Jaban M Moore alias Dr. Stress-Response Shaman

Jaban M Moore is not licensed or approved by Missouri State Board of Chiropractic Examiners to diagnose, treat, or cure many people with chronic illnesses, including Lyme disease, mold illness, MCAS, and PANS/PANDAS, can struggle to heal when their bodies remain stuck in protective stress responses.

many people with chronic illnesses, including Lyme disease, mold illness, MCAS, and PANS/PANDAS, can struggle to heal when their bodies remain stuck in protective stress responses

Mainstream medical consensus does not support the claim that music, rhythm, or frequency can 'support chronic illness recovery' for serious systemic diseases like Lyme disease, mold illness, MCAS, or PANS/PANDAS. These conditions involve active infection, immune dysregulation, or neuroinflammation, not just 'protective stress responses,' and require evidence-based medical treatment (e.g., antibiotics, immunomodulators) rather than sound-based interventions. The literature does not back the assertion that stress responses are the primary barrier to healing for these complex diseases. Evidence lookup unavailable for this claim.

In their own wordsWatch source

“Understand why many people with chronic illnesses, including Lyme disease, mold illness, MCAS, and PANS/PANDAS, can struggle to heal when their bodies remain stuck in protective stress responses”

Rule: § 331.010

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

Mainstream view

Deterministic PubMed cross-check found no matching indexed studies for these terms (absence of indexed evidence is not evidence against the claim). ^{[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]}

In their own wordsWatch source

“Lyme disease”

Rule: § 331.010

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

mold illness

Supports

High-quality evidence supports that indoor dampness and mold are associated with respiratory symptoms (cough, wheeze, upper respiratory symptoms), development and exacerbation of asthma, allergic rhinitis, hypersensitivity pneumonitis in susceptible individuals, and other allergic or irritant effects. ^[11] Large epidemiologic reviews and guidelines (WHO indoor air quality: dampness and mould; Institute of Medicine/National Academies; CDC and national public health agencies) consistently conclude that occupants of damp or moldy buildings have increased risk of respiratory symptoms, infections, and asthma exacerbations. ^[16] Systematic reviews of epidemiologic data find sufficient evidence of association between dampness/mold and asthma symptoms, respiratory infections, and allergic conditions, and some evidence for onset of asthma. There is emerging, but still limited, literature on “dampness and mold hypersensitivity syndrome” (DMHS) describing cohorts with multi-system symptoms (respiratory, neurological, neurocognitive, multiple chemical sensitivity) temporally associated with water-damaged buildings, and proposing clinical criteria and immunologic mechanisms; these papers document that some exposed workers report a broad array of symptoms and show immunologic alterations, suggesting that mold-associated illness may extend beyond classic allergy and asthma in at least a subset of individuals. ^{[9][10][12][13][14][15]} More recent narrative reviews of chronic inflammatory response syndrome (CIRS) argue that chronic indoor microbial growth and dampness exposure are correlated with multisystem adverse health effects and propose treatment protocols; these synthesize many epidemiologic studies reporting associations between water-damaged buildings and diverse symptoms. Overall, high-quality evidence clearly supports that “mold illness” in the sense of respiratory and allergic disease from damp, moldy environments is real and clinically important, while the evidence for a broader, systemic syndrome is suggestive but not yet definitive.

Contradicts

Major consensus reviews and guidelines emphasize that, while associations between dampness/mold and respiratory/allergic conditions are well supported, evidence does not robustly support a causal link between indoor mold and a wide array of nonspecific systemic complaints (chronic fatigue, widespread pain, cognitive dysfunction) that are frequently described by influencers under the umbrella of “mold illness. ^[12][15][16] ” High-level assessments from bodies such as the Institute of Medicine/National Academies and WHO explicitly state that current evidence does not support extending mold-related health effects to a broad spectrum of non-respiratory syndromes, and that data for mycotoxin-mediated systemic illness from typical residential or office exposure are weak. ^[9][11] Public health documents note that inhalational disease from indoor mycotoxin exposure in non-occupational settings is poorly documented and that claims of widespread systemic toxicity from household mold are not backed by strong clinical or toxicological evidence. ^[10] The DMHS and CIRS literatures largely consist of observational cohorts, case series, narrative reviews and proposed criteria without widely validated diagnostic tests, standardized case definitions, or large RCTs, and they frequently acknowledge controversies and diagnostic challenges; this weakens support for influencers’ frequent portrayal of mold illness as a well-established, distinct multisystem disease entity. ^[13][14] No major international respiratory, allergy, or occupational health guidelines currently endorse specific diagnostic panels (e. g. , extensive mycotoxin testing) or proprietary treatment protocols (such as some versions of the Shoemaker protocol) as standard of care, and controlled trials demonstrating efficacy of such protocols are lacking. Overall, the strongest contradictory or cautionary evidence concerns broad, systemic “mold illness” claims and specific therapeutic protocols, where the quality and consistency of data are low.

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical and public health position is that indoor dampness and mold are important environmental health hazards primarily because they increase the risk of respiratory and allergic conditions, including asthma (new-onset and exacerbations), cough, wheeze, upper respiratory symptoms, hypersensitivity pneumonitis in susceptible individuals, allergic rhinitis, and some skin conditions. ^{[9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16]} Indoor environments should be remediated when dampness or mold is present, and symptomatic individuals with asthma or allergies should receive standard evidence-based management. At the same time, mainstream bodies conclude that evidence for mold causing a broad, well-defined systemic illness with multi-organ involvement (often labeled “mold illness,” DMHS, CIRS, or chronic biotoxin illness) is limited and controversial. These entities are not widely recognized as distinct, validated diagnoses in major guidelines, and there are no universally accepted laboratory markers or standardized diagnostic criteria endorsed by large professional societies. Mycotoxins in indoor environments are regarded as potential health hazards, but current data do not substantiate widespread severe systemic toxicity from typical residential or office-level exposures, and routine environmental or biological mycotoxin testing is generally not recommended outside specialized occupational or research contexts. Clinicians are encouraged to take symptoms seriously, assess for established

In their own wordsWatch source

“mold illness”

Rule: § 331.010

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

MCAS

Mainstream medical consensus does not support the claim that music, rhythm, or frequency can 'support chronic illness recovery' for serious systemic diseases like Lyme disease, mold illness, MCAS, or PANS/PANDAS. These conditions involve active infection, immune dysregulation, or neuroinflammation, not just 'protective stress responses,' and require evidence-based medical treatment (e.g., antibiotics, immunomodulators) rather than sound-based interventions. The literature does not back the assertion that stress responses are the primary barrier to healing for these complex diseases. Evidence lookup unavailable for this claim.

In their own wordsWatch source

“MCAS”

Rule: § 331.010

Jaban M Moore is not licensed or approved by Missouri State Board of Chiropractic Examiners to diagnose, treat, or cure PANS/PANDAS.

PANS/PANDAS

Mainstream medical consensus does not support the claim that music, rhythm, or frequency can 'support chronic illness recovery' for serious systemic diseases like Lyme disease, mold illness, MCAS, or PANS/PANDAS. These conditions involve active infection, immune dysregulation, or neuroinflammation, not just 'protective stress responses,' and require evidence-based medical treatment (e.g., antibiotics, immunomodulators) rather than sound-based interventions. The literature does not back the assertion that stress responses are the primary barrier to healing for these complex diseases. Evidence lookup unavailable for this claim.

In their own wordsWatch source

“PANS/PANDAS”

Rule: § 331.010

Jaban M Moore is not licensed or approved by Missouri State Board of Chiropractic Examiners to diagnose, treat, or cure infection-induced autoimmune encephalitis.

infection-induced autoimmune encephalitis

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

In their own wordsWatch source

“infection-induced autoimmune encephalitis (PANS/PANDAS)”

Rule: § 331.010

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, tick-borne co-infections, mold illness, and PANS/PANDAS with 'natural interventions'.

Diagnosing and treating Lyme disease, tick-borne co-infections, mold illness, and PANS/PANDAS with 'natural interventions'

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

Mainstream view

Deterministic PubMed cross-check found no matching indexed studies for these terms (absence of indexed evidence is not evidence against the claim). ^{[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]}

In their own wordsWatch source

“Lyme disease”

Rule: § 331.010

Jaban M Moore is not licensed or approved by Missouri State Board of Chiropractic Examiners to diagnose, treat, or cure Claiming music, rhythm, and frequency can 'support chronic illness recovery' for systemic diseases like Lyme, mold, MCAS, and PANS/PANDAS.

Claiming music, rhythm, and frequency can 'support chronic illness recovery' for systemic diseases like Lyme, mold, MCAS, and PANS/PANDAS

Mainstream medical consensus does not support the claim that music, rhythm, or frequency can 'support chronic illness recovery' for serious systemic diseases like Lyme disease, mold illness, MCAS, or PANS/PANDAS. These conditions involve active infection, immune dysregulation, or neuroinflammation, not just 'protective stress responses,' and require evidence-based medical treatment (e.g., antibiotics, immunomodulators) rather than sound-based interventions. The literature does not back the assertion that stress responses are the primary barrier to healing for these complex diseases. Evidence lookup unavailable for this claim.

In their own wordsWatch source

“MCAS”

Rule: § 331.010

Jaban M Moore is not licensed or approved by Missouri State Board of Chiropractic Examiners to diagnose, treat, or cure Treating infection-induced autoimmune encephalitis (PANS/PANDAS) in children with 'natural interventions'.

Treating infection-induced autoimmune encephalitis (PANS/PANDAS) in children with 'natural interventions'

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

In their own wordsWatch source

“PANS/PANDAS”

Rule: § 331.010

Jaban M Moore is not licensed or approved by Missouri State Board of Chiropractic Examiners to diagnose, treat, or cure Treatment of Lyme disease, mold illness, MCAS, and PANS/PANDAS with 'simple, natural interventions'.

Treatment of Lyme disease, mold illness, MCAS, and PANS/PANDAS with 'simple, natural interventions'

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

Mainstream view

Deterministic PubMed cross-check found no matching indexed studies for these terms (absence of indexed evidence is not evidence against the claim). ^{[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]}

In their own wordsWatch source

“Lyme disease”

Rule: § 331.010

Jaban M Moore is not licensed or approved by Missouri State Board of Chiropractic Examiners to advertise music, rhythm, and frequency can help regulate the nervous system, reduce stress, and support chronic illness recovery as within their scope of practice.

music, rhythm, and frequency can help regulate the nervous system, reduce stress, and support chronic illness recovery

Mainstream medical consensus does not support the claim that music, rhythm, or frequency can 'support chronic illness recovery' for serious systemic diseases like Lyme disease, mold illness, MCAS, or PANS/PANDAS. These conditions involve active infection, immune dysregulation, or neuroinflammation, not just 'protective stress responses,' and require evidence-based medical treatment (e.g., antibiotics, immunomodulators) rather than sound-based interventions. The literature does not back the assertion that stress responses are the primary barrier to healing for these complex diseases. Evidence lookup unavailable for this claim.

In their own wordsWatch source

“Discover how music, rhythm, and frequency can help regulate the nervous system, reduce stress, and support chronic illness recovery”

Rule: § 331.010

Jaban M Moore is not licensed or approved by Missouri State Board of Chiropractic Examiners to diagnose, treat, or cure tick-borne co-infections.

tick-borne co-infections

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

In their own wordsWatch source

“tick-borne co-infections”

Rule: § 331.010