Testimonials, ratings and endorsements that had no source
Corrected September 23, 2026 · 31 pages · published from February 14, 2026
- What was published
-
Thirty-seven testimonials, each shown with a name and a role, many with a five-star rating:
contribute.html: 4, attributed to “Dr. Sarah Mitchell, DC”, “Dr. Marcus Johnson, DC”, “Dr. Elena Rodriguez, DC” and “Dr. James Park, DC”the-chirotrack-path.html: 12, including a “Member Reviews” section described as “Mixed text and video reviews from currently enrolled members”- the workshop page (
the-other-half-chiropractic-workshop-students.html): 6 pre-chiro-navigator.html: 4students.html: 4, each with five starsabout.html: 3, under the heading “Trusted by Students and Practitioners” and the line “Real feedback from real members working through the modules”pre-health-advisor.html: 3, each with five stars, under “Student Success Stories”checkout.html: 1, with five stars
A representative sample, exactly as published:
- “I donated my interview series to ChiroTrack because I wanted my 20 years of practice experience to help the next generation avoid the mistakes I made.” (“Dr. Marcus Johnson, DC”)
- “I transferred schools my first year and felt completely lost. Module 7 alone would have saved me six months of confusion.” (“Jordan M., 3rd Quarter Student”)
- “M3’s letter templates got me into two clinics in a week. I’d been cold-calling for two months before this with nothing.” (“Elena R., Pre-Chiro · Junior”)
- “NBCE prep alone was worth the module. I went from anxious to scheduled in two weeks.” (“Avery K., 4th Tri”)
- “I’m in my second year at Life West and the Chiro Student modules are exactly what I needed.” (“Marcus Rodriguez”, five stars)
- “The podcast interviews alone are worth it.” (“Jessica Patel, Pre-Chiro Track · Accepted to Palmer”, five stars)
- “Dr. Ben answers in the forum directly. Not a TA. Him. The week I posted my application timeline, he replied with a redline by morning.” (“Avery K., DC Student · 4th Tri”)
- “The 1:1 review caught three things in my application I would’ve shipped without.” (“J. Ramirez, Pre-Chiro · UC Davis”, five stars, on the checkout page)
In the same sweep:
pre-chiropractic-student-guide.htmlclaimed a “94% chiropractic school acceptance rate”, four times, and said “Join 1,200+ pre-chiro students.”m9.htmlcalled one lesson “the highest-rated lesson in M9 according to forum traffic.”pre-health-advisor.htmloffered advisors “student success stories”.free-resources.htmlshowed Life West, Dynamic Chiropractic, Palmer, Parker, F4CP and Sherman as a row of logos under “Built On Conversations With Practitioners From”.contribute.htmlpromised contributors would be “Featured in our Contributor Spotlight” and that “we’ll be in touch within 48 hours.”
And in our own voice, about students, results and testing:
- “Every module in this curriculum was field-tested with real students before it was filmed” and “I still answer the forum personally” (
the-chirotrack-path.html), and “The lessons are field-tested with real DC students before they get filmed” with “I still answer the forum personally — not through a TA” (m7.html). - “Results in week 1: Most students send their first shadowing letter using M3 templates within seven days of joining and have at least one yes by the end of week 2” (
the-chirotrack-path.html). - “1,000+ students using ChiroTrack”, beside a row of placeholder avatars, on all twelve module pages (Modules 2 to 10.5). There was also a “students-currently-enrolled 1,000+” graphic on
m7.html. - “Most students who take M1 do continue to M2” (
m1.html), “Most students who enroll in M7 are already mid-first-year” (m7.html), “Students consistently report that the lessons reveal new layers” (m8.html), “It does substitute reasonably for most students who can self-direct” (m6.html), and “Tangible Results: Students report greater clarity, confidence, and readiness” (students.html). - Module pages describing questions that “come up” in the forum, mentor calls and Live Q&A (
m7.html,m9.html,m10.html), as if those sessions had already taken place. - The Other Half workshop page (
the-other-half-chiropractic-workshop-students.html) presented the workshop as a running series: “LIVE · Monthly workshops”, “Live sessions every month”, “12 Monthly Sessions”, “12 workshops per year”, “50+ Attendees Per Session”, “50+ Students Per Cohort”, “We keep cohorts small (50 students max)”, “Seats fill quickly”, “Don’t miss the next workshop”, “Register For Next Workshop”, a certificate that “Some schools accept … for continuing education hours”, a “workshop-preview.mp4” preview with no video behind it, and “Live on campus and online every month” in its search description. It also carried six attendee testimonials, counted among the thirty-seven above. - Eight demonstration pages of the student portal and admin console (
submissions.html,admin.html,lessons-admin.html,module.html,lesson.html,lessons.html,workbook.html,settings.html) were public. They showed invented students and activity as if real, for example “142 Students” and “Watched by 47 students this week · Avg completion: 89%”, with no notice that the data was invented.
- What was wrong
-
None of the thirty-seven testimonials has a source. We have no record of any of these people saying these words, and they should never have been published. They were placeholder copy presented as real people. The about page said so on its face: under its three testimonials, in small print, it read “[ SAMPLE TESTIMONIALS — REPLACE WITH REAL QUOTES ]”. A note in the source of
pre-chiro-navigator.htmlsaid its quotes should be verified against real records before publishing. They never were.Several described modules that no cohort has taken. Module 3’s letter templates, Module 7, the NBCE preparation and the Chiro Student modules were praised as if students had completed them. They have not: the founding cohort is planned for Q1 2027, and no student has been through the program. The five-star ratings were claims too, and they had no source either. There were no reviews to rate.
The 94% acceptance rate, the 1,200+ students, the “highest-rated lesson” and the student success stories had no source, for a program no student has completed. The row of logos implied an association with those institutions and that publication that we cannot source; it carried its own small-print note, “[ Replace with real logos / school names — placeholder set ]”. No Contributor Spotlight exists. The contribute form was never connected to anything, so the 48-hour promise could not be kept for anyone who used it.
The claims in our own voice described students, results and testing that no cohort could have produced. No module was field-tested with students before filming, and we have no record of any such test. There are not 1,000 students using ChiroTrack. No student has sent a letter with the M3 templates, reported anything about a lesson, or taken M1 and gone on to M2, and no forum has any students in it yet. The Other Half workshop has never run. There have been no sessions, no attendees and no cohorts, so every attendance, cohort and frequency figure on its page was false, as were its six testimonials. No school has accepted its certificate, because none has been issued. The demonstration pages presented invented people and numbers as a working product.
- What replaced it
-
All thirty-seven testimonials and their star ratings were removed, along with the sections that held them. The acceptance-rate and student-count claims, the lesson rating, the success-stories offer, the logo row, the Contributor Spotlight line and the 48-hour promise were removed. The form on
contribute.htmlstill does not send submissions.The field-testing claims, the forum claims, the week-1 results, the 1,000+ figures and avatars, the claims about what students do and report, the workshop figures and the “Tangible Results” card were removed. The workshop page was rewritten as an announcement of its first session: what it is, who it is for, what happens in the session, and that it has not run before. Its price and schedule were not changed in this correction. Descriptions of the forum and Live Q&A now say questions “can be raised” there, not that they have come up. “Every framework was pressure-tested in practice” stays: it refers to Dr. Glass’s own clinical practice, not to students. The eight demonstration pages were taken off the site entirely.