Tate Arnett Janssen alias The pH Detox Chiro

Tate Arnett Janssen is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to advertise helped a wide range of people... autoimmune sufferers as within their scope of practice.

helped a wide range of people... autoimmune sufferers

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“autoimmune sufferers”

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

Tate Arnett Janssen is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to advertise Claims to manage autoimmune sufferers and 'fight off' immune deficiencies, which is internal-disease management rather than chiropractic care as within their scope of practice.

Claims to manage autoimmune sufferers and 'fight off' immune deficiencies, which is internal-disease management rather than chiropractic care

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“immune deficiencies”

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

Tate Arnett Janssen is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Functional Medicine.

Functional Medicine

Supports

There is limited peer‑reviewed evidence evaluating functional medicine as a distinct, validated medical model. ^[2] Some academic reviews describe functional medicine as a systems‑biology, patient‑centered framework that uses evidence‑based modalities such as nutrition, exercise, stress reduction, and certain medications or supplements, all of which individually have supportive evidence in conventional medicine for chronic disease prevention and management. ^[1] Observational outcome data (e. g. , quality‑of‑life or practice‑based cohorts) have reported patient‑reported improvements after care delivered in a functional‑medicine style clinic, but these are not randomized trials and mainly show associations rather than causation. ^[3] Lifestyle and nutrition interventions that functional medicine often employs—such as improving diet quality, physical activity, sleep, and stress management—are strongly supported by mainstream RCTs, guidelines, and systematic reviews, but these trials typically evaluate the interventions themselves, not “functional medicine” branding or its broader diagnostic/testing paradigm.

Contradicts

Major mainstream bodies have explicitly judged the overall evidence base for functional medicine to be insufficient. ^[2] A formal review by the American Academy of Family Physicians concluded there was not enough high‑quality evidence to support teaching functional medicine practice techniques in accredited continuing education, and noted that some claims and treatments promoted under the functional‑medicine banner may be potentially dangerous because they rely on unvalidated tests and supplement regimens rather than guideline‑based care. ^[1] Independent academic and science‑communication critiques describe functional medicine as a rebranding of complementary and alternative medicine, highlight its frequent use of unproven diagnoses (such as adrenal fatigue) and extensive biochemical testing of unproven clinical value, and emphasize that there are no robust randomized controlled trials or large, high‑quality comparative effectiveness studies demonstrating that the functional‑medicine model, as a package, improves hard outcomes (mortality, major morbidity, health‑care utilization) beyond standard, evidence‑based care. ^[3] Publications promoting functional medicine approaches to specific conditions (for example, long COVID) acknowledge that underlying pathophysiology and treatments remain poorly defined and that suggested protocols rely on extrapolation, low‑level evidence, and expert opinion rather than rigorous trials, underscoring that the model is largely hypothesis‑driven and not yet validated. Overall, high‑quality systematic reviews, meta‑analyses, and major guidelines do not endorse functional medicine itself as an evidence‑based, superior medical paradigm; instead, they support selected lifestyle or nutrition components that functional‑medicine practitioners also use but which are already part of conventional preventive and chronic‑disease care.

Mainstream view

Mainstream medicine views functional medicine as a loosely defined, alternative or integrative framework that borrows many legitimate, evidence‑based tools (nutrition counseling, exercise prescriptions, risk‑factor modification) but wraps them in a broader practice model that lacks rigorous validation and often incorporates unproven testing, diagnoses, and supplement protocols. ^[1][2] Leading professional societies do not recognize functional medicine as a formal medical specialty, and large clinical guidelines do not recommend seeking “functional medicine” per se; instead, they emphasize evidence‑based lifestyle and pharmacologic interventions delivered within conventional care. The prevailing position is that while some individual interventions used by functional‑medicine practitioners are strongly evidence‑based, the branded functional‑medicine model—especially its extensive, non‑standard laboratory panels, root‑cause narratives, and supplement‑heavy regimens—does not have sufficient high‑quality RCTs, comparative trials, or guideline support to be considered a validated, superior approach to diagnosis or treatment, and should be approached with caution, using standard evidence‑based medicine as the primary framework. ^[3] Deterministic PubMed cross-check found no matching indexed studies for these terms (absence of indexed evidence is not evidence against the claim).

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Functional Medicine”

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

Tate Arnett Janssen is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Functional Nutrition Exam.

Functional Nutrition Exam

Supports

The influencer’s phrase “Functional Nutrition Exam” is too vague to map directly to a specific, validated medical assessment, but some related constructs have evidence behind them. Functional assessments of nutritional status (for example handgrip strength, gait speed, activities of daily living) are included in consensus malnutrition criteria and are considered valid components of nutrition assessment in clinical practice, supporting the general idea that function can be formally examined as part of nutrition care.^[9] Screening tools that integrate nutrition status with functional measures in older adults, such as the Nutrition and Functionality Assessment (NFA), have shown feasibility and partial validity for identifying older adults who could benefit from personalized nutrition and function programs.^[14] Functional oral intake scales (e.g., FOIS-It) that link swallowing function to nutritional status are validated against instrumental swallowing assessments and nutritional status, supporting functional, nutrition-related exam constructs in specific clinical populations.^[16] In the broader “functional medicine” and “integrative and functional nutrition” space, professional organizations and scopes of practice describe systems-biology–informed nutrition assessment using functional labs and structured exams, and cohort studies and observational data suggest that functional medicine models incorporating dietary interventions can improve patient-reported outcomes in chronic disease.^[12][15][17] Functional foods and “functional nutrition” concepts (using specific foods and nutrients for health effects) are supported by a substantial body of randomized trials, cohort studies, and meta-analyses showing benefits for prevention and management of cardiometabolic disease and other chronic conditions, which indirectly supports the idea that detailed nutrition assessment may be clinically meaningful.^[8][18]

Contradicts

None of the indexed clinical trials provided (DNA sequencing implementation, analgesic comparisons, platelet rich fibrin for palatal healing, cryptosporidiosis treatment) validate or even describe a specific “Functional Nutrition Exam” as a standardized, outcome-linked tool. Major consensus criteria for malnutrition and validated nutrition screening tools focus on anthropometrics, clinical signs, and simple functional tests, not on proprietary or branded multi-system “functional nutrition exams”; where functional assessment is included, it is as a pragmatic measure (e.g., handgrip strength, gait, ADLs) with known limitations.^[9][11] Tools that integrate nutrition and function, such as NFA or FOIS, show only partial or condition-specific validation, not broad evidence that a general “Functional Nutrition Exam” in the influencer sense improves hard outcomes like mortality, hospitalization, or disease reversal.^[14][16] Reviews of functional medicine note that much of the testing and exam framework (including extensive functional labs) is supported largely by case series, observational cohorts, and N-of-1 designs rather than large randomized controlled trials, and emphasize that population-level RCTs often do not support highly individualized, complex exam batteries as superior to standard care.^[15][17] There is no robust guideline-level evidence that a branded or comprehensive “Functional Nutrition Exam” as marketed in influencer or functional-medicine circles is required or superior to standard evidence-based nutrition assessment, and mainstream sources emphasize that health claims and exam constructs must be grounded in rigorous biomarkers, validated tools, and human outcome studies.^[18]

Mainstream view

Mainstream clinical nutrition practice supports structured, validated nutrition assessment that may include targeted functional measures (e.g., handgrip strength, gait speed, ADLs, functional oral intake scales) when appropriate, but it does not endorse a generic, branded “Functional Nutrition Exam” as a distinct, superior entity. Consensus malnutrition criteria and validated tools like MNA-SF, NFA, and FOIS are accepted as useful, partly validated instruments for specific populations, and functional assessments are viewed as one component of a broader evidence-based nutrition evaluation rather than a separate exam that replaces standard practice.^{[9][11][14][16]} Major guidelines and mainstream nutrition science acknowledge the role of functional foods and personalized dietary assessment, but they stress that any exam or assessment approach should be rigorously validated, use clinically meaningful biomarkers and functional measures, and demonstrate improvement in patient outcomes before being promoted as a standard of care.^[8][18] Functional medicine and integrative nutrition frameworks are recognized as emerging and partly evidence-informed, with promising observational data and patient-reported outcomes, but they are generally seen as complementary to, not replacements for, guideline-based nutrition assessment, and their complex exam constructs remain less well validated than conventional tools.^[15][17] Deterministic PubMed cross-check found no matching indexed studies for these terms (absence of indexed evidence is not evidence against the claim).

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Functional Nutrition Exam”

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

Tate Arnett Janssen is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Supplements.

Supplements

Supports

High-quality evidence supports some specific supplements in specific contexts, not supplements as a broad category. A systematic review and meta-analysis found that flaxseed supplements can modestly lower blood pressure . A systematic review and meta-analysis also reported that high-protein oral nutritional supplements can reduce complications in some clinical settings .

Contradicts

The claim is too vague to evaluate as stated, because supplements are a broad category with highly variable effects and the provided evidence is condition-specific rather than supportive of supplements in general. The prediabetes review in the index is only a protocol/registration-style record rather than a completed peer-reviewed meta-analysis, so it does not provide strong evidence for a general supplements claim . Across the broader medical literature, benefits depend on the specific nutrient, dose, baseline deficiency, and target condition; many supplements show no meaningful clinical benefit in people without deficiency, and some can cause harm or interact with medications. The index list itself does not provide evidence that supplements overall improve health outcomes.

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical view is that supplements are not broadly beneficial for everyone, but can be appropriate when there is a documented deficiency, a clear indication, or evidence for a specific product in a specific condition. For most healthy adults, routine supplement use has limited proven benefit, and guidance emphasizes targeted use rather than blanket recommendations. Deterministic PubMed cross-check found no matching indexed studies for these terms (absence of indexed evidence is not evidence against the claim).

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Supplements”

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

Tate Arnett Janssen is not approved to offer Erchonia Cold Laser within a Chiropractor scope of practice under Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic).

Erchonia Cold Laser

Supports

The influencer’s claim appears to be that Erchonia’s cold (low‑level) laser is clinically effective for pain and musculoskeletal indications. ^[17] High‑quality evidence for low‑level laser therapy (LLLT) in general and for Erchonia’s FX‑635 device in particular does provide some support for clinically meaningful pain reduction and good safety in specific conditions. ^[15][16] Several randomized, double‑blind, sham‑controlled trials sponsored by Erchonia have shown statistically and clinically significant reductions in chronic low back pain with the FX‑635 635 nm low‑level laser, leading to FDA 510(k) clearance for chronic nociceptive musculoskeletal pain. These trials report a higher proportion of patients achieving ≥30% pain reduction versus sham and maintenance of benefit up to 12 months, with no serious adverse events noted. Independent systematic reviews and meta‑analyses of LLLT for musculoskeletal disorders report that low‑level laser can reduce pain compared with placebo in conditions such as nonspecific chronic low back pain, knee osteoarthritis, fibromyalgia, plantar fasciitis, and carpal tunnel syndrome, although effect sizes and durability vary. ^[18] These reviews generally conclude that LLLT is a safe modality and can offer clinically relevant short‑term pain relief in some musculoskeletal conditions. More recent systematic reviews and meta‑analyses in oral surgery, maxillofacial neuropathies, temporomandibular disorders, and dental injection pain in children show consistent short‑term benefits of LLLT for pain reduction, improved function, and enhanced tissue healing, again with favorable safety profiles. Across these domains, LLLT is characterized as a non‑invasive adjunct that can meaningfully reduce pain intensity and improve recovery, though optimal dosing parameters and long‑term effects remain areas for further research. Taken together, these data support the general concept that a properly dosed cold/low‑level laser, such as a 635 nm Erchonia device, can be an effective, safe, non‑pharmacologic option for short‑term pain reduction in selected musculoskeletal and orofacial conditions, and that its use has met regulatory evidentiary standards for certain indications.

Contradicts

Despite supportive trials and meta‑analyses, the evidence base for Erchonia cold laser and for LLLT more broadly has important limitations that temper strong claims of efficacy. ^[16][17][18] Many of the pivotal Erchonia FX‑635 trials are industry‑sponsored, involve relatively small sample sizes, and focus on short‑term outcomes. Independent health‑technology assessments note that while these studies show statistically significant reductions in visual analog scale pain scores versus sham, they are limited by potential sponsorship bias, narrow inclusion criteria, and lack of head‑to‑head comparisons with standard therapies. ^[15] As a result, conclusions emphasize that FX‑635 “may be effective” rather than definitively superior to existing treatments. Across musculoskeletal conditions, systematic reviews repeatedly highlight heterogeneity in laser parameters (wavelength, energy density, treatment duration), variability in protocols, and small or moderate sample sizes. For nonspecific chronic low back pain, some meta‑analyses find only modest pain reductions and no clear benefit for disability or range of motion, and professional orthopedic commentary has concluded that there are insufficient data to firmly support or refute LLLT efficacy for low back pain. In carpal tunnel syndrome, systematic review evidence indicates that LLLT is more effective than placebo in the very short term (up to about 5 weeks), but benefits tend to diminish at 7–12 weeks, and longer‑term data are sparse. Similar patterns of short‑term benefit with unclear long‑term impact are noted in other conditions. Major hypertension, nutrition, and general medical guidelines in the indexed list do not mention cold laser or Erchonia devices, indicating that these modalities are not considered core or first‑line therapies for systemic conditions such as hypertension or chronic disease management. ^{[11][12][13][14]} This absence is consistent with the broader guideline landscape in which LLLT is often categorized as complementary or experimental, rather than standard of care, outside of a few dental and rehabilitation niches. Overall, there is little high‑quality evidence that Erchonia cold laser provides broad, durable, disease‑modifying benefits across a wide range of conditions, and strong claims of general “whole‑body” therapeutic impact go beyond what the current randomized trial and meta‑analytic data justify.

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical position is that low‑level (cold) laser therapy, including Erchonia devices, is a promising but still adjunctive modality with demonstrated short‑term Deterministic PubMed cross-check found no matching indexed studies for these terms (absence of indexed evidence is not evidence against the claim). ^{[11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18]}

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Erchonia Cold Laser”

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

Tate Arnett Janssen is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Ion Foot Bath.

Ion Foot Bath

Supports

High-quality evidence supporting ionic foot bath detoxification is lacking. ^[20] The strongest directly relevant peer-reviewed study found no evidence that the IonCleanse device increased elimination of potentially toxic elements through the feet, urine, or hair, and concluded there was no specific induction of toxic element release through the feet. ^[21][22]

Contradicts

The available evidence directly contradicts detox claims: the best-known human study found no measurable toxin removal, and mainstream medical reviews note that research on ionic footbaths is scarce and not supportive of detoxification claims. ^[20][21][22] The peer-reviewed index papers provided are unrelated to ionic foot baths and do not support the claim. ^[19] Evidence for any health benefit is weak, inconsistent, and mostly absent for the detoxification use that influencers typically imply.

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical and scientific view is that ionic foot baths do not detoxify the body and have no credible evidence showing removal of toxins or heavy metals through the feet. ^{[19][20][21][22]} Any observed water discoloration is not accepted as proof of detoxification, and claims of systemic toxin removal are not supported by robust clinical evidence. ^[12]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Ion Foot Bath”

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

Tate Arnett Janssen is not approved to offer Infrared Sauna within a Chiropractor scope of practice under Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic).

Infrared Sauna

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Infrared Sauna”

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

Tate Arnett Janssen is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to advertise Dr. Janssen will evaluate your current condition, health history, lab results, and perform a detailed physical exam to determine which supplements you need as within their scope of practice.

Dr. Janssen will evaluate your current condition, health history, lab results, and perform a detailed physical exam to determine which supplements you need

Supports

High-quality evidence supports some specific supplements in specific contexts, not supplements as a broad category. A systematic review and meta-analysis found that flaxseed supplements can modestly lower blood pressure . A systematic review and meta-analysis also reported that high-protein oral nutritional supplements can reduce complications in some clinical settings .

Contradicts

The claim is too vague to evaluate as stated, because supplements are a broad category with highly variable effects and the provided evidence is condition-specific rather than supportive of supplements in general. The prediabetes review in the index is only a protocol/registration-style record rather than a completed peer-reviewed meta-analysis, so it does not provide strong evidence for a general supplements claim . Across the broader medical literature, benefits depend on the specific nutrient, dose, baseline deficiency, and target condition; many supplements show no meaningful clinical benefit in people without deficiency, and some can cause harm or interact with medications. The index list itself does not provide evidence that supplements overall improve health outcomes.

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical view is that supplements are not broadly beneficial for everyone, but can be appropriate when there is a documented deficiency, a clear indication, or evidence for a specific product in a specific condition. For most healthy adults, routine supplement use has limited proven benefit, and guidance emphasizes targeted use rather than blanket recommendations. Deterministic PubMed cross-check found no matching indexed studies for these terms (absence of indexed evidence is not evidence against the claim).

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Dr. Janssen will evaluate your current condition, health history, lab results, and perform a detailed physical exam to determine which supplements you need”

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

Tate Arnett Janssen is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to advertise specific targeted nutritional supplementation as within their scope of practice.

specific targeted nutritional supplementation

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“specific targeted nutritional supplementation”

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

Tate Arnett Janssen is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to advertise conditions may be reduced or eliminated as within their scope of practice.

conditions may be reduced or eliminated

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“conditions may be reduced or eliminated”

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

Tate Arnett Janssen is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to advertise The majority of the supplements used are whole-food supplements as within their scope of practice.

The majority of the supplements used are whole-food supplements

Supports

High-quality evidence supports some specific supplements in specific contexts, not supplements as a broad category. A systematic review and meta-analysis found that flaxseed supplements can modestly lower blood pressure . A systematic review and meta-analysis also reported that high-protein oral nutritional supplements can reduce complications in some clinical settings .

Contradicts

The claim is too vague to evaluate as stated, because supplements are a broad category with highly variable effects and the provided evidence is condition-specific rather than supportive of supplements in general. The prediabetes review in the index is only a protocol/registration-style record rather than a completed peer-reviewed meta-analysis, so it does not provide strong evidence for a general supplements claim . Across the broader medical literature, benefits depend on the specific nutrient, dose, baseline deficiency, and target condition; many supplements show no meaningful clinical benefit in people without deficiency, and some can cause harm or interact with medications. The index list itself does not provide evidence that supplements overall improve health outcomes.

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical view is that supplements are not broadly beneficial for everyone, but can be appropriate when there is a documented deficiency, a clear indication, or evidence for a specific product in a specific condition. For most healthy adults, routine supplement use has limited proven benefit, and guidance emphasizes targeted use rather than blanket recommendations. Deterministic PubMed cross-check found no matching indexed studies for these terms (absence of indexed evidence is not evidence against the claim).

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“The majority of the supplements used are whole-food supplements”

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

Tate Arnett Janssen is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure enhance well-being.

enhance well-being

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“enhance well-being”

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

Tate Arnett Janssen is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure fight off allergies, arthritis, immune deficiencies, fatigue, decreased muscle function and much more.

fight off allergies, arthritis, immune deficiencies, fatigue, decreased muscle function and much more

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“fight off allergies, arthritis, immune deficiencies, fatigue, decreased muscle function and much more”

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

Tate Arnett Janssen is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to advertise normalize the body's pH as within their scope of practice.

normalize the body's pH

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“normalize the body's pH”

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

Tate Arnett Janssen is not approved to offer Balancing the body's pH is critical in assisting the body in every aspect, from it's ability to detox to it's ability to fight infections within a Chiropractor scope of practice under Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic).

Balancing the body's pH is critical in assisting the body in every aspect, from it's ability to detox to it's ability to fight infections

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Balancing the body's pH is critical in assisting the body in every aspect, from it's ability to detox to it's ability to fight infections”

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

Tate Arnett Janssen is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to advertise cold lasers boost biochemical reactions as within their scope of practice.

cold lasers boost biochemical reactions

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“cold lasers boost biochemical reactions”

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

Tate Arnett Janssen is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to advertise Relieves acute and chronic pain as within their scope of practice.

Relieves acute and chronic pain

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Relieves acute and chronic pain”

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

Tate Arnett Janssen is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to advertise Helps generate new and healthy cells and tissue as within their scope of practice.

Helps generate new and healthy cells and tissue

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Helps generate new and healthy cells and tissue”

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

Tate Arnett Janssen is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Concussions.

Concussions

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Concussions”

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

Tate Arnett Janssen is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Headaches and Migraines.

Headaches and Migraines

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Headaches and Migraines”

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

Tate Arnett Janssen is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to advertise Degenerative, Bulging or Herniated Discs as within their scope of practice.

Degenerative, Bulging or Herniated Discs

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Degenerative, Bulging or Herniated Discs”

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

Tate Arnett Janssen is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Arthritis.

Arthritis

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Arthritis”

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

Tate Arnett Janssen is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure immune deficiencies.

immune deficiencies

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“immune deficiencies”

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