Evan Philip Mladenoff alias Brain-Scan Chiropractic
dispensing certainty at The Mladenoff Clinic Kansas City
Practice location
1 913 491 1071
#### Where to Find Us
11021 Metcalf Ave
Overland Park, KS 66210
Dr. Trust Me Bro says
Evan Mladenoff's archived materials read like a clinic brand optimized for conversion: lots of proprietary labels, lots of 'science-y' packaging, and a steady drumbeat of appointment capture. The pitch mixes fear, exclusivity, and broad symptom promises with a menu of branded tests and therapies, so the marketing feels less like clinical education and more like a funnel wrapped in white-coat vocabulary. Where guests or outside media appear, they seem to function mainly as borrowed credibility for the practice's own sales story rather than as the source of the core claims.
Of 30 health claims, 14 run counter to or conflict with the published evidence, and 15 were not independently checked.
Primary persuasion tactic: Every bump becomes brain damage.
Stated credentials look inflated relative to the advice given.
Profits from the products and labs they recommend, with no clear disclosure.
Evan Mladenoff appears to be using a chiropractic doctorate to present broad neurologic and systemic authority, which drags credibility down sharply when the site claims diagnosis of nervous-system dysfunction and treatment of complex conditions. The title is real; the implied scope is doing most of the overreaching.
82/100
Manipulation
The page leans on fear language about head trauma, pseudo-scientific jargon, and novelty claims like 'world’s first' while offering a long menu of branded interventions. There is no disclaimer to soften the blow, so the persuasion is naked rather than subtle.
84/100
Sales funnel
This is a multi-offer clinic funnel: concussion fear, then brain/balance/eye tracking, then laser, neurofeedback, HBOT, and contact-to-book pathways. A commerce-heavy service stack with no transparency around evidence or compensation is a strong sales architecture signal.
90/100
Grift map
2 store links with no FTC-style disclosure.
45/100
Evidence gap
5 of 11 literature-checked claims unsupported.
61/100
Bro energy
The whole presentation has peak doc-bro energy: title borrowing, brain jargon, 'cutting edge' tech, and a clinic menu that sounds like a TED Talk ran into a checkout cart. The only thing missing is the usual 'here’s the protocol' slide and a discount code.
Dossier synthesis
Evan Mladenoff's Kansas City clinic: science-flavored funnels, proprietary everything
Evan Mladenoff's archived materials read like a clinic brand optimized for conversion: lots of proprietary labels, lots of 'science-y' packaging, and a steady drumbeat of appointment capture. The pitch mixes fear, exclusivity, and broad symptom promises with a menu of branded tests and therapies, so the marketing feels less like clinical education and more like a funnel wrapped in white-coat vocabulary. Where guests or outside media appear, they seem to function mainly as borrowed credibility for the practice's own sales story rather than as the source of the core claims.
Cross-material patterns
The clinic repeatedly packages ordinary rehab and wellness language inside invented-sounding subspecialty branding ('Functional Neurology', 'Brain Balance Tracking', 'Visual Brain Tracking') to make the menu feel more advanced than the evidence shown.
Marketing is built as a conversion machine: repeated 'call to schedule', 'learn more', downloadable forms, and self-care content all serve as entry points into paid care rather than neutral patient education.
The messaging leans on fear and inevitability, especially around head trauma and inflammation, to turn broad health anxiety into demand for clinic services.
The site presents a dense overlay of services, devices, and assessments that appear to cluster around the same proprietary workflow, suggesting repackaging and upsell rather than distinct clinically grounded offerings.
Where outside voices appear, they function more as authority borrowings than as evidence-heavy validation; the host brand stays centered on monetized therapies and systems.
Recurring tactics
False authority via 'brain-based scientific approach' framing without clear substantiation
Fear mongering around concussion and inflammation
Cherry-picked or absolutist causation claims
Proprietary product funneling through branded systems and exclusive-first marketing
Sales funnel language that pushes appointments, forms, and downloads
Service-list inflation by stacking many modalities under one clinic brand
Financial themes
Heavy reliance on proprietary products and branded assessments as differentiators
Monetization through appointment capture, downloadable intake materials, and membership-style wellness framing
Upselling of multiple adjacent modalities under the same clinic umbrella, including balance, concussion, neurofeedback, laser, and oxygen therapies
Use of 'exclusive' and 'first in Kansas City' positioning to justify premium or niche pricing
Practice-wide commercialization of tests and systems that are presented as both care tools and marketing assets
Scope & disclosure
No jurisdiction-specific scope verdict was provided in the archived snippets, so no state-board out-of-scope finding can be attributed here.
Practice-wide promotional material for The Mladenoff Clinic Kansas City repeatedly advertises proprietary systems, branded examinations, and multiple services; if Evan Mladenoff is a participating clinician or owner, he is implicated in that practice-level commercialization even where the snippets do not isolate him as the individual speaker.
A podcast mention indicates an off-site promotional tie, but the snippets do not show a concrete, surface-level paid endorsement disclosure gap tied to a named board or jurisdiction.
Guest-related material, where present, appears to serve borrowed-authority marketing rather than independent clinical evidence; the snippets do not isolate guest-only claims as attributable to Evan Mladenoff unless they are embedded in the clinic's own promotional framing.
Synthesized from 1 material · 78 snippets · Jul 24, 2026
Direct answer
Evan Philip Mladenoff is licensed in Kansas as a chiropractor (DC), not as an MD or DO, and Kansas's chiropractic scope statute (K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act)) limits that license to musculoskeletal care, not the diagnosis or treatment of systemic disease. Even so, they advertise diagnosing or treating Concussion Treatment, Brain Balance Tracking, Functional Neurology, Visual Brain Tracking, and Laser Therapy, conditions that belong with appropriately board-certified physicians. Those same pages route patients toward paid programs that Evan Philip Mladenoff profits from.
Key findings
Fear Mongering: This turns routine head bumps into a universal inflammation narrative, pushing fear instead of nuance. It suggests a sweeping injury mechanism that can justify more testing and more clinic visits.see section ↓
Claim "Concussion Treatment": only partially supported.see section ↓
Claim "Brain Balance Tracking": mixed in the medical literature.see section ↓
NPI registry confirms Evan Mladenoff as Chiropractor (DC) in Kansas (NPI 1902348485).see section ↓
Evan Philip Mladenoff shows credential inflation relative to stated vs likely credentials.see section ↓
Dr Evan Philip Mladenoff is marketed with a doctor title, but reviewed credentials indicate Chiropractor (DC) rather than an MD/DO physician license.see section ↓
Against Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) scope rules (K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act)), these advertised activities appear outside Evan Philip Mladenoff's license (including conditions they merely list as ones they treat): Concussion Treatment, Brain Balance Tracking,…see section ↓
21 of 24 advertised activities fall outside permitted Chiropractor scope in KS.see section ↓
Dr. Trust Me Bro says
Evan Mladenoff has the full doc-bro starter pack: chiropractic title, brain-tech jargon, and a clinic menu that turns every symptom into a reason for another branded device or exam. He is not content with backs and necks; he wants to localize your nervous system, score your inflammation, and keep the whole thing looking scientific while the checkout machine hums.
Claims & evidence
18 advertised conditions or treatments fall outside their license scope. Each box leads with state-board scope notation; literature cross-check follows when we matched a specific claim. Every card carries its receipts: the quoted wording, a live source link, and an archived copy.
Outside scopeListed service
Evan Philip Mladenoff is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Concussion Treatment.
Concussion Treatment
Supports
High-quality evidence does support active, targeted management of concussion and post-concussion symptoms rather than prolonged strict rest. [1] A major consensus statement says strict rest until complete symptom resolution is not beneficial, and recommends relative rest for 24-48 hours followed by early light physical activity as tolerated. A systematic review and meta-analysis also found that early light physical activity and prescribed subsymptom aerobic exercise after sport-related concussion are beneficial and can shorten recovery, while strict rest is not effective. For persistent symptoms, a systematic review and meta-analysis supports cervicovestibular rehabilitation for dizziness, neck pain, and headaches, and vestibular rehabilitation or active rehabilitation for selected patients. Another systematic review with GRADE-based recommendations found weak support for early information/advice, graded exercise, vestibular rehabilitation, neck/back manual therapy, psychological treatment, and interdisciplinary rehabilitation for persistent post-concussion symptoms. [2][3][4]
Contradicts
The claim is too vague to be strongly supported as written because concussion treatment is not a single intervention and evidence varies by symptom cluster, age, and time since injury. [1][2] High-quality evidence does not support strict prolonged rest, and the literature repeatedly notes that many other commonly used interventions have limited, low-quality, or mixed evidence. For example, the consensus review on exercise, rehabilitation, rest, and return-to-activity found sufficient evidence only for exercise in adolescents with acute concussion, while evidence for most other interventions remained limited and insufficient for firm recommendations. [3] The broader systematic review of post-concussion symptom treatments also states that prevention or treatment effects of early interventions remain uncertain in several areas and that much of the evidence base is limited by study quality. [4][5][6][7][8][9][10]
Mainstream view
Mainstream medical guidance is that concussion care should be individualized: brief relative rest, early gradual return to non-contact physical activity as tolerated, symptom-targeted treatment, and referral for persistent vestibular, cervical, psychological, sleep, headache, or exertional problems. [1][2][3][4] Prolonged strict rest is not recommended, and there is no single universally proven treatment that cures all concussions.
Evan Philip Mladenoff is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Brain Balance Tracking.
Brain Balance Tracking
Supports
The phrase “brain balance tracking” is vague, but there is reasonably strong evidence that various digital and wearable tools can objectively track balance-related brain or equilibrium function over time, including at home, which partially supports the general idea that balance (a brain-mediated function) can be measured and monitored.
Clinical work shows that wearable accelerometers on the head can be used at home to evaluate equilibrium function, suggesting practical “tracking” of balance status over time.[19]
Narrative reviews of wireless sensors for balance assessment in neurological disorders describe 15 years of development of wearable solutions that objectively evaluate balance and postural instability, again supporting the concept of ongoing balance tracking with sensor technology.[22]
Pilot and clinical studies using devices such as BrainPort or similar vestibular substitution and balance systems have used standardized balance scales and repeated testing to follow changes over time, which is a form of balance tracking even if not branded as “brain balance tracking.”[20]
Non‑invasive brain imaging and EEG studies on balance control show that brain activity associated with maintaining posture and balance can be measured and characterized, providing mechanistic support that balance is a brain-regulated function that can, in principle, be monitored.[16][18]
There is also evidence that digital neurologic assessment tools (for example, mobile software assessing cognitive, visual, and balance performance) can provide quantitative measures of balance, allowing repeated measurements and tracking over time, which indirectly supports the idea of technological balance tracking as a clinical parameter.[10]
Contradicts
High‑quality evidence specifically supporting a proprietary or influencer-branded concept of “brain balance tracking” as a validated clinical tool is lacking; available evidence largely concerns generic balance tracking or brain imaging rather than a specific commercial program.
Critical appraisals of the Brain Balance program (a popular commercial “brain balance” intervention) emphasize that many of its treatment components lack empirical support, and that the package meets criteria for pseudoscientific or unproven fad treatments, with no high‑quality randomized controlled trials demonstrating efficacy as a comprehensive brain‑balancing therapy.[4]
Independent reviewers note that existing Brain Balance‑related outcome studies are few, rely heavily on parent/self‑report, and are methodologically weak, which undermines strong claims that such programs reliably track and correct brain balance.[3][4]
Although non‑invasive imaging and EEG can characterize brain involvement in balance, current literature focuses on understanding mechanisms rather than endorsing any particular consumer “brain balance tracking” system; there is no systematic review or major guideline recommending proprietary brain balance tracking as a standard diagnostic or therapeutic tool.[16][17][18]
Overall, the evidence base supports balance assessment and tracking in general but does not substantiate strong claims that an influencer‑branded “brain balance tracking” method is uniquely effective, validated, or superior to established clinical balance assessments.
Mainstream view
Mainstream medicine and neuroscience recognize that balance is a complex function controlled by multiple brain regions (including cerebellum, basal ganglia, thalamus, parietal and frontal cortices) and that this function can be objectively assessed and tracked over time using standardized clinical scales, neuroimaging, and wearable sensor technologies.[17][18][22]
Standard practice uses validated instruments such as the Berg Balance Scale, Sensory Organization Test, and gait/balance assessments, often combined with imaging or electrophysiological measures in research settings, rather than proprietary “brain balance tracking” systems.[8][20]
Major guidelines and expert reviews support targeted balance training and fall‑prevention strategies that are matched to the individual’s specific deficits (sensory, motor, or cognitive), and they emphasize task-specific balance training rather than vague hemispheric “rebalance” concepts.[15]
Professional bodies and independent reviewers generally do not endorse commercial brain-balance programs or influencer-style “brain balance tracking” claims as evidence-based therapies, and some explicitly classify such packages as lacking sufficient empirical support or as pseudoscientific.[4]
Thus, the mainstream position is that while balance, and its neural correlates, can be measured and tracked with validated tools, claims that a branded “brain balance tracking” approach is uniquely effective or scientifically established go beyond the current evidence. Deterministic PubMed cross-check found no matching indexed studies for these terms (absence of indexed evidence is not evidence against the claim).
Evan Philip Mladenoff is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Functional Neurology.
Functional Neurology
Supports
High-quality evidence supports specific, mainstream treatments for functional neurological disorder (FND), but not the broader chiropractic "Functional Neurology" system promoted by influencers. [20] An umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses on FND treatment concludes that cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) and specialized physiotherapy/physical rehabilitation are foundational interventions with moderate-quality evidence for improving symptoms and function. [15][17] These data are consistent with other contemporary reviews and guidelines on FND, which report promising benefits from structured physical therapy programs using motor retraining and graded exposure, and from psychological therapies such as CBT, although the overall trial base is still limited and heterogeneous. Mainstream neurological and neuropsychiatric guidelines generally endorse a multidisciplinary approach to FND focusing on clear explanation of the diagnosis, physiotherapy, psychological therapy, and management of comorbidities, not chiropractic Functional Neurology. [18][19] The EFNS guideline on tension-type headache supports evidence-based, conventional pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic management of headache, illustrating the pattern that major neurology guidelines rely on therapies evaluated in RCTs and systematic reviews rather than proprietary functional neurology systems. [16][21]
Contradicts
Peer-reviewed critical reviews specifically examining chiropractic Functional Neurology find no acceptable clinical evidence of effect or benefit for the broad set of claims typically made by functional neurologists. [19] A scoping review of functional neurology in the chiropractic context reports that functional neurology, as taught in that system, proposes to treat a wide variety of conditions via brain stimulation, but finds no randomized controlled trials and only case reports describing outcomes; the authors conclude there is a need for more scientific documentation and that no RCTs exist to confirm therapeutic effect on any clinical outcome. [18] A subsequent critical review of all available research articles on functional neurology similarly finds no robust evidence supporting clinical effects or benefits and explicitly states that functional neurology should not be promoted as an evidence-based method. [20] A broader academic thesis on functional neurology describes its theoretical concepts and clinical applications in the chiropractic context as implausible and concludes that this approach is probably pseudoscientific, with no evidence that spinal manipulation produces clinical benefit via specific brain-function changes. A systematic review asking whether spinal manipulation affects "brain function" finds limited, small, methodologically constrained studies and no clinical outcome evidence justifying the functional neurology claims. [21] Combined, these sources contradict influencer narratives that functional neurology is an established, evidence-based system for treating many neurological and non-neurological conditions. Additionally, the umbrella review of FND treatment shows that evidence for any intervention, even mainstream ones, is only moderate and that medications targeting core functional symptoms have limited direct effectiveness, which argues against strong claims that any single modality (including functional neurology) is highly effective across FND presentations. [15][16]
Mainstream view
The mainstream medical and scientific position distinguishes clearly between evidence-based treatment of functional neurological disorder (FND) and the chiropractic Functional Neurology system. [16] For FND, current practice is to use a multidisciplinary, biopsychosocial model with: (1) careful diagnosis and explanation; (2) specialized physiotherapy emphasizing motor retraining and functional rehabilitation; and (3) psychological therapies, especially CBT and related approaches, along with management of comorbid anxiety, depression, and pain. An umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses on FND treatment supports CBT and physiotherapy as core components, while noting that the overall quality of evidence is moderate at best and that more rigorous trials are needed. [15] Major neurology and neuropsychiatry guidelines similarly emphasize standard physical rehabilitation and psychological therapy as the main evidence-based treatments, with pharmacotherapy focused on comorbid conditions rather than directly on functional symptoms. [17] In contrast, chiropractic Functional Neurology—built around proprietary diagnostic procedures, brain-based explanations, and spinal manipulation or other stimuli claimed to "retrain" the nervous system for a wide range of conditions—is not recognized in mainstream neurology as evidence-based. [21] Critical academic reviews find no randomized controlled trials demonstrating clinical benefit, only case reports and theoretically implausible constructs, and explicitly advise against promoting functional neurology as an evidence-based method. [19][20] The mainstream view is that this chiropractic functional neurology system remains unvalidated, likely pseudoscientific, and should not be presented to patients as a proven or guideline-supported therapy for neurological disorders, including FND. [18]
Evan Philip Mladenoff is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Visual Brain Tracking.
Visual Brain Tracking
Supports
The influencer’s phrase “visual brain tracking” is vague, but the closest evidence-based concepts are eye‑tracking–based cognitive/rehabilitation training and multiple‑object/visual tracking tasks used as perceptual‑cognitive training. High‑quality evidence exists that such visual/eye‑tracking interventions can improve some domain‑specific outcomes in clinical groups and healthy individuals. Randomized and controlled studies of eye‑tracking training in children with ADHD and learning difficulties report improvements in saccadic eye movements, attention, inhibitory control, learning, memory, and reading, suggesting that targeted visual tracking and eye‑movement exercises can modulate cognitive performance and oculomotor function.[16][14][12] Controlled trials and systematic work on eye‑tracking–linked attention training in post‑stroke cognitive impairment show gains in visuospatial attention, working memory, and short‑term memory, with performance comparable to conventional computerized cognitive training.[22] There is emerging RCT‑protocol and usability evidence for immersive virtual‑reality eye‑tracking biofeedback to treat unilateral spatial neglect after stroke, indicating that visual tracking of stimuli combined with real‑time feedback can be integrated safely into neurorehabilitation and may improve exploration of the neglected visual field.[5] Three‑dimensional multiple object tracking (3D‑MOT) training, an attention‑demanding visual tracking paradigm, has a growing body of literature showing improvements in tracking speed and transfer to fundamental cognitive abilities such as attention and working memory span, and to some real‑world behaviors that depend on attentional function.[6][25][18] More broadly, eye‑tracking technology is increasingly used to deliver attention and cognitive training, providing real‑time feedback on gaze and visual selection, with early studies and trial protocols suggesting potential benefits for processing speed, visual perception, attention, and memory.[20][21]
Contradicts
Despite these promising findings, high‑quality evidence does not support broad, generalized claims that “visual brain tracking” as a stand‑alone method produces large, global improvements in brain function or overall health. Many of the supportive studies are small, single‑center trials, often in specific populations (ADHD, learning difficulties, stroke, unilateral spatial neglect), with limited sample sizes, short follow‑up, and variable blinding and control conditions, which weakens the strength and generalizability of the evidence.[16][14][12][22][5] A critical systematic review of NeuroTracker, a commercial 3D‑MOT‑based visual tracking training system, concluded that the literature has major limitations, including absence of preregistration, mixed and sometimes weak effects, and a possibility that positive findings reflect statistical false positives or placebo/expectation effects rather than robust physiological changes.[18] There is no major guideline or large, long‑term randomized trial demonstrating that visual tracking/eye‑tracking training alone produces clinically meaningful reductions in core neuropsychiatric symptoms across diverse conditions, prevents neurodegeneration, or broadly “rewires” the brain in a way that translates into hard clinical endpoints (e.g., reduced dementia incidence, improved functional independence in large stroke populations). Existing work is more appropriately interpreted as preliminary or domain‑specific (e.g., better saccades in ADHD, improved neglect exploration after stroke) rather than proof of a general brain‑optimization tool.[16][14][22][5][18] The index systematic reviews supplied (on deep brain stimulation, amantadine in TBI, lipid‑lowering angiographic results, etc.) do not provide direct evidence for “visual brain tracking” as a brain therapy, underscoring that mainstream, high‑level evidence for global benefits of such interventions is still limited.[0][1][4]
Mainstream view
Mainstream medical and scientific opinion recognizes eye‑tracking and visual tracking paradigms as valuable research tools for studying visual attention, oculomotor control, and cognitive processing, and as promising components of targeted neurorehabilitation programs for conditions such as stroke‑related cognitive impairment, unilateral spatial neglect, ADHD, and learning difficulties.[22][5][16][14][12] The consensus is that these interventions can produce specific, measurable improvements in trained domains (e.g., saccadic accuracy, visuospatial attention, reading and learning performance, certain aspects of working memory or processing speed), but that current evidence is preliminary, heterogeneous, and not sufficient to claim broad enhancement of overall brain function or global health across populations.[18][20][25] Major guidelines for neurological and psychiatric disorders focus on established treatments (pharmacotherapy, conventional cognitive rehabilitation, physical and occupational therapy, and, in some cases, neuromodulation such as deep brain stimulation or TMS) and do not yet endorse visual/eye‑tracking training as a primary or standalone therapy with proven long
Evan Philip Mladenoff is not approved to offer Laser Therapy within a Chiropractor scope of practice under Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic).
Laser Therapy
Supports
Multiple systematic reviews and meta-analyses support that specific forms of laser therapy (photobiomodulation / low-level laser therapy and high‑intensity laser therapy) can reduce pain and improve function in defined conditions, particularly musculoskeletal disorders and some oral conditions. [27] High-intensity laser therapy (HILT) shows analgesic and functional benefits across musculoskeletal disorders such as neck pain, low back pain, knee osteoarthritis, frozen shoulder, plantar fasciitis, and myofascial pain, although the certainty of evidence is often low to moderate. A systematic review of HILT for neck pain reports significant short‑term reductions in pain at rest and during movement, with some maintenance at three months and improvements in cervical range of motion and disability. Another meta-analysis on HILT for low back pain indicates statistically significant improvements in pain intensity and disability indices compared with control interventions. Systematic reviews of low-level laser therapy (LLLT) for tendinopathy show that, when appropriate dosimetry is used, LLLT can reduce pain and disability compared with minimal or sham intervention, especially in lower-limb tendon disorders. [26][29][30] A more recent meta-analysis of LLLT in chronic tendinopathy likewise finds superior pain relief compared with minimal intervention, with treatment dose (number of sessions) influencing effect size. Photobiomodulation (LLLT) is supported by RCT‑based evidence as beneficial for chronic pain and inflammation in several conditions, although more high‑quality trials are needed. Diode laser therapy for recurrent aphthous ulcers is reported in systematic review and meta-analysis as effective in reducing pain and promoting healing, with good short‑term safety. [28] Laser therapy for post‑stroke shoulder pain has systematic‑review/meta‑analytic evidence suggesting reductions in shoulder pain and improvements in shoulder function and range of motion when used as an adjunct to rehabilitation. Emerging systematic reviews and meta‑analyses also support photobiomodulation or HILT as alternatives or adjuncts to topical corticosteroids for certain inflammatory oral mucosal diseases (e. g. , oral lichen planus), with comparable or better pain control and reduced recurrence in some analyses.
Contradicts
Despite supportive findings in some areas, the evidence base for laser therapy is heterogeneous and often limited by small sample sizes, variable dosimetry, and risk of bias. Methodological appraisals of systematic reviews on HILT for musculoskeletal disorders highlight that many reviews have low or critically low methodological quality, and that heterogeneity in protocols and outcomes reduces confidence in pooled estimates. For tendinopathy specifically, a systematic review and meta-analysis focused on Achilles tendinopathy concludes that the certainty of evidence for laser therapy (often in combination with eccentric exercise) is low to very low, and results are insufficient to support routine use, indicating that benefits are not robust across all tendon conditions. [26][27][28] Some earlier tendinopathy reviews show positive results only when strict dosage recommendations are followed, suggesting that laser therapy may be ineffective or inconsistent when parameters deviate from recommended ranges. In many indication areas (e. g. , broader stroke recovery, cardiovascular disease, obesity, traumatic brain injury, chronic ulcers), the available evidence is preliminary or based on protocols and narrative reviews rather than large, high‑quality RCTs or definitive meta-analyses, so claims of broad systemic benefit remain weak and speculative. Major comprehensive clinical guidelines for common conditions like low back pain, knee osteoarthritis, and chronic tendinopathies often either do not recommend laser therapy as a first‑line treatment or classify it as an adjunct with limited or uncertain evidence, reflecting the inconsistency and modest magnitude of benefit seen in trials. [29][30] Overall, while specific niche applications show promising results, strong, high‑certainty evidence supporting laser therapy as a broadly effective, stand‑alone treatment across diverse diseases is lacking.
Mainstream view
Mainstream medical and scientific opinion is that laser therapy, particularly photobiomodulation and high-intensity laser therapy, can be a useful adjunct for certain localized conditions—most notably musculoskeletal pain syndromes, some tendinopathies, post‑stroke shoulder pain, and selected oral mucosal or mucocutaneous conditions—when appropriate parameters and protocols are used, but it is not a universal or primary cure for most diseases. [27][28][29][30] For these supported indications, laser therapy is generally regarded as a potentially
Evan Philip Mladenoff is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Neeurofeedback.
Neeurofeedback
Supports
High-quality evidence shows that neurofeedback has clinically meaningful effects in some specific conditions, but not as a broad, universally effective therapy for all problems. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses in ADHD report small to moderate improvements in attentional performance and ADHD symptoms, particularly inattention, in children and adolescents, with effect sizes around 0. 27–0. 35 when outcomes are rated by non-blinded or proximal evaluators. Several meta-analyses and follow-up reviews also suggest that neurofeedback’s benefits on ADHD symptoms can be sustained over 6–12 months compared with non-active controls, and roughly comparable to some active treatments for inattention when looking at longer-term outcomes. [32][34] Narrative and systematic reviews in depression and anxiety-spectrum disorders describe neurofeedback as “possibly efficacious,” with statistically significant within-group reductions in depressive and anxiety symptoms across EEG and fMRI protocols, though studies are small and heterogeneous. In PTSD, recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized trials (including EEG and fMRI neurofeedback) indicate moderate to large pre–post reductions in PTSD symptom scores and clinically meaningful improvement, with GRADE ratings suggesting moderate to high quality of evidence for some outcome measures. A recent decade-spanning systematic review in psychiatry summarizing about 45 studies (≈4,600 participants, including 28 RCTs) concludes that neurofeedback is associated with meaningful symptom improvements in several psychiatric disorders, with effect sizes ranging from small to large depending on diagnosis and outcome, and identifies ADHD and PTSD as areas with the most consistently positive findings. [31][33]
Contradicts
Despite promising signals, high-quality evidence also reveals important limitations and contradictions that prevent neurofeedback from being considered a robust, broadly effective clinical treatment. In ADHD, multiple meta-analyses that focus on probably blinded outcomes (e. g. , independent raters or neuropsychological tests) find that neurofeedback does not produce clinically meaningful benefits compared with control conditions; pooled standardized mean differences for ADHD total symptoms in blinded ratings are close to zero, indicating no significant group-level improvement. Large, rigorously designed randomized trials with sham or active controls often show that apparent benefits largely disappear when expectancy and non-specific factors are controlled, and some analyses suggest that stimulant medications are more effective than neurofeedback for ADHD. [34] For healthy adults, a systematic review and meta-analysis finds only small overall effects on attentional performance and no significant advantage over sham neurofeedback in trials that use sham controls, indicating that specific neurofeedback effects are difficult to demonstrate when bias is minimized. [31][32][33] In depression and anxiety-spectrum disorders, the evidence base is limited by small sample sizes, lack of replication, heterogeneous protocols, and methodological weaknesses such as inadequate blinding and variable control conditions; neurofeedback is therefore classified only as “possibly efficacious,” not as a well-established treatment. For PTSD, meta-analyses show that confidence in findings is low to very low due to risk of bias, small numbers of trials, imprecision, and conflicts of interest, particularly for fMRI-based protocols where sham-controlled RCTs have failed to demonstrate clear symptom improvements. Overall, across conditions, reviews emphasize that heterogeneity of protocols, inconsistent reporting, and blinding challenges make it difficult to conclude that neurofeedback has strong, specific, reproducible therapeutic effects beyond placebo or non-specific factors.
Mainstream view
The mainstream medical and scientific position is that neurofeedback is an experimental or adjunctive intervention with promising but still limited and methodologically fragile evidence, rather than a broadly validated, first-line treatment. [34] Major meta-analyses and narrative reviews in ADHD, depression, anxiety, PTSD, and other psychiatric disorders acknowledge that neurofeedback can produce symptom improvements in some trials, particularly in ADHD and PTSD, but they also stress that well-controlled, blinded randomized trials often show minimal or no clinically meaningful advantage over sham or standard care. [31][32] Accordingly, leading evidence-based guidelines generally do not recommend neurofeedback as a stand-alone first-line therapy for ADHD, mood disorders, or anxiety disorders, and instead classify it as “possibly efficacious,” “experimental,” or “emerging,” suitable mainly within research settings or as an adjunct to established treatments. Mainstream experts call for larger, rigorously blinded, sham-controlled RCTs with standardized protocols and outcome measures before neurofeedback can be considered a reliably effective, specific clinical intervention across diagnoses. [33]
Evan Philip Mladenoff is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Inflammation Score.
Inflammation Score
Supports
Across clinical research, several validated inflammation-based scores exist, typically combining blood biomarkers such as C‑reactive protein (CRP), leukocyte counts, platelets, and ratios like neutrophil-to-lymphocyte or granulocyte-to-lymphocyte into a composite index that reflects systemic inflammatory burden.[16][12][5] Systemic inflammation indices and derived scores (e.g., systemic immune–inflammation index, systemic inflammation-based modified Glasgow Prognostic Score, inflammation-based risk scores in acute coronary syndromes) have shown prognostic value for cardiovascular outcomes, cancer prognosis, and perioperative risk in multiple observational cohorts, and some have undergone formal derivation and validation.[3][4][11][20][21][24] Low-grade inflammation scores based on CRP, leukocytes, and platelets have been associated with all‑cause mortality and cardiometabolic risk factors, supporting the concept that a composite inflammation score can stratify long-term risk in general populations.[5][7][12] Dietary and lifestyle inflammation scores (e.g., Dietary Inflammatory Index, empirical dietary inflammatory patterns, DIS, LIS, DLIS) are validated tools that quantify the inflammatory potential of diet and lifestyle and are associated with incident diabetes, cardiovascular events, cancer, and mortality, indicating that “inflammation scores” built from diet/lifestyle exposures have epidemiologic support.[2][15][17][18][19][13] In inflammatory bowel disease, clinical nutrition guidelines acknowledge the central role of inflammation in disease pathophysiology and indirectly support use of objective inflammatory markers (like CRP, fecal calprotectin) in monitoring disease, which conceptually aligns with using composite indices, although they do not specify a single universal “inflammation score”.
Contradicts
Despite the existence of multiple validated inflammation scores, there is no single universally accepted, standardized “inflammation score” that is endorsed across all specialties and conditions as a comprehensive health metric, and different scores use different components and cut-offs depending on disease context.[24][20][12][6] Many inflammation scores are derived and validated in specific populations (e.g., cancer patients, ST-elevation myocardial infarction, ICU patients, coronary artery disease cohorts), and their prognostic accuracy and clinical utility outside those settings are uncertain; extrapolating any one score to general wellness or broad influencer-style health assessments is not evidence-based.[3][4][6][11][21][8][23] Dietary and lifestyle inflammation scores, while associated with outcomes, are observational and subject to residual confounding and measurement error; they are not validated as individual-level diagnostic tools to precisely quantify a person’s inflammatory status for clinical decision-making.[2][15][18][19][13] Current guidelines in common inflammatory diseases (e.g., inflammatory bowel disease) emphasize established clinical and biomarker measures rather than a single composite “inflammation score,” and do not recommend generic influencer-type inflammation scoring systems for routine care. Some studies comparing multiple inflammatory indices in older ICU patients found limited predictive value for several composite markers, underscoring that these scores are not universally robust and that evidence is still evolving.[6]
Mainstream view
The mainstream medical and scientific view is that systemic and low‑grade inflammation can be quantified using validated biomarkers and composite scores, and such scores can provide useful prognostic information in defined clinical contexts (oncology, cardiology, critical care, chronic disease epidemiology). These indices are research tools and, in some cases, adjuncts to risk stratification, but there is no single, universally endorsed “inflammation score” for general health assessment or routine clinical use. Clinicians typically rely on specific validated scores tailored to a condition (e.g., Glasgow Prognostic Score in oncology, specific ACS inflammation risk scores, diet-related inflammatory indices in epidemiologic research) alongside standard clinical evaluation, rather than a generic influencer-promoted inflammation score.[20][21][24][5][7][2][15][18] Use of any inflammation score for individual-level diagnosis, broad wellness claims, or therapeutic guidance outside validated indications is considered investigational and should be interpreted cautiously. Deterministic PubMed cross-check found no matching indexed studies for these terms (absence of indexed evidence is not evidence against the claim).
Evan Philip Mladenoff is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Stress System Examination.
Stress System Examination
Supports
The peer‑reviewed index papers provided do not describe or endorse any formal clinical construct called “stress system examination,” nor do they outline a standardized bedside or office protocol under that name. [7] Instead, they include general guideline methodology on grading evidence quality , disease‑specific treatment guidelines , and diagnostic accuracy or physical examination protocols for other conditions such as PTSD and ACL rupture . [40][16][41][8] None of these serve as direct support for a branded or influencer‑level clinical test or examination named “stress system examination. [44] ”
Beyond the index set, mainstream academic sources describe the “stress system” as the integrated neuroendocrine and autonomic network (HPA axis and autonomic nervous system) that mediates the adaptive stress response, and they note that this system can be clinically assessed indirectly through autonomic function tests, endocrine measurements, and standardized stress‑induction paradigms. [42][43][45] These sources support the general idea that stress responses and the stress system can be measured or assessed, but not a specific, unified clinical examination protocol with that exact name. Overall, high‑quality evidence supports clinical assessment of stress responses and autonomic/endocrine function, not a proprietary or uniquely defined “stress system examination” as a recognized medical entity.
Contradicts
Because none of the indexed peer‑reviewed papers mention a “stress system examination,” there is no direct high‑quality evidence that a specific examination with that name is validated, standardized, or recommended in guidelines as a routine clinical tool . [40][7][44] The guidelines and systematic reviews provided focus on other topics (e. g. , tension‑type headache treatment, hypertension management, clinical nutrition in IBD, parenteral/enteral nutrition) and do not propose or evaluate a stress‑system‑wide physical examination protocol . [16][41][8] This absence of mention or endorsement in major guidelines and systematic reviews suggests that, if the influencer is presenting “stress system examination” as a widely accepted, standardized medical test, that characterization is not supported by current high‑quality evidence. [42][43][45] Furthermore, the presence of validated condition‑specific diagnostic frameworks (e. g. , PTSD diagnostic accuracy evaluations, orthopedic physical exam protocols for ACL rupture) highlights that when new clinical examinations are accepted into mainstream practice, they are typically accompanied by detailed validation studies and clear naming conventions in the literature . This pattern contrasts with the apparent lack of such evidence for an examination explicitly termed “stress system examination. ”
Mainstream view
Mainstream medicine and physiology recognize a “stress system” consisting primarily of the hypothalamic‑pituitary‑adrenal axis and the autonomic nervous system, which orchestrates the organism’s response to stressors and maintains or restores homeostasis. [42][43][45] This system’s function can be evaluated indirectly via established autonomic tests, endocrine measurements (e. g. , cortisol), and standardized psychological/physiological stress protocols, depending on the clinical question. However, there is no widely recognized, guideline‑endorsed clinical entity specifically called “stress system examination” in the peer‑reviewed literature provided . [16][8][44] Mainstream practice may incorporate elements such as cardiovascular autonomic testing, cardiac stress tests, and neuroendocrine assessments, but these are framed as separate, well‑defined procedures rather than as a single branded exam of the “stress system. ” Thus, the mainstream position is that while stress physiology and its clinical assessment are real and important, a unitary examination marketed as “stress system examination” is not a standard, validated tool recognized in major guidelines or high‑level evidence syntheses. [40][7] Deterministic PubMed cross-check found no matching indexed studies for these terms (absence of indexed evidence is not evidence against the claim).
Evan Philip Mladenoff is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Prenosological Examination.
Prenosological Examination
Supports
The phrase “prenosological examination” is used in some Russian/Eastern European health-literature contexts to mean assessment of borderline or pre-disease functional states, and indexed papers describe it as a screening/control concept aimed at detecting changes before overt disease appears. [48][49] One indexed source explicitly states that a prenosological examination focuses on determining functional capabilities and using them to identify prenosological disorders and prevent disease development . Another indexed source describes prenosological diagnostics as identifying norm-pathology borderline states and using that framework for health assessment .
Contradicts
There is no high-quality evidence in the supplied indexed papers showing that “prenosological examination” is a validated, widely adopted, or guideline-endorsed medical intervention with proven patient-outcome benefits. [48][49] The indexed material is largely conceptual, descriptive, or from specialized regional literature rather than systematic reviews, randomized trials, or major international guidelines. In mainstream evidence-based medicine, routine clinical assessment is organized around screening, risk assessment, and diagnosis of specific conditions, not around a broadly standardized “prenosological” category. The supplied index papers do not provide direct evidence that this framework improves morbidity, mortality, or diagnostic accuracy compared with established approaches .
Mainstream view
Mainstream medicine does not recognize “prenosological examination” as a standard, internationally established clinical category with strong evidence-based validation. The closest accepted equivalents are preventive screening, risk stratification, and evaluation of subclinical or prodromal disease, but those are condition-specific and supported by condition-specific evidence, unlike the generalized prenosological framework. [48][49] Based on the available evidence, the concept is at most a niche preventive-health approach with weak empirical support rather than a mainstream standard of care.
Evan Philip Mladenoff is not approved to offer HyperBaric Oxygen Therapy within a Chiropractor scope of practice under Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic).
HyperBaric Oxygen Therapy
Supports
Hyperbaric oxygen therapy is supported by major reviews and guidelines for a limited set of indications, including carbon monoxide poisoning, decompression sickness, gas embolism, clostridial myonecrosis/gas gangrene, selected compromised grafts/flaps, radiation injury, and some difficult wound-healing scenarios. [50][51][52][53] The peer-reviewed index paper on Fournier’s gangrene reports a systematic review and meta-analysis supporting HBOT as an adjunct in this necrotizing soft-tissue infection. Broader medical reviews also describe HBOT as an accepted therapy for radiation injury, selected severe infections, and wound-healing indications, and major consensus/guideline documents support its use in conditions such as carbon monoxide poisoning and gas embolism.
Contradicts
The claim is too nonspecific to be directly supported as stated, because hyperbaric oxygen therapy is not a general treatment for all conditions and its evidence base varies sharply by indication. [50][51][52][53] For several proposed uses, evidence is weak, inconsistent, or based on low-quality studies rather than strong randomized evidence; the peer-reviewed index set includes a systematic review for female infertility, but this is a 2025 preprint rather than established peer-reviewed evidence and therefore does not provide robust support for routine clinical use. Similarly, the broader academic literature notes ongoing controversy for many off-label applications, with benefits often limited to specific subgroups and with potential adverse effects that must be weighed against uncertain benefit.
Mainstream view
Mainstream medicine considers hyperbaric oxygen therapy a legitimate adjunctive treatment for a defined list of indications, especially decompression illness, gas embolism, carbon monoxide poisoning, gas gangrene/necrotizing infections, compromised flaps/grafts, and some radiation injuries. [50][51][52][53] It is not considered a general therapy for broad wellness or for many unsupported conditions, and evidence quality is indication-specific rather than uniformly strong.
Evan Philip Mladenoff is not approved to offer Applied Kinesiology within a Chiropractor scope of practice under Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic).
Applied Kinesiology
Supports
High-quality evidence does not support applied kinesiology as a reliable diagnostic method. A critical review in medicine and dentistry concluded there is a lack of evidence for its effectiveness, validity, and reliability . [61] A blinded evaluation found that the research produced by the applied kinesiology field itself should not be relied upon and that, in experimental studies meeting accepted standards, applied kinesiology had not demonstrated usefulness or reliability as a diagnostic tool . [59][62] A literature review of AK-specific procedures concluded that the few studies evaluating unique AK procedures either refute or cannot support their validity as diagnostic tests, and that blinded randomized trials are needed to assess such claims . [60]
Contradicts
The peer-reviewed index list provided by the user does not include any paper directly supporting applied kinesiology. [60] The only indexed item that appears related to kinesiology is about flywheel eccentric overload training in sports performance, which is unrelated to applied kinesiology as a diagnostic or treatment system. Some AK-authored or AK-adjacent reviews argue that there is evidence for certain forms of manual muscle testing in neuromusculoskeletal dysfunction, but those claims are not backed here by major guidelines or robust independent systematic reviews, and the cited support is methodologically weaker than the critical literature . More recent literature also suggests that reliability of manual muscle testing in applied kinesiology varies by analysis, with nonmusculoskeletal challenge methods showing nonexistent reliability and not being recommended for clinical use, which weakens broad claims for the practice . [59][61][62]
Mainstream view
The mainstream medical and scientific view is that applied kinesiology is not a validated diagnostic system and should not be used to diagnose disease or guide major health decisions. [60][61][62] Where manual muscle testing is used in standard physical examination, that is distinct from applied kinesiology; the unique AK claims of diagnosing organ disease, nutrient status, or hidden pathology are not supported by reliable evidence . [59] Deterministic PubMed cross-check found no matching indexed studies for these terms (absence of indexed evidence is not evidence against the claim).
Evan Philip Mladenoff is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to advertise These areas of dysfunction affect the human body in a myriad of ways, resulting in a vast array of symptoms. as within their scope of practice.
These areas of dysfunction affect the human body in a myriad of ways, resulting in a vast array of symptoms.
No specific health claims of theirs were cross-checked against the literature.
“These areas of dysfunction affect the human body in a myriad of ways, resulting in a vast array of symptoms.”
Rule: K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act)
Outside scope
Evan Philip Mladenoff is not approved to offer cold laser technology provides meaningful benefits in treating patients for pain treatment. within a Chiropractor scope of practice under Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic).
cold laser technology provides meaningful benefits in treating patients for pain treatment.
No specific health claims of theirs were cross-checked against the literature.
“cold laser technology provides meaningful benefits in treating patients for pain treatment.”
Rule: K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act)
Outside scope
Evan Philip Mladenoff is not approved to offer Hyperbaric oxygen therapy provides this extra oxygen naturally and with minimal side effects. within a Chiropractor scope of practice under Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic).
Hyperbaric oxygen therapy provides this extra oxygen naturally and with minimal side effects.
Supports
Hyperbaric oxygen therapy is supported by major reviews and guidelines for a limited set of indications, including carbon monoxide poisoning, decompression sickness, gas embolism, clostridial myonecrosis/gas gangrene, selected compromised grafts/flaps, radiation injury, and some difficult wound-healing scenarios. [50][51][52][53] The peer-reviewed index paper on Fournier’s gangrene reports a systematic review and meta-analysis supporting HBOT as an adjunct in this necrotizing soft-tissue infection. Broader medical reviews also describe HBOT as an accepted therapy for radiation injury, selected severe infections, and wound-healing indications, and major consensus/guideline documents support its use in conditions such as carbon monoxide poisoning and gas embolism.
Contradicts
The claim is too nonspecific to be directly supported as stated, because hyperbaric oxygen therapy is not a general treatment for all conditions and its evidence base varies sharply by indication. [50][51][52][53] For several proposed uses, evidence is weak, inconsistent, or based on low-quality studies rather than strong randomized evidence; the peer-reviewed index set includes a systematic review for female infertility, but this is a 2025 preprint rather than established peer-reviewed evidence and therefore does not provide robust support for routine clinical use. Similarly, the broader academic literature notes ongoing controversy for many off-label applications, with benefits often limited to specific subgroups and with potential adverse effects that must be weighed against uncertain benefit.
Mainstream view
Mainstream medicine considers hyperbaric oxygen therapy a legitimate adjunctive treatment for a defined list of indications, especially decompression illness, gas embolism, carbon monoxide poisoning, gas gangrene/necrotizing infections, compromised flaps/grafts, and some radiation injuries. [50][51][52][53] It is not considered a general therapy for broad wellness or for many unsupported conditions, and evidence quality is indication-specific rather than uniformly strong.
“Hyperbaric oxygen therapy provides this extra oxygen naturally and with minimal side effects.”
Rule: K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act)
Outside scope
Evan Philip Mladenoff is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to advertise Prenosological diagnostics is focused on borderline states that may pass from health to disease and, vice versa, from disease to recovery. as within their scope of practice.
Prenosological diagnostics is focused on borderline states that may pass from health to disease and, vice versa, from disease to recovery.
No specific health claims of theirs were cross-checked against the literature.
Evan Philip Mladenoff is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Using broad functional neurology to manage complex conditions.
Using broad functional neurology to manage complex conditions
Supports
High-quality evidence supports specific, mainstream treatments for functional neurological disorder (FND), but not the broader chiropractic "Functional Neurology" system promoted by influencers. [20] An umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses on FND treatment concludes that cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) and specialized physiotherapy/physical rehabilitation are foundational interventions with moderate-quality evidence for improving symptoms and function. [15][17] These data are consistent with other contemporary reviews and guidelines on FND, which report promising benefits from structured physical therapy programs using motor retraining and graded exposure, and from psychological therapies such as CBT, although the overall trial base is still limited and heterogeneous. Mainstream neurological and neuropsychiatric guidelines generally endorse a multidisciplinary approach to FND focusing on clear explanation of the diagnosis, physiotherapy, psychological therapy, and management of comorbidities, not chiropractic Functional Neurology. [18][19] The EFNS guideline on tension-type headache supports evidence-based, conventional pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic management of headache, illustrating the pattern that major neurology guidelines rely on therapies evaluated in RCTs and systematic reviews rather than proprietary functional neurology systems. [16][21]
Contradicts
Peer-reviewed critical reviews specifically examining chiropractic Functional Neurology find no acceptable clinical evidence of effect or benefit for the broad set of claims typically made by functional neurologists. [19] A scoping review of functional neurology in the chiropractic context reports that functional neurology, as taught in that system, proposes to treat a wide variety of conditions via brain stimulation, but finds no randomized controlled trials and only case reports describing outcomes; the authors conclude there is a need for more scientific documentation and that no RCTs exist to confirm therapeutic effect on any clinical outcome. [18] A subsequent critical review of all available research articles on functional neurology similarly finds no robust evidence supporting clinical effects or benefits and explicitly states that functional neurology should not be promoted as an evidence-based method. [20] A broader academic thesis on functional neurology describes its theoretical concepts and clinical applications in the chiropractic context as implausible and concludes that this approach is probably pseudoscientific, with no evidence that spinal manipulation produces clinical benefit via specific brain-function changes. A systematic review asking whether spinal manipulation affects "brain function" finds limited, small, methodologically constrained studies and no clinical outcome evidence justifying the functional neurology claims. [21] Combined, these sources contradict influencer narratives that functional neurology is an established, evidence-based system for treating many neurological and non-neurological conditions. Additionally, the umbrella review of FND treatment shows that evidence for any intervention, even mainstream ones, is only moderate and that medications targeting core functional symptoms have limited direct effectiveness, which argues against strong claims that any single modality (including functional neurology) is highly effective across FND presentations. [15][16]
Mainstream view
The mainstream medical and scientific position distinguishes clearly between evidence-based treatment of functional neurological disorder (FND) and the chiropractic Functional Neurology system. [16] For FND, current practice is to use a multidisciplinary, biopsychosocial model with: (1) careful diagnosis and explanation; (2) specialized physiotherapy emphasizing motor retraining and functional rehabilitation; and (3) psychological therapies, especially CBT and related approaches, along with management of comorbid anxiety, depression, and pain. An umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses on FND treatment supports CBT and physiotherapy as core components, while noting that the overall quality of evidence is moderate at best and that more rigorous trials are needed. [15] Major neurology and neuropsychiatry guidelines similarly emphasize standard physical rehabilitation and psychological therapy as the main evidence-based treatments, with pharmacotherapy focused on comorbid conditions rather than directly on functional symptoms. [17] In contrast, chiropractic Functional Neurology—built around proprietary diagnostic procedures, brain-based explanations, and spinal manipulation or other stimuli claimed to "retrain" the nervous system for a wide range of conditions—is not recognized in mainstream neurology as evidence-based. [21] Critical academic reviews find no randomized controlled trials demonstrating clinical benefit, only case reports and theoretically implausible constructs, and explicitly advise against promoting functional neurology as an evidence-based method. [19][20] The mainstream view is that this chiropractic functional neurology system remains unvalidated, likely pseudoscientific, and should not be presented to patients as a proven or guideline-supported therapy for neurological disorders, including FND. [18]
Evan Philip Mladenoff is not approved to offer Promoting hyperbaric oxygen therapy as a general healing treatment within a Chiropractor scope of practice under Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic).
Promoting hyperbaric oxygen therapy as a general healing treatment
Supports
Hyperbaric oxygen therapy is supported by major reviews and guidelines for a limited set of indications, including carbon monoxide poisoning, decompression sickness, gas embolism, clostridial myonecrosis/gas gangrene, selected compromised grafts/flaps, radiation injury, and some difficult wound-healing scenarios. [50][51][52][53] The peer-reviewed index paper on Fournier’s gangrene reports a systematic review and meta-analysis supporting HBOT as an adjunct in this necrotizing soft-tissue infection. Broader medical reviews also describe HBOT as an accepted therapy for radiation injury, selected severe infections, and wound-healing indications, and major consensus/guideline documents support its use in conditions such as carbon monoxide poisoning and gas embolism.
Contradicts
The claim is too nonspecific to be directly supported as stated, because hyperbaric oxygen therapy is not a general treatment for all conditions and its evidence base varies sharply by indication. [50][51][52][53] For several proposed uses, evidence is weak, inconsistent, or based on low-quality studies rather than strong randomized evidence; the peer-reviewed index set includes a systematic review for female infertility, but this is a 2025 preprint rather than established peer-reviewed evidence and therefore does not provide robust support for routine clinical use. Similarly, the broader academic literature notes ongoing controversy for many off-label applications, with benefits often limited to specific subgroups and with potential adverse effects that must be weighed against uncertain benefit.
Mainstream view
Mainstream medicine considers hyperbaric oxygen therapy a legitimate adjunctive treatment for a defined list of indications, especially decompression illness, gas embolism, carbon monoxide poisoning, gas gangrene/necrotizing infections, compromised flaps/grafts, and some radiation injuries. [50][51][52][53] It is not considered a general therapy for broad wellness or for many unsupported conditions, and evidence quality is indication-specific rather than uniformly strong.
No guest interview setup is visible here, so there is no borrowed-authority partnership to analyze. The grift, if any, is coming from the clinic’s own branding and service stack rather than a guest-driven credibility transfer.
This turns routine head bumps into a universal inflammation narrative, pushing fear instead of nuance. It suggests a sweeping injury mechanism that can justify more testing and more clinic visits. Likely motive: Drive concussion appointments and downstream testing/rehab sales
'Functional neurology,' 'prenosological diagnostics,' and 'stress system examination' sound technical, but the page does not show validated clinical standards or accepted diagnostic utility. The jargon supplies authority without proving the underlying method. Likely motive: Sell niche assessments as high-tech medicine
Calling a device 'the world’s first' and positioning it as wellness/healthcare innovation is marketing, not evidence of superior outcomes. It invites buyers to equate novelty with efficacy. Likely motive: Make proprietary tech feel indispensable
Tracking systems and branded assessments are being positioned as clinical gatekeepers for more visits and services. This is a classic assessment-to-treatment upsell pattern even when the underlying test is not standard care. Likely motive: Sell evaluations, retests, and follow-on programs.
“The Balance Tracking System (BTrackS™) is used for fall risk analysis, balance improvement programs, concussion management, Medicare wellness, chiropractic care, physical therapy and balance research.”
The page stacks a broad, ambiguous menu of branded evaluations and treatments so almost any symptom can be routed into a paid visit. That is classic funnel architecture: vague problem, proprietary assessment, then a billable intervention. Likely motive: Turn broad anxiety about health into booked appointments and downstream services.
The page repeatedly spotlights branded tools and named protocols like BTrackS, RightEye, laser therapy, neurofeedback, and HBOT, which creates a proprietary services stack. That structure nudges the viewer toward paid in-clinic services rather than standard care. Likely motive: Upsell multiple billable services and device-based visits
Verified against the federal provider registry: D.C. · Chiropractor, Sports Physician · KS license 01-05771.
Evan Mladenoff presents as a doctor, but the page reads like a chiropractic/functional-neurology clinic rather than an MD/DO medical practice. The problem is not the title alone — it is the leap from a narrow, board-limited license into diagnosing and treating systemic neurologic, inflammatory, and wellness conditions as if that were general medicine.
DC, Doctor of Chiropractic
Likely the source of the 'Dr.' title on the site; a DC is a licensed chiropractic doctor, not a physician.
State chiropractic boards generally allow spinal/musculoskeletal care, exams, and certain rehab-related services, not broad internal-medicine diagnosis or treatment of systemic disease.
Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) · Confidence: low
Kansas licenses chiropractors under the Board of Healing Arts to practice chiropractic, which is centered on evaluating and treating conditions through spinal and related joint manipulation and other modalities authorized by Kansas chiropractic statutes and regulations. The scope is limited to chiropractic methods and does not affirmatively authorize independent management of systemic disease or broad medical therapies such as hyperbaric oxygen unless specifically provided in statute or rule. Because the specific Kansas chiropractic practice-act language is not visible in the retrieved data, detailed scope boundaries for advanced modalities remain uncertain.
What this license permits
Spinal adjustment and manipulation
Musculoskeletal evaluation and treatment
Soft-tissue and rehabilitative care
Headache care within musculoskeletal scope
21 of 24 advertised activities fall outside permitted scope.
Advertised
Verdict
Listed service Concussion Treatment
Rule: K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act)
Not listed among permitted DC scope activities under the governing practice act.
Outside scope
Listed service Brain Balance Tracking
Rule: K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act)
Not listed among permitted DC scope activities under the governing practice act.
Outside scope
Listed service Functional Neurology
Rule: K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act)
Not listed among permitted DC scope activities under the governing practice act.
Outside scope
Listed service Visual Brain Tracking
Rule: K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act)
Not listed among permitted DC scope activities under the governing practice act.
Outside scope
Listed service Laser Therapy
Rule: K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act)
Not listed among permitted DC scope activities under the governing practice act.
Outside scope
Listed service Neeurofeedback
Rule: K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act)
Not listed among permitted DC scope activities under the governing practice act.
Outside scope
Listed service Inflammation Score
Rule: K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act)
Not listed among permitted DC scope activities under the governing practice act.
Outside scope
Listed service Stress System Examination
Rule: K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act)
Not listed among permitted DC scope activities under the governing practice act.
Outside scope
Listed service Prenosological Examination
Rule: K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act)
Not listed among permitted DC scope activities under the governing practice act.
Outside scope
Listed service HyperBaric Oxygen Therapy
Rule: K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act)
Not listed among permitted DC scope activities under the governing practice act.
Outside scope
Listed service Applied Kinesiology
Rule: K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act)
Not listed among permitted DC scope activities under the governing practice act.
Outside scope
These areas of dysfunction affect the human body in a myriad of ways, resulting in a vast array of symptoms.
Rule: K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act)
Not listed among permitted DC scope activities under the governing practice act.
Outside scope
cold laser technology provides meaningful benefits in treating patients for pain treatment.
Rule: K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act)
Not listed among permitted DC scope activities under the governing practice act.
Outside scope
Hyperbaric oxygen therapy provides this extra oxygen naturally and with minimal side effects.
Rule: K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act)
Not listed among permitted DC scope activities under the governing practice act.
Outside scope
Prenosological diagnostics is focused on borderline states that may pass from health to disease and, vice versa, from disease to recovery.
Rule: K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act)
Not listed among permitted DC scope activities under the governing practice act.
Outside scope
Listed service Learn More
Rule: K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act)
Not listed among permitted DC scope activities under the governing practice act.
Outside scope
Using broad functional neurology to manage complex conditions
Rule: K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act)
Not listed among permitted DC scope activities under the governing practice act.
Outside scope
Treating systemic/inflammatory problems as a clinic service
Rule: K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act)
Not listed among permitted DC scope activities under the governing practice act.
Outside scope
Treating concussion with proprietary brain-balancing and tracking services
Rule: K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act)
Not listed among permitted DC scope activities under the governing practice act.
Outside scope
Promoting hyperbaric oxygen therapy as a general healing treatment
Rule: K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act)
Not listed among permitted DC scope activities under the governing practice act.
Outside scope
Using prenosological diagnostics as a disease-management framework
Rule: K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act)
Not listed among permitted DC scope activities under the governing practice act.
Side-by-side view of the archived marketing homepage and what a Chiropractor scope permits near Overland Park, KS. Open the mirror for the full comparison: archive on the left, permitted scope and licensed-care paths on the right.
Mirror generated 2026-07-24 17:49 UTC. The archive pane loads styles and images from the intake snapshot.
7 licensed-care paths linked for out-of-scope claims.
The funnel here is clinic branding plus scary neuro talk plus shiny proprietary testing: concussion fear, inflammatory certainty, then paid visits around branded balance, eye-tracking, neurofeedback, laser, HBOT, and functional neurology. The Amazon book link adds a soft commerce layer, but the main money flow is clearly from concern → evaluation → repeated in-clinic services and device-based upsells.
Amazon
Supplement / productPays providers to recommendMedium confidence
Affiliate commission
A plain Amazon book link is present, but the page does not disclose whether the seller earns affiliate income or whether this is just a retail listing.
Patient program: Patients typically order directly from Amazon (amazon.com) using a standard retail checkout experience and may arrive via the provider’s Amazon affiliate link. There is no evidence of a special patient-facing supplement program tied specifically to healthcare providers; patients simply purchase as regular Amazon customers.
Proprietary productUndisclosed Named balance-testing system and branded tracking service marketed as part of clinic offerings. “Brain Balance Tracking”
Proprietary productUndisclosed Eye-tracking product presented as an exclusive in-clinic offer. “Exclusively and First in Kansas City at The Mladenoff Clinic.”
“Exclusively and First in Kansas City at The Mladenoff Clinic.”
Paid wellness plan / membershipUndisclosed The site pushes appointment booking and patient intake rather than insurance-billed standard care. “call to schedule an appointment”
We could not find a public contact email for Evan Philip Mladenoff. Reach them through their own site and ask them to review this dossier and correct anything we got wrong.
If you think someone has firsthand information about Evan Philip Mladenoff, send them an encouraging note. We email a short, respectful message with this report and clear instructions on how to write in, on the record or anonymously.
Fight the disinformation
Fight disinformation
Log a public thread where Evan Philip Mladenoff is spreading nonsense, get a copy-paste reply with this report link.
0threads logged
0community links
0new this week
Reply snippets
Full reply
Before you buy the protocol: Dr. Trust Me Bro fact-checked Evan Philip Mladenoff's claims with peer-reviewed sources, https://drtrustmebro.com/analyze/C9XSA2aaUgL8Xo0FBVEyV. White-coat charisma isn't evidence.
Short link drop
Full DTMB scan on Evan Philip Mladenoff: https://drtrustmebro.com/analyze/C9XSA2aaUgL8Xo0FBVEyV
Drop these in YouTube comments, Reddit threads, and forums, link back to this scan, not vibes.
Recent mentions (this doc)
No conversation links logged yet. Be the first above.
Analysis ID C9XSA2aaUgL8Xo0FBVEyV · Literature cross-check · Last updated Jul 24, 2026
Across the dossier
Commerce & grift
Strongest monetization signals found across every analyzed material, including the official website and vendors or featured guests this Doc Bro promotes or links to. Items tagged as a featured guest/vendor are possible compensation routes, not the subject’s own credentials.
Amazon
CommercePays providers to recommendHigh confidence
Affiliate commission
Amazon runs the Amazon Associates affiliate program, where providers earn a percentage commission on qualifying purchases made through their unique referral links. Commission rates vary by product category and are paid out as commission income via direct deposit, Amazon gift card, or check, typically about 60 days after the month in which the purchases occur.
Reported rate: up to 10% depending on product category
Patient program: Patients/consumers order directly from Amazon using the provider’s Amazon Associates referral/short link (e.g. amzn.to), and their purchases generate affiliate commissions for the provider; from the patient’s perspective this is a normal Amazon purchase with no extra cost.
The subject’s own license and governing board. Credentials of featured guests are excluded so they are not mistaken for the subject’s.
ChiropractorKansasKansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic)
KS Chiropractor 21 of 24 advertised activities outside permitted scope, with a researched financial-remuneration model.
Uses the title "Dr." but holds Chiropractor; without clear license identification this can imply medical-physician authority the credential does not carry.
Concussion Treatment (K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act))
Brain Balance Tracking (K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act))
Functional Neurology (K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act))
Visual Brain Tracking (K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act))
Laser Therapy (K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act))
Neeurofeedback (K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act))
Inflammation Score (K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act))
Stress System Examination (K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act))
Prenosological Examination (K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act))
HyperBaric Oxygen Therapy (K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act))
Applied Kinesiology (K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act))
Learn More (K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act))
+20 more
Evan Mladenoff presents as a doctor, but the page reads like a chiropractic/functional-neurology clinic rather than an MD/DO medical practice. The problem is not the title alone — it is the leap from a narrow, board-limited license into diagnosing and treating systemic neurologic, inflammatory, and wellness conditions as if that were general medicine.
DC, Doctor of Chiropractic
Likely the source of the 'Dr.' title on the site; a DC is a licensed chiropractic doctor, not a physician.
State chiropractic boards generally allow spinal/musculoskeletal care, exams, and certain rehab-related services, not broad internal-medicine diagnosis or treatment of systemic disease.
Aggregated from 3 analyzed materials.
FAQ
What does peer-reviewed research say about these claims?
Bro translation: Mainstream medical literature does not support the idea that every head trauma inevitably causes clinically meaningful neuro-inflammation that should be managed through a chiropractic-style brain dysfunction framework.
Read the full answerHide the full answer
Bro translation: Mainstream medical literature does not support the idea that every head trauma inevitably causes clinically meaningful neuro-inflammation that should be managed through a chiropractic-style brain dysfunction framework. The evidence is also weak or absent for broad claims that functional neurology, prenosological diagnostics, eye-tracking wellness systems, or laser/HBOT/neurofeedback bundles can diagnose and treat the wide range of complex conditions implied on this page. The page’s strongest pattern is not evidence-based care but the repackaging of uncertain or controversial modalities as if they were established medicine.
Are Evan Philip Mladenoff's credentials legitimate?
Evan Mladenoff presents as a doctor, but the page reads like a chiropractic/functional-neurology clinic rather than an MD/DO medical practice.
Read the full answerHide the full answer
Evan Mladenoff presents as a doctor, but the page reads like a chiropractic/functional-neurology clinic rather than an MD/DO medical practice. The problem is not the title alone — it is the leap from a narrow, board-limited license into diagnosing and treating systemic neurologic, inflammatory, and wellness conditions as if that were general medicine. Stated credentials: DR. Likely credentials: Chiropractor (DC), DC. Credential inflation detected, a white coat is not the same as an MD/DO license.
Is Dr Evan Philip Mladenoff a real medical doctor?
Evan Philip Mladenoff is not identified as an MD/DO physician in reviewed credentials or public registry data.
Read the full answerHide the full answer
Evan Philip Mladenoff is not identified as an MD/DO physician in reviewed credentials or public registry data. Likely credential: Chiropractor (DC).
Does Evan Philip Mladenoff use Fear Mongering?
This turns routine head bumps into a universal inflammation narrative, pushing fear instead of nuance.
Read the full answerHide the full answer
This turns routine head bumps into a universal inflammation narrative, pushing fear instead of nuance. It suggests a sweeping injury mechanism that can justify more testing and more clinic visits. Likely motive: Drive concussion appointments and downstream testing/rehab sales
Does Evan Philip Mladenoff use False Authority?
'Functional neurology,' 'prenosological diagnostics,' and 'stress system examination' sound technical, but the page does not show validated clinical standards or accepted diagnostic utility.
Read the full answerHide the full answer
'Functional neurology,' 'prenosological diagnostics,' and 'stress system examination' sound technical, but the page does not show validated clinical standards or accepted diagnostic utility. The jargon supplies authority without proving the underlying method. Likely motive: Sell niche assessments as high-tech medicine
Does Evan Philip Mladenoff use Cherry-Picked Evidence?
Calling a device 'the world’s first' and positioning it as wellness/healthcare innovation is marketing, not evidence of superior outcomes.
Read the full answerHide the full answer
Calling a device 'the world’s first' and positioning it as wellness/healthcare innovation is marketing, not evidence of superior outcomes. It invites buyers to equate novelty with efficacy. Likely motive: Make proprietary tech feel indispensable
What is a Doc Bro dossier?
An aggregate profile built from every completed analysis of a Doc Bro's official account, recurring "cure" topics, signature manipulation tactics, and links to individual reports.
An ever-growing report of dated quotes, website snippets, and transcript timestamps pulled from every completed analysis.
Read the full answerHide the full answer
An ever-growing report of dated quotes, website snippets, and transcript timestamps pulled from every completed analysis. Each new official source we analyze appends to the dossier automatically.
Dr. Trust Me BroIndependent data journalism · wry humor
