Tanner Wilson alias Dr. Lab Lord

Tanner Wilson is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Bioidentical Hormone Replacement Therapy (BHRT).

Bioidentical Hormone Replacement Therapy (BHRT)

Supports

High-quality evidence supports that FDA-approved bioidentical menopausal hormone therapy (e. ^[7] g. , 17β-estradiol, micronized progesterone) is effective for relieving vasomotor symptoms and other menopausal complaints, comparable to conventional (often non-bioidentical) hormone therapy. ^[8] A Cochrane-style systematic review of bioidentical hormones for vasomotor symptoms found that bioidentical hormone therapy reduced hot flush intensity versus placebo, though evidence quality was low, confirming efficacy for symptom relief but not superiority over conventional therapy. ^[5] Randomized trials and meta-analyses comparing estradiol with conjugated equine estrogens generally show that estradiol is more effective than placebo and similarly effective to non-bioidentical estrogens for vasomotor symptoms, with safety depending on dose, duration, route, and patient risk factors. Large guidelines and position statements from major societies (e. ^[2] g. , Endocrine Society, North American Menopause Society, ACOG) accept FDA-approved bioidentical formulations (such as estradiol and micronized progesterone) as standard components of menopausal hormone therapy, emphasizing that appropriately prescribed hormone therapy (including bioidentical preparations) is the most effective treatment for vasomotor symptoms and prevention of bone loss in suitable women. ^[6] These sources support the narrow claim that regulated, standardized bioidentical hormone products are effective options within hormone therapy and can be used safely in appropriately selected, low-risk women for limited durations.

Contradicts

Evidence does not support broad influencer-style claims that bioidentical hormone replacement therapy is uniquely safer, risk-free, or inherently superior to conventional hormone therapy. ^[6][7][8] Systematic reviews and narrative reviews of bioidentical versus conventional hormone therapy consistently report only a few small or methodologically limited comparative studies and conclude that there is no robust evidence showing bioidentical hormones to be safer or more effective overall than standard therapies; long-term comparative safety (breast cancer, cardiovascular events, venous thromboembolism) remains insufficiently characterized. ^[5] Major guidelines explicitly state that marketing claims about compounded bioidentical hormone therapy (custom mixtures, often dosed by saliva testing) are unsupported by high-quality data; they highlight problems of variable potency, lack of regulatory oversight, and absence of long-term randomized trials. ^[2] Position statements from leading societies emphasize that compounded bioidentical products should not be routinely preferred over FDA-approved hormone therapy and that there is no scientific proof that compounded bioidentical hormones carry fewer risks or greater benefits than conventional preparations. Observational studies of compounded bioidentical regimens show symptom improvement but are uncontrolled and subject to bias, and they do not establish superior efficacy or safety. Furthermore, large randomized trials of hormone therapy in general (using non-bioidentical regimens) demonstrate increased risks of cardiovascular disease, thromboembolism, breast cancer, and stroke with systemic hormone use in some populations; current consensus is that these class risks apply to systemic estrogen-progestogen therapy broadly, whether bioidentical or not, and must be balanced against benefits rather than dismissed on the basis of “bioidentical” marketing.

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical position is that hormone therapy, including FDA-approved bioidentical formulations (such as estradiol and micronized progesterone), is the most effective treatment for menopausal vasomotor symptoms and can be used safely in appropriately selected women at the lowest effective dose for the shortest duration consistent with treatment goals. ^[5][6][8] However, mainstream guidelines do not endorse claims that bioidentical hormone replacement therapy is categorically safer, more natural, or superior to conventional hormone therapy. ^[2][7] For regulated, standardized products, bioidentical hormones are considered one set of acceptable options, chosen based on patient preference, risk profile, and formulation characteristics, but they share the general risk profile of systemic hormone therapy. In contrast, custom-compounded bioidentical hormone therapy is viewed skeptically: major societies (Endocrine Society, North American Menopause Society, ACOG and others) state that evidence for its long-term safety and comparative efficacy is lacking, that quality and dosing are inconsistent, and that it should not be routinely preferred over FDA-approved products. Overall, the mainstream view is that bioidentical hormone therapy is an evidence-based component of menopausal care when using approved formulations, but that influencer-style claims of unique safety, anti-aging benefits, or broad disease prevention are not supported by current high-quality evidence. ^[1][4]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Bioidentical Hormone Replacement Therapy (BHRT)”

Rule: K.S.A. Chiropractic Practice Act (as summarized by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts/FCLB)

Tanner Wilson is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Prescribing and managing Bioidentical Hormone Replacement Therapy (BHRT), a prescription drug protocol..

Prescribing and managing Bioidentical Hormone Replacement Therapy (BHRT), a prescription drug protocol.

Supports

High-quality evidence supports that FDA-approved bioidentical menopausal hormone therapy (e. ^[7] g. , 17β-estradiol, micronized progesterone) is effective for relieving vasomotor symptoms and other menopausal complaints, comparable to conventional (often non-bioidentical) hormone therapy. ^[8] A Cochrane-style systematic review of bioidentical hormones for vasomotor symptoms found that bioidentical hormone therapy reduced hot flush intensity versus placebo, though evidence quality was low, confirming efficacy for symptom relief but not superiority over conventional therapy. ^[5] Randomized trials and meta-analyses comparing estradiol with conjugated equine estrogens generally show that estradiol is more effective than placebo and similarly effective to non-bioidentical estrogens for vasomotor symptoms, with safety depending on dose, duration, route, and patient risk factors. Large guidelines and position statements from major societies (e. ^[2] g. , Endocrine Society, North American Menopause Society, ACOG) accept FDA-approved bioidentical formulations (such as estradiol and micronized progesterone) as standard components of menopausal hormone therapy, emphasizing that appropriately prescribed hormone therapy (including bioidentical preparations) is the most effective treatment for vasomotor symptoms and prevention of bone loss in suitable women. ^[6] These sources support the narrow claim that regulated, standardized bioidentical hormone products are effective options within hormone therapy and can be used safely in appropriately selected, low-risk women for limited durations.

Contradicts

Evidence does not support broad influencer-style claims that bioidentical hormone replacement therapy is uniquely safer, risk-free, or inherently superior to conventional hormone therapy. ^[6][7][8] Systematic reviews and narrative reviews of bioidentical versus conventional hormone therapy consistently report only a few small or methodologically limited comparative studies and conclude that there is no robust evidence showing bioidentical hormones to be safer or more effective overall than standard therapies; long-term comparative safety (breast cancer, cardiovascular events, venous thromboembolism) remains insufficiently characterized. ^[5] Major guidelines explicitly state that marketing claims about compounded bioidentical hormone therapy (custom mixtures, often dosed by saliva testing) are unsupported by high-quality data; they highlight problems of variable potency, lack of regulatory oversight, and absence of long-term randomized trials. ^[2] Position statements from leading societies emphasize that compounded bioidentical products should not be routinely preferred over FDA-approved hormone therapy and that there is no scientific proof that compounded bioidentical hormones carry fewer risks or greater benefits than conventional preparations. Observational studies of compounded bioidentical regimens show symptom improvement but are uncontrolled and subject to bias, and they do not establish superior efficacy or safety. Furthermore, large randomized trials of hormone therapy in general (using non-bioidentical regimens) demonstrate increased risks of cardiovascular disease, thromboembolism, breast cancer, and stroke with systemic hormone use in some populations; current consensus is that these class risks apply to systemic estrogen-progestogen therapy broadly, whether bioidentical or not, and must be balanced against benefits rather than dismissed on the basis of “bioidentical” marketing.

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical position is that hormone therapy, including FDA-approved bioidentical formulations (such as estradiol and micronized progesterone), is the most effective treatment for menopausal vasomotor symptoms and can be used safely in appropriately selected women at the lowest effective dose for the shortest duration consistent with treatment goals. ^[5][6][8] However, mainstream guidelines do not endorse claims that bioidentical hormone replacement therapy is categorically safer, more natural, or superior to conventional hormone therapy. ^[2][7] For regulated, standardized products, bioidentical hormones are considered one set of acceptable options, chosen based on patient preference, risk profile, and formulation characteristics, but they share the general risk profile of systemic hormone therapy. In contrast, custom-compounded bioidentical hormone therapy is viewed skeptically: major societies (Endocrine Society, North American Menopause Society, ACOG and others) state that evidence for its long-term safety and comparative efficacy is lacking, that quality and dosing are inconsistent, and that it should not be routinely preferred over FDA-approved products. Overall, the mainstream view is that bioidentical hormone therapy is an evidence-based component of menopausal care when using approved formulations, but that influencer-style claims of unique safety, anti-aging benefits, or broad disease prevention are not supported by current high-quality evidence. ^[1][4]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Bioidentical Hormone Replacement Therapy (BHRT)”

Rule: K.S.A. Chiropractic Practice Act (as summarized by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts/FCLB)

Tanner Wilson is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Hormonal imbalances.

Hormonal imbalances

Supports

Mainstream endocrinology recognizes that pathologic hormone excess or deficiency (true endocrine disorders) can significantly affect blood pressure, cardiovascular risk, metabolism, mood, growth, reproduction, and overall health, so the general idea that hormonal changes influence health is supported.^[1][2] Systematic and narrative reviews show that relatively small endogenous hormonal changes (for example in thyroid function or glucose regulation) can have clinically relevant health effects, including in states like subclinical hypothyroidism, hyperthyroidism, and glucose intolerance.^[2] Reviews of sex hormones indicate that estrogen, progesterone, and testosterone have important effects on cardiometabolic regulation, metabolic syndrome, lipid metabolism, and glucose homeostasis, supporting that disturbances in these systems can impact long‑term health risks.^[3] Research in women’s health and menopause shows that changes in sex hormones across puberty, pregnancy, peripartum, and menopause are linked to vascular function and cardiovascular outcomes, again supporting that hormonal transitions have real physiological consequences.^[7] Evidence on reproductive hormones and mental wellbeing shows that cyclical hormonal changes can modulate the severity of several mental health conditions (depression, PMDD, bipolar disorder, PTSD, schizophrenia), supporting that hormone shifts can affect mood and mental health in some individuals.^[4] Large bodies of evidence link specific, well‑defined “hormonal imbalances” (e.g., diabetes, thyroid disease, hypercortisolism, hypogonadism, PCOS) to characteristic symptom clusters and complications, and these conditions are routinely managed according to formal clinical practice guidelines from endocrine societies.^[18] The hypertension guideline acknowledges that hormones like aldosterone, catecholamines, and others contribute to blood pressure regulation and that specific hormonal disorders (e.g., primary aldosteronism) require guideline‑driven evaluation and management, supporting that targeted correction of defined hormonal abnormalities can improve outcomes.^[0]

Contradicts

There is no high‑quality evidence or major guideline supporting the vague, influencer‑style concept of a generalized “hormonal imbalance” as a catch‑all explanation for nonspecific symptoms without objective endocrine abnormalities; endocrine literature treats discrete, measurable disorders (e.g., hypothyroidism, diabetes, Cushing’s syndrome) rather than broad, untested imbalance narratives.^[2][3] Major guidelines for hypertension and clinical nutrition focus on specific, measurable pathophysiologic mechanisms and do not endorse the idea that most chronic symptoms or diseases are primarily due to unspecified hormonal imbalance requiring generalized ‘balancing’ therapies.^[0][1][2] Evidence‑based endocrine practice relies on precise diagnostic criteria, hormone assays, and targeted treatments; it does not support unvalidated commercial or wellness approaches that claim to “balance hormones” in otherwise healthy people without documented endocrine disease.^[18] Commentary in mainstream outlets has explicitly criticized the wellness industry’s use of “hormone balancing” as a self‑help concept detached from medical evidence and often marketed to women, noting that normal cyclic variations and life‑stage changes are frequently mischaracterized as pathologic imbalances requiring supplements or bioidentical hormones, which is not supported by guidelines or robust trials.^[24] The index papers on parenteral nutrition and inflammatory bowel disease show that high‑quality clinical nutrition and critical‑care guidelines emphasize nutrition risk, disease activity, and specific indications for parenteral nutrition, not generic hormonal imbalance theories as a primary driver of these conditions.^[1][2][3]

Mainstream view

Mainstream medicine accepts that hormones have wide‑ranging roles in metabolism, cardiovascular regulation, mood, growth, and reproduction, and that well‑defined endocrine disorders (such as thyroid disease, diabetes, PCOS, Cushing’s syndrome, menopausal hormone deficiency, or hyperaldosteronism) can cause significant morbidity and require evidence‑based diagnosis and treatment, often guided by formal endocrine and cardiovascular guidelines.^{[0][1][2][18]} However, the mainstream view is that these conditions must be objectively demonstrated (via history, examination, and appropriately interpreted lab testing) and managed with targeted interventions; the broad influencer notion of “hormonal imbalances” as a pervasive, loosely defined cause of diverse symptoms in otherwise healthy individuals is not a recognized medical diagnosis and is not supported by high‑quality trial data or major guidelines.^[2][3][24] Normal hormonal fluctuations across the menstrual cycle, pregnancy, postpartum, and menopause are understood as physiological processes that can be symptomatic in some individuals but are not inherently pathologic imbalances, and treatment decisions are individualized and anchored in risk–benefit evidence rather than a general goal of “balancing hormones.”^[3][4][7] Deterministic PubMed cross-check found no matching indexed studies for these terms (absence of indexed evidence is not evidence against the claim).

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“struggling with hormonal imbalances”

Rule: K.S.A. Chiropractic Practice Act (as summarized by Chiropractic Future quoting statute)

Tanner Wilson is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Functional Medicine.

Functional Medicine

Supports

High-quality evidence specifically testing functional medicine as a distinct model of care is limited but growing, and is largely focused on chronic disease and patient‑reported outcomes rather than hard clinical endpoints or mortality. A large cohort study from the Cleveland Clinic Center for Functional Medicine found that patients receiving functional medicine care had statistically greater improvements in PROMIS Global Physical Health at 6 months compared with propensity‑matched patients in a conventional family health center, suggesting better short‑term quality‑of‑life outcomes, although the differences attenuated by 12 months. ^[15][18][19] Separate retrospective cohort work on functional medicine–based shared medical appointments (SMAs) in chronic conditions reported greater improvements in health‑related quality of life and modest biometric changes (weight, blood pressure) at 3 months compared with individual functional medicine visits, while also being less costly to deliver. ^[20] A randomized controlled trial of an elimination diet with versus without functional medicine health coaching in relatively healthy adults showed clinically meaningful within‑group improvements in patient‑reported global physical and mental health in both arms over 10 weeks, with some additional benefit of coaching in those with higher baseline symptom burden. ^[14][17] Narrative and conceptual papers from proponents argue that functional medicine is aligned with systems biology and evidence‑based lifestyle interventions, and they highlight observational studies where functional medicine programs were associated with improved PROMIS physical and mental health scores, reduced pain, and better outcomes in conditions such as type 2 diabetes, autoimmune thyroid disease, and multiple sclerosis, but these are largely preliminary and not definitive. Overall, there is some supportive evidence that functional medicine–style programs can improve patient‑reported quality of life and symptoms in chronic disease populations, and that team‑based or shared‑visit formats may do so cost‑effectively, but this evidence base is still relatively small, heterogeneous, and heavily centered on one major academic center.

Contradicts

There are no large randomized, multicenter trials, high‑quality systematic reviews, or major guideline endorsements showing that functional medicine, as a named model, improves hard clinical outcomes (e. ^[14] g. , mortality, cardiovascular events, major complications) beyond established evidence‑based care. Existing studies are mostly observational, single‑center, or short‑term, and they focus on self‑reported outcomes, which are susceptible to selection bias, expectation effects, and confounding by patient engagement or socioeconomic status. In the elimination‑diet RCT with functional medicine health coaching, both the coached and self‑guided groups improved substantially, and there was no significant between‑group difference in primary outcomes in the full cohort; advantages of functional medicine coaching appeared only in a more symptomatic subgroup, which raises questions about generalizability and the incremental value of the branded approach. ^{[17][18][19][20]} Systematic reviews of integrative or functional‑style care models have found very few rigorous RCTs, small sample sizes, and methodological issues (e. g. , lack of blinding, unclear control conditions), leading to the conclusion that evidence for integrative or functional medicine as a comprehensive model of care remains limited and insufficient for firm claims of superiority over standard medicine. Major evidence‑based guidelines and practice updates in common conditions (e. g. , diverticulitis, primary aldosteronism, cancer, perioperative oncology, neonatal care) are grounded in conventional pharmacologic, surgical, and lifestyle interventions and do not identify “functional medicine” as a recommended or recognized treatment pathway, which indirectly underscores that functional medicine has not met the evidentiary thresholds required for guideline inclusion. ^[15][16] No major specialty board or national guideline body has formally recognized functional medicine as a medical specialty or subspecialty, and professional societies sometimes criticize it for overuse of non‑validated testing, supplements, and unproven “root‑cause” diagnostics that lack robust clinical trial support. ^[13] Taken together, the current literature contradicts strong claims that functional medicine is broadly superior, disease‑modifying, or capable of reversing chronic diseases in a way that is clearly beyond optimized evidence‑based conventional care.

Mainstream view

Mainstream academic and guideline‑based medicine views functional medicine as a form of integrative or lifestyle‑oriented care that overlaps substantially with accepted practices like nutrition therapy, exercise prescription, and psychosocial support, but it does not regard “functional medicine” itself as an established, evidence‑validated specialty or a clearly superior model of care. ^[18][19] Conventional guidelines for chronic conditions prioritize interventions supported by high‑quality randomized trials and systematic reviews—such as structured exercise in cancer survivors, evidence‑based pharmacotherapy and surgery in endocrine and cardiovascular disease, and standardized perioperative regimens—and these are recommended regardless of whether they are delivered in a functional medicine clinic or a standard practice. ^{[14][15][16][17][20]} [ref:5 Deterministic PubMed cross-check found no matching indexed studies for these terms (absence of indexed evidence is not evidence against the claim).

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Functional Medicine”

Rule: K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act)

Tanner Wilson is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure IV Nutrient Therapy.

IV Nutrient Therapy

Supports

High-quality evidence supports intravenous nutrient delivery in the context of medically indicated parenteral nutrition (PN) for patients unable to meet needs orally or enterally, and this is reflected in major guidelines (e.g., ASPEN and ESPEN) that specify IV macronutrient and micronutrient requirements, dosing, and monitoring for hospitalized patients with intestinal failure or severe illness.^[20][25] In critically ill patients, narrative and guideline-informed reviews emphasize the need to provide at least basal daily micronutrient requirements intravenously (often via PN or IV trace-element/vitamin preparations) and to correct documented deficiencies, although they caution against high‑dose monotherapy.^[4] There is some condition‑specific evidence that individual IV nutrients can be beneficial: for example, IV magnesium for acute asthma and IV thiamine for Wernicke’s encephalopathy are supported in clinical literature and practice guidelines, but these are targeted pharmacologic uses rather than general wellness drips. High‑dose IV vitamin C has been investigated as an adjunct in cancer and sepsis; recent phase II/early-phase randomized trials in metastatic pancreatic cancer report improved survival when IV vitamin C is added to chemotherapy, suggesting possible benefit in that very specific context, pending confirmation in larger trials.^[19][24] A randomized, double‑blind, placebo‑controlled pilot trial of an IV micronutrient “Myers’ cocktail” for fibromyalgia found that IV therapy was feasible and generally safe, with both IV nutrient and placebo groups showing within‑group improvements in pain and quality of life, but without statistically significant superiority of IV nutrients over placebo.^[11][16]

Contradicts

For the popular “drip bar” or influencer-style IV nutrient therapy marketed for general wellness, energy, immunity, hangover relief, or anti‑aging in otherwise healthy people, high‑quality evidence is limited and often negative or inconclusive. Expert commentary from major centers (e.g., Mayo Clinic, Cleveland Clinic) explicitly notes that there is little or no robust evidence that IV vitamin therapy provides general wellness benefits in people with normal nutritional intake, and that existing studies are few and frequently methodologically weak.^[17][22] The randomized pilot trial of IV micronutrient therapy (Myers’ cocktail) for fibromyalgia did not demonstrate a statistically significant benefit over placebo at 8 or 16 weeks, despite within-group improvements, underscoring a strong placebo effect and uncertain specific efficacy.^[11][16] Reviews of micronutrient supplementation more broadly show that many anticipated benefits from vitamins and minerals do not translate into clear outcome improvements in randomized trials, particularly for chronic disease prevention, and that observational benefits often disappear when tested rigorously.^[5] Narrative reviews in critical illness caution against high-dose monotherapy and highlight that evidence for supraphysiologic IV micronutrient dosing to improve outcomes is weak or inconsistent, with a focus instead on providing recommended daily allowances and correcting measured deficiencies.^[4] Health-professional surveys on commercially available IV nutrient therapies report concern about unproven benefit and potential risks, including infection, vein damage, fluid and electrolyte disturbances, and inappropriate use outside established medical indications.^[9][10] Overall, the evidence base contradicts broad claims that IV nutrient therapy is a safe, effective, and evidence-backed wellness intervention for the general population.

Mainstream view

Mainstream medical and scientific opinion draws a sharp distinction between medically indicated intravenous nutrition (parenteral nutrition and targeted IV vitamins or minerals for defined deficiencies) and commercial IV nutrient therapy for wellness. For hospitalized or severely ill patients who cannot use the gastrointestinal tract adequately, guidelines from organizations such as ASPEN and ESPEN consider IV delivery of nutrients (including micronutrients) to be essential, with detailed recommendations on indications, formulations, dosing, and monitoring, and a focus on meeting established requirements rather than providing supratherapeutic doses.^[20][25] In contrast, major academic and clinical centers state that for otherwise healthy individuals with adequate oral intake, there is little evidence that IV vitamin or nutrient drips improve overall health, energy, immunity, or disease outcomes beyond what can be achieved with diet or standard oral supplementation, and they emphasize the lack of high‑quality randomized trials supporting routine use for wellness.^[17][22] Mainstream experts also highlight potential harms—including infection risk, phlebitis, fluid overload, electrolyte imbalance, and rare hypersensitivity reactions—and the opportunity cost of expensive but unproven treatments. As a result, the mainstream position is that IV nutrient therapy should be reserved for defined clinical indications (e.g., PN, specific deficiency states, certain acute conditions) and not routinely offered or promoted as a general wellness or performance enhancement tool.

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“IV Nutrient Therapy”

Rule: K.S.A. Chiropractic Practice Act (as summarized by FCLB/Chiropractic Future)

Tanner Wilson is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Direct Primary Care.

Direct Primary Care

Supports

Direct primary care is defined in peer-reviewed literature as a primary care model in which patients pay a recurring fee for a defined set of services, typically with unlimited access to the practice . The strongest support for benefits of primary-care-oriented models is indirect rather than specific to direct primary care: randomized and systematic-review evidence shows that primary care interventions, care coordination, and practice-facilitation programs can improve preventive care uptake and guideline adoption in some settings . ^{[25][26][27][28]} Observational and descriptive DPC literature reports lower administrative burden, better access, and improved physician-patient relationships, but this is not high-certainty causal evidence .

Contradicts

There is no robust peer-reviewed evidence base demonstrating that direct primary care itself improves hard outcomes such as mortality, hospitalization, total spending, or broad quality of care versus conventional primary care. ^[28] A review from a public-policy evidence synthesis concluded that the evidence had not established DPC effects on spending, quality, or access, and that the literature was largely descriptive with few rigorous studies . The available literature cited in the prompt does not include a DPC-specific systematic review or randomized trial; the listed papers are unrelated to DPC, so they do not directly support the claim. ^[26] Evidence from broader primary care research is also mixed: some interventions help, but effects are inconsistent and often context-dependent, and some RCTs in primary care have failed to show meaningful improvement in important outcomes . ^[25][27]

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical view is that direct primary care is a plausible care-delivery model that may improve access and reduce administrative burden for some practices and patients, but its clinical and economic advantages remain insufficiently proven. ^[26][27][28] Most experts treat DPC as an unproven alternative model with promising descriptive reports but limited rigorous comparative evidence; broader evidence strongly supports primary care in general, not specifically DPC . Deterministic PubMed cross-check found no matching indexed studies for these terms (absence of indexed evidence is not evidence against the claim).

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Direct Primary Care Provider”

Rule: K.S.A. Chiropractic Practice Act (scope description as summarized)

Tanner Wilson is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Weight gain.

Weight gain

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“battling weight gain”

Rule: K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act)

Tanner Wilson is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Digestive symptoms.

Digestive symptoms

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“digestive symptoms”

Rule: K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act)

Tanner Wilson is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to advertise 6-month Metabolic Reset programs with GLP-1 oversight as within their scope of practice.

6-month Metabolic Reset programs with GLP-1 oversight

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“6-month Metabolic Reset programs with GLP-1 oversight”

Rule: K.S.A. Chiropractic Practice Act (drug prohibition)

Tanner Wilson is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to advertise Identifies root causes, not just symptoms as within their scope of practice.

Identifies root causes, not just symptoms

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Identifies root causes, not just symptoms”

Rule: K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act)

Tanner Wilson is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to advertise Personalized care plans based on advanced diagnostics as within their scope of practice.

Personalized care plans based on advanced diagnostics

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Personalized care plans based on advanced diagnostics”

Rule: K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act)

Tanner Wilson is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Improved energy, metabolism, and cognitive function.

Improved energy, metabolism, and cognitive function

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Improved energy, metabolism, and cognitive function”

Rule: K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act)

Tanner Wilson is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to advertise Addresses long-term disease risk as within their scope of practice.

Addresses long-term disease risk

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Addresses long-term disease risk”

Rule: K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act)

Tanner Wilson is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to advertise Learn More about Functional Medicine as within their scope of practice.

Learn More about Functional Medicine

Supports

High-quality evidence specifically testing functional medicine as a distinct model of care is limited but growing, and is largely focused on chronic disease and patient‑reported outcomes rather than hard clinical endpoints or mortality. A large cohort study from the Cleveland Clinic Center for Functional Medicine found that patients receiving functional medicine care had statistically greater improvements in PROMIS Global Physical Health at 6 months compared with propensity‑matched patients in a conventional family health center, suggesting better short‑term quality‑of‑life outcomes, although the differences attenuated by 12 months. ^[15][18][19] Separate retrospective cohort work on functional medicine–based shared medical appointments (SMAs) in chronic conditions reported greater improvements in health‑related quality of life and modest biometric changes (weight, blood pressure) at 3 months compared with individual functional medicine visits, while also being less costly to deliver. ^[20] A randomized controlled trial of an elimination diet with versus without functional medicine health coaching in relatively healthy adults showed clinically meaningful within‑group improvements in patient‑reported global physical and mental health in both arms over 10 weeks, with some additional benefit of coaching in those with higher baseline symptom burden. ^[14][17] Narrative and conceptual papers from proponents argue that functional medicine is aligned with systems biology and evidence‑based lifestyle interventions, and they highlight observational studies where functional medicine programs were associated with improved PROMIS physical and mental health scores, reduced pain, and better outcomes in conditions such as type 2 diabetes, autoimmune thyroid disease, and multiple sclerosis, but these are largely preliminary and not definitive. Overall, there is some supportive evidence that functional medicine–style programs can improve patient‑reported quality of life and symptoms in chronic disease populations, and that team‑based or shared‑visit formats may do so cost‑effectively, but this evidence base is still relatively small, heterogeneous, and heavily centered on one major academic center.

Contradicts

There are no large randomized, multicenter trials, high‑quality systematic reviews, or major guideline endorsements showing that functional medicine, as a named model, improves hard clinical outcomes (e. ^[14] g. , mortality, cardiovascular events, major complications) beyond established evidence‑based care. Existing studies are mostly observational, single‑center, or short‑term, and they focus on self‑reported outcomes, which are susceptible to selection bias, expectation effects, and confounding by patient engagement or socioeconomic status. In the elimination‑diet RCT with functional medicine health coaching, both the coached and self‑guided groups improved substantially, and there was no significant between‑group difference in primary outcomes in the full cohort; advantages of functional medicine coaching appeared only in a more symptomatic subgroup, which raises questions about generalizability and the incremental value of the branded approach. ^{[17][18][19][20]} Systematic reviews of integrative or functional‑style care models have found very few rigorous RCTs, small sample sizes, and methodological issues (e. g. , lack of blinding, unclear control conditions), leading to the conclusion that evidence for integrative or functional medicine as a comprehensive model of care remains limited and insufficient for firm claims of superiority over standard medicine. Major evidence‑based guidelines and practice updates in common conditions (e. g. , diverticulitis, primary aldosteronism, cancer, perioperative oncology, neonatal care) are grounded in conventional pharmacologic, surgical, and lifestyle interventions and do not identify “functional medicine” as a recommended or recognized treatment pathway, which indirectly underscores that functional medicine has not met the evidentiary thresholds required for guideline inclusion. ^[15][16] No major specialty board or national guideline body has formally recognized functional medicine as a medical specialty or subspecialty, and professional societies sometimes criticize it for overuse of non‑validated testing, supplements, and unproven “root‑cause” diagnostics that lack robust clinical trial support. ^[13] Taken together, the current literature contradicts strong claims that functional medicine is broadly superior, disease‑modifying, or capable of reversing chronic diseases in a way that is clearly beyond optimized evidence‑based conventional care.

Mainstream view

Mainstream academic and guideline‑based medicine views functional medicine as a form of integrative or lifestyle‑oriented care that overlaps substantially with accepted practices like nutrition therapy, exercise prescription, and psychosocial support, but it does not regard “functional medicine” itself as an established, evidence‑validated specialty or a clearly superior model of care. ^[18][19] Conventional guidelines for chronic conditions prioritize interventions supported by high‑quality randomized trials and systematic reviews—such as structured exercise in cancer survivors, evidence‑based pharmacotherapy and surgery in endocrine and cardiovascular disease, and standardized perioperative regimens—and these are recommended regardless of whether they are delivered in a functional medicine clinic or a standard practice. ^{[14][15][16][17][20]} [ref:5 Deterministic PubMed cross-check found no matching indexed studies for these terms (absence of indexed evidence is not evidence against the claim).

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Learn More about Functional Medicine”

Rule: K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act)

Tanner Wilson is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Advanced cardiovascular and metabolic screening.

Advanced cardiovascular and metabolic screening

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Advanced cardiovascular and metabolic screening”

Rule: K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act)

Tanner Wilson is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Improved energy, resilience, and body composition.

Improved energy, resilience, and body composition

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Improved energy, resilience, and body composition”

Rule: K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act)

Tanner Wilson is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to advertise Cognitive and physical performance support as within their scope of practice.

Cognitive and physical performance support

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Cognitive and physical performance support”

Rule: K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act)

Tanner Wilson is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to advertise Reduced long-term chronic disease risk as within their scope of practice.

Reduced long-term chronic disease risk

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Reduced long-term chronic disease risk”

Rule: K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act)

Tanner Wilson is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to advertise Learn More about Longeivty Medicine as within their scope of practice.

Learn More about Longeivty Medicine

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Learn More about Longeivty Medicine”

Rule: K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act)

Tanner Wilson is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Improved energy and mental clarity.

Improved energy and mental clarity

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Improved energy and mental clarity”

Rule: K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act)

Tanner Wilson is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to advertise Better sleep and mood stability as within their scope of practice.

Better sleep and mood stability

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Better sleep and mood stability”

Rule: K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act)

Tanner Wilson is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to advertise Enhanced metabolic and sexual health as within their scope of practice.

Enhanced metabolic and sexual health

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Enhanced metabolic and sexual health”

Rule: K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act)

Tanner Wilson is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to advertise Personalized and medically supervised care as within their scope of practice.

Personalized and medically supervised care

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Personalized and medically supervised care”

Rule: K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act)

Tanner Wilson is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to advertise Learn More about BHRT as within their scope of practice.

Learn More about BHRT

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Learn More about BHRT”

Rule: K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act)