Jaban M Moore alias The DUTCH Test Baron
Website · drjabanmoore.com
Practice location
925 Charlotte Street
Kansas City, MO 64106
Funnel-first framing that runs on persuasion, light on published evidence.
Automatic 100s across the board: this Doc Bro pays followers a commission to refer people, your grandma included, for blood draws and supplement hauls. When the patient pipeline has a compensation plan, the grift debate is over.
Oh, Jaban Moore, the 'final doctor' you'll ever need! With his 10,000+ 'recovered' clients and his 'root cause medicine' that fixes everything from Lyme to PANS/PANDAS, he's the ultimate savior for those who've been told their labs are normal. Join his Chasing Health Ambassador program and earn 50% commissions on memberships while you 'change lives'—because nothing says 'hope and health' like a pyramid scheme disguised as functional medicine!
High grift signals
Score breakdown
Direct answer
Often searched as Dr Jaban M Moore. Dr. Trust Me Bro analyzed Jaban M Moore's claim that "We fix the actual problem so you can get well... for good by uncovering the real issue of Lyme Disease, Mold toxicity, and PANS/PANDAS." using transcript and metadata cross-checked against academic sources. Peer-reviewed literature indicates the claim is mixed in the medical literature: There is strong high-quality evidence and major guidelines showing that Lyme disease has a well-characterized infectious cause (Borrelia burgdorferi), established diagnostic criteria, and standardized antibiotic treatments that lead to resolution of infection in most patients.[13][14][15] Major guidelines also recognize a subset of patients who have persistent symptoms after appropriate treatment, termed Post-Treatment Lyme Disease Syndrome (PTLDS), and emphasize that this is not attributable to ongoing infection but is managed with multidisciplinary symptomatic care rather than repeated or prolonged antibiotics.[12][15] For PANS/PANDAS, consensus and working group statements in the literature acknowledge that a subset of children develop abrupt-onset OCD/tics in temporal association with infections (often streptococcal), and recommend structured diagnostic criteria, evaluation for mimicking conditions, and a stepwise approach including standard psychiatric/behavioral care and, in selected cases, immunomodulatory treatment; this supports the idea that careful diagnostic work can uncover relevant underlying factors, but within a framework of evidence-based criteria and therapies. For mold-related illness, peer‑reviewed reviews indicate that damp and moldy indoor environments are associated with respiratory symptoms (asthma exacerbations, cough, wheeze) and some allergic conditions, and support remediation of environmental exposures as part of management, which aligns only narrowly with the notion of addressing a “real issue” when mold exposure is clearly documented and causing respiratory/allergic disease. High‑quality guidelines for Lyme disease explicitly state that standard courses of antibiotics (10–28 days depending on manifestation) are sufficient and that longer or repeated antibiotic regimens are not justified, even in patients with persistent symptoms.[3][13][14][15] A systematic review and guideline on PTLDS shows that prolonged or repeated antibiotics do not improve fatigue, cognition, depression, or quality of life and are therefore not recommended; persistent symptoms are not attributed to ongoing active infection.[12][15] This contradicts common influencer narratives that they can uniquely “fix the actual problem for good” in chronic Lyme by uncovering hidden infection or toxicity and using nonstandard or extended antimicrobial and detox regimens. For mold toxicity, evidence is relatively weak and heterogeneous: while respiratory and allergic effects from damp/moldy environments are well supported, claims of broad systemic “mold toxicity” causing diverse chronic neuropsychiatric and multi-system illness and being reliably curable by proprietary detox protocols are not supported by strong RCTs, meta‑analyses, or major guidelines. For PANS/PANDAS, mainstream position papers emphasize that the diagnosis is often overused, that evidence for many proposed treatments (especially long‑term antibiotics and aggressive immune therapies, or generic “root cause” detox approaches) is limited or conflicting, and that care should follow careful diagnostic criteria and conventional psychiatric and pediatric standards. Overall, the assertion that an influencer‑run program can consistently and definitively uncover and cure the “real issue” of Lyme disease, mold toxicity, and PANS/PANDAS for good goes far beyond the current evidentiary base, which does not support guaranteed or universal cure through proprietary functional or integrative protocols. Mainstream medical and scientific consensus is that Lyme disease is a tick‑borne bacterial infection with well-defined diagnostic criteria and evidence‑based antibiotic regimens, and that most patients recover with standard treatment.[3][13][14][15] Persistent symptoms after appropriate therapy are recognized as PTLDS, but current guidelines state that these symptoms are not due to ongoing infection, that additional prolonged antibiotics are ineffective, and that management should focus on multidisciplinary symptom‑directed care rather than attempts to eradicate a presumed hidden infection.[12][15] Mainstream guidance on mold is that significant indoor dampness and mold can cause or worsen respiratory and allergic disease, and that removal of moisture sources, remediation, and conventional treatment of asthma/allergic conditions are appropriate; however, the concept of generalized systemic “mold toxicity” as a frequent root cause of wide‑ranging chronic illness, diagnosable primarily by nonstandard tests and treated by extensive detox regimens, is not endorsed by major guidelines. For PANS/PANDAS, mainstream position is cautious: abrupt-onset OCD/tics in children may in some cases be infection‑associated, but diagnosis should be strict, evidence for many proposed treatments is limited, and care should be individualized within established pediatric, psychiatric, and sometimes immunologic frameworks, not via broad claims of uniquely uncovering and permanently fixing an underlying toxic or infectious cause. Overall, mainstream medicine does not support the idea that one can reliably “fix for good” complex conditions like chronic Lyme, mold toxicity, and PANS/PANDAS through proprietary root‑cause programs; instead it emphasizes evidence‑based, condition‑specific diagnosis and treatment, recognition Deterministic PubMed cross-check found no matching indexed studies for these terms (absence of indexed evidence is not evidence against the claim).
Key findings
- Affiliate / Recruitment Funnel: The subject explicitly recruits followers to become 'ambassadors' who refer friends and family for commissions (50% on memberships, 5% on labs/supplements). This turns the audience into an unpaid sales force, a top-tier grift signal.see section ↓
- Claim "We fix the actual problem so you can get well... for good by uncovering the real issue of…": mixed in the medical literature.see section ↓
- Claim "We look at the foundational root causes of your chronic health symptoms... the root cause…": mixed in the medical literature.see section ↓
- NPI registry confirms Jaban Moore as Unverified 'Dr.' title (likely not MD/DO) in Missouri (NPI 1073958815).see section ↓
- Jaban M Moore shows credential inflation relative to stated vs likely credentials.see section ↓
- Against Missouri State Board of Chiropractic Examiners scope rules (Mo. Rev. Stat. §331.010(1)), these advertised activities appear outside Jaban M Moore's license (including conditions they merely list as ones they treat): We fix the actual problem so you can get well... for good by uncovering…see section ↓
- 24 of 24 advertised activities fall outside permitted Chiropractor scope in MO.see section ↓
- Jaban M Moore dispenses specific medical advice while hiding behind a buried fine-print disclaimer to shield advice that is itself outside their licensed scope.see section ↓
Claims & evidence
22 advertised conditions or treatments fall outside their license scope. Each box leads with state-board scope notation; literature cross-check follows when we matched a specific claim. Every card carries its receipts: the quoted wording, a live source link, and an archived copy.
Jaban M Moore is not licensed or approved by Missouri State Board of Chiropractic Examiners to diagnose, treat, or cure Lyme Disease.
Lyme Disease
- Supports
- There is strong, consistent evidence that Lyme disease is a well‑characterized infectious disease caused by Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato, transmitted by Ixodes ticks, and that standard short courses (roughly 10–28 days) of appropriate antibiotics (e.g., doxycycline, amoxicillin, cefuroxime, or IV ceftriaxone for selected cases) are highly effective for most patients with early or disseminated Lyme disease. Large network meta‑analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in early Lyme (erythema migrans) show very low failure rates (about 2–4%) at 2–12 months after treatment, with no meaningful differences between commonly used antibiotic regimens or routes of administration, supporting the adequacy of standard-duration therapy.[3][4] Guidelines from major professional societies (e.g., Infectious Diseases Society of America, American Academy of Neurology, American College of Rheumatology) recommend 10–14 days for early localized disease, about 14–21 days for neurologic involvement, and up to 28 days for Lyme arthritis, with oral therapy sufficient in most situations; they conclude that these regimens usually eradicate the infection and that additional or prolonged antibiotic courses are rarely indicated.[11][14][17][20][23] NIH‑funded treatment trials and their subsequent critical review show that, in patients with persistent symptoms after standard treatment (often termed post‑treatment Lyme disease syndrome, PTLDS), repeated or prolonged IV or oral antibiotic therapy (weeks to months beyond guideline‑recommended courses) offers at best modest, transient benefit for some symptom domains (e.g., fatigue or short‑term cognitive scores) but no sustained clinically important improvement in overall function, while exposing patients to significant risks such as line infections, C. difficile, and other serious adverse events.[2][5][13][16][19][22] A reappraisal of the four major U.S. RCTs emphasizes that although two trials suggested some short‑term benefit (largely in fatigue), the balance of evidence still does not support long‑term or repeated antibiotic courses as effective disease‑modifying therapy for PTLDS.[2][5][13][19] Scholarly reviews and network meta‑analyses therefore support a model in which Lyme is effectively treated in the vast majority of cases with standard regimens, and a minority of patients go on to PTLDS where mechanisms are likely non‑infectious or not antibiotic‑responsive, aligning with major guideline statements.[3][4][13][17][18][23]
- Contradicts
- Multiple high‑quality RCTs, systematic reviews, and guidance documents contradict the notion that persistent or nonspecific symptoms after appropriately treated Lyme disease are due to ongoing active Borrelia infection that generally requires months or years of additional antibiotics. NIH‑sponsored placebo‑controlled trials of prolonged IV ceftriaxone and other regimens in patients with chronic neurologic symptoms or PTLDS consistently found no durable benefit in pain, cognition, or physical function compared with placebo, and any short‑term gains (e.g., transient cognitive improvement at 12 weeks) disappeared after antibiotics were stopped, while risks remained substantial.[2][5][13][16][19][22] A widely cited evidence review notes that at least four to five randomized placebo‑controlled studies show that extended antibiotic therapy for so‑called chronic Lyme does not substantially improve long‑term outcomes and can cause serious harm, directly contradicting claims that long‑term IV or combination antibiotics are an evidence‑based standard of care.[2][13][19][22][24] Major guidelines from IDSA, AAN, and ACR explicitly recommend against prolonged or repeated antibiotic therapy for patients with persistent symptoms after standard treatment in the absence of objective evidence of active infection (e.g., new erythema migrans, meningitis, carditis, or active arthritis), stating that carefully conducted clinical trials have not shown improvement rates better than placebo and that additional antibiotics have no established role outside research settings.[11][14][17][20][23] Observational or retrospective cohort reports describing improvement with long‑term combination antibiotics in “chronic Lyme” or tick‑borne coinfections are limited by lack of randomization, placebo control, and standardized definitions; they therefore provide at most low‑quality, hypothesis‑generating data and are not considered sufficient to overturn the negative RCT evidence summarized in mainstream guidelines.[6][7][8][21] While some advocacy‑oriented reviews argue for the possibility of persistent infection and criticize the design of NIH trials, they acknowledge that robust, definitive RCT evidence for long‑term antibiotic efficacy is lacking and that the available trials cannot be generalized
“Lyme Disease”
Rule: Mo. Rev. Stat. §331.010(1)
Jaban M Moore is not licensed or approved by Missouri State Board of Chiropractic Examiners to diagnose, treat, or cure PANS/PANDAS.
PANS/PANDAS
- Supports
- PANS and PANDAS are recognized clinical syndromes in pediatric neuropsychiatry, with abrupt-onset OCD or tic symptoms and associated behavioral changes described in consensus literature and the recent AAP clinical report. [17][20][21][22][23] The AAP report states PANS is a valid diagnosis and recommends multidisciplinary assessment and symptom-focused care, including CBT and treatment of documented streptococcal infection. Consensus guidelines from the PANS Research Consortium also support psychiatric, behavioral, and selected medical treatments as pragmatic management approaches, although these are based largely on expert consensus rather than strong trial evidence. [16]
- Contradicts
- The evidence base for PANS/PANDAS-specific disease mechanisms and treatments is limited. [21] Earlier reviews note that definitive proof of the autoimmune hypothesis is lacking and that evidence for interventions is weak or inconsistent. [20][22] The AAP clinical report says invasive immunotherapies are usually not recommended because of lack of evidence and potential adverse effects, and that immunomodulatory therapies should be used only in rare cases after multispecialty consultation. [17] A prior evidence review commissioned for coverage decisions found insufficient comparative evidence for prophylactic antibiotics and only weak support for some immunomodulatory approaches. Much of the published guidance comes from consensus statements rather than high-quality randomized evidence, so the mainstream literature does not treat PANS/PANDAS as a fully established biomarker-defined autoimmune disorder with proven disease-specific therapy.
- Mainstream view
- The mainstream medical view is that PANS is a real clinical syndrome characterized by abrupt neuropsychiatric onset, but PANDAS/PANS remain controversial in etiology and lack definitive biomarkers or robust treatment evidence. [17][20][21][22][23] Current practice emphasizes careful differential diagnosis, psychiatric/behavioral treatment, and treating confirmed infections, while reserving immunomodulatory therapies for selected severe cases under specialist oversight.
“PANS/PANDAS”
Rule: Mo. Rev. Stat. §331.010(1)
Jaban M Moore is not licensed or approved by Missouri State Board of Chiropractic Examiners to diagnose, treat, or cure Mold Toxicity.
Mold Toxicity
- Supports
- High-quality epidemiologic evidence and major health-agency guidelines support that indoor dampness and visible mold are associated with increased risk of respiratory and allergic disease, including asthma development and exacerbation, upper and lower respiratory symptoms, allergic rhinitis, and some infections.[2][5][15][19] These data underpin WHO guidelines on indoor air quality that identify dampness and mold as contributors to increased prevalences of respiratory symptoms, allergies, and asthma.[19] Reviews from bodies such as the Institute of Medicine and WHO, as well as more recent systematic reviews, consistently find that remediation of dampness and mold (fixing leaks, improving ventilation, removing moldy materials) reduces respiratory symptoms and asthma morbidity.[5][11][19] There is also growing but still emerging evidence that living in damp, moldy housing is linked to worse mental health outcomes via psychosocial stress and possibly biological pathways.[6] Toxicological and occupational literature shows that very high-level exposures to certain mycotoxins (usually via contaminated food, occupational dusts, or unusual indoor situations) can cause systemic toxicity affecting organs such as the kidneys, liver, nervous system, and developing fetus, and some mycotoxins are proven carcinogens, but these scenarios typically involve doses far above typical residential exposure and are not specific to ordinary household mold.[16][20]
- Contradicts
- Major evidence reviews from the Institute of Medicine and WHO have concluded that the available data are insufficient to support a causal link between inhaled indoor mycotoxins at usual environmental levels and broad, nonspecific systemic symptom clusters often marketed as “toxic mold syndrome” or chronic inflammatory response syndrome (CIRS).[19][23] The American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology and medical toxicology position statements similarly report that while mold-related allergies and asthma exacerbations are well established, evidence does not support inhaled mycotoxins as a cause of chronic, multi-system toxicity in otherwise healthy individuals at typical indoor exposure levels.[12][23][24] Epidemiologic studies show correlations between dampness/mold and a wide range of symptoms (respiratory, neurological, cognitive, dermatologic), but most are observational; causality, specific dose–response relationships for mycotoxins, and objective biomarkers of “mold toxicity” in the sense promoted by influencers remain weak or unproven.[2][5][17][23] Well-studied molds such as Stachybotrys chartarum are recognized as potential producers of mycotoxins, yet years of intensive study have failed to establish exposure to this species in homes, schools, or offices as a proven cause of systemic human toxicity, beyond allergic and irritant effects.[22] Claims that typical household mold exposure routinely causes severe systemic illness, autoimmunity, or chronic neurocognitive decline in the general population are not supported by current high-quality evidence and are considered speculative by mainstream allergy and toxicology organizations.[12][23][24]
- Mainstream view
- Mainstream medical and public health consensus is that indoor dampness and mold are important environmental hazards primarily because they worsen or contribute to respiratory and allergic diseases (asthma, rhinitis, cough, wheeze, respiratory infections) and can, in high-risk or heavily exposed populations, contribute to certain infections and rare hypersensitivity pneumonitis.[14][15][18][19] The recommended clinical and public health response focuses on identifying and correcting moisture problems, removing moldy materials, managing asthma and allergies using standard evidence-based therapies, and protecting immunocompromised individuals and those with chronic lung disease who may be at risk for opportunistic fungal infections.[14][18][19] Mainstream guidelines and expert societies do not endorse a distinct diagnostic entity of “mold toxicity” or “toxic mold syndrome” as a well-validated, systemic disease caused by typical indoor mold exposure; instead, they emphasize established allergic, irritant, and infectious mechanisms and caution against overdiagnosis and unproven detoxification regimens.[12][19][23][24] High-dose mycotoxin toxicity is acknowledged in toxicology and occupational medicine, but it is treated as a separate issue from everyday residential mold, with concern focused on contaminated food, heavy occupational exposure, or exceptional environmental conditions rather than routine home or office dampness.[16][20][22] Deterministic PubMed cross-check found no matching indexed studies for these terms (absence of indexed evidence is not evidence against the claim).
“Mold Toxicity”
Rule: Mo. Rev. Stat. §331.010(1)
Jaban M Moore is not licensed or approved by Missouri State Board of Chiropractic Examiners to diagnose, treat, or cure Autoimmune Disorders.
Autoimmune Disorders
No specific health claims of theirs were cross-checked against the literature.
“Autoimmune Disorders”
Rule: Mo. Rev. Stat. §331.010(1)
Jaban M Moore is not licensed or approved by Missouri State Board of Chiropractic Examiners to diagnose, treat, or cure Infertility.
Infertility
No specific health claims of theirs were cross-checked against the literature.
“Infertility”
Rule: Mo. Rev. Stat. §331.010(1)
Jaban M Moore is not licensed or approved by Missouri State Board of Chiropractic Examiners to advertise How Childhood Trauma Leads to Autoimmune Diseases as within their scope of practice.
How Childhood Trauma Leads to Autoimmune Diseases
No specific health claims of theirs were cross-checked against the literature.
“How Childhood Trauma Leads to Autoimmune Diseases”
Rule: Mo. Rev. Stat. §331.010 (20 CSR 2070)
Jaban M Moore is not licensed or approved by Missouri State Board of Chiropractic Examiners to diagnose, treat, or cure PANS/ PANDAS.
PANS/ PANDAS
No specific health claims of theirs were cross-checked against the literature.
“PANS/ PANDAS”
Rule: Mo. Rev. Stat. §331.010(1)
Jaban M Moore is not licensed or approved by Missouri State Board of Chiropractic Examiners to advertise Parasites 101 Course as within their scope of practice.
Parasites 101 Course
No specific health claims of theirs were cross-checked against the literature.
“Parasites 101 Course”
Rule: Mo. Rev. Stat. §331.010 (20 CSR 2070)
Jaban M Moore is not licensed or approved by Missouri State Board of Chiropractic Examiners to diagnose, treat, or cure Chronic Fatigue & Brain Fog.
Chronic Fatigue & Brain Fog
No specific health claims of theirs were cross-checked against the literature.
“Chronic Fatigue & Brain Fog”
Rule: Mo. Rev. Stat. §331.010 (20 CSR 2070)
Jaban M Moore is not licensed or approved by Missouri State Board of Chiropractic Examiners to advertise Lyme & Mold Toxicity as within their scope of practice.
Lyme & Mold Toxicity
- Supports
- High-quality epidemiologic evidence and major health-agency guidelines support that indoor dampness and visible mold are associated with increased risk of respiratory and allergic disease, including asthma development and exacerbation, upper and lower respiratory symptoms, allergic rhinitis, and some infections.[2][5][15][19] These data underpin WHO guidelines on indoor air quality that identify dampness and mold as contributors to increased prevalences of respiratory symptoms, allergies, and asthma.[19] Reviews from bodies such as the Institute of Medicine and WHO, as well as more recent systematic reviews, consistently find that remediation of dampness and mold (fixing leaks, improving ventilation, removing moldy materials) reduces respiratory symptoms and asthma morbidity.[5][11][19] There is also growing but still emerging evidence that living in damp, moldy housing is linked to worse mental health outcomes via psychosocial stress and possibly biological pathways.[6] Toxicological and occupational literature shows that very high-level exposures to certain mycotoxins (usually via contaminated food, occupational dusts, or unusual indoor situations) can cause systemic toxicity affecting organs such as the kidneys, liver, nervous system, and developing fetus, and some mycotoxins are proven carcinogens, but these scenarios typically involve doses far above typical residential exposure and are not specific to ordinary household mold.[16][20]
- Contradicts
- Major evidence reviews from the Institute of Medicine and WHO have concluded that the available data are insufficient to support a causal link between inhaled indoor mycotoxins at usual environmental levels and broad, nonspecific systemic symptom clusters often marketed as “toxic mold syndrome” or chronic inflammatory response syndrome (CIRS).[19][23] The American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology and medical toxicology position statements similarly report that while mold-related allergies and asthma exacerbations are well established, evidence does not support inhaled mycotoxins as a cause of chronic, multi-system toxicity in otherwise healthy individuals at typical indoor exposure levels.[12][23][24] Epidemiologic studies show correlations between dampness/mold and a wide range of symptoms (respiratory, neurological, cognitive, dermatologic), but most are observational; causality, specific dose–response relationships for mycotoxins, and objective biomarkers of “mold toxicity” in the sense promoted by influencers remain weak or unproven.[2][5][17][23] Well-studied molds such as Stachybotrys chartarum are recognized as potential producers of mycotoxins, yet years of intensive study have failed to establish exposure to this species in homes, schools, or offices as a proven cause of systemic human toxicity, beyond allergic and irritant effects.[22] Claims that typical household mold exposure routinely causes severe systemic illness, autoimmunity, or chronic neurocognitive decline in the general population are not supported by current high-quality evidence and are considered speculative by mainstream allergy and toxicology organizations.[12][23][24]
- Mainstream view
- Mainstream medical and public health consensus is that indoor dampness and mold are important environmental hazards primarily because they worsen or contribute to respiratory and allergic diseases (asthma, rhinitis, cough, wheeze, respiratory infections) and can, in high-risk or heavily exposed populations, contribute to certain infections and rare hypersensitivity pneumonitis.[14][15][18][19] The recommended clinical and public health response focuses on identifying and correcting moisture problems, removing moldy materials, managing asthma and allergies using standard evidence-based therapies, and protecting immunocompromised individuals and those with chronic lung disease who may be at risk for opportunistic fungal infections.[14][18][19] Mainstream guidelines and expert societies do not endorse a distinct diagnostic entity of “mold toxicity” or “toxic mold syndrome” as a well-validated, systemic disease caused by typical indoor mold exposure; instead, they emphasize established allergic, irritant, and infectious mechanisms and caution against overdiagnosis and unproven detoxification regimens.[12][19][23][24] High-dose mycotoxin toxicity is acknowledged in toxicology and occupational medicine, but it is treated as a separate issue from everyday residential mold, with concern focused on contaminated food, heavy occupational exposure, or exceptional environmental conditions rather than routine home or office dampness.[16][20][22] Deterministic PubMed cross-check found no matching indexed studies for these terms (absence of indexed evidence is not evidence against the claim).
“Lyme & Mold Toxicity”
Rule: Mo. Rev. Stat. §331.010(1)
Jaban M Moore is not licensed or approved by Missouri State Board of Chiropractic Examiners to diagnose, treat, or cure Lyme Testing.
Lyme Testing
No specific health claims of theirs were cross-checked against the literature.
“Lyme Testing”
Rule: Mo. Rev. Stat. §331.010(1)
Jaban M Moore is not licensed or approved by Missouri State Board of Chiropractic Examiners to diagnose, treat, or cure PANS & PANDAS.
PANS & PANDAS
No specific health claims of theirs were cross-checked against the literature.
“PANS & PANDAS”
Rule: Mo. Rev. Stat. §331.010(1)
Jaban M Moore is not licensed or approved by Missouri State Board of Chiropractic Examiners to advertise Lyme Disease: Our Approach as within their scope of practice.
Lyme Disease: Our Approach
- Supports
- There is strong, consistent evidence that Lyme disease is a well‑characterized infectious disease caused by Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato, transmitted by Ixodes ticks, and that standard short courses (roughly 10–28 days) of appropriate antibiotics (e.g., doxycycline, amoxicillin, cefuroxime, or IV ceftriaxone for selected cases) are highly effective for most patients with early or disseminated Lyme disease. Large network meta‑analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in early Lyme (erythema migrans) show very low failure rates (about 2–4%) at 2–12 months after treatment, with no meaningful differences between commonly used antibiotic regimens or routes of administration, supporting the adequacy of standard-duration therapy.[3][4] Guidelines from major professional societies (e.g., Infectious Diseases Society of America, American Academy of Neurology, American College of Rheumatology) recommend 10–14 days for early localized disease, about 14–21 days for neurologic involvement, and up to 28 days for Lyme arthritis, with oral therapy sufficient in most situations; they conclude that these regimens usually eradicate the infection and that additional or prolonged antibiotic courses are rarely indicated.[11][14][17][20][23] NIH‑funded treatment trials and their subsequent critical review show that, in patients with persistent symptoms after standard treatment (often termed post‑treatment Lyme disease syndrome, PTLDS), repeated or prolonged IV or oral antibiotic therapy (weeks to months beyond guideline‑recommended courses) offers at best modest, transient benefit for some symptom domains (e.g., fatigue or short‑term cognitive scores) but no sustained clinically important improvement in overall function, while exposing patients to significant risks such as line infections, C. difficile, and other serious adverse events.[2][5][13][16][19][22] A reappraisal of the four major U.S. RCTs emphasizes that although two trials suggested some short‑term benefit (largely in fatigue), the balance of evidence still does not support long‑term or repeated antibiotic courses as effective disease‑modifying therapy for PTLDS.[2][5][13][19] Scholarly reviews and network meta‑analyses therefore support a model in which Lyme is effectively treated in the vast majority of cases with standard regimens, and a minority of patients go on to PTLDS where mechanisms are likely non‑infectious or not antibiotic‑responsive, aligning with major guideline statements.[3][4][13][17][18][23]
- Contradicts
- Multiple high‑quality RCTs, systematic reviews, and guidance documents contradict the notion that persistent or nonspecific symptoms after appropriately treated Lyme disease are due to ongoing active Borrelia infection that generally requires months or years of additional antibiotics. NIH‑sponsored placebo‑controlled trials of prolonged IV ceftriaxone and other regimens in patients with chronic neurologic symptoms or PTLDS consistently found no durable benefit in pain, cognition, or physical function compared with placebo, and any short‑term gains (e.g., transient cognitive improvement at 12 weeks) disappeared after antibiotics were stopped, while risks remained substantial.[2][5][13][16][19][22] A widely cited evidence review notes that at least four to five randomized placebo‑controlled studies show that extended antibiotic therapy for so‑called chronic Lyme does not substantially improve long‑term outcomes and can cause serious harm, directly contradicting claims that long‑term IV or combination antibiotics are an evidence‑based standard of care.[2][13][19][22][24] Major guidelines from IDSA, AAN, and ACR explicitly recommend against prolonged or repeated antibiotic therapy for patients with persistent symptoms after standard treatment in the absence of objective evidence of active infection (e.g., new erythema migrans, meningitis, carditis, or active arthritis), stating that carefully conducted clinical trials have not shown improvement rates better than placebo and that additional antibiotics have no established role outside research settings.[11][14][17][20][23] Observational or retrospective cohort reports describing improvement with long‑term combination antibiotics in “chronic Lyme” or tick‑borne coinfections are limited by lack of randomization, placebo control, and standardized definitions; they therefore provide at most low‑quality, hypothesis‑generating data and are not considered sufficient to overturn the negative RCT evidence summarized in mainstream guidelines.[6][7][8][21] While some advocacy‑oriented reviews argue for the possibility of persistent infection and criticize the design of NIH trials, they acknowledge that robust, definitive RCT evidence for long‑term antibiotic efficacy is lacking and that the available trials cannot be generalized
“Lyme Disease: Our Approach”
Rule: Mo. Rev. Stat. §331.010 (20 CSR 2070)
Jaban M Moore is not licensed or approved by Missouri State Board of Chiropractic Examiners to advertise The Parasite & Mold Connection as within their scope of practice.
The Parasite & Mold Connection
No specific health claims of theirs were cross-checked against the literature.
“The Parasite & Mold Connection”
Rule: Mo. Rev. Stat. §331.010 (20 CSR 2070)
Jaban M Moore is not licensed or approved by Missouri State Board of Chiropractic Examiners to advertise Parasites and Weight Gain as within their scope of practice.
Parasites and Weight Gain
No specific health claims of theirs were cross-checked against the literature.
“Parasites and Weight Gain”
Rule: Mo. Rev. Stat. §331.010 (20 CSR 2070)
Jaban M Moore is not licensed or approved by Missouri State Board of Chiropractic Examiners to diagnose, treat, or cure What are Root Causes for Chronic Fatigue?.
What are Root Causes for Chronic Fatigue?
No specific health claims of theirs were cross-checked against the literature.
“What are Root Causes for Chronic Fatigue?”
Rule: Mo. Rev. Stat. §331.010 (20 CSR 2070)
Jaban M Moore is not licensed or approved by Missouri State Board of Chiropractic Examiners to advertise Lyme Disease & Kids as within their scope of practice.
Lyme Disease & Kids
- Supports
- There is strong, consistent evidence that Lyme disease is a well‑characterized infectious disease caused by Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato, transmitted by Ixodes ticks, and that standard short courses (roughly 10–28 days) of appropriate antibiotics (e.g., doxycycline, amoxicillin, cefuroxime, or IV ceftriaxone for selected cases) are highly effective for most patients with early or disseminated Lyme disease. Large network meta‑analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in early Lyme (erythema migrans) show very low failure rates (about 2–4%) at 2–12 months after treatment, with no meaningful differences between commonly used antibiotic regimens or routes of administration, supporting the adequacy of standard-duration therapy.[3][4] Guidelines from major professional societies (e.g., Infectious Diseases Society of America, American Academy of Neurology, American College of Rheumatology) recommend 10–14 days for early localized disease, about 14–21 days for neurologic involvement, and up to 28 days for Lyme arthritis, with oral therapy sufficient in most situations; they conclude that these regimens usually eradicate the infection and that additional or prolonged antibiotic courses are rarely indicated.[11][14][17][20][23] NIH‑funded treatment trials and their subsequent critical review show that, in patients with persistent symptoms after standard treatment (often termed post‑treatment Lyme disease syndrome, PTLDS), repeated or prolonged IV or oral antibiotic therapy (weeks to months beyond guideline‑recommended courses) offers at best modest, transient benefit for some symptom domains (e.g., fatigue or short‑term cognitive scores) but no sustained clinically important improvement in overall function, while exposing patients to significant risks such as line infections, C. difficile, and other serious adverse events.[2][5][13][16][19][22] A reappraisal of the four major U.S. RCTs emphasizes that although two trials suggested some short‑term benefit (largely in fatigue), the balance of evidence still does not support long‑term or repeated antibiotic courses as effective disease‑modifying therapy for PTLDS.[2][5][13][19] Scholarly reviews and network meta‑analyses therefore support a model in which Lyme is effectively treated in the vast majority of cases with standard regimens, and a minority of patients go on to PTLDS where mechanisms are likely non‑infectious or not antibiotic‑responsive, aligning with major guideline statements.[3][4][13][17][18][23]
- Contradicts
- Multiple high‑quality RCTs, systematic reviews, and guidance documents contradict the notion that persistent or nonspecific symptoms after appropriately treated Lyme disease are due to ongoing active Borrelia infection that generally requires months or years of additional antibiotics. NIH‑sponsored placebo‑controlled trials of prolonged IV ceftriaxone and other regimens in patients with chronic neurologic symptoms or PTLDS consistently found no durable benefit in pain, cognition, or physical function compared with placebo, and any short‑term gains (e.g., transient cognitive improvement at 12 weeks) disappeared after antibiotics were stopped, while risks remained substantial.[2][5][13][16][19][22] A widely cited evidence review notes that at least four to five randomized placebo‑controlled studies show that extended antibiotic therapy for so‑called chronic Lyme does not substantially improve long‑term outcomes and can cause serious harm, directly contradicting claims that long‑term IV or combination antibiotics are an evidence‑based standard of care.[2][13][19][22][24] Major guidelines from IDSA, AAN, and ACR explicitly recommend against prolonged or repeated antibiotic therapy for patients with persistent symptoms after standard treatment in the absence of objective evidence of active infection (e.g., new erythema migrans, meningitis, carditis, or active arthritis), stating that carefully conducted clinical trials have not shown improvement rates better than placebo and that additional antibiotics have no established role outside research settings.[11][14][17][20][23] Observational or retrospective cohort reports describing improvement with long‑term combination antibiotics in “chronic Lyme” or tick‑borne coinfections are limited by lack of randomization, placebo control, and standardized definitions; they therefore provide at most low‑quality, hypothesis‑generating data and are not considered sufficient to overturn the negative RCT evidence summarized in mainstream guidelines.[6][7][8][21] While some advocacy‑oriented reviews argue for the possibility of persistent infection and criticize the design of NIH trials, they acknowledge that robust, definitive RCT evidence for long‑term antibiotic efficacy is lacking and that the available trials cannot be generalized
“Lyme Disease & Kids”
Rule: Mo. Rev. Stat. §331.010 (20 CSR 2070)
Jaban M Moore is not licensed or approved by Missouri State Board of Chiropractic Examiners to advertise What are Some Root Causes For Fibromyalgia? as within their scope of practice.
What are Some Root Causes For Fibromyalgia?
No specific health claims of theirs were cross-checked against the literature.
“What are Some Root Causes For Fibromyalgia?”
Rule: Mo. Rev. Stat. §331.010 (20 CSR 2070)
Jaban M Moore is not licensed or approved by Missouri State Board of Chiropractic Examiners to diagnose, treat, or cure Can Parasitic Infections Cause Depression?.
Can Parasitic Infections Cause Depression?
No specific health claims of theirs were cross-checked against the literature.
“Can Parasitic Infections Cause Depression?”
Rule: Mo. Rev. Stat. §331.010 (20 CSR 2070)
Jaban M Moore is not licensed or approved by Missouri State Board of Chiropractic Examiners to advertise Parasites: The World’s Most Undiagnosed Infection as within their scope of practice.
Parasites: The World’s Most Undiagnosed Infection
No specific health claims of theirs were cross-checked against the literature.
“Parasites: The World’s Most Undiagnosed Infection”
Rule: Mo. Rev. Stat. §331.010 (20 CSR 2070)
Jaban M Moore is not licensed or approved by Missouri State Board of Chiropractic Examiners to diagnose, treat, or cure Diagnosing and treating Lyme disease, PANS/PANDAS, mold toxicity, and autoimmune disorders without MD/DO license..
Diagnosing and treating Lyme disease, PANS/PANDAS, mold toxicity, and autoimmune disorders without MD/DO license.
- Supports
- There is strong, consistent evidence that Lyme disease is a well‑characterized infectious disease caused by Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato, transmitted by Ixodes ticks, and that standard short courses (roughly 10–28 days) of appropriate antibiotics (e.g., doxycycline, amoxicillin, cefuroxime, or IV ceftriaxone for selected cases) are highly effective for most patients with early or disseminated Lyme disease. Large network meta‑analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in early Lyme (erythema migrans) show very low failure rates (about 2–4%) at 2–12 months after treatment, with no meaningful differences between commonly used antibiotic regimens or routes of administration, supporting the adequacy of standard-duration therapy.[3][4] Guidelines from major professional societies (e.g., Infectious Diseases Society of America, American Academy of Neurology, American College of Rheumatology) recommend 10–14 days for early localized disease, about 14–21 days for neurologic involvement, and up to 28 days for Lyme arthritis, with oral therapy sufficient in most situations; they conclude that these regimens usually eradicate the infection and that additional or prolonged antibiotic courses are rarely indicated.[11][14][17][20][23] NIH‑funded treatment trials and their subsequent critical review show that, in patients with persistent symptoms after standard treatment (often termed post‑treatment Lyme disease syndrome, PTLDS), repeated or prolonged IV or oral antibiotic therapy (weeks to months beyond guideline‑recommended courses) offers at best modest, transient benefit for some symptom domains (e.g., fatigue or short‑term cognitive scores) but no sustained clinically important improvement in overall function, while exposing patients to significant risks such as line infections, C. difficile, and other serious adverse events.[2][5][13][16][19][22] A reappraisal of the four major U.S. RCTs emphasizes that although two trials suggested some short‑term benefit (largely in fatigue), the balance of evidence still does not support long‑term or repeated antibiotic courses as effective disease‑modifying therapy for PTLDS.[2][5][13][19] Scholarly reviews and network meta‑analyses therefore support a model in which Lyme is effectively treated in the vast majority of cases with standard regimens, and a minority of patients go on to PTLDS where mechanisms are likely non‑infectious or not antibiotic‑responsive, aligning with major guideline statements.[3][4][13][17][18][23]
- Contradicts
- Multiple high‑quality RCTs, systematic reviews, and guidance documents contradict the notion that persistent or nonspecific symptoms after appropriately treated Lyme disease are due to ongoing active Borrelia infection that generally requires months or years of additional antibiotics. NIH‑sponsored placebo‑controlled trials of prolonged IV ceftriaxone and other regimens in patients with chronic neurologic symptoms or PTLDS consistently found no durable benefit in pain, cognition, or physical function compared with placebo, and any short‑term gains (e.g., transient cognitive improvement at 12 weeks) disappeared after antibiotics were stopped, while risks remained substantial.[2][5][13][16][19][22] A widely cited evidence review notes that at least four to five randomized placebo‑controlled studies show that extended antibiotic therapy for so‑called chronic Lyme does not substantially improve long‑term outcomes and can cause serious harm, directly contradicting claims that long‑term IV or combination antibiotics are an evidence‑based standard of care.[2][13][19][22][24] Major guidelines from IDSA, AAN, and ACR explicitly recommend against prolonged or repeated antibiotic therapy for patients with persistent symptoms after standard treatment in the absence of objective evidence of active infection (e.g., new erythema migrans, meningitis, carditis, or active arthritis), stating that carefully conducted clinical trials have not shown improvement rates better than placebo and that additional antibiotics have no established role outside research settings.[11][14][17][20][23] Observational or retrospective cohort reports describing improvement with long‑term combination antibiotics in “chronic Lyme” or tick‑borne coinfections are limited by lack of randomization, placebo control, and standardized definitions; they therefore provide at most low‑quality, hypothesis‑generating data and are not considered sufficient to overturn the negative RCT evidence summarized in mainstream guidelines.[6][7][8][21] While some advocacy‑oriented reviews argue for the possibility of persistent infection and criticize the design of NIH trials, they acknowledge that robust, definitive RCT evidence for long‑term antibiotic efficacy is lacking and that the available trials cannot be generalized
“Lyme Disease”
Rule: Mo. Rev. Stat. §331.010 (20 CSR 2070)
Jaban M Moore is not licensed or approved by Missouri State Board of Chiropractic Examiners to diagnose, treat, or cure Root Cause Medicine for Lyme Disease and PANS/PANDAS.
Root Cause Medicine for Lyme Disease and PANS/PANDAS
- Supports
- There is strong, consistent evidence that Lyme disease is a well‑characterized infectious disease caused by Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato, transmitted by Ixodes ticks, and that standard short courses (roughly 10–28 days) of appropriate antibiotics (e.g., doxycycline, amoxicillin, cefuroxime, or IV ceftriaxone for selected cases) are highly effective for most patients with early or disseminated Lyme disease. Large network meta‑analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in early Lyme (erythema migrans) show very low failure rates (about 2–4%) at 2–12 months after treatment, with no meaningful differences between commonly used antibiotic regimens or routes of administration, supporting the adequacy of standard-duration therapy.[3][4] Guidelines from major professional societies (e.g., Infectious Diseases Society of America, American Academy of Neurology, American College of Rheumatology) recommend 10–14 days for early localized disease, about 14–21 days for neurologic involvement, and up to 28 days for Lyme arthritis, with oral therapy sufficient in most situations; they conclude that these regimens usually eradicate the infection and that additional or prolonged antibiotic courses are rarely indicated.[11][14][17][20][23] NIH‑funded treatment trials and their subsequent critical review show that, in patients with persistent symptoms after standard treatment (often termed post‑treatment Lyme disease syndrome, PTLDS), repeated or prolonged IV or oral antibiotic therapy (weeks to months beyond guideline‑recommended courses) offers at best modest, transient benefit for some symptom domains (e.g., fatigue or short‑term cognitive scores) but no sustained clinically important improvement in overall function, while exposing patients to significant risks such as line infections, C. difficile, and other serious adverse events.[2][5][13][16][19][22] A reappraisal of the four major U.S. RCTs emphasizes that although two trials suggested some short‑term benefit (largely in fatigue), the balance of evidence still does not support long‑term or repeated antibiotic courses as effective disease‑modifying therapy for PTLDS.[2][5][13][19] Scholarly reviews and network meta‑analyses therefore support a model in which Lyme is effectively treated in the vast majority of cases with standard regimens, and a minority of patients go on to PTLDS where mechanisms are likely non‑infectious or not antibiotic‑responsive, aligning with major guideline statements.[3][4][13][17][18][23]
- Contradicts
- Multiple high‑quality RCTs, systematic reviews, and guidance documents contradict the notion that persistent or nonspecific symptoms after appropriately treated Lyme disease are due to ongoing active Borrelia infection that generally requires months or years of additional antibiotics. NIH‑sponsored placebo‑controlled trials of prolonged IV ceftriaxone and other regimens in patients with chronic neurologic symptoms or PTLDS consistently found no durable benefit in pain, cognition, or physical function compared with placebo, and any short‑term gains (e.g., transient cognitive improvement at 12 weeks) disappeared after antibiotics were stopped, while risks remained substantial.[2][5][13][16][19][22] A widely cited evidence review notes that at least four to five randomized placebo‑controlled studies show that extended antibiotic therapy for so‑called chronic Lyme does not substantially improve long‑term outcomes and can cause serious harm, directly contradicting claims that long‑term IV or combination antibiotics are an evidence‑based standard of care.[2][13][19][22][24] Major guidelines from IDSA, AAN, and ACR explicitly recommend against prolonged or repeated antibiotic therapy for patients with persistent symptoms after standard treatment in the absence of objective evidence of active infection (e.g., new erythema migrans, meningitis, carditis, or active arthritis), stating that carefully conducted clinical trials have not shown improvement rates better than placebo and that additional antibiotics have no established role outside research settings.[11][14][17][20][23] Observational or retrospective cohort reports describing improvement with long‑term combination antibiotics in “chronic Lyme” or tick‑borne coinfections are limited by lack of randomization, placebo control, and standardized definitions; they therefore provide at most low‑quality, hypothesis‑generating data and are not considered sufficient to overturn the negative RCT evidence summarized in mainstream guidelines.[6][7][8][21] While some advocacy‑oriented reviews argue for the possibility of persistent infection and criticize the design of NIH trials, they acknowledge that robust, definitive RCT evidence for long‑term antibiotic efficacy is lacking and that the available trials cannot be generalized
“Lyme Disease”
Rule: Mo. Rev. Stat. §331.010 (20 CSR 2070)
Manipulation
Lab Test Upsell
transcript · cited
Promotes 'essential lab tests' as the gateway to finding 'root causes,' implying that standard medical labs are insufficient and that their proprietary tests are necessary for diagnosis. Likely motive: Drive revenue from proprietary lab panels that are often not covered by insurance and lack standard clinical validation.
“To minimize expenses, we focus on conducting only the essential lab tests and recommending a limited number of targeted supplements at any given time.”
False Authority
transcript · cited
Claims to be the 'final' doctor for complex cases, implying superior authority over all other specialists without medical board certification for the conditions listed. Likely motive: Position the subject as the ultimate authority to prevent patients from seeking standard care or other opinions.
“I may not be your initial doctor, but I aspire to be your final one.”
Proprietary Product Funnel
transcript · cited
Sells proprietary supplements with a strict no-refund policy, creating a high-risk financial commitment for patients while claiming to 'restore hope and health.' Likely motive: Generate direct revenue from high-margin supplements with no consumer protection, ensuring patients pay regardless of efficacy.
“We sell supplements that work in an effort to restore hope and health. We are unable to offer refunds, returns, or exchanges on product once it leaves our warehouse.”
Testimonial Overload
transcript · cited
Uses a massive, unverified claim of '10,000+ clients' to create false authority and social proof, implying universal success without evidence. Likely motive: Establish perceived expertise and success to overcome skepticism about unproven treatments.
“Now, after helping 10,000+ clients, I've made it my mission to help YOU take your life back.”
Undisclosed Compensation
transcript · cited
The page contains a vague 'Earns rev' disclosure, which is insufficient for FTC compliance regarding affiliate commissions and ambassador programs. Likely motive: Minimize transparency about financial ties to maintain the illusion of unbiased medical advice.
“Earns rev”
Commerce & grift map
Scare content about 'root causes' (Lyme, mold, PANS) -> abnormal lab tests (proprietary panels) -> proprietary supplement stack (CellCore, Apex) -> coaching consult (cash-only) -> ambassador recruitment (50% commission). The subject recruits their own audience to sell for them, so the funnel scales on other people's reach while the money flows back to the subject.
Dr. Jaban turns his audience into an unpaid sales force by recruiting them as 'Ambassadors' who earn 50% commissions on memberships and 5% on labs/supplements for every referral, creating a pyramid-like revenue model that scales on other people's reach while the money flows back to the subject.
financialConflicts · affiliate program
Chasing Health Ambassador Program: Recruits followers to refer friends and family for 50% commission on memberships and 5% on labs/supplements.
“Become an Ambassador... Join our Chasing Health Ambassador program to enjoy exclusive perks such as insider access, special discounts, commissions for referring friends, and much more!”
Amazon
Supplement / productPays providers to recommendHigh confidence
- Affiliate commission
Dr. Jaban earns Amazon Associates commissions (tag: drjabanmoore-20) on all products sold through their shop.
Patient program: Patients generally order directly on Amazon; the provider/influencer uses an Amazon Shop or affiliate links to direct them to products. Amazon’s public materials describe link-based tracking, qualifying purchases, and certain program actions rather than any separate patient enrollment program.
Doc Bro outbound link (live) · Archived copy →
Vendor provider compensation page (live) · Archive pending
Vendor research sources
- The Amazon Associates Program
- Amazon.com Associates CentralOfficial
- Affiliate Marketing for Doctors - YouTube
- How to Become an Amazon Affiliate in 7 Easy Steps | Helium 10
- Earn income using Amazon Affiliate links - Ask Medicaid Florida
- 10 commandments of ethical affiliate marketing for physicians
- Amazon Affiliate Marketing for Beginners - YouTube
- I've been looking into Amazon affiliates because I often send product ...
- Has anyone done Amazon Affiliates for patient recommendations?
- Amazon Affiliate Program - Amazon.com Associates CentralOfficial
Supplements pitched
- Chasing Health Supplements
“We sell supplements that work in an effort to restore hope and health.”
- CellCore Biosciences
“The companies we use frequently in the clinic include CellCore Biosciences, Apex Energetics, Xymogen, Ultra Biome, and others.”
- Apex Energetics
“The companies we use frequently in the clinic include CellCore Biosciences, Apex Energetics, Xymogen, Ultra Biome, and others.”
- Xymogen
“The companies we use frequently in the clinic include CellCore Biosciences, Apex Energetics, Xymogen, Ultra Biome, and others.”
- Ultra Biome
“The companies we use frequently in the clinic include CellCore Biosciences, Apex Energetics, Xymogen, Ultra Biome, and others.”
Labs pitched
- Essential Lab Tests
“To minimize expenses, we focus on conducting only the essential lab tests and recommending a limited number of targeted supplements at any given time.”
How the money flows
- Affiliate / ambassador program (operator)Undisclosed Chasing Health Ambassador Program: 50% commission on memberships, 5% on labs/supplements for referrals. “50% commission when you refer your friends or family members every month they are a member. 5% of the sale on labs & supplements for any member you bring into Chasing Health.”
“50% commission when you refer your friends or family members every month they are a member. 5% of the sale on labs & supplements for any member you bring into Chasing Health.”
- Affiliate / promo linkUndisclosed Amazon Shop: Dr. Jaban's Amazon store with affiliate tags. “Earns rev”
“Earns rev”
- Proprietary productUndisclosed Chasing Health Supplements: No refunds, returns, or exchanges. “We are unable to offer refunds, returns, or exchanges on product once it leaves our warehouse.”
“We are unable to offer refunds, returns, or exchanges on product once it leaves our warehouse.”
Store links detected
- LabsHigh likelihood
“Proprietary supplement sales with no refunds”
- Amazon FavoritesMedium likelihood
“Amazon ref_ tracking parameter in URL”
- .usMedium likelihood
“Page states commission may be earned”
- ENHigh likelihood
“Amazon ref_ tracking parameter in URL”
- Hello, sign in Account & ListsMedium likelihood
“Page states commission may be earned”
- Returns & OrdersHigh likelihood
“Amazon ref_ tracking parameter in URL”
- CartHigh likelihood
“Amazon ref_ tracking parameter in URL”
- AllHigh likelihood
“Amazon ref_ tracking parameter in URL”
Sponsors and advertisers
Brands, advertisers, and agencies connected to this content, based on what it promotes and discloses.
- CellCore BiosciencesBrand
Promoted commerce partner
- Apex EnergeticsBrand
Promoted commerce partner
- XymogenBrand
Promoted commerce partner
- Ultra BiomeBrand
Promoted commerce partner
- Chasing HealthBrand
Promoted commerce partner
- AmazonBrand
Promoted commerce partner
- Chasing Health SupplementsBrand
Named on a surface without a compensation disclosure
- Essential Lab TestsBrand
Named on a surface without a compensation disclosure
Credentials & scope
Glossary: Chiropractor (“Dr.”)
Stated: DR
Verified against the federal provider registry: D.C. · Chiropractor · MO license 2013013283.
Jaban Moore uses the title 'Dr.' without explicitly stating an MD or DO license, while claiming to diagnose and treat serious systemic diseases (Lyme, PANS/PANDAS, autoimmune disorders) that are outside the scope of any narrow specialty (e.g., chiropractic, naturopathy) and require general internal medicine authority.
Permitted scope vs advertised
Missouri State Board of Chiropractic Examiners · Confidence: high
Missouri defines the practice of chiropractic as examination, diagnosis, adjustment, manipulation, and treatment by methods commonly taught in accredited chiropractic colleges, and expressly states that it does not include the practice of medicine or the administration or prescribing of any drug or medicine.[2][5] The statute allows additional use of meridian therapy, acupressure, and acupuncture with board certification.[2][4] Chiropractors therefore may diagnose and treat conditions only using chiropractic methods and may not hold themselves out as practicing medicine or managing medical diseases in a medical manner.[2][5]
What this license permits
- Spinal adjustment and manipulation
- Musculoskeletal evaluation and treatment
- Soft-tissue and rehabilitative care
- Headache care within musculoskeletal scope
23 of 24 advertised activities fall outside permitted scope.
| Advertised | Verdict |
|---|---|
| We fix the actual problem so you can get well... for good by uncovering the real issue of Lyme Disease, Mold toxicity, and PANS/PANDAS. Rule: Mo. Rev. Stat. §331.010(1) Advertising that the chiropractor will identify and "fix" the root cause of systemic infectious and immune conditions such as Lyme disease, mold toxicity, and PANS/PANDAS represents diagnosis and treatment of medical diseases, which the statute expressly excludes as "the practice of medicine" from chiropractic practice. | Outside scope |
| Listed service Lyme Disease Rule: Mo. Rev. Stat. §331.010(1) Holding out Lyme disease itself as a chiropractic focus implies medical diagnosis/management of a systemic infectious disease, which falls under the practice of medicine that the chiropractic statute excludes. | Outside scope |
| Listed service PANS/PANDAS Rule: Mo. Rev. Stat. §331.010(1) Diagnosing or managing pediatric autoimmune neuropsychiatric syndromes (PANS/PANDAS) involves medical evaluation and treatment of complex immune and neurologic disorders, which is outside chiropractic and within the excluded practice of medicine. | Outside scope |
| Listed service Mold Toxicity Rule: Mo. Rev. Stat. §331.010(1) Diagnosing and managing systemic "mold toxicity" equates to medical assessment of toxic and immunologic illness, which is not among chiropractic methods and is part of the excluded practice of medicine. | Outside scope |
| Listed service Autoimmune Disorders Rule: Mo. Rev. Stat. §331.010(1) Autoimmune disorders are systemic medical diseases requiring medical management, and Missouri law does not affirmatively authorize chiropractors to diagnose or treat such diseases as medical conditions. | Outside scope |
| Listed service Infertility Rule: Mo. Rev. Stat. §331.010(1) Infertility evaluation and treatment is a medical/obstetric function, and the statute specifically excludes obstetrics and the practice of medicine from chiropractic practice. | Outside scope |
| How Childhood Trauma Leads to Autoimmune Diseases Rule: Mo. Rev. Stat. §331.010 (20 CSR 2070) | Outside scope |
| Listed service PANS/ PANDAS Rule: Mo. Rev. Stat. §331.010(1) Again centering PANS/PANDAS as conditions for chiropractic diagnosis/management is medical care for complex pediatric autoimmune conditions, which is not authorized for chiropractors. | Outside scope |
| Listed service Parasites 101 Course Rule: Mo. Rev. Stat. §331.010 (20 CSR 2070) | Outside scope |
| Listed service Chronic Fatigue & Brain Fog Rule: Mo. Rev. Stat. §331.010 (20 CSR 2070) | Outside scope |
| Listed service Lyme & Mold Toxicity Rule: Mo. Rev. Stat. §331.010(1) Framing services around Lyme disease and mold toxicity is presenting for diagnosis and treatment of systemic infectious/toxic illnesses, which fall under the practice of medicine excluded from chiropractic. | Outside scope |
| Listed service Lyme Testing Rule: Mo. Rev. Stat. §331.010(1) Ordering or interpreting laboratory tests for Lyme disease constitutes medical diagnostic testing, which is not affirmatively authorized for chiropractors and is part of medical practice. | Outside scope |
| Listed service PANS & PANDAS Rule: Mo. Rev. Stat. §331.010(1) Again indicating focus on PANS and PANDAS as diagnosable/treatable conditions by the chiropractor implies medical management of pediatric autoimmune neurologic disease, beyond chiropractic scope. | Outside scope |
| Listed service Lyme Disease: Our Approach Rule: Mo. Rev. Stat. §331.010 (20 CSR 2070) | Outside scope |
| Listed service The Parasite & Mold Connection Rule: Mo. Rev. Stat. §331.010 (20 CSR 2070) | Outside scope |
| Listed service Parasites and Weight Gain Rule: Mo. Rev. Stat. §331.010 (20 CSR 2070) | Outside scope |
| Listed service What are Root Causes for Chronic Fatigue? Rule: Mo. Rev. Stat. §331.010 (20 CSR 2070) | Outside scope |
| Listed service Lyme Disease & Kids Rule: Mo. Rev. Stat. §331.010 (20 CSR 2070) | Outside scope |
| Listed service What are Some Root Causes For Fibromyalgia? Rule: Mo. Rev. Stat. §331.010 (20 CSR 2070) | Outside scope |
| Listed service Can Parasitic Infections Cause Depression? Rule: Mo. Rev. Stat. §331.010 (20 CSR 2070) | Outside scope |
| Listed service Parasites: The World’s Most Undiagnosed Infection Rule: Mo. Rev. Stat. §331.010 (20 CSR 2070) | Outside scope |
| Diagnosing and treating Lyme disease, PANS/PANDAS, mold toxicity, and autoimmune disorders without MD/DO license. Rule: Mo. Rev. Stat. §331.010 (20 CSR 2070) | Outside scope |
| Root Cause Medicine for Lyme Disease and PANS/PANDAS Rule: Mo. Rev. Stat. §331.010 (20 CSR 2070) | Outside scope |
Sources: Missouri Board of Chiropractic Examiners – Statutes List (Chapter 331) (official), Missouri Revised Statutes §331.010 – Practice of chiropractic, definition, Missouri Revised Statutes §331.030 – Application for license; meridian therapy/acupuncture certification (official), Federation of Chiropractic Licensing Boards – Missouri Scope Summary
Scope comparison mirror
Side-by-side view of the archived marketing homepage and what a Chiropractor scope permits near Kansas City, MO. Open the mirror for the full comparison: archive on the left, permitted scope and licensed-care paths on the right.
Mirror generated 2026-07-15 14:05 UTC. The archive pane loads styles and images from the intake snapshot.
10 licensed-care paths linked for out-of-scope claims.
Disclaimer hypocrisy
Dr. Jaban hides behind a vague 'we sell supplements' disclaimer while handing out concrete medical advice to diagnose and treat serious systemic diseases (Lyme, PANS/PANDAS) and prescribe unproven detox protocols, creating a classic liability shield contradiction.
When the service is also outside their license
This pattern gets sharper when the service routed to your FSA or HSA also sits outside the practitioner's licensed scope. A provider advertising to diagnose or treat conditions their state board does not authorize is already operating past the edge of their license. Pair that with a cash-pay, FSA or HSA funded model that keeps the work away from any insurer or government program, and there is no claims reviewer, no audit trail, and no payer left to ask whether the care was appropriate or even within the provider's remit. The tax advantaged dollars do the paying, the patient carries the substantiation, and the scope question never reaches anyone with the authority to raise it.
Validated associated properties
Surfaces tied to this Doc Bro by domain, branding, or funnel routing. Third-party platforms are labeled as routes, not as owned properties.
Analyzed
- OwnedOfficial site (drjabanmoore.com)
- Operated funnelPractice site (redefiningwellnesscenter.com)
- Linked entityLinked commerce or practice (m.drjaban.com)
Funnel routes (third-party)
- Hosted routeFunnel route on amazon.com
Tip the jar
Report useful? Optional tips help keep scans, archives, and literature cross-checks running. They never change conclusions.
Submission tFUlqfOD_E9EhU83wLKSk
Fight disinformation
Log a public thread where Jaban M Moore is spreading nonsense, get a copy-paste reply with this report link.
Reply snippets
Before you buy the protocol: Dr. Trust Me Bro fact-checked Jaban M Moore's claims with peer-reviewed sources, https://drtrustmebro.com/analyze/tFUlqfOD_E9EhU83wLKSk. White-coat charisma isn't evidence.
Full DTMB scan on Jaban M Moore: https://drtrustmebro.com/analyze/tFUlqfOD_E9EhU83wLKSk
Drop these in YouTube comments, Reddit threads, and forums, link back to this scan, not vibes.
Recent mentions (this doc)
- Other
Catching the Red Flags, with Michael Rubino
Interview page that features his mold and toxin claims.
- YouTube
Stop Masking Symptoms and Get to the Root Cause of Your Illness
Interview appearance with an open comment thread.
- Other
Episode 52: The Dangers of Chemical Toxicities with Jaban Moore
Podcast interview page where the pitch reaches a new audience.
- YouTube
Nervous System Dysregulation: The Invisible Barrier to Recovery
One of Jaban M Moore's own recent posts. The comment thread is where this pitch spreads, reply there with the report link.
- YouTube
How Dr. Jill Carnahan Uses Peptides for Mold, MCAS, and Chronic Illness
One of Jaban M Moore's own recent posts. The comment thread is where this pitch spreads, reply there with the report link.
Nudge the Doc Bro
We email a public contact address from their site so Jaban M Moore can review this dossier and dispute anything we got wrong.
Know someone who can help?
If you think someone has firsthand information about Jaban M Moore, send them an encouraging note. We email a short, respectful message with this report and clear instructions on how to write in, on the record or anonymously.
Whambulance
Challenge this scan or Wall of Fame entry for Jaban M Moore. Public log, not legal arbitration.
Public challenge log
No posted Wall of Fame challenges linked yet.
Challenges are public on the Wall of Fame card. DTMB does not remove entries for hurt feelings, primary sources or copy corrections only.
File a challenge
Include in your email:
- Doc Bro ID: LHGCVS_CZpjf-As5HKrmZ
- Wall entry: /influencer/LHGCVS_CZpjf-As5HKrmZ
- Analysis ID: tFUlqfOD_E9EhU83wLKSk
- Source: https://drjabanmoore.com/
- Why this entry or scan should change
- Supporting links (one per line)
- Your business email (for verified disputes)
Verified challenges are posted publicly on the report. Public log, not legal arbitration.
Citations
Peer-reviewed and index sources cited in this report.
- [1] Guidelines for Lyme borreliosis: treatment
- [2] Clinical Treatment of Erythema Migrans Rash | Lyme Disease - CDC
- [3] Lyme Disease - StatPearls - NCBI Bookshelf
- [4] Lyme disease: diagnosis and management - NCBI Bookshelf
- [5] Clinical Practice Guidelines by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), American Academy of Neurology (AAN), and American College of Rheumatology (ACR): 2020 Guidelines for the Prevention, Diagnosis and Treatment of Lyme Disease.
- [6] Clinical Practice Guidelines by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), American Academy of Neurology (AAN), and American College of Rheumatology (ACR): 2020 Guidelines for the Prevention, Diagnosis, and Treatment of Lyme Disease
- [7] Clinical Practice Guidelines by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), American Academy of Neurology (AAN), and American College of Rheumatology (ACR): 2020 Guidelines for the Prevention, Diagnosis, and Treatment of Lyme Disease
- [8] Persistent Lyme Empiric Antibiotic Study Europe (PLEASE) - design of a randomized controlled trial of prolonged antibiotic treatment in patients with persistent symptoms attributed to Lyme borreliosis
- [9] Treatment trials for post-Lyme disease symptoms revisited.
- [10] Forty Years of Evidence on the Efficacy and Safety of Oral and Injectable Antibiotics for Treating Lyme Disease of Adults and Children: A Network Meta-Analysis
- [11] Efficacy and Safety of Antibiotic Therapy in Early Cutaneous Lyme Borreliosis: A Network Meta-analysis
- [12] A Reappraisal of the U.S. Clinical Trials of Post-Treatment Lyme Disease Syndrome
- [13] Antibiotic Treatment Response in Chronic Lyme Disease: Why Do Some Patients Improve While Others Do Not?
- [14] A Longitudinal Study of a Large Clinical Cohort of Patients with Lyme Disease and Tick-Borne Co-Infections Treated with Combination Antibiotics
- [15] CCL19 as a Chemokine Risk Factor for Posttreatment Lyme Disease Syndrome: a Prospective Clinical Cohort Study
- [16] Guideline-Driven Management of Hypertension: An Evidence-Based Update.
- [17] ASPEN-FELANPE Clinical Guidelines.
- [18] ESPEN guideline: Clinical nutrition in inflammatory bowel disease.
- [19] When Is Parenteral Nutrition Appropriate?
- [20] Editorial: Pediatric autoimmune neuropsychiatric syndrome
- [21] PANDAS/PANS in childhood: Controversies and evidence.
- [22] Clinical Management of Pediatric Acute-Onset Neuropsychiatric Syndrome: Part I—Psychiatric and Behavioral Interventions
- [23] Overview of Treatment of Pediatric Acute-Onset Neuropsychiatric Syndrome.
- [24] Respiratory and Allergic Health Effects of Dampness, Mold, and Dampness-Related Agents: A Review of the Epidemiologic Evidence
- [25] Respiratory and Allergic Health Effects of Dampness, Mold, and Dampness-Related Agents: A Review of the Epidemiologic Evidence
- [26] Damp housing, mould growth, and symptomatic health state.
- [27] Changes in respiratory and non-respiratory symptoms in occupants of a large office building over a period of moisture damage remediation attempts