Corey M. Priest alias The Root-Cause Rack

Corey M. Priest is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Cancer Support.

Cancer Support

Supports

The influencer claim is extremely vague (“Cancer Support”) but can reasonably be interpreted as suggesting lifestyle or supportive measures (e. g. , exercise, diet, nutrition, supportive care) that help people with cancer alongside standard oncologic treatment. High-quality evidence strongly supports the role of structured exercise as a supportive intervention in people with cancer, improving multiple health outcomes, including quality of life, fatigue, physical function, psychological well-being, and treatment-related adverse events. ^[12] The umbrella review of randomized trials on exercise in cancer patients found 485 associations, with 260 statistically significant and 81 supported by high-certainty evidence; exercise reduced adverse events such as cardiac toxicity, chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy, cognitive impairment, and dyspnea, and improved sleep, psychological well-being, social interaction, and overall quality of life. ^[1][11] Earlier systematic reviews and meta-analyses also concluded that aerobic and resistance exercise in cancer survivors yields moderate benefits for cardiovascular fitness and strength and small but consistent benefits for fatigue, health-related quality of life, and depression, with low rates of adverse events. ^[2][6][9] Recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses focused specifically on breast cancer patients show that physical activity improves health-related quality of life, with pooled effect sizes in the moderate range. Mind–body forms of exercise such as yoga, tai chi, and qigong also have supportive evidence for improving depression, anxiety, fatigue, sleep, and health-related quality of life in breast cancer patients, although the strength of evidence varies depending on the specific modality. ^[10] Nutrition support is also part of mainstream supportive cancer care: ASPEN–FELANPE clinical guidelines emphasize that patients with cancer are at high risk of malnutrition and that individualized nutrition support (oral supplements, enteral or parenteral nutrition when indicated) can improve clinical outcomes, including treatment tolerance and overall status. ^[5][8] Dietary patterns such as the Mediterranean diet may provide supportive benefits in breast cancer risk and survivorship: an umbrella review indicates that higher adherence to a Mediterranean diet pattern is associated with reduced risk of breast cancer, particularly in postmenopausal women. ^[3][7] Systematic reviews and meta-analyses in breast cancer survivors suggest that Mediterranean-style diets and structured dietary interventions improve diet quality, modestly reduce weight and body fat, and may reduce all-cause mortality, with low certainty but consistent direction of effect. Large meta-analyses of post-diagnosis physical activity show associations between higher activity levels and reduced cancer-specific and all-cause mortality across several major cancer types, supporting exercise as a survival-supportive behavior in addition to symptom management. Taken together, high-quality evidence supports the idea that exercise, appropriate nutrition support, and healthy dietary patterns can meaningfully “support” people with cancer by improving quality of life, functional outcomes, treatment tolerance, and possibly survival when used alongside standard medical care.

Contradicts

Because the influencer’s claim is extremely broad, several potential interpretations would not be supported by high-quality evidence. There is no strong evidence that lifestyle or supportive measures alone can cure cancer or replace surgery, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, immunotherapy, or other standard oncologic treatments; major guidelines and trials consistently treat exercise, diet, and nutrition as adjuncts rather than alternatives. Even where benefits are well supported, effect sizes are usually small to moderate and not universal; exercise improves many outcomes but does not reliably eliminate symptoms or guarantee improved survival for every patient, and evidence quality is often low to moderate. In metastatic or advanced disease, evidence is more limited and sometimes inconclusive: for example, systematic reviews of prescribed exercise in metastatic breast cancer report no clear between-group improvements in quality of life, with substantial uncertainty around effects on fatigue and physical activity. ^{[2][5][6][9][10][11][12]} Nutrition guidelines such as ASPEN–FELANPE caution that over- or misapplied nutritional support (e. ^[8] g. , unmonitored parenteral nutrition, extreme diets) can carry risks (infection, metabolic complications) and must be used judiciously. Mediterranean diet evidence for breast cancer risk and survivorship is largely observational and graded as low certainty; while associations are favorable, causality is not established, and benefits may be smaller or absent in some subgroups. ^[1][3][7] Claims that any single lifestyle change (such as a specific diet or exercise regimen) provides universal “cancer support” across all types and stages are therefore overstated relative to the heterogeneous, sometimes weak evidence base.

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical and scientific position is that “cancer support” is best understood as comprehensive ^{[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12]}

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Cancer Support”

Rule: K.S.A. 65-2871(a)

See every doc bro advertising Cancer

Corey M. Priest 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.^[3][9] 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.^[2][9]

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.^[3] 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.^[6] 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.^[11][14] 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.^{[2][11][13][14][18]} 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.^[21] 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.^{[2][11][14][18][24]} 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.^{[11][13][14][18]} 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.^[11][14][18] 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.

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Autoimmune Conditions”

Rule: K.S.A. 65-2871(a)

See every doc bro advertising Autoimmune disease

Corey M. Priest is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure CIRS (Chronic Inflammatory Response Syndrome).

CIRS (Chronic Inflammatory Response Syndrome)

Supports

High-quality evidence for chiropractic treatment specifically for Chronic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (CIRS) is essentially absent. ^[24][25] The main peer‑reviewed review on CIRS treatment concludes that the only intervention with documented clinical efficacy is the Shoemaker Protocol, based on 11 clinical studies, and does not list chiropractic or spinal manipulation among effective treatments. ^[23] Some randomized and mechanistic studies in other populations (e. g. , adults with subclinical spinal pain or chronic low back pain) show that chiropractic spinal manipulation can modulate inflammatory and stress‑related biomarkers (changes in cytokines such as TNF‑α, IL‑6, and immune cell counts), suggesting potential systemic effects on inflammation and neuroendocrine pathways. ^[26] These findings, however, are exploratory and focused on musculoskeletal pain rather than CIRS as a defined biotoxin‑related syndrome. No major guideline in the index list addresses chiropractic care as a recognized treatment for systemic inflammatory syndromes or CIRS; the guidelines provided relate to hypertension, clinical nutrition, parenteral nutrition, tension‑type headache, blood transfusion, and evidence grading, none of which endorse chiropractic as disease‑modifying therapy for systemic inflammatory conditions. ^{[4][13][8][14][15][16][17]}

Contradicts

The most relevant peer‑reviewed synthesis on CIRS treatment reports that among identified therapies, only the Shoemaker Protocol has documented clinical efficacy, implying an absence of evidence for other modalities such as chiropractic care as primary or disease‑modifying treatments. ^{[13][8][14][16][23][24]} CIRS is described as an innate immune dysregulation syndrome, often following exposure to water‑damaged buildings or specific toxins, with treatment approaches targeting specific inflammatory pathways and neuropeptide deficiencies (e. ^[25] g. , vasoactive intestinal peptide replacement) rather than mechanical or musculoskeletal manipulation. This literature positions CIRS as a complex, systemic inflammatory and immunologic illness requiring targeted biomedical interventions, which conflicts with claims that spinal manipulation alone can treat or correct the underlying condition. No randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, or major guidelines were identified that test or recommend chiropractic care as an effective therapy for CIRS specifically, which represents a major evidentiary gap for such a claim. ^[17] General clinical effectiveness reviews of chiropractic spinal manipulation highlight benefits mainly for low back pain and some musculoskeletal conditions, and note that even there, high‑quality evidence often finds spinal manipulation not clearly superior to other conservative interventions, arguing against extrapolating to systemic inflammatory syndromes. ^[26]

Mainstream view

Mainstream medical and scientific views currently regard CIRS as an under‑recognized but biologically plausible chronic inflammatory and innate immune dysregulation syndrome linked to specific environmental or toxin exposures, managed with protocols such as the Shoemaker Protocol and other targeted pharmacologic and environmental interventions. ^[24] Standard care focuses on accurate diagnosis, removal of ongoing exposure, and stepwise, biomarker‑guided medical treatment (e. g. , bile acid sequestrants, anti‑inflammatory and immunomodulatory approaches, and in selected cases VIP replacement), not on chiropractic or spinal manipulation as a core therapeutic modality. ^[23] Chiropractic care is generally viewed in mainstream medicine as a complementary or alternative therapy primarily for musculoskeletal pain (e. ^[17] g. , low back pain), with some emerging but still limited evidence of short‑term modulation of inflammatory markers; it is not recognized in major guidelines or evidence syntheses as a validated treatment for CIRS or for systemic inflammatory/immune dysregulation syndromes. ^{[8][16][25][26]}

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“CIRS (Chronic Inflammatory Response Syndrome)”

Rule: K.S.A. 65-2871(a)

See every doc bro advertising Mold illness and CIRS

Corey M. Priest is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Leaky Gut & Digestive Disorders.

Leaky Gut & Digestive Disorders

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Leaky Gut & Digestive Disorders”

Rule: K.S.A. 65-2871(a)

See every doc bro advertising IBS, SIBO and gut disorders

Corey M. Priest is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Lyme Disease.

Lyme Disease

Supports

There is no high-quality evidence from randomized trials, systematic reviews, or major guidelines showing that chiropractic treatment can eradicate Borrelia infection, modify the course of acute Lyme disease, or serve as a primary disease-directed therapy. ^{[8][16][17][27]} Major Lyme disease guidelines (e. g. , IDSA/AAN/ACR, CDC, NICE, recent guideline summaries) uniformly recommend antibiotics such as doxycycline, amoxicillin, cefuroxime, or ceftriaxone as the evidence-based treatment for Lyme disease, with treatment durations tailored to the clinical manifestation; they do not list chiropractic care as a disease-specific therapy. ^{[4][13][28][29][30]} From an evidence-rating perspective (e. g. , GRADE methodology), effective Lyme disease treatments are those with proven antimicrobial activity and demonstrated benefit in controlled studies, which chiropractic techniques lack. Chiropractic or other musculoskeletal therapies may have a role in symptomatic management of nonspecific pain or tension-type headaches in general, but this is indirect and not specific to Lyme disease, and existing headache guidelines emphasize pharmacologic and behavioral approaches rather than chiropractic as core treatment. ^[14]

Contradicts

Major clinical guidelines and reviews on Lyme disease consistently state that appropriate antibiotic therapy is required to treat the infection and prevent or reduce complications, and they do not endorse chiropractic treatment as a substitute or primary therapy. ^{[8][13][14][15][17][28][29][30]} Infectious disease guidelines also explicitly advise against non-evidence-based or prolonged non-antibiotic regimens for presumed chronic Lyme without clear diagnostic support, underscoring that non-antimicrobial modalities cannot be relied upon to clear infection. ^[4] The general framework for rating evidence quality and clinical recommendations (e. ^[16] g. , GRADE) would classify chiropractic treatment for Lyme disease as very low-quality or unsupported, since there are no controlled trials, no biologically plausible antimicrobial mechanism, and no guideline endorsement. Furthermore, Lyme disease is a systemic bacterial infection; standard medical texts and guidelines emphasize antibiotic treatment and, for neurologic or cardiac involvement, specific intravenous regimens, again with no mention of chiropractic care as disease-modifying therapy. ^[27]

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical and scientific position is that Lyme disease is a bacterial infection (usually Borrelia burgdorferi) that requires timely diagnosis and evidence-based antibiotic therapy to treat the infection and prevent complications. ^{[4][16][17][30]} Recommended treatments include oral doxycycline, amoxicillin, cefuroxime, or azithromycin for early localized or some disseminated forms, and intravenous ceftriaxone or similar agents for certain neurologic or cardiac manifestations, with durations typically between 10 and 28 days depending on the clinical presentation. ^[8] Chiropractic care is not recognized as a disease-directed treatment for Lyme disease; at most, it may be considered an adjunctive option for general musculoskeletal pain or functional complaints, provided it does not delay or replace appropriate antibiotic therapy. ^[15][28] Mainstream guidelines do not list chiropractic treatment among recommended interventions for Lyme disease, and evidence-based practice frameworks would regard claims that chiropractic can treat or cure Lyme disease as unsupported. ^[27][29]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Lyme Disease”

Rule: K.S.A. 65-2871(a)

See every doc bro advertising Lyme disease

Corey M. Priest is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Mold Toxicity.

Mold Toxicity

Supports

There is no high-quality evidence in the supplied index papers supporting chiropractic treatment for mold toxicity. ^{[14][16][31][32][34]} The closest relevant peer-reviewed item is a review on mold/mycotoxins that discusses potential biological effects of exposure, but it does not evaluate chiropractic as a treatment . ^[33] Major clinical guidance for mold exposure focuses on exposure reduction, diagnosis of allergic or respiratory disease, and standard medical management rather than chiropractic care. ^[8][13]

Contradicts

The claim is contradicted by the absence of randomized trials, systematic reviews, or major guidelines showing that chiropractic treats mold toxicity. ^{[8][16][31][32]} The peer-reviewed materials you provided are about unrelated conditions such as hypertension, nutrition, headaches, transfusion, and pericarditis, and none support chiropractic treatment for mold-related illness. ^{[14][15][17][18][34]} External medical guidance summarized in the search results states that evidence does not support inhaled mycotoxins from indoor mold as a cause of systemic toxicity and emphasizes evidence-based care instead. ^[4][33] That makes a chiropractic treatment claim especially weak when it is presented as treatment for a toxic syndrome.

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical view is that chiropractic is not an evidence-based treatment for mold toxicity. ^{[4][14][16][31][32][33][34]} Standard management of suspected mold-related illness centers on identifying and removing exposure, evaluating for asthma, allergy, or other established diagnoses, and treating those conditions with conventional medical care; claims of a chiropractic cure or specific chiropractic detoxification approach are unsupported.

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Mold Toxicity”

Rule: K.S.A. 65-2871(a)

See every doc bro advertising Mold illness and CIRS

Corey M. Priest is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Thyroid Disorders.

Thyroid Disorders

Supports

There are no high-quality randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, or major endocrine guidelines showing that chiropractic spinal manipulation is an effective primary treatment for thyroid disorders (hypothyroidism, hyperthyroidism, autoimmune thyroid disease, thyroid nodules, or thyroid cancer). The only directly relevant clinical trial I can identify is a protocol for a pilot RCT of Neuro-Emotional Technique (a biopsychosocial/chiropractic-linked modality) added to usual care in overt hypothyroidism, which is designed to look at mood and thyroid lab changes but does not yet provide results; this shows interest in studying adjunctive non-pharmacologic approaches but does not constitute evidence of efficacy at this stage.^[14] Case reports and small case series from chiropractic-oriented journals describe individual patients whose thyroid function or medication requirements appeared to improve during chiropractic care, but these are uncontrolled, low-quality observations and not high-quality evidence.^[13][17][23]

Contradicts

Major, evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for thyroid disease consistently recommend pharmacologic and/or surgical management as the standard of care and do not endorse chiropractic manipulation as a treatment for thyroid disorders.^{[16][18][19][20][21][22][25]} For primary hypothyroidism, guidelines emphasize diagnosis based on thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) and free thyroxine, and treatment with levothyroxine titrated to normalize TSH and relieve symptoms; they specifically discuss dose ranges, monitoring intervals, and target TSH, but do not include chiropractic care in any treatment algorithms.^{[12][16][20][21][25]} These guidelines are built from systematic reviews and high-quality evidence, and state that alternative preparations (e.g., natural thyroid extract) are not recommended, reinforcing that thyroid hormone replacement—not musculoskeletal manipulation—is the evidence-based therapy.^[12][15][20] Current thyroid disease guidelines for pregnancy and postpartum similarly focus on appropriate thyroid hormone replacement, antithyroid drugs, and surgery or radioiodine where indicated, again without any role for chiropractic as treatment.^[18][19] More broadly, guideline methodologies such as GRADE emphasize that low-quality, imprecise evidence (e.g., case reports and uncontrolled series) cannot support strong treatment recommendations, which applies directly to the chiropractic thyroid case literature.^[5][6]

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical and scientific position is that chiropractic care is not an evidence-based treatment for thyroid disorders and should not be relied on to manage hypothyroidism, hyperthyroidism, autoimmune thyroid disease, thyroid nodules, or thyroid cancer. Thyroid diseases are diagnosed and managed primarily by physicians (often endocrinologists) using standardized biochemical testing (TSH, free T4, free T3, antibodies) and imaging, with treatment centered on thyroid hormone replacement (e.g., levothyroxine), antithyroid medications, radioiodine, or surgery depending on the specific condition, guided by national and international clinical practice guidelines.^{[16][18][19][20][21][22][25]} These guidelines are based on systematic reviews and high-quality trials and do not recommend chiropractic manipulation either as primary therapy or as a routine adjunct for modifying thyroid physiology or disease course.^{[15][20][21][25]} Within mainstream practice, chiropractic may be considered for musculoskeletal complaints (e.g., neck or back pain) but not as a therapeutic modality for endocrine disorders like thyroid disease; any use of chiropractic in patients with thyroid disease is viewed, at most, as supportive for general musculoskeletal well-being, not as a treatment that can correct thyroid hormone abnormalities or replace guideline-directed medical care.^{[16][20][21][25]}

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Thyroid Disorders”

Rule: K.S.A. 65-2871(a)

See every doc bro advertising Thyroid disease and Hashimoto

Corey M. Priest is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Chronic Fatigue.

Chronic Fatigue

Supports

High-quality evidence specific to chiropractic treatment for chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) or chronic fatigue is very limited. ^[40][41][42] The available literature includes a prospective, uncontrolled clinical series of upper cervical chiropractic care in 19 patients with CFS that reported improvements in SF-36 general and mental health scores and sleep quality over 6 months, but this study lacked a control group and was conducted by a single practitioner, making it low-quality evidence rather than robust support. More broadly, systematic reviews of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) for CFS report that some manual therapies (such as massage and tuina) show positive effects on fatigue, mood, and sleep in randomized controlled trials, but they emphasize that methodological weaknesses and high risk of bias prevent firm conclusions about efficacy for CFS as a whole. Recent meta-analyses of massage therapy in CFS, pooling multiple randomized trials, suggest statistically significant reductions in fatigue and improved effective rates compared with control conditions, indicating that some forms of manual therapy can have symptomatic benefit, though these data are not specific to spinal manipulation or chiropractic techniques. Overall, the only support for chiropractic treatment of chronic fatigue is indirect, through the broader manual-therapy/CAM literature and one small uncontrolled chiropractic series, and does not constitute high-quality evidence that chiropractic care is an effective, disease-modifying treatment for chronic fatigue syndrome. ^[39]

Contradicts

Systematic reviews of CAM interventions for CFS consistently conclude that evidence is insufficient to determine efficacy, primarily due to small sample sizes, poor blinding, inadequate controls, and high risk of bias; they explicitly state that even where qigong, massage, or tuina show apparent benefits, the study quality precludes firm claims of effectiveness for CFS. More recent methodological reviews of randomized trials in CFS emphasize that no single intervention, including physical or manual therapies, has demonstrated consistently reproducible, robust effects across high-quality trials, underscoring the experimental and uncertain nature of these approaches. Mainstream guideline and review documents focus on cognitive-behavioral interventions, graded activity programs, symptom-targeted pharmacologic treatment, and pacing/energy management; they do not recommend chiropractic spinal manipulation as a core or evidence-based therapy for CFS. The lack of randomized, controlled, adequately powered trials of chiropractic care in CFS, combined with reliance on case reports and uncontrolled series, directly contradicts any strong claim that chiropractic treatment is a proven or established therapy for chronic fatigue. ^{[39][40][41][42]} Furthermore, because CFS/ME is a complex, multisystem neuroimmune condition, current reviews do not support theoretical models that spinal manipulation alone can correct the underlying pathophysiology or reliably resolve chronic fatigue symptoms.

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical position is that myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) is a chronic, multisystem illness with unclear etiology and no single curative treatment. ^[39][40][42] Evidence-based management focuses on accurate diagnosis, ruling out alternative causes of fatigue, and then using individualized, multimodal strategies such as activity pacing, cognitive-behavioral approaches for coping, treatment of comorbid sleep, pain, mood, or orthostatic intolerance disorders, and careful symptom-directed pharmacologic therapy. Non-pharmacologic adjuncts including certain forms of manual therapy, massage, or other CAM modalities may be considered for some patients on a case-by-case basis, but major guidelines and systematic reviews characterize these as optional, supportive, and of uncertain efficacy rather than primary treatments. Chiropractic care, specifically spinal manipulation by chiropractors, is not recognized in major guidelines as an evidence-based core treatment for CFS/ME or chronic fatigue, and the existing research base is regarded as preliminary, low quality, and insufficient to justify strong claims. ^[41] In mainstream practice, chiropractic interventions might be used to address coexisting musculoskeletal pain or dysfunction, but not as a validated primary therapy for the fatigue syndrome itself.

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Chronic Fatigue”

Rule: K.S.A. 65-2871(a)

See every doc bro advertising Chronic fatigue and fibromyalgia

Corey M. Priest is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure We take a comprehensive, integrative approach to cancer care.

We take a comprehensive, integrative approach to cancer care

Supports

High-quality evidence and major guidelines support the idea of integrative oncology as a patient-centered, evidence-informed component of comprehensive cancer care when used alongside, not instead of, conventional oncologic treatment. Multiple Society for Integrative Oncology (SIO)–ASCO joint guidelines state that integrative oncology "utilizes mind and body practices, natural products, and/or lifestyle modifications from different traditions alongside conventional cancer treatments" and explicitly describe it as part of comprehensive cancer care. ^[43][44] These guidelines cover symptom management domains such as pain, anxiety, depression, and fatigue, recommending modalities like mindfulness-based interventions, yoga, acupuncture, massage, and exercise for specific indications, based on randomized trials and systematic reviews. Large oncology societies (ASCO, NCCN) have endorsed several SIO practice guidelines and incorporate selected integrative modalities into mainstream supportive care, which supports the notion that an evidence-based integrative program can legitimately be described as part of comprehensive cancer care. ^[45][46] The indexed clinical trials provided (miconazole resistance in neonates and infants, nab‑paclitaxel plus gemcitabine in pancreatic cancer, metformin for anti‑aging in prediabetes, swaddle bathing in preterm infants, remote upper GI examination, thyroid surgery vocal cord palsy risk factors, musculoskeletal stretching techniques for text neck, and camlipixant pharmacokinetics) do not directly address integrative oncology or comprehensive integrative cancer programs and therefore do not specifically support or refute the influencer’s claim.

Contradicts

Major guidelines and evidence sources do not support integrative oncology as a stand‑alone primary cancer treatment and consistently warn against using complementary or integrative modalities as replacements for evidence‑based surgery, systemic therapy, or radiotherapy. ^[43][46] Joint SIO–ASCO guidelines explicitly frame integrative approaches as adjunctive for symptom management and quality of life, not as curative treatments or substitutes for standard oncologic care. ^[44][45] They also emphasize that evidence for many integrative modalities is limited, with only a subset (eg, acupuncture for pain or chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, certain mindfulness-based programs, exercise, and select mind–body practices) having moderate-quality evidence and guideline-level recommendations, while many other supplements and practices either lack sufficient evidence or are specifically discouraged due to absence of benefit or potential harm. Thus, any implication that an "integrative" approach alone constitutes comprehensive cancer treatment, or that unproven modalities can replace conventional therapy, is not supported by high-quality evidence or guidelines. The indexed trials listed are unrelated to integrative oncology and therefore do not provide evidence that a particular influencer’s "comprehensive, integrative" cancer program is effective or complete as a treatment strategy.

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical position is that integrative oncology is an evidence-informed, adjunctive field that can appropriately be part of comprehensive cancer care when it is used to complement, not replace, conventional oncologic treatments. Leading organizations such as ASCO, SIO, and NCCN recognize and endorse selected integrative therapies for symptom control, psychological support, and survivorship issues, and they have issued multiple joint guidelines based on randomized trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses. ^[43][44][45] These guidelines define integrative oncology as patient-centered and comprehensive in the sense that it addresses physical, psychological, and lifestyle aspects of care, but they also clearly restrict its role to support and symptom management and emphasize that core cancer treatment must follow evidence-based standards in surgery, systemic therapy, and radiation. ^[46] Mainstream practice therefore supports a comprehensive, integrative approach only when it remains grounded in guideline-based conventional care, uses integrative modalities with demonstrated benefit for specific indications, avoids unproven or harmful interventions, and is transparently described to patients as supportive care rather than an alternative cure. The indexed trials provided are not directly about integrative oncology and do not change this mainstream view.

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“We take a comprehensive, integrative approach to cancer care”

Rule: K.S.A. 65-2871(a)

See every doc bro advertising Cancer

Corey M. Priest is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Functional labs can uncover… Insulin resistance ... Hormonal imbalances.

Functional labs can uncover… Insulin resistance ... Hormonal imbalances

Supports

Mainstream endocrinology and internal medicine rely on standard laboratory tests to detect insulin resistance and clinically relevant hormonal disorders. These include fasting plasma glucose, oral glucose tolerance test, and HbA1c, with more specialized methods such as the hyperinsulinemic euglycemic clamp and intravenous glucose tolerance tests used as reference standards in research settings to assess insulin sensitivity and resistance. High‑quality reviews emphasize that dynamic glucose tolerance tests and validated hormone assays are central for diagnosing insulin resistance and endocrine disease, which is consistent with the idea that appropriately selected laboratory investigations can uncover insulin resistance and hormonal abnormalities when used according to evidence‑based protocols.^[15] Major endocrine guidelines stress the need for accurate, standardized hormone assays (for example, testosterone) and rigorously derived reference ranges when diagnosing androgen deficiency, reinforcing that lab‑based hormone testing is a core, evidence‑supported tool for identifying true hormonal imbalances rather than relying solely on symptoms.^[3]

Contradicts

Evidence‑based laboratory medicine and guideline documents distinguish between appropriate diagnostic laboratory use and the broad, non‑selective test panels often marketed as “functional labs.” Studies of test utilization in functional medicine practices show extensive ordering of expensive hormone and metabolic tests without guideline‑based indications, with the majority of results returning normal, which suggests overuse rather than improved detection of clinically meaningful disease.^[17] International guidance on assessing insulin resistance notes that routine clinical measurement of insulin resistance using surrogate indices such as fasting insulin or HOMA‑IR is not recommended for general clinical practice because these metrics are imprecise and better reserved for research, indicating that many insulin‑resistance focused “functional” panels are weakly supported by high‑quality evidence.^[15] Overall, high‑quality guidelines emphasize targeted, validated tests linked to specific clinical questions; they do not endorse broad functional lab panels as a superior or necessary approach for uncovering insulin resistance or vague hormonal imbalance in otherwise well individuals, so claims that functional labs uniquely “uncover” these problems go beyond the strength of current evidence.

Mainstream view

The mainstream position is that laboratory tests are essential for diagnosing insulin resistance and endocrine disorders, but they should be ordered selectively, using validated assays and established diagnostic criteria, and interpreted within an evidence‑based framework. For insulin resistance, mainstream practice focuses on identifying prediabetes and diabetes using fasting plasma glucose, oral glucose tolerance testing, and HbA1c, with specialized methods like hyperinsulinemic euglycemic clamps reserved for research or complex cases, rather than routine use of expanded functional panels.^[15] For hormonal imbalances, major societies recommend making diagnoses only when characteristic symptoms are present and hormone levels are unequivocally abnormal on accurate assays, using standardized cutoffs and repeat testing, rather than relying on broad hormone panels or nonstandard “optimal ranges.”^[3] Consequently, mainstream medicine supports the use of appropriate lab testing to detect insulin resistance and hormone disorders, but does not support the routine use of large, non‑targeted functional lab panels as a superior or necessary diagnostic strategy.

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Functional labs can uncover… Insulin resistance ... Hormonal imbalances”

Rule: K.S.A. 65-2871(a)

Corey M. Priest is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure CIRS.

CIRS

Supports

High-quality evidence for chiropractic treatment specifically for Chronic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (CIRS) is essentially absent. ^[24][25] The main peer‑reviewed review on CIRS treatment concludes that the only intervention with documented clinical efficacy is the Shoemaker Protocol, based on 11 clinical studies, and does not list chiropractic or spinal manipulation among effective treatments. ^[23] Some randomized and mechanistic studies in other populations (e. g. , adults with subclinical spinal pain or chronic low back pain) show that chiropractic spinal manipulation can modulate inflammatory and stress‑related biomarkers (changes in cytokines such as TNF‑α, IL‑6, and immune cell counts), suggesting potential systemic effects on inflammation and neuroendocrine pathways. ^[26] These findings, however, are exploratory and focused on musculoskeletal pain rather than CIRS as a defined biotoxin‑related syndrome. No major guideline in the index list addresses chiropractic care as a recognized treatment for systemic inflammatory syndromes or CIRS; the guidelines provided relate to hypertension, clinical nutrition, parenteral nutrition, tension‑type headache, blood transfusion, and evidence grading, none of which endorse chiropractic as disease‑modifying therapy for systemic inflammatory conditions. ^{[4][13][8][14][15][16][17]}

Contradicts

The most relevant peer‑reviewed synthesis on CIRS treatment reports that among identified therapies, only the Shoemaker Protocol has documented clinical efficacy, implying an absence of evidence for other modalities such as chiropractic care as primary or disease‑modifying treatments. ^{[13][8][14][16][23][24]} CIRS is described as an innate immune dysregulation syndrome, often following exposure to water‑damaged buildings or specific toxins, with treatment approaches targeting specific inflammatory pathways and neuropeptide deficiencies (e. ^[25] g. , vasoactive intestinal peptide replacement) rather than mechanical or musculoskeletal manipulation. This literature positions CIRS as a complex, systemic inflammatory and immunologic illness requiring targeted biomedical interventions, which conflicts with claims that spinal manipulation alone can treat or correct the underlying condition. No randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, or major guidelines were identified that test or recommend chiropractic care as an effective therapy for CIRS specifically, which represents a major evidentiary gap for such a claim. ^[17] General clinical effectiveness reviews of chiropractic spinal manipulation highlight benefits mainly for low back pain and some musculoskeletal conditions, and note that even there, high‑quality evidence often finds spinal manipulation not clearly superior to other conservative interventions, arguing against extrapolating to systemic inflammatory syndromes. ^[26]

Mainstream view

Mainstream medical and scientific views currently regard CIRS as an under‑recognized but biologically plausible chronic inflammatory and innate immune dysregulation syndrome linked to specific environmental or toxin exposures, managed with protocols such as the Shoemaker Protocol and other targeted pharmacologic and environmental interventions. ^[24] Standard care focuses on accurate diagnosis, removal of ongoing exposure, and stepwise, biomarker‑guided medical treatment (e. g. , bile acid sequestrants, anti‑inflammatory and immunomodulatory approaches, and in selected cases VIP replacement), not on chiropractic or spinal manipulation as a core therapeutic modality. ^[23] Chiropractic care is generally viewed in mainstream medicine as a complementary or alternative therapy primarily for musculoskeletal pain (e. ^[17] g. , low back pain), with some emerging but still limited evidence of short‑term modulation of inflammatory markers; it is not recognized in major guidelines or evidence syntheses as a validated treatment for CIRS or for systemic inflammatory/immune dysregulation syndromes. ^{[8][16][25][26]}

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“CIRS”

Rule: K.S.A. 65-2871(a)

See every doc bro advertising Mold illness and CIRS

Corey M. Priest is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Innovations in Cancer Care.

Innovations in Cancer Care

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Innovations in Cancer Care”

Rule: K.S.A. 65-2871(a)

See every doc bro advertising Cancer

Corey M. Priest is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Intestinal permeability (leaky gut).

Intestinal permeability (leaky gut)

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Intestinal permeability (leaky gut)”

Rule: K.S.A. 65-2871(a)

See every doc bro advertising IBS, SIBO and gut disorders

Corey M. Priest is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Blood sugar regulation and insulin resistance.

Blood sugar regulation and insulin resistance

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Blood sugar regulation and insulin resistance”

Rule: K.S.A. 65-2871(a)

See every doc bro advertising Diabetes and blood sugar

Corey M. Priest is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Insulin resistance.

Insulin resistance

Supports

Mainstream endocrinology and internal medicine rely on standard laboratory tests to detect insulin resistance and clinically relevant hormonal disorders. These include fasting plasma glucose, oral glucose tolerance test, and HbA1c, with more specialized methods such as the hyperinsulinemic euglycemic clamp and intravenous glucose tolerance tests used as reference standards in research settings to assess insulin sensitivity and resistance. High‑quality reviews emphasize that dynamic glucose tolerance tests and validated hormone assays are central for diagnosing insulin resistance and endocrine disease, which is consistent with the idea that appropriately selected laboratory investigations can uncover insulin resistance and hormonal abnormalities when used according to evidence‑based protocols.^[15] Major endocrine guidelines stress the need for accurate, standardized hormone assays (for example, testosterone) and rigorously derived reference ranges when diagnosing androgen deficiency, reinforcing that lab‑based hormone testing is a core, evidence‑supported tool for identifying true hormonal imbalances rather than relying solely on symptoms.^[3]

Contradicts

Evidence‑based laboratory medicine and guideline documents distinguish between appropriate diagnostic laboratory use and the broad, non‑selective test panels often marketed as “functional labs.” Studies of test utilization in functional medicine practices show extensive ordering of expensive hormone and metabolic tests without guideline‑based indications, with the majority of results returning normal, which suggests overuse rather than improved detection of clinically meaningful disease.^[17] International guidance on assessing insulin resistance notes that routine clinical measurement of insulin resistance using surrogate indices such as fasting insulin or HOMA‑IR is not recommended for general clinical practice because these metrics are imprecise and better reserved for research, indicating that many insulin‑resistance focused “functional” panels are weakly supported by high‑quality evidence.^[15] Overall, high‑quality guidelines emphasize targeted, validated tests linked to specific clinical questions; they do not endorse broad functional lab panels as a superior or necessary approach for uncovering insulin resistance or vague hormonal imbalance in otherwise well individuals, so claims that functional labs uniquely “uncover” these problems go beyond the strength of current evidence.

Mainstream view

The mainstream position is that laboratory tests are essential for diagnosing insulin resistance and endocrine disorders, but they should be ordered selectively, using validated assays and established diagnostic criteria, and interpreted within an evidence‑based framework. For insulin resistance, mainstream practice focuses on identifying prediabetes and diabetes using fasting plasma glucose, oral glucose tolerance testing, and HbA1c, with specialized methods like hyperinsulinemic euglycemic clamps reserved for research or complex cases, rather than routine use of expanded functional panels.^[15] For hormonal imbalances, major societies recommend making diagnoses only when characteristic symptoms are present and hormone levels are unequivocally abnormal on accurate assays, using standardized cutoffs and repeat testing, rather than relying on broad hormone panels or nonstandard “optimal ranges.”^[3] Consequently, mainstream medicine supports the use of appropriate lab testing to detect insulin resistance and hormone disorders, but does not support the routine use of large, non‑targeted functional lab panels as a superior or necessary diagnostic strategy.

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Insulin resistance”

Rule: K.S.A. 65-2871(a)

See every doc bro advertising Diabetes and blood sugar

Corey M. Priest is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Hormonal imbalances (thyroid, cortisol, sex hormones).

Hormonal imbalances (thyroid, cortisol, sex hormones)

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Hormonal imbalances (thyroid, cortisol, sex hormones)”

Rule: K.S.A. 65-2871(a)

See every doc bro advertising Hormone imbalance and replacement

Corey M. Priest is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure The Thyroid Example.

The Thyroid Example

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“The Thyroid Example”

Rule: K.S.A. 65-2871(a)

See every doc bro advertising Thyroid disease and Hashimoto

Corey M. Priest is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Thyroid peroxidase antibodies (TPOAb).

Thyroid peroxidase antibodies (TPOAb)

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Thyroid peroxidase antibodies (TPOAb)”

Rule: K.S.A. 65-2871(a)

See every doc bro advertising Thyroid disease and Hashimoto

Corey M. Priest is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Detect autoimmune thyroid conditions.

Detect autoimmune thyroid conditions

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Detect autoimmune thyroid conditions”

Rule: K.S.A. 65-2871(a)

See every doc bro advertising Thyroid disease and Hashimoto

Corey M. Priest is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to advertise Let’s look at autoimmune disease as an example as within their scope of practice.

Let’s look at autoimmune disease as an example

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Let’s look at autoimmune disease as an example”

Rule: K.S.A. 65-2871(a)

See every doc bro advertising Autoimmune disease

Corey M. Priest is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure High Blood Pressure.

High Blood Pressure

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“High Blood Pressure”

Rule: K.S.A. 65-2871(a)

See every doc bro advertising Heart disease and cholesterol

Corey M. Priest is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Heart Disease.

Heart Disease

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Heart Disease”

Rule: K.S.A. 65-2871(a)

See every doc bro advertising Heart disease and cholesterol

Corey M. Priest is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure High Cholesterol.

High Cholesterol

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“High Cholesterol”

Rule: K.S.A. 65-2871(a)

See every doc bro advertising Heart disease and cholesterol

Corey M. Priest is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Celiac Disease.

Celiac Disease

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Celiac Disease”

Rule: K.S.A. 65-2871(a)

See every doc bro advertising Autoimmune disease