Tanner Wilson alias Dr. Hormone Hustle

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

Bioidentical Hormone Replacement Therapy (BHRT)

Supports

High-quality evidence supports menopausal hormone therapy in general for treating moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms and preventing bone loss in appropriately selected postmenopausal patients, especially when started before age 60 or within 10 years of menopause. ^{[1][2][3][4][5][7][8]} Current reviews and major society guidance distinguish FDA-approved bioidentical hormones from compounded products, and note that approved bioidentical formulations are effective for menopausal symptom relief. Compounded bioidentical hormone therapy has some limited evidence for vaginal testosterone or DHEA improving vaginal atrophy symptoms in short-term trials . ^[6]

Contradicts

The claim is too broad if it implies compounded BHRT is safer, superior, or evidence-based for broad menopause management. A Cochrane review found only two RCTs with analyzable hot-flush data for bioidentical hormones, with low-quality evidence and more adverse effects in the intervention group . ^[2] Major endocrine and menopause society statements say there is no evidence-based medical need for compounded bioidentical hormone therapy when approved preparations are available, and that claims of safety or superiority are not supported. ^{[1][3][4][5][6][7][8]} Evidence is especially weak for claims about individualized dosing based on saliva or serum testing, and for long-term outcomes such as cardiovascular disease, breast cancer, or overall mortality. The peer-reviewed items supplied in the prompt are unrelated to BHRT and do not provide direct support.

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical view is that menopausal hormone therapy can be effective and appropriate for selected patients, but compounded bioidentical hormone therapy is not recommended routinely because evidence for efficacy, safety, and quality control is insufficient. ^{[1][3][4][5][6][7][8]} If bioidentical hormones are used, clinicians generally favor regulated, FDA-approved products over compounded preparations. BHRT is accepted only in the sense that some approved hormone products are chemically bioidentical to endogenous hormones; the controversial part is compounded BHRT, which major societies do not consider evidence-based for routine use. ^[2]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Bioidentical Hormone Replacement Therapy (BHRT)”

Rule: K.S.A. 65-2871; Kansas chiropractic scope summary (Kansas State Board of Healing Arts)

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

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

Supports

High-quality evidence supports menopausal hormone therapy in general for treating moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms and preventing bone loss in appropriately selected postmenopausal patients, especially when started before age 60 or within 10 years of menopause. ^{[1][2][3][4][5][7][8]} Current reviews and major society guidance distinguish FDA-approved bioidentical hormones from compounded products, and note that approved bioidentical formulations are effective for menopausal symptom relief. Compounded bioidentical hormone therapy has some limited evidence for vaginal testosterone or DHEA improving vaginal atrophy symptoms in short-term trials . ^[6]

Contradicts

The claim is too broad if it implies compounded BHRT is safer, superior, or evidence-based for broad menopause management. A Cochrane review found only two RCTs with analyzable hot-flush data for bioidentical hormones, with low-quality evidence and more adverse effects in the intervention group . ^[2] Major endocrine and menopause society statements say there is no evidence-based medical need for compounded bioidentical hormone therapy when approved preparations are available, and that claims of safety or superiority are not supported. ^{[1][3][4][5][6][7][8]} Evidence is especially weak for claims about individualized dosing based on saliva or serum testing, and for long-term outcomes such as cardiovascular disease, breast cancer, or overall mortality. The peer-reviewed items supplied in the prompt are unrelated to BHRT and do not provide direct support.

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical view is that menopausal hormone therapy can be effective and appropriate for selected patients, but compounded bioidentical hormone therapy is not recommended routinely because evidence for efficacy, safety, and quality control is insufficient. ^{[1][3][4][5][6][7][8]} If bioidentical hormones are used, clinicians generally favor regulated, FDA-approved products over compounded preparations. BHRT is accepted only in the sense that some approved hormone products are chemically bioidentical to endogenous hormones; the controversial part is compounded BHRT, which major societies do not consider evidence-based for routine use. ^[2]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Bioidentical Hormone Replacement Therapy (BHRT)”

Rule: K.S.A. 65-2871; Kansas chiropractic scope summary

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

Hormonal imbalances

Supports

The influencer’s claim is extremely vague (“Hormonal imbalances”) and not linked to a specific intervention, diagnosis method, or health outcome, so it cannot be meaningfully “supported” or “contradicted” in a strict evidence sense. However, there is strong, high‑quality evidence that clinically significant hormonal imbalances (i. ^[9] e. , endocrine disorders such as diabetes, thyroid disease, adrenal disorders, gonadal failure, menopause-related hormone deficiency, etc. ) are real, common, and important causes of morbidity and mortality, and that they can and should be managed with evidence‑based approaches. Large narrative and epidemiologic reviews describe endocrine and hormonal disorders as a major public‑health burden worldwide, including thyroid disease, diabetes, adrenal disorders, pituitary disease, gonadal dysfunction, osteoporosis, and menopausal hormone changes, all of which represent clinically defined “hormonal imbalances” when hormone levels are outside normal physiological ranges and associated with symptoms or risk. ^[10][12] Clinical practice guidelines from major endocrine societies (e. g. , on menopause hormone therapy, lipid disorders in endocrine disease, diabetes, thyroid disease, osteoporosis, etc. ) are all predicated on the well‑established concept that abnormal hormone concentrations (too high or too low) cause characteristic clinical syndromes, and that correcting or compensating for such abnormalities improves symptoms and/or reduces long‑term complications. Menopausal hormone therapy guidelines (for example, from endocrine and menopause societies) are based on randomized trials and systematic reviews showing that estrogen (with or without progestogen) effectively treats vasomotor and genitourinary symptoms that result from the decline in ovarian estrogen at menopause, a physiologic but often symptomatic form of sex‑hormone imbalance. Large bodies of guideline‑driven evidence similarly support that: (1) thyroid hormone replacement for hypothyroidism, (2) antithyroid drugs or definitive therapy for hyperthyroidism, (3) insulin and other glucose‑lowering medications for diabetes, (4) glucocorticoid replacement for adrenal insufficiency, and (5) testosterone or estrogen–progestin replacement for well‑defined hypogonadism are effective and evidence‑based responses to clearly documented hormonal abnormalities, although these specifics are not detailed in the index papers provided, they are the foundation of contemporary endocrine guidelines and systematic reviews. The burden‑of‑disease review and endocrine‑disparities scientific statement both treat endocrine and hormonal disorders as clearly defined, measurable entities rooted in abnormal hormone levels and signaling, reinforcing that “hormonal imbalance” is a valid medical construct when used in this precise sense. ^[11]

Contradicts

None of the indexed papers provided directly contradict the existence or clinical importance of hormonal imbalances; rather, they deal with unrelated topics (pneumonia prevention with interferon‑γ, pediatric taste studies, osteoporosis treatment sequences, educational interventions with Harry Potter, ivermectin for COVID‑19, dental regenerative outcomes, lipid‑lowering trials, dopamine agonists in type 2 diabetes) and therefore do not bear on the generic influencer claim. ^[9][12] This underscores that, as phrased, the claim is too unspecific to be tied to the high‑quality RCTs or systematic reviews that are usually used to evaluate specific diagnostic or therapeutic assertions. High‑quality endocrine literature does, however, implicitly contradict common influencer‑style extensions of the term “hormonal imbalance,” such as the idea that vague, non‑specific symptoms without objective evidence of endocrine dysfunction are usually due to subtle hormone disturbances that need “balancing” via non‑validated tests or supplements; mainstream reviews and guidelines emphasize that endocrine disorders should be diagnosed using standardized biochemical tests, appropriate clinical assessment, and established cutoffs, and that misdiagnosis or overdiagnosis in endocrinology is a recognized problem. ^[10][11] The 2020 menopausal hormone therapy guideline and related systematic guideline reviews emphasize that hormone therapy should be targeted to clearly defined indications (e. g. , moderate‑to‑severe vasomotor symptoms or high fracture risk) and individualized based on risk–benefit profiles, contradicting the notion that all midlife symptoms or general wellness concerns are best understood and treated as generic “hormonal imbalance. ” Mainstream sources also note that many over‑the‑counter “hormone balancing” or “bioidentical” supplement regimens lack robust

Mainstream view

Deterministic PubMed cross-check found no matching indexed studies for these terms (absence of indexed evidence is not evidence against the claim). ^{[9][10][11][12]}

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“struggling with hormonal imbalances”

Rule: K.S.A. 65-2871

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

Functional Medicine

Supports

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

Contradicts

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

Mainstream view

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Functional Medicine”

Rule: K.S.A. 65-2871

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

IV Nutrient Therapy

Supports

High-quality evidence clearly supports intravenous delivery of nutrients in the form of medically supervised parenteral nutrition for patients who cannot meet needs orally or enterally, with guidelines specifying that parenteral formulas must include daily vitamins and trace elements to prevent deficiency. ^[22][24] ESPEN and other expert groups similarly endorse IV micronutrient provision as part of comprehensive parenteral nutrition in specific disease states such as inflammatory bowel disease and critical illness, emphasizing that baseline daily micronutrient needs should be met and documented deficiencies treated. ^[23] A randomized, double-blind controlled trial in healthy office workers found that a single 10 g intravenous vitamin C infusion reduced self-reported fatigue for up to one day compared with placebo, with accompanying increases in plasma vitamin C and reduced oxidative stress, and no significant increase in adverse events, suggesting short-term benefit and acceptable safety in this narrow context. ^[28] A controlled pilot trial of an intravenous micronutrient mixture (“Myers’ cocktail”) in fibromyalgia patients showed within-group improvements in pain, tender points, depression, and quality of life during treatment, supporting feasibility and potential symptomatic benefit, though between-group differences versus placebo were not statistically significant. ^[26] Narrative and guideline-level reviews of micronutrients in hospitalized and critically ill patients support IV micronutrient replacement as part of nutrition support when oral intake is inadequate, reinforcing the therapeutic role of IV nutrient therapy in defined deficiency or malabsorption states rather than general wellness. ^[25][27]

Contradicts

Major clinical nutrition guidelines emphasize that intravenous nutrient therapy (parenteral nutrition with micronutrients) is indicated only when oral or enteral intake is inadequate or impossible and caution against high-dose IV micronutrient supplementation without proven deficiency, which directly contradicts routine high-dose IV vitamin drips marketed for general wellness. ^{[22][23][24][25][28]} Trials of IV micronutrient cocktails for conditions like fibromyalgia demonstrate safety and within-group improvements but fail to show clear, statistically significant superiority over placebo, indicating that any benefit may be modest, nonspecific, or largely driven by placebo effects. Reviews of IV vitamin therapy for healthy individuals highlight that claims of improved energy, immunity, skin health, and hangover relief are based mostly on anecdote and short-term self-reported outcomes rather than robust randomized controlled trials, and they conclude that evidence for long-term efficacy or necessity in otherwise healthy people is insufficient. ^[21][26] The single trial of IV vitamin C in office workers shows only short-term fatigue relief after one infusion, with no data on sustained use, broader outcomes, or risk–benefit compared with simple oral supplementation, limiting its applicability to widespread wellness use. Mainstream expert commentary and hospital-based reviews state there is little scientific evidence to support routine IV vitamin therapy for hangovers, immune boosting, or general wellness, and note that these treatments are not backed by strong, clinically validated trials, further undermining broad influencer claims. Overall, the evidence base is narrow, condition-specific, and focused on replacement in deficiency or inability to eat, rather than enhancement in healthy populations, so broad wellness claims are weakly supported at best.

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical position is that intravenous nutrient therapy is an essential medical tool for patients who cannot meet nutritional requirements via the gastrointestinal tract, such as those with severe malabsorption, bowel failure, critical illness, or certain surgical or inflammatory bowel disease scenarios; in these contexts, guideline-driven parenteral nutrition with appropriate IV micronutrients is standard of care and strongly supported by evidence. ^{[21][23][24][25][27]} However, for generally healthy individuals or those who can eat and absorb nutrients adequately, mainstream experts consider routine IV vitamin or micronutrient drips for energy, immune boosting, beauty, or hangover treatment to be unsupported by high-quality evidence, unnecessary when adequate oral intake is possible, and carrying avoidable risks (infection, venous complications, electrolyte disturbances, and potential toxicity from high-dose formulations). ^[28] Short-term studies such as the office-worker IV vitamin C trial are interpreted as showing possible transient symptomatic benefit in selected circumstances, not justification for widespread wellness use, and guidelines explicitly discourage high-dose IV micronutrients without documented deficiency. ^[22] Clinicians therefore reserve IV nutrient therapy for clearly defined medical indications and advise that most people can safely and effectively meet micronutrient needs through diet and, where appropriate, oral supplements, rather than elective IV drips.

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“IV Nutrient Therapy”

Rule: K.S.A. 65-2871; Kansas chiropractic scope summary

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

Direct Primary Care

Supports

The provided index papers do not directly evaluate direct primary care, so they do not provide supportive evidence for the claim. No high-quality evidence from the listed studies supports direct primary care as a defined model of care. ^[23][22][29]

Contradicts

The indexed papers are unrelated clinical trials in interferon prevention of pneumonia, toddler taste testing, osteoporosis medication sequencing, and a Harry Potter educational intervention, so they neither test nor validate direct primary care. ^[23][22][29] Because the supplied evidence set is off-topic, it cannot be used to substantiate the claim. In the broader medical literature, direct primary care has mostly been evaluated through observational reports and descriptive studies rather than randomized trials or major guidelines establishing superior clinical outcomes, so the evidence base for broad clinical effectiveness remains limited and heterogeneous.

Mainstream view

Direct primary care is a practice/payment model, not a medical treatment, and mainstream medical organizations generally view it as an alternative primary care delivery arrangement with potential advantages in access, visit time, and price transparency, but without strong peer-reviewed evidence showing superior health outcomes across populations. The overall evidence base is still limited, with a lack of robust randomized or guideline-level proof that it improves outcomes compared with conventional primary care. ^[23][22][29]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Direct Primary Care Provider”

Rule: K.S.A. 65-2871

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

Weight gain

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“battling weight gain”

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

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

Digestive symptoms

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“digestive symptoms”

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

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

6-month Metabolic Reset programs with GLP-1 oversight

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

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

Rule: K.S.A. 65-2871; Kansas chiropractic scope summary

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

Identifies root causes, not just symptoms

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Identifies root causes, not just symptoms”

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

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

Personalized care plans based on advanced diagnostics

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Personalized care plans based on advanced diagnostics”

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

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

Improved energy, metabolism, and cognitive function

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Improved energy, metabolism, and cognitive function”

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

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

Addresses long-term disease risk

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Addresses long-term disease risk”

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

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

Learn More about Functional Medicine

Supports

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

Contradicts

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

Mainstream view

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Learn More about Functional Medicine”

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

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

Advanced cardiovascular and metabolic screening

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Advanced cardiovascular and metabolic screening”

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

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

Improved energy, resilience, and body composition

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Improved energy, resilience, and body composition”

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

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

Cognitive and physical performance support

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Cognitive and physical performance support”

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

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

Reduced long-term chronic disease risk

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Reduced long-term chronic disease risk”

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

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

Learn More about Longeivty Medicine

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Learn More about Longeivty Medicine”

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

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

Improved energy and mental clarity

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Improved energy and mental clarity”

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

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

Better sleep and mood stability

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Better sleep and mood stability”

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

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

Enhanced metabolic and sexual health

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Enhanced metabolic and sexual health”

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

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

Personalized and medically supervised care

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Personalized and medically supervised care”

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

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

Learn More about BHRT

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Learn More about BHRT”

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