Brea Page alias Dr. Hot Take

Brea Page is not licensed or approved by Wisconsin Chiropractic Examining Board to diagnose, treat, or cure Diagnosing and treating chronic fatigue and systemic inflammation as medical diseases..

Diagnosing and treating chronic fatigue and systemic inflammation as medical diseases.

Supports

High-quality evidence shows that fatigue is a highly prevalent and clinically important symptom across many chronic and long-term conditions, often impairing quality of life, participation, and functioning.^[2][5][7][9] Systematic reviews and meta-analyses indicate that targeted interventions—especially exercise-based, psychological, and educational programs—can reduce fatigue in specific diseases such as multiple sclerosis.^{[4][12][15][18][21][24]} In adults with multiple sclerosis, a systematic review and meta-analysis found that aerobic and resistance exercise significantly improve fatigue and health-related quality of life.^[12] Another systematic review to inform guideline development reported that exercise training improves fitness, mobility, fatigue, and quality of life among adults with multiple sclerosis.^[3][18][21] More recent systematic reviews show that patient education programmes for fatigue management in multiple sclerosis can reduce fatigue severity and impact.^[4][22] A systematic mapping review of clinical guidelines for long-term physical health conditions found that some guidelines do include fatigue management recommendations, most commonly clinical evaluation, physical activity, psychological approaches, and multicomponent strategies, although they rate much of the underlying evidence as low quality.^[1][10] National and professional guidelines for chronic fatigue and fatigue symptoms in adults recommend evaluating sleep, activity patterns, and nutritional status and then using sleep hygiene, graded or tailored physical activity, and cognitive behavioural therapy as key non-pharmacologic strategies.^{[16][17][19][20][23]} Evidence reviews for fatigue management in long-term conditions and ME/CFS emphasize energy conservation/pacing, activity management, and symptom-focused treatments (sleep, pain, mood) rather than curative pharmacologic therapies.^{[16][17][19][20][23]}

Contradicts

Across long-term physical health conditions, mapping of clinical guidelines shows that explicit, evidence-based fatigue management recommendations are present in only a minority of guidelines, and most rate the supporting evidence as low quality.^[1][10] Scoping and systematic reviews across diverse chronic diseases conclude that, although many interventions are being tested, relatively few approaches show consistent, clinically meaningful benefits on fatigue, and there is substantial heterogeneity and methodological limitations.^{[2][3][6][13]} In post-viral fatigue and traumatic brain injury–related fatigue, evidence is sparse and inconsistent; systematic reviews report that no single pharmacologic or non-pharmacologic treatment can currently be recommended as definitively effective, and some agents such as modafinil are unlikely to be beneficial.^[3][13] For ME/CFS and chronic fatigue syndrome, major reviews and guidelines state there is no cure or approved disease-modifying treatment, and drug therapies (outside treating comorbid depression, pain, or sleep problems) lack robust evidence of efficacy for core fatigue symptoms.^{[14][17][20][23]} Guideline-driven management documents for other conditions (e.g., hypertension, inflammatory bowel disease, clinical nutrition guidelines) primarily focus on disease control and nutritional support and do not identify fatigue-specific pharmacologic cures, reflecting that fatigue is usually managed symptomatically rather than eliminated.^[0][1][2] Comparative prevalence studies of fatigue across 88 diseases highlight that while fatigue is common and severe, they do not support simplistic claims that a single intervention or lifestyle change will reliably resolve fatigue across conditions.^[5][8] Overall, the literature contradicts any broad influencer claim that fatigue can generally be "cured" or rapidly reversed by a single universal method; instead, benefits are modest, condition-specific, and often based on limited-quality evidence.^{[1][2][3][5][6][10][13][16][17][20]}

Mainstream view

Mainstream medical and scientific consensus is that fatigue is a complex, multidimensional symptom that is highly prevalent across chronic diseases and can arise from physiological, psychological, behavioral, and social factors.^{[2][5][7][8][9]} Standard practice is to first evaluate for reversible or secondary causes (such as sleep disorders, anemia, endocrine disease, medication effects, mood disorders) and manage underlying conditions when present.^[16][19] When no single cause is found or fatigue persists despite disease control, management focuses on symptom relief and functional improvement rather than cure.^{[16][17][19][20][23]} Evidence-based strategies commonly recommended include: good sleep hygiene and regular sleep schedules; balanced physical activity and avoidance of overexertion; structured exercise or physical therapy where appropriate; cognitive behavioural therapy or other psychological interventions to address coping and maladaptive patterns; and energy-conservation or pacing techniques, particularly in ME/CFS and post-viral fatigue.^{[3][4][12][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24]} In conditions like multiple sclerosis, guidelines and systematic reviews support exercise-based and educational fatigue management programmes as

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“fatigue”

Rule: Wis. Stat. § 446.01(2)(a)-(b); Wis. Admin. Code Chir 4.01

Brea Page is not licensed or approved by Wisconsin Chiropractic Examining Board to advertise Functional Medicine treatment to widen the possibilities for healing... finding the true root of their misalignment as within their scope of practice.

Functional Medicine treatment to widen the possibilities for healing... finding the true root of their misalignment

Supports

There is emerging evidence that care delivered in a functional medicine setting can improve patient-reported health-related quality of life compared with usual primary care for chronic conditions, which loosely aligns with the influencer’s general claim that functional medicine can expand healing possibilities.^[17] A large retrospective cohort study of more than 7000 adults found that patients treated in a functional medicine center had significantly greater improvements in PROMIS Global Physical Health scores at 6 months than propensity-matched patients in a family health center, with benefits maintained at 12 months although between-group differences were no longer statistically significant, suggesting some short-term added benefit on patient-reported outcomes.^[17] Another retrospective cohort comparing functional medicine-based shared medical appointments with individual functional medicine visits showed improved health-related quality of life and some biometric outcomes, and lower costs for the shared-visit model, supporting that certain functional medicine delivery models can be effective and efficient for chronic disease management.^[20] A randomized controlled trial of functional medicine-style health coaching added to an elimination diet showed improved dietary adherence and self-reported health outcomes compared with a self-guided elimination diet, suggesting that the behavioral and lifestyle-coaching components of functional medicine can enhance patient engagement and perceived health benefits, though this does not directly validate broader root-cause claims. These data, along with the conceptual literature framing functional medicine as a systems-biology-based, personalized approach targeting modifiable lifestyle, nutritional, and environmental factors, partially support the idea that such an approach may widen options for improving chronic, multifactorial conditions, but only at the level of patient-reported outcomes and selected risk factors rather than proven cure or comprehensive “true root” resolution.

Contradicts

High-quality evidence directly showing that functional medicine uniquely identifies the “true root” of disease or reliably produces superior objective clinical outcomes compared with guideline-based conventional care is lacking. The main cohort study showing better short-term patient-reported quality-of-life outcomes in a functional medicine center is observational, single-center, and subject to residual confounding and selection bias; long-term differences versus usual care were not statistically significant, which weakens strong claims of transformational or root-cause-level healing.^[17] The shared-appointment cohort study compares two delivery modes within functional medicine rather than functional medicine versus standard evidence-based care, so it cannot support claims that functional medicine as a paradigm more accurately finds root causes or broadly improves disease trajectories.^[20] Outside these limited studies, systematic reviews of integrative or ‘whole-system’ care show only a small number of randomized and controlled trials with methodological limitations, inadequate control groups, and limited sample sizes, concluding that evidence for integrative care models is modest and far from definitive; this contradicts claims of robust, proven ability to find and fix underlying misalignment across conditions. Mainstream, guideline-driven management for common chronic diseases such as hypertension, inflammatory bowel disease, and malnutrition relies on well-characterized pathophysiology, validated risk factors, and large randomized trials of specific therapies rather than open-ended root-cause explorations, and these guidelines do not incorporate functional medicine frameworks or endorse functional medicine as a superior or primary modality.^[0][1][2][3] Major nutrition and chronic disease guidelines emphasize evidence-based dietary, pharmacologic, and sometimes surgical interventions, but they do not claim that functional medicine can uniquely uncover deeper misalignment beyond what is addressed by conventional risk-factor and comorbidity assessment.^[1][2] Moreover, critics in the academic literature and medical commentaries argue that functional medicine often blends plausible lifestyle and nutrition interventions with unvalidated testing, nonstandard diagnoses, and speculative mechanistic narratives, positioning it closer to alternative medicine and noting the absence of robust randomized trials showing clear superiority over guideline-based care; this directly conflicts with strong marketing claims that functional medicine finds the true root of disease in a way conventional medicine cannot. Overall, the evidence base is too limited and methodologically weak to substantiate broad claims about uniquely identifying true root causes or dramatically widening healing in a general, cross-condition sense.

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical position is that functional medicine is an evolving, largely integrative framework that emphasizes personalized lifestyle, nutrition, and environmental interventions, but it currently lacks a strong body of high-quality randomized controlled trials, large prospective studies, or major guideline endorsements demonstrating that it uniquely identifies underlying causes of disease or consistently yields superior clinical outcomes across conditions. Conventional evidence-based medicine focuses on well-defined pathophysiology, standardized diagnostic criteria, and guideline-directed therapies for specific diseases such as hypertension, inflammatory bowel disease, and malnutrition, supported by robust clinical trial data and consensus guidelines.^[0][1][2][3] These guidelines already incorporate extensive root-cause-oriented workups (e.g., evaluation of secondary hypertension, etiologic classification of IBD, and multifactorial assessment of nutrition risk), but within a framework of

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Dr. Brea combines her Chiropractic care background and Functional Medicine treatment to widen the possibilities for healing. Dr. Brea fiercely defends those who have been dismissed by the modern medical system and offers a compassionate, individualistic approach to finding the true root of their misalignment.”

Rule: Wis. Admin. Code Chir 4.02(1m)-(3)

Brea Page is not licensed or approved by Wisconsin Chiropractic Examining Board to diagnose, treat, or cure recover from fatigue, inflammation, tension, injury, hormonal imbalances.

recover from fatigue, inflammation, tension, injury, hormonal imbalances

Supports

High-quality evidence supports targeted treatment of specific types of fatigue with pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic therapies, but not a single intervention that reliably produces global “recovery” from fatigue, inflammation, tension, injury, and hormonal imbalances all together. For fatigue, multiple randomized trials and systematic reviews show that modafinil can reduce fatigue and excessive daytime sleepiness in neurological disorders such as multiple sclerosis and some other conditions.^{[1][3][4][18]} These analyses report statistically meaningful reductions in fatigue scores and modest improvements in quality of life compared with placebo, though with increased adverse events.^[1][4][18] In MS, meta-analyses comparing exercise, education, and medications indicate that structured rehabilitation/exercise and behavioral interventions often have equal or greater impact than medication on patient-reported fatigue.^[5][6] Clinical practice guidelines and reviews for neurological and chronic diseases generally support the idea that fatigue can be partially improved by addressing disease activity, sleep disorders, mood disorders, deconditioning, and medication side effects, using multimodal strategies (exercise, CBT, sleep optimization, appropriate pharmacotherapy). This aligns with the narrower, evidence-based notion that targeted interventions can lessen fatigue and improve functioning rather than produce complete recovery. Hormonal imbalances are well established contributors to symptoms such as fatigue, mood changes, and other systemic complaints, and guidelines for endocrinology support treatment of specific endocrine disorders (e.g., thyroid disease, adrenal insufficiency, menopause, PCOS) with hormone replacement or other endocrine-directed therapies, which can reduce fatigue and other symptoms in many patients.^[21] Stress-related changes in glucocorticoids and other hormones are well documented, and management of stress and endocrine conditions can improve associated fatigue and tension.^[17] Overall, there is strong evidence that: (1) fatigue can be reduced in defined medical conditions with evidence-based therapies; (2) inflammation can be reduced by disease-specific anti-inflammatory treatment (e.g., for autoimmune or infectious diseases); (3) injuries recover with standard medical, surgical, and rehabilitative care; and (4) endocrine disorders and stress-related hormonal changes can be treated or mitigated. This supports a limited version of the claim, namely that these problems are modifiable and partially improvable with appropriate medical care.

Contradicts

The influencer’s broad claim that one approach (implied) can make people “recover from fatigue, inflammation, tension, injury, hormonal imbalances” is not supported by high-quality evidence. There is no robust evidence from systematic reviews, meta-analyses, RCTs, or major guidelines that a single product, protocol, or lifestyle practice reliably produces global recovery across all of these diverse domains. Fatigue: Evidence for modafinil and other pharmacologic agents is condition-specific (e.g., multiple sclerosis, other neurological disorders) and shows modest benefit with increased adverse events, not universal recovery from fatigue in the general population.^{[1][3][4][18]} Meta-analytic data in MS show that rehabilitation and behavioral interventions often have stronger effects than medication on fatigue, and even these interventions do not completely eliminate fatigue for most patients.^[5][6] In several conditions (e.g., ALS, Parkinson’s disease), trials show unclear or very low-quality evidence regarding fatigue improvements, and benefits are limited.^[9][10] Inflammation: Chronic inflammation has many etiologies (autoimmune disease, infections, obesity, etc.), and high-quality evidence supports disease-specific treatments (e.g., immunosuppressants, biologics, lifestyle changes). However, there is no general therapy proven in large trials to “recover” all forms of inflammation irrespective of cause. Claims that a single strategy can broadly normalize inflammatory status across diseases are inconsistent with current evidence. Tension and injury: Muscular tension and physical/psychological stress are multifactorial and are managed with targeted interventions (physical therapy, ergonomic changes, stress management, CBT, pharmacologic pain management). Injury recovery depends heavily on type, severity, and timing of treatment. Guidelines do not support a single intervention that reliably accelerates recovery from all injuries. Hormonal imbalances: Endocrine disorders are highly heterogeneous (thyroid, adrenal, gonadal, insulin, etc.), and evidence-based guidelines emphasize specific diagnostics and tailored medical therapy (e.g., levothyroxine for hypothyroidism, hormone replacement for menopause). Generalized or non-specific “balancing” approaches lack strong trial evidence for correcting clinically significant hormonal disorders or reliably resolving all associated fatigue and tension.^[17][21] Major societies warn against unregulated “hormone balancing” claims absent clear diagnostic criteria. Taken together, the literature shows many

Mainstream view

Deterministic PubMed cross-check found no matching indexed studies for these terms (absence of indexed evidence is not evidence against the claim). ^{[17][18][19][20]}

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Helping women recover from fatigue, inflammation, tension, injury, hormonal imbalances and more.”

Rule: Wis. Stat. § 446.01(2)(a)-(b); Wis. Admin. Code Chir 4.01

Brea Page is not licensed or approved by Wisconsin Chiropractic Examining Board 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

“hormonal imbalances”

Rule: Wis. Stat. § 446.01(2); Wis. Admin. Code Chir 4.01

Brea Page is not licensed or approved by Wisconsin Chiropractic Examining Board to diagnose, treat, or cure fatigue.

fatigue

Supports

High-quality evidence shows that fatigue is a highly prevalent and clinically important symptom across many chronic and long-term conditions, often impairing quality of life, participation, and functioning.^[2][5][7][9] Systematic reviews and meta-analyses indicate that targeted interventions—especially exercise-based, psychological, and educational programs—can reduce fatigue in specific diseases such as multiple sclerosis.^{[4][12][15][18][21][24]} In adults with multiple sclerosis, a systematic review and meta-analysis found that aerobic and resistance exercise significantly improve fatigue and health-related quality of life.^[12] Another systematic review to inform guideline development reported that exercise training improves fitness, mobility, fatigue, and quality of life among adults with multiple sclerosis.^[3][18][21] More recent systematic reviews show that patient education programmes for fatigue management in multiple sclerosis can reduce fatigue severity and impact.^[4][22] A systematic mapping review of clinical guidelines for long-term physical health conditions found that some guidelines do include fatigue management recommendations, most commonly clinical evaluation, physical activity, psychological approaches, and multicomponent strategies, although they rate much of the underlying evidence as low quality.^[1][10] National and professional guidelines for chronic fatigue and fatigue symptoms in adults recommend evaluating sleep, activity patterns, and nutritional status and then using sleep hygiene, graded or tailored physical activity, and cognitive behavioural therapy as key non-pharmacologic strategies.^{[16][17][19][20][23]} Evidence reviews for fatigue management in long-term conditions and ME/CFS emphasize energy conservation/pacing, activity management, and symptom-focused treatments (sleep, pain, mood) rather than curative pharmacologic therapies.^{[16][17][19][20][23]}

Contradicts

Across long-term physical health conditions, mapping of clinical guidelines shows that explicit, evidence-based fatigue management recommendations are present in only a minority of guidelines, and most rate the supporting evidence as low quality.^[1][10] Scoping and systematic reviews across diverse chronic diseases conclude that, although many interventions are being tested, relatively few approaches show consistent, clinically meaningful benefits on fatigue, and there is substantial heterogeneity and methodological limitations.^{[2][3][6][13]} In post-viral fatigue and traumatic brain injury–related fatigue, evidence is sparse and inconsistent; systematic reviews report that no single pharmacologic or non-pharmacologic treatment can currently be recommended as definitively effective, and some agents such as modafinil are unlikely to be beneficial.^[3][13] For ME/CFS and chronic fatigue syndrome, major reviews and guidelines state there is no cure or approved disease-modifying treatment, and drug therapies (outside treating comorbid depression, pain, or sleep problems) lack robust evidence of efficacy for core fatigue symptoms.^{[14][17][20][23]} Guideline-driven management documents for other conditions (e.g., hypertension, inflammatory bowel disease, clinical nutrition guidelines) primarily focus on disease control and nutritional support and do not identify fatigue-specific pharmacologic cures, reflecting that fatigue is usually managed symptomatically rather than eliminated.^[0][1][2] Comparative prevalence studies of fatigue across 88 diseases highlight that while fatigue is common and severe, they do not support simplistic claims that a single intervention or lifestyle change will reliably resolve fatigue across conditions.^[5][8] Overall, the literature contradicts any broad influencer claim that fatigue can generally be "cured" or rapidly reversed by a single universal method; instead, benefits are modest, condition-specific, and often based on limited-quality evidence.^{[1][2][3][5][6][10][13][16][17][20]}

Mainstream view

Mainstream medical and scientific consensus is that fatigue is a complex, multidimensional symptom that is highly prevalent across chronic diseases and can arise from physiological, psychological, behavioral, and social factors.^{[2][5][7][8][9]} Standard practice is to first evaluate for reversible or secondary causes (such as sleep disorders, anemia, endocrine disease, medication effects, mood disorders) and manage underlying conditions when present.^[16][19] When no single cause is found or fatigue persists despite disease control, management focuses on symptom relief and functional improvement rather than cure.^{[16][17][19][20][23]} Evidence-based strategies commonly recommended include: good sleep hygiene and regular sleep schedules; balanced physical activity and avoidance of overexertion; structured exercise or physical therapy where appropriate; cognitive behavioural therapy or other psychological interventions to address coping and maladaptive patterns; and energy-conservation or pacing techniques, particularly in ME/CFS and post-viral fatigue.^{[3][4][12][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24]} In conditions like multiple sclerosis, guidelines and systematic reviews support exercise-based and educational fatigue management programmes as

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“fatigue”

Rule: Wis. Stat. § 446.01(2); Wis. Admin. Code Chir 4.01

Brea Page is not licensed or approved by Wisconsin Chiropractic Examining Board to diagnose, treat, or cure inflammation.

inflammation

Supports

Based on the indexed and searched papers, the strongest relevant high‑quality evidence concerns the role of inflammation in delirium and in a wide range of diseases, not a single simple statement like “inflammation is always bad” or “inflammation is the cause of everything. ” A recent systematic review and meta‑analysis of peripheral inflammation in delirium (hospitalized adults) found that higher neutrophil‑to‑lymphocyte ratio and elevated inflammatory markers such as interleukin‑6, cortisol, and leukocyte count are significantly associated with the development and presence of delirium, supporting a causal or contributory role for peripheral inflammation in this acute neurocognitive disorder. ^[27] Multiple observational and mechanistic studies summarized in narrative reviews show that neuroinflammation and systemic inflammation are central in the pathogenesis of delirium, with microglial activation, cytokine release, and peripheral immune cell changes being consistently observed in delirious versus non‑delirious patients. ^[25][28] A systematic review and meta‑analysis of cytokines and inflammatory biomarkers in postoperative delirium reports that several inflammatory proteins (e. g. , IL‑6, C‑reactive protein, IL‑10, IL‑1β, MCP‑1) and neuroinflammation‑related markers are significantly linked with postoperative delirium incidence and severity, reinforcing that heightened inflammatory signaling is a key biological correlate of delirium. A broader review of inflammation and cognitive disorders in older adults indicates that chronic low‑grade inflammation is implicated in delirium, dementia, and other age‑related cognitive decline, integrating human biomarker data with animal models to support a mechanistic role of inflammatory pathways in neurodegeneration and acute brain dysfunction. ^[26] Beyond delirium, a contemporary comprehensive review on chronic inflammation concludes that persistent low‑grade inflammation is causally involved or strongly associated with multiple major noncommunicable diseases, including cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, metabolic disorders, cancer, autoimmune diseases, gastrointestinal and respiratory diseases, neurodegenerative diseases, and others; the authors argue that chronic inflammation is a common pathophysiologic denominator across much of modern chronic disease burden. Consensus reviews on low‑grade inflammation and health similarly describe chronic systemic inflammation as a key contributor to many age‑related conditions, integrating evidence from epidemiology, experimental models, and clinical studies showing that inflammatory signaling drives metabolic and vascular dysfunction, mood changes, and mild cognitive impairment.

Contradicts

The same high‑quality evidence base makes clear that inflammation is not uniformly harmful and is not literally the single cause of all disease; acute, well‑regulated inflammation is an essential component of host defense and tissue repair, and the problems arise primarily when inflammation becomes chronic, dysregulated, or excessive. Even in delirium research, the systematic review and meta‑analysis of peripheral inflammation emphasizes substantial heterogeneity in inflammatory markers across studies and patient populations, cautioning that although inflammation is clearly involved, the condition is multifactorial and results should not be over‑generalized to all patients or settings. ^{[25][26][27][28]} In postoperative and ICU populations, meta‑analyses and cohort studies show associations between specific cytokines (IL‑6, CRP, IL‑8, IL‑10, IL‑1β, etc. ) and delirium, but they also note that these markers are non‑specific, overlap with many other inflammatory and stress responses, and do not alone establish that inflammation is the sole or primary cause of delirium in every case. Reviews of neuroinflammation and delirium stress that delirium arises from interactions between inflammation, pre‑existing neurodegeneration, anesthesia and surgery effects, medications, metabolic disturbances, and environmental factors; inflammatory pathways are central but operate within a complex web of risk factors. Likewise, the broad review arguing that “inflammation is the cause of all diseases” acknowledges that different diseases have distinct etiologies and risk factors, and that inflammation is better viewed as a common mechanistic thread or amplifier rather than a universal, singular cause of every condition. Overall, there is little high‑quality evidence to support absolutist influencer claims such as “inflammation is always bad” or “inflammation causes literally every disease”; instead, the evidence supports a nuanced view where specific inflammatory pathways contribute to many diseases in interaction with genetics, environment, lifestyle, infections, and aging.

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical and scientific position is that inflammation is a normal, essential biological response that protects the body against infections and Deterministic PubMed cross-check found no matching indexed studies for these terms (absence of indexed evidence is not evidence against the claim). ^{[25][26][27][28]}

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“inflammation”

Rule: Wis. Stat. § 446.01(2); Wis. Admin. Code Chir 4.01

Brea Page is not licensed or approved by Wisconsin Chiropractic Examining Board to diagnose, treat, or cure brain foggy, hazy.

brain foggy, hazy

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“brain foggy, hazy”

Rule: Wis. Stat. § 446.01(2); Wis. Admin. Code Chir 4.01

Brea Page is not licensed or approved by Wisconsin Chiropractic Examining Board to diagnose, treat, or cure significant imbalances.

significant imbalances

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“I found out I was suffering from some significant imbalances”

Rule: Wis. Stat. § 446.01(2); Wis. Admin. Code Chir 4.01

Brea Page is not licensed or approved by Wisconsin Chiropractic Examining Board to diagnose, treat, or cure Diagnosing and treating hormonal imbalances (endocrine system) as a disease state..

Diagnosing and treating hormonal imbalances (endocrine system) as a disease state.

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

“hormonal imbalances”

Rule: Wis. Stat. § 446.01(2); Wis. Admin. Code Chir 4.01; Chir 4.02

Brea Page is not licensed or approved by Wisconsin Chiropractic Examining Board to diagnose, treat, or cure Functional Medicine for hormonal imbalances and fatigue.

Functional Medicine for hormonal imbalances and fatigue

Supports

High-quality evidence shows that fatigue is a highly prevalent and clinically important symptom across many chronic and long-term conditions, often impairing quality of life, participation, and functioning.^[2][5][7][9] Systematic reviews and meta-analyses indicate that targeted interventions—especially exercise-based, psychological, and educational programs—can reduce fatigue in specific diseases such as multiple sclerosis.^{[4][12][15][18][21][24]} In adults with multiple sclerosis, a systematic review and meta-analysis found that aerobic and resistance exercise significantly improve fatigue and health-related quality of life.^[12] Another systematic review to inform guideline development reported that exercise training improves fitness, mobility, fatigue, and quality of life among adults with multiple sclerosis.^[3][18][21] More recent systematic reviews show that patient education programmes for fatigue management in multiple sclerosis can reduce fatigue severity and impact.^[4][22] A systematic mapping review of clinical guidelines for long-term physical health conditions found that some guidelines do include fatigue management recommendations, most commonly clinical evaluation, physical activity, psychological approaches, and multicomponent strategies, although they rate much of the underlying evidence as low quality.^[1][10] National and professional guidelines for chronic fatigue and fatigue symptoms in adults recommend evaluating sleep, activity patterns, and nutritional status and then using sleep hygiene, graded or tailored physical activity, and cognitive behavioural therapy as key non-pharmacologic strategies.^{[16][17][19][20][23]} Evidence reviews for fatigue management in long-term conditions and ME/CFS emphasize energy conservation/pacing, activity management, and symptom-focused treatments (sleep, pain, mood) rather than curative pharmacologic therapies.^{[16][17][19][20][23]}

Contradicts

Across long-term physical health conditions, mapping of clinical guidelines shows that explicit, evidence-based fatigue management recommendations are present in only a minority of guidelines, and most rate the supporting evidence as low quality.^[1][10] Scoping and systematic reviews across diverse chronic diseases conclude that, although many interventions are being tested, relatively few approaches show consistent, clinically meaningful benefits on fatigue, and there is substantial heterogeneity and methodological limitations.^{[2][3][6][13]} In post-viral fatigue and traumatic brain injury–related fatigue, evidence is sparse and inconsistent; systematic reviews report that no single pharmacologic or non-pharmacologic treatment can currently be recommended as definitively effective, and some agents such as modafinil are unlikely to be beneficial.^[3][13] For ME/CFS and chronic fatigue syndrome, major reviews and guidelines state there is no cure or approved disease-modifying treatment, and drug therapies (outside treating comorbid depression, pain, or sleep problems) lack robust evidence of efficacy for core fatigue symptoms.^{[14][17][20][23]} Guideline-driven management documents for other conditions (e.g., hypertension, inflammatory bowel disease, clinical nutrition guidelines) primarily focus on disease control and nutritional support and do not identify fatigue-specific pharmacologic cures, reflecting that fatigue is usually managed symptomatically rather than eliminated.^[0][1][2] Comparative prevalence studies of fatigue across 88 diseases highlight that while fatigue is common and severe, they do not support simplistic claims that a single intervention or lifestyle change will reliably resolve fatigue across conditions.^[5][8] Overall, the literature contradicts any broad influencer claim that fatigue can generally be "cured" or rapidly reversed by a single universal method; instead, benefits are modest, condition-specific, and often based on limited-quality evidence.^{[1][2][3][5][6][10][13][16][17][20]}

Mainstream view

Mainstream medical and scientific consensus is that fatigue is a complex, multidimensional symptom that is highly prevalent across chronic diseases and can arise from physiological, psychological, behavioral, and social factors.^{[2][5][7][8][9]} Standard practice is to first evaluate for reversible or secondary causes (such as sleep disorders, anemia, endocrine disease, medication effects, mood disorders) and manage underlying conditions when present.^[16][19] When no single cause is found or fatigue persists despite disease control, management focuses on symptom relief and functional improvement rather than cure.^{[16][17][19][20][23]} Evidence-based strategies commonly recommended include: good sleep hygiene and regular sleep schedules; balanced physical activity and avoidance of overexertion; structured exercise or physical therapy where appropriate; cognitive behavioural therapy or other psychological interventions to address coping and maladaptive patterns; and energy-conservation or pacing techniques, particularly in ME/CFS and post-viral fatigue.^{[3][4][12][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24]} In conditions like multiple sclerosis, guidelines and systematic reviews support exercise-based and educational fatigue management programmes as

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“hormonal imbalances”

Rule: Wisconsin Chiropractic Practice Act (scope limited to musculoskeletal/spine care)