Jaban M Moore alias Dr. Normal Test Skeptic

Jaban M Moore is not licensed or approved by Missouri State Board of Chiropractic Examiners to advertise Diagnosed the speaker with Lyme disease and toxic exposures based on functional medicine interpretation of 'normal' tests as within their scope of practice.

Diagnosed the speaker with Lyme disease and toxic exposures based on functional medicine interpretation of 'normal' tests

Supports

Mainstream infectious disease and neurology guidelines emphasize that Lyme disease diagnosis should be based on compatible clinical features and epidemiologic exposure, and when the presentation is not classic erythema migrans, it should be supported by standard two-tier serologic testing (screening EIA followed by confirmatory immunoblot), not by reinterpretation of otherwise normal tests.^[17][18][13] Chronic Lyme disease and “post-tick bite syndromes” are controversial, but even groups that are more liberal (e.g., ILADS) still describe Lyme as a clinical diagnosis supported by appropriate laboratory testing, not by redefining normal results as pathological without evidence.^[9][15][19] Major methodologic guidance like GRADE stresses that low-quality, imprecise evidence does not justify strong diagnostic claims, implying that using poorly validated or reinterpreted normal tests to make serious diagnoses such as Lyme or toxic exposures is not evidence-based.^[5] Systematic frameworks for adverse effect and risk assessment similarly require structured, transparent methods and validated measures, which argues against ad hoc “functional medicine” reinterpretation of normal lab tests to diagnose toxic exposures.^[7]

Contradicts

High-quality clinical guidelines for Lyme disease from organizations such as AAN/ACR/IDSA and European/North American consensus documents explicitly recommend standardized two-tier serologic testing (or clear erythema migrans rash) and caution against diagnosing Lyme disease solely on nonspecific symptoms or non-standard tests.^{[11][18][17][13]} Evidence reviews have criticized some non-mainstream Lyme guidelines for confusing case definitions and misleading information about laboratory criteria, noting that such approaches can lead to substantial overdiagnosis of chronic Lyme in patients without definitive evidence of Borrelia infection.^[5][16] General medical guidance on diagnosis and test interpretation (including the GRADE framework on imprecision) warns that reclassifying normal results as abnormal without validated thresholds or strong evidence is not acceptable practice, highlighting that functional medicine-style reinterpretation of normal tests to diagnose Lyme or toxic exposures is weakly supported and prone to misdiagnosis.^[5] The published critique of complementary medicine practitioners ordering unvalidated tests or failing to follow established diagnostic pathways for conditions like gluten-related disorders shows a pattern where non-mainstream practitioners often bypass or misapply evidence-based criteria, which contradicts using functional interpretations of “normal” tests as a reliable basis for serious diagnoses.^[3]

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical position is that Lyme disease should be diagnosed using a combination of clinical history, objective findings, and epidemiologic exposure, with confirmation by standardized two-tier serologic testing when the presentation is not a classic erythema migrans rash.^{[11][17][18][13]} Major guidelines caution strongly against diagnosing Lyme disease or chronic Lyme disease based solely on nonspecific symptoms or non-validated laboratory interpretations, and they regard overdiagnosis of chronic Lyme based on such methods as a recognized problem.^[5][16] For suspected toxic or environmental exposures, mainstream practice expects specific exposure histories, appropriate toxicology tests, and established biomarkers or organ dysfunction, not reassignment of normal laboratory values as abnormal without robust evidence.^[7][5] Overall, mainstream evidence-based medicine holds that functional medicine-style reinterpretation of normal tests to diagnose Lyme disease or “toxic exposures” does not meet accepted standards of diagnostic validity and should not be used to make or justify serious medical diagnoses.^{[5][11][17][18]}

In their own wordsWatch sourceArchived copy

“Lyme, toxic exposures, and a body stuck in survival mode”

Rule: RSMo § 331.010(1)

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

Jaban M Moore is not licensed or approved by Missouri State Board of Chiropractic Examiners to diagnose, treat, or cure Claimed that addressing 'root issues' (Lyme, toxins) reversed low testosterone and chronic fatigue.

Claimed that addressing 'root issues' (Lyme, toxins) reversed low testosterone and chronic fatigue

Supports

There is moderate-quality evidence that certain environmental toxins and endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) are associated with lower testosterone in men, suggesting that reducing or avoiding such exposures could theoretically help improve testosterone levels. Multiple systematic and narrative reviews report inverse associations between exposure to phthalates, perfluoroalkyl substances, and other EDCs and testosterone levels or androgen indices in human studies, indicating a biologically plausible link between toxin exposure and hypogonadism.^{[2][4][9][10][11][12][14]} Environmental reviews emphasize oxidative stress–mediated damage to testicular function and the hypothalamic–pituitary–gonadal axis as mechanisms by which toxins may contribute to low testosterone and related symptoms such as fatigue.^{[1][9][12][14]}

Contradicts

There is no high-quality evidence that treating Lyme disease or vaguely defined “toxins” reliably reverses established low testosterone or chronic fatigue in a predictable, generalizable way. Trials of extended or repeat antibiotic therapy for persistent post-Lyme symptoms show at most partial and temporary improvement in fatigue, with no robust overall benefit and meaningful risks; major reviews conclude that prolonged antibiotic courses are ineffective and unsafe for chronic post-Lyme symptoms.^{[3][5][6][8][13]} Long-term observational data indicate that severe fatigue decades after appropriately treated early Lyme disease is uncommon and usually attributable to other causes, arguing against Lyme as a frequent ongoing “root cause” of chronic fatigue.^[13] Mainstream methodological guidance (e.g., GRADE) emphasizes that such post-Lyme evidence is imprecise and that subjective outcomes like fatigue are highly prone to bias and placebo effects, making strong causal claims (e.g., cure by addressing a root cause) unsupported.^[4] For hypogonadism, major guidelines and large trials treat low testosterone as a multifactorial endocrine condition; they do not recommend routine searching for Lyme or nonspecific “toxins” as primary drivers, nor do they assert that addressing those factors alone reverses hypogonadism in most patients.^{[16][19][21][23]}

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical position is that male hypogonadism and chronic fatigue are complex, multifactorial conditions, often related to ageing, chronic disease (e.g., kidney, liver, metabolic or cardiovascular disease), obesity, medications, sleep disorders, and psychological factors, with environmental exposures and infections being only a subset of possible contributors.^{[16][19][22][23]} Evidence-based management of low testosterone focuses on confirming true hypogonadism with appropriate laboratory testing, addressing general health factors (weight, sleep, comorbid disease, medications), and considering testosterone therapy in carefully selected men according to guideline criteria; current guidelines do not endorse “root cause” frameworks centered on Lyme and unspecified toxins as standard of care.^{[21][16][19][23]} For chronic fatigue after treated Lyme disease, mainstream infectious disease and internal medicine reviews conclude that additional or prolonged antibiotics provide little if any benefit and carry significant risk; persistent symptoms are thought to have heterogeneous mechanisms, and treatment is generally supportive and multidisciplinary rather than focused on eradicating an assumed ongoing infection.^{[3][5][6][8][13]} Environmental and endocrine literature acknowledge that reducing exposure to documented endocrine disruptors and other toxins is sensible public health practice, but there is insufficient evidence that targeted detoxification or treatment of presumed toxin burden reliably normalizes testosterone or cures chronic fatigue in individual patients.^{[1][2][4][9][10][11][12][14]}

In their own wordsWatch sourceArchived copy

“Once I addressed those root issues? My health came back online”

Rule: RSMo § 331.010(1)

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

Jaban M Moore is not licensed or approved by Missouri State Board of Chiropractic Examiners to diagnose, treat, or cure Redefining Wellness Center.

Redefining Wellness Center

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

In their own wordsWatch sourceArchived copy

“Redefining Wellness Center”

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

Jaban M Moore is not licensed or approved by Missouri State Board of Chiropractic Examiners to advertise team of providers who've also walked through their own health storms as within their scope of practice.

team of providers who've also walked through their own health storms

Supports

No peer-reviewed index paper provided addresses whether a care team has personally “walked through their own health storms,” and a targeted medical literature search does not yield evidence that this biographical claim is a validated clinical quality indicator or an evidence-based predictor of provider competence. ^[1][3] The closest relevant literature in the index consists of disease-management guidelines and evidence-assessment papers, which discuss treatment decisions and evidence quality rather than clinician personal experience . ^[5][6]

Contradicts

The claim is not a medical outcome claim and is not something supported or refuted by the listed guidelines, which focus on hypertension, nutrition, headache, transfusion, and pericarditis management rather than provider life experience . ^{[1][3][4][5][7][13]} Because the statement is vague, subjective, and unverifiable, evidence is weak for treating it as a clinically meaningful claim; GRADE guidance emphasizes judging actual evidence quality and imprecision, not personal narratives . ^[6]

Mainstream view

Mainstream medical practice does not consider a clinician’s having “walked through their own health storms” to be an evidence-based criterion for competence, safety, or treatment quality. ^[1][6] Professional credibility is generally based on training, licensure, experience, guideline adherence, and measurable outcomes, while personal illness experience may be relevant only as a communication or empathy asset, not as proof of better care.

In their own wordsWatch sourceArchived copy

“team of providers who've also walked through their own health storms”

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