Kelsey Matichuk, RMT

09/02/2026

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1BtXcWSd6Z/

COVID vaccines have quickly become one of the most well-studied medical interventions in history. Thousands of studies have been conducted by researchers from all over the world, often with truly incredible sample sizes. Many of those studies are independent, with no conflicts of interest, and they all paint a very clear, consistent picture: COVID vaccines are enormously beneficial. They reduce risk of infection, reduce the spread of COVID, reduce the severity of COVID infections (reducing hospitalizations and ICU admission), and reduce death.

They do all of this while maintaining a high safety profile. Yes, there are some potentially serious side effects (this is true with essentially all medications), but, serious side effects are rare, and those same serious conditions are substantially more common from COVID itself. The evidence is extremely clear on this. There is no evidence of widespread serious injuries or death from COVID vaccines.

So, if you still think that the vaccines are dangerous or ineffective, my question is, WHY? Why do you reject all of these studies? What actual evidence do you have that they are wrong? Stop blindly following conspiracy theories, political pundits, and social media and actually look at the verifiable facts.

You can read more (with citations) here https://thelogicofscience.com/2025/02/27/masks-and-covid-vaccines-were-huge-successes-ivermectin-and-hydroxychloroquine-were-not/

and here https://thelogicofscience.com/2026/08/28/covid-vaccines-are-safer-than-covid-itself/

Here are the studies shown in the image

Faksova et al. 2024. COVID-19 vaccines and adverse events of special interest: A multinational Global Vaccine Data Network (GVDN) cohort study of 99 million vaccinated. Vaccine 42:2200-2211 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38350768/

Samantha et al. 2024. Cohort study of cardiovascular safety of different COVID-19 vaccination doses among 46 million adults in England. Nature Communications 15:6085
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-49634-x

Voleti et al. 2022. Myocarditis in SARS-CoV-2 infection vs. COVID-19 vaccination: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Frontiers Cardiovascular Medicine 9
https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/cardiovascular-medicine/articles/10.3389/fcvm.2022.951314/full?trk=public_post_comment-text

Semenzato et al. 2025. COVID-19 mRNA Vaccination and 4-Year All-Cause Mortality Among Adults Aged 18 to 59 Years in France JAMA 8:e2546822
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2842305

Ikeokwu et al. 2023. A Meta-Analysis To Ascertain the Effectiveness of COVID-19 Vaccines on Clinical Outcomes in Patients With COVID-19 Infection in North America. Cureus 15:e41053
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37519527/

Patone et al. 2022. Risks of myocarditis, pericarditis, and cardiac arrhythmias associated with COVID-19 vaccination or SARS-CoV-2 infection. Nature Medicine 28: 410-422
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01630-0.pdf

Toraih, et al. 2026. Cardiac outcomes following SARS-CoV-2 infection versus BNT162b2 vaccination in adolescents and young adults: a cohort study of 4 million individuals. Vaccine 91: 129001
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0264410X26008108

Zheng et al. 2022. Real-world effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines: a literature review and meta-analysis. International Journal of Infectious Diseases 114:252-260.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1201971221008572

Rahmani et al. 2022. The effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in reducing the incidence, hospitalization, and mortality from COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Frontiers in Public Health
https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/public-health/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2022.873596/pdf

08/31/2026

08/29/2026

It’s commonly believed that x-rays and MRIs can determine the exact cause of low back pain and how to fix it, but imaging does not change management or improve outcomes in the majority of cases. For that reason, and this might be very surprising, x-rays and MRIs are not recommended for most instances of low back pain.

Here are 3 things to consider:

1. Degeneration, disc bulges, and other similar findings are common in asymptomatic individuals and should be considered a normal part of aging like wrinkling of your skin or graying of your hair. For example, despite having no symptoms, 37% of 20-year-olds demonstrate disc degeneration, while 96% of 80-year-olds show the same. This holds true for many cases of spinal stenosis, spondylolisthesis, and disc herniations. This is why a person’s history and presentation are so important. 

2. The degree of change on imaging doesn’t always correlate with a person’s symptoms or function. For instance, a larger disc herniation or more compression of a nerve doesn’t necessarily mean worse symptoms or outcomes. In fact, it’s possible to have compression of a nerve with no symptoms at all. Rehab doesn’t usually have to focus on the image because the image doesn’t have to change, and often doesn’t change, for symptoms and function to improve.

3. Imaging costs more money, can create unnecessary worry, and may actually lead to worse outcomes if it results in further medical tests and treatments that are unwarranted (Webster 2013, 2014)

Does that mean imaging is never required? No. Imaging may be necessary if a fracture, infection, inflammatory disease, or cancer is suspected, or if you’re considering surgery at the recommendation of your doctor. This is a discussion to be had with your medical doctor. 

Don’t get me wrong, diagnoses and imaging findings are helpful in the right context, but sometimes labels can negatively influence expectations and create self-limiting beliefs. I just want you to know that you’re more than a diagnosis or imaging finding. You’re not defined by a label.

To learn more, click the link in our bio or search “E3 Rehab Low Back Pain” on YouTube!

08/29/2026

The research on leg length discrepancy and pain is more mixed than a single confident claim would suggest, but it broadly backs the scepticism I’ve landed on after years in practice. Knutson’s widely cited two part review in Chiropractic & Osteopathy (2005) found anatomic leg length inequality, measured by x ray, in around 90% of people, with a mean difference of only 5.2mm, and concluded it typically isn’t clinically significant until it reaches roughly 20mm (DOI). Against that backdrop of near universal minor discrepancy, several studies specifically looking for a pain link have come up empty. Rannisto et al. (2011) noted outright that the evidence on LLD’s role in low back pain is contradictory (DOI). Morgenroth et al. (2009) compared transfemoral amputees with and without low back pain and found no significant difference in leg length discrepancy between the two groups, whether measured statically or during gait (DOI). And Lazennec and Pour (2024), studying sacroiliac pain after hip replacement, found functional leg length was essentially identical between patients with and without pain, directly against the clinical assumption (DOI). Not every study lands the same way. Weiner et al. (2019) found LLD associated with gait speed in older adults with chronic low back pain (DOI), and Campbell et al.‘s 2017 systematic review of shoe lifts noted LLD was associated with low back pain, scoliosis, and hip or knee osteoarthritis in the literature, while also flagging that overall study quality across this field was very low to poor (DOI). So this isn’t a topic with a single clean answer, but the weight of evidence and the sheer prevalence of the finding does undercut the idea that spotting a leg length difference explains someone’s pain, which is exactly why I stopped saying it early in my career. It’s a single tidy fix that the data simply doesn’t consistently support.

08/27/2026

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1EMAumgf3K/

08/27/2026

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1AaPYqTXBm/

08/24/2026

7,000 might be a more reachable goal for some But if you are doing 10,000 don’t stop.

Most people accept 10,000 steps a day as the benchmark for cardiovascular health. The number didn't come from a clinical trial. It came from a 1965 marketing campaign in Japan.

In 1965, the Yamasa Tokei company began selling a step counter called the Manpo-kei. The name translates literally to "10,000-step meter." The number was a brand identity, picked because the Japanese character for 10,000 resembled a person walking. There was no underlying mortality study. No randomized trial. The 10,000 target became a global health norm because the device was successful and the number was memorable.

The actual mortality data tells a different story.

Lee and colleagues (2019, JAMA Internal Medicine) measured step counts in 16,741 older women using accelerometers and tracked all-cause mortality over four years. Compared with the lowest step quartile (around 2,700 steps per day), women averaging 4,400 steps had significantly lower mortality. Risk continued declining with more steps. Then it leveled off. The plateau was around 7,500 steps per day. Beyond that, additional steps showed no further mortality benefit in this population.

Saint-Maurice and colleagues (2020, JAMA) measured 4,840 US adults aged 40 and older. Compared with 4,000 steps per day, taking 8,000 steps was associated with roughly half the all-cause mortality risk. Twelve thousand steps showed further benefit, though the marginal gain after 8,000 was smaller than the gain from 4,000 to 8,000.

Paluch and colleagues (2022, Lancet Public Health) pooled 15 international cohorts including 47,471 adults. They found the dose-response curve plateaued at 6,000-8,000 steps per day for adults 60 and older, and at 8,000-10,000 for adults under 60. The age-dependent plateau is the most replicable finding across the literature.

What this means in practice. If you are over 60, the data suggests most of the mortality benefit accrues by 7,000-8,000 steps per day. If you are under 60, that benefit window extends a bit further, into the 8,000-10,000 range. Going beyond your population's plateau is fine. It is just not adding measurable mortality benefit at the population level. The number to chase isn't 10,000. The number to clear is closer to 7,000 for most adults.

A few caveats. These are observational cohort studies, not randomized trials. Reverse causality is a concern at the low end, where people who walk less may walk less because they are already sick. The studies adjusted for known confounders but residual confounding likely remains. The data is also strongest for all-cause mortality. Step targets for specific outcomes like cardiovascular event reduction, weight management, or cognitive performance may differ. Stepping intensity, separately analyzed, did not predict mortality independently of total daily steps in any of these studies.

10,000 is a round number that came from a 1965 product name. It is not a research-derived target. The mortality data shows the curve flattens earlier than that for most adults, and the practical implication is that consistent walking at moderate volume captures most of the available benefit. The number on your wearable is not the goal.

Lee et al., JAMA Internal Medicine
2019 Saint-Maurice et al., JAMA, 2020
Paluch et al., Lancet Public Health, 2022

08/22/2026