What disciplinary actions have state medical or chiropractic boards taken against Dr. Eric Berg and what were the findings?
Executive summary
State disciplinary records show that Dr. Eric Berg, a chiropractor and popular online health commentator, was the subject of a formal enforcement action by Virginia authorities after investigators concluded he made unsupported therapeutic claims and used diagnostic techniques outside accepted scientific support; the enforcement included a consent order with investigatory oversight and practice restrictions [1]. Secondary summaries and watchdog sites repeat the same core findings and add that he was fined, though public primary-source documentation is limited in the reporting provided here [2] [3].
1. Virginia board action: what was charged and how it was resolved
The Virginia Board of Medicine (acting on chiropractic practice rules) issued a consent agreement after finding that Berg published or caused to be published advertisements and patient communications containing therapeutic claims that were not supported by reasonable scientific or medical evidence, and that these statements violated multiple sections of the Virginia Code and Board regulations; the casefile and consent terms are summarized in a public writeup reproduced by Quackwatch [1]. The written consent included investigatory steps such as inspection of Berg’s office, review of advertising, and copying of a sample of patient records for Board review, indicating the Board treated the matter as a formal regulatory enforcement rather than an informal warning [1].
2. Specific findings: the techniques and claims flagged by the board
Investigators identified several named techniques and diagnostic approaches Berg used and advertised—listed in secondary reporting as Body Restoration Technique (BRT), Nambudripad’s Allergy Elimination Technique (NAET), Contact Reflex Analysis (CRA), and the Acoustic Cardiograph (ACG)—and found clinical claims associated with those techniques in patient circulars and newsletters lacked reasonable scientific evidence [2] [3]. Quackwatch’s summary cites examples from Berg’s own materials, including a newsletter claim that synthetic estrogens were “the main causative factor” in diverse conditions and that certain tests ameliorated those conditions, claims for which Berg did not produce supporting clinical tests when requested by investigators [1].
3. Sanctions, oversight and reported monetary penalties
The Board’s consent order imposed active oversight measures—office inspection, advertising review, production of medical and billing records, and copying of a random sample of patient files—measures typical of regulatory orders that aim to correct practice and prevent recurrent violations [1] [4]. Some secondary sources report a monetary fine of $1,500 and “several orders” that harmed Berg’s reputation, but that specific dollar figure and its provenance are cited in a 2024 complaint site (Gripeo) rather than the original Board document available in the provided reporting; therefore the fine is reported in secondary coverage but the primary Board text proving the amount is not included among the supplied sources [2].
4. Broader context and competing perspectives
Critics and skeptical aggregators such as RationalWiki describe Berg as a promoter of pseudoscientific health advice and note that he is not a medical doctor, a characterization consistent with his chiropractic credentials and online persona [5]. At the same time, professional regulatory practice commonly handles “advertising/unproven claims” matters separately from direct clinical malpractice, and boards have a spectrum of actions from education to fines to license revocation—making the Virginia action consistent with standard regulatory practice for unsubstantiated therapeutic advertising [6] [4]. The reporting provided does not include Berg’s contemporaneous public response or any later remediation steps he may have taken, so assessments of intent, corrective behavior, or full career impact remain incomplete [1] [5].
5. What is documented and what remains to be independently confirmed
Documented and verifiable from the available sources is that the Virginia Board issued a consent agreement finding multiple advertising/claim violations and ordered inspections and record reviews [1]. Reported but less directly corroborated in the supplied materials is the exact monetary penalty and the full list of disciplinary consequences; those items appear in secondary retellings [2] [3] and would best be confirmed by the original Board order or Virginia public records requests or by consulting the Federation of State Medical Boards/DocInfo and the state licensing database for the definitive disposition and penalty language [4] [7].