Arthur Elliot Hirshorn alias Dr. Root Cause Peptide

Arthur Elliot Hirshorn is not licensed or approved by South Carolina Board of Chiropractic Examiners to diagnose, treat, or cure Testosterone and hormone replacement therapy (HRT/TRT).

Testosterone and hormone replacement therapy (HRT/TRT)

Supports

No high-quality evidence located in the provided index papers supports a claim that chiropractic treatment is an evidence-based therapy for testosterone deficiency or for hormone replacement therapy/trt. ^[1][2][4] The indexed papers about hormone replacement therapy are about menopause or reproductive uses, not chiropractic care . More broadly, testosterone replacement therapy itself has evidence for specific indications such as hypogonadism, with systematic reviews showing benefits on body composition, sexual function, or selected metabolic outcomes in some populations . ^[3]

Contradicts

The claim is contradicted by the mismatch between the intervention and the evidence base: chiropractic guidelines and reviews address musculoskeletal pain, especially neck pain, not endocrine treatment or testosterone replacement . ^[1][2][3][4] The indexed HRT paper concerns perimenopausal and postmenopausal women and does not support chiropractor-led management of testosterone or TRT . Evidence for chiropractic treatment of hormonal disorders is weak to absent, and no major guideline supports chiropractic as a treatment for low testosterone or for prescribing or managing TRT.

Mainstream view

Mainstream medicine views testosterone deficiency and hormone replacement therapy as endocrine conditions managed by appropriately trained clinicians using diagnosis, laboratory evaluation, indication-specific prescribing, and monitoring. ^[1][2][3][4] Chiropractic care is not a recognized treatment for testosterone deficiency or for initiating or managing TRT/HRT, although chiropractors may provide musculoskeletal symptom care in some patients who also have hormonal disorders.

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“testosterone and hormone replacement therapy (HRT/TRT)”

Rule: S.C. Code § 40-9-10(b); S.C. Code Regs. § 25-5(A)(1)

See every doc bro advertising Hormone imbalance and replacement

Arthur Elliot Hirshorn is not licensed or approved by South Carolina Board of Chiropractic Examiners to diagnose, treat, or cure Psoriasis Treatment.

Psoriasis Treatment

Supports

The peer-reviewed evidence provided does not include any high-quality trials, systematic reviews, or major guidelines supporting chiropractic treatment for psoriasis. ^{[6][8][10][13][14][15]} The closest guideline-level evidence in the search results addresses alternative medicine for psoriasis and states that, because of lack of evidence or conflicting evidence, it does not provide a recommendation for such modalities . ^[5][16] The available psoriasis guideline summary likewise says alternative medicine options are discussed but no recommendation is made because evidence is lacking or conflicting .

Contradicts

There is no direct peer-reviewed evidence in the provided index set that chiropractic care improves psoriasis, and the search results that mention chiropractic are case reports or non-authoritative sources, which are insufficient to establish efficacy. ^[10][15] By contrast, the psoriasis evidence base summarized in major dermatology guidance focuses on topical, systemic, biologic, and selected alternative therapies with some evidence; chiropractic is not included among recommended treatments . ^[13][14][16] The claim is also biologically and clinically implausible as stated because psoriasis is a chronic immune-mediated dermatologic disease, and chiropractic spinal manipulation has not been shown in high-quality studies to treat the underlying disease process.

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical view is that chiropractic treatment is not an evidence-based treatment for psoriasis. ^[5][8][10] Standard psoriasis care relies on dermatologic therapies such as topical agents, phototherapy, systemic drugs, and biologics; complementary approaches may be discussed, but chiropractic is not recommended because there is no credible clinical evidence supporting benefit and evidence for alternative modalities in general is limited or conflicting . ^{[6][13][14][15][16]}

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Psoriasis Treatment”

Rule: S.C. Code § 40-9-10(b); S.C. Code Regs. § 25-5(A)(1)-(2)

See every doc bro advertising Autoimmune disease

Arthur Elliot Hirshorn is not licensed or approved by South Carolina Board of Chiropractic Examiners to diagnose, treat, or cure Autoimmune Disease.

Autoimmune Disease

Supports

High-quality clinical evidence specifically showing that chiropractic treatment can modify autoimmune disease activity (e.g., reduce autoantibodies, prevent flares, induce remission) is essentially absent. A recent randomized controlled trial in people with subclinical spinal pain found that 12 weeks of chiropractic spinal adjustments altered blood biomarkers (increased BDNF and IL-6, decreased TNF-α, cortisol and IFN-γ), suggesting some modulation of inflammatory and neuroendocrine pathways, but this was in otherwise healthy individuals and not patients with autoimmune disease.^[11] A literature review of manual therapies (including chiropractic, osteopathic, and massage) reports various short-term changes in immune-related markers (cytokines, immunoglobulins, stress hormones), again largely in small experimental or physiological studies, not in autoimmune populations, and without clear clinical outcome data.^{[12][13][17][20]} Guidelines for autoimmune conditions such as inflammatory bowel disease emphasize evidence-based pharmacologic and nutritional management (e.g., ESPEN guideline for clinical nutrition in IBD) and do not include chiropractic manipulation as a disease-modifying treatment.^[2] Overall, current evidence supports at most that chiropractic and related manual therapies can induce short-term changes in immune and inflammatory biomarkers, but does not show clinically meaningful treatment effects on autoimmune disease activity or outcomes.

Contradicts

A systematic review assessing spinal manipulative therapy and infectious disease or immune outcomes concluded that there were no clinical studies showing that spinal manipulation prevents infectious disease or improves disease-specific outcomes, and that existing data only demonstrate short-term changes in biomarkers with unknown clinical relevance.^[14] A united statement from global chiropractic research leaders explicitly notes that there is no valid clinical scientific evidence that chiropractic care can meaningfully impact the immune system to prevent viral infections, and that claims that adjustments reduce risk of colds, flu, or other illnesses have never been properly tested.^[21] A review of spinal manipulative therapy’s biological effects found mixed and conflicting evidence about neuroimmunoendocrine changes, and emphasized that current mechanistic findings do not justify clinical claims about immune enhancement.^[17] Mainstream medical sources discussing chiropractic in rheumatoid arthritis report that there are no high-quality studies showing chiropractic is a safe or effective treatment for RA, that it does not affect the underlying autoimmunity, and that manipulation of inflamed joints may worsen symptoms.^[25] Major clinical guidelines for autoimmune and inflammatory conditions, such as nutrition guidelines in IBD, highlight pharmacologic therapies, nutrition, and other evidence-based interventions, with no role for chiropractic as a disease-modifying treatment.^[2] Together, these sources contradict strong claims that chiropractic can treat or control autoimmune disease, and indicate that any immune or inflammatory marker changes observed after manipulation have uncertain clinical significance.

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical and scientific position is that autoimmune diseases are primarily managed with evidence-based pharmacologic therapies (e.g., immunosuppressants, biologics), lifestyle measures, and condition-specific interventions guided by major clinical guidelines, and that chiropractic care is not an established disease-modifying treatment for autoimmunity.^[2] Chiropractic and other manual therapies may be used as adjuncts for musculoskeletal pain, stiffness, or functional complaints in some patients, but they are considered supportive or symptomatic rather than therapies that directly alter autoimmune pathophysiology or disease course.^[21][25] Current evidence on spinal manipulation shows short-term changes in some immune and inflammatory biomarkers, but systematic reviews emphasize that these findings do not translate into proven benefits in preventing disease, reducing autoimmune activity, or improving long-term clinical outcomes.^[11][14][17] Professional consensus statements from chiropractic researchers explicitly reject marketing claims that chiropractic care “boosts immunity” or prevents illness, and call for more rigorous trials before any such statements are made.^[14][21] For autoimmune diseases specifically (such as rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, multiple sclerosis, and inflammatory bowel disease), mainstream guidance does not recommend chiropractic as a primary treatment, and warns that manipulation of actively inflamed joints or unstable spines may pose risks.^[2][25]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Autoimmune Disease”

Rule: S.C. Code § 40-9-10(b)-(c); S.C. Code Regs. § 25-5(A)(1)-(2)

See every doc bro advertising Autoimmune disease

Arthur Elliot Hirshorn is not licensed or approved by South Carolina Board of Chiropractic Examiners 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. ^[22][23][24] 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. ^[21]

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. ^{[21][22][23][24]} 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. ^[21][22][24] 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. ^[23] 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: S.C. Code § 40-9-10(b)-(c); S.C. Code Regs. § 25-5(A)(1)-(2)

See every doc bro advertising Chronic fatigue and fibromyalgia

Arthur Elliot Hirshorn is not licensed or approved by South Carolina Board of Chiropractic Examiners to diagnose, treat, or cure IBS & Gastrointestinal Issues.

IBS & Gastrointestinal Issues

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“IBS & Gastrointestinal Issues”

Rule: S.C. Code § 40-9-10(b)-(c); S.C. Code Regs. § 25-5(A)(1)-(2)

See every doc bro advertising IBS, SIBO and gut disorders

Arthur Elliot Hirshorn is not licensed or approved by South Carolina Board of Chiropractic Examiners to diagnose, treat, or cure Infertility.

Infertility

Supports

High-quality evidence directly supporting chiropractic treatment as an effective therapy for infertility is essentially absent. ^[11] The available literature consists almost entirely of case reports and small case series in which women with prior infertility became pregnant after starting chiropractic care; these reports show temporal association but cannot demonstrate causation or efficacy. ^[28] A scoping review of chiropractic management in female infertility found only ten case studies involving 11 women, all without controls or randomization, and concluded that pregnancy occurred after chiropractic care but that the evidence base was limited to low-level observational reports and no adverse events were reported. ^{[5][25][26][27]} This type of evidence is considered very low quality under GRADE methodology, with substantial imprecision and risk of bias, and does not meet the standards required to support a treatment claim. ^[8][10]

Contradicts

The main contradiction is that there are no randomized controlled trials, large prospective cohorts, or systematic reviews showing that chiropractic treatment improves infertility outcomes, which is expected for a claim of therapeutic efficacy. ^[8][28] Existing case reports and series are uncontrolled, susceptible to placebo effects, regression to the mean, spontaneous conception, and concurrent medical or lifestyle interventions, making it impossible to attribute pregnancy to chiropractic care. ^[26] A scoping review explicitly notes the lack of higher-level studies and calls for rigorous trials before any conclusions about efficacy can be drawn, emphasizing that current evidence cannot establish chiropractic as an infertility treatment. ^[10][25] General principles of evidence grading highlight that such small, uncontrolled case reports represent very low-certainty evidence and should not be used to support strong clinical claims. ^[6] Major infertility management relies on evidence‑based interventions such as ovulation induction, intrauterine insemination, IVF/ICSI, and hormonal or surgical treatments, none of which include chiropractic manipulation as a recommended modality. ^[5][27] High-quality RCTs and guidelines in other areas of medicine (e. g. , hypertension, clinical nutrition, pericarditis) illustrate how therapies become accepted only after robust trials and guideline review, a process that chiropractic for infertility has not undergone. ^[7][9][12]

Mainstream view

Mainstream medical and scientific opinion is that chiropractic care is not an established or recommended treatment for infertility. ^[25][26][28] Conventional reproductive medicine views infertility as a multifactorial condition requiring evaluation of ovulatory function, tubal patency, uterine factors, male factor, endocrine and metabolic status, and sometimes immunologic or genetic issues; evidence‑based interventions are pharmacologic (e. ^[5][27] g. , ovulation induction), procedural (e. g. , IVF/ICSI), or surgical, guided by high‑quality clinical trials and consensus guidelines, none of which endorse chiropractic manipulation as a fertility therapy. ^[6][10][11] Chiropractic may have a role in managing musculoskeletal pain in pregnancy or in general, but current evidence does not support using it to treat infertility itself. Case reports suggesting benefit are considered hypothesis‑generating only and insufficient to change practice or guideline recommendations under standard evidence‑grading frameworks such as GRADE.

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Infertility”

Rule: S.C. Code Regs. § 25-5(A)(1)

See every doc bro advertising Infertility

Arthur Elliot Hirshorn is not licensed or approved by South Carolina Board of Chiropractic Examiners to diagnose, treat, or cure Thyroid Disease.

Thyroid Disease

Supports

No high-quality evidence in the provided index papers supports chiropractic treatment as a treatment for thyroid disease. ^[8][10][30] The search results only show isolated case reports or low-level mechanistic work on spinal manipulation and endocrine biomarkers, which are not evidence of clinical benefit for thyroid disease. ^{[6][7][29][32]} The indexed endocrinology guidelines focus on diagnosis and medical management of thyroid disorders, not chiropractic care .

Contradicts

Mainstream evidence-based thyroid guidelines recommend medical evaluation, thyroid function testing, and condition-specific treatment such as thyroid hormone replacement or antithyroid therapy, rather than chiropractic treatment . ^{[5][6][11][30]} The chiropractic/spinal-manipulation literature does not provide acceptable clinical trial evidence that chiropractic care improves thyroid disease outcomes; available evidence is low quality, indirect, or limited to case reports and biomarker studies, with unclear clinical relevance. ^{[7][10][29][31][32]} A systematic review of spinal manipulation found no convincing evidence that it is a recommendable treatment for any medical condition, and later reviews found mixed or low-quality evidence for endocrine biomarker effects without clinical outcome data . A case report describing resolution of hypothyroidism after cervical spine correction is insufficient to establish efficacy and cannot outweigh guideline-based thyroid care . ^[8]

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical view is that thyroid disease should be diagnosed and treated by standard medical/endocrine care, not chiropractic treatment. ^[8] Chiropractic care may be used for musculoskeletal symptoms in some patients, but it is not an evidence-based treatment for hypothyroidism, hyperthyroidism, Hashimoto’s thyroiditis, or other thyroid disorders . ^[5][30][31]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Thyroid Disease”

Rule: S.C. Code § 40-9-10(b)-(c); S.C. Code Regs. § 25-5(A)(1)-(2)

See every doc bro advertising Thyroid disease and Hashimoto

Arthur Elliot Hirshorn is not licensed or approved by South Carolina Board of Chiropractic Examiners to diagnose, treat, or cure Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT).

Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT)

Supports

High-quality evidence on chiropractic care shows that spinal manipulation can produce short-term changes in neuroendocrine biomarkers such as cortisol, inflammatory cytokines, and brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF), but these are modest, variable, and studied mainly as mechanistic outcomes, not as tools to manage hormone replacement therapy (HRT) or sex hormone balance in menopause or other endocrine conditions. ^{[10][11][33][35]} A recent randomized controlled trial reported that 12 weeks of chiropractic care altered biomarkers including salivary cortisol and inflammatory mediators compared with sham care, indicating that spinal manipulation can influence stress-related hormone pathways under experimental conditions. ^[18][34] Similarly, small trials have shown acute changes in cortisol after spinal manipulation, supporting a plausible but limited neuroendocrine effect. These data support that chiropractic care may have measurable effects on certain stress-related hormones, but they do not show that chiropractic treatment can replace, titrate, or clinically manage pharmacologic HRT in humans.

Contradicts

The indexed guideline papers provided focus on evidence-based management of hypertension, clinical nutrition, headache, parenteral nutrition, transfusion therapy, and evidence grading, and they consistently emphasize pharmacologic, nutritional, or procedural interventions with clearly defined mechanisms and high-quality randomized trials or guideline processes; none recommend chiropractic care as a treatment for endocrine disorders or as a modality to deliver or alter hormone replacement therapy. ^{[5][6][7][8][9][11][18][34][35]} Major evidence-based guidelines for chronic disease management and therapy selection rely on rigorous grading systems such as GRADE, which highlight imprecision and low quality when trials are small, mechanistic, or heterogeneous; by these standards, the current chiropractic endocrine literature (small RCTs, case series, mixed and conflicting biomarker findings) would typically be rated low or very low certainty for any claim that it can manage HRT dosing or outcomes. ^[10] The available clinical trials of chiropractic care mainly examine musculoskeletal outcomes (e. g. , low back pain, migraine) and sometimes secondary psychosocial measures; they do not study chiropractic care as an HRT management strategy, nor do they demonstrate clinically meaningful changes in sex hormones (estrogen, progesterone, testosterone) comparable to pharmacologic HRT. In addition, endocrine-focused mechanistic reviews note that evidence for spinal manipulation’s endocrine effects is mixed, underpowered, and heterogeneous, with conflicting cortisol results and no robust clinical endpoints related to HRT, which contradicts any strong claim that chiropractors can safely or effectively treat or manage HRT. ^[33] Overall, the current evidence does not support chiropractic as a means to prescribe, adjust, or replace hormone replacement therapy, and guidelines do not endorse such use.

Mainstream view

Mainstream medical and scientific practice treats hormone replacement therapy (HRT) as a pharmacologic intervention that should be initiated, monitored, and adjusted by physicians or appropriately trained prescribers using established endocrine and gynecologic guidelines, with decisions based on clinical symptoms, risk–benefit assessment, and laboratory monitoring when indicated. ^{[6][9][11][33]} Chiropractic care is recognized in mainstream guidelines primarily as a nonpharmacologic option for certain musculoskeletal conditions (e. g. , low back pain, some headache types), and not as a treatment for endocrine diseases or a tool to manage or modify HRT. ^[8] Current evidence about chiropractic effects on hormones is regarded as preliminary and mechanistic, focused on stress-related biomarkers like cortisol rather than on therapeutic modulation of sex hormones or formal HRT regimens. ^[18][34] As a result, the mainstream position is that chiropractors may provide supportive care (for pain, function, or quality of life) in patients who happen to be on HRT, but they should not be responsible for initiating, dosing, adjusting, or substituting HRT, and patients should rely on medical specialists for hormone therapy decisions. ^[10][35]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT)”

Rule: S.C. Code § 40-9-10(b); S.C. Code Regs. § 25-5(A)(1)

See every doc bro advertising Hormone imbalance and replacement

Arthur Elliot Hirshorn is not licensed or approved by South Carolina Board of Chiropractic Examiners to diagnose, treat, or cure Testosterone Replacement Therapy (TRT).

Testosterone Replacement Therapy (TRT)

Supports

There is high-quality evidence that testosterone replacement therapy (TRT) itself is an established, medically supervised treatment for male hypogonadism, with benefits for sexual function, mood, muscle mass and quality of life when prescribed and monitored according to endocrinology and urology guidelines.^{[1][2][3][5][6][8][9]} These data come from large randomized trials, systematic reviews and guideline-based narrative reviews, and they consistently frame TRT as a pharmacologic endocrine therapy that requires laboratory confirmation of low testosterone, assessment of comorbidities, and ongoing monitoring of hematocrit, prostate health and cardiovascular risk by appropriately trained medical professionals.^{[1][3][5][6][8][9]} However, I did not find high‑quality trials or guidelines showing that chiropractors specifically should manage or deliver TRT as a primary therapy; mainstream evidence and guidelines discuss management by physicians (e.g., endocrinologists, urologists, or primary care) rather than chiropractic providers.^{[1][2][3][5][6][8][9]}

Contradicts

Major evidence syntheses and guidelines on TRT emphasize medical prescribing, risk–benefit assessment, and monitoring of adverse effects such as erythrocytosis, cardiovascular events, infertility and prostate-related issues, which fall squarely within medical rather than chiropractic scope of practice.^{[1][3][5][6][8][9]} These sources do not identify chiropractic care as a standard or recommended route for TRT management, nor do they present evidence that chiropractic adjustments can replace medical evaluation, endocrine workup, or guideline-based monitoring in TRT patients.^{[1][2][3][5][6][8][9]} Furthermore, some emerging evidence in surgical and orthopedic contexts suggests that TRT may increase certain complication risks around procedures and requires individualized cessation or modification strategies, again under medical supervision, underscoring that unspecialized or non-medical management is not supported by current data.^[7][22] No robust randomized trials or meta-analyses demonstrate that chiropractors providing TRT leads to equal or superior safety and effectiveness compared with guideline-directed physician-led care; any such claims by influencers therefore rest on extrapolation or marketing rather than peer-reviewed evidence.^{[1][2][3][5][6][8][9]}

Mainstream view

Mainstream medical and scientific consensus is that testosterone replacement therapy is a prescription endocrine treatment indicated for men with clinically and biochemically confirmed hypogonadism and should be initiated and monitored by qualified medical professionals (typically endocrinologists, urologists, or primary care physicians) following established guidelines.^{[1][3][5][6][8][9]} Standard care includes confirming low testosterone with appropriate lab testing, evaluating causes and comorbidities, discussing risks and benefits, and ongoing surveillance of hematocrit, cardiovascular status, prostate health and fertility, using evidence-based protocols from major societies.^{[1][3][5][6][8][9]} Chiropractic care is not part of guideline-directed TRT management, and while some multidisciplinary clinics that include chiropractors may offer medically supervised TRT, current mainstream evidence does not endorse chiropractors themselves as primary prescribers or managers of TRT, nor does it support spinal manipulation as a substitute for endocrine therapy in hypogonadal men.^{[1][2][3][5][6][8][9]}

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Testosterone Replacement Therapy (TRT)”

Rule: S.C. Code § 40-9-10(b); S.C. Code Regs. § 25-5(A)(1)

See every doc bro advertising Hormone imbalance and replacement

Arthur Elliot Hirshorn is not licensed or approved by South Carolina Board of Chiropractic Examiners to diagnose, treat, or cure Laser vaginal rejuvenation.

Laser vaginal rejuvenation

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“laser vaginal rejuvenation for comfort and function”

Rule: S.C. Code Regs. § 25-5(A)(1)

Arthur Elliot Hirshorn is not licensed or approved by South Carolina Board of Chiropractic Examiners to advertise Peptides and nutraceuticals for weight loss as within their scope of practice.

Peptides and nutraceuticals for weight loss

Supports

High-quality randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews show that several peptide-based pharmacologic agents, primarily glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists and related incretin-based drugs (e. ^[39][40][41] g. , semaglutide, liraglutide, tirzepatide, other GLP-1 RAs and polyagonists), produce clinically meaningful weight loss in people with overweight or obesity, often in the range of 5–20% of body weight depending on agent, dose, and duration. ^[42] Multiple meta-analyses of RCTs conclude that GLP-1 RAs consistently reduce body weight, BMI, and waist circumference compared with placebo or standard care and are effective obesity pharmacotherapies when combined with lifestyle measures. Large RCTs and network meta-analyses published up to 2026 confirm this effect size and support their use as anti-obesity medications. Although not always framed as “peptides” in popular language, these agents are peptide or peptide-analog drugs and thus count as peptide-based treatments for weight loss. Evidence for nutraceuticals in weight loss is more modest but not entirely absent. Systematic reviews and network meta-analyses of nutraceutical supplements for overweight/obesity report that some agents (e. g. , L-carnitine, certain fibers like inulin, and specific plant extracts) can lead to small but statistically significant reductions in body weight (on the order of 1–5 kg) versus placebo when used adjunctively with diet and lifestyle interventions. Recent meta-analytic work suggests there may be specific nutraceuticals with measurable, though generally modest, anti-obesity effects when studied in controlled trials. Major obesity-management guidelines acknowledge that a range of pharmacologic agents, including GLP-1–based medications, can be used as part of a comprehensive weight-management plan in appropriately selected patients when combined with diet, physical activity, and behavioral interventions, and they sometimes mention supplements only as possible adjuncts with limited evidence. This indirectly supports the idea that peptide-based drugs and, to a lesser extent, some nutraceuticals, can have roles in evidence-based weight management when prescribed or recommended by appropriately trained and licensed clinicians.

Contradicts

High-quality evidence does not specifically support “chiropractic treatment of peptides” because chiropractic practice, as recognized in most jurisdictions, does not include prescribing or managing prescription peptide drugs such as GLP-1 receptor agonists; these are typically prescribed by physicians, nurse practitioners, or other licensed prescribers under medical supervision. There are no major randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, or guidelines in obesity medicine that evaluate chiropractors as primary prescribers or managers of peptide-based pharmacotherapy for weight loss, nor do they treat “chiropractic care plus peptides” as a distinct evidence-based regimen. ^[41] Regulatory and scope-of-practice standards in many regions restrict chiropractors from prescribing prescription medications, including peptide-based weight-loss drugs, which contradicts any implication that chiropractic providers are established or guideline-endorsed prescribers of these agents. For nutraceuticals in weight loss, multiple systematic reviews and meta-analyses conclude that the overall quality of evidence is low to moderate, effect sizes are generally small, and many products either show no clinically meaningful benefit or have inconsistent results across trials. ^[39][40][42] Some reviews explicitly state that current randomized trials and meta-analyses of single-sourced weight-loss nutraceuticals do not strongly support their routine use as primary weight-loss therapies. Major obesity guidelines typically do not recommend nutraceuticals as first-line or core pharmacologic therapy for weight loss, reflecting the limited and heterogeneous evidence base; when mentioned, they are often described as adjuncts with uncertain benefit and potential for quality or safety concerns. No substantial high-quality evidence indicates that having these agents managed specifically by chiropractors produces better weight outcomes than standard medical obesity care. In addition, high-quality weight-loss trials of GLP-1–based drugs are conducted within medical settings with careful monitoring for adverse effects (e. g. , gastrointestinal events, gallbladder disease, rare pancreatitis, and theoretical thyroid C-cell tumor risk), underscoring that they require medical oversight; this contradicts any suggestion that they are routine, low-risk adjuncts that can be casually incorporated into chiropractic care without full medical infrastructure and prescribing authority.

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical position is that peptide-based anti-obesity medications, particularly GLP-1 receptor agonists and related incretin-based agents, are effective, evidence-based pharmacologic treatments for obesity and overweight in selected patients, but they must be prescribed and monitored by appropriately licensed medical professionals as part of a comprehensive management plan that includes lifestyle modification and risk-factor control. ^{[39][40][41][42]}

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“cutting-edge therapies like peptides and nutraceuticals”

Rule: S.C. Code § 40-9-10(b); S.C. Code Regs. § 25-5(A)(1)-(2)

Arthur Elliot Hirshorn is not approved to offer Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and regenerative medicine within a Chiropractor scope of practice under South Carolina Board of Chiropractic Examiners.

Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and regenerative medicine

Supports

High-quality evidence supports platelet-rich plasma (PRP) as a treatment option for certain musculoskeletal conditions (e. ^[43][45][46] g. , some forms of chronic low back pain, tendinopathies, and knee osteoarthritis), with multiple randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews showing modest to moderate improvements in pain and function compared with placebo or steroid injections in selected indications. Several systematic reviews and meta-analyses of PRP for low back pain report statistically significant short- to mid-term reductions in pain and disability versus control injections, although effect sizes vary and heterogeneity is substantial. ^[44] Large meta-analyses in orthopedics also suggest PRP can reduce pain in conditions such as lateral epicondylitis and knee osteoarthritis, with generally acceptable safety profiles. Major guidelines in sports medicine and some orthopedic societies now mention PRP as a possible adjunct for specific musculoskeletal problems after standard conservative care has been tried, typically in specialist settings. This body of evidence supports the general concept of PRP as a regenerative or orthobiologic intervention in selected musculoskeletal conditions, but not chiropractor-specific delivery.

Contradicts

The indexed references provided by the user are unrelated to PRP, regenerative injections, or chiropractic scope of practice and therefore do not directly support the influencer’s claim about chiropractors providing PRP or ‘regenerative medicine’ services. High-quality PRP trials and systematic reviews are largely conducted in orthopedic, sports medicine, pain medicine, or rehabilitation settings, not in chiropractic clinics; there is essentially no direct RCT-level evidence evaluating PRP or other regenerative injections as delivered by chiropractors or integrated into chiropractic care pathways. Most of the evidence for PRP shows benefit only in specific conditions (e. ^[43] g. , some chronic low back pain phenotypes, certain tendinopathies, selected knee OA populations) and often with modest clinical effect sizes, substantial between-study heterogeneity, and uncertainty about optimal dosing, preparation, and patient selection; claims that PRP or ‘regenerative medicine’ is broadly effective across many conditions are therefore not supported by current evidence. ^[44][45][46] Some high-quality RCTs in knee osteoarthritis and other joints show no superiority of PRP over placebo or standard comparators, and several systematic reviews conclude that the overall quality of evidence is low to moderate, with inconsistency and risk of bias; this contradicts any implication that PRP is an established, universally effective, or disease-modifying regenerative therapy. Major musculoskeletal and pain guidelines generally regard PRP as experimental or optional for selected cases and do not endorse routine PRP use across all musculoskeletal complaints, nor do they specifically recommend chiropractors as primary providers of PRP or other regenerative injections. In many jurisdictions, chiropractors’ legal scope of practice does not clearly include invasive regenerative procedures like PRP injections; where such practice occurs, it may be off-label or outside mainstream regulatory expectations, which contradicts any suggestion that chiropractic-delivered PRP is a standard-of-care or guideline-backed approach.

Mainstream view

Mainstream medical and scientific opinion is that platelet-rich plasma is a promising but still evolving orthobiologic modality with selective use in certain musculoskeletal conditions, ideally provided within evidence-informed orthopedic, sports medicine, pain, or rehabilitation settings and, where possible, in the context of protocols or trials. ^{[43][44][45][46]} PRP is not considered a universally effective or fully established regenerative cure; benefits appear condition-specific, modest on average, and dependent on careful indication, technique, and patient selection, with ongoing uncertainty about long-term structural regeneration versus symptomatic relief. For chiropractors specifically, the mainstream view is that their core practice is noninvasive manual therapy, exercise advice, and related conservative care; invasive regenerative procedures such as PRP injections typically fall under medical, orthopedic, or interventional pain specialties, and are not widely recognized within chiropractic training standards or major guidelines as routine chiropractic interventions. As a result, the consensus position is that while PRP as a concept has some supporting evidence in medicine, claims that ‘chiropractic treatment’ routinely encompasses PRP or regenerative medicine in a validated, guideline-supported way go beyond current evidence and outside the usual mainstream understanding of chiropractic scope.

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“platelet-rich plasma (PRP), regenerative medicine”

Rule: S.C. Code Regs. § 25-5(A)(1)-(2)