Anna Payne alias The Bloodwork Whisperer

Anna Payne is not licensed or approved by Minnesota Board of Chiropractic Examiners to diagnose, treat, or cure Autoimmunity (Hashimoto's, psoriasis, lupus).

Autoimmunity (Hashimoto's, psoriasis, lupus)

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Autoimmunity (Hashimoto's, psoriasis, lupus)”

Rule: Minnesota Statutes § 148.01, subd. 1(1) and (2)

See every doc bro who says they can treat or advise on Thyroid disease and Hashimoto

Anna Payne is not licensed or approved by Minnesota Board of Chiropractic Examiners to diagnose, treat, or cure Hormone optimization (Testosterone, Estrogen, Progesterone).

Hormone optimization (Testosterone, Estrogen, Progesterone)

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Hormone optimization (Testosterone, Estrogen, Progesterone)”

Rule: Minnesota Statutes § 148.01, subd. 1(1) and (2)

See every doc bro who says they can treat or advise on Hormone imbalance and replacement

Anna Payne is not licensed or approved by Minnesota Board of Chiropractic Examiners to diagnose, treat, or cure Functional ranges reveal hidden patterns (inflammation, dysglycemia, thyroid dysfunction).

Functional ranges reveal hidden patterns (inflammation, dysglycemia, thyroid dysfunction)

Supports

There is limited indirect support that values within the conventional “normal” reference intervals can stratify risk and reveal subclinical patterns, especially for thyroid function and glycemia, but this is not framed in guidelines as using separate “functional ranges.” Population-based studies show that different percentiles of thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) within the conventional normal range are associated with different cardiovascular and mortality risks, suggesting that mid‑range values may be optimal for long‑term outcomes. Cohort data indicate that higher HbA1c values within the non‑diabetic (normal) range are associated with higher levels of inflammatory markers and greater inflammatory activity in patients with coronary artery disease or acute coronary syndrome, implying that “high‑normal” glycemia may reflect low‑grade inflammation and dysglycemia. These findings support the general idea that finer‑grained interpretation of lab values within the normal interval can uncover increased risk or subtle dysfunction before overt disease is present, which is conceptually similar to “hidden patterns” of dysglycemia or inflammation. Functional and preventive‑medicine commentaries build on such data to argue for narrower, “optimal” lab ranges that correspond to the lowest observed risk of disease and mortality, aligning conceptually with the influencer’s claim that functional ranges can reveal patterns missed by broad conventional reference intervals.

Contradicts

High‑quality clinical practice guidelines and evidence‑based management documents across multiple fields define and use conventional reference intervals (often central 95% of a healthy reference population) and diagnostic cut‑offs; they do not recommend or endorse separate “functional ranges” as a validated clinical tool for systematically detecting hidden inflammation, dysglycemia, or thyroid dysfunction. For thyroid function, major guidelines and epidemiologic analyses emphasize established thresholds for subclinical hypo‑ or hyperthyroidism and overt disease; while they acknowledge risk gradients within the normal range, they do not translate these into formal, narrower “functional ranges” to guide routine clinical decision‑making. For glycemia, mainstream diabetes and cardiovascular literature treats HbA1c in terms of established categories (normal, prediabetes, diabetes) and uses continuous risk models, but does not endorse specific alternative “functional” cutoffs distinct from these categories to label individuals as having clinically relevant dysglycemia or inflammation solely based on small shifts within the reference interval. Evidence linking normal‑range biomarker variation to risk is largely observational, with confounding and imprecision concerns; it does not show that re‑labeling these values with “functional ranges” improves clinical outcomes, reduces events, or meaningfully changes management, which is a key weakness in the influencer’s claim. No major guideline documents in hypertension, nutrition support, headache, transfusion therapy, or pericarditis incorporate the concept of functional lab ranges as a standard diagnostic framework, underscoring that this practice is outside evidence‑based guideline consensus.

Mainstream view

Mainstream laboratory medicine and clinical guidelines use statistically derived reference intervals (typically the central 95% of a healthy population) and evidence‑based diagnostic thresholds; clinicians recognize that risk is often continuous across these ranges, but they do not generally adopt separate, branded “functional ranges” as a validated construct. Conventional practice accepts that values at the higher or lower ends of the normal range can be associated with different long‑term risks, and clinicians may consider such information in context of the patient’s overall risk profile, but this is handled through nuanced interpretation, not through a formal system of “functional ranges” used to diagnose hidden inflammation, dysglycemia, or thyroid dysfunction. Current high‑quality evidence and guidelines emphasize using established cutoffs, repeat testing, clinical correlation, and risk‑stratification tools rather than redefining normal intervals into tighter functional bands, because there is no robust trial or guideline‑level evidence that such functional ranges improve outcomes compared with standard evidence‑based interpretation. Functional or “optimal” ranges are therefore best viewed as an emerging or alternative interpretive framework used in some preventive or functional medicine circles, not as a mainstream, guideline‑endorsed tool for uncovering hidden patterns of inflammation, dysglycemia, or thyroid dysfunction.

Papers listed for this claim:[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Functional ranges reveal hidden patterns — inflammation, dysglycemia, thyroid dysfunction, nutrient deficiencies — that conventional medicine misses entirely.”

Rule: Minnesota Statutes § 148.01, subd. 1(4)

See every doc bro who says they can treat or advise on Thyroid disease and Hashimoto

Anna Payne is not licensed or approved by Minnesota Board of Chiropractic Examiners to diagnose, treat, or cure Thyroid Support.

Thyroid Support

Supports

High-quality evidence specifically supporting a broad claim of generic thyroid support is limited. One randomized-trial meta-analysis found that long-term exercise-based interventions can improve some thyroid-function measures in people with hypothyroidism, suggesting exercise may be a useful adjunct in selected patients . A 2025 systematic review and meta-analysis reported that a gluten-free diet may improve some outcomes in non-celiac Hashimoto’s thyroiditis, but this is a narrow subgroup finding rather than evidence for thyroid support in general .

Contradicts

The claim is too vague to be directly supported as stated, and there is no major guideline or broad systematic review in the list endorsing unspecified thyroid support for the general population. The exercise meta-analysis applies only to hypothyroidism and addresses function, not an all-purpose thyroid-support intervention . The gluten-free diet meta-analysis applies only to non-celiac Hashimoto’s thyroiditis and does not establish benefit for people without that condition or for thyroid health broadly . The remaining listed papers are unrelated to thyroid support and do not provide evidentiary backing for the claim.

Mainstream view

Mainstream endocrinology does not recognize a generic thyroid support intervention as an evidence-based medical category. Evidence-based care focuses on diagnosing and treating specific thyroid disorders, correcting identified deficiencies when present, and using standard therapies such as levothyroxine for hypothyroidism or condition-specific management for other thyroid diseases. Lifestyle measures may be adjunctive in selected patients, but broad thyroid-support claims are not supported as a general medical recommendation.

Papers listed for this claim:[1][13][2][3][14][4][15][5]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Thyroid Support”

Rule: Minnesota Statutes § 148.01, subd. 1(1) and (2)

See every doc bro who says they can treat or advise on Thyroid disease and Hashimoto

Anna Payne is not licensed or approved by Minnesota Board of Chiropractic Examiners to diagnose, treat, or cure Hormone Balance.

Hormone Balance

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Hormone Balance”

Rule: Minnesota Statutes § 148.01, subd. 1(1) and (2)

See every doc bro who says they can treat or advise on Hormone imbalance and replacement

Anna Payne is not licensed or approved by Minnesota Board of Chiropractic Examiners to diagnose, treat, or cure Autoimmunity.

Autoimmunity

Supports

There is currently no high-quality evidence (systematic reviews, large RCTs, major guidelines) showing that chiropractic treatment has clinically meaningful benefits on autoimmune diseases themselves (e.g., reducing disease activity, preventing flares, inducing remission, or altering long‑term outcomes). Systematic reviews of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) and immune-related outcomes report at most short‑term changes in immune or stress biomarkers without demonstrated clinical benefit on immune-mediated or infectious diseases, and they explicitly conclude that clinical evidence to support or refute claims of disease prevention or treatment via immune modulation is lacking. Recent randomized trials show that chiropractic adjustments can change certain circulating biomarkers (e.g., IL‑6, TNF‑α, BDNF, cortisol), but these studies involve small samples, focus on nonspecific musculoskeletal or stress-related contexts, and do not study autoimmune diagnoses or hard clinical endpoints. Major autoimmune disease management evidence (e.g., vitamin D and omega‑3 RCTs for autoimmune disease prevention, immunomodulatory biologics, mesenchymal stem cell transplantation, and guideline‑based therapies for inflammatory bowel disease nutrition) highlights pharmacologic and nutritional strategies and does not include chiropractic as a disease-modifying treatment.

Contradicts

The best available evidence explicitly contradicts strong claims that chiropractic treatment can effectively treat autoimmunity or meaningfully boost immune function in a clinically relevant way. A systematic review in JAMA Network Open found no acceptable- or high-quality randomized trials showing that spinal manipulative therapy changes immune system outcomes in a way that prevents or treats infectious disease, and concluded there is no clinical evidence to support or refute such immune claims. Consensus statements from chiropractic researchers similarly state there is no valid clinical scientific evidence that chiropractic care impacts the immune system to prevent common illnesses. Narrative reviews and research bulletins from chiropractic organizations summarize that existing laboratory and small experimental studies on immune markers after spinal manipulation are contradictory, underpowered, and do not justify clinical claims of enhanced immunity. Importantly, none of the major autoimmune-related RCTs and guidelines—such as the VITAL trial showing modest autoimmune disease prevention with vitamin D and marine omega-3 fatty acids, the mesenchymal stem cell meta‑analysis for several autoimmune diseases, or guidelines on clinical nutrition in inflammatory bowel disease emphasizing diet, enteral/parenteral nutrition, and immunosuppressive therapy—include chiropractic or spinal manipulation as a recommended treatment or modifier of autoimmune disease course. This absence in disease‑specific guidelines and high‑quality trials is a strong signal that evidence supporting chiropractic as a treatment for autoimmunity is weak to nonexistent.

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical and scientific position is that autoimmune diseases are managed with evidence‑based pharmacologic therapies (e.g., immunosuppressants, biologics, targeted small molecules), lifestyle modification, and adjunctive supportive measures such as appropriate nutrition, vaccination, and management of comorbidities, guided by specialty society and organ‑specific guidelines. Chiropractic care is not recognized as a disease‑modifying treatment for autoimmunity and is absent from major guidelines on autoimmune conditions, which instead focus on immune‑targeting drugs, nutritional support, and cardiovascular risk reduction in autoimmune and inflammatory populations. Chiropractic or spinal manipulation may have a role as supportive care for mechanical pain or musculoskeletal complaints in some patients, but using chiropractic treatment with the expectation of directly treating autoimmunity, altering immune dysregulation, or preventing autoimmune disease is not supported by current high‑quality evidence and is considered outside mainstream, guideline‑based care.

Papers listed for this claim:[1][2][3][6][4][5][7][8][16][17][18][19]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Autoimmunity”

Rule: Minnesota Statutes § 148.01, subd. 1(1) and (2)

See every doc bro who says they can treat or advise on Autoimmune disease

Anna Payne is not licensed or approved by Minnesota Board of Chiropractic Examiners to diagnose, treat, or cure Functional Hormone Optimization (Testosterone, Estrogen, Progesterone).

Functional Hormone Optimization (Testosterone, Estrogen, Progesterone)

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Hormone optimization (Testosterone, Estrogen, Progesterone)”

Rule: Minnesota Statutes § 148.01, subd. 1(1) and (2)

See every doc bro who says they can treat or advise on Hormone imbalance and replacement

Anna Payne is not licensed or approved by Minnesota Board of Chiropractic Examiners to diagnose, treat, or cure Dutch hormone panel.

Dutch hormone panel

Supports

There is some evidence that the DUTCH (dried urine) hormone panels themselves have analytical and clinical validation for measuring hormone metabolites and cortisol patterns with LC-MS/MS and dried urine methods, showing good correlation with conventional serum or 24‑hour urine testing and acceptable reliability in peer‑reviewed work. These validation studies support that Dutch hormone panels can be one reasonable modality for assessing certain sex steroids and cortisol over time when interpreted by appropriately trained clinicians. There is limited evidence that manual spinal interventions can acutely affect endocrine markers such as cortisol. A randomized trial of cervical manipulation versus mobilization or sham in chronic neck pain patients found an immediate increase in salivary cortisol after both manipulation and mobilization, suggesting short‑term neuroendocrine responses to manual therapy. This only indicates transient cortisol changes, not that chiropractic care constitutes a validated endocrine treatment or that it is specifically suited to manage or “treat” hormone panel findings. There is ample real‑world use of DUTCH panels in functional and integrative practices, including some chiropractic clinics, which indicates that some chiropractors do order and discuss these panels with patients, but this reflects practice patterns rather than high‑quality outcome evidence.

Contradicts

There is no high‑quality evidence (randomized trials, large cohort studies, or major guidelines) showing that chiropractic treatment can systematically correct, normalize, or therapeutically “treat” abnormalities found on a Dutch hormone panel, such as sex hormone imbalance, adrenal dysfunction, or estrogen dominance. Existing endocrine and primary‑care guidelines for the management of hormone disorders (e.g., adrenal disease, thyroid disease, menopausal symptoms, hypogonadism) do not list chiropractic spinal manipulation or chiropractic care as evidence‑based treatments for hormone dysregulation or for conditions diagnosed via dried‑urine hormone panels. The available trial demonstrating acute cortisol changes after cervical manipulation involves short‑term salivary cortisol and pain outcomes and does not link manipulation to durable changes in broader hormone status, disease endpoints, or Dutch panel improvement. Thus, it cannot be taken as evidence that chiropractic “treats” hormone panels. Validation studies for DUTCH testing focus on analytical validity and correlation with reference methods but do not demonstrate that using a Dutch hormone panel in chiropractic practice improves clinical outcomes, reduces disease risk, or provides superior care compared with standard endocrine evaluation and guideline‑directed management. Overall, evidence is weak or absent for the specific claim that chiropractic treatment of a Dutch hormone panel is an effective, evidence‑based approach to hormone management, beyond general wellness care or symptomatic musculoskeletal treatment.

Mainstream view

Mainstream medical and endocrine practice recognizes that dried‑urine hormone panels like DUTCH can have acceptable analytical validity for certain hormones, but their routine use for broad preventive screening or complex functional interpretations remains more common in integrative and functional medicine than in standard guideline‑based care. Major endocrine and primary‑care guidelines continue to rely primarily on serum, salivary, and 24‑hour urine hormone testing in well‑defined clinical contexts and do not endorse proprietary multi‑analyte panels as standard of care for the general population. The mainstream position is that hormone disorders (such as adrenal insufficiency, thyroid disease, hypogonadism, menopause‑related symptoms, and estrogen‑related cancer risk) should be diagnosed and treated within established medical frameworks using validated diagnostic criteria and therapies (pharmacologic, lifestyle, surgical when indicated). Manual therapies including chiropractic are viewed as musculoskeletal and pain‑management modalities, not as primary treatments for endocrine disease or as evidence‑based tools to modify complex hormone patterns. Accordingly, while a chiropractor may legally order or discuss hormone testing in some jurisdictions and may participate in multidisciplinary care, the interpretation and treatment of hormone abnormalities—especially complex Dutch hormone panels—are generally considered the domain of endocrinologists and other medically trained prescribers. Using chiropractic manipulation as the main treatment for Dutch hormone panel findings is not supported by mainstream medical standards.

Papers listed for this claim:[20][21]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Dutch hormone panel”

Rule: Minnesota Statutes § 148.01, subd. 1(4) and (5)

Anna Payne is not licensed or approved by Minnesota Board of Chiropractic Examiners to diagnose, treat, or cure GI Map.

GI Map

Supports

High-quality evidence specifically supporting chiropractic treatment to manage or “treat” abnormalities on a GI-MAP stool test is essentially absent. A narrative review of chiropractic care for gastrointestinal (GI) disorders identified only a small number of studies (mostly case reports and one small randomized trial) and concluded that there is a major gap in evidence and no defensible protocol or guideline for chiropractic management of GI disorders. Evidence for osteopathic or manual therapies (not chiropractic per se) in irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) includes small randomized controlled trials and a systematic review and meta-analysis suggesting that osteopathic manipulative treatment may modestly improve abdominal pain and constipation, but with low or very low quality of evidence and methodological limitations. These data are indirect and cannot be generalized to chiropractic treatment of specific microbiome or GI-MAP abnormalities.

Contradicts

A systematic review of chiropractic treatment for gastrointestinal problems found only two controlled trials (one pilot and one with positive findings) but judged both to have serious methodological flaws and concluded that there is no supportive evidence that chiropractic is an effective treatment for gastrointestinal disorders. Other reviews similarly report that, despite anecdotal claims, chiropractic has not been shown in robust randomized trials to reliably improve GI diseases. Major GI and nutrition guidelines for inflammatory bowel disease, parenteral nutrition, and related conditions do not list chiropractic or spinal manipulation as evidence-based treatments or recommended components of care, instead focusing on pharmacologic therapy, dietary management, and, when appropriate, enteral or parenteral nutrition. There is also no controlled evidence that chiropractic adjustments can normalize gut microbiome profiles or change results of DNA-based stool tests such as GI-MAP, whereas effective interventions on gut symptoms and microbiota (e.g., low-FODMAP diet, specific probiotics, targeted nutrition support) are supported by randomized trials and formal guidelines, not by chiropractic care.

Mainstream view

Mainstream medical and scientific consensus is that management of gastrointestinal disorders and of microbiome-related findings (including those from tests like GI-MAP) should be guided by established gastroenterology and nutrition guidelines that emphasize diagnosis-specific pharmacologic therapy, evidence-based dietary interventions, and, when indicated, enteral or parenteral nutrition. Chiropractic treatment is not recommended as a primary or standard therapy for GI diseases, nor is it recognized as a validated method to correct microbiome abnormalities or to treat abnormal GI-MAP results. At most, chiropractic or other manual therapies might be considered an adjunct for musculoskeletal pain or general well-being, but not as a replacement for guideline-directed GI care or as a microbiome-targeted intervention.

Papers listed for this claim:[1][2][3][6][4][5][7][8][22][23][24][25]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“GI Map”

Rule: Minnesota Statutes § 148.01, subd. 1(4) and (5)

Anna Payne is not licensed or approved by Minnesota Board of Chiropractic Examiners to diagnose, treat, or cure Organic acids.

Organic acids

Supports

There is no high-quality evidence that chiropractic manipulation or standard chiropractic treatments can directly treat disorders of organic acid metabolism (such as organic acidemias) or clinically significant abnormalities in organic acid levels in humans. Organic acidemias and other inborn errors of metabolism are managed with metabolic, nutritional, and sometimes pharmacologic strategies, not with manual spinal therapy. Some chiropractors advertise the use of organic acids testing (OAT) within a broader functional medicine framework to guide dietary changes and supplementation, but this practice is based on extrapolation and observational reasoning rather than randomized trials or major guidelines. The available peer‑reviewed literature on organic acids focuses on metabolic pathways, plant or food preservation, infection models, and soil/environmental remediation, not on chiropractic or spinal manipulation as a therapeutic intervention.

Contradicts

Established clinical guidelines for serious medical conditions rely on evidence‑based pharmacologic, nutritional, and procedural interventions, and do not recommend chiropractic treatment for metabolic disorders or for the management of organic acid abnormalities. For example, guideline‑driven management of hypertension emphasizes lifestyle change and antihypertensive medications, not chiropractic manipulation. Nutrition guidelines for complex medical conditions (such as ASPEN‑FELANPE or ESPEN guidelines) likewise emphasize structured medical nutrition therapy and do not include chiropractic treatment as a modality for metabolic control. Evidence grading frameworks such as GRADE highlight the need for high‑quality trials to support clinical interventions; there is an absence of such evidence linking chiropractic treatment to correction of organic acid disorders. Peer‑reviewed discussions of organic acidemias describe acute management with glucose infusion, protein restriction, toxin scavengers, specific cofactors, and organ‑targeted therapies, with no role for chiropractic care. Overall, the scientific literature contradicts the notion that chiropractic treatment meaningfully treats organic acid metabolism disorders or clinically important organic acid abnormalities.

Mainstream view

Mainstream medical and scientific consensus is that disorders of organic acid metabolism (organic acidemias and related abnormalities) are biochemical and genetic conditions requiring specialized metabolic, nutritional, and sometimes pharmacologic management by physicians and metabolic specialists. Chiropractors are not trained or credentialed as primary providers for inborn errors of metabolism, and major guidelines in internal medicine, nutrition, neurology, and cardiology do not list chiropractic treatment as a recognized therapy for organic acid disorders or for systemic biochemical abnormalities. Organic acids testing may be used by some functional medicine practitioners, including some chiropractors, as an adjunctive diagnostic tool for assessing metabolic status and guiding diet or supplement plans, but this application is outside mainstream guideline‑driven practice and lacks strong evidence that it improves hard clinical outcomes in organic acid disorders. Conventional care therefore views chiropractic as potentially helpful only for musculoskeletal complaints, not as a treatment for organic acids themselves.

Papers listed for this claim:[1][2][3][6][4][5][7][8]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“organic acids”

Rule: Minnesota Statutes § 148.01, subd. 1(4) and (5)

Anna Payne is not licensed or approved by Minnesota Board of Chiropractic Examiners to diagnose, treat, or cure Food sensitivity.

Food sensitivity

Supports

There is essentially no high-quality evidence (randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, or major guidelines) showing that chiropractic treatment can diagnose, treat, or resolve food allergy or food sensitivity. The listed trials concern unrelated topics (antifungal resistance in neonates, chemotherapy pharmacokinetics, metformin for autophagy, swaddle bathing, GI capsule endoscopy, thyroid surgery complications, musculoskeletal pain, and a drug trial) and do not address chiropractic or food allergy directly. Academic search identifies one animal study in rats with allergic airway inflammation where a massage-like “chiropractic therapy” modulated gut microbiota and attenuated Th2-mediated airway allergy, but this is preclinical asthma work in animals, not human food allergy or food sensitivity and therefore cannot be considered high-quality clinical evidence for the claim. Case reports in chiropractic literature describe individual patients whose food allergies or intolerances improved after chiropractic care, but these are uncontrolled anecdotes, not rigorous evidence capable of establishing efficacy.

Contradicts

A critical review of chiropractic care in asthma and allergy reports that there are no primary clinical trials demonstrating that spinal manipulation is an effective primary treatment for allergy, and concludes that there is currently no evidence to support chiropractic spinal manipulation therapy as a primary treatment for asthma or allergy. A systematic review of chiropractic treatment for gastrointestinal problems (a domain often implicated in food intolerance) found only two very flawed clinical trials and concluded that there is no supportive evidence that chiropractic treatments are effective for gastrointestinal disorders. Major advances and high-quality trials in food allergy management focus on strategies such as early introduction and regular consumption of allergenic foods, aggressive treatment of eczema to prevent percutaneous sensitization, oral food immunotherapy, biologic therapies (e.g., omalizumab, dupilumab), and immunonutrition; none of these prevention or treatment paradigms involve chiropractic manipulation as a recognized modality. Mainstream allergy practice parameters from professional societies emphasize avoidance of confirmed allergens, use of epinephrine for anaphylaxis, evidence-based immunotherapy, and management of comorbid atopic disease; they do not recommend chiropractic treatment for food allergy or food sensitivity. Overall, the available scientific literature indicates that evidence for chiropractic treatment of food sensitivity is either absent or limited to anecdotal case reports, which are considered very low-quality evidence.

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical and scientific view is that food allergy and food sensitivity should be managed with evidence-based approaches: accurate diagnosis (including history, skin testing, specific IgE, and, when appropriate, oral food challenges), strict avoidance of confirmed allergens, prescription and use of epinephrine for anaphylaxis risk, and consideration of oral immunotherapy or biologic agents in specialized settings. Prevention strategies focus on early introduction and regular consumption of allergenic foods in infancy and aggressive treatment of eczema to reduce percutaneous sensitization, again with no role for chiropractic care in these core approaches. Professional allergy guidelines and practice parameters from major societies do not list chiropractic manipulation as a recommended diagnostic or therapeutic intervention for food allergy or food sensitivity. Chiropractic care may be used by some patients for musculoskeletal complaints or as a complementary therapy, but current evidence and guidelines do not support it as an effective or primary treatment for food allergy or food sensitivity, and it is not considered part of standard allergy care.

Papers listed for this claim:[26][23][27][28]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“food sensitivity”

Rule: Minnesota Statutes § 148.01, subd. 1(1) and (2)

See every doc bro who says they can treat or advise on Allergies, asthma and food sensitivities

Anna Payne is not licensed or approved by Minnesota Board of Chiropractic Examiners to diagnose, treat, or cure Heavy metals.

Heavy metals

Supports

There is no high-quality evidence that chiropractic spinal manipulation or typical chiropractic modalities directly remove heavy metals from the body or treat heavy metal poisoning. Heavy metal toxicity is a recognized medical and environmental problem, but its management in humans relies on established medical approaches such as exposure cessation, chelating agents (e.g., EDTA, dimercaptosuccinic acid), and supportive medical care, not chiropractic adjustment. The listed guidelines (on hypertension, parenteral nutrition, clinical nutrition in IBD, tension-type headache, blood transfusion, colchicine in pericarditis, and GRADE methodology) do not mention chiropractic as a treatment for heavy metal toxicity or poisoning, nor do they treat heavy metal toxicity as a condition amenable to manual therapy. High-quality reviews of chelation therapy for heavy metals emphasize pharmacologic chelators and caution that even for chronic intoxication, benefits are uncertain and risk–benefit must be carefully evaluated, again with no role for chiropractic manipulation in directly reducing metal burden.

Contradicts

The absence of any mention of chiropractic care in major clinical guidelines relevant to systemic illness, nutrition support, or acute medical therapy strongly suggests that chiropractic is not an accepted or evidence-based treatment for heavy metal poisoning. Evidence-focused methodology papers such as the GRADE guidelines stress that treatment recommendations should be based on randomized trials and high-quality observational data; there are no such data supporting chiropractic as a detoxification modality for heavy metals. The medical literature on heavy metal toxicity and chelation therapy focuses on pharmacologic chelators and carefully monitored medical management, and specifically does not describe spinal manipulation or chiropractic techniques as mechanisms to bind, mobilize, or excrete heavy metals. Discussion pieces from within chiropractic circles that promote heavy-metal detox programs or claim toxin release after adjustments are opinion-based or practice marketing, not randomized trials, systematic reviews, or guideline-level evidence; they therefore represent low-level evidence and do not substantiate the claim. Overall, the available evidence base contradicts the idea that chiropractic treatment directly removes heavy metals or is an appropriate primary treatment for heavy metal poisoning.

Mainstream view

Mainstream medical and scientific practice regards heavy metal toxicity (e.g., lead, mercury, arsenic) as a serious condition that requires prevention of exposure, diagnostic testing (blood, urine, sometimes hair in specific contexts), and medically supervised treatment, typically with chelating agents and supportive care. Management recommendations come from toxicology, internal medicine, pediatrics, and public health guidelines, not from chiropractic guidelines, and standard clinical guidelines for systemic diseases and nutrition do not list chiropractic manipulation as a treatment for heavy metal poisoning or for reduction of systemic metal burden. Chiropractic care may have a role in musculoskeletal pain management or some headache conditions according to separate bodies of evidence, but mainstream consensus is that it does not diagnose or treat heavy metal toxicity, and it does not act as a chelation or detoxification therapy. Any detox or chelation interventions must be evidence-based, pharmacologic or diet-based, and supervised by appropriately trained medical professionals, with careful risk–benefit evaluation.

Papers listed for this claim:[1][2][3][6][4][5][7][8][29][30][31]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“heavy metals”

Rule: Minnesota Statutes § 148.01, subd. 1(1) and (2)

Anna Payne is not licensed or approved by Minnesota Board of Chiropractic Examiners to diagnose, treat, or cure Functional Medicine.

Functional Medicine

Supports

There is moderate-quality evidence that chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy is about as effective as other recommended therapies (such as standard medical care and physical therapy) for short‑term pain relief and small improvements in function in adults with chronic low back pain. Some randomized controlled trials show clinically meaningful reductions in pain and disability with structured courses of chiropractic spinal manipulation (around 12 sessions over 6 weeks) in chronic non‑specific low back pain, with benefits sustained up to 52 weeks. A Cochrane review and other systematic reviews indicate that for acute and subacute low back pain, combined chiropractic interventions can slightly improve pain and disability in the short and medium term compared with other treatments, though long‑term differences are minimal. Overall, high‑quality evidence supports chiropractic care as a reasonable option for musculoskeletal spinal pain (especially low back pain), broadly comparable to other conservative treatments.

Papers listed for this claim:[32][33][34][35]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Functional Medicine”

Rule: Minnesota Statutes § 148.01, subd. 1(3)

Anna Payne is not licensed or approved by Minnesota Board of Chiropractic Examiners to diagnose, treat, or cure Hormone Support.

Hormone Support

Supports

The influencer’s claim is extremely vague (“Hormone Support”) and does not specify which hormones, what intervention, or what outcome, so direct evidence “supporting” the claim is limited to general endocrine health principles rather than a specific product or protocol. High‑quality evidence and guidelines across endocrinology consistently support the idea that maintaining overall health through lifestyle modification (balanced diet, regular physical activity, healthy body weight, adequate sleep, and stress management) is beneficial for metabolic and endocrine function, including prevention of type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease and improvement of reproductive endocrine disorders like PCOS. Lifestyle modification is first‑line therapy in several endocrine conditions, such as PCOS, with evidence from randomized and quasi‑experimental studies that structured programs combining diet, exercise, and stress reduction improve quality of life and metabolic/hormonal profiles. Major endocrine and primary‑prevention guidelines for metabolic risk (ASCVD and type 2 diabetes) explicitly recommend lifestyle management as the first priority for patients with metabolic and endocrine risk, which indirectly “supports” the general notion that healthy lifestyle practices are foundational for hormonal health and should precede or accompany any pharmacologic therapy.

Contradicts

Because the claim is generic (“Hormone Support”) and lacks specifics about the intervention (e.g., particular supplement, diet, bioidentical hormone, cannabis, performance‑enhancing drugs), there is no direct high‑quality evidence validating any specific commercial or influencer‑promoted “hormone support” product or protocol. Umbrella reviews and guidelines emphasize that exogenous hormones or performance‑enhancing drugs in healthy individuals carry significant risks and are not recommended as general wellness or “support” strategies; evidence focuses on disease‑specific indications (e.g., contraception, osteoporosis prevention, ART protocols) rather than broad health optimization. The umbrella review of hormonal contraceptives shows associations with several adverse outcomes (e.g., venous thromboembolism, breast cancer) and makes clear these therapies are used for specific indications with risk–benefit balancing, not generic hormone support. Performance‑enhancing drugs in healthy athletes are discussed primarily in terms of harms, side effects, and ethical issues, not as safe or appropriate means of hormonal optimization for the general population. Major clinical guidelines for endocrine disorders are disease‑focused, with specific diagnostic thresholds, treatment goals, and risk management strategies; they do not endorse unspecific “hormone support” regimens or over‑the‑counter supplement stacks for otherwise healthy people. Many endocrine conditions (e.g., hypertension, diabetes, hypothyroidism, osteoporosis, endometrial cancer risk) require evidence‑based pharmacologic, nutritional, or surgical management according to guidelines rather than unregulated influencer protocols. Overall, there is a gap between influencer marketing of broad “hormone support” concepts and the narrow, indication‑specific way hormones are used in mainstream medicine; high‑quality evidence does not support unregulated or non‑indication‑based hormone or supplement use for general wellness.

Mainstream view

Mainstream medical and endocrine practice views hormones as powerful signaling molecules that should be manipulated primarily in the context of clearly defined diagnoses, evidence‑based indications, and guideline‑driven care. Clinical practice guidelines from endocrine societies and related bodies emphasize: (1) accurate diagnosis of specific endocrine disorders; (2) targeted treatment to restore or approximate normal physiological hormone levels; and (3) careful monitoring of risks and adverse effects. For primary prevention and general health, the mainstream position is that maintaining metabolic and endocrine health is best achieved through lifestyle interventions—heart‑healthy dietary patterns, sodium restriction where appropriate, regular physical activity, weight management, smoking avoidance, moderation of alcohol, adequate sleep, and stress reduction—rather than routine use of hormones or hormone‑branded supplements in otherwise healthy individuals. Pharmacologic hormones (e.g., contraceptives, menopausal hormone therapy, thyroid hormone, fertility treatments) are used when benefits outweigh risks for specific conditions, with ongoing re‑evaluation based on large trial data, meta‑analyses, and umbrella reviews. There is no broad guideline endorsing generic “hormone support” products; instead, recommendations focus on specific conditions (PCOS, osteoporosis, diabetes, metabolic risk, infertility, adrenal insufficiency, etc.) with tailored interventions that combine lifestyle modification and, when indicated, prescription therapy.

Papers listed for this claim:[36][37][38][1][2][3][39][40][41][42][43]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Hormone Support”

Rule: Minnesota Statutes § 148.01, subd. 1(1) and (2)

See every doc bro who says they can treat or advise on Hormone imbalance and replacement

Anna Payne is not licensed or approved by Minnesota Board of Chiropractic Examiners to diagnose, treat, or cure GI Map and Organic Acid Testing.

GI Map and Organic Acid Testing

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“GI Map”

Rule: Minnesota Statutes § 148.01, subd. 1(4) and (5)