Jaban M Moore alias The Thyroid Theorist

Jaban M Moore is not licensed or approved by Missouri State Board of Chiropractic Examiners to advertise Tackling Strep A, mold, mercury, BPA, and EBV as underlying stressors causing symptoms as within their scope of practice.

Tackling Strep A, mold, mercury, BPA, and EBV as underlying stressors causing symptoms

Supports

There is strong evidence that each of the listed agents (Group A Streptococcus, environmental molds/mycotoxins, mercury, and bisphenol A) can act as biological or toxic stressors that cause specific, clinically recognizable symptoms or diseases, sometimes affecting multiple organ systems. Group A Streptococcus (Strep A) is a well‑established cause of acute pharyngitis and tonsillitis with fever, sore throat, lymphadenopathy, and, in some cases, scarlet fever and post‑infectious immune complications such as acute rheumatic fever and rheumatic heart disease.^[23] Repeated or inadequately treated infections can lead to chronic immune‑mediated sequelae involving the heart, joints, skin, and nervous system.^[23] Environmental molds and their mycotoxins are documented to contribute to human disease via allergic sensitization (rhinitis, asthma), invasive infections in susceptible hosts, and toxin‑mediated effects that may involve the respiratory system and, in some cases, systemic and neurological manifestations, according to recent systematic review‑type literature. Mercury is a well‑recognized toxicant; even low‑level chronic exposure can lead to nonspecific but clinically relevant symptoms, including weakness, fatigue, anorexia, weight loss, and gastrointestinal disturbance, as described in toxicology reviews, supporting the idea that mercury can be an underlying contributor to symptom burden in exposed individuals. Bisphenol A (BPA) is a well‑studied endocrine‑disrupting chemical; multiple systematic reviews and umbrella reviews report associations between BPA exposure and adverse health outcomes such as reproductive and developmental effects, metabolic disease (obesity, metabolic syndrome, diabetes), cardiovascular disease (including hypertension), neurobehavioral effects, and allergic conditions. Large prospective human cohorts and mechanistic studies support that even low‑dose, chronic BPA exposure can dysregulate hormone‑sensitive systems and is linked to a range of noncommunicable diseases. These data support a limited form of the influencer’s claim: each agent can be a “stressor” contributing to symptoms or disease in appropriately exposed individuals, and the concept of addressing such exposures or infections is part of standard medical practice when clinically indicated.

Contradicts

The claim, as stated, is broad and non‑specific (“tackling Strep A, mold, mercury, BPA, and EBV as underlying stressors causing symptoms”) and implies that these five agents are common, root causes of diverse, often unexplained symptoms across the general population. High‑quality evidence and major guidelines do not support such a generalized, one‑size‑fits‑all causal model. For Strep A, mainstream evidence shows it causes acute pharyngitis, tonsillitis, scarlet fever, and defined post‑infectious immune sequelae (acute rheumatic fever and rheumatic heart disease) in a subset of infected individuals, not a broad spectrum of vague chronic symptoms in most people.^[23] Similarly, molds and mycotoxins are established causes of allergic disease and specific toxic or invasive conditions, but evidence that low‑level household mold exposure commonly drives non‑specific multisystem symptoms in otherwise healthy people is limited and often confounded; major guidelines emphasize targeted diagnosis (allergy, infection) rather than broad detox approaches. Mercury toxicity is dose‑ and form‑dependent; while chronic low‑grade exposure can cause nonspecific symptoms, mainstream toxicology does not support routine attribution of common symptoms to mercury without objective evidence of exposure and biological impact. For BPA, despite extensive evidence of associations with multiple health outcomes, expert reviews and agencies stress that most human data are observational, with limitations in causal inference, and risk assessments set exposure limits rather than advocating individualized “BPA detox” for unexplained symptoms. EBV is a ubiquitous virus; although it causes acute infectious mononucleosis and is implicated in certain malignancies and autoimmune conditions, high‑quality evidence does not support EBV as a frequent, treatable driver of generic chronic symptom clusters in the absence of specific disease. The index guideline papers provided (on hypertension management, clinical nutrition in IBD, parenteral nutrition, tension‑type headache, and transfusion therapy) illustrate that mainstream, evidence‑based management of common conditions focuses on well‑defined pathophysiology, risk factors, and proven interventions, not broad etiologic attributions to environmental toxins or chronic infections.^{[0][2][3][5][6]} Overall, current evidence contradicts any suggestion that systematically “tackling” these five factors is a validated

In their own wordsWatch sourceArchived copy

“Later, we tackled the underlying stressors contributing to her symptoms, such as infections from Bacteria and Strep A, exposure to mold, metals like mercury, environmental toxins including BPA, and Epstein-Barr Virus (EBV).”

Rule: RSMo § 331.010(1)

See every doc bro who says they can treat or advise on Mold illness and CIRS

Jaban M Moore is not licensed or approved by Missouri State Board of Chiropractic Examiners to advertise Root cause approach for EBV, mold, and mercury toxicity as within their scope of practice.

Root cause approach for EBV, mold, and mercury toxicity

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

In their own wordsWatch sourceArchived copy

“root cause approach to identifying and addressing these factors”

Rule: RSMo § 331.010(1)

See every doc bro who says they can treat or advise on Mold illness and CIRS

Jaban M Moore is not approved to offer Increasing Copper, Sodium, and Potassium to boost nervous system and support detox/hormone functions within a Chiropractor scope of practice under Missouri State Board of Chiropractic Examiners.

Increasing Copper, Sodium, and Potassium to boost nervous system and support detox/hormone functions

Supports

There is strong evidence that copper, sodium, and potassium are essential for normal nervous system and hormonal function, and that correcting overt deficiencies of these minerals can improve related clinical problems, including some neurologic manifestations. ^[14][15] Copper is indispensable for neurological function; disruption of copper homeostasis is clearly linked to brain disease and myelopathy, and copper supplementation in deficient patients can stabilize or modestly improve neurological function and activities of daily living. ^[16][17] Case series and clinical experience in copper deficiency myelopathy and neuropathy show improvement or stabilization with copper replacement, not with supraphysiologic intake in already sufficient people. Similarly, sodium and potassium are key determinants of nerve excitability and are tightly regulated by the renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system (RAAS); randomized crossover trials in healthy volunteers show that increased potassium intake activates RAAS and increases aldosterone, demonstrating a hormonal response to potassium loading. Large guideline bodies such as WHO emphasize that sodium and potassium balance are important for cardiovascular and overall health, treating them as central electrolytes with systemic effects including on vascular tone and indirectly on nervous system function. A global systematic review on community sodium and potassium intake (the paper that the peer-review reports in your list are evaluating) treats sodium, potassium, and their ratio as major public health determinants relevant to blood pressure and cardiovascular risk, which are closely tied to autonomic and vascular function, though not marketed as “nervous system boosters. ^[13] ”

Contradicts

High-quality evidence does not support the broad influencer-style claim that simply “increasing” copper, sodium, and potassium above normal needs will generally “boost” the nervous system or “support detox/hormone functions” in otherwise well-nourished people. ^[14][15] For copper, reviews of copper in CNS physiology emphasize that both deficiency and excess are harmful and that homeostasis (not high intake) is critical; disorders such as Wilson’s disease illustrate the neurotoxicity of copper overload. ^[17] Clinical trials of copper supplementation in non-deficient neurological conditions, such as mild Alzheimer’s disease, show no cognitive benefit from 8 mg/day copper compared with placebo over 12 months, indicating that more copper is not necessarily better for brain function in people without deficiency. ^[16] In animal and human work, dietary copper supplementation within moderate ranges often fails to produce measurable cognitive or learning benefits beyond adequacy. For sodium, major guidelines (e. g. , WHO) recommend limiting, not increasing, sodium intake because higher sodium is consistently associated with increased blood pressure and cardiovascular risk, not improved nervous system or detoxification processes; nervous system “boosting” from extra sodium is not a recognized indication. ^[13] For potassium, RCTs show that supplementation (around 90–100 mmol/day) modifies renal tubular function and increases aldosterone and other RAAS hormones but does not improve cardiovascular performance or autonomic measures in healthy normotensive individuals; blood pressure is unchanged and pulse wave velocity may slightly increase. These hormonal changes represent physiologic compensation, not a therapeutic “hormone support” effect. The systematic review on community sodium and potassium intake under peer review in your index set frames excess sodium and inadequate potassium as population risks for hypertension and cardiovascular disease, not as tools for general detoxification or hormone optimization, and it does not recommend indiscriminate increases in these minerals in already adequate individuals. Across this evidence, there is no high-quality support for using above-need supplementation of copper, sodium, or potassium in replete people specifically to “detox,” to broadly enhance hormonal function, or to globally “boost” the nervous system; in contrast, there are clear risks with excessive sodium, and plausible risks with excessive copper and potassium, especially in people with kidney, cardiac, or hepatic disease.

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical and scientific view is that copper, sodium, and potassium are essential electrolytes and trace elements that must be maintained within narrow physiological ranges for normal nervous system and endocrine function, and that clinical management should focus on correcting deficiencies, avoiding excess, and following established dietary guidelines rather than increasing these minerals beyond recommended intakes for general “nervous system boosting,” “detox,” or hormone optimization. ^{[14][15][16][17]} For copper, experts emphasize that homeostasis is crucial: deficiency causes neurologic syndromes such as myelopathy and neuropathy that improve with replacement, while excess is neurotoxic; therefore

In their own wordsWatch sourceArchived copy

“We developed a comprehensive health roadmap tailored specifically for Alison. This plan focused on boosting her nervous system and supporting detox and hormone functions by increasing her levels of Copper, Sodium, and Potassium first.”

Rule: RSMo § 331.010(1), (3)

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

Jaban M Moore is not licensed or approved by Missouri State Board of Chiropractic Examiners to advertise Addressing Alkaline phosphatase, lactate dehydrogenase, and T3 as overlooked critical abnormal markers as within their scope of practice.

Addressing Alkaline phosphatase, lactate dehydrogenase, and T3 as overlooked critical abnormal markers

Supports

There is substantial high-quality evidence that alkaline phosphatase (ALP), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), and triiodothyronine (T3, especially low T3 or “non‑thyroidal illness” syndrome) can function as clinically important biomarkers in several contexts, particularly as prognostic markers in serious disease. ^{[18][19][20][21]} A systematic review and meta-analysis of preoperative albumin and alkaline phosphatase in colorectal cancer supports ALP as a prognostic component, with deranged ALP and albumin (e. g. , via albumin‑to‑ALP ratios) associated with poorer survival outcomes, indicating that abnormal ALP is clinically meaningful rather than incidental in this setting. Multiple meta-analyses (from the academic search) show that elevated ALP is associated with worse overall and progression-free survival in various cancers (e. g. , prostate, breast, hepatocellular carcinoma), and the albumin‑to‑alkaline phosphatase ratio is repeatedly reported as a cost‑effective prognostic indicator, which supports the idea that ALP is an important risk stratification marker, not merely a benign lab variation. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of LDH demonstrate that higher LDH is associated with worse survival and higher complication or mortality rates in multiple conditions, including various cancers and ischemic stroke, and that LDH (or LDH-based ratios) can serve as a prognostic biomarker, which supports the assertion that abnormal LDH carries clinically relevant prognostic information. Meta-analytic and cohort data on low‑T3 syndrome in critical illness and cardiovascular disease show that low free T3 independently predicts higher mortality and adverse outcomes, indicating that T3 abnormalities are not trivial and may be useful for risk stratification in ICU and heart-failure populations. Together, these data support the idea that ALP, LDH, and T3 abnormalities can be “critical” in the sense of identifying higher-risk patients and influencing prognosis, and they are part of established prognostic models in oncology and critical care.

Contradicts

The available evidence does not support the stronger implication that alkaline phosphatase, lactate dehydrogenase, and T3 are broadly “overlooked” or that they are universally critical markers whose abnormalities should always prompt major diagnostic or therapeutic changes in general populations. ^[19][20] The colorectal cancer meta-analysis involving albumin and alkaline phosphatase treats ALP as one component of a broader prognostic picture, emphasizing its association with outcome rather than positioning it as a solitary or ignored marker; it is used in conjunction with other clinical and pathological parameters rather than as a stand‑alone decisive test. ^[18][21] Major oncology and hepatology guidelines (from standard guideline knowledge) already recognize ALP as a routine marker of cholestasis and bone involvement and as a prognostic factor in specific cancers; therefore, the idea that ALP is “overlooked” is inconsistent with mainstream practice, which routinely orders and interprets ALP in liver function panels and cancer work‑ups. Similarly, LDH has long been embedded in established prognostic scores (e. g. , for lymphomas, testicular cancer, and some solid tumors), and systematic reviews describe it as a recognized, if nonspecific, risk marker; the non‑specific nature and susceptibility to many confounders (hemolysis, tissue injury, anemia, etc. ) limit its use as a “critical abnormal marker” in isolation and contradict the notion that LDH abnormalities are universally underappreciated. For T3, current endocrine and critical‑care guidelines generally consider low‑T3 (non‑thyroidal illness) primarily as a marker of illness severity rather than a direct therapeutic target, and large trials have not established that treating isolated low T3 in non‑thyroidal illness improves outcomes; this undercuts any claim that abnormal T3, by itself, should routinely drive thyroid hormone therapy or that it is a systematically ignored critical abnormality. Overall, while these markers are prognostically significant in defined contexts, evidence and guidelines do not support the influencer-style claim that they are globally overlooked, nor that every abnormal value is “critical” in a causal or therapeutic sense.

Mainstream view

Mainstream medical practice views alkaline phosphatase, lactate dehydrogenase, and T3 as important but context‑dependent laboratory markers. ^[18][19][20] Alkaline phosphatase is considered a standard component of liver and bone assessment, widely used to evaluate cholestatic liver disease and bone turnover ^[21]

In their own wordsWatch sourceArchived copy

“We then addressed critical abnormal blood markers that were previously overlooked - such as her Alkaline phosphatase, lactate dehydrogenase, T3, and nutrient deficiencies/toxicities.”

Rule: RSMo § 331.010(1)

Jaban M Moore is not licensed or approved by Missouri State Board of Chiropractic Examiners to advertise Targeted supplements and stressor elimination plan caused a dramatic turnaround in 8 months as within their scope of practice.

Targeted supplements and stressor elimination plan caused a dramatic turnaround in 8 months

Supports

There is substantial evidence that targeted nutritional supplementation can improve some health-related outcomes, particularly in people with specific deficiencies or at-risk groups, but this evidence is generally for modest improvements rather than dramatic turnarounds in a short period. Meta-analyses and randomized trials of multivitamin and mineral supplements show benefits for specific domains such as cognition, some psychological symptoms, and blood pressure in certain populations, but not for broad, transformative health changes.^[7] Multinutrient and multivitamin/mineral trials in older adults and those with suboptimal status often report small improvements in quality of life, mood, or subjective health ratings over periods of weeks to months.^{[4][7][9][11][14]} Trials of specific micronutrients such as magnesium (with or without vitamin B6) demonstrate clinically meaningful reductions in stress, anxiety, and depression scores over about 8 weeks in individuals with low magnesium and high stress, suggesting that correcting targeted deficiencies can substantially improve mental health symptoms in that timeframe.^[6] Complex multinutrient formulations in psychiatric populations show statistically and clinically significant improvements in global functioning and anxiety/stress symptoms in some controlled studies and meta-analyses, again supporting that targeted supplementation can yield noticeable symptom improvements.^[12] Comprehensive lifestyle programs that include stress management, dietary changes, and other behavior change components have produced notable improvements in quality of life, angina symptoms, and cardiovascular risk factors over months in populations with established disease, indicating that multi-component interventions addressing stressors and diet can lead to meaningful clinical benefit in under a year.^[15]

Contradicts

High-quality evidence does not support the claim that targeted supplements and stressor elimination alone typically cause a dramatic overall health turnaround within 8 months across general populations. Large reviews of multivitamin–multimineral supplementation show no reduction in all-cause mortality and limited or no effect on many major clinical endpoints, indicating that while supplements can address specific deficits, they rarely produce sweeping health transformations by themselves.^[7][8] Several randomized trials of multinutrient or multivitamin/mineral products report either no significant advantage over placebo for key outcomes (such as memory, attention, health-related quality of life, or physical activity) or only weak associations, suggesting that benefits are modest and domain-specific rather than dramatic and global.^{[4][10][11][16][17]} Even where improvements in mood, stress, or subjective quality of life are observed, effect sizes are generally small to moderate, and studies often involve carefully selected participants (such as those with deficiencies, high stress, or specific diseases), so these results cannot be generalized to claims of dramatic turnarounds for unspecified conditions. Comprehensive lifestyle trials that include stress management, diet, exercise, and social support show meaningful improvements but within structured programs and in conjunction with standard medical care, not solely from supplements, and the word “dramatic” overstates the typical magnitude of change seen in high-quality data.^[15] The indexed clinical trial records provided (e.g., antifungal resistance in infants, chemotherapy pharmacokinetics, thyroid surgery complications, swaddle bathing safety, remote endoscopy) are unrelated to the influencer’s broad claim and do not provide evidence that a generic targeted supplement plus stressor elimination plan produces dramatic turnarounds in 8 months.

Mainstream view

Mainstream medical and scientific consensus is that nutritional supplements can be appropriate and beneficial when they correct documented deficiencies or are used for clearly defined indications, and that reducing harmful stressors (such as smoking, extreme psychosocial stress, or unhealthy diet) is an important part of comprehensive care. ^[22] However, routine or generalized use of targeted supplements is not considered a standalone treatment capable of causing dramatic, broad health reversals in most individuals, especially in the absence of a diagnosed deficiency or without concurrent evidence-based medical and lifestyle interventions. ^[25] Major guidelines emphasize a balanced diet, physical activity, sleep, psychological therapies where appropriate, and evidence-based pharmacologic treatments as the primary tools for disease management and prevention, with supplements viewed mainly as adjuncts. ^[24] Stress management and removal of harmful exposures are strongly recommended, but expected benefits are generally incremental and depend heavily on the underlying condition, adherence, and the totality of care, not on supplements alone. Therefore, while improvement over an 8‑month period is plausible when someone undertakes a comprehensive lifestyle and medical plan, attributing a dramatic turnaround specifically and solely to targeted supplements and stressor elimination exceeds what current high-quality evidence and guidelines support.

In their own wordsWatch sourceArchived copy

“With targeted supplements to replenish her deficiencies and a strategic plan to eliminate her body's stressors, Alison experienced a DRAMATIC turnaround in just 8 months!”

Rule: RSMo § 331.010(1), (3)

Jaban M Moore is not licensed or approved by Missouri State Board of Chiropractic Examiners to diagnose, treat, or cure Chronic migraines completely disappeared due to hormonal balance.

Chronic migraines completely disappeared due to hormonal balance

Supports

There is moderate evidence that sex hormones, especially estrogen, influence migraine frequency and that targeted hormonal strategies can reduce migraine attacks in some women, particularly those with menstrual or hormonally triggered migraine. ^[28] Systematic and narrative reviews of hormonal therapy in migraine report that stabilizing estrogen levels (for example with continuous combined hormonal contraceptives or short-term estradiol supplementation around menses) can decrease the number of headache days and severity in subsets of patients, especially with menstrually related migraine. ^{[6][7][26][27][29]} Additional RCTs and guideline-type expert consensus documents show that hormonal manipulations (continuous low-dose combined hormonal contraceptives, short hormone-free intervals, perimenstrual estradiol) can contribute to meaningful reductions in menstrual migraine burden in some patients, although not uniformly and rarely complete disappearance of chronic migraine. Major headache and contraception societies endorse carefully selected hormonal regimens as one option among several preventive strategies when migraine is clearly linked to hormonal fluctuations, supporting the concept that hormonal balance can improve migraine control in selected cases. ^[4]

Contradicts

High-quality evidence does not support the broad claim that chronic migraines generally "completely disappear" simply by achieving hormonal balance. ^[5] Most RCTs and systematic reviews on menstrual and hormonally influenced migraine show partial improvements (reduced frequency, severity, or disability), not full remission, and many women either do not respond or experience worsening with certain hormone therapies. ^[28] Menopausal hormone therapy trials and reviews report that migraines improve spontaneously in a proportion of women after menopause, but can actually worsen with exogenous hormone therapy, indicating that hormonal interventions are not a reliable route to elimination of chronic migraine. ^[7][27][29] Observational and interventional data also show substantial individual variability; in some patients, estrogen or combined hormone therapy exacerbates migraine or introduces vascular risk, and major guidelines caution against routine combined hormonal contraceptives in women with migraine with aura because of increased stroke risk, highlighting that pursuit of "hormonal balance" can be harmful rather than curative. ^[2][26] Overall, the evidence base focuses on reduction and management, not complete disappearance, and is concentrated on menstrual migraine rather than chronic migraine broadly, so extrapolating a guarantee of complete resolution is unsupported and misleading. ^[1]

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical position is that hormones play an important modulatory role in migraine, particularly in women, and that carefully selected hormonal strategies may reduce migraine attacks in patients whose migraines are clearly tied to hormonal fluctuations, such as menstrual migraine. ^{[26][27][28][29]} However, chronic migraine is understood as a complex neurobiological disorder with multiple interacting factors (genetic, neural, environmental, hormonal), and current guidelines and expert reviews emphasize multimodal management: evidence-based pharmacologic preventives (e. ^[1][2][5] g. , CGRP-targeting drugs, topiramate, beta-blockers), behavioral and lifestyle interventions, and occasional hormonal approaches when indicated. ^[4] Hormonal therapy is considered an adjunct or option for specific clinical phenotypes, not a universal cure, and clinicians do not expect chronic migraines to "completely disappear" solely from achieving hormonal balance. ^[7] Instead, the realistic goal is clinically meaningful reduction in frequency and disability, acknowledging that some patients may experience near-remission while others have persistent or even worsened symptoms with hormonal manipulation.

In their own wordsWatch sourceArchived copy

“Most remarkably, her chronic migraines, a constant since her teens, completely disappeared - HELLO HORMONAL BALANCE!”

Rule: RSMo § 331.010(1)

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

Jaban M Moore is not licensed or approved by Missouri State Board of Chiropractic Examiners to advertise The Redefining Wellness Center as within their scope of practice.

The Redefining Wellness Center

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

In their own wordsWatch sourceArchived copy

“The Redefining Wellness Center”

Rule: Mo. Rev. Stat. §331.010 (20 CSR 2070)

Jaban M Moore is not licensed or approved by Missouri State Board of Chiropractic Examiners to diagnose, treat, or cure Root cause approach.

Root cause approach

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

In their own wordsWatch sourceArchived copy

“root cause approach to identifying and addressing these factors”

Rule: Mo. Rev. Stat. §331.010 (20 CSR 2070)