Jonah Dallas Yakel alias The Brain Reversal Chiro

Jonah Dallas Yakel is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to advertise Cognitive decline, dementia, and Alzheimer's disease as within their scope of practice.

Cognitive decline, dementia, and Alzheimer's disease

Supports

There is extremely limited, early-stage evidence that chiropractic spinal manipulation can produce short-term neurophysiological changes in people with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or Alzheimer’s disease, but this does not demonstrate clinical benefit on cognition, dementia progression, or Alzheimer’s disease outcomes. One recent pilot randomized cross-over trial in adults with Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s disease found that a single chiropractic spinal adjustment altered EEG measures (e.g., reduced somatosensory evoked N30 potential and increased resting-state EEG power and connectivity in default mode network bands), but did not show meaningful cognitive or functional improvements or disease modification; this provides only feasibility and neurophysiological data, not evidence of clinical efficacy. Narrative reviews on manual therapy and aging report measurable neurophysiological effects of spinal manipulation (changes in cortical excitability, connectivity, sensorimotor integration), suggesting that manual therapy can influence central nervous system function, but these are mechanistic and not specific to dementia or Alzheimer’s disease, nor do they show prevention or treatment of cognitive decline. Systematic reviews and trials of spinal manipulative therapy in older adults support its use for musculoskeletal conditions (e.g., chronic low back pain) with similar outcomes to other recommended interventions, but these do not address dementia treatment or prevention and only indicate that chiropractic care can be part of general geriatric musculoskeletal management.

Contradicts

Major dementia and Alzheimer’s disease guidelines and prevention trials do not recommend chiropractic treatment as a therapy to improve cognitive decline, treat dementia, or modify Alzheimer’s disease progression. Current guideline-driven management of dementia and Alzheimer’s disease focuses on evidence-based pharmacologic treatments (e.g., cholinesterase inhibitors, memantine), structured cognitive interventions, multi-domain lifestyle programs (diet, exercise, cognitive training, vascular risk control), management of comorbidities (hearing loss, hypertension), and supportive care; chiropractic spinal manipulation is not included as a disease-modifying or core symptomatic treatment strategy. Large randomized controlled trials such as multidomain lifestyle interventions (e.g., diet, exercise, cognitive training, vascular risk monitoring) and other prevention trials demonstrate benefits on cognitive trajectories and dementia risk, but these benefits are attributed to established modifiable risk-factor management, not manual therapy or chiropractic care. Existing chiropractic-related dementia resources from professional chiropractic bodies focus on making clinics dementia-friendly and on safe access for patients with dementia, not on claiming chiropractic can treat dementia or Alzheimer’s disease. The available neurophysiological pilot studies are small, short-term, and focused on EEG changes without robust cognitive or clinical endpoints, and therefore provide very low-certainty evidence that cannot support therapeutic claims. There are no high-quality randomized trials, meta-analyses, or major guidelines showing that chiropractic care slows cognitive decline, prevents dementia, or treats Alzheimer’s disease, so any strong claim of therapeutic efficacy is not supported and conflicts with mainstream evidence hierarchies.

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical and scientific position is that chiropractic care is not an established or recommended treatment for cognitive decline, dementia, or Alzheimer’s disease. Dementia and Alzheimer’s care guidelines emphasize multi-domain approaches: control of vascular risk factors (e.g., hypertension), physical activity, cognitively stimulating activities, healthy diet, social engagement, treatment of sensory impairments (such as hearing loss), and evidence-based medications when appropriate, along with structured psychosocial and environmental interventions. Manual therapies including chiropractic may be used for coexisting musculoskeletal problems in older adults (e.g., back pain) and can be integrated into geriatric care for symptom relief and mobility, provided they are delivered safely and collaboratively within a broader medical framework, but they are considered adjunctive for comfort and function, not disease-modifying interventions for dementia. Current mainstream dementia and Alzheimer’s guidelines and large clinical trials do not list chiropractic spinal manipulation as a recommended intervention for preventing cognitive decline, treating dementia, or altering Alzheimer’s disease progression; any role is limited to general supportive care of physical complaints. Thus, claiming that chiropractic treatment can treat or reverse cognitive decline, dementia, or Alzheimer’s disease goes beyond the available evidence and is not accepted as standard of care.

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Cognitive decline, dementia, and Alzheimer's disease”

Rule: KSA 65-2871

See every doc bro who says they can treat or advise on Dementia and Alzheimer disease

Jonah Dallas Yakel is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Anxiety and depression.

Anxiety and depression

Supports

Evidence directly supporting chiropractic treatment as an effective, primary therapy for clinical anxiety or major depressive disorder is very limited and low quality. A small randomized controlled trial in hypertensive patients found that a single session of thoracic spinal adjustment modestly reduced state anxiety compared with placebo and no-treatment controls, but this was a short-term physiological study in blood-pressure patients, not people with anxiety disorders, and did not evaluate depression. Case reports and small case series describe reductions in anxiety or depressive symptoms in individual patients receiving chiropractic care, but these designs cannot establish causality or general effectiveness. A systematic review of psychological outcomes after spinal manipulation found only some evidence of improvement versus verbal interventions, with heterogeneous methods and generally low-quality data, and did not conclude that chiropractic is an established treatment for anxiety or depression. More recent overviews of manual therapies suggest possible small improvements in anxiety or depressive symptom scores after various hands-on interventions, but the evidence is rated very low quality, with high heterogeneity, small samples, and often involving massage or other modalities rather than chiropractic spinal manipulation specifically.

Contradicts

High-quality evidence for chiropractic as a treatment for anxiety or depression is weak, inconsistent, and largely indirect. Trials that add chiropractic care to established psychological therapy (such as cognitive behavioral therapy) have not shown clear additive benefits on anxiety outcomes compared with psychological therapy alone, indicating that chiropractic does not reliably enhance evidence-based mental health treatments. Systematic reviews of manual therapies for psychological outcomes emphasize that very few randomized trials report validated anxiety or depression measures, that risk of bias is high, and that any observed effects are small and uncertain; these reviews explicitly classify the certainty of evidence as very low to low and state that manual therapy is not a treatment for clinical anxiety or depression. Existing case reports and uncontrolled series show improvements but are highly prone to placebo effects, regression to the mean, and selection bias, and cannot be taken as proof of efficacy for anxiety or depressive disorders. Major psychiatric and primary-care guidelines for the management of anxiety and depression focus on psychotherapy (especially cognitive behavioral therapy and other structured psychotherapies), antidepressant medications, and lifestyle interventions, and do not recommend chiropractic or spinal manipulation as a treatment for these disorders. The listed guideline on psychodynamic treatment of depression describes psychodynamic psychotherapy as an effective, evidence-based approach for depressive disorders and discusses it within the context of mainstream psychiatric care; it does not list chiropractic or manual therapy among recommended treatments for depression, illustrating that leading guideline-driven management relies on psychological and pharmacologic therapies rather than chiropractic care for mood disorders.

Mainstream view

Mainstream medical and psychiatric practice does not regard chiropractic care as an evidence-based primary treatment for anxiety disorders or major depressive disorder. Chiropractors may play a role in managing musculoskeletal pain, headache, or other mechanical complaints, and improving these physical symptoms can indirectly help some patients feel less distressed, sleep better, or function more comfortably, which can modestly influence mood. However, current evidence and guidelines support established psychotherapies (such as cognitive behavioral therapy, psychodynamic therapy, and other structured psychological interventions) and pharmacologic treatments (such as antidepressants and anxiolytics) as the mainstays of care for anxiety and depression. Chiropractic or other manual therapies are considered, at most, adjunctive or complementary approaches for patients whose primary problems are pain or musculoskeletal dysfunction, not stand-alone treatments for psychiatric disorders. Therefore, the mainstream position is that people with anxiety or depression should receive guideline-based mental health assessment and treatment, and should not rely on chiropractic care as their primary therapy for these conditions.

Papers listed for this claim:[1][3][2][4][5][6][7][13][14][15][16][17]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Anxiety and depression”

Rule: KSA 65-2871

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

Jonah Dallas Yakel is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Autoimmune conditions.

Autoimmune conditions

Supports

There is some very preliminary evidence that chiropractic spinal manipulation can transiently change immune-related biomarkers such as cytokines (e.g., IL-6, TNF-α) in adults with spinal pain, suggesting a possible modulation of inflammatory pathways, but these studies do not involve patients with specific autoimmune diseases and do not demonstrate clinical benefit on autoimmune disease activity or outcomes. A pilot randomized trial is underway to examine effects of thoracic spinal manipulation on cytokine levels in patients with relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis, but this is an exploratory biomarker study and not evidence of disease control or remission in autoimmune disease. Overall, existing randomized trials and mechanistic studies suggest at most short-term changes in immune or stress biomarkers, not disease-modifying effects in autoimmune conditions.

Contradicts

A recent systematic review of spinal manipulative therapy and immune or infectious disease outcomes found no clinical studies demonstrating that spinal manipulation prevents infectious disease or improves disease-specific outcomes; the authors concluded there is no clinical evidence to support or refute claims that spinal manipulation meaningfully changes immune system outcomes, and that the clinical relevance of short-term biomarker changes is unknown. A united position statement from chiropractic researchers similarly concluded that no valid clinical evidence shows chiropractic care can enhance immune function or prevent infections, and emphasized that claims of immune enhancement are unsubstantiated. Major, contemporary autoimmune disease guidelines in rheumatology, gastroenterology, neurology, and related specialties focus on immunosuppressive or immunomodulatory drugs (e.g., corticosteroids, disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, biologics, targeted synthetic agents), adjunctive nutritional care, and appropriate vaccination, and do not recommend chiropractic or spinal manipulation as a disease-modifying treatment for autoimmune conditions. Guidelines for systemic lupus erythematosus, rheumatoid arthritis, inflammatory bowel disease, and other autoimmune diseases specify pharmacologic, nutritional, and rehabilitative strategies but do not list chiropractic care as a therapy for controlling autoimmune disease activity, preventing flares, or modifying long-term outcomes. Existing evidence for chiropractic care in comorbid neurological conditions (e.g., Alzheimer’s or Parkinson’s disease) is limited to small pilot trials assessing EEG changes and does not involve autoimmune pathophysiology or clinical autoimmune endpoints. Overall, claims that chiropractic treatment can treat or control autoimmune diseases themselves are not supported by randomized clinical trials, systematic reviews, or major guidelines.

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical and scientific view is that autoimmune diseases are driven by dysregulated immune responses requiring disease-specific, evidence-based immunomodulatory therapies (such as corticosteroids, conventional and biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, targeted synthetic agents, and sometimes stem cell or other advanced therapies), along with supportive measures including clinical nutrition, rehabilitation, and vaccination. Clinical practice guidelines across rheumatology, gastroenterology, neurology, and related fields consistently recommend pharmacologic immunosuppression or immunomodulation as the mainstay of treatment and do not recommend chiropractic or spinal manipulation as a primary or disease-modifying therapy for autoimmune conditions. Nonpharmacologic interventions (exercise, physical therapy, psychosocial support) may be recommended for symptom relief and function, but chiropractic care is regarded, at most, as an optional musculoskeletal or pain-management modality without evidence that it alters autoimmune disease activity, prevents progression, or replaces standard immunosuppressive treatment. Mainstream experts and guideline panels therefore consider chiropractic adjustments inappropriate as a stand-alone treatment for autoimmune diseases and emphasize maintaining or initiating guideline-directed immunomodulatory therapy and other standard care measures.

Papers listed for this claim:[1][3][2][5][4][6][7][8][18][19][20][21]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Autoimmune conditions”

Rule: KSA 65-2871

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

Jonah Dallas Yakel is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to advertise Mold and Lyme related illness as within their scope of practice.

Mold and Lyme related illness

Supports

Using chiropractic care as primary treatment for Lyme disease or mold-related illness is not supported by high-quality evidence such as randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, or major guidelines. No peer-reviewed RCTs, meta-analyses, or clinical practice guidelines demonstrate that spinal manipulation or other chiropractic techniques can eradicate Borrelia burgdorferi infection, reverse Lyme-related organ involvement, or directly treat mycotoxin-mediated illness. Existing Lyme disease guidelines from infectious disease and neurology societies instead focus on antibiotic regimens and evidence-based diagnostic criteria, not chiropractic interventions. Similarly, guidelines on general medical management topics in the list (e.g., hypertension, clinical nutrition, blood transfusion, pericarditis, tension-type headache) illustrate that mainstream, evidence-based management of systemic or infectious disease relies on pharmacologic and standard medical therapies rather than chiropractic approaches. Chiropractic care has evidence for musculoskeletal pain relief (such as low back pain) and possibly for some functional complaints, and it may provide supportive symptom management (e.g., easing musculoskeletal discomfort, improving perceived well-being) in patients who also have Lyme or mold-related illness, but that is an indirect, nonspecific effect, not disease-modifying treatment of infection or toxin injury. This type of supportive role is consistent with broader evidence that manual therapies can help with musculoskeletal conditions, but that evidence does not extend to treating systemic infections or mycotoxin illnesses as primary therapy.

Papers listed for this claim:[1][3][2][4][5][6][7][8][22][23][24][25]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Mold and Lyme related illness”

Rule: KSA 65-2871

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

Jonah Dallas Yakel is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure healing from CIRS.

healing from CIRS

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“healing from CIRS”

Rule: KSA 65-2871

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

Jonah Dallas Yakel is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure CIRS+.

CIRS+

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“CIRS+”

Rule: KSA 65-2871

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

Jonah Dallas Yakel is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to advertise The CIRS Brain Solution as within their scope of practice.

The CIRS Brain Solution

Supports

The influencer program "The CIRS Brain Solutions" appears to be positioned as an application of the Shoemaker Protocol framework for Chronic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (CIRS), led by a chiropractor who is a certified Shoemaker Protocol clinician. The most recent narrative review of CIRS reports that CIRS is an inflammatory-based illness with multi‑system and neurocognitive manifestations and concludes that the only treatment with documented clinical efficacy is the Shoemaker Protocol, with improvements in objective biomarkers and symptoms across multiple clinical studies. This indirectly supports the idea that a clinician trained in this protocol could help manage CIRS, including brain-related symptoms, provided the protocol is followed as described. Separate emerging literature on chiropractic spinal manipulation shows short‑term modulation of systemic inflammatory markers and stress-related biomarkers; for example, a recent trial found that 12 weeks of chiropractic care was associated with changes in blood levels of neurotrophic factors and inflammatory cytokines (increased BDNF and IL‑6, decreased TNF‑α, reduced cortisol and IFN‑γ) compared with sham care, suggesting possible influence on neuroplasticity and inflammatory pathways. Earlier small studies have shown normalization trends in inflammatory mediators after a brief course of chiropractic manipulation in chronic low back pain patients, again indicating some capacity to modulate systemic inflammatory responses. These lines of evidence support that 1) CIRS is understood as a chronic inflammatory, multi-system condition with brain involvement, and 2) chiropractic care can influence inflammatory and stress biomarkers, so chiropractic treatment could theoretically be used as an adjunct for symptom management, though this is extrapolated rather than directly demonstrated for CIRS.

Contradicts

The key evidence review on CIRS explicitly states that the only treatment with documented clinical efficacy is the Shoemaker Protocol and that published clinical success has been reported only for this protocol; it does not identify chiropractic treatment as a tested or recommended primary therapy for CIRS or for "CIRS brain" manifestations. There are no high‑quality randomized trials, meta‑analyses, or major guidelines demonstrating that chiropractic care alone treats CIRS, reverses its underlying pathophysiology, or specifically resolves its brain-related cognitive or neurologic symptoms. The biomarker and inflammatory studies related to chiropractic care are limited, small, and oriented to musculoskeletal pain or general inflammation, not to CIRS or CIRS‑associated neurocognitive dysfunction. These data show changes in inflammatory and stress markers but do not demonstrate disease‑modifying effects in complex chronic inflammatory syndromes like CIRS, nor do they establish improvements in validated CIRS diagnostic markers or long‑term clinical outcomes. Major neurologic and headache guidelines emphasize evidence-based pharmacologic and behavioral treatments, and they do not list chiropractic manipulation as a primary or disease‑specific therapy for inflammatory brain syndromes or chronic neuroinflammatory conditions. Overall, the evidence base for chiropractic treatment of "The CIRS Brain Solution" is indirect, extrapolated, and largely absent from peer‑reviewed clinical trials targeted to CIRS, so any claim that chiropractic care itself is a proven solution for the brain manifestations of CIRS is not supported by current high‑quality evidence.

Mainstream view

Mainstream medical and scientific opinion is that Chronic Inflammatory Response Syndrome is a proposed chronic inflammatory, multisystem illness for which the Shoemaker Protocol currently has the only documented clinical efficacy in the peer‑reviewed literature, with evidence based on biomarker changes and symptom resolution in observational and interventional studies. Conventional management focuses on identifying and removing biotoxin exposure, using specific binders and targeted pharmacologic and nutritional interventions, and normalizing documented immunologic and hormonal abnormalities, rather than on manual therapies. Chiropractic care is generally viewed in mainstream medicine as an option for musculoskeletal pain, particularly low back and neck pain, where some evidence supports short‑term benefit, and as an adjunctive therapy in selected conditions; its role in treating systemic inflammatory or neuroinflammatory syndromes is unproven and considered experimental or speculative. Thus, the mainstream position would regard a chiropractor‑led CIRS program that correctly applies the Shoemaker Protocol as acceptable in terms of following an evidence‑supported framework, but claims that chiropractic treatment itself provides a specific "CIRS Brain Solution" or directly treats CIRS‑related brain inflammation go beyond the current evidence base and are not endorsed by major guidelines or high‑quality trials.

Papers listed for this claim:[1][3][2][4][5][6][7][8][26][27][28][29]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“The CIRS Brain Solution”

Rule: KSA 65-2871

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

Jonah Dallas Yakel is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to advertise CIRS and mold-related illness healing protocols as within their scope of practice.

CIRS and mold-related illness healing protocols

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“#mold”

Rule: KSA 65-2871

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

Jonah Dallas Yakel is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Blood sugar dysfunction.

Blood sugar dysfunction

Supports

There is currently no high-quality evidence from large randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, or major clinical guidelines showing that chiropractic spinal manipulation is an effective treatment for blood sugar dysfunction or diabetes control. Most of the available data relevant to manual therapies and glucose are small, low-quality studies or case reports, often in osteopathic or other manual medicine rather than chiropractic, and they are considered preliminary and hypothesis-generating rather than definitive. Major guidelines on hypertension, nutrition, headache, transfusion, and other medical conditions emphasize pharmacologic therapy, lifestyle change (diet, physical activity, weight loss), and standard medical monitoring for metabolic and cardiovascular risk factors; they do not list chiropractic manipulation as a recognized treatment for blood sugar disorders or diabetes.

Contradicts

Existing evidence and guidelines suggest that blood sugar dysfunction and diabetes should be managed with established approaches such as diet, physical activity, weight control, pharmacologic therapy (e.g., metformin, insulin, other glucose-lowering agents), and structured education, not chiropractic adjustments. Large bodies of evidence show that interventions like supervised exercise and structured diabetes education programs can improve insulin sensitivity, fasting glucose, HbA1c, and self‑care, whereas chiropractic care has evidence mainly for musculoskeletal conditions (e.g., low back pain) and not for glycemic control. Manual therapy and massage have been studied in diabetes, but the available systematic review for massage concluded that while massage at injection sites can transiently affect insulin absorption and blood glucose in type 1 diabetes, there is insufficient evidence that such complementary treatments improve insulin sensitivity or long‑term glycemic control in type 2 diabetes; this underscores that evidence for manual therapies on blood sugar is weak and incomplete. A randomized trial of thrust manipulation of thoracic vertebrae (T8–T9) found no statistically significant changes in glycemia compared with controls, suggesting that spinal manipulation in healthy individuals does not meaningfully alter blood glucose levels. Small osteopathic manipulative treatment studies and case reports reporting changes in glucose or HbA1c are low to fair quality and underpowered; their authors explicitly state that larger, more rigorous trials are needed before any clinical significance can be claimed, which contradicts any strong assertion that such manual treatments reliably treat blood sugar dysfunction. Case reports of “resolution” or improvement of diabetes parameters under chiropractic or structural correction protocols typically combine dietary changes, weight loss, and other lifestyle factors, making it impossible to attribute effects specifically to spinal manipulation; such uncontrolled reports are considered very low-level evidence and do not override guideline-based care.

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical and scientific position is that chiropractic care may have a role in managing musculoskeletal conditions such as low back pain, but it is not an established, evidence-based treatment for blood sugar dysfunction or diabetes. Major clinical guidelines for cardiometabolic disease, nutrition support, and chronic disease management emphasize lifestyle interventions (dietary modification, physical activity, weight management), pharmacologic therapy, and structured patient education to achieve glycemic control and reduce cardiovascular risk; they do not recommend chiropractic spinal manipulation as a therapy for abnormal blood sugar or diabetes. Where manual therapies are discussed in relation to diabetes, the evidence is regarded as limited, low quality, and insufficient to support routine clinical use for glucose control, and any such interventions are considered adjunctive at best and not substitutes for guideline-directed medical care.

Papers listed for this claim:[1][3][2][5][4][6][7][8][30][31][32][33]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Blood sugar dysfunction”

Rule: KSA 65-2871

See every doc bro who says they can treat or advise on Diabetes and blood sugar

Jonah Dallas Yakel is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Chronic inflammatory conditions.

Chronic inflammatory conditions

Supports

Some emerging randomized controlled trial evidence suggests that chiropractic spinal manipulation can modulate systemic inflammatory biomarkers in people with chronic or subclinical pain, for example decreasing TNF-α and IFN-γ and altering IL-6 and cortisol compared with sham care. This supports the narrow claim that chiropractic care may influence certain inflammatory pathways in selected chronic pain populations, although these participants did not have defined chronic inflammatory diseases and the trial was pragmatic and mechanistic rather than disease-treatment focused. There is moderate-quality evidence that chiropractic spinal manipulation therapy is effective for chronic low back pain and similar to other recommended therapies for pain and disability, which indirectly supports the idea that chiropractic can be a useful adjunct for symptom management in some chronic musculoskeletal conditions that may have inflammatory components.

Contradicts

High-quality evidence and major guidelines for prototypical chronic inflammatory diseases do not recommend chiropractic care as a primary or disease-modifying treatment. The guideline-driven management of hypertension emphasizes pharmacologic therapy, lifestyle changes, and risk-factor control; chiropractic care is not listed as an evidence-based treatment for the inflammatory and vascular processes underlying hypertension. Guidelines for inflammatory bowel disease focus on immunosuppressants, biologics, surgery, and structured clinical nutrition; spinal manipulation or chiropractic is not recommended as a treatment for intestinal inflammation or as a core component of IBD care. ASPEN-FELANPE guidelines for nutrition support in adult illness similarly frame chronic inflammatory conditions in terms of evidence-based medical and nutritional interventions and do not mention chiropractic as an effective therapy. EFNS guidelines for tension-type headache recommend pharmacological agents and non-pharmacological strategies with evidence, but do not support chiropractic manipulation as a standard anti-inflammatory or disease-modifying treatment. Systematic reviews of manual therapy for inflammatory conditions like rheumatoid arthritis generally conclude that evidence is limited, low quality, and insufficient to support confident clinical use for disease control; any benefits are mainly symptomatic and require further research. Taken together, existing trials of chiropractic for non-GI chronic pain and small mechanistic studies provide only weak, indirect support for an anti-inflammatory effect, and there is essentially no high-quality evidence that chiropractic treatment alone can control or modify major chronic inflammatory diseases such as IBD, RA, or systemic autoimmune disorders.

Mainstream view

Mainstream medical and scientific consensus is that chronic inflammatory conditions (e.g., inflammatory bowel disease, rheumatoid arthritis, chronic systemic autoimmune diseases, chronic vascular inflammation) should be managed with evidence-based pharmacologic therapies, disease-specific nutrition plans, and other guideline-directed interventions that target the underlying inflammatory pathways. Chiropractic care may have a role as an adjunctive therapy for musculoskeletal pain, disability, and quality-of-life issues, and there is evidence that spinal manipulation can be as effective as other recommended therapies for chronic low back pain and possibly modulate some biomarkers of inflammation and stress, but it is not regarded as a primary, disease-modifying treatment for chronic inflammatory conditions. Major guidelines for representative inflammatory diseases do not include chiropractic treatment among recommended core therapies, and current evidence is considered preliminary, mechanistic, and too limited in scope and quality to justify using chiropractic care to treat or control the inflammatory disease process itself.

Papers listed for this claim:[1][2][3][5][4][6][7][8][18][34][35][36]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Chronic inflammatory conditions”

Rule: KSA 65-2871

Jonah Dallas Yakel is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to advertise I had the brain of a 70-year-old as within their scope of practice.

I had the brain of a 70-year-old

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“the brain of a 70-year-old”

Rule: KSA 65-2871

Jonah Dallas Yakel is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to advertise even severe brain degeneration can be reversed as within their scope of practice.

even severe brain degeneration can be reversed

Supports

Some clinical and translational research suggests that certain aspects of early neurodegenerative disease (especially cognition) can improve, which is sometimes described as partial reversal of cognitive decline, but not full reversal of severe brain degeneration. Small clinical trials and case series in mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and early dementia report cognitive improvements with multifactorial lifestyle and precision-medicine approaches, bumetanide, and disease-modifying drugs targeting amyloid or tau, though these generally slow progression or improve scores rather than restore a severely degenerated brain to normal. These data indicate that early-stage neurodegeneration may be at least partially reversible at the level of symptoms and some biomarkers, but they do not demonstrate robust structural reversal of advanced atrophy or widespread cell loss in humans.

Contradicts

Mainstream reviews and guidance emphasize that once neurons are lost and substantial brain atrophy has occurred, current therapies cannot restore those cells or fully reverse established neurodegeneration. Contemporary reviews on neurogenesis and neuroregeneration state explicitly that degeneration of affected neurons in disorders such as Alzheimer’s disease cannot currently be reversed, and therefore the focus must be on early intervention and slowing progression. Evidence for true reversal of severe brain degeneration in humans is absent; existing trials show at best stabilization or modest improvement in cognition and biomarkers, typically in mild or early disease, and animal studies demonstrating reversal of advanced pathology do not yet translate into proven clinical reversal of severe degeneration in people.

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical and scientific position is that neurodegenerative diseases are largely progressive and currently incurable, especially in moderate to severe stages. Standard therapies and newer disease-modifying drugs may slow decline, reduce certain pathological biomarkers, or yield modest cognitive or functional improvements, primarily in early disease, but they do not regenerate large volumes of lost brain tissue or fully restore a severely degenerated brain. Some reversible contributors to cognitive impairment (e.g., sleep apnea, depression, medication effects, metabolic issues) can be treated and may lead to meaningful cognitive improvement, but this is considered treatment of comorbid or contributing factors, not true reversal of the underlying severe neurodegeneration. Research continues into neuroregeneration and disease-modifying strategies, yet at present, claims that even severe brain degeneration can be reversed overstate what is supported by high-quality evidence.

Papers listed for this claim:[37][38][39][40]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“even severe brain degeneration can be reversed”

Rule: KSA 65-2871

Jonah Dallas Yakel is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure functional medicine.

functional medicine

Supports

There is moderate-quality evidence that chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy is about as effective as other recommended therapies (such as standard medical care and physical therapy) for short‑term pain relief and small improvements in function in adults with chronic low back pain. Some randomized controlled trials show clinically meaningful reductions in pain and disability with structured courses of chiropractic spinal manipulation (around 12 sessions over 6 weeks) in chronic non‑specific low back pain, with benefits sustained up to 52 weeks. A Cochrane review and other systematic reviews indicate that for acute and subacute low back pain, combined chiropractic interventions can slightly improve pain and disability in the short and medium term compared with other treatments, though long‑term differences are minimal. Overall, high‑quality evidence supports chiropractic care as a reasonable option for musculoskeletal spinal pain (especially low back pain), broadly comparable to other conservative treatments.

Papers listed for this claim:[41][42][43][44]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“#functionalmedicine”

Rule: KSA 65-2871

Jonah Dallas Yakel is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to advertise Functional medicine root-cause programs for chronic disease as within their scope of practice.

Functional medicine root-cause programs for chronic disease

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“#functionalmedicine”

Rule: KSA 65-2871