Patrick Garrett alias The Root-Cause Adjuster

Patrick Garrett is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Autoimmune Conditions.

Autoimmune Conditions

Supports

There is some very preliminary evidence that chiropractic spinal manipulation can transiently change immune-related biomarkers such as cytokines (e.g., IL-6, TNF-α) in adults with spinal pain, suggesting a possible modulation of inflammatory pathways, but these studies do not involve patients with specific autoimmune diseases and do not demonstrate clinical benefit on autoimmune disease activity or outcomes.^[3][9] A pilot randomized trial is underway to examine effects of thoracic spinal manipulation on cytokine levels in patients with relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis, but this is an exploratory biomarker study and not evidence of disease control or remission in autoimmune disease. Overall, existing randomized trials and mechanistic studies suggest at most short-term changes in immune or stress biomarkers, not disease-modifying effects in autoimmune conditions.^[2][9]

Contradicts

A recent systematic review of spinal manipulative therapy and immune or infectious disease outcomes found no clinical studies demonstrating that spinal manipulation prevents infectious disease or improves disease-specific outcomes; the authors concluded there is no clinical evidence to support or refute claims that spinal manipulation meaningfully changes immune system outcomes, and that the clinical relevance of short-term biomarker changes is unknown.^[3] A united position statement from chiropractic researchers similarly concluded that no valid clinical evidence shows chiropractic care can enhance immune function or prevent infections, and emphasized that claims of immune enhancement are unsubstantiated.^[6] Major, contemporary autoimmune disease guidelines in rheumatology, gastroenterology, neurology, and related specialties focus on immunosuppressive or immunomodulatory drugs (e.g., corticosteroids, disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, biologics, targeted synthetic agents), adjunctive nutritional care, and appropriate vaccination, and do not recommend chiropractic or spinal manipulation as a disease-modifying treatment for autoimmune conditions.^[11][14] Guidelines for systemic lupus erythematosus, rheumatoid arthritis, inflammatory bowel disease, and other autoimmune diseases specify pharmacologic, nutritional, and rehabilitative strategies but do not list chiropractic care as a therapy for controlling autoimmune disease activity, preventing flares, or modifying long-term outcomes.^{[2][11][13][14][18]} Existing evidence for chiropractic care in comorbid neurological conditions (e.g., Alzheimer’s or Parkinson’s disease) is limited to small pilot trials assessing EEG changes and does not involve autoimmune pathophysiology or clinical autoimmune endpoints.^[21] Overall, claims that chiropractic treatment can treat or control autoimmune diseases themselves are not supported by randomized clinical trials, systematic reviews, or major guidelines.

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical and scientific view is that autoimmune diseases are driven by dysregulated immune responses requiring disease-specific, evidence-based immunomodulatory therapies (such as corticosteroids, conventional and biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, targeted synthetic agents, and sometimes stem cell or other advanced therapies), along with supportive measures including clinical nutrition, rehabilitation, and vaccination.^{[2][11][14][18][24]} Clinical practice guidelines across rheumatology, gastroenterology, neurology, and related fields consistently recommend pharmacologic immunosuppression or immunomodulation as the mainstay of treatment and do not recommend chiropractic or spinal manipulation as a primary or disease-modifying therapy for autoimmune conditions.^{[11][13][14][18]} Nonpharmacologic interventions (exercise, physical therapy, psychosocial support) may be recommended for symptom relief and function, but chiropractic care is regarded, at most, as an optional musculoskeletal or pain-management modality without evidence that it alters autoimmune disease activity, prevents progression, or replaces standard immunosuppressive treatment.^[11][14][18] Mainstream experts and guideline panels therefore consider chiropractic adjustments inappropriate as a stand-alone treatment for autoimmune diseases and emphasize maintaining or initiating guideline-directed immunomodulatory therapy and other standard care measures.

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Autoimmune Conditions”

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

See every doc bro advertising Autoimmune disease

Patrick Garrett is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Autoimmune Diabetes.

Autoimmune Diabetes

Supports

There is no high-quality evidence from randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, or major clinical guidelines showing that chiropractic treatment can treat, reverse, or meaningfully modify autoimmune diabetes (type 1 diabetes). ^[4][6][13] Available literature on chiropractic and diabetes consists mainly of case reports, small uncontrolled studies, and low- to fair-quality complementary medicine trials, which are considered very low-level evidence and cannot establish causality or clinical efficacy. ^[14][15] Contemporary management guidelines for chronic medical conditions and nutrition (e. ^[5] g. , ASPEN-FELANPE and ESPEN guidelines) emphasize evidence-based pharmacologic and nutritional therapies and do not list chiropractic care as a treatment for autoimmune diseases such as type 1 diabetes. ^[1][2]

Contradicts

The pathophysiology of autoimmune (type 1) diabetes involves immune-mediated destruction of pancreatic beta cells, leading to absolute insulin deficiency; this process is not known to be altered by spinal manipulation or other chiropractic interventions in any robust clinical studies. ^[2][4][13] Modern evidence-based care for serious chronic diseases like hypertension and diabetes is guideline-driven and relies on therapies that have been validated in high-quality trials, with explicit frameworks for rating evidence quality and avoiding imprecise or low-certainty claims. ^{[1][6][14][15]} In that framework, single case reports and small, nonreplicated studies about manual therapies affecting glucose or HbA1c are rated as very low-certainty and are insufficient to support therapeutic claims. No major guideline in internal medicine, endocrinology, or nutrition currently recommends chiropractic care as a disease-modifying treatment for autoimmune diabetes, and withholding or reducing necessary insulin based on such claims would conflict with mainstream standards of care and could be dangerous. ^[3][5]

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical position is that autoimmune diabetes (type 1 diabetes) is a lifelong condition requiring intensive insulin therapy, glucose monitoring, and evidence-based adjuncts such as automated insulin delivery systems, continuous glucose monitoring, and occasionally immunomodulatory drugs in research settings. ^{[1][4][6][7][14][15]} Chiropractic care is not recognized as a treatment for the autoimmune process or for core glycemic control; at most, it may be used as an adjunct for musculoskeletal complaints in people who also have diabetes, similar to its use in the general population. Major guidelines in clinical nutrition and chronic disease management focus on pharmacologic therapy, nutrition support, technology-based insulin delivery, and structured self-management, and do not include chiropractic or spinal manipulation as a recommended therapy for autoimmune diabetes. ^{[2][3][5][13]}

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Autoimmune Diabetes”

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

See every doc bro advertising Diabetes and blood sugar

Patrick Garrett is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Cancer Risk Reduction.

Cancer Risk Reduction

Supports

High-quality evidence shows that overall cancer risk can be reduced through combined lifestyle measures, but the claim as stated (“Cancer Risk Reduction”) is too vague to map to a single intervention or product. Large prospective cohort meta-analyses indicate that combinations of healthy lifestyle factors (not smoking, healthy weight, physical activity, healthy diet, limited alcohol) are associated with substantial reductions in incident cancer and cancer mortality compared with unhealthy lifestyles. ^[17][18] These studies consistently show dose–response patterns: the more healthy behaviors adopted, the lower the risk. Major guidelines from international bodies synthesize systematic reviews and conclude that up to roughly 30–40% of common cancers are preventable through such modifiable behaviors, especially tobacco control, weight management, diet, alcohol limitation, physical activity, and sun protection. Clinical guideline documents on primary cancer prevention similarly recommend maintaining a healthy weight across life, avoiding tobacco, limiting alcohol, consuming predominantly plant-based diets rich in vegetables, fruits, whole grains and legumes, and engaging in regular physical activity, all based on graded evidence from observational studies, randomized trials where available, and mechanistic data. ^[20] Recent systematic reviews of lifestyle interventions for specific cancers (e. ^[19] g. , breast and endometrial) suggest that weight loss programs and combined diet–exercise interventions can improve adiposity and metabolic markers (insulin, IGF-1, inflammatory markers), which are plausibly linked to reduced future cancer risk, and may modestly reduce risk or improve prognosis, although long-term cancer endpoints are rarely captured. Overall, high-level evidence supports the general statement that adopting evidence-based lifestyle patterns can reduce risk of several major cancers, but it does not validate unspecified products or single quick fixes.

Contradicts

The influencer’s claim is unspecified and broad; without identifying a particular behavior, drug, supplement, or device, it implicitly suggests a generic or possibly single-step method to “reduce cancer risk,” which is not supported by high-quality evidence. Most direct evidence linking interventions to reduced cancer incidence or mortality comes from large observational cohorts rather than randomized trials; systematic reviews of randomized lifestyle or diet interventions often find limited or inconsistent effects on actual cancer endpoints, emphasizing that strong causal claims about large risk reductions from short-term or single interventions are not justified. ^[17] For many cancers, especially those strongly driven by aging, genetics, or unavoidable environmental exposures, lifestyle changes may lower risk but cannot eliminate it, so any claim implying near-complete protection is misleading. Guidelines explicitly caution against relying on dietary supplements as a primary cancer prevention strategy and note that some supplements have been associated with increased cancer risk in trials; this directly contradicts common influencer narratives that pills or “biohacks” alone can meaningfully reduce cancer risk. ^[20] Systematic reviews of lifestyle interventions in cancer survivors and high-risk populations repeatedly highlight heterogeneity, short follow-up, small sample sizes, and surrogate outcomes, all of which mean that evidence for substantial additional risk reduction beyond well-established factors (like tobacco cessation) is modest and uncertain. ^[18][19] Thus, broad, unqualified claims of cancer risk reduction—especially if tied to a specific unproven product or protocol—are not supported and overstate what current evidence can reliably show.

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical and scientific position is that cancer risk can be reduced, but only partially, and primarily through a combination of evidence-based behaviors rather than single products or simple hacks. ^[17] Major international cancer prevention guidelines converge on the following core messages: do not smoke or use tobacco; maintain a healthy body weight and avoid obesity; be physically active on a regular basis; follow a predominantly plant-based dietary pattern rich in vegetables, fruits, whole grains, and legumes while limiting red and processed meat, energy-dense ultra-processed foods, and sugar-sweetened beverages; limit or avoid alcohol; protect skin from excessive ultraviolet exposure; and adhere to recommended vaccination and screening programs (e. ^[19][20] g. , HPV vaccination, cervical and colorectal cancer screening). These recommendations are based on large bodies of epidemiologic data, mechanistic research, and, in some domains (tobacco control, HPV vaccination, H. pylori eradication), randomized or quasi-experimental evidence directly showing reduced cancer incidence. Mainstream experts emphasize that even full adherence to these recommendations cannot guarantee that an individual will not develop cancer; rather, they shift population risk and reduce the probability or burden of certain cancer types. They also stress that generalized claims of cancer risk reduction must be contextualized by cancer type, baseline risk, and the specific intervention: some risk factors (e. ^[18] g. , tobacco) have very strong evidence and large effect sizes, while others (specific dietary patterns, supplements, or niche lifestyle practices) have weaker or inconsistent evidence. As a result, reputable guidelines support nuanced, multifactorial prevention approaches and reject marketing-style claims that a single regimen or product can

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Cancer Risk Reduction”

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

Patrick Garrett is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Crohn's Disease.

Crohn's Disease

Supports

There is no high-quality evidence such as randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, or major society guidelines showing that chiropractic spinal manipulation can treat Crohn’s disease itself or induce remission. The small controlled study from the chiropractic literature reporting long-term remission in Crohn’s patients after spinal adjustment is not indexed in major medical databases, appears methodologically weak (small sample, unclear randomization, no blinding, no standardized disease activity measures), and is not cited in mainstream IBD guidelines.^[19] Soft, non‑manipulative osteopathic techniques and osteopathy for IBS‑like symptoms in Crohn’s disease have randomized controlled trials showing improvements in quality of life and abdominal discomfort but not clear changes in core disease activity; these are more analogous to gentle manual therapy than to traditional high‑velocity chiropractic manipulation.^[12][21] Mind‑body and stress‑management programs, as well as cognitive‑behavioral and mindfulness‑based interventions, have RCT evidence for improving quality of life and some inflammatory markers in Crohn’s disease, showing that non‑pharmacologic adjuncts can support overall management but without replacing standard medical therapy.^[6][9]

Contradicts

Major nutrition guidelines for inflammatory bowel disease (ESPEN) emphasize evidence‑based dietary, enteral, and parenteral nutrition strategies, and do not list chiropractic treatment as a therapeutic option for Crohn’s disease.^[1][2][3][5] These guidelines focus on pharmacologic therapy (biologics, immunomodulators), structured treat‑to‑target strategies, diet, and surgery as the pillars of care.^{[1][2][3][5][8][10]} A peer‑reviewed review on chiropractic treatment for gastrointestinal problems concludes that there is no supportive evidence that chiropractic is an effective treatment for gastrointestinal disorders, explicitly noting the absence of high‑quality data for conditions like Crohn’s disease.^[20] Randomized trials in Crohn’s disease consistently evaluate biologic agents, combination therapy with methotrexate, dietary exclusion regimens, fecal microbiota transplantation, endoscopic versus surgical management of strictures, and psychological interventions, but they do not include chiropractic manipulation as a treatment arm, underscoring that it is outside evidence‑based therapeutic pathways.^{[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10]} Existing chiropractic and subluxation‑centered case reports and small uncontrolled series claiming remission in Crohn’s disease represent very low‑quality evidence (case reports, non‑blinded, high risk of bias) and are not incorporated into mainstream guidelines or systematic reviews; they therefore cannot substantiate a therapeutic claim for Crohn’s disease.

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical view is that Crohn’s disease is a chronic immune‑mediated inflammatory bowel disease requiring evidence‑based pharmacologic treatment (such as tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, other biologics, and immunomodulators), structured treat‑to‑target monitoring, nutritional support, and surgery when indicated.^{[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][10]} Major clinical nutrition guidelines for IBD recommend individualized diets, enteral nutrition, and parenteral nutrition when appropriate, integrated with standard medical therapy, and do not endorse chiropractic as a disease‑modifying treatment.^[1][2][3][5] High‑quality trials and guidelines support adjunctive non‑pharmacologic strategies such as stress‑management, mindfulness‑based and cognitive‑behavioral interventions, and gentle manual therapies for quality‑of‑life and symptom relief in selected patients, but these are viewed as complementary to, not replacements for, established medical management.^{[6][9][12][21]} Overall, mainstream gastroenterology regards chiropractic spinal manipulation as unproven for Crohn’s disease, potentially acceptable only as an adjunct for musculoskeletal complaints or general well‑being, provided it does not delay or interfere with standard IBD care.

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Crohn's Disease”

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

See every doc bro advertising Crohn disease and colitis

Patrick Garrett is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Depression.

Depression

Supports

Evidence specifically testing chiropractic spinal manipulation as a primary treatment for depression is sparse and low quality. One systematic review of psychological outcomes in randomized trials of spinal manipulation (PRISM) found small, short‑term improvements in psychological measures compared with verbal interventions, with effects diminishing and losing statistical significance by 6–12 months; this suggests only modest, transient benefit and not a robust antidepressant effect. ^[28] Separate systematic reviews and meta‑analyses of manual therapies (osteopathic interventions, massage, acupressure, craniosacral, energetic therapies) report reductions in depression scores in adults, particularly in populations with pain, but these are not chiropractic‑specific and often involve different modalities; they support the idea that hands‑on physical treatments can indirectly improve mood via pain, tension, and sleep rather than directly treating major depressive disorder. ^[4][27][29] A recent systematic review of manual therapy modalities and depression reported that 5 of 6 chiropractic manipulation studies showed statistically significant reductions in depressive symptoms, but the overall evidence quality was rated low to moderate, studies were small and heterogeneous, and manual therapy was framed as a complementary rather than primary treatment for depression. ^[6][7][26] Case reports and small uncontrolled series describe individual patients with chronic pain and comorbid depression experiencing improvement in depressive symptoms after courses of chiropractic care, but such uncontrolled observations are considered very weak evidence and mainly hypothesis‑generating. Psychodynamic psychotherapy is supported by substantial controlled trials and clinical experience as an effective treatment for depression and is endorsed in psychiatric practice, illustrating that the mainstream evidence base for depression focuses on psychotherapies and pharmacologic treatments rather than chiropractic. ^[2][25]

Contradicts

High‑quality guidelines and major evidence syntheses for depression do not recommend chiropractic care as a treatment for depressive disorders. ^[6] The psychodynamic treatment of depression review describes talk‑therapy approaches (psychodynamic psychotherapy and other evidence‑based psychotherapies) and positions them as central modalities for managing depressive illness, without mentioning chiropractic or spinal manipulation as a therapeutic option. ^{[1][7][25][26][27][28]} More broadly, major clinical guidelines for mental health and primary care, as reflected in the psychiatric and internal medicine literature, emphasize antidepressant medications, evidence‑based psychotherapies (such as CBT, interpersonal therapy, psychodynamic therapy), and structured lifestyle interventions; chiropractic is not included among first‑line or even standard adjunctive treatments for depression. ^[2] Even within musculoskeletal care, evidence‑based guidelines and task‑force reports indicate that psychological factors and mental health conditions are reasons for referral from chiropractors to mental health professionals, not conditions for which chiropractors themselves provide primary treatment, reinforcing that treatment of depression lies outside usual chiropractic scope of practice. ^[4] Existing manual‑therapy meta‑analyses and systematic reviews highlight serious limitations: small sample sizes, heterogeneous interventions and patient groups, inadequate blinding and control conditions, reliance on subjective outcomes, short follow‑up, and high or unclear risk of bias; authors consistently call for larger, higher‑quality randomized trials before any firm claims about treating major depressive disorder can be made. ^[29] Where RCTs include depression outcomes in back‑pain or chronic‑pain populations, depression scores often improve similarly across various physical‑therapy or manual‑therapy arms, suggesting that improvements reflect better pain, function, sleep, and overall quality of life rather than a specific antidepressant effect of chiropractic manipulation. Overall, the existing evidence base does not substantiate chiropractic treatment as an established, independently effective therapy for clinical depression, and any benefit appears indirect, modest, and not comparable to standard psychiatric treatments.

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical and scientific position is that depression is best treated with evidence‑based psychotherapies, pharmacologic antidepressants, and, where appropriate, other validated interventions (for example, digital CBT, mindfulness‑based programs, and sleep‑focused treatments), guided by psychiatric and primary‑care guidelines. ^{[1][2][5][6][25][27][29]} Psychodynamic psychotherapy is recognized as one of several established psychotherapeutic approaches with demonstrated efficacy for depressive disorders, alongside cognitive‑behavioral and interpersonal therapies. For somatic and neuromodulation approaches (such as electroconvulsive therapy or repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation), there is robust trial and guideline support in specific patient populations, but spinal manipulation and chiropractic care are not included among recommended treatments for depression. ^[7][28] Manual therapies, including chiropractic, may play a role in managing musculoskeletal pain, tension, and sleep disturbance, all of which can contribute to or exacerbate depressive symptoms, so they may be used as adjuncts in holistic care for patients whose primary complaints are pain, with mood improvements considered secondary and indirect. Major guidelines and professional statements emphasize that treating mental health conditions, including major depressive disorder, is outside the primary scope of chiropractic practice; chiropractors are expected to screen for mental health problems and refer ^[26]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Depression”

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

See every doc bro advertising Depression

Patrick Garrett is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Graves Disease.

Graves Disease

Supports

No high-quality evidence in the provided index papers supports chiropractic treatment for Graves disease. ^[4][6] The indexed papers are about hypertension, nutrition, headache, evidence grading, transfusion, and pericarditis, and none address Graves disease or chiropractic care directly . ^{[1][3][5][7][8]}

Contradicts

Graves disease is an autoimmune hyperthyroid condition, and standard evidence-based treatment is antithyroid drugs, radioactive iodine, or thyroidectomy, not chiropractic care. ^[1] The provided index papers do not supply any relevant clinical trial or guideline evidence for chiropractic treatment of Graves disease . ^[2][3][4][6] In the absence of controlled studies showing meaningful effects on thyroid autoimmunity, thyroid hormone levels, or clinical outcomes, the claim is unsupported by the evidence base. Chiropractic care may sometimes be used for musculoskeletal symptoms, but that does not establish efficacy for treating Graves disease.

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical view is that chiropractic treatment is not a recognized or evidence-based treatment for Graves disease. ^[1][4][6] Management is typically directed by endocrinology with antithyroid medication, radioactive iodine, surgery, and symptom control such as beta-blockers when indicated. ^[5]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Graves Disease”

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

See every doc bro advertising Thyroid disease and Hashimoto

Patrick Garrett is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure High Blood Pressure.

High Blood Pressure

Supports

There are several small randomized or controlled trials suggesting that specific types of chiropractic spinal manipulation can produce short‑term reductions in blood pressure in selected hypertensive patients. A pilot randomized, double‑blind, placebo‑controlled study of atlas (C1) vertebra realignment in stage 1 hypertensive patients reported marked reductions in systolic and diastolic blood pressure over about 8 weeks in the treated group compared with sham manipulation, of a magnitude comparable to two‑drug antihypertensive therapy.^{[6][7][10][13][15]} Other small randomized trials in patients with elevated blood pressure have found that thoracic spine adjustments (T1‑T5) can acutely lower systolic and diastolic pressure compared with placebo or no‑treatment controls.^[3][11][12] Observational practice‑based studies and case series of upper cervical or thoracic chiropractic adjustments report statistically significant decreases in arterial blood pressure among pre‑hypertensive and hypertensive subgroups after treatment.^[8] These trials together support that spinal manipulation, particularly targeted upper cervical procedures in carefully selected patients, can have a short‑term hypotensive effect and modestly improve blood pressure classification in some individuals.^{[3][5][6][7][8][11][12][13][15]}

Contradicts

Evidence is limited, heterogeneous, and often methodologically weak. A practice‑based randomized controlled pilot trial in essential hypertension found that mean changes in diastolic blood pressure did not differ meaningfully between chiropractic care, brief massage, and no‑treatment control, suggesting no clear advantage of adjustments over control conditions.^[5][9] A randomized clinical trial comparing chiropractic spinal manipulation plus diet versus diet alone for high‑normal or stage I hypertension showed no statistically significant additional blood pressure reduction from chiropractic manipulation.^[1] Some reports note that certain spinal manipulation techniques (e.g., toggle recoil) did not lower systolic or diastolic blood pressure compared with sham procedures, contradicting the idea that chiropractic reliably reduces blood pressure.^[14] The trials that do show benefit are small (often around 20–50 participants), short‑term, and frequently conducted in chiropractic practice settings with high risk of bias, limited blinding, and potential publication bias, and they have not been replicated in large, independent, multicenter RCTs.^{[3][5][6][7][8][11][12][13][15]} There are no high‑quality systematic reviews or major hypertension guidelines endorsing chiropractic or spinal manipulation as an established treatment for high blood pressure, and standard hypertension trials and care models focus on pharmacologic therapy and lifestyle changes (diet such as DASH, physical activity, weight loss, smoking cessation, and team‑based medical care), not chiropractic manipulation.^[18][19][22] Overall, existing evidence does not demonstrate sustained, long‑term blood pressure control or cardiovascular outcome benefits from chiropractic treatment in hypertensive patients, and in some contexts rapid hypotensive responses to manipulation are noted as potential safety concerns rather than therapeutic goals.^[6]

Mainstream view

Mainstream cardiovascular and hypertension practice considers high blood pressure a chronic condition best managed with validated lifestyle interventions (dietary modification such as DASH, sodium reduction, exercise, weight control, smoking cessation) and evidence‑based pharmacologic therapy, guided by large randomized trials and major society guidelines.^[18][19][22] Chiropractic or spinal manipulation is not recognized in major hypertension guidelines as a standard or recommended treatment for blood pressure control, and existing clinical evidence is viewed as preliminary, limited to small short‑term trials with inconsistent results. The prevailing view is that any blood pressure reductions observed after chiropractic manipulation may reflect non‑specific effects (e.g., changes in autonomic tone, anxiety reduction, measurement variability, regression to the mean) rather than a reliable, disease‑modifying antihypertensive therapy, and chiropractic care should not be used as a substitute for proven medical management of hypertension. Chiropractors may occasionally be involved in holistic care, but mainstream medicine regards their role in hypertension management, if any, as adjunctive and unproven rather than primary or definitive treatment.

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“High Blood Pressure”

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

See every doc bro advertising Heart disease and cholesterol

Patrick Garrett 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][6][30] 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). ^[34][31][35] This supports the possibility of a modest physiological effect but not the efficacy of chiropractic as a primary hypertension treatment. ^[4] 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][4][6][7][30]} 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. ^[31][35] 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. ^[34] 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][5][8][30]} 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. ^[4] 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. ^{[6][7][34][35]} 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][31]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Hypertension”

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

See every doc bro advertising Heart disease and cholesterol

Patrick Garrett is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Multiple Sclerosis.

Multiple Sclerosis

Supports

High-quality evidence on chiropractic treatment specifically for multiple sclerosis (MS) is very limited. ^{[6][36][37][38][39]} A recent small pilot randomized sham-controlled trial in relapsing–remitting MS found that thoracic spinal manipulation combined with trigger point therapy produced short‑term changes in several pro‑inflammatory cytokines and small, mostly non–clinically relevant changes in clinical outcomes compared with sham manipulation, suggesting possible immunological effects but not meaningful disease or disability improvement. ^[2][3][7] This supports, at most, a theoretical adjunctive role in modulating inflammatory biomarkers, not disease control or remission. Beyond MS, one randomized trial in people with subclinical spinal pain showed that 12 weeks of chiropractic care altered neurotrophic and inflammatory markers compared with sham care, which is biologically interesting but indirect and does not establish clinical benefit in MS. Overall, peer‑reviewed evidence supporting chiropractic as an effective treatment for MS (e. g. , reducing relapses, MRI activity, disability progression, or long‑term symptoms) is minimal and confined to exploratory biomarker studies rather than robust clinical endpoints.

Contradicts

Major MS guidelines consistently define evidence‑based treatment in terms of disease‑modifying therapies (DMTs) and do not recommend chiropractic care as a disease‑modifying or primary symptomatic therapy. ^{[2][6][7][36][39]} The American Academy of Neurology practice guideline on disease‑modifying therapies states that clinicians should counsel people with MS that DMTs are prescribed to reduce relapses and new MRI lesion activity, and explicitly notes that they are not prescribed for symptom improvement alone, underscoring that established MS care is focused on immune‑modulating drugs rather than manual therapies. ^[3][4][37] Contemporary international and national guidelines (e. g. , AAN, NICE, MENACTRIMS, CMSC, VA and other consensus statements) list interferons, glatiramer acetate, fumarates, teriflunomide, sphingosine‑1‑phosphate modulators, monoclonal antibodies (such as ocrelizumab, natalizumab, alemtuzumab), and other DMTs as core treatments and address corticosteroids for relapses and structured rehabilitation, but they do not include chiropractic manipulation as a recommended therapy for modifying disease course or key outcomes. ^[38] These guidelines are based on multiple large randomized controlled trials and meta‑analyses showing that DMTs reduce relapse rates, MRI lesion activity, and disability progression, whereas chiropractic has no comparable evidence base in MS. The available pilot trials of spinal manipulation in MS are underpowered, focus mainly on short‑term biomarker changes, and report mostly small clinical effects below thresholds for clinical relevance. There are no high‑quality trials demonstrating that chiropractic care reduces relapses, slows progression, or replaces or complements established DMTs. Therefore, any claim that chiropractic treatment is an effective or primary treatment for MS, or can substitute for guideline‑recommended therapies, is not supported and conflicts with mainstream evidence‑based practice. ^[1]

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical position is that multiple sclerosis is a chronic immune‑mediated demyelinating disease that should be managed with evidence‑based disease‑modifying therapies (DMTs) to reduce relapses, MRI lesion activity, and long‑term disability, supported by acute relapse treatment with high‑dose corticosteroids and multidisciplinary symptomatic rehabilitation. ^{[1][4][6][36][37][38]} National and international guidelines emphasize early initiation of appropriate DMTs tailored to disease activity and patient characteristics, ongoing MRI and clinical monitoring, and use of physical therapy, occupational therapy, and other rehabilitative and symptomatic interventions with demonstrated benefit, such as structured exercise programs, cognitive‑physical training, electrical stimulation systems, and selected nutritional or psychological adjuncts where evidence exists. ^[2][3][5][7] Chiropractic spinal manipulation is not recognized as a disease‑modifying treatment for MS and is not recommended in major guidelines as a core therapy; at best, it may be considered an experimental or adjunctive approach with unproven clinical benefit focused on musculoskeletal complaints. ^[39] Mainstream neurologic care advises that patients should not replace established DMTs and evidence‑based rehabilitation with chiropractic treatment and should only consider manual therapies, if at all, within a comprehensive care plan overseen by an MS specialist and with clear understanding that any effect on MS pathology or progression is unproven.

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Multiple Sclerosis”

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

See every doc bro advertising Multiple sclerosis

Patrick Garrett is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Polycystic Ovarian Syndrom (PCOS).

Polycystic Ovarian Syndrom (PCOS)

Supports

The peer-reviewed evidence base located here does not provide high-quality support for chiropractic treatment as a treatment for PCOS. The most relevant indexed evidence is a scoping review of chiropractic management of female infertility, which found that positive outcomes were mainly from case reports and that these temporal associations do not provide strong evidence that chiropractic care caused the improvement . ^[41][43] One chiropractic-adjacent report describing infertility resolution in a patient with PCOS was a case report, which is low-level evidence and cannot establish efficacy . A review of chiropractic research trends and guideline recommendations shows that chiropractic/spinal manipulation recommendations in major guidelines are for musculoskeletal conditions such as low back pain and neck pain, not PCOS . ^[40][42]

Contradicts

No systematic review, meta-analysis, randomized trial, or major PCOS guideline in the provided evidence supports chiropractic care as an established treatment for PCOS. ^[40][41][43] The 2023 International Evidence-Based PCOS Guideline materials identified here focus on diagnosis, cardiometabolic risk, sleep apnea, pregnancy outcomes, exercise, and medical therapies; they do not recommend chiropractic treatment for PCOS . The available chiropractic literature on PCOS is limited to low-quality case reports or related complementary-manual interventions such as osteopathic manipulation or visceral manipulation, which are not the same as chiropractic treatment and do not justify a PCOS treatment claim . ^[42] Evidence for manual therapies in general is largely specific to symptom management in musculoskeletal disorders, not endocrine correction of PCOS .

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical view is that chiropractic care is not a recognized or evidence-based treatment for PCOS. Standard PCOS management relies on lifestyle intervention, weight management when indicated, hormonal contraception for cycle control, anti-androgen therapy, ovulation induction for fertility, and other guideline-based medical care, with attention to metabolic and cardiovascular risk . ^[40][41][43] Any use of chiropractic care would be considered adjunctive at most, aimed at non-PCOS musculoskeletal complaints, not treatment of the syndrome itself .

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Polycystic Ovarian Syndrom (PCOS)”

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

See every doc bro advertising PCOS

Patrick Garrett is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Rheumatoid Arthritis.

Rheumatoid Arthritis

Supports

The only supportive evidence I found is weak and indirect: a small 2015 systematic review of non-invasive manual therapy in rheumatoid arthritis reported limited evidence for manipulation, mobilisation, massage, and exercise, and concluded that most such interventions require further high-quality research before confident clinical use. ^{[2][6][7][44][45][47]} Some narrative or low-level sources suggest possible symptom relief, but they do not establish efficacy for rheumatoid arthritis treatment and are not high-quality evidence.

Contradicts

The best available evidence and guidance do not support chiropractic treatment as a rheumatoid arthritis therapy. ^{[4][6][7][44][47]} A 2022 ACR guideline states that using chiropractic therapy is conditionally recommended against, noting the absence of evidence for direct management of RA. ^[1][46] The physiotherapy guideline source also advises against manual cervical spine manipulation in RA because of possible cervical instability, and it states that evidence for passive mobilization is insufficient. A review of chiropractic care for arthritis reports no evidence for rheumatoid arthritis and highlights potential adverse effects. ^[45] The safety concern is especially relevant because cervical spine manipulation can be contraindicated in RA due to atlanto-axial instability.

Mainstream view

Mainstream rheumatology considers chiropractic care, especially spinal manipulation, not to be a disease-modifying or evidence-based treatment for rheumatoid arthritis. ^{[1][44][45][46]} Standard RA care is pharmacologic disease control with DMARDs and, when appropriate, adjunctive exercise/rehabilitation; manual therapy may sometimes be considered only cautiously for symptom relief and not during active inflammation or when cervical instability is present. ^[5][7][47]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Rheumatoid Arthritis”

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

See every doc bro advertising Autoimmune disease

Patrick Garrett is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Type 1 Diabetes.

Type 1 Diabetes

Supports

High-quality evidence directly supporting chiropractic treatment as an effective therapy for Type 1 diabetes (i. ^{[4][6][7][48]} e. , improving glycemic control, reducing insulin needs, or altering autoimmune progression) is essentially absent. The available literature consists mainly of case reports and very small, uncontrolled studies, which are inherently low on the evidence hierarchy and cannot establish causality or generalize to the broader Type 1 diabetes population. Systematic reviews and major guidelines for diabetes management focus on insulin therapy, glucose monitoring, technology (e. ^[2][49] g. , hybrid closed-loop systems), and lifestyle interventions; they do not endorse chiropractic manipulation as a disease-modifying treatment for Type 1 diabetes. Large randomized trials and long-term follow-up studies such as DCCT/EDIC and modern trials of automated insulin delivery systems and adjunct pharmacotherapy demonstrate that improvements in glycemic control and outcomes in Type 1 diabetes are achieved through optimized insulin regimens, technology, and sometimes specific medications, not chiropractic interventions. This broad body of high-quality evidence indirectly shows that effective management rests on these established modalities and that any additional benefit from chiropractic care, if present, has not been demonstrated in rigorous trials. ^[1][14]

Contradicts

The absence of randomized controlled trials, meta-analyses, or guideline endorsements for chiropractic treatment of Type 1 diabetes itself contradicts any strong claim that chiropractic care can treat or significantly control the disease. ^[3][4] High-quality diabetes management guidelines and long-term RCTs consistently emphasize that Type 1 diabetes is characterized by autoimmune destruction of pancreatic beta cells and requires lifelong insulin replacement, with improvements in outcomes tied to intensive insulin therapy, automated insulin delivery systems, dietary interventions, and immunomodulatory approaches—not spinal manipulation or chiropractic adjustment. ^{[2][6][7][48][14]} These sources collectively show that insulin therapy and related technologies are the evidence-based standard of care, and no credible evidence indicates that chiropractic care can replace or substantially reduce the need for insulin in a predictable, reproducible way. ^[1] Moreover, where manual therapies around injection sites (e. g. , massage) have been studied, any effects on insulin absorption or glucose levels are localized and mechanistic, and they do not translate into a general recommendation to use manual therapy as primary treatment for Type 1 diabetes. Overall, the evidence base for Type 1 diabetes management makes chiropractic-focused claims appear speculative and unsupported, highlighting a clear mismatch between influencer claims and mainstream scientific data. ^[49]

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical and scientific position is that Type 1 diabetes is a chronic autoimmune condition causing near-complete loss of pancreatic beta-cell function and therefore absolute insulin deficiency. ^[4][49] Standard of care is lifelong insulin therapy delivered via multiple daily injections or insulin pump, combined with continuous glucose monitoring, and increasingly with hybrid or fully automated insulin delivery systems, plus education, diet, and exercise. ^[7] High-quality trials and long-term studies demonstrate that tight glycemic control through these means reduces microvascular and macrovascular complications and improves survival. ^[14] Major clinical guidelines and expert consensus documents do not recommend chiropractic care as a treatment for Type 1 diabetes itself. ^[2][48] Chiropractic or other manual therapies may be used for musculoskeletal pain or quality-of-life issues in people who happen to have diabetes, but they are not considered disease-modifying or primary metabolic treatments. Any claims that chiropractic adjustments can control blood sugar, reverse autoimmunity, or meaningfully reduce insulin requirements in a predictable way are outside the mainstream evidence-based view. ^[1][6]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Type 1 Diabetes”

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

See every doc bro advertising Diabetes and blood sugar

Patrick Garrett is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Ulcerative Colitis.

Ulcerative Colitis

Supports

No high-quality evidence in the provided index papers supports chiropractor treatment as a treatment for ulcerative colitis. ^[6] The only ulcerative-colitis-specific guideline in the list addresses clinical nutrition in inflammatory bowel disease, not chiropractic care, and it recommends nutrition support as adjunctive care rather than manual spinal treatment . ^[2][3][4][5]

Contradicts

The claim is contradicted by the lack of ulcerative colitis treatment recommendations for chiropractic care in the indexed guideline literature; the available IBD guideline focuses on nutrition management and does not include chiropractic manipulation as a therapy . ^[1][4][5][7] More broadly, chiropractic treatment is not an established evidence-based treatment for inflammatory bowel disease in major GI guidance, and the indexed papers do not provide RCTs, meta-analyses, or systematic reviews showing benefit for ulcerative colitis. ^[3][6] Because the indexed list contains no direct chiropractic-UC trials, the evidence base for the claim is weak and indirect rather than supportive.

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical view is that ulcerative colitis should be managed with gastroenterology-directed therapy, including anti-inflammatory, immunomodulatory, biologic, nutritional, and when needed surgical approaches; chiropractic care is not recognized as a disease-modifying treatment for ulcerative colitis. ^[3][4][5][7] Supportive care such as nutrition may be used adjunctively, but chiropractic treatment is not part of standard evidence-based UC management . ^[1]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Ulcerative Colitis”

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

See every doc bro advertising Crohn disease and colitis

Patrick Garrett is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Autism.

Autism

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Autism”

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

See every doc bro advertising Autism

Patrick Garrett is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Celiac Dease.

Celiac Dease

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Celiac Dease”

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

See every doc bro advertising Autoimmune disease

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

Diabetes

Supports

There is no high-quality evidence from randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, or major clinical guidelines showing that chiropractic treatment can treat, reverse, or meaningfully modify autoimmune diabetes (type 1 diabetes). ^[4][6][13] Available literature on chiropractic and diabetes consists mainly of case reports, small uncontrolled studies, and low- to fair-quality complementary medicine trials, which are considered very low-level evidence and cannot establish causality or clinical efficacy. ^[14][15] Contemporary management guidelines for chronic medical conditions and nutrition (e. ^[5] g. , ASPEN-FELANPE and ESPEN guidelines) emphasize evidence-based pharmacologic and nutritional therapies and do not list chiropractic care as a treatment for autoimmune diseases such as type 1 diabetes. ^[1][2]

Contradicts

The pathophysiology of autoimmune (type 1) diabetes involves immune-mediated destruction of pancreatic beta cells, leading to absolute insulin deficiency; this process is not known to be altered by spinal manipulation or other chiropractic interventions in any robust clinical studies. ^[2][4][13] Modern evidence-based care for serious chronic diseases like hypertension and diabetes is guideline-driven and relies on therapies that have been validated in high-quality trials, with explicit frameworks for rating evidence quality and avoiding imprecise or low-certainty claims. ^{[1][6][14][15]} In that framework, single case reports and small, nonreplicated studies about manual therapies affecting glucose or HbA1c are rated as very low-certainty and are insufficient to support therapeutic claims. No major guideline in internal medicine, endocrinology, or nutrition currently recommends chiropractic care as a disease-modifying treatment for autoimmune diabetes, and withholding or reducing necessary insulin based on such claims would conflict with mainstream standards of care and could be dangerous. ^[3][5]

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical position is that autoimmune diabetes (type 1 diabetes) is a lifelong condition requiring intensive insulin therapy, glucose monitoring, and evidence-based adjuncts such as automated insulin delivery systems, continuous glucose monitoring, and occasionally immunomodulatory drugs in research settings. ^{[1][4][6][7][14][15]} Chiropractic care is not recognized as a treatment for the autoimmune process or for core glycemic control; at most, it may be used as an adjunct for musculoskeletal complaints in people who also have diabetes, similar to its use in the general population. Major guidelines in clinical nutrition and chronic disease management focus on pharmacologic therapy, nutrition support, technology-based insulin delivery, and structured self-management, and do not include chiropractic or spinal manipulation as a recommended therapy for autoimmune diabetes. ^{[2][3][5][13]}

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Diabetes”

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

See every doc bro advertising Diabetes and blood sugar

Patrick Garrett is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Fatty Liver Disease.

Fatty Liver Disease

Supports

High-quality evidence for nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD, now often termed MASLD/MASH) emphasizes metabolic risk factors and management via lifestyle, pharmacologic, and sometimes device‑based or complementary interventions; it does not specifically evaluate chiropractic spinal manipulation as a direct treatment for fatty liver disease.^[7] Major guidelines and expert consensus on metabolic fatty liver disease describe weight loss, diet (e.g., Mediterranean-style), management of diabetes and dyslipidemia, and emerging drugs as the core of therapy, with no mention of chiropractic care as a disease‑modifying treatment.^[7] Some non-chiropractic manual or physical interventions have emerging evidence: for example, whole-body vibration shows benefit as an exercise modality for NAFLD patients, and acupuncture demonstrates improvements in liver enzymes and fibrosis markers in NAFLD, but these are distinct modalities and cannot be generalized to spinal manipulation as performed by chiropractors.^[20][19] A small body of literature suggests manual/visceral therapies and osteopathic treatments are under investigation for metabolic liver disease in clinical trials, but these are exploratory and do not establish chiropractic adjustments as an effective or guideline‑supported therapy for fatty liver disease.^[9][16] Overall, current high-quality evidence and guidelines for fatty liver disease neither support nor address chiropractor-based treatment as a primary or validated therapeutic strategy.

Contradicts

Contemporary NAFLD/MASLD guidelines and reviews consistently state that the mainstay of treatment is lifestyle modification with weight loss, management of metabolic risk factors (type 2 diabetes, hypertension, dyslipidemia), and, in selected cases, pharmacotherapy; they do not endorse spinal manipulation or chiropractic care as a disease‑specific treatment.^[7] These guidelines highlight that NAFLD is driven by systemic metabolic dysfunction rather than by spinal alignment or segmental nerve interference, contradicting mechanistic claims that misaligned vertebrae and altered nerve supply are primary causes of fatty liver disease.^[5][7] The absence of randomized controlled trials, meta-analyses, or major society guidelines evaluating chiropractic adjustments for changes in hepatic steatosis, liver enzymes, fibrosis stage, or hard liver-related outcomes indicates that evidence for chiropractor treatment of fatty liver disease is weak to nonexistent, especially when assessed with GRADE-type criteria for imprecision and risk of bias.^[6] Some chiropractic or wellness websites claim that spinal misalignment affects liver function and that chiropractic care can restore liver health, but these are opinion or marketing materials, not peer-reviewed clinical evidence, and they stand in contrast to mainstream hepatology guidance that focuses on diet, physical activity, and cardiometabolic risk management.^[7]

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical position is that nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (now often termed MASLD/MASH) is a manifestation of metabolic dysfunction closely linked to obesity, insulin resistance, type 2 diabetes, dyslipidemia, and other cardiometabolic risk factors; primary therapy is sustained weight loss, dietary improvement, increased physical activity, and control of associated conditions.^[5][7] Major liver and endocrine society guidelines emphasize comprehensive lifestyle interventions, screening for cardiovascular risk, and consideration of emerging pharmacologic agents, while noting there is currently no universally approved drug therapy; complementary approaches are considered only when supported by clinical trials and integrated with standard care.^[7] Manual therapies such as osteopathy, acupuncture, or vibration-based exercise may be studied as adjuncts, but they are not considered core or proven disease‑modifying treatments; chiropractic spinal manipulation is not included in hepatology or metabolic liver disease guidelines as an evidence-based therapy for fatty liver disease.^[7] Therefore, the mainstream view is that chiropractor treatment may be used for musculoskeletal complaints but is not recognized as a validated treatment for fatty liver disease itself, which should be managed according to metabolic and lifestyle principles established in guidelines and systematic reviews.^[7]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Fatty Liver Disease”

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

See every doc bro advertising Kidney and liver disease

Patrick Garrett is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Fibromyalgia.

Fibromyalgia

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Fibromyalgia”

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

See every doc bro advertising Chronic fatigue and fibromyalgia

Patrick Garrett is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Gestational Diabetes.

Gestational Diabetes

Supports

There is no high-quality evidence that chiropractic treatment improves glycemic control, reduces the incidence of gestational diabetes, or alters its perinatal complications. Major reviews and guidelines on gestational diabetes focus on lifestyle modification (diet and physical activity), glucose monitoring, and pharmacologic therapy (insulin and sometimes oral agents) and do not include chiropractic care as a treatment modality.^{[2][3][5][6][7][8][9]} Narrative and systematic reviews of spinal manipulation in pregnancy primarily address musculoskeletal pain and safety, not metabolic outcomes such as blood glucose or gestational diabetes. They suggest spinal manipulation appears to have relatively few reported major adverse events in pregnancy, but they do not report any benefit on diabetes or gestational diabetes outcomes.^[18][23][24]

Contradicts

Gestational diabetes is now understood as a chronic, multifactorial disturbance of beta-cell function and insulin resistance, with lifelong cardiometabolic implications for mother and child.^[2][7][9] Management that improves outcomes is centered on early identification of hyperglycemia (e.g., HbA1c-based risk scores, OGTT), close glucose monitoring (including real-time continuous glucose monitoring), dietary changes, and timely initiation of pharmacologic treatment when needed.^[3][4][5][6] None of the major evidence-based guidelines or trials in diabetes, nutrition, or obstetric care include chiropractic manipulation as a therapy for gestational diabetes, indicating a lack of evidence and a mismatch with the known pathophysiology.^{[2][3][5][6][7][8][9]} Moreover, pregnancy is listed as at least a precaution and sometimes a contraindication for certain spinal manipulative procedures, especially cervical and lumbar manipulation, emphasizing that risk-benefit must be carefully assessed and that these interventions are not standard metabolic treatments.^[18][23][24]

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical view is that gestational diabetes is a form of glucose intolerance first recognized in pregnancy, driven by inadequate beta-cell compensation for pregnancy-induced insulin resistance and other factors such as obesity, genetic predisposition, and autoimmunity.^[2][7][9] Standard care focuses on: screening with OGTT or validated early-pregnancy strategies such as HbA1c-based composite risk scores; dietary and lifestyle interventions; regular capillary or continuous glucose monitoring; and pharmacologic treatment (usually insulin, sometimes oral agents) when lifestyle measures are insufficient.^{[3][4][5][6][7]} Large RCTs and cohort studies show that tighter glycemic control and early, aggressive management reduce adverse perinatal outcomes in women with gestational diabetes.^[3][6][9] Chiropractic care is sometimes used for pregnancy-related musculoskeletal pain and appears to have a low rate of reported serious adverse events when appropriately modified for pregnancy, but it is not recognized as a treatment for gestational diabetes and is not included in evidence-based diabetes or obstetric guidelines.^[18][23][24]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Gestational Diabetes”

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

See every doc bro advertising Pregnancy conditions

Patrick Garrett is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure High Cholesterol.

High Cholesterol

Supports

High-quality evidence supports chiropractic care for some musculoskeletal pain conditions, but not for lowering cholesterol. ^[6][61] A systematic review of spinal manipulative therapy for non-musculoskeletal disorders found no evidence of benefit for conditions such as hypertension and concluded that spinal manipulation was not superior to sham for the non-musculoskeletal disorders studied. ^[1][7][60] A systematic review focused on primary or early secondary prevention found no evidence that chiropractic treatment prevents or improves non-musculoskeletal disease in general. ^[58] Evidence that sometimes gets cited in favor of chiropractic care for cholesterol consists mainly of a retrospective case series in chiropractic patients receiving a nutritional program and isolated case reports, which are low-quality and do not establish a chiropractic effect on cholesterol. ^[59]

Contradicts

The claim is contradicted by the lack of randomized trial or guideline evidence showing that chiropractic treatment lowers total cholesterol, LDL-C, or cardiovascular risk. ^[1][4][6] The available systematic reviews found no credible preventive or disease-modifying effect of chiropractic treatment for non-musculoskeletal disorders. ^[58][61] The positive cholesterol changes reported in some chiropractic-adjacent reports were associated with a nutrition program or single-patient cases, not with chiropractic adjustment itself, so they cannot be generalized to treatment of high cholesterol. ^[5][59] The peer-reviewed index papers provided by the user are not directly about cholesterol management, and none provide evidence supporting chiropractic treatment for hypercholesterolemia.

Mainstream view

Mainstream medical and scientific guidance is that high cholesterol is treated with diet, physical activity, weight management, and, when indicated, lipid-lowering medications such as statins and other guideline-directed therapies. ^[1][5][59] Chiropractic treatment is not a recognized or evidence-based treatment for hypercholesterolemia, and there is no established mechanism or clinical evidence that spinal manipulation lowers cholesterol in a meaningful or reliable way. ^{[2][58][60][61]}

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“High Cholesterol”

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

See every doc bro advertising Heart disease and cholesterol

Patrick Garrett is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Hormone imbalance.

Hormone imbalance

Supports

There is some emerging evidence that chiropractic spinal manipulation can acutely and chronically modulate certain neuroendocrine and immune biomarkers (e. ^[64] g. , cortisol, IL-6, TNF-α, oxytocin, substance P), which technically are hormone or hormone-like mediators, but these studies do not demonstrate correction of clinically relevant hormone imbalances or endocrine diseases. A recent pragmatic randomized controlled trial of 12 weeks of chiropractic care in adults with subclinical spinal pain found changes in stress and inflammatory biomarkers (increased blood BDNF and IL-6 and decreased TNF-α at 12 weeks, and reduced blood cortisol and IFN-γ at 16 weeks compared with sham), suggesting that chiropractic care can modulate systemic physiological biomarkers related to stress and inflammation, but not that it treats defined endocrine disorders such as thyroid disease, adrenal insufficiency, or reproductive hormone imbalance. ^{[3][7][62][63]} Other small RCTs and controlled studies show immediate changes in salivary cortisol following cervical or thoracic manipulation, indicating short-term neuroendocrine responses without evidence of durable normalization of hormone imbalance or clinical endocrine outcomes. ^[2][65] A narrative/theoretical literature and integrative reviews in chiropractic and systems biology acknowledge that spinal manipulation can produce measurable endocrine responses (e. g. , cortisol changes), but explicitly describe the evidence for a clinically meaningful neuroimmunoendocrine effect as mixed, conflicting, and of low to moderate quality. ^[6] Overall, existing trials support that chiropractic manipulation can influence certain hormone-related biomarkers in the short term, but they do not provide high-quality evidence that chiropractic treatment corrects or clinically manages hormone imbalance in the sense used in endocrinology. ^[4]

Contradicts

Systematic reviews of spinal manipulation’s impact on autonomic and immune/endocrine function consistently report low-quality, inconsistent, or null findings for meaningful physiological change, and explicitly conclude that current evidence does not support claims that spinal manipulation is effective for disease prevention or treatment via immune or endocrine mechanisms. ^[4][65] Reviews focused on autonomic outcomes find low-level evidence that spinal manipulation does not significantly alter heart rate variability, blood pressure, or catecholamine levels compared with sham, undermining broad claims that chiropractic care reliably normalizes systemic regulatory systems. ^[7][8] A high-profile systematic review of spinal manipulative therapy and immune outcomes concluded there was no acceptable- or high-quality randomized evidence to support or refute the efficacy of spinal manipulation in changing immune system outcomes relevant to infectious disease, which indirectly challenges general assertions that spinal manipulation can be used to treat systemic dysregulation such as hormone imbalance. ^[6][62][64] Integrative theoretical papers in chiropractic admit that although manipulations can trigger neuroimmunoendocrine activation and alter some biochemical markers, the biological account for applying high-velocity low-amplitude thrusts in clinical practice for systemic regulation is mixed and conflicting, with a lack of robust clinical trials showing improved endocrine, metabolic, or reproductive outcomes. ^[2] There is an absence of randomized trials or major guidelines supporting chiropractic as a treatment for specific endocrine conditions (e. ^[63] g. , hypothyroidism, diabetes, PCOS, menopausal hormone changes), and existing high-quality endocrine and hypertension guidelines focus on pharmacologic therapy, lifestyle changes, and conventional medical interventions, without mentioning chiropractic manipulation as a strategy for addressing hormone imbalance.

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical and scientific position is that chiropractic care is an evidence-based option primarily for musculoskeletal conditions (especially low back pain), with emerging but still preliminary data for some neurologic and pain-related conditions, while there is no established evidence base supporting its use as a treatment for hormone imbalance or endocrine disease. ^{[4][62][63][64]} Major clinical guidelines in internal medicine, endocrinology, and hypertension management emphasize pharmacologic treatment, lifestyle modification, and targeted medical therapies to manage conditions driven by hormone dysregulation, and they do not recommend chiropractic manipulation for endocrine disorders or hormone imbalance. ^[1][2][65] Contemporary evidence grading frameworks such as GRADE emphasize that current data on spinal manipulation’s systemic neuroendocrine effects are low or very low certainty, with imprecision, small sample sizes, and surrogate biomarker outcomes rather than hard clinical endpoints. ^[6] As a result, mainstream clinicians and guideline panels view acute biomarker changes after manipulation as interesting physiological phenomena, not as proof that chiropractic care can diagnose, correct, or manage clinically meaningful hormone imbalance. Chiropractic may have indirect effects (for example, reduced pain, stress, or improved function) that secondarily influence stress hormones, but it is not considered a substitute for standard evaluation and management of endocrine disorders, and claims that chiropractic “treats hormone imbalance” are regarded as unproven and outside current evidence-based practice.

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Hormone imbalance”

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

See every doc bro advertising Hormone imbalance and replacement

Patrick Garrett is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS).

Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS)

Supports

There are no high-quality randomized controlled trials or systematic reviews showing that chiropractic spinal manipulation is an effective treatment for IBS specifically. ^[68] A narrative review of chiropractic for gastrointestinal disorders concluded that there is no supportive evidence that chiropractic is an effective treatment for gastrointestinal problems, based primarily on small, low-quality and heterogeneous studies. ^[52][66][67] Independent systematic reviews of spinal manipulation more broadly also classify the evidence for gastrointestinal disorders (including IBS) as unclear or inconclusive. In contrast, there is emerging low- to moderate-quality evidence that other manual therapies, particularly osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) or visceral osteopathy, may offer some short-term symptom improvement in IBS (pain, bloating, global assessment), but these are not chiropractic techniques and the trials are small and at risk of bias. ^[4][6] A 2014 systematic review of osteopathic manipulative therapy for IBS found preliminary beneficial effects but emphasized the limited number of small studies and need for caution in interpretation. ^[7] More recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses of OMT in IBS continue to describe the overall certainty of evidence as low to very low due to small sample sizes, methodological limitations, and inconsistent outcome measures, even though pooled analyses sometimes suggest benefit on pain or constipation. Clinical guidelines and evidence-based pathways for IBS management, such as those from major gastroenterology societies, focus on diet (e. ^[1][2] g. , low FODMAP diet), pharmacologic therapies, gut-directed psychotherapies, and in some cases probiotics or neuromodulators; they do not recommend chiropractic care as a treatment option for IBS.

Contradicts

The best-quality syntheses specifically examining chiropractic for gastrointestinal disorders, including IBS, conclude that there is no convincing evidence of efficacy and that existing trials are few, small, and methodologically weak. ^{[6][52][66][67]} Systematic reviews of spinal manipulation across conditions classify the evidence for gastrointestinal indications as inconclusive rather than supportive, and explicitly note no supportive evidence that chiropractic is effective for gastrointestinal disorders. ^[68] This directly contradicts any strong claim that chiropractic treatment is an evidence-based therapy for IBS. ^[1][7] In addition, contemporary IBS management guidelines from major professional bodies do not include chiropractic or spinal manipulation among recommended therapies, which indirectly indicates that the evidence base is considered insufficient or unconvincing compared with established options. ^[2] Compared with interventions that do have replicated RCTs and are incorporated into guidelines (such as dietary modification, certain pharmacologic agents, psychological therapies, and in some cases probiotics), chiropractic lacks comparable data for IBS. Overall, the available literature suggests that claims of reliable IBS symptom relief from chiropractic care are not supported by robust clinical evidence, and that the evidence base is markedly weaker than for standard IBS treatments.

Mainstream view

Mainstream medical and gastroenterology practice does not view chiropractic treatment as an established or evidence-based therapy for irritable bowel syndrome. ^{[7][52][66][67][68]} Current guideline-driven management of chronic conditions in internal medicine emphasizes using interventions supported by high-quality randomized trials, meta-analyses, and rigorous grading of evidence quality; chiropractic for IBS does not meet these standards. ^[1] For IBS, major guidelines instead recommend a stepwise, multifactorial approach focused on positive diagnosis, patient education, dietary strategies (such as low FODMAP diet), targeted pharmacologic therapies according to IBS subtype (constipation, diarrhea, or mixed), psychological and behavioral interventions (e. ^[2] g. , CBT, gut-directed hypnotherapy), and selected adjunctive therapies with supportive evidence (such as specific probiotics), while not including chiropractic manipulation as a recommended modality. Osteopathic or other manual therapies may be considered experimental adjuncts with low-certainty evidence, and are not part of core first-line management. Thus, the mainstream position is that chiropractic care should not replace established IBS treatments and, at most, might be considered an unproven complementary therapy where patients are carefully counseled about the limited and low-quality evidence and the need to continue guideline-based care. ^[4][6]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS)”

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

See every doc bro advertising IBS, SIBO and gut disorders

Patrick Garrett is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Lupus.

Lupus

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Lupus”

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

See every doc bro advertising Autoimmune disease

Patrick Garrett is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Menopause Symptoms.

Menopause Symptoms

Supports

High-quality evidence specifically testing chiropractic spinal manipulation for core menopause symptoms (hot flashes, night sweats, vasomotor symptoms, mood, insomnia) is effectively absent. A systematic review on chiropractic intervention for postmenopausal climacteric symptoms and insomnia concluded that large epidemiologic surveys demonstrate a lack of evidence for chiropractic as a complementary therapy for menopausal symptoms and insomnia and that there is no evidence of effectiveness; it calls for better-designed trials, but does not show benefit.^[6] Some trials in adjacent manual therapies (e.g., osteopathic manipulative treatment in small studies) have reported improvements in menopausal symptoms, but these are low-quality, small, and not specific to chiropractic and therefore do not constitute strong supportive evidence. Overall, existing randomized trials and guidelines for menopause focus on pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic options (hormone therapy, certain nonhormonal drugs, lifestyle measures, psychotherapeutic approaches, sometimes acupuncture), not chiropractic, and do not endorse chiropractic as a treatment for core menopausal symptoms.^[11]

Contradicts

The best available focused review on chiropractic for postmenopausal climacteric symptoms and insomnia explicitly concludes that there is no evidence that chiropractic intervention is effective for menopausal symptoms or insomnia and that epidemiologic data from large surveys show a lack of evidence supporting chiropractic as a complementary treatment in this setting.^[6] Major gynecologic and menopause guidelines and expert bodies (e.g., mainstream menopause management guidelines and expert commentary from organizations such as ACOG) state that there is no evidence that spinal adjustments reduce hot flashes, night sweats, insomnia, or other core menopausal symptoms and that chiropractic should not be presented as a treatment for hormonal imbalance, vasomotor symptoms, or menopause itself; its role is limited to musculoskeletal pain and functional support.^[9][4] Evidence-based menopause guidelines describing nonhormonal therapies do discuss various alternatives (acupuncture, stellate ganglion block, neuromodulation, behavioral strategies), but do not present chiropractic manipulation as an evidence-based vasomotor or mood treatment and treat it, at most, as an unproven adjunct.^[11] Taken together, these sources indicate that claims that chiropractic care can directly treat or normalize menopause symptoms (hot flashes, night sweats, hormonal changes) are not supported and are contradicted by formal reviews and guideline-level assessments.

Mainstream view

Mainstream medical and scientific opinion is that menopause is best managed with evidence-based interventions: menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) when not contraindicated, selected nonhormonal pharmacologic treatments (e.g., certain SSRIs/SNRIs, gabapentin, clonidine, others), and structured lifestyle and behavioral interventions; chiropractic spinal manipulation is not considered an effective treatment for core menopause symptoms such as hot flashes, night sweats, vasomotor instability, or hormonal imbalance.^[11] Chiropractic and related manual therapies may be used for musculoskeletal complaints (e.g., back or neck pain) that can coexist with menopause, but major guidelines and expert bodies explicitly state there is no evidence that chiropractic adjustments improve vasomotor symptoms, sleep problems due to menopause, or endocrine aspects of the menopause transition, and they advise that chiropractic should not be marketed as treatment for menopause itself.^[6][9][4] Thus, the mainstream position is that chiropractic can have a role as musculoskeletal care during midlife, but it is not an evidence-based therapy for menopause symptoms per se and should not be relied on in place of established menopause treatments and guideline-directed care.

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Menopause Symptoms”

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

See every doc bro advertising Menopause