sensitivity, timing, circadian and cycle effects, and assay variability—which collectively indicate that saliva is not a universally superior or most accurate matrix compared with well‑validated serum assays.^[20][4] Even supportive research acknowledges that larger validation studies are still needed to fully establish the strength and consistency of correlations between salivary and blood concentrations for sex steroids, and that accuracy depends heavily on timing, menstrual phase, and assay quality.^[14][17] Taken together, these guideline and policy statements plus methodological concerns directly contradict the influencer’s assertion that saliva testing is the most accurate tool for measuring and monitoring overall hormone status in routine clinical practice.

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical and scientific position is that salivary hormone testing is a useful research tool and can reliably capture certain dynamic endocrine patterns (especially free cortisol and, to a lesser extent, some sex steroids) under controlled conditions, but it is not the most accurate nor the preferred method for general clinical assessment and monitoring of hormone status. ^{[54][48][47][55]} For most endocrine and reproductive conditions, validated serum (and in some cases urine) assays remain the standard for diagnosis, treatment decisions, and therapy monitoring because they have better established accuracy, precision, and clinical outcome data. Professional organizations such as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, and the North American Menopause Society explicitly advise against using salivary hormone testing to guide dosing of menopausal or other

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Saliva testing is the most accurate tool to measure and monitor hormone status”

Rule: K.S.A. 65-2871(a)

Kyle A Potter is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to advertise ALCAT food sensitivity testing can identify and verify food reactions as within their scope of practice.

ALCAT food sensitivity testing can identify and verify food reactions

Supports

The manufacturer claims the ALCAT test has been validated with double-blind, placebo-controlled challenge protocols and reports high agreement with food challenge outcomes, but these claims come from non-independent commercial materials rather than high-quality peer-reviewed evidence. ^{[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][56][57][58][59]}

Contradicts

Independent medical reviews of unconventional food-allergy tests report that cytotoxic testing such as ALCAT has poor reproducibility, does not correlate well with conventional allergy testing, and should not be used to diagnose food allergy or hypersensitivity. The peer-reviewed evidence base provided here does not include a systematic review, meta-analysis, or major guideline supporting ALCAT, and the broader literature on validated food allergy testing instead supports skin prick testing, serum specific IgE, and basophil activation testing in selected settings, not ALCAT. ^{[1][5][6][56][57][58][59]}

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical view is that ALCAT food sensitivity testing is not a validated way to identify or verify food reactions and is not recommended for diagnosing food allergy or intolerance. ^[57][58][59] Clinicians generally rely on a careful history, elimination and re-challenge when appropriate, and validated tests such as specific IgE, skin prick testing, and supervised oral food challenge depending on the suspected mechanism. ^[4]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“The ALCAT test can scientifically identify and verify your reactions to certain foods by measuring your intolerance”

Rule: K.S.A. 65-2871(a)

Kyle A Potter is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Food sensitivity testing can determine which foods disrupt immune system, digestive system, and brain chemistry.

Food sensitivity testing can determine which foods disrupt immune system, digestive system, and brain chemistry

Supports

High-quality evidence specifically supporting commercial food sensitivity testing (especially IgG food panels) as a reliable way to determine which foods disrupt the immune system, digestive system, and brain chemistry is very limited and largely preliminary. ^[5][61] Some observational work shows associations between food-specific IgG antibodies and intestinal permeability biomarkers, suggesting a possible link between IgG reactivity to foods and gut barrier function, which is part of immune and digestive physiology. ^[60] However, these studies are correlational and do not establish that testing and eliminating IgG-positive foods improves clinical outcomes or brain chemistry in a predictable, individualized way. ^[2] Broader nutrition research supports that overall dietary patterns (such as Mediterranean or MIND diets) can influence cognition and neuroinflammatory conditions, which implies that diet can affect brain chemistry and immune function, but this does not validate food sensitivity panel testing as the mechanism for identifying harmful foods. ^[4][62][63]

Contradicts

Multiple major allergy and immunology organizations and systematic evidence reviews explicitly state that food-specific IgG (including IgG4) testing is not a validated diagnostic tool for food allergy, food intolerance, or food sensitivity, and should not be used to identify foods causing symptoms or adverse immune reactions. ^{[60][61][62][63]} Consensus statements emphasize that IgG antibodies to foods most often reflect exposure and sometimes tolerance, not immune-mediated pathology, and that many asymptomatic individuals have high food-specific IgG levels. Position papers note that these tests lack clinical relevance, are not supported by controlled trials, and can lead to unnecessary, nutritionally risky elimination diets. ^[2] For conditions like irritable bowel syndrome, controlled trials and reviews report that IgG-based elimination diets show at best modest and inconsistent benefit, reinforcing that such testing does not reliably identify symptom-triggering foods. Overall, high-quality guidelines and expert consensus directly contradict the claim that food sensitivity testing can accurately determine which foods disrupt the immune system, digestive system, or brain chemistry. ^[5]

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical and scientific position is that commercial food sensitivity tests, particularly IgG food panels, are not validated tools for diagnosing adverse reactions to food or for determining which foods are disrupting immune function, digestion, or brain chemistry. ^[60][61][62] Standard practice for immune-mediated food allergy relies on history, skin-prick testing, specific IgE testing, and oral food challenges, not IgG-based sensitivity panels. ^[63] Professional societies in allergy and immunology advise against using IgG or IgG4 food tests for diagnosing allergy or intolerance, and they caution that such tests mainly reflect normal exposure and immune tolerance rather than harmful reactions. While diet is recognized as an important modifier of gut health, immune activity, and neurologic function, mainstream guidance is to use evidence-based dietary interventions (e. ^[1] g. , low FODMAP for IBS, structured elimination and reintroduction under clinical supervision, or whole-diet patterns for cardiometabolic or neurocognitive health) rather than relying on unvalidated food sensitivity panels to map immune, digestive, or brain disruptions. ^[2]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“we can determine which foods are disrupting your immune system, digestive system and brain chemistry”

Rule: K.S.A. 65-2871(a)

Kyle A Potter is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Functional Medicine.

Functional Medicine

Supports

There is moderate-quality evidence that chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy is about as effective as other recommended therapies (such as standard medical care and physical therapy) for short‑term pain relief and small improvements in function in adults with chronic low back pain.^[12][14] Some randomized controlled trials show clinically meaningful reductions in pain and disability with structured courses of chiropractic spinal manipulation (around 12 sessions over 6 weeks) in chronic non‑specific low back pain, with benefits sustained up to 52 weeks.^{[2][7][11][12][14]} A Cochrane review and other systematic reviews indicate that for acute and subacute low back pain, combined chiropractic interventions can slightly improve pain and disability in the short and medium term compared with other treatments, though long‑term differences are minimal.^{[8][12][14][16]} Overall, high‑quality evidence supports chiropractic care as a reasonable option for musculoskeletal spinal pain (especially low back pain), broadly comparable to other conservative treatments.^[5][12][14] contradicts

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Functional Medicine”

Rule: K.S.A. 65-2871(a)