Brian Lum alias The Panel Chiropractor

Brian Lum is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Crohn's and ulcerative colitis.

Crohn's and ulcerative colitis

Supports

Major inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) guidelines and listed papers outline evidence-based management for Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis that relies on pharmacologic therapy (5‑ASA, corticosteroids, immunomodulators, biologics, small molecules), nutrition support, and surgery, with no recommended role for chiropractic spinal manipulation as a disease‑modifying treatment. The ESPEN guideline on clinical nutrition in IBD supports individualized nutrition interventions, including enteral and parenteral nutrition, as adjuncts to standard medical therapy, not as substitutes, and it does not mention chiropractic or spinal manipulation as a treatment modality. High‑quality trials and guidelines show that remission and mucosal healing in Crohn’s and ulcerative colitis are achieved with targeted anti‑inflammatory and immunomodulatory therapies (e.g., corticosteroids, thiopurines, methotrexate, anti‑TNF agents, vedolizumab, ustekinumab, JAK inhibitors) and appropriate surgical management when needed; these sources do not identify chiropractic treatment as effective for controlling intestinal inflammation or inducing remission. Some complementary interventions like yoga, diet modification, coconut water, butyrate supplementation, live biotherapeutic products, or appendectomy have emerging RCT‑level evidence as adjuncts in ulcerative colitis, but these do not involve chiropractic manipulation and are studied only as add‑ons to guideline‑directed medical therapy. Overall, mainstream high‑quality evidence supports multidisciplinary, guideline‑based medical and nutritional management of IBD and does not support chiropractic care as a primary or evidence‑based treatment for Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis.

Contradicts

Current national and international guidelines for Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis from major gastroenterology societies comprehensively review pharmacologic, surgical, and supportive therapies but do not recommend or even discuss chiropractic spinal manipulation as a therapeutic option, indicating a lack of supporting evidence. These guidelines emphasize that active IBD requires anti‑inflammatory and immunosuppressive treatment (such as 5‑ASA, corticosteroids, thiopurines, methotrexate, biologics including infliximab and vedolizumab, and small molecules such as JAK inhibitors), along with surgery for complications, and that non‑pharmacologic measures are adjunctive for nutrition and quality of life, not substitutes for disease‑controlling therapy. Evidence‑based nutrition guidelines for IBD focus on enteral and parenteral nutrition, micronutrient management, and support for malnutrition and catabolism, without mentioning chiropractic therapy as beneficial or relevant to disease activity. High‑quality randomized trials and systematic approaches for IBD therapies show benefit from biologics, dietary interventions (e.g., oat bran, butyrate, coconut water), microbiome‑based products, yoga, and even appendectomy in specific ulcerative colitis populations, but these interventions are carefully tested and used adjunctively to conventional treatment, in contrast to chiropractic interventions which lack such RCT‑level data in Crohn’s or ulcerative colitis. The absence of controlled trials or guideline endorsements for chiropractic treatment in IBD, combined with the clear requirement for potent immunomodulatory and biologic therapies in moderate‑to‑severe disease, contradicts any claim that chiropractic care can treat or manage Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis in an evidence‑based manner.

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical position is that Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis are chronic inflammatory conditions requiring evidence‑based management with medications (5‑ASA, corticosteroids, thiopurines, methotrexate, biologics such as anti‑TNF agents, vedolizumab, ustekinumab, and advanced small molecules), optimized nutrition, and when necessary surgery, all guided by established

Papers listed for this claim:[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“CROHN'S AND ULCERATIVE COLITIS”

Rule: K.S.A. 65-2871

See every doc bro who says they can treat or advise on Crohn disease and colitis

Brian Lum is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Autoimmune disease.

Autoimmune disease

Supports

High-quality clinical evidence specifically showing that chiropractic treatment can modify autoimmune disease activity (e.g., reduce autoantibodies, prevent flares, induce remission) is essentially absent. A recent randomized controlled trial in people with subclinical spinal pain found that 12 weeks of chiropractic spinal adjustments altered blood biomarkers (increased BDNF and IL-6, decreased TNF-α, cortisol and IFN-γ), suggesting some modulation of inflammatory and neuroendocrine pathways, but this was in otherwise healthy individuals and not patients with autoimmune disease. A literature review of manual therapies (including chiropractic, osteopathic, and massage) reports various short-term changes in immune-related markers (cytokines, immunoglobulins, stress hormones), again largely in small experimental or physiological studies, not in autoimmune populations, and without clear clinical outcome data. Guidelines for autoimmune conditions such as inflammatory bowel disease emphasize evidence-based pharmacologic and nutritional management (e.g., ESPEN guideline for clinical nutrition in IBD) and do not include chiropractic manipulation as a disease-modifying treatment. Overall, current evidence supports at most that chiropractic and related manual therapies can induce short-term changes in immune and inflammatory biomarkers, but does not show clinically meaningful treatment effects on autoimmune disease activity or outcomes.

Contradicts

A systematic review assessing spinal manipulative therapy and infectious disease or immune outcomes concluded that there were no clinical studies showing that spinal manipulation prevents infectious disease or improves disease-specific outcomes, and that existing data only demonstrate short-term changes in biomarkers with unknown clinical relevance. A united statement from global chiropractic research leaders explicitly notes that there is no valid clinical scientific evidence that chiropractic care can meaningfully impact the immune system to prevent viral infections, and that claims that adjustments reduce risk of colds, flu, or other illnesses have never been properly tested. A review of spinal manipulative therapy’s biological effects found mixed and conflicting evidence about neuroimmunoendocrine changes, and emphasized that current mechanistic findings do not justify clinical claims about immune enhancement. Mainstream medical sources discussing chiropractic in rheumatoid arthritis report that there are no high-quality studies showing chiropractic is a safe or effective treatment for RA, that it does not affect the underlying autoimmunity, and that manipulation of inflamed joints may worsen symptoms. Major clinical guidelines for autoimmune and inflammatory conditions, such as nutrition guidelines in IBD, highlight pharmacologic therapies, nutrition, and other evidence-based interventions, with no role for chiropractic as a disease-modifying treatment. Together, these sources contradict strong claims that chiropractic can treat or control autoimmune disease, and indicate that any immune or inflammatory marker changes observed after manipulation have uncertain clinical significance.

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical and scientific position is that autoimmune diseases are primarily managed with evidence-based pharmacologic therapies (e.g., immunosuppressants, biologics), lifestyle measures, and condition-specific interventions guided by major clinical guidelines, and that chiropractic care is not an established disease-modifying treatment for autoimmunity. Chiropractic and other manual therapies may be used as adjuncts for musculoskeletal pain, stiffness, or functional complaints in some patients, but they are considered supportive or symptomatic rather than therapies that directly alter autoimmune pathophysiology or disease course. Current evidence on spinal manipulation shows short-term changes in some immune and inflammatory biomarkers, but systematic reviews emphasize that these findings do not translate into proven benefits in preventing disease, reducing autoimmune activity, or improving long-term clinical outcomes. Professional consensus statements from chiropractic researchers explicitly reject marketing claims that chiropractic care “boosts immunity” or prevents illness, and call for more rigorous trials before any such statements are made. For autoimmune diseases specifically (such as rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, multiple sclerosis, and inflammatory bowel disease), mainstream guidance does not recommend chiropractic as a primary treatment, and warns that manipulation of actively inflamed joints or unstable spines may pose risks.

Papers listed for this claim:[1][2][3][5][4][6][7][8][13][14][15][16]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“AUTOIMMUNE DISEASE”

Rule: K.S.A. 65-2871

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

Brian Lum is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Heart disease.

Heart disease

Supports

High-quality heart disease guidelines emphasize evidence-based pharmacologic therapy, lifestyle modification, and management of risk factors such as hypertension, diabetes, lipids, and diet; they do not include chiropractic care as a treatment modality for heart disease or cardiovascular outcomes. The hypertension guideline update highlights antihypertensive drugs, lifestyle changes, and structured risk-factor control as the basis of blood-pressure and cardiovascular risk management, with no role for chiropractic manipulation. A small randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of atlas vertebra realignment in stage 1 hypertension reported that a specific upper cervical chiropractic procedure produced marked and sustained reductions in blood pressure comparable to two-drug therapy, suggesting a potential effect on blood pressure regulation in a very narrow context but not on broader heart disease outcomes. Another small randomized controlled trial of thoracic chiropractic adjustments reported short-term reductions in systolic and diastolic blood pressure and pulse rate, again limited to surrogate measurements rather than hard cardiovascular endpoints. Outside of these small surrogate-outcome trials, most randomized trials of spinal manipulation in musculoskeletal conditions show either no cardiovascular autonomic effect or only modest HRV changes, and they are not designed to treat heart disease itself.

Contradicts

Evidence-based cardiovascular guidelines and major position statements do not recognize chiropractic treatment as a therapy for heart disease, coronary artery disease, heart failure, or arrhythmias; recommended treatments are medications, interventional procedures, cardiac rehabilitation, risk-factor modification, and nutrition interventions. The ASPEN-FELANPE and ESPEN nutrition guidelines illustrate that even supportive care for systemic disease (including cardiovascular comorbidity) focuses on clinical nutrition and medical management, not chiropractic interventions. Trials of spinal manipulation show either no specific effect on cardiovascular autonomic activity or only small changes in heart rate variability without changes in blood pressure, and they do not demonstrate reduced cardiovascular events, mortality, or structural heart disease improvement. Some literature and expert commentary emphasize potential safety concerns around cervical manipulation and cervical arterial dissection, highlighting that any association with stroke remains uncertain but warrants caution, which further undermines the idea of chiropractic treatment as a primary modality for heart disease. Overall, there is no robust body of randomized trials, meta-analyses, or guidelines demonstrating that chiropractic care treats, reverses, or clinically improves heart disease outcomes such as myocardial infarction, heart failure progression, or atrial fibrillation burden compared with established medical therapies.

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical and scientific position is that heart disease should be managed with guideline-directed medical therapy, lifestyle modification, cardiac rehabilitation, and, when indicated, interventional or surgical procedures, not with chiropractic treatment. Hypertension, a key risk factor for heart disease, is treated with lifestyle measures and antihypertensive medications according to large evidence-based guidelines; small chiropractic blood pressure trials are viewed as exploratory and insufficient to alter practice. Major cardiology and internal medicine guidelines do not list chiropractic manipulation as a recommended or optional therapy for coronary artery disease, heart failure, valvular disease, or arrhythmias, and chiropractic is not included in standard cardiac rehabilitation programs, which instead rely on supervised exercise, nutrition, psychosocial support, and risk-factor control. Chiropractic care may have a role in musculoskeletal pain management, but it is not considered a treatment for heart disease itself, and any claims that it can treat or reverse heart disease are regarded as unsupported by high-quality cardiovascular evidence.

Papers listed for this claim:[1][2][3][5][4][6][7][8][17][18][19][20]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“HEART DISEASE”

Rule: K.S.A. 65-2871

See every doc bro who says they can treat or advise on Heart disease and cholesterol

Brian Lum is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Lyme and coinfections.

Lyme and coinfections

Supports

There is no high-quality evidence such as randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, or major clinical guidelines showing that chiropractic treatment can treat Lyme disease infection itself or eradicate coinfections. Clinical practice guidelines for Lyme disease from major societies (IDSA/AAN/ACR) emphasize antibiotic therapy and evidence-based diagnostic approaches; they do not recommend chiropractic care as a disease-modifying treatment for Lyme or its coinfections. General guideline methodology (e.g., GRADE) prioritizes high-quality randomized and controlled evidence for treatment recommendations, which is not available for chiropractic as a primary treatment for infectious diseases like Lyme.

Contradicts

Mainstream Lyme disease guidelines specify that management is based on appropriate antibiotic regimens and, in some cases, supportive therapies; non-antibiotic modalities like chiropractic are not listed as curative or primary treatments. High-quality trials of extended or alternative therapies for persistent Lyme-related symptoms show that even prolonged antibiotic courses beyond standard care do not significantly improve outcomes, underscoring how difficult these symptoms are to modify and how little evidence exists for other non-antibiotic interventions as disease-modifying treatments. In addition, professional scopes of practice in many jurisdictions explicitly restrict chiropractors from directly treating infectious diseases, reflecting regulatory recognition that chiropractic is not an evidence-based primary treatment for infections such as Lyme and its coinfections. Overall, the absence of guideline support and randomized, controlled data constitutes indirect evidence against claims that chiropractic can treat Lyme infection or coinfections in a specific, causal way.

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical position is that Lyme disease and its coinfections are infectious conditions caused by tick-borne pathogens and require evidence-based antimicrobial treatment following established clinical guidelines. Chiropractic care may sometimes be used as an adjunct for nonspecific musculoskeletal pain or functional complaints, but it is not considered a validated treatment for clearing Borrelia or other tick-borne pathogens, nor is it recommended in major guidelines as a primary therapy for Lyme disease or coinfections. Persistent symptoms after appropriately treated Lyme disease are typically approached with careful diagnostic reassessment, supportive care, and management of specific symptom domains (pain, fatigue, mood, sleep), not with chiropractic as a disease-targeted intervention.

Papers listed for this claim:[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][21][22][23][24]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“LYME AND COINFECTIONS”

Rule: K.S.A. 65-2871

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

Brian Lum is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Mold illness/exposure.

Mold illness/exposure

Supports

High-quality evidence and major clinical guidelines on mold-related illness focus on removal from exposure, environmental remediation, and, in selected cases, pharmacologic and supportive therapies such as binders (e.g., cholestyramine), antifungals, and nutritional support, not chiropractic manipulation. A narrative review of illness from water‑damaged buildings, mold, and mycotoxins describes mechanisms of injury (inflammation, oxidative stress, allergy, toxicity) and discusses treatments like glutathione, antioxidants, antifungals, and sequestering agents, but does not include chiropractic as a treatment modality. Case reports and clinical pathways for mold or mycotoxin-related illness emphasize environmental control and medical management as central, again without mentioning chiropractic as evidence‑based therapy. The listed guideline examples provided (nutrition in inflammatory bowel disease, ASPEN and ESPEN nutrition guidelines, hypertension management, tension‑type headache treatment) illustrate how evidence‑based guidelines are constructed and what qualifies as guideline‑driven care, but they are unrelated to mold illness or chiropractic and thereby underscore that chiropractic treatment is not part of established guideline frameworks for systemic toxic or environmental illnesses.

Contradicts

Mainstream clinical reviews on mold and mycotoxin illness do not describe chiropractic care as an evidence‑based treatment; instead, they emphasize exposure avoidance, environmental remediation, and targeted medical therapies. Clinical pathways for biotoxins from indoor dampness and mold categorize health effects mainly as allergic and respiratory disorders and outline diagnostic and management steps that do not include chiropractic interventions. A contemporary case report and environmental medicine perspective on mycotoxin illness highlights comprehensive medical and lifestyle approaches (environmental remediation, hormonal and gastrointestinal management, beyond gut binders), but again does not identify chiropractic care as a therapeutic modality for mold illness. Available clinical and guideline literature use rigorous GRADE‑style approaches to rate evidence quality, showing that treatments must be supported by randomized trials, systematic reviews, and clear benefit‑risk profiles; chiropractic for mold illness lacks this level of evidence. Overall, the absence of chiropractic from mold‑specific guidelines and high‑quality reviews, combined with reliance on anecdotal or marketing content for claims, indicates that evidence for chiropractic as a treatment for mold illness or systemic mycotoxin toxicity is weak or absent.

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical and scientific position is that management of mold‑related illness or suspected mycotoxin exposure centers on: prompt removal from the contaminated environment; remediation of indoor dampness and mold; and medical management of allergy, asthma, infections, and other organ‑specific or systemic consequences using established pharmacologic and supportive therapies. Where chronic or systemic mycotoxin‑associated illness is suspected, expert and environmental medicine approaches emphasize environmental control, investigation for other contributing conditions, use of binders (e.g., cholestyramine), antifungals when indicated, nutritional optimization, and symptom‑directed medical care, rather than chiropractic manipulation as a disease‑modifying treatment. Chiropractic care may be used for musculoskeletal complaints or general supportive care in some patients, but it is not recognized in major guidelines or high‑quality reviews as a specific or primary treatment for mold exposure or mold‑related systemic illness.

Papers listed for this claim:[1][2][3][5][4][6][7][8][25][26][27]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“MOLD ILLNESS/EXPOSURE”

Rule: K.S.A. 65-2871

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

Brian Lum is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Thyroid conditions.

Thyroid conditions

Supports

Mainstream guidelines and reviews on Hashimoto’s thyroiditis consistently state that laboratory testing (TSH, free T4, thyroid autoantibodies) and imaging are used for diagnosis and monitoring, not as therapeutic interventions, although some diagnostic tests guide treatment decisions. There is emerging research on using advanced diagnostics (e.g., genomic testing, AI-assisted ultrasound, BRAFV600E mutation testing) in patients with Hashimoto’s thyroiditis, but these are described as tools to improve diagnosis and risk stratification, not as direct treatments. Overall, high‑quality evidence supports testing as essential for identifying Hashimoto’s thyroiditis and tailoring therapy (primarily levothyroxine) but not as a treatment in itself.

Contradicts

Authoritative clinical resources and evidence-based reviews clearly distinguish between diagnostic testing and treatment in Hashimoto’s thyroiditis: blood tests and imaging establish the diagnosis and assess thyroid function, while treatment is pharmacologic (levothyroxine replacement) and, in selected cases, surgery. No major guideline, randomized trial, or systematic review supports the idea that “testing” itself is used as treatment; instead, testing is a prerequisite for appropriate therapy and ongoing monitoring. Advanced diagnostic approaches (AI ultrasound systems, BRAFV600E mutation detection, genomic testing) are explicitly framed as diagnostic or prognostic tools that inform management, not therapeutic interventions. Thus, the influencer’s formulation that testing is “used for the treatment” of Hashimoto’s misrepresents the role of these tests and overstates their therapeutic function.

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical position is that Hashimoto’s thyroiditis is an autoimmune cause of hypothyroidism whose management relies on: (1) diagnostic testing—TSH, free T4, thyroid antibodies, and sometimes ultrasound—to confirm disease and assess severity; and (2) treatment—primarily levothyroxine replacement to normalize thyroid hormone levels and relieve symptoms. Testing is considered a diagnostic and monitoring tool that guides when and how to treat (e.g., thresholds of TSH for starting levothyroxine, pregnancy-specific targets), but it is not itself a therapeutic modality. Additional or more sophisticated tests (mutation analysis, AI imaging, genomic assays) may refine diagnosis or risk stratification in complex cases but are still categorized as diagnostic procedures that inform clinical decision-making rather than as treatments.

Papers listed for this claim:[1][2][3][4][5][6][28][7][29][30][31][32]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“THYROID CONDITIONS”

Rule: K.S.A. 65-2871

See every doc bro who says they can treat or advise on Thyroid disease and Hashimoto

Brian Lum is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Depression.

Depression

Supports

There are established clinical tests for systemic insulin resistance, including the hyperinsulinemic–euglycemic clamp (gold standard), and surrogate indices such as HOMA‑IR, fasting insulin and glucose, and oral glucose tolerance–derived measures; these are widely used in research and clinical endocrinology, so the statement that “we can test for insulin resistance” is supported by mainstream evidence. High‑quality mechanistic and clinical reviews identify insulin resistance as a central feature of type 2 diabetes and metabolic syndrome and a major contributor to its development and progression, supporting the claim that insulin resistance is a major problem in diabetes. Systematic reviews and mechanistic reviews indicate that obesity and difficulty losing weight are strongly linked with insulin resistance: obesity promotes insulin resistance via adipose inflammation and ectopic fat, while pre‑existing insulin resistance impairs weight regulation, and obesity is recognized as a key risk factor for cognitive impairment partly mediated by insulin resistance. Insulin resistance is a key pathophysiological feature of PCOS, with multiple reviews and mechanistic papers showing a high prevalence of insulin resistance in women with PCOS and describing how compensatory hyperinsulinemia drives ovarian hyperandrogenism and ovulatory dysfunction; insulin resistance and hyperandrogenism are considered interrelated core mechanisms of PCOS. Reviews on PCOS and related metabolic–endocrine disorders also describe broad “hormone imbalances” driven by insulin resistance, including effects on androgen, gonadotropin, and sometimes cortisol axes, so the association between insulin resistance and hormone imbalance in PCOS and metabolic syndrome is supported. Systematic reviews and meta‑analyses report that insulin resistance and metabolic syndrome are associated with increased risk of dementia, including all‑cause dementia, Alzheimer’s disease, and vascular dementia, and that impaired glucose metabolism and insulin resistance relate to tau pathology and cognitive decline. A systematic review and meta‑analysis by Kan et al. found a small but statistically significant association between depression and insulin resistance, indicating that people with higher insulin resistance have higher odds of depressive symptoms, which supports a link—though not necessarily causality—between insulin resistance and depression. Recent large cross‑sectional data show a strong association between a composite insulin resistance indicator and anxiety, supporting a statistical relationship between insulin resistance and anxiety, albeit without proving causality. Overall, high‑quality evidence supports that insulin resistance is testable, is central in type 2 diabetes and PCOS, contributes to obesity‑related difficulty with weight loss, and is statistically associated with dementia risk, depression, and anxiety.

Contradicts

While insulin resistance is clearly measurable, routine clinical practice does not universally test for it in all patients with obesity, mood disorders, or PCOS; testing is usually targeted to metabolic risk (e.g., fasting glucose, HbA1c, lipid profile) rather than formal insulin resistance indices, so the claim may overstate how broadly “we test for insulin resistance” in ordinary care. For obesity and inability to lose weight, evidence shows insulin resistance is one of several mechanisms; psychological, environmental, genetic, and other endocrine factors also play major roles, so framing insulin resistance as the major or sole problem in difficulty losing weight is an oversimplification. For dementia, systematic reviews indicate an association between insulin resistance and dementia risk, but the magnitude is modest and causality is not fully established; some reviews on brain insulin resistance in Alzheimer’s disease conclude that the association remains inconclusive and that more research is needed. Thus, saying insulin resistance is a major problem in dementia overstates the strength of evidence; it is better described as a risk factor or contributor within a multifactorial picture. For PCOS, although insulin resistance is common and important, it is not universal and varies by phenotype; some lean PCOS patients have minimal insulin resistance, so insulin resistance cannot be said to explain all cases of PCOS or all hormone imbalances in reproductive‑age women. In anxiety and depression, the evidence is primarily cross‑sectional or observational, demonstrating associations but not robust causal pathways; effect sizes are typically small, and confounding (obesity, inflammation, socioeconomic factors, medications) is substantial, so the claim that insulin resistance “plays a role” in anxiety and depression is plausible but currently rests on weak and indirect evidence. High‑quality guidelines for the management of anxiety and depression do not

Papers listed for this claim:[33][34][35][36]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“DEPRESSION”

Rule: K.S.A. 65-2871

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

Brian Lum is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure PANS & PANDAS.

PANS & PANDAS

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“PANS & PANDAS - An Integrative Approach”

Rule: K.S.A. 65-2871

See every doc bro who says they can treat or advise on PANS and PANDAS

Brian Lum is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to advertise Infertility, Prenatal Care, and Maternal Health as within their scope of practice.

Infertility, Prenatal Care, and Maternal Health

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Infertility, Prenatal Care, and Maternal Health Clinical Strategies and Treatment Applications”

Rule: K.S.A. 65-2871

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

Brian Lum is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Mold toxicity can be a major cause of long-standing medication-resistant anxiety and depression.

Mold toxicity can be a major cause of long-standing medication-resistant anxiety and depression

Supports

Recent observational evidence shows an association between residential dampness/mold and poorer mental health, including depression and anxiety. Multiple cross-sectional and cohort studies summarized in a 2024 state-of-the-science review report positive associations between home dampness/mold and depression, stress, and anxiety in adults and emotional symptoms in children, though all are observational and mainly cross-sectional. Several scoping reviews and narrative reviews likewise find consistent associations between household damp/mould and psychological outcomes such as stress, depression, anxiety, and reduced wellbeing. Experimental and mechanistic work on specific mycotoxins (e.g., aflatoxin B1, ochratoxin A) in animals and exposed humans suggests they can be neurotoxic and may contribute to neuropsychiatric symptoms including anxiety and depression, supporting biological plausibility for a contribution of mycotoxins to mood symptoms rather than purely psychological effects of living in poor housing. Taken together, these data support that mold exposure can be one of many environmental risk factors associated with depression and anxiety. However, high-quality evidence specifically showing that mold toxicity is a major cause of long-standing, medication-resistant anxiety and depression is lacking. The available high-quality studies are epidemiologic and mechanistic; they do not test treatment-resistant populations or causal reversal of symptoms after mold remediation in randomized controlled trials.

Contradicts

The existing evidence base does not support the strong phrasing that mold toxicity is a major cause of long-standing medication-resistant anxiety and depression. Current studies are largely cross-sectional or observational, with limited control for confounding factors such as socioeconomic status, general housing quality, and co-exposures like air pollution, making it impossible to conclude that mold toxicity is a primary causal driver of chronic, treatment-resistant mood disorders. Longitudinal and experimental data are sparse, and major psychiatric treatment guidelines do not list mold toxicity as a common or leading cause of therapy-resistant depression or anxiety, nor do they recommend routine mold or mycotoxin testing as part of the standard work‑up. The epidemiologic studies show increased odds of depression and anxiety with mold exposure, but they do not demonstrate that these cases are particularly medication-resistant, nor that treating mold exposure leads to remission of resistant symptoms. In addition, the magnitude of associations in population studies, while statistically significant, is modest compared with well‑established risk factors such as genetics, early-life trauma, chronic medical illness, and substance use, arguing against mold toxicity being a major cause at the population level. Overall, the influencer’s claim overstates both causality and the specific link to medication resistance beyond what current data justify.

Mainstream view

Mainstream medical and psychiatric opinion recognizes that environmental factors, including poor housing conditions and indoor air quality, can contribute to or exacerbate depression and anxiety, and that severe mold contamination and mycotoxin exposure can, in rare circumstances, play a role in multisystem illness with neuropsychiatric symptoms. However, the dominant view is that depression and anxiety are multifactorial disorders driven by a combination of genetic vulnerability, psychosocial stressors, medical comorbidities, and broader environmental exposures. Mold exposure is considered a possible contributing factor or stressor, particularly in the context of damp, substandard housing and comorbid respiratory problems, but not a common, primary, or major cause of chronic, medication-resistant mood disorders. Major psychiatric and primary-care guidelines for the evaluation and management of depression and anxiety focus on screening for medical conditions (e.g., thyroid disease, anemia, substance use), psychosocial factors, and evidence-based pharmacologic and psychotherapeutic treatments, and they do not currently recommend routine assessment for “mold toxicity” or specialized detoxification protocols for treatment-resistant cases. Standard care may include addressing obvious housing hazards and environmental exposures as part of holistic management, but mold toxicity is not framed as a leading etiologic category for refractory depression or anxiety.

Papers listed for this claim:[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][37][38][39][40][41]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Mold toxicity can be a major cause of long-standing medication-resistant anxiety and depression”

Rule: K.S.A. 65-2871

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

Brian Lum is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure CROHN'S & ULCERATIVE COLITIS.

CROHN'S & ULCERATIVE COLITIS

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“CROHN'S & ULCERATIVE COLITIS”

Rule: K.S.A. 65-2871

See every doc bro who says they can treat or advise on Crohn disease and colitis

Brian Lum is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure HASHIMOTO'S THYROIDITIS.

HASHIMOTO'S THYROIDITIS

Supports

Mainstream guidelines and reviews on Hashimoto’s thyroiditis consistently state that laboratory testing (TSH, free T4, thyroid autoantibodies) and imaging are used for diagnosis and monitoring, not as therapeutic interventions, although some diagnostic tests guide treatment decisions. There is emerging research on using advanced diagnostics (e.g., genomic testing, AI-assisted ultrasound, BRAFV600E mutation testing) in patients with Hashimoto’s thyroiditis, but these are described as tools to improve diagnosis and risk stratification, not as direct treatments. Overall, high‑quality evidence supports testing as essential for identifying Hashimoto’s thyroiditis and tailoring therapy (primarily levothyroxine) but not as a treatment in itself.

Contradicts

Authoritative clinical resources and evidence-based reviews clearly distinguish between diagnostic testing and treatment in Hashimoto’s thyroiditis: blood tests and imaging establish the diagnosis and assess thyroid function, while treatment is pharmacologic (levothyroxine replacement) and, in selected cases, surgery. No major guideline, randomized trial, or systematic review supports the idea that “testing” itself is used as treatment; instead, testing is a prerequisite for appropriate therapy and ongoing monitoring. Advanced diagnostic approaches (AI ultrasound systems, BRAFV600E mutation detection, genomic testing) are explicitly framed as diagnostic or prognostic tools that inform management, not therapeutic interventions. Thus, the influencer’s formulation that testing is “used for the treatment” of Hashimoto’s misrepresents the role of these tests and overstates their therapeutic function.

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical position is that Hashimoto’s thyroiditis is an autoimmune cause of hypothyroidism whose management relies on: (1) diagnostic testing—TSH, free T4, thyroid antibodies, and sometimes ultrasound—to confirm disease and assess severity; and (2) treatment—primarily levothyroxine replacement to normalize thyroid hormone levels and relieve symptoms. Testing is considered a diagnostic and monitoring tool that guides when and how to treat (e.g., thresholds of TSH for starting levothyroxine, pregnancy-specific targets), but it is not itself a therapeutic modality. Additional or more sophisticated tests (mutation analysis, AI imaging, genomic assays) may refine diagnosis or risk stratification in complex cases but are still categorized as diagnostic procedures that inform clinical decision-making rather than as treatments.

Papers listed for this claim:[1][2][3][4][5][6][28][7][29][30][31][32]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“HASHIMOTO'S THYROIDITIS”

Rule: K.S.A. 65-2871

See every doc bro who says they can treat or advise on Thyroid disease and Hashimoto

Brian Lum is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure IRRITABLE BOWEL SYNDROME (IBS).

IRRITABLE BOWEL SYNDROME (IBS)

Supports

There are no high-quality randomized controlled trials or systematic reviews showing that chiropractic spinal manipulation is an effective treatment for IBS specifically. A narrative review of chiropractic for gastrointestinal disorders concluded that there is no supportive evidence that chiropractic is an effective treatment for gastrointestinal problems, based primarily on small, low-quality and heterogeneous studies. Independent systematic reviews of spinal manipulation more broadly also classify the evidence for gastrointestinal disorders (including IBS) as unclear or inconclusive. In contrast, there is emerging low- to moderate-quality evidence that other manual therapies, particularly osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) or visceral osteopathy, may offer some short-term symptom improvement in IBS (pain, bloating, global assessment), but these are not chiropractic techniques and the trials are small and at risk of bias. A 2014 systematic review of osteopathic manipulative therapy for IBS found preliminary beneficial effects but emphasized the limited number of small studies and need for caution in interpretation. More recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses of OMT in IBS continue to describe the overall certainty of evidence as low to very low due to small sample sizes, methodological limitations, and inconsistent outcome measures, even though pooled analyses sometimes suggest benefit on pain or constipation. Clinical guidelines and evidence-based pathways for IBS management, such as those from major gastroenterology societies, focus on diet (e.g., low FODMAP diet), pharmacologic therapies, gut-directed psychotherapies, and in some cases probiotics or neuromodulators; they do not recommend chiropractic care as a treatment option for IBS.

Contradicts

The best-quality syntheses specifically examining chiropractic for gastrointestinal disorders, including IBS, conclude that there is no convincing evidence of efficacy and that existing trials are few, small, and methodologically weak. Systematic reviews of spinal manipulation across conditions classify the evidence for gastrointestinal indications as inconclusive rather than supportive, and explicitly note no supportive evidence that chiropractic is effective for gastrointestinal disorders. This directly contradicts any strong claim that chiropractic treatment is an evidence-based therapy for IBS. In addition, contemporary IBS management guidelines from major professional bodies do not include chiropractic or spinal manipulation among recommended therapies, which indirectly indicates that the evidence base is considered insufficient or unconvincing compared with established options. Compared with interventions that do have replicated RCTs and are incorporated into guidelines (such as dietary modification, certain pharmacologic agents, psychological therapies, and in some cases probiotics), chiropractic lacks comparable data for IBS. Overall, the available literature suggests that claims of reliable IBS symptom relief from chiropractic care are not supported by robust clinical evidence, and that the evidence base is markedly weaker than for standard IBS treatments.

Mainstream view

Mainstream medical and gastroenterology practice does not view chiropractic treatment as an established or evidence-based therapy for irritable bowel syndrome. Current guideline-driven management of chronic conditions in internal medicine emphasizes using interventions supported by high-quality randomized trials, meta-analyses, and rigorous grading of evidence quality; chiropractic for IBS does not meet these standards. For IBS, major guidelines instead recommend a stepwise, multifactorial approach focused on positive diagnosis, patient education, dietary strategies (such as low FODMAP diet), targeted pharmacologic therapies according to IBS subtype (constipation, diarrhea, or mixed), psychological and behavioral interventions (e.g., CBT, gut-directed hypnotherapy), and selected adjunctive therapies with supportive evidence (such as specific probiotics), while not including chiropractic manipulation as a recommended modality. Osteopathic or other manual therapies may be considered experimental adjuncts with low-certainty evidence, and are not part of core first-line management. Thus, the mainstream position is that chiropractic care should not replace established IBS treatments and, at most, might be considered an unproven complementary therapy where patients are carefully counseled about the limited and low-quality evidence and the need to continue guideline-based care.

Papers listed for this claim:[1][2][3][5][4][6][7][8][42][43][44][45]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“IRRITABLE BOWEL SYNDROME (IBS)”

Rule: K.S.A. 65-2871

See every doc bro who says they can treat or advise on IBS, SIBO and gut disorders

Brian Lum is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure LONG COVID.

LONG COVID

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“LONG COVID”

Rule: K.S.A. 65-2871

See every doc bro who says they can treat or advise on Epstein-Barr and chronic viral infection

Brian Lum is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure OSTEOPOROSIS.

OSTEOPOROSIS

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“OSTEOPOROSIS”

Rule: K.S.A. 65-2871

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

Brian Lum is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS.

RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS

Supports

There is limited low- to moderate-quality evidence that some forms of non-invasive manual therapy (e.g., joint mobilization, soft tissue techniques, stretching) can modestly reduce pain and improve function in people with rheumatoid arthritis when used as an adjunct to standard care, particularly for specific joints such as the knee. A small randomized pilot trial in RA patients with knee pain found that manual therapy (postisometric relaxation and joint mobilization) plus exercises improved knee pain more than exercise alone, although differences in other functional outcomes were not statistically significant and the study was underpowered. Systematic reviews of physiotherapy and manual therapy in RA and arthritis more broadly suggest that multimodal physiotherapy programs (exercise, hydrotherapy, occasional manual techniques) can reduce pain and improve health-related quality of life, but they do not isolate spinal chiropractic-style manipulation and mostly involve gentle joint mobilizations within physiotherapy practice. Some overviews of manual therapy in arthritis conclude that manual interventions may provide short-term symptom relief in arthritis conditions, but the evidence for RA specifically is sparse and generally low quality, with a need for better-designed trials.

Contradicts

High-quality guidelines for rheumatoid arthritis management (e.g., 2018 NICE guideline and 2021 American College of Rheumatology guideline) emphasize early and sustained use of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), biologics, targeted synthetic agents, and structured exercise/physiotherapy, and they do not recommend chiropractic spinal manipulation as a disease-modifying or core treatment for RA. The 2022 American College of Rheumatology integrative RA guideline explicitly recommends against chiropractic therapy as part of integrative management, reflecting concerns about lack of benefit and potential risks, especially to inflamed or damaged joints. A systematic review of non-invasive manual therapies in RA found only limited and low-quality evidence for manipulation and mobilization, concluding that these interventions should be used cautiously and that patients should not be given expectations beyond what the weak evidence supports. Reviews of manual therapy in arthritis emphasize that, for RA, there are no robust randomized trials of high-velocity spinal manipulation, and evidence for manual therapy is largely restricted to gentle mobilizations and stretching; high-velocity thrusts over osteoporotic or inflamed RA joints may pose a risk of joint or cervical spine injury. Overall, there are no high-quality RCTs or meta-analyses showing that chiropractic treatment alters RA disease activity, slows joint damage, or replaces DMARD therapy, and expert sources describe the evidence for chiropractic in RA as anecdotal or absent.

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical position is that rheumatoid arthritis is a systemic autoimmune disease that requires early and aggressive pharmacologic treatment with conventional and biologic DMARDs to control inflammation, prevent joint damage, and reduce disability. Non-pharmacologic measures such as patient education, structured exercise, occupational therapy, and occasionally gentle joint-specific manual techniques or physiotherapy are used as adjuncts to improve pain, function, and quality of life but are not disease-modifying on their own. Major guidelines from bodies such as NICE and the American College of Rheumatology do not include chiropractic spinal manipulation as recommended therapy for RA and, in an integrative care guideline, ACR specifically recommends against chiropractic therapy because of limited evidence of benefit and potential risk to unstable or inflamed joints. Chiropractic or other manual therapies, if used at all in RA, are regarded as optional, symptom-focused adjuncts that must not delay or substitute for guideline-directed DMARD-based management, and any manual techniques should avoid high-velocity thrusts to RA-affected or structurally compromised joints.

Papers listed for this claim:[1][2][3][5][4][6][7][8][46][47][48][49]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS”

Rule: K.S.A. 65-2871

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

Brian Lum is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure SIBO.

SIBO

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“SIBO”

Rule: K.S.A. 65-2871

See every doc bro who says they can treat or advise on IBS, SIBO and gut disorders

Brian Lum is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Long Covid Symptom: Severe Anxiety and Panic Attacks.

Long Covid Symptom: Severe Anxiety and Panic Attacks

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Long Covid Symptom: Severe Anxiety and Panic Attacks”

Rule: K.S.A. 65-2871

See every doc bro who says they can treat or advise on Epstein-Barr and chronic viral infection

Brian Lum is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure ANXIETY AND DEPRESSION TESTING.

ANXIETY AND DEPRESSION TESTING

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“ANXIETY AND DEPRESSION TESTING”

Rule: K.S.A. 65-2871

Brian Lum is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure AUTOIMMUNE DISEASE TESTING.

AUTOIMMUNE DISEASE TESTING

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“AUTOIMMUNE DISEASE TESTING”

Rule: K.S.A. 65-2871

Brian Lum is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure AUTOIMMUNE INFLAMMATION & NEUROLOGICAL TESTING.

AUTOIMMUNE INFLAMMATION & NEUROLOGICAL TESTING

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“AUTOIMMUNE INFLAMMATION & NEUROLOGICAL TESTING”

Rule: K.S.A. 65-2871

Brian Lum is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Anxiety & Depression.

Anxiety & Depression

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Anxiety & Depression”

Rule: K.S.A. 65-2871

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

Brian Lum is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Chronic Fatigue.

Chronic Fatigue

Supports

High-quality evidence supporting chiropractor treatment for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome is not established in the listed papers; none of the listed guidelines or reviews address chiropractic treatment for CFS directly. In the broader medical literature, this search did not find credible RCTs, systematic reviews, or major guidelines supporting chiropractic care as an evidence-based treatment for CFS or for nonspecific fatigue.

Contradicts

The listed papers do not support the claim because they are on hypertension, nutrition, headache, transfusion, pericarditis, and evidence grading rather than chronic fatigue syndrome or chiropractic treatment, so they provide no direct support . The absence of CFS-specific chiropractic evidence in major guidelines is consistent with the broader evidence base being weak or lacking, and chiropractic manipulation is not a standard recommended therapy for CFS. For fatigue, the claim is too broad: fatigue has many causes, and treatment depends on diagnosing the underlying condition rather than using chiropractic care as a general therapy.

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical view is that chronic fatigue syndrome, now commonly termed myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome, should be managed with a cautious, multidisciplinary approach focused on symptom control, pacing/energy management, and evaluation for other causes of fatigue; chiropractic treatment is not an established or guideline-endorsed treatment for CFS. For nonspecific fatigue, mainstream care emphasizes identifying and treating the underlying medical, psychiatric, sleep, medication, or lifestyle cause rather than chiropractic intervention.

Papers listed for this claim:[1][2][3][5][4][6][7][8]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Chronic Fatigue”

Rule: K.S.A. 65-2871

See every doc bro who says they can treat or advise on Chronic fatigue and fibromyalgia

Brian Lum is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure AUTOIMMUNE DISEASE / AUTONOMIC DISREGULATION.

AUTOIMMUNE DISEASE / AUTONOMIC DISREGULATION

Supports

High-quality evidence directly supporting chiropractic treatment as an effective therapy for autoimmune diseases or autonomic dysregulation (e.g., POTS, dysautonomia) is essentially absent. A randomized controlled trial reported that 12 weeks of chiropractic spinal adjustments in adults with subclinical spinal pain produced changes in blood biomarkers (increased BDNF and IL‑6, decreased TNF‑α, reduced cortisol and IFN‑γ), suggesting short‑term modulation of stress and inflammatory pathways, but it did not study patients with autoimmune disease or autonomic disorders and did not show disease control or remission. A systematic review of spinal manipulative therapy and immune system outcomes concluded there were no clinical studies demonstrating efficacy for preventing infectious disease or improving disease-specific immune outcomes; available data only suggested short‑term changes in immunologic and endocrine biomarkers of uncertain clinical relevance. A united statement from chiropractic researchers similarly acknowledges that no published studies have demonstrated clinically significant immune enhancement or reduced illness risk from chiropractic care. Overall, current high‑quality evidence supports at most transient biomarker changes after spinal manipulation, not therapeutic control of autoimmune disease or autonomic dysregulation.

Contradicts

The systematic review on spinal manipulative therapy and immune outcomes found no clinical evidence that spinal manipulation prevents infectious diseases or improves immune function, and therefore concluded that claims of efficacy for immune modulation are not supported by clinical trials. The global chiropractic research statement explicitly notes that the hypothesis that chiropractic care reduces the risk of viral colds, flu, or other community illnesses has never been properly tested and that no valid clinical evidence shows chiropractic care can meaningfully impact the immune system. These findings contradict broad claims that chiropractic treatment can effectively treat or reverse autoimmune disease, which is defined by specific, often chronic, immune-mediated pathophysiology requiring targeted medical therapy. In addition, mainstream clinical guidelines for managing autoimmune and immune‑mediated conditions (e.g., inflammatory bowel disease nutrition guideline, hypertension guideline, parenteral nutrition guideline) focus on pharmacologic agents, evidence‑based dietary and nutritional management, and systemic medical care, and do not recommend chiropractic manipulation as a disease‑modifying therapy or core treatment modality for these conditions. Evidence for autonomic dysregulation (including POTS and dysautonomia) is limited to anecdotal reports and promotional materials; there are no robust randomized controlled trials or major guidelines showing that chiropractic adjustments correct autonomic dysfunction or normalize heart rate and blood pressure regulation. Taken together, existing systematic reviews and consensus statements indicate that claims of chiropractic treatment of autoimmune disease or autonomic dysregulation are unsupported and scientifically weak.

Mainstream view

Mainstream medical and scientific opinion is that autoimmune diseases (such as rheumatoid arthritis, inflammatory bowel disease, autoimmune thyroid disease, psoriasis, and others) require evidence‑based medical management, including immunomodulatory or immunosuppressive drugs, disease‑specific pharmacologic therapy, and supportive measures such as appropriate clinical nutrition and, when indicated, parenteral nutrition, all guided by major professional guidelines. Chiropractic care may have a role as an adjunct for musculoskeletal pain or functional complaints but is not considered a disease‑modifying treatment for autoimmune pathology or a primary therapy for autonomic disorders. High‑quality reviews of spinal manipulation and immune outcomes state that there is no clinical evidence to support claims that chiropractic care enhances immune function, prevents infectious disease, or treats immune‑mediated illnesses. For autonomic dysregulation (including POTS and other forms of dysautonomia), mainstream care focuses on volume expansion, cardiovascular and autonomic medications, physical reconditioning, and management of comorbidities; chiropractic manipulation is not recommended in major autonomic or cardiology guidelines as a standard or proven treatment. Accordingly, the mainstream position is that chiropractic treatment should not be presented as a primary or curative therapy for autoimmune disease or autonomic dysregulation, and any use should be clearly framed as adjunctive, with patients maintaining guideline‑directed medical care.

Papers listed for this claim:[1][2][3][5][4][6][7][8][14][16][50][51]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“AUTOIMMUNE DISEASE / AUTONOMIC DISREGULATION”

Rule: K.S.A. 65-2871

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

Brian Lum is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA).

Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA)

Supports

There is limited low- to moderate-quality evidence that some forms of non-invasive manual therapy (e.g., joint mobilization, soft tissue techniques, stretching) can modestly reduce pain and improve function in people with rheumatoid arthritis when used as an adjunct to standard care, particularly for specific joints such as the knee. A small randomized pilot trial in RA patients with knee pain found that manual therapy (postisometric relaxation and joint mobilization) plus exercises improved knee pain more than exercise alone, although differences in other functional outcomes were not statistically significant and the study was underpowered. Systematic reviews of physiotherapy and manual therapy in RA and arthritis more broadly suggest that multimodal physiotherapy programs (exercise, hydrotherapy, occasional manual techniques) can reduce pain and improve health-related quality of life, but they do not isolate spinal chiropractic-style manipulation and mostly involve gentle joint mobilizations within physiotherapy practice. Some overviews of manual therapy in arthritis conclude that manual interventions may provide short-term symptom relief in arthritis conditions, but the evidence for RA specifically is sparse and generally low quality, with a need for better-designed trials.

Contradicts

High-quality guidelines for rheumatoid arthritis management (e.g., 2018 NICE guideline and 2021 American College of Rheumatology guideline) emphasize early and sustained use of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), biologics, targeted synthetic agents, and structured exercise/physiotherapy, and they do not recommend chiropractic spinal manipulation as a disease-modifying or core treatment for RA. The 2022 American College of Rheumatology integrative RA guideline explicitly recommends against chiropractic therapy as part of integrative management, reflecting concerns about lack of benefit and potential risks, especially to inflamed or damaged joints. A systematic review of non-invasive manual therapies in RA found only limited and low-quality evidence for manipulation and mobilization, concluding that these interventions should be used cautiously and that patients should not be given expectations beyond what the weak evidence supports. Reviews of manual therapy in arthritis emphasize that, for RA, there are no robust randomized trials of high-velocity spinal manipulation, and evidence for manual therapy is largely restricted to gentle mobilizations and stretching; high-velocity thrusts over osteoporotic or inflamed RA joints may pose a risk of joint or cervical spine injury. Overall, there are no high-quality RCTs or meta-analyses showing that chiropractic treatment alters RA disease activity, slows joint damage, or replaces DMARD therapy, and expert sources describe the evidence for chiropractic in RA as anecdotal or absent.

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical position is that rheumatoid arthritis is a systemic autoimmune disease that requires early and aggressive pharmacologic treatment with conventional and biologic DMARDs to control inflammation, prevent joint damage, and reduce disability. Non-pharmacologic measures such as patient education, structured exercise, occupational therapy, and occasionally gentle joint-specific manual techniques or physiotherapy are used as adjuncts to improve pain, function, and quality of life but are not disease-modifying on their own. Major guidelines from bodies such as NICE and the American College of Rheumatology do not include chiropractic spinal manipulation as recommended therapy for RA and, in an integrative care guideline, ACR specifically recommends against chiropractic therapy because of limited evidence of benefit and potential risk to unstable or inflamed joints. Chiropractic or other manual therapies, if used at all in RA, are regarded as optional, symptom-focused adjuncts that must not delay or substitute for guideline-directed DMARD-based management, and any manual techniques should avoid high-velocity thrusts to RA-affected or structurally compromised joints.

Papers listed for this claim:[1][2][3][5][4][6][7][8][46][47][48][49]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA)”

Rule: K.S.A. 65-2871

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

Brian Lum is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Ulcerative Colitis and Crohn’s.

Ulcerative Colitis and Crohn’s

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Ulcerative Colitis and Crohn’s”

Rule: K.S.A. 65-2871

See every doc bro who says they can treat or advise on Crohn disease and colitis

Brian Lum is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Multiple sclerosis (MS).

Multiple sclerosis (MS)

Supports

High-quality evidence does not support chiropractic care as a treatment for multiple sclerosis itself. The evidence base located for MS and manual/chiropractic approaches is limited mostly to case reports, small uncontrolled series, and symptom-focused studies rather than RCTs showing disease-modifying benefit. Some broader MS reviews do support certain nonpharmacologic/manual interventions for symptom relief such as pain or fatigue, but these findings do not establish chiropractic treatment as an MS therapy and are not specific to chiropractic spinal adjustment.

Contradicts

The main contradiction is that the available evidence for chiropractic treatment in MS is weak and indirect: it does not show improvement in core MS outcomes such as relapse rate, disability progression, or demyelinating disease activity. The MS-specific literature surfaced here is largely anecdotal or low-level evidence, and even the broader manual-therapy meta-analysis addresses symptom relief rather than chiropractic care as a treatment for MS. Major guideline-level evidence for MS management emphasizes disease-modifying therapies and rehabilitation/exercise, not chiropractic treatment, and the listed papers contain no MS guideline endorsing chiropractic care. The listed guideline papers are about unrelated conditions, so they do not support this claim.

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical view is that chiropractic treatment is not an evidence-based treatment for multiple sclerosis itself. MS is managed with neurologic disease-modifying therapy, symptom-directed treatment, and rehabilitation/exercise when appropriate, while chiropractic care may be considered only as an adjunct for unrelated musculoskeletal pain if used cautiously and with appropriate medical oversight. There is no established high-quality evidence that chiropractic treatment alters the course of MS.

Papers listed for this claim:[1][2][3][5][4][6][7][8][52][53][54][55]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Multiple sclerosis (MS)”

Rule: K.S.A. 65-2871

See every doc bro who says they can treat or advise on Multiple sclerosis

Brian Lum is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Psoriasis, Eczema.

Psoriasis, Eczema

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Psoriasis, Eczema”

Rule: K.S.A. 65-2871

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

Brian Lum is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Lupus, Scleroderma.

Lupus, Scleroderma

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Lupus, Scleroderma”

Rule: K.S.A. 65-2871

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

Brian Lum is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS), Fatigue.

Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS), Fatigue

Supports

High-quality evidence supporting chiropractor treatment for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome is not established in the listed papers; none of the listed guidelines or reviews address chiropractic treatment for CFS directly. In the broader medical literature, this search did not find credible RCTs, systematic reviews, or major guidelines supporting chiropractic care as an evidence-based treatment for CFS or for nonspecific fatigue.

Contradicts

The listed papers do not support the claim because they are on hypertension, nutrition, headache, transfusion, pericarditis, and evidence grading rather than chronic fatigue syndrome or chiropractic treatment, so they provide no direct support . The absence of CFS-specific chiropractic evidence in major guidelines is consistent with the broader evidence base being weak or lacking, and chiropractic manipulation is not a standard recommended therapy for CFS. For fatigue, the claim is too broad: fatigue has many causes, and treatment depends on diagnosing the underlying condition rather than using chiropractic care as a general therapy.

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical view is that chronic fatigue syndrome, now commonly termed myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome, should be managed with a cautious, multidisciplinary approach focused on symptom control, pacing/energy management, and evaluation for other causes of fatigue; chiropractic treatment is not an established or guideline-endorsed treatment for CFS. For nonspecific fatigue, mainstream care emphasizes identifying and treating the underlying medical, psychiatric, sleep, medication, or lifestyle cause rather than chiropractic intervention.

Papers listed for this claim:[1][2][3][5][4][6][7][8]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS), Fatigue”

Rule: K.S.A. 65-2871

See every doc bro who says they can treat or advise on Chronic fatigue and fibromyalgia

Brian Lum is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Mold Illness.

Mold Illness

Supports

High-quality evidence and major clinical guidelines on mold-related illness focus on removal from exposure, environmental remediation, and, in selected cases, pharmacologic and supportive therapies such as binders (e.g., cholestyramine), antifungals, and nutritional support, not chiropractic manipulation. A narrative review of illness from water‑damaged buildings, mold, and mycotoxins describes mechanisms of injury (inflammation, oxidative stress, allergy, toxicity) and discusses treatments like glutathione, antioxidants, antifungals, and sequestering agents, but does not include chiropractic as a treatment modality. Case reports and clinical pathways for mold or mycotoxin-related illness emphasize environmental control and medical management as central, again without mentioning chiropractic as evidence‑based therapy. The listed guideline examples provided (nutrition in inflammatory bowel disease, ASPEN and ESPEN nutrition guidelines, hypertension management, tension‑type headache treatment) illustrate how evidence‑based guidelines are constructed and what qualifies as guideline‑driven care, but they are unrelated to mold illness or chiropractic and thereby underscore that chiropractic treatment is not part of established guideline frameworks for systemic toxic or environmental illnesses.

Contradicts

Mainstream clinical reviews on mold and mycotoxin illness do not describe chiropractic care as an evidence‑based treatment; instead, they emphasize exposure avoidance, environmental remediation, and targeted medical therapies. Clinical pathways for biotoxins from indoor dampness and mold categorize health effects mainly as allergic and respiratory disorders and outline diagnostic and management steps that do not include chiropractic interventions. A contemporary case report and environmental medicine perspective on mycotoxin illness highlights comprehensive medical and lifestyle approaches (environmental remediation, hormonal and gastrointestinal management, beyond gut binders), but again does not identify chiropractic care as a therapeutic modality for mold illness. Available clinical and guideline literature use rigorous GRADE‑style approaches to rate evidence quality, showing that treatments must be supported by randomized trials, systematic reviews, and clear benefit‑risk profiles; chiropractic for mold illness lacks this level of evidence. Overall, the absence of chiropractic from mold‑specific guidelines and high‑quality reviews, combined with reliance on anecdotal or marketing content for claims, indicates that evidence for chiropractic as a treatment for mold illness or systemic mycotoxin toxicity is weak or absent.

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical and scientific position is that management of mold‑related illness or suspected mycotoxin exposure centers on: prompt removal from the contaminated environment; remediation of indoor dampness and mold; and medical management of allergy, asthma, infections, and other organ‑specific or systemic consequences using established pharmacologic and supportive therapies. Where chronic or systemic mycotoxin‑associated illness is suspected, expert and environmental medicine approaches emphasize environmental control, investigation for other contributing conditions, use of binders (e.g., cholestyramine), antifungals when indicated, nutritional optimization, and symptom‑directed medical care, rather than chiropractic manipulation as a disease‑modifying treatment. Chiropractic care may be used for musculoskeletal complaints or general supportive care in some patients, but it is not recognized in major guidelines or high‑quality reviews as a specific or primary treatment for mold exposure or mold‑related systemic illness.

Papers listed for this claim:[1][2][3][5][4][6][7][8][25][26][27]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Mold Illness”

Rule: K.S.A. 65-2871

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

Brian Lum is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS).

Mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS)

Supports

There are currently no high-quality randomized trials, systematic reviews, or major guidelines indicating that chiropractic manipulation or chiropractic neurology is an evidence-based treatment for mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS). Academic and guideline-style sources instead describe MCAS management with trigger avoidance and pharmacologic therapies such as H1/H2 antihistamines, mast cell stabilizers, leukotriene antagonists, aspirin, epinephrine for anaphylaxis, and, in refractory cases, biologics or targeted agents. Recent clinical and review papers on MCAS management focus on antihistamines, mast-cell–directed drugs, omalizumab, imatinib, diet and other medical strategies, not chiropractic or spinal manipulation. The listed guideline papers (hypertension, parenteral nutrition, IBD nutrition, tension-type headache, transfusion, colchicine) do not address MCAS or chiropractic care and therefore do not support the claim.

Contradicts

Mainstream MCAS references explicitly define evidence-based management as trigger avoidance plus pharmacologic therapy targeting mast cell mediators and do not list chiropractic treatment as a recommended or studied intervention. A concise practical guide on mast cell activation disease states that evidence-based therapy consists of trigger avoidance, antihistamines, mast cell membrane–stabilizing compounds, and symptom-targeted medications, with no mention of manual therapies. Major overviews and clinical yardsticks for MCAS and related mast cell disorders similarly focus on medical therapies (antihistamines, cromolyn, ketotifen, leukotriene antagonists, omalizumab, imatinib) rather than chiropractic care. The listed guidelines on hypertension, clinical nutrition, tension-type headache, and transfusion therapy show the standard of care in other conditions and reinforce that guideline-driven management relies on therapies with demonstrable efficacy, not untested manual interventions. Overall, there is an absence of controlled data, guidelines, or mechanistic human studies supporting chiropractic as a disease-modifying or primary treatment for MCAS, which effectively contradicts any strong therapeutic claims.

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical position is that mast cell activation syndrome is an immunologic disorder characterized by inappropriate activation and mediator release from mast cells, leading to multisystem symptoms and episodic anaphylaxis. Diagnosis requires typical multisystem episodes, objective evidence of increased mast cell mediators (such as event-related rises in serum tryptase or urinary mediator metabolites), and clinical improvement with anti–mast-cell therapy. Standard management is stepwise and includes: strict avoidance of known triggers (foods, drugs, temperature changes, mechanical irritation, venoms, alcohol); H1 and H2 antihistamines; mast cell stabilizers (e.g., cromolyn, ketotifen); leukotriene antagonists; prostaglandin blockers such as aspirin when appropriate; epinephrine auto-injectors for anaphylaxis; and, in refractory cases, agents such as omalizumab or imatinib under specialist supervision. Nutritional and dietary approaches (e.g., low-FODMAP or low-histamine diets) and management of comorbid conditions (IBS-D, ME/CFS, dysautonomia) may be used as adjuncts but are medical, dietetic, or pharmacologic rather than chiropractic. Chiropractic manipulation or chiropractic neurology is not included in major immunology, allergy, or hematology references as a recognized or recommended treatment for MCAS, and any use would be considered non-evidence-based adjunctive care at best.

Papers listed for this claim:[1][2][3][5][4][6][7][8][56][57]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS)”

Rule: K.S.A. 65-2871

See every doc bro who says they can treat or advise on MCAS and histamine intolerance

Brian Lum is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Lyme disease.

Lyme disease

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Lyme disease”

Rule: K.S.A. 65-2871

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

Brian Lum is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Epstein Barr Virus (EBV).

Epstein Barr Virus (EBV)

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Epstein Barr Virus (EBV)”

Rule: K.S.A. 65-2871

See every doc bro who says they can treat or advise on Epstein-Barr and chronic viral infection

Brian Lum is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Autoimmune skin disorders.

Autoimmune skin disorders

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Autoimmune skin disorders”

Rule: K.S.A. 65-2871

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

Brian Lum is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Autoimmune.

Autoimmune

Supports

High-quality clinical evidence specifically showing that chiropractic treatment can modify autoimmune disease activity (e.g., reduce autoantibodies, prevent flares, induce remission) is essentially absent. A recent randomized controlled trial in people with subclinical spinal pain found that 12 weeks of chiropractic spinal adjustments altered blood biomarkers (increased BDNF and IL-6, decreased TNF-α, cortisol and IFN-γ), suggesting some modulation of inflammatory and neuroendocrine pathways, but this was in otherwise healthy individuals and not patients with autoimmune disease. A literature review of manual therapies (including chiropractic, osteopathic, and massage) reports various short-term changes in immune-related markers (cytokines, immunoglobulins, stress hormones), again largely in small experimental or physiological studies, not in autoimmune populations, and without clear clinical outcome data. Guidelines for autoimmune conditions such as inflammatory bowel disease emphasize evidence-based pharmacologic and nutritional management (e.g., ESPEN guideline for clinical nutrition in IBD) and do not include chiropractic manipulation as a disease-modifying treatment. Overall, current evidence supports at most that chiropractic and related manual therapies can induce short-term changes in immune and inflammatory biomarkers, but does not show clinically meaningful treatment effects on autoimmune disease activity or outcomes.

Contradicts

A systematic review assessing spinal manipulative therapy and infectious disease or immune outcomes concluded that there were no clinical studies showing that spinal manipulation prevents infectious disease or improves disease-specific outcomes, and that existing data only demonstrate short-term changes in biomarkers with unknown clinical relevance. A united statement from global chiropractic research leaders explicitly notes that there is no valid clinical scientific evidence that chiropractic care can meaningfully impact the immune system to prevent viral infections, and that claims that adjustments reduce risk of colds, flu, or other illnesses have never been properly tested. A review of spinal manipulative therapy’s biological effects found mixed and conflicting evidence about neuroimmunoendocrine changes, and emphasized that current mechanistic findings do not justify clinical claims about immune enhancement. Mainstream medical sources discussing chiropractic in rheumatoid arthritis report that there are no high-quality studies showing chiropractic is a safe or effective treatment for RA, that it does not affect the underlying autoimmunity, and that manipulation of inflamed joints may worsen symptoms. Major clinical guidelines for autoimmune and inflammatory conditions, such as nutrition guidelines in IBD, highlight pharmacologic therapies, nutrition, and other evidence-based interventions, with no role for chiropractic as a disease-modifying treatment. Together, these sources contradict strong claims that chiropractic can treat or control autoimmune disease, and indicate that any immune or inflammatory marker changes observed after manipulation have uncertain clinical significance.

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical and scientific position is that autoimmune diseases are primarily managed with evidence-based pharmacologic therapies (e.g., immunosuppressants, biologics), lifestyle measures, and condition-specific interventions guided by major clinical guidelines, and that chiropractic care is not an established disease-modifying treatment for autoimmunity. Chiropractic and other manual therapies may be used as adjuncts for musculoskeletal pain, stiffness, or functional complaints in some patients, but they are considered supportive or symptomatic rather than therapies that directly alter autoimmune pathophysiology or disease course. Current evidence on spinal manipulation shows short-term changes in some immune and inflammatory biomarkers, but systematic reviews emphasize that these findings do not translate into proven benefits in preventing disease, reducing autoimmune activity, or improving long-term clinical outcomes. Professional consensus statements from chiropractic researchers explicitly reject marketing claims that chiropractic care “boosts immunity” or prevents illness, and call for more rigorous trials before any such statements are made. For autoimmune diseases specifically (such as rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, multiple sclerosis, and inflammatory bowel disease), mainstream guidance does not recommend chiropractic as a primary treatment, and warns that manipulation of actively inflamed joints or unstable spines may pose risks.

Papers listed for this claim:[1][2][3][5][4][6][7][8][13][14][15][16]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Autoimmune”

Rule: K.S.A. 65-2871

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

Brian Lum is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome (POTS).

Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome (POTS)

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome (POTS)”

Rule: K.S.A. 65-2871

See every doc bro who says they can treat or advise on MCAS and histamine intolerance

Brian Lum is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Depression and Anxiety.

Depression and Anxiety

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Depression and Anxiety”

Rule: K.

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