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

Supports

The specific phrase “stuck in protective stress responses” is not a standard biomedical outcome measure, but the broader idea that chronic illness can be associated with persistent stress-system activation and symptom persistence is biologically plausible. Stress physiology can affect immune, endocrine, and autonomic function, which may influence symptom burden and recovery in some conditions; however, the provided index papers do not directly study Lyme disease, mold illness, MCAS, or PANS/PANDAS, so they do not directly support the claim as stated. ^{[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]}

Contradicts

The claim is too broad and not well supported by high-quality evidence for the named conditions. ^[5] None of the provided index papers are disease-specific evidence for Lyme disease, mold illness, MCAS, or PANS/PANDAS, and several are unrelated guideline or methodology papers rather than trials or reviews of stress-state mechanisms. ^[1][3][6] For these conditions, mainstream evidence focuses on specific infectious, immunologic, or inflammatory mechanisms and established diagnostic/treatment criteria rather than a validated “protective stress response” model. In addition, major evidence-based guidelines in the index set address other disorders and do not substantiate this claim . ^[2]

Mainstream view

Mainstream medicine recognizes that chronic illness can interact with stress, autonomic arousal, sleep, mood, and immune regulation, and these factors can affect how patients feel and function. But the specific claim that many people with Lyme disease, mold illness, MCAS, and PANS/PANDAS “struggle to heal when their bodies remain stuck in protective stress responses” is not an established medical consensus statement and is not supported by strong condition-specific evidence. ^[4][5] For these illnesses, the standard view is that diagnosis and treatment should be based on validated criteria and disease-specific evidence, while stress management may be adjunctive rather than explanatory or curative. ^[1][6]

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: RSMo § 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

The specific phrase “stuck in protective stress responses” is not a standard biomedical outcome measure, but the broader idea that chronic illness can be associated with persistent stress-system activation and symptom persistence is biologically plausible. Stress physiology can affect immune, endocrine, and autonomic function, which may influence symptom burden and recovery in some conditions; however, the provided index papers do not directly study Lyme disease, mold illness, MCAS, or PANS/PANDAS, so they do not directly support the claim as stated. ^{[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]}

Contradicts

The claim is too broad and not well supported by high-quality evidence for the named conditions. ^[5] None of the provided index papers are disease-specific evidence for Lyme disease, mold illness, MCAS, or PANS/PANDAS, and several are unrelated guideline or methodology papers rather than trials or reviews of stress-state mechanisms. ^[1][3][6] For these conditions, mainstream evidence focuses on specific infectious, immunologic, or inflammatory mechanisms and established diagnostic/treatment criteria rather than a validated “protective stress response” model. In addition, major evidence-based guidelines in the index set address other disorders and do not substantiate this claim . ^[2]

Mainstream view

Mainstream medicine recognizes that chronic illness can interact with stress, autonomic arousal, sleep, mood, and immune regulation, and these factors can affect how patients feel and function. But the specific claim that many people with Lyme disease, mold illness, MCAS, and PANS/PANDAS “struggle to heal when their bodies remain stuck in protective stress responses” is not an established medical consensus statement and is not supported by strong condition-specific evidence. ^[4][5] For these illnesses, the standard view is that diagnosis and treatment should be based on validated criteria and disease-specific evidence, while stress management may be adjunctive rather than explanatory or curative. ^[1][6]

In their own wordsWatch source

“Lyme disease”

Rule: RSMo § 331.010

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

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

mold illness

Supports

The specific phrase “stuck in protective stress responses” is not a standard biomedical outcome measure, but the broader idea that chronic illness can be associated with persistent stress-system activation and symptom persistence is biologically plausible. Stress physiology can affect immune, endocrine, and autonomic function, which may influence symptom burden and recovery in some conditions; however, the provided index papers do not directly study Lyme disease, mold illness, MCAS, or PANS/PANDAS, so they do not directly support the claim as stated. ^{[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]}

Contradicts

The claim is too broad and not well supported by high-quality evidence for the named conditions. ^[5] None of the provided index papers are disease-specific evidence for Lyme disease, mold illness, MCAS, or PANS/PANDAS, and several are unrelated guideline or methodology papers rather than trials or reviews of stress-state mechanisms. ^[1][3][6] For these conditions, mainstream evidence focuses on specific infectious, immunologic, or inflammatory mechanisms and established diagnostic/treatment criteria rather than a validated “protective stress response” model. In addition, major evidence-based guidelines in the index set address other disorders and do not substantiate this claim . ^[2]

Mainstream view

Mainstream medicine recognizes that chronic illness can interact with stress, autonomic arousal, sleep, mood, and immune regulation, and these factors can affect how patients feel and function. But the specific claim that many people with Lyme disease, mold illness, MCAS, and PANS/PANDAS “struggle to heal when their bodies remain stuck in protective stress responses” is not an established medical consensus statement and is not supported by strong condition-specific evidence. ^[4][5] For these illnesses, the standard view is that diagnosis and treatment should be based on validated criteria and disease-specific evidence, while stress management may be adjunctive rather than explanatory or curative. ^[1][6]

In their own wordsWatch source

“mold illness”

Rule: RSMo § 331.010

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

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

MCAS

Supports

The specific phrase “stuck in protective stress responses” is not a standard biomedical outcome measure, but the broader idea that chronic illness can be associated with persistent stress-system activation and symptom persistence is biologically plausible. Stress physiology can affect immune, endocrine, and autonomic function, which may influence symptom burden and recovery in some conditions; however, the provided index papers do not directly study Lyme disease, mold illness, MCAS, or PANS/PANDAS, so they do not directly support the claim as stated. ^{[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]}

Contradicts

The claim is too broad and not well supported by high-quality evidence for the named conditions. ^[5] None of the provided index papers are disease-specific evidence for Lyme disease, mold illness, MCAS, or PANS/PANDAS, and several are unrelated guideline or methodology papers rather than trials or reviews of stress-state mechanisms. ^[1][3][6] For these conditions, mainstream evidence focuses on specific infectious, immunologic, or inflammatory mechanisms and established diagnostic/treatment criteria rather than a validated “protective stress response” model. In addition, major evidence-based guidelines in the index set address other disorders and do not substantiate this claim . ^[2]

Mainstream view

Mainstream medicine recognizes that chronic illness can interact with stress, autonomic arousal, sleep, mood, and immune regulation, and these factors can affect how patients feel and function. But the specific claim that many people with Lyme disease, mold illness, MCAS, and PANS/PANDAS “struggle to heal when their bodies remain stuck in protective stress responses” is not an established medical consensus statement and is not supported by strong condition-specific evidence. ^[4][5] For these illnesses, the standard view is that diagnosis and treatment should be based on validated criteria and disease-specific evidence, while stress management may be adjunctive rather than explanatory or curative. ^[1][6]

In their own wordsWatch source

“MCAS”

Rule: RSMo § 331.010

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

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

The specific phrase “stuck in protective stress responses” is not a standard biomedical outcome measure, but the broader idea that chronic illness can be associated with persistent stress-system activation and symptom persistence is biologically plausible. Stress physiology can affect immune, endocrine, and autonomic function, which may influence symptom burden and recovery in some conditions; however, the provided index papers do not directly study Lyme disease, mold illness, MCAS, or PANS/PANDAS, so they do not directly support the claim as stated. ^{[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]}

Contradicts

The claim is too broad and not well supported by high-quality evidence for the named conditions. ^[5] None of the provided index papers are disease-specific evidence for Lyme disease, mold illness, MCAS, or PANS/PANDAS, and several are unrelated guideline or methodology papers rather than trials or reviews of stress-state mechanisms. ^[1][3][6] For these conditions, mainstream evidence focuses on specific infectious, immunologic, or inflammatory mechanisms and established diagnostic/treatment criteria rather than a validated “protective stress response” model. In addition, major evidence-based guidelines in the index set address other disorders and do not substantiate this claim . ^[2]

Mainstream view

Mainstream medicine recognizes that chronic illness can interact with stress, autonomic arousal, sleep, mood, and immune regulation, and these factors can affect how patients feel and function. But the specific claim that many people with Lyme disease, mold illness, MCAS, and PANS/PANDAS “struggle to heal when their bodies remain stuck in protective stress responses” is not an established medical consensus statement and is not supported by strong condition-specific evidence. ^[4][5] For these illnesses, the standard view is that diagnosis and treatment should be based on validated criteria and disease-specific evidence, while stress management may be adjunctive rather than explanatory or curative. ^[1][6]

In their own wordsWatch source

“PANS/PANDAS”

Rule: RSMo § 331.010

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

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

Supports

None of the indexed clinical trials relate to chiropractic treatment or autoimmune encephalitis; they cover topics such as antifungal resistance in infants, chemotherapy pharmacokinetics, metformin for autophagy, swaddle bathing, and other unrelated interventions. ^[10][12] Peer‑reviewed reviews and consensus guidelines on autoimmune encephalitis consistently support treatment with immunotherapy (high‑dose corticosteroids, intravenous immunoglobulin, plasma exchange) and, in refractory cases, B‑cell depleting agents or other immunosuppressants, not spinal manipulation or chiropractic techniques. ^[9] These sources describe autoimmune encephalitis as an antibody‑mediated inflammatory brain disease requiring prompt immunomodulatory and sometimes oncologic therapy, with no mention of chiropractic as a therapeutic modality. Therefore, there is no high‑quality evidence (RCTs, systematic reviews, major guidelines) supporting chiropractor treatment as an effective therapy for infection‑induced autoimmune encephalitis.

Contradicts

The mainstream evidence base for autoimmune encephalitis, including international and national consensus guidelines, emphasizes early recognition, exclusion of infection, and rapid initiation of immunotherapy such as high‑dose intravenous corticosteroids, IVIG, and plasma exchange as first‑line treatment, followed by agents like rituximab or cyclophosphamide if the disease is refractory. ^[10][12] These guidelines and reviews describe autoimmune encephalitis as a serious, potentially life‑threatening condition that requires hospital‑based neurological and critical care management and, when infection is present, appropriate antimicrobial therapy; they do not consider or recommend chiropractic manipulation or other chiropractic interventions as treatment. Case reports of infection‑related or COVID‑19‑associated autoimmune encephalitis further illustrate that patients who improve do so after targeted immunotherapy and, when needed, treatment of the underlying infection or tumor, again with no role for chiropractic care documented. ^[9] The absence of any mention of chiropractic in these detailed treatment frameworks, combined with the clear recommendation for potent immunomodulatory drugs and intensive monitoring, contradicts the idea that chiropractor treatment is an effective or appropriate primary therapy for infection‑induced autoimmune encephalitis.

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical position is that autoimmune encephalitis, including forms triggered or unmasked by infection, is a rare but severe antibody‑mediated inflammatory brain disorder that must be managed with evidence‑based immunotherapy and, when indicated, tumor resection or anti‑infective treatment under specialist neurologic care. ^[9][12] Standard first‑line treatment consists of high‑dose intravenous corticosteroids plus either intravenous immunoglobulin or plasma exchange, with escalation to second‑line immunosuppressants (such as rituximab or cyclophosphamide) if response is inadequate. Major guidelines stress the need to rule out active infection, provide supportive intensive care, and treat any underlying neoplasm; chiropractic manipulation is not part of diagnostic evaluation or treatment algorithms and is not recognized as an effective intervention for autoimmune encephalitis. ^[10] At most, chiropractors may have a role in general musculoskeletal care or rehabilitation in stable patients, but they are not considered appropriate providers for treating the encephalitis itself, particularly when it is infection‑induced and requires urgent immunologic and antimicrobial management.

In their own wordsWatch source

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

Rule: RSMo § 331.010

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

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'

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

In their own wordsWatch source

“Lyme disease”

Rule: RSMo § 331.010

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

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

Supports

There is substantial evidence that structured music therapy and music-listening interventions can reduce stress and anxiety and modulate autonomic nervous system activity, which is one key component of nervous system regulation. ^[8][14] Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials show that music therapy produces small-to-medium reductions in anxiety compared with control conditions, including in clinical and non-clinical populations, supporting the stress-reduction aspect of the claim. ^{[2][15][16][17]} Additional randomized trials in students demonstrate reductions in both self-reported stress and physiological stress markers (such as cortisol and heart rate) after group music therapy sessions, consistent with short-term nervous system regulation and stress relief. ^[13] A systematic review of 29 studies on music and heart rate variability reports that most studies find music increases parasympathetic activity and heart rate variability, indicating beneficial modulation of cardiac autonomic function, although risk of bias is high. Other reviews in people living with dementia and chronic health conditions find that music interventions can improve psychological wellbeing, depressive symptoms, and sometimes autonomic markers, suggesting supportive roles in coping with chronic illness, mood, and stress, even if they are adjunctive rather than curative. Overall, high-quality evidence supports a role for music-based interventions in reducing stress and anxiety and in influencing autonomic nervous system parameters, which aligns with parts of the influencer’s claim about nervous system regulation and stress reduction. ^[1][5]

Contradicts

The claim is broad and implies that music, rhythm, and frequency can reliably regulate the nervous system and support recovery from chronic illness in a general sense, which is not supported by current evidence. Existing systematic reviews emphasize that while music can modulate autonomic markers (e. ^[14] g. , heart rate variability, blood pressure, stress hormones), the quality of evidence is often low to moderate, with small sample sizes, heterogeneous interventions, and high risk of bias, so effects are not consistent or robust enough to claim predictable nervous system regulation across conditions. ^[5][13] The evidence base for music directly driving recovery from chronic illnesses (such as inflammatory, cardiovascular, or autoimmune diseases) is weak: available reviews mostly show improvements in mood, anxiety, pain, and quality of life rather than disease remission, reduced inflammatory activity, or reversal of underlying pathology, and specifically note that there is not enough evidence that music improves many disease-specific outcomes. ^[15][16] Major clinical guidelines for chronic somatic diseases (e. ^[2] g. , hypertension management, clinical nutrition in inflammatory bowel disease, parenteral nutrition, transfusion therapy) focus on pharmacologic, nutritional, and procedural interventions and do not include music or sound-based therapies as core disease-modifying treatments, reflecting the absence of strong evidence that music directly alters the course of these conditions. ^{[1][3][4][8][17]}

Mainstream view

Mainstream medicine and neuroscience recognize music therapy as a credible adjunctive treatment for stress, anxiety, mood disorders, some pain conditions, and aspects of psychological wellbeing, with modest but clinically meaningful benefits documented in randomized trials and systematic reviews. ^[8][15][17] The prevailing view is that music can influence autonomic nervous system activity and stress-related physiology (heart rate variability, cortisol, blood pressure) in the short term, contributing to stress regulation and emotional coping, but that these effects are variable, context-dependent, and not yet characterized as reliable, long-term “nervous system regulation” in the broad sense often promoted by influencers. ^[13][14][16] For chronic illnesses, mainstream practice regards music therapy as supportive or palliative—helping patients cope with symptoms, anxiety, depression, and quality of life—rather than as a primary disease-modifying therapy capable of driving recovery or remission, and this is reflected in the absence of music-based interventions from major treatment guidelines for chronic somatic diseases such as hypertension, inflammatory bowel disease, and cardiovascular conditions. ^{[1][2][3][5][6]}

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: RSMo § 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

Supports

High-quality evidence and guidelines for tick-borne infections (including Lyme disease and common co-infections such as Babesia, Anaplasma, Ehrlichia) focus on antimicrobial therapy, not chiropractic treatment. The 2020 IDSA/AAN/ACR Lyme disease guideline, reaffirmed in 2023, provides evidence-based recommendations for prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of Lyme disease and Lyme complicated by coinfection with other tick-borne pathogens; recommended therapies are antibiotics and, in selected cases, antiparasitic agents, with no role for chiropractic care in eradicating infection or treating organ manifestations.^[20][12][14] CDC clinical care recommendations for Lyme disease similarly specify antibiotic regimens for the major clinical manifestations and note that these regimens are aligned with the IDSA/AAN/ACR guidelines, again without mention of chiropractic or spinal manipulation as disease-directed therapy.^[23][9] Randomized trials and clinical studies in Lyme and post-treatment Lyme disease syndrome have evaluated pharmacologic agents (e.g., longer-term antibiotic therapy, disulfiram pilot study) and some non-pharmacologic modalities such as Kundalini yoga for symptom burden, but do not include chiropractic manipulation as a tested intervention for tick-borne infections or their co-infections.^[16][4][6] Overall, current high-quality evidence supports antibiotic-based treatment and, in some cases, carefully studied adjuncts; it does not specifically support chiropractor-directed treatment as a modality for tick-borne co-infections beyond generic musculoskeletal symptom relief.

Contradicts

Major evidence-based guidelines and public health recommendations contradict the notion that chiropractic treatment is an effective or primary therapy for tick-borne co-infections. The IDSA/AAN/ACR guideline explicitly addresses Lyme disease with co-infection by other tick-borne pathogens and recommends defined antimicrobial regimens; it does not endorse manual therapies, spinal manipulation, or chiropractic approaches for clearing infections or managing neurologic, cardiac, rheumatologic, or systemic manifestations.^[20][12][14] CDC clinical care guidance for Lyme disease similarly confines treatment recommendations to antibiotics, with durations and drug choices based on clinical presentation, and does not consider chiropractic care as disease-modifying therapy.^[23][9] Trials of longer-term antibiotic treatment for persistent symptoms attributed to Lyme disease have not demonstrated benefit of prolonged antibiotics over shorter courses, which underscores that even among biomedical interventions, only certain approaches are supported—there is no parallel evidence base for chiropractic manipulation in this context.^[16] The pilot disulfiram study for individuals with persistent symptoms after Lyme disease illustrates the experimental nature of alternative pharmacologic strategies and emphasizes safety and tolerability; again, non-pharmacologic adjuncts like chiropractic are not part of these controlled investigations.^[4] Where non-antibiotic modalities have been studied, such as Kundalini yoga for post-treatment Lyme disease syndrome, they are framed as adjuncts for symptom burden and cognition, not as treatments for underlying infection or co-infections.^[6] In sum, available high-quality evidence and guidelines make clear that tick-borne infections and co-infections are managed with antimicrobials and supportive care; claims that chiropractor treatment can address the infections themselves or substitute for evidence-based antimicrobial therapy are not supported and conflict with mainstream recommendations.

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical and scientific position is that tick-borne infections and their co-infections (e.g., Lyme borreliosis, babesiosis, anaplasmosis) are infectious diseases caused by specific pathogens transmitted by ticks and require evidence-based antimicrobial therapy. Authoritative guidelines from IDSA, AAN, and ACR specify diagnostic algorithms (including appropriate serologic testing) and recommend antibiotic or antiparasitic regimens tailored to the clinical manifestations and presence of co-infections; chiropractic treatment is not considered an antimicrobial or first-line medical therapy in these documents.^{[20][12][14][9]} Public health agencies such as CDC similarly emphasize prevention (tick-avoidance measures, emerging vaccines), prompt recognition of disease, and appropriate antibiotic treatment; they do not list chiropractic care as a treatment for the infections themselves.^[23] Chiropractic and other manual therapies may be used in general practice for musculoskeletal pain, stiffness, or functional complaints, including in people who also happen to have or have had Lyme disease, but this is understood as nonspecific symptomatic care rather than pathogen-targeted treatment. Mainstream clinicians therefore view chiropractic care, at most, as an optional adjunct for musculoskeletal symptom management, not as a therapy for tick-borne co-infections or a substitute for indicated antimicrobials.

In their own wordsWatch source

“tick-borne co-infections”

Rule: RSMo § 331.010

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