Joshua James Redd alias The Thyroid Whisperer

Joshua James Redd is not licensed or approved by Utah Chiropractic Physician Licensing Board to diagnose, treat, or cure successfully treats Hashimoto’s, autoimmune, and brain-related conditions.

successfully treats Hashimoto’s, autoimmune, and brain-related conditions

Supports

The strongest support is limited to the idea that Hashimoto’s thyroiditis and some thyroid-related neuropsychiatric syndromes are treatable conditions, but not that a single intervention “successfully treats” all three categories in the claim. A review of Hashimoto’s thyroiditis states that levothyroxine is the foundation of management for hypothyroidism due to Hashimoto’s thyroiditis, with possible symptomatic benefit and use in pregnancy-related cases, but it also notes that evidence for changing the autoimmune process itself is limited and inconsistent . ^[1][2] Reviews of Hashimoto encephalopathy/autoimmune thyroid-associated encephalopathy describe improvement with corticosteroids or other immunotherapies in selected patients with encephalopathy plus thyroid antibodies, indicating that some brain-related autoimmune syndromes can be treatment-responsive . ^[3][4]

Contradicts

The claim is too broad because Hashimoto’s thyroiditis does not have a universally proven curative treatment, and standard therapy mainly treats hypothyroidism rather than the underlying autoimmunity . ^[1] Evidence that levothyroxine or other common interventions reliably reduce thyroid antibodies or “successfully treat” the autoimmune disease itself is described as limited, inconsistent, or inconclusive in reviews . ^[3][4] There is no high-quality evidence that one therapy successfully treats all autoimmune diseases as a group, and autoimmune neurologic disorders generally require condition-specific immunotherapy rather than a universal treatment . ^[2] The user-provided index papers do not include clinical trials or guidelines supporting a broad cure for Hashimoto’s, autoimmune disease generally, or brain-related conditions; the listed ClinicalTrials. gov entries are unrelated to the claim. Evidence for brain-related benefit is also narrow: it applies mainly to Hashimoto encephalopathy or autoimmune encephalitis-like syndromes, not to nonspecific “brain-related conditions” .

Mainstream view

Mainstream medicine views Hashimoto’s thyroiditis as a chronic autoimmune thyroid disease that is usually managed with levothyroxine when hypothyroidism is present, while the autoimmune process itself is not typically cured. ^[1][2] Brain-related autoimmune syndromes associated with thyroid autoimmunity, such as Hashimoto encephalopathy, are uncommon and are treated with immunotherapy in selected cases, but this does not support a general claim of successful treatment for all Hashimoto’s, all autoimmune disease, or all brain-related conditions . ^[3][4]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Joshua J. Redd, NMD, MS, MAPHB successfully treats Hashimoto’s, autoimmune, and brain-related conditions using science-backed functional medicine strategies.”

Rule: Utah Code § 58-73-601(2)(a), (j)

See every doc bro advertising Thyroid disease and Hashimoto

Joshua James Redd is not licensed or approved by Utah Chiropractic Physician Licensing Board to diagnose, treat, or cure treats diabetes to cardiovascular issues, infertility to Alzheimer’s disease.

treats diabetes to cardiovascular issues, infertility to Alzheimer’s disease

Supports

There is no high-quality evidence or guideline support for a single product or intervention that directly treats and cures such a broad list of unrelated conditions (diabetes, cardiovascular disease, infertility, and Alzheimer’s disease) as claimed. ^[9][13] Major guidelines for hypertension, parenteral nutrition, inflammatory bowel disease, headache, transfusion therapy, and pericarditis instead recommend disease-specific, evidence-based treatments and do not endorse any universal remedy that simultaneously treats these conditions. ^{[5][6][7][8][11][12]} Some drug classes (for example, GLP‑1 receptor agonists, ACE inhibitors, and intensive lifestyle interventions) have evidence for benefits in both diabetes and cardiovascular disease, and there is emerging but still exploratory research on possible cognitive or neuroprotective effects, yet these are not established cures for Alzheimer’s disease or infertility and are used within conventional care for specific indications, not as panaceas.

Contradicts

High‑quality evidence and regulatory guidance contradict the idea that any single treatment can broadly cure or effectively treat chronic, complex diseases spanning diabetes, cardiovascular disease, infertility, and Alzheimer’s disease. ^[9][13] Major hypertension and cardiovascular guidelines describe multiple targeted drug classes and lifestyle measures, emphasizing individualized therapy and risk‑factor control rather than one universal treatment. Nutrition guidelines (ASPEN, ESPEN) and parenteral nutrition appropriateness criteria stress that nutrition support is an adjunct tailored to underlying disease and clinical status, not a cure-all for diverse conditions. ^[6][7][8] Guidelines for tension‑type headache, transfusion therapy, and colchicine in pericarditis similarly outline narrowly defined indications and contraindications and do not support use as systemic treatments for diabetes, infertility, or neurodegenerative disease. ^[10][11][12] Overall, the existing evidence base shows that the pathophysiology of diabetes, cardiovascular disease, infertility, and Alzheimer’s disease is heterogeneous and complex, with no single established therapy that treats all of them effectively or cures them.

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical and scientific position is that no single drug, supplement, diet, or procedure is proven to treat or cure, in a robust and generalizable way, the entire spectrum from diabetes and cardiovascular disease to infertility and Alzheimer’s disease. ^[13] Each condition has its own guideline‑directed management: diabetes and cardiovascular disease are managed with combinations of lifestyle modification, pharmacotherapy, and risk‑factor control; infertility with specialized reproductive and endocrine interventions; and Alzheimer’s disease with symptomatic treatments and limited disease‑modifying agents, none of which provide a universal cure. ^[5][7] Major guidelines and evidence frameworks (including GRADE) require condition‑specific randomized trials and meta‑analyses, and they do not recognize panaceas that simultaneously treat multiple complex chronic diseases. ^[6][9] Regulatory and public‑health authorities also routinely warn against products that claim to cure a wide array of serious diseases, reflecting consensus that such claims are inconsistent with the current evidence base.

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“From diabetes to cardiovascular issues, infertility to Alzheimer’s disease, chronic inflammation is an undiagnosed epidemic behind countless conditions.”

Rule: Utah Code § 58-73-601(2)(a), (j)

See every doc bro advertising Infertility

Joshua James Redd is not licensed or approved by Utah Chiropractic Physician Licensing Board to diagnose, treat, or cure Chronic Fatigue Relief.

Chronic Fatigue Relief

Supports

High-quality evidence specifically testing chiropractic treatment for chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS/ME) is extremely limited. ^{[14][15][16][17]} The main available data consist of small uncontrolled or poorly controlled studies and case reports. One prospective clinical study of upper cervical chiropractic care in 19 patients with CFS reported improvements in SF‑36 general and mental health scores and sleep quality over six months, but it lacked a control group, was delivered by a single practitioner, and cannot establish causality or general effectiveness. ^[6] The broader fatigue literature shows that certain non-pharmacologic approaches (e. g. , structured rehabilitation, CBT, graded activity programs) can yield modest fatigue improvements in some patients, but these are not chiropractic-specific and rely on different therapeutic mechanisms. Major guideline and methodology papers emphasize the need to rate such low‑quality, imprecise evidence as very weak when applying GRADE principles. ^{[5][10][8][9]}

Contradicts

There are no large randomized controlled trials, meta-analyses, or major clinical practice guidelines that demonstrate chiropractic treatment as an effective, evidence-based therapy for chronic fatigue syndrome. ^[6][11][17] A systematic review of randomized trials for CFS concluded that there is no definitely effective intervention with coherence and reproducibility, and did not identify chiropractic as a supported treatment. A critical evaluation of chiropractic for nonmusculoskeletal conditions found the evidence base dominated by case reports and low-quality studies, with insufficient proof of efficacy for most nonmusculoskeletal disorders, including fatigue-related conditions. ^[9][16] Major guideline-driven documents in other areas (e. g. , hypertension management, clinical nutrition, EFNS headache guidelines) illustrate how evidence-based recommendations require robust trials and consistent benefits, standards that chiropractic for chronic fatigue does not meet. ^{[5][7][10][8][14]} The VA/DoD guideline for chronic multisymptom illness, which includes patients with ME/CFS-like symptoms, explicitly states there is insufficient evidence to recommend for or against manual musculoskeletal therapies (a category that would include chiropractic) for patients with ME/CFS, underscoring the weak and inconclusive evidence base. ^[15]

Mainstream view

Mainstream medical and scientific consensus is that myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome is a complex, multisystem condition without a single proven curative therapy, and that management should focus on individualized pacing, symptom control, and cautious use of rehabilitative and psychological interventions where appropriate. ^{[8][11][14][15]} Major guidelines do not endorse chiropractic manipulation as a standard or evidence-based treatment for CFS/ME, and leading evidence-review bodies classify manual musculoskeletal therapies for ME/CFS as interventions with insufficient evidence rather than recommended care. ^[5][6] When GRADE methodology is applied, case reports and small uncontrolled chiropractic studies for chronic fatigue are rated as very low-quality evidence, insufficient to support routine use or strong claims of efficacy. ^[9][16][17]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Chronic Fatigue Relief”

Rule: Utah Code § 58-73-601(2)(a), (j)

See every doc bro advertising Chronic fatigue and fibromyalgia

Joshua James Redd is not licensed or approved by Utah Chiropractic Physician Licensing Board to diagnose, treat, or cure Autoimmune Support.

Autoimmune Support

Supports

The provided index papers do not directly address a general product or protocol called “autoimmune support,” but several guidelines and reviews support the broader concept that targeted nutritional and medical interventions can modulate disease activity in specific autoimmune or immune‑mediated conditions. ^[9] For inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), which includes immune‑mediated conditions such as Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis, the ESPEN guideline on clinical nutrition states that appropriate nutritional support is an integral part of comprehensive disease management and can influence outcomes such as malnutrition, disease course, and quality of life. ^[7][10] This indirectly supports the idea that evidence‑based nutrition can provide support in a specific autoimmune or immune‑related disease. ASPEN–FELANPE clinical guidelines on nutrition support in hospitalized patients describe evidence‑based use of enteral and parenteral nutrition to support patients with severe illness, including those with systemic inflammatory and immune‑related conditions, emphasizing that properly formulated nutrition can improve clinical outcomes, reduce complications, and support immune function in defined contexts. ^[6] The guideline "When is parenteral nutrition appropriate" further supports that, in selected patients with severe gastrointestinal disease or inability to maintain adequate oral intake, parenteral nutrition can prevent malnutrition and support immune competence and healing, which is relevant for some autoimmune gastrointestinal conditions. ^[8] More broadly, mainstream academic literature (via additional search) supports that in specific autoimmune diseases, interventions such as tight control of comorbidities (e. g. , hypertension in systemic autoimmune conditions with cardiovascular risk), evidence‑based pharmacologic therapies, and structured nutritional support can provide disease‑specific "support" by reducing complications, although this is not framed as a generic "autoimmune support" claim. ^[5]

Contradicts

None of the indexed papers support a generalized, non‑specific claim that an unspecified product, supplement stack, or lifestyle program provides broad "autoimmune support" across diseases. They instead focus on condition‑specific, guideline‑driven management. The guideline‑driven management of hypertension emphasizes treatment decisions based on high‑quality evidence, pharmacologic therapy, and lifestyle changes for blood pressure control, not vague immune support; this illustrates that mainstream guidelines demand clear outcomes and mechanisms rather than generic health claims. ^[5] The GRADE guideline on rating the quality of evidence highlights the need for precise clinical endpoints, adequate sample sizes, and low imprecision before making strong clinical recommendations, indicating that non‑specific claims such as "autoimmune support" would generally be considered low‑quality or insufficiently defined unless backed by robust, disease‑specific outcome data. ^[7][9] Blood transfusion therapy guidelines show that immune‑related interventions (e. ^[11] g. , transfusions in autoimmune hemolytic anemia or other conditions) are tightly regulated and evidence‑based, not described in broad marketing terms like "support". EFNS guidelines on tension‑type headache and the colchicine in pericarditis review focus on neurologic and cardiovascular inflammatory conditions with clearly defined therapeutic outcomes, again demonstrating that mainstream clinical practice requires specific, testable benefits (e. ^[6][10][12] g. , reduced headache frequency, reduced pericarditis recurrence) rather than generalized immune support claims. Overall, existing high‑quality evidence and guidelines contradict or at least do not substantiate a broad, unspecified claim of "autoimmune support"; they support only targeted interventions in specific diseases with defined endpoints and mechanisms.

Mainstream view

Mainstream medical and scientific consensus is that management of autoimmune and immune‑mediated diseases should be based on disease‑specific, guideline‑driven interventions with clearly defined outcomes, not on generalized "autoimmune support" products or concepts. ^[5] Major guidelines in areas such as hypertension management, clinical nutrition, and disease‑specific therapy insist on high‑quality evidence from RCTs, systematic reviews, and meta‑analyses, interpreted using frameworks like GRADE, before making clinical recommendations. ^[7][9][11] For autoimmune or immune‑mediated gastrointestinal diseases, mainstream practice uses ESPEN nutrition guidelines, which recommend tailored nutritional interventions (e. g. , enteral nutrition, micronutrient correction) based on disease severity, nutritional status, and specific clinical goals, rather than generic immune support. ^[8] ASPEN–FELANPE and parenteral nutrition appropriateness guidelines similarly emphasize that nutrition support is prescribed for defined indications (malnutrition, inability to meet needs orally, severe disease), with specific outcome measures such as infection rates, length of stay, and mortality, rather than a vaguely defined concept of boosting or supporting autoimmunity. ^[6] The GRADE framework underscores that broad, non‑specific claims are not acceptable in evidence‑based medicine; clinical recommendations must be tied to concrete benefits (e. g. , reduced disease activity scores, fewer relapses, improved survival

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Autoimmune Support”

Rule: Utah Code § 58-73-601(2)(a), (j)

See every doc bro advertising Autoimmune disease

Joshua James Redd is not licensed or approved by Utah Chiropractic Physician Licensing Board to diagnose, treat, or cure Autoimmune Conditions.

Autoimmune Conditions

Supports

There is some very preliminary evidence that chiropractic spinal manipulation can transiently change immune-related biomarkers such as cytokines (e.g., IL-6, TNF-α) in adults with spinal pain, suggesting a possible modulation of inflammatory pathways, but these studies do not involve patients with specific autoimmune diseases and do not demonstrate clinical benefit on autoimmune disease activity or outcomes.^[3][9] A pilot randomized trial is underway to examine effects of thoracic spinal manipulation on cytokine levels in patients with relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis, but this is an exploratory biomarker study and not evidence of disease control or remission in autoimmune disease. Overall, existing randomized trials and mechanistic studies suggest at most short-term changes in immune or stress biomarkers, not disease-modifying effects in autoimmune conditions.^[2][9]

Contradicts

A recent systematic review of spinal manipulative therapy and immune or infectious disease outcomes found no clinical studies demonstrating that spinal manipulation prevents infectious disease or improves disease-specific outcomes; the authors concluded there is no clinical evidence to support or refute claims that spinal manipulation meaningfully changes immune system outcomes, and that the clinical relevance of short-term biomarker changes is unknown.^[3] A united position statement from chiropractic researchers similarly concluded that no valid clinical evidence shows chiropractic care can enhance immune function or prevent infections, and emphasized that claims of immune enhancement are unsubstantiated.^[6] Major, contemporary autoimmune disease guidelines in rheumatology, gastroenterology, neurology, and related specialties focus on immunosuppressive or immunomodulatory drugs (e.g., corticosteroids, disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, biologics, targeted synthetic agents), adjunctive nutritional care, and appropriate vaccination, and do not recommend chiropractic or spinal manipulation as a disease-modifying treatment for autoimmune conditions.^[11][14] Guidelines for systemic lupus erythematosus, rheumatoid arthritis, inflammatory bowel disease, and other autoimmune diseases specify pharmacologic, nutritional, and rehabilitative strategies but do not list chiropractic care as a therapy for controlling autoimmune disease activity, preventing flares, or modifying long-term outcomes.^{[2][11][13][14][18]} Existing evidence for chiropractic care in comorbid neurological conditions (e.g., Alzheimer’s or Parkinson’s disease) is limited to small pilot trials assessing EEG changes and does not involve autoimmune pathophysiology or clinical autoimmune endpoints.^[21] Overall, claims that chiropractic treatment can treat or control autoimmune diseases themselves are not supported by randomized clinical trials, systematic reviews, or major guidelines.

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical and scientific view is that autoimmune diseases are driven by dysregulated immune responses requiring disease-specific, evidence-based immunomodulatory therapies (such as corticosteroids, conventional and biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, targeted synthetic agents, and sometimes stem cell or other advanced therapies), along with supportive measures including clinical nutrition, rehabilitation, and vaccination.^{[2][11][14][18][24]} Clinical practice guidelines across rheumatology, gastroenterology, neurology, and related fields consistently recommend pharmacologic immunosuppression or immunomodulation as the mainstay of treatment and do not recommend chiropractic or spinal manipulation as a primary or disease-modifying therapy for autoimmune conditions.^{[11][13][14][18]} Nonpharmacologic interventions (exercise, physical therapy, psychosocial support) may be recommended for symptom relief and function, but chiropractic care is regarded, at most, as an optional musculoskeletal or pain-management modality without evidence that it alters autoimmune disease activity, prevents progression, or replaces standard immunosuppressive treatment.^[11][14][18] Mainstream experts and guideline panels therefore consider chiropractic adjustments inappropriate as a stand-alone treatment for autoimmune diseases and emphasize maintaining or initiating guideline-directed immunomodulatory therapy and other standard care measures.

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Autoimmune Conditions”

Rule: Utah Code § 58-73-601(2)(a)

See every doc bro advertising Autoimmune disease

Joshua James Redd is not licensed or approved by Utah Chiropractic Physician Licensing Board to diagnose, treat, or cure Low Thyroid.

Low Thyroid

Supports

There is no high-quality evidence that chiropractic spinal manipulation or routine chiropractic care can correct primary hypothyroidism, normalize low thyroid hormone levels, or replace the need for thyroid hormone replacement. A randomized, placebo-controlled trial of a biopsychosocial/chiropractic-related technique (Neuro-Emotional Technique) in patients with primary hypothyroidism found no statistically or clinically significant benefit on depression, thyroid function, autoimmunity, quality of life, heart rate, or temperature compared with placebo, and the authors concluded it is unlikely to be of therapeutic use for hypothyroid patients.^[16] Case reports and small uncontrolled series in chiropractic journals describing improved thyroid function after chiropractic care represent very low-level evidence and cannot establish causality; they are not comparable to randomized trials or guideline-level evidence.^[16] Major endocrine guidelines consistently state that levothyroxine (L-T4) replacement is the standard of care for hypothyroidism because of its demonstrated efficacy and safety, and they do not list chiropractic manipulation as a treatment for low thyroid.^{[6][7][9][15]} There is some evidence that adjunctive non-pharmacologic interventions (such as exercise programs or structured education to improve adherence) can improve symptoms or quality-of-life measures in hypothyroid or subclinical hypothyroid patients, but these are used in addition to, not instead of, appropriate thyroid hormone therapy and are not chiropractic-specific.^[17][20]

Contradicts

Randomized controlled data directly contradict the idea that a chiropractic-type biopsychosocial intervention can treat primary hypothyroidism: in a placebo-controlled trial of the Neuro-Emotional Technique in 90 adults with primary hypothyroidism, there were no clinically relevant or statistically significant improvements in thyroid function tests, autoantibodies, depression scores, or quality of life compared with placebo, and the authors concluded the intervention is unlikely to have therapeutic value for hypothyroidism.^[16] This is the highest-quality trial in this area and it failed to show benefit. Major evidence-based guidelines from thyroid and endocrine societies uniformly recommend levothyroxine monotherapy as the standard treatment for overt hypothyroidism, with dosing guided by TSH and clinical status; they do not endorse chiropractic manipulation or spinal adjustments as a treatment for low thyroid.^{[6][7][9][15]} Comprehensive reviews of hypothyroidism management emphasize that symptoms and long-term risks are addressed by normalizing thyroid hormone levels with L-T4 and that alternative modalities are unsupported by robust data.^[15] The absence of chiropractic in large guideline documents and consensus statements, despite extensive discussion of many other adjunctive and controversial therapies, indicates that evidence for chiropractic treatment of hypothyroidism is either negative or too weak and anecdotal to merit recommendation.^{[6][7][9][11][15]}

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical position is that primary hypothyroidism (low thyroid function) is an endocrine disease caused by insufficient thyroid hormone, most often due to autoimmune thyroiditis, and the evidence-based treatment is thyroid hormone replacement, usually levothyroxine, titrated to normalize TSH and relieve symptoms.^{[6][7][9][15]} Major guidelines from the American Thyroid Association, American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, European and other thyroid societies conclude that levothyroxine monotherapy should remain the standard of care, with careful monitoring and dose adjustment, and only very limited, experimental roles for other pharmacologic options in selected cases.^{[6][7][9][11][12][15]} These guidelines and reviews do not recommend chiropractic or spinal manipulation as a treatment for hypothyroidism and do not consider it part of standard management; any use of chiropractic would be, at most, for musculoskeletal complaints in a patient who also has hypothyroidism, not as therapy for the thyroid disorder itself.^{[6][7][9][11][15]}

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Low Thyroid”

Rule: Utah Code § 58-73-601(2)(a), (j)

See every doc bro advertising Thyroid disease and Hashimoto

Joshua James Redd is not licensed or approved by Utah Chiropractic Physician Licensing Board to diagnose, treat, or cure Neurological autoimmunity.

Neurological autoimmunity

Supports

High-quality evidence specifically showing that chiropractic treatment is effective for neurological autoimmune diseases (such as multiple sclerosis, neuromyelitis optica, autoimmune encephalitis, or other CNS autoimmune disorders) is essentially absent. ^[26] Most RCTs and systematic reviews involving chiropractic or spinal manipulation focus on musculoskeletal and pain conditions (low back pain, neck pain, headaches), not autoimmune neurological disease; these are summarized in overviews of chiropractic effectiveness indicating benefit mainly for chronic musculoskeletal pain, with low–moderate quality evidence, and no disease‑modifying effect on the immune system or autoimmunity itself. ^[9][27][28] A systematic review of spinal manipulative therapy and immune/infectious disease outcomes found no clinical evidence that manipulation prevents infectious disease or improves disease‑specific outcomes, and only short‑term biomarker changes of uncertain clinical relevance. ^[6][11][29] A united statement from chiropractic researchers similarly notes that hypotheses that chiropractic reduces risk of becoming ill with common infections have not been properly tested, reinforcing the lack of strong evidence for clinically meaningful immune modulation. Recent pilot mechanistic work in relapsing‑remitting multiple sclerosis explores thoracic spinal manipulation plus soft‑tissue therapy and measures inflammatory cytokines and neurodegeneration biomarkers, but these are small, early-phase trials designed to inform future research rather than establish clinical efficacy or disease modification, and effects on clinical outcomes are small and of unclear relevance. ^[7] These data do not currently support chiropractic as a disease‑modifying treatment for neurological autoimmunity. Major neurological and rehabilitation RCTs in MS show benefit from multidisciplinary rehabilitation, exercise, and cognitive or vestibular training on function and quality of life, but these are not chiropractic-specific and illustrate that any gains come from conventional rehabilitation strategies rather than spinal manipulation.

Contradicts

The available evidence contradicts the notion that chiropractic treatment is an established or evidence‑based therapy for neurological autoimmune diseases. ^[5][11] The systematic review of spinal manipulative therapy and immune/infectious disease outcomes concluded that there is no clinical evidence to support or refute claims that spinal manipulation improves immune function or alters infectious disease outcomes; preliminary biomarker changes did not translate into demonstrated clinical benefit. ^{[6][7][28][29]} This directly undermines claims that chiropractic care meaningfully modulates immune or autoimmune processes in a way that treats neurological autoimmunity. Broader chiropractic evidence syntheses and practice guidelines focus on musculoskeletal pain conditions (low back pain, neck pain, tension‑type headache, osteoarthritis, fibromyalgia) and describe benefits limited to symptom relief, with moderate‑to‑low quality evidence, not disease modification. ^[10][9][27] There is no mention in these high‑quality sources of chiropractic as a treatment for multiple sclerosis or other neurological autoimmune disease, and no recommendation for chiropractic as a disease‑modifying or core therapy. ^[26] Neurology and rehabilitation trials in MS demonstrate that improvements in disability, cognition, balance, and quality of life arise from structured exercise, task‑specific rehabilitation, and pharmacologic disease‑modifying therapies, not from spinal manipulation. Major hypertension, nutrition, and headache guidelines illustrate the standard approach to evidence grading and recommended therapies, and within this framework, chiropractic is not listed as a treatment for autoimmune neurological conditions or any systemic autoimmune disease. ^[8] In addition, safety literature notes that spinal manipulation (particularly cervical) carries rare but serious risks such as vertebrobasilar stroke, and guidelines emphasize careful risk assessment and informed consent, which further cautions against using chiropractic as a primary treatment for vulnerable neurological patients.

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical and scientific position is that neurological autoimmune diseases (for example, multiple sclerosis) are managed with evidence‑based disease‑modifying pharmacotherapies, symptomatic medications, and multidisciplinary rehabilitation (physiotherapy, occupational therapy, speech therapy, cognitive rehabilitation), not chiropractic manipulation. ^{[5][9][11][26][27][28][29]} High‑quality RCTs and guidelines for MS and other neurological conditions support immunomodulatory drugs, cardiovascular risk control, nutrition where appropriate, and structured exercise or rehabilitation programs to improve function and quality of life, but they do not include chiropractic as a recommended disease‑modifying or core therapeutic modality. ^[6][7][8] Chiropractic care may be used adjunctively for co‑existing musculoskeletal pain (e. g. , mechanical low back or

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Neurological autoimmunity”

Rule: Utah Code § 58-73-601(2)(a), (j)

See every doc bro advertising Autoimmune disease

Joshua James Redd is not licensed or approved by Utah Chiropractic Physician Licensing Board to diagnose, treat, or cure 5 ways fasting improves HASHIMOTO’S and Autoimmunity.

5 ways fasting improves HASHIMOTO’S and Autoimmunity

Supports

There is extremely limited direct evidence that fasting improves Hashimoto’s thyroiditis, and what exists is low-level and not generalizable. A recent case report describes a 61‑year‑old woman with Hashimoto’s who had reduced symptoms, TSH and CRP after two prolonged water‑only fasts, but this is a single uncontrolled case and not a trial. Reviews of intermittent fasting and immunity indicate that intermittent fasting can modulate immune function and may have beneficial effects in some autoimmune contexts, especially in preclinical models, but they do not show clear, consistent clinical benefit for thyroid autoimmunity specifically. ^[30][31] A randomized controlled trial of intermittent fasting in CNS autoimmunity (multiple sclerosis) showed protection in that disease model, suggesting that fasting can influence autoimmune processes, but this cannot be directly extrapolated to Hashimoto’s. ^[33] A systematic review of Ramadan fasting reports only mild, transient immunomodulatory changes, suggesting fasting can alter immune parameters, but not that it produces robust, lasting autoimmune disease remission. ^[32] Overall, existing higher‑quality evidence supports that fasting can alter metabolism, hormones and some immune markers, but not that it reliably “improves Hashimoto’s and autoimmunity” in a clinically meaningful or durable way.

Contradicts

Evidence contradicts any strong claim that fasting significantly improves or reverses Hashimoto’s thyroiditis or autoimmunity in humans. ^[33] Expert summaries note that no clinical trial has demonstrated that fasting restores thyroid hormone production or reverses the autoimmune process in Hashimoto’s, including no proven reduction in thyroid autoantibodies. ^[31] Reviews of intermittent fasting in autoimmune diseases explicitly state that evidence for thyroid autoimmune diseases is limited and inconclusive. ^[30] Studies of extended fasting in healthy humans show that 24‑hour fasting decreases FT3 and increases reverse T3, indicating that aggressive fasting can suppress active thyroid hormone and may worsen hypothyroid‑type symptoms rather than improve them. Guidance pieces directed at Hashimoto’s patients consistently caution against prolonged or multi‑day fasting because of risks of fatigue, cortisol dysregulation, and possible symptom flares, recommending only gentle, time‑restricted eating with close monitoring. The only Hashimoto’s fasting report is a single case study, which carries a high risk of bias and cannot establish causality or predict benefit for other patients. Overall, the evidence base is weak, largely non‑experimental, and does not substantiate broad claims that fasting improves Hashimoto’s or autoimmune diseases in general.

Mainstream view

Mainstream endocrinology and autoimmune disease practice do not consider fasting a proven therapeutic intervention for Hashimoto’s thyroiditis or for most autoimmune diseases. Standard care for Hashimoto’s focuses on levothyroxine replacement to normalize TSH and thyroid hormone levels, plus general lifestyle measures; fasting is not part of guideline‑based treatment. ^[31] Authoritative reviews on intermittent fasting and autoimmunity describe it as a promising but still investigational dietary approach, with limited and inconclusive evidence for thyroid autoimmunity. ^[30][33] Clinical guidance sources emphasize that intermittent fasting may be tolerated by some patients with Hashimoto’s but does not cure the disease, does not reliably lower thyroid autoantibodies, and should be used cautiously, if at all, within a comprehensive treatment plan and medical supervision. Most expert recommendations, where they mention fasting at all, favor modest time‑restricted eating (e. g. , 12–14‑hour overnight fasts) and advise against prolonged water‑only fasts or aggressive intermittent fasting protocols because of potential thyroid hormone suppression and symptom worsening. Thus, the mainstream position is that fasting is not an established therapy for improving Hashimoto’s or autoimmunity and should not replace standard medical management.

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“5 ways fasting improves HASHIMOTO’S and Autoimmunity”

Rule: Utah Code §§ 58-73-102(9)(a), 58-73-601(2)(a), (h), (j)

See every doc bro advertising Thyroid disease and Hashimoto

Joshua James Redd is not licensed or approved by Utah Chiropractic Physician Licensing Board to diagnose, treat, or cure The best 5 supplements for HASHIMOTO’S Patients.

The best 5 supplements for HASHIMOTO’S Patients

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“The best 5 supplements for HASHIMOTO’S Patients”

Rule: Utah Code §§ 58-73-102(9)(a), 58-73-601(2)(a), (j)

See every doc bro advertising Thyroid disease and Hashimoto

Joshua James Redd is not licensed or approved by Utah Chiropractic Physician Licensing Board to diagnose, treat, or cure 9 foods to avoid if you have HASHIMOTO’S.

9 foods to avoid if you have HASHIMOTO’S

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“9 foods to avoid if you have HASHIMOTO’S”

Rule: Utah Code §§ 58-73-102(9)(a), 58-73-601(2)(a), (h), (j)

See every doc bro advertising Thyroid disease and Hashimoto

Joshua James Redd is not licensed or approved by Utah Chiropractic Physician Licensing Board to diagnose, treat, or cure Hormone & Inflammation Balance.

Hormone & Inflammation Balance

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Hormone & Inflammation Balance”

Rule: Utah Code § 58-73-601(2)(a), (j)

See every doc bro advertising Hormone imbalance and replacement

Joshua James Redd is not licensed or approved by Utah Chiropractic Physician Licensing Board to diagnose, treat, or cure hormone and peptide therapies.

hormone and peptide therapies

Supports

There is no high-quality evidence in the provided index papers supporting chiropractor treatment of hormone therapies or peptide therapies. ^[10][9] None of the listed guidelines or trials address chiropractic management as an effective treatment for endocrine hormone therapy or peptide therapy, so the claim is not supported by the provided evidence base. ^[5][6][11]

Contradicts

The claim is contradicted by the absence of relevant evidence in major clinical guidelines and evidence-based reviews provided here, which focus on hypertension, nutrition, headache, transfusion, and pericarditis rather than chiropractic treatment of hormone or peptide therapies . ^{[5][6][7][8][10][9][11][12]} The listed evidence-based materials illustrate that when a treatment claim is clinically important, it is typically supported by disease-specific guidelines or trials; no such support is present for chiropractic treatment of hormone or peptide therapies .

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical view is that chiropractic care is not a recognized treatment for hormone therapy or peptide therapy, and these therapies should be managed by clinicians trained in endocrinology or the relevant prescribing specialty. ^[10][11] Chiropractic manipulation may be used for certain musculoskeletal complaints, but it is not an evidence-based treatment for regulating hormones or administering peptide-based medical therapy. ^[5]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“The clinic offers precision-guided joint and soft tissue injections, hormone and peptide therapies, IV nutrient treatments”

Rule: Utah Code § 58-73-601(3)(b), (5)

See every doc bro advertising Hormone imbalance and replacement

Joshua James Redd is not licensed or approved by Utah Chiropractic Physician Licensing Board to diagnose, treat, or cure IV nutrient treatments.

IV nutrient treatments

Supports

High-quality evidence supports intravenous nutrient delivery (e. ^[9][40] g. , iron, vitamins, multivitamins) for clearly defined medical indications such as iron deficiency anemia, perioperative anemia management, postpartum anemia, and specific critical care contexts, when administered by appropriately trained medical professionals within hospital or clinic settings. Major clinical nutrition guidelines (ASPEN-FELANPE, ESPEN) endorse parenteral nutrition, including IV nutrient administration, when oral or enteral intake is inadequate or impossible and in complex conditions like inflammatory bowel disease or severe malnutrition; they emphasize appropriate indication, monitoring, and specialist oversight rather than use by non-physician providers. ^[6][7][8] Systematic reviews and meta-analyses show that IV iron can improve hemoglobin, ferritin, physical function, and fatigue in iron-deficient or anemic adults, again in medically supervised contexts, supporting IV nutrient therapy as a useful medical tool when evidence-based indications are present. ^{[5][11][38][39][41]} Evidence reviews of IV multivitamin therapy in hospital settings show it can be appropriate for patients needing nutrient supplementation who cannot receive adequate oral or enteral nutrition, but they do not extend this to wellness or routine use outside medical practice.

Contradicts

The indexed guidelines on clinical nutrition and parenteral nutrition stress that IV nutrient therapy is a specialized medical intervention reserved for specific indications (e. ^[6][8][9] g. , severe malnutrition, inflammatory bowel disease with malabsorption, perioperative support), typically ordered and managed by physicians or nutrition specialists; they do not support or discuss provision of IV nutrient treatments by chiropractors and implicitly contradict use outside regulated medical practice. ^[7] Evidence syntheses on IV multivitamin therapy and IV vitamin infusions conclude that there is insufficient high-quality evidence to support IV vitamin therapy as a general wellness or complementary therapy in otherwise healthy individuals, highlighting that existing RCTs and trials show minimal or uncertain clinical benefit. Systematic reviews of IV nutrient or vitamin therapies in critical illness and other serious conditions emphasize that, even in hospital settings, evidence quality is often low to moderate, benefits are condition-specific, and safety requires careful monitoring; these reviews do not support extrapolating IV nutrient therapy to broad, non-medical use or to providers without medical prescribing authority. ^{[38][39][40][41]} No indexed guideline on hypertension, headache, blood transfusion, or pericarditis mentions chiropractors as appropriate prescribers or administrators of IV therapies, reinforcing that IV treatment lies within mainstream medical practice and not chiropractic scope. ^{[5][10][11][12]}

Mainstream view

Mainstream medical and nutrition guidelines view intravenous nutrient therapy (including IV iron, vitamins, and multivitamins) as a medical procedure reserved for specific, evidence-based indications such as parenteral nutrition in patients who cannot meet needs orally or enterally, management of documented nutrient deficiencies, and certain perioperative or critical care situations, all under physician-led, multidisciplinary supervision. ^{[5][6][8][9][11][38][39][40][41]} These guidelines and systematic reviews do not endorse IV nutrient therapy as a general wellness intervention for healthy people and do not describe or recommend chiropractors as providers of IV nutrient treatments; IV therapy is considered part of medical practice requiring appropriate training, licensing, and monitoring for risks like infection, electrolyte disturbances, and organ toxicity. Therefore, the mainstream position is that IV nutrient therapy is potentially beneficial but should be used selectively, based on strong clinical indications and evidence, and provided within regulated medical frameworks rather than as an alternative service by chiropractors.

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“IV nutrient treatments”

Rule: Utah Code § 58-73-601(2)(c), (d), (5)

Joshua James Redd is not approved to offer stem cell injections within a Chiropractor scope of practice under Utah Chiropractic Physician Licensing Board.

stem cell injections

Supports

High-quality evidence supports stem cell injections only for a narrow set of musculoskeletal indications, and even there the certainty is often low to very low. ^[9][44] For knee osteoarthritis, a Cochrane review found stem cell injections may slightly improve pain and function, but the evidence was low certainty and authors remained uncertain about disease modification and safety. ^[42][45] Some recent reviews of spine-related pain report limited or emerging evidence for specific regenerative injections such as MSCs in selected contexts, but they emphasize the need for better trials and do not establish broad effectiveness. ^[10][43]

Contradicts

There is no high-quality evidence that chiropractic treatment itself is a validated delivery system for stem cell injections, and the phrase combines two different interventions without a recognized evidence base. ^{[10][9][42][43][44]} The available evidence for stem cell injections is indication-specific rather than chiropractic-specific, and major reviews note insufficient evidence to recommend them broadly in routine practice. The strongest published evidence remains limited to certain orthopedic conditions, and even those data are not strong enough to support a general claim that chiropractic treatment of stem cell injections is effective. Case reports and market surveys of chiropractic or alternative clinics offering these injections do not establish efficacy and also raise concerns about unregulated practice and adverse events, including septic arthritis after injections in a chiropractic office.

Mainstream view

Mainstream medical and scientific opinion is that stem cell injections are investigational for most uses and should not be promoted as established therapy, especially not as a general chiropractic treatment. ^{[11][42][43][44]} Where benefit has been reported, it is mainly in selected orthopedic conditions such as knee osteoarthritis, and even there the evidence is low certainty and not strong enough for routine broad endorsement. ^[9]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“residency in regenerative medicine and stem cell injections”

Rule: Utah Code § 58-73-601(2)(c), (d), (3)(a), (5)