Tate Arnett Janssen alias The pH Detox Chiro

Tate Arnett Janssen is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to advertise helped a wide range of people... autoimmune sufferers as within their scope of practice.

helped a wide range of people... autoimmune sufferers

Supports

The claim is extremely non-specific, but there is some evidence that certain structured, evidence-based interventions can help people with autoimmune diseases in defined ways, mainly by improving quality of life and symptom control rather than curing disease. For example, a self-evidence-based digital care program using personalized dietary and non-pharmacological interventions in adults with autoimmune diseases and related conditions was associated with statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in health-related quality of life across multiple domains, and was feasible across a variety of autoimmune diagnoses, suggesting benefit in a "wide" autoimmune population, but this was not a randomized trial.^[14] Lifestyle interventions including diet, exercise, and stress management have shown benefits in systemic lupus erythematosus in at least one randomized controlled experiment, with significant reductions in disease activity scores and improvements in quality of life and inflammatory markers, indicating that structured lifestyle programs can help some autoimmune sufferers.^[11] Systematic reviews and randomized trials of specific adjunctive interventions (e.g., dietary patterns, microbiota-based therapies, immunotherapies) show that some targeted interventions can improve symptoms, biomarkers, or disease activity in certain autoimmune conditions, but these data generally apply to clearly specified treatments under medical supervision, not to generic influencer programs.^[9][21] Major nutrition guidelines for inflammatory bowel disease emphasize clinical nutrition as an adjunct to standard care, recognizing that tailored nutrition support can improve outcomes, but they do not endorse broad, unspecified influencer-style interventions.^[2]

Contradicts

The influencer’s claim is vague (“helped a wide range of people… autoimmune sufferers”) and does not specify any intervention, dosage, disease type, or outcome, which makes it impossible to directly verify against high-quality evidence; major guideline and evidence frameworks emphasize that claims must be tied to clearly defined interventions and outcomes to be credible.^[5] Established guidelines for autoimmune-related conditions and for clinical nutrition stress evidence-based, disease-specific management (e.g., ESPEN guideline for inflammatory bowel disease), and do not support generic, one-size-fits-all influencer interventions as stand-alone or primary therapy for autoimmune diseases.^[2] Where high-quality randomized data exist on lifestyle or complementary interventions in systemic lupus erythematosus and other autoimmune diseases, effects on core disease activity are often modest or absent, with benefits mainly in quality of life and mental health, suggesting that broad claims of substantial help across a wide range of autoimmune diseases overstate what current evidence shows.^[11] Reviews of complementary and alternative medicine in autoimmune disease report heterogeneous, often low-quality evidence, frequently without robust randomized trials, and emphasize that efficacy and safety vary and that many approaches lack strong proof of benefit, which contradicts blanket claims that such programs reliably help a wide range of autoimmune sufferers.^[1][10] Major guideline frameworks such as GRADE highlight that when evidence is imprecise, heterogeneous, or at high risk of bias, strong, general claims of benefit should not be made, implying that sweeping influencer statements about wide-ranging autoimmune benefit are not justified.^[5]

Mainstream view

Mainstream medical and scientific opinion is that autoimmune diseases require condition-specific, evidence-based management guided by established clinical guidelines, usually centered on immunomodulatory or immunosuppressive drugs, with diet, exercise, stress management, and other lifestyle measures used as adjuncts rather than primary therapies.^[2] For lifestyle and complementary approaches, the mainstream view is that they can improve quality of life, mental health, and sometimes disease-related symptoms in some autoimmune conditions, but evidence for large, consistent effects on underlying autoimmune pathology is limited and variable, so such interventions should be individualized, monitored, and integrated into conventional care rather than relied on alone.^[11] Major guideline and evidence-rating systems (e.g., GRADE) require precise definitions of interventions, outcomes, and patient populations; vague claims that a nonspecified influencer program "helps a wide range of people... autoimmune sufferers" do not meet these standards and are not considered evidence-based.^[5]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“autoimmune sufferers”

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

See every doc bro advertising Autoimmune disease

Tate Arnett Janssen is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure The Truth About Cancer.

The Truth About Cancer

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“The Truth About Cancer”

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

See every doc bro advertising Cancer

Tate Arnett Janssen is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to advertise Claims to manage autoimmune sufferers and 'fight off' immune deficiencies, which is internal-disease management rather than chiropractic care as within their scope of practice.

Claims to manage autoimmune sufferers and 'fight off' immune deficiencies, which is internal-disease management rather than chiropractic care

Supports

No high-quality evidence in the provided index papers supports the broad claim of immune deficiencies. The listed studies are unrelated to immunodeficiency and do not test whether immune deficiencies are present or caused by the influencer’s claim.

Contradicts

The available index papers do not provide evidence for immune deficiencies, and several are clearly unrelated clinical studies, so they cannot be used to substantiate the claim. Because the claim is nonspecific, it is not possible to verify a medically meaningful assertion from the evidence provided. The evidence base here is effectively absent rather than supportive.

Mainstream view

Immune deficiency is a specific medical diagnosis that requires clinical context, laboratory evaluation, and sometimes genetic testing; a vague claim of “immune deficiencies” is not medically interpretable without specifying which deficiency, in whom, and by what evidence. In the absence of direct clinical or peer-reviewed evidence, the mainstream scientific position is that this claim is unsupported.

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“immune deficiencies”

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

Tate Arnett Janssen 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.^[12][14] 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.^{[2][7][11][12][14]} 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.^{[8][12][14][16]} 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.^[5][12][14] contradicts

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Functional Medicine”

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

Tate Arnett Janssen is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Functional Nutrition Exam.

Functional Nutrition Exam

Supports

The specific claim is vague, but chiropractors commonly advertise “functional nutrition exams” or “functional medicine nutrition evaluations” that combine history, physical exam, symptom surveys, and laboratory biomarkers to assess nutritional status and guide lifestyle or supplement recommendations. ^[17][19] Evidence exists that structured nutrition-focused exams and biomarker assessments can identify patterns of suboptimal nutrition and inform personalized wellness interventions, for example the LIFEHOUSE Functional Nutrition Examination study, which documented distinct physical exam, anthropometric, and biomarker patterns used to guide wellness interventions in adults. This supports the general idea that a comprehensive nutrition-focused examination can inform personalized nutrition and lifestyle plans, although the study is observational and not chiropractic-specific. ^[18] No high-quality RCTs, meta-analyses, or major guidelines directly evaluate or endorse a “chiropractic functional nutrition exam” as an evidence-based treatment modality. ^[1][6] Mainstream clinical nutrition guidelines for specific diseases (e. ^[2] g. , inflammatory bowel disease, critical illness, parenteral nutrition appropriateness, hypertension) support structured nutritional assessment and targeted diet and nutrition interventions as part of multidisciplinary care, which is broadly consistent with the idea that nutrition evaluation is clinically useful, but they do not single out chiropractic delivery or functional-nutrition-branded exams as preferred methods. ^[3][4][20]

Contradicts

There is no high-quality evidence (RCTs, systematic reviews, or major guidelines) demonstrating that a chiropractor-delivered “functional nutrition exam” is superior to standard medical nutritional assessment or that it independently treats medical conditions beyond general lifestyle support. ^[6][19] Mainstream guidelines in hypertension management and clinical nutrition emphasize evidence-based pharmacologic treatment and standardized nutrition support protocols, not chiropractic-based functional exams, and they rely on validated tools and dietetic or medical specialist input. ^[1][2][18] Guidance on appropriate use of parenteral nutrition, tension-type headache therapy, and blood transfusion therapy similarly follows rigorously developed recommendations that do not mention chiropractic functional nutrition examinations as standard or recommended interventions. ^{[4][5][7][20]} Clinical nutrition guidelines in inflammatory bowel disease specify assessment of nutritional status and targeted supplementation but place these within gastroenterology and dietitian-led care; they do not endorse alternative frameworks such as functional nutrition exams as a primary treatment strategy. ^[3] Overall, current high-level evidence and guidelines consider nutrition assessment important but do not validate proprietary functional nutrition exams or chiropractic-led versions as an evidence-based treatment for specific diseases, and the existing functional-nutrition exam literature is observational, descriptive, and not outcome-comparative.

Mainstream view

Mainstream medical and scientific consensus is that nutrition assessment and counseling are important components of preventive care and disease management, especially in conditions like inflammatory bowel disease, critical illness, and cardiometabolic disease, and should be based on validated assessment tools, evidence-based guidelines, and often dietitian or physician-led multidisciplinary care. ^[1][3][6] Using history, physical examination, anthropometrics, and laboratory biomarkers to identify nutritional deficiencies or risk patterns is considered appropriate when done within standard clinical frameworks, but proprietary or discipline-specific constructs such as a “functional nutrition exam” are not part of major guideline recommendations and lack robust comparative outcome evidence. ^[4][19] Chiropractors may offer nutrition counseling and order labs in some jurisdictions, and a 2018 survey suggests they commonly use basic nutritional assessment methods, but mainstream medicine does not regard chiropractic-delivered functional nutrition exams as a primary or guideline-endorsed treatment modality for medical conditions; rather, nutrition care is anchored in evidence-based clinical nutrition and disease-specific guidelines, with chiropractic nutrition services considered complementary at best. ^{[2][5][17][18][20]}

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Functional Nutrition Exam”

Rule: K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act)

Tate Arnett Janssen is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Supplements.

Supplements

Supports

High-quality guidance documents support the general principle that micronutrient or supplement prescriptions should follow a structured clinical assessment including history, examination, and laboratory evaluation, rather than being given indiscriminately. The ASPEN–FELANPE clinical nutrition guidelines emphasize individualized nutrition support (including micronutrients) based on medical history, current clinical status, and laboratory parameters, within an evidence-based framework for malnutrition and critical illness management. ^{[1][2][4][6][21][22]} The ESPEN guideline on clinical nutrition in inflammatory bowel disease recommends assessing nutritional status and using targeted supplementation (e. ^[3][5] g. , vitamins, minerals) when deficiencies are identified, based on disease features, history, clinical examination, and lab tests. The ESPEN micronutrient guideline and related ESPEN-endorsed recommendations similarly describe best practice as assessing micronutrient status using biomarkers, clinical history, and examination, then prescribing supplements only when deficiency, increased need, or malabsorption is documented. ^[24] These guidelines and position statements collectively support the idea that a clinician may review health history, lab results, and perform a physical exam to decide whether and which supplements are needed for a given patient, especially in high‑risk or diseased populations.

Contradicts

The influencer’s claim implies that a physician can broadly determine “which supplements you need” for any individual solely from a general clinical assessment, but high-quality evidence and guidelines do not support routine, broad supplement prescribing for otherwise healthy people without specific indications. ^{[2][6][22][24]} The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics’ position paper states that micronutrient supplements are warranted when requirements are not met through diet alone, but that routine and indiscriminate use of supplements for chronic disease prevention is not recommended and should be guided by combined clinical status, biochemical indices, and dietary intake data. ^[3][4] This contradicts any suggestion that every person “needs” supplements or that they can be reliably determined for all patients without clear evidence of deficiency or increased requirement. Chronic disease guidelines such as hypertension management focus on pharmacologic and lifestyle interventions, and do not endorse generalized supplement regimens determined solely by a physician’s exam and routine labs. ^[1] Evidence-based reviews, like those on glucosamine and chondroitin for osteoarthritis, show that not all commonly promoted supplements have robust efficacy, underscoring that clinical assessment alone cannot validate the utility of many supplements and that evidence of benefit is often limited or mixed. ^[21] Overall, high-quality sources stress that even with detailed clinical evaluation, supplement decisions must be constrained by specific indications, safety limits, and trial evidence, not by a blanket promise that a doctor can simply identify “which supplements you need” in all circumstances.

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical and nutrition position is that dietary and micronutrient supplements should be used selectively: to treat or prevent documented deficiencies, to meet requirements when diet is inadequate, or in specific high‑risk clinical scenarios, and these decisions should be informed by a combination of history, physical examination, laboratory tests, and dietary assessment. ^[4][21] Major clinical nutrition guidelines (ASPEN–FELANPE; ESPEN, including disease-specific guidelines like those for inflammatory bowel disease) endorse individualized assessments and targeted supplementation, not routine supplementation for everyone. ^[2][3][22] Position statements highlight that indiscriminate supplementation without clear need and without attention to potential toxicity or interactions is not evidence-based, and that practitioners should evaluate both potential benefit and harm before recommending supplements. ^[1] Thus, mainstream practice agrees with the narrow idea that clinicians should use a systematic assessment (history, labs, physical exam) to decide if supplements are indicated, but it rejects broad claims that this process will always identify a set of supplements that every patient “needs,” especially in the absence of specific deficiencies, risk conditions, or supporting trial data. ^[23][25]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Supplements”

Rule: K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act)

Tate Arnett Janssen is not approved to offer Erchonia Cold Laser within a Chiropractor scope of practice under Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic).

Erchonia Cold Laser

Supports

High-quality evidence exists that Erchonia-brand low-level or “cold” laser devices can provide temporary relief of musculoskeletal pain (e. ^[6][26] g. , neck, shoulder, low back) in adults, based largely on randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials and FDA 510(k) clearances, although many of these trials are manufacturer-sponsored. These studies generally show statistically significant short-term reductions in visual analogue scale (VAS) pain scores and improved range of motion versus sham laser in chronic neck and shoulder pain, chronic low back pain, and diabetic peripheral neuropathy foot pain. Independent randomized controlled trials of low-level laser therapy (LLLT) in other musculoskeletal and pain settings (e. ^{[7][27][28][29]} g. , knee osteoarthritis, postoperative pain after knee arthroplasty, discogenic lumbar radiculopathy) also report pain reduction or functional improvement compared with sham or standard care, suggesting a plausible mechanism and clinical effect for photobiomodulation-based therapies more broadly. ^[2] Overall, the evidence moderately supports the narrow claim that Erchonia cold laser, when used by clinicians including chiropractors, can provide short-term, temporary relief of certain types of musculoskeletal pain, especially as an adjunct to conventional care. ^[4]

Contradicts

Despite multiple RCTs, the overall evidence base for Erchonia cold laser and LLLT in chiropractic practice is limited by small sample sizes, short follow-up, heterogeneity of treatment protocols, and frequent industry sponsorship, which raises risk of bias. ^[5][26] Systematic reviews and methodological critiques of LLLT for neuromusculoskeletal conditions emphasize that optimal dosage parameters, treatment durations, and indications remain uncertain and that results across trials are inconsistent, with some high-quality studies showing minimal or no clinically meaningful benefit compared with sham or standard therapy. ^[7][28] Long-term outcomes, hard endpoints (e. g. , structural disease modification), and comparative effectiveness against mainstream pharmacologic or physical therapy interventions are poorly characterized. Major clinical guidelines in pain medicine, orthopedics, and neurology do not routinely recommend Erchonia cold laser or LLLT as standard first-line therapy for common musculoskeletal pain conditions; when mentioned, these modalities are typically classified as experimental or optional adjunctive treatments with low- to moderate-quality evidence. ^{[2][4][6][27][29]} Therefore, broad or strong claims that chiropractor-delivered Erchonia cold laser is a proven, primary, or disease-modifying treatment for musculoskeletal or systemic conditions are not supported by current high-level evidence.

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical and scientific position is that low-level (cold) laser therapy, including Erchonia devices, may offer short-term, modest pain relief and functional improvement in some musculoskeletal conditions, but the evidence is still evolving and methodologically limited. ^{[6][7][26][27][28][29]} It is generally regarded as an adjunctive or optional modality rather than a core, guideline-endorsed treatment, with emphasis on conservative therapies such as exercise-based rehabilitation, pharmacologic pain management when needed, and manual therapies supported by stronger evidence. ^[1][5][4] Within chiropractic practice, Erchonia cold laser is viewed by some practitioners as a useful tool for temporary symptom relief, but it is not uniformly accepted as standard of care, and professional and inter-disciplinary guidelines rarely give strong recommendations for its routine use because of the modest effect sizes, heterogeneity of results, and uncertainties around optimal dosing and generalizability. ^[2] Mainstream experts typically advise that patients who choose cold laser treatment do so with realistic expectations (temporary, modest benefit), in conjunction with established evidence-based therapies, and with awareness that long-term efficacy and safety data are limited.

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Erchonia Cold Laser”

Rule: K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act)

Tate Arnett Janssen is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Ion Foot Bath.

Ion Foot Bath

Supports

There is no high-quality evidence from randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, or major guidelines showing that ionic foot baths used by chiropractors meaningfully detoxify the body, remove heavy metals, or treat systemic disease. The available clinical study of an ionic foot bath (IonCleanse) found no induction of toxic element release through the feet and no change in urine or hair levels after multiple sessions, directly contradicting common detox claims. Warm-water foot baths in general (without ionization) have been studied as comfort interventions, for example in pediatric oncology, and appear safe and feasible but did not show superiority over standard care for chemotherapy-related fatigue and were not framed as detoxification.^[16] Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) foot baths have some low-quality evidence for specific conditions such as hypertension, insomnia, and diabetic peripheral neuropathy, suggesting possible symptomatic benefit when combined with conventional therapy, but these involve herbal formulations and acupoint massage rather than ionic detox baths, and the trials have major methodological weaknesses including high risk of bias, poor randomization, and lack of blinding.^{[18][19][21][22]} No major guideline among the index papers (e.g., hypertension, clinical nutrition, headache, transfusion) includes ionic foot baths or chiropractic-managed ion foot baths as a recommended intervention for any medical condition.^{[0][1][2][3][6]}

Contradicts

The best available specific evidence on ionic foot baths shows they do not promote elimination of toxic elements through the feet, urine, or hair and do not reduce toxin levels in the body, directly contradicting detox claims made for these devices. Multiple clinical and laboratory assessments report no increase in heavy metals or other toxins in bath water attributable to patient exposure and no measurable change in systemic toxin markers, indicating that the colored water is due to corrosion and electrochemical reactions in the device rather than removal of bodily toxins. Major clinical guidelines for hypertension, parenteral nutrition, inflammatory bowel disease, headache, and transfusion therapy do not mention ionic foot baths or chiropractic ion foot bath treatments as evidence-based therapies, which indirectly contradicts any claim that they are accepted or standard medical treatments.^{[0][1][2][3][4][6][7]} Warm foot baths have been tested in an RCT for chemotherapy-related fatigue and were safe but showed no clinically significant advantage over usual care, undermining broad claims of strong therapeutic effects from foot baths alone.^[16] Where TCM herbal foot baths have been studied, the evidence is weak, condition-specific, and not about ionic detox; the systematic reviews emphasize poor methodological quality and the need for rigorous trials before clinical adoption, which contradicts strong wellness or detox claims.^{[18][19][21][22]}

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical and scientific view is that ionic or "detox" foot baths, including those offered in chiropractic or wellness settings, do not effectively remove toxins or heavy metals from the body and are not evidence-based treatments for systemic disease. The body’s detoxification occurs primarily via the liver, kidneys, gastrointestinal tract, lungs, and skin, and there is no established physiological mechanism by which mild ionization of warm water around the feet would selectively draw toxins out of the bloodstream or tissues. Major evidence-based guidelines in internal medicine, neurology, nutrition, cardiology, and transfusion practice do not include ionic foot baths or chiropractic ion foot bath services among recommended diagnostic or therapeutic options for any condition.^{[0][1][2][3][4][6][7]} Warm or herbal foot baths may be used as comfort measures or complementary therapies in some traditional or rehabilitative contexts, but when studied, their benefits are modest, condition-specific, and often supported only by low-quality, high-bias trials.^{[16][18][19][21][22]} Overall, mainstream experts regard ion foot bath detox claims as unsubstantiated, and any use is considered optional relaxation rather than medical treatment.

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Ion Foot Bath”

Rule: K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act)

Tate Arnett Janssen is not approved to offer Infrared Sauna within a Chiropractor scope of practice under Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic).

Infrared Sauna

Supports

There is moderate evidence that infrared sauna or far-infrared therapy can provide short‑term symptom relief (pain reduction, decreased stiffness, improved mobility) in some musculoskeletal and rheumatic conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, osteoarthritis, fibromyalgia, and chronic pain when used as an adjunct to standard care. ^[4][7][37] Several narrative and systematic reviews of infrared radiation for musculoskeletal pain conclude that infrared modalities appear to be a safe complementary therapy with clinically meaningful, though modest, reductions in pain and improvements in function for conditions like knee osteoarthritis, chronic low back pain, and fibromyalgia, while emphasizing that protocols and effect sizes vary and higher‑quality RCTs are still needed. ^[35][36] Independent reviews of far‑infrared saunas for chronic pain and cardiovascular risk factors describe “fair” preliminary support for chronic pain reduction and symptomatic improvement in heart failure and hypertension but classify the evidence base as limited and mainly exploratory. ^[1][6][8] Clinical overviews of sauna therapy in rheumatic diseases report reductions in pain scores, stiffness, and improved mobility in RA and AS patients after infrared sauna exposure, again positioning it as an adjunctive modality rather than a primary disease‑modifying treatment. ^[2][3][5]

Contradicts

There is essentially no high‑quality evidence specifically supporting a distinct treatment construct of “chiropractor treatment of infrared sauna” as an established, evidence‑based therapeutic intervention. ^[1][37] The available trials and reviews evaluate infrared sauna or far‑infrared therapy itself (or other infrared modalities), not chiropractic management that incorporates or “treats” infrared sauna as a target condition. ^[34][36] No major guidelines for hypertension, parenteral nutrition, inflammatory bowel disease, blood transfusion, pericarditis, or tension‑type headache mention infrared sauna or chiropractic‑delivered infrared sauna as a recommended therapy, and their evidence hierarchies stress the need for robust randomized trials, clear clinical endpoints, and assessment of imprecision before adopting interventions into routine practice. ^{[2][3][5][4][6][7][8][35]} Existing assessments of infrared sauna for chronic pain and other chronic conditions characterize the current evidence as preliminary, with small sample sizes, heterogeneous protocols, and a lack of large, blinded RCTs, and they explicitly caution against extrapolating beyond modest adjunctive symptom relief to claims of broad therapeutic efficacy or disease modification. This means that strong or generalized claims by influencers about “chiropractor treatment of infrared sauna” curing or reliably treating a wide range of conditions are not supported and are inconsistent with the cautious interpretation in the academic literature.

Mainstream view

Mainstream medical and scientific opinion is that infrared sauna and related infrared modalities may be a reasonably safe, non‑pharmacologic adjunct that can provide temporary relief of pain, stiffness, or stress and modest improvements in some functional outcomes for selected patients, but they are not established primary treatments or disease‑modifying therapies for most conditions. ^[34][37] Infrared sauna is generally viewed as an optional complementary tool that should not replace guideline‑directed treatment for cardiovascular disease, rheumatic disease, chronic pain, or other chronic illnesses, and its use should be individualized, taking into account cardiovascular status, blood pressure control, hydration, and heat‑tolerance, with attention to standard contraindications. ^[3][5][7] Chiropractic practice itself has some evidence for benefit in specific musculoskeletal complaints (for example, spinal manipulative therapy for certain types of back and neck pain), but mainstream guidelines do not recognize a specific entity of “chiropractor treatment of infrared sauna”; rather, any use of infrared sauna within chiropractic clinics is considered an adjunct wellness or comfort modality whose benefits and risks are governed by the same evidence and precautions as in other settings. ^{[2][6][35][36]} Overall, the consensus is that current data support only limited, adjunctive benefits of infrared sauna, and there is no distinct evidence base for a combined, branded “chiropractic infrared sauna treatment” with proven superiority over standard care.

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Infrared Sauna”

Rule: K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act)

Tate Arnett Janssen is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to advertise Dr. Janssen will evaluate your current condition, health history, lab results, and perform a detailed physical exam to determine which supplements you need as within their scope of practice.

Dr. Janssen will evaluate your current condition, health history, lab results, and perform a detailed physical exam to determine which supplements you need

Supports

High-quality guidance documents support the general principle that micronutrient or supplement prescriptions should follow a structured clinical assessment including history, examination, and laboratory evaluation, rather than being given indiscriminately. The ASPEN–FELANPE clinical nutrition guidelines emphasize individualized nutrition support (including micronutrients) based on medical history, current clinical status, and laboratory parameters, within an evidence-based framework for malnutrition and critical illness management. ^{[1][2][4][6][21][22]} The ESPEN guideline on clinical nutrition in inflammatory bowel disease recommends assessing nutritional status and using targeted supplementation (e. ^[3][5] g. , vitamins, minerals) when deficiencies are identified, based on disease features, history, clinical examination, and lab tests. The ESPEN micronutrient guideline and related ESPEN-endorsed recommendations similarly describe best practice as assessing micronutrient status using biomarkers, clinical history, and examination, then prescribing supplements only when deficiency, increased need, or malabsorption is documented. ^[24] These guidelines and position statements collectively support the idea that a clinician may review health history, lab results, and perform a physical exam to decide whether and which supplements are needed for a given patient, especially in high‑risk or diseased populations.

Contradicts

The influencer’s claim implies that a physician can broadly determine “which supplements you need” for any individual solely from a general clinical assessment, but high-quality evidence and guidelines do not support routine, broad supplement prescribing for otherwise healthy people without specific indications. ^{[2][6][22][24]} The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics’ position paper states that micronutrient supplements are warranted when requirements are not met through diet alone, but that routine and indiscriminate use of supplements for chronic disease prevention is not recommended and should be guided by combined clinical status, biochemical indices, and dietary intake data. ^[3][4] This contradicts any suggestion that every person “needs” supplements or that they can be reliably determined for all patients without clear evidence of deficiency or increased requirement. Chronic disease guidelines such as hypertension management focus on pharmacologic and lifestyle interventions, and do not endorse generalized supplement regimens determined solely by a physician’s exam and routine labs. ^[1] Evidence-based reviews, like those on glucosamine and chondroitin for osteoarthritis, show that not all commonly promoted supplements have robust efficacy, underscoring that clinical assessment alone cannot validate the utility of many supplements and that evidence of benefit is often limited or mixed. ^[21] Overall, high-quality sources stress that even with detailed clinical evaluation, supplement decisions must be constrained by specific indications, safety limits, and trial evidence, not by a blanket promise that a doctor can simply identify “which supplements you need” in all circumstances.

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical and nutrition position is that dietary and micronutrient supplements should be used selectively: to treat or prevent documented deficiencies, to meet requirements when diet is inadequate, or in specific high‑risk clinical scenarios, and these decisions should be informed by a combination of history, physical examination, laboratory tests, and dietary assessment. ^[4][21] Major clinical nutrition guidelines (ASPEN–FELANPE; ESPEN, including disease-specific guidelines like those for inflammatory bowel disease) endorse individualized assessments and targeted supplementation, not routine supplementation for everyone. ^[2][3][22] Position statements highlight that indiscriminate supplementation without clear need and without attention to potential toxicity or interactions is not evidence-based, and that practitioners should evaluate both potential benefit and harm before recommending supplements. ^[1] Thus, mainstream practice agrees with the narrow idea that clinicians should use a systematic assessment (history, labs, physical exam) to decide if supplements are indicated, but it rejects broad claims that this process will always identify a set of supplements that every patient “needs,” especially in the absence of specific deficiencies, risk conditions, or supporting trial data. ^[23][25]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Dr. Janssen will evaluate your current condition, health history, lab results, and perform a detailed physical exam to determine which supplements you need”

Rule: K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act)

Tate Arnett Janssen is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to advertise specific targeted nutritional supplementation as within their scope of practice.

specific targeted nutritional supplementation

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“specific targeted nutritional supplementation”

Rule: K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act)

Tate Arnett Janssen is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to advertise conditions may be reduced or eliminated as within their scope of practice.

conditions may be reduced or eliminated

Supports

No high-quality evidence in the provided index papers directly supports the broad claim that “conditions may be reduced or eliminated” as a general statement. ^[6] Some clinical guidelines do support substantial symptom reduction or disease control with specific treatments in specific conditions, such as hypertension management strategies, clinical nutrition support in inflammatory bowel disease, and colchicine reducing recurrences in pericarditis. ^[1][2][3][8]

Contradicts

The claim is too vague and overbroad to be supported as written. The indexed guideline and review papers address condition-specific management, not a general promise that conditions can be reduced or eliminated across diseases. ^[1][5] Evidence appraisal guidance emphasizes that effect estimates can be uncertain and limited by imprecision, which weakens any sweeping elimination claim. ^[6]

Mainstream view

Mainstream medical and scientific opinion is that some conditions can be improved, controlled, or sometimes put into remission with evidence-based treatment, but many cannot be eliminated, and outcomes depend strongly on the specific diagnosis, severity, and treatment context. ^[1][5][6] Broad claims of reducing or eliminating “conditions” are not medically reliable without naming the condition and the intervention.

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“conditions may be reduced or eliminated”

Rule: K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act)

Tate Arnett Janssen is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to advertise The majority of the supplements used are whole-food supplements as within their scope of practice.

The majority of the supplements used are whole-food supplements

Supports

None of the indexed guideline papers provided (on hypertension, parenteral/enteral nutrition, inflammatory bowel disease, tension-type headache, blood transfusion, colchicine, and GRADE methodology) address the composition of over-the-counter dietary supplements or whether most on the market are whole-food based, so they do not directly support the influencer’s claim. ^{[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][39]} External survey and surveillance data on supplement use show that the most commonly used supplements are multivitamin-mineral products, isolated vitamins (e. ^[40][41] g. , vitamin D, C, B-complex), minerals (e. g. , calcium, magnesium), omega-3/fish oil, probiotics, and other single-ingredient or specialty products, which are typically formulated as isolated nutrients or extracts rather than concentrated “whole-food” preparations. Population surveys from NHANES and consumer surveys consistently identify multivitamins and isolated vitamins/minerals as the dominant supplement categories, not whole-food–based blends. This pattern provides indirect evidence against, not for, the claim that the majority of supplements used are whole-food supplements.

Contradicts

The indexed clinical nutrition guidelines emphasize obtaining nutrients from a balanced diet of whole foods and reserve concentrated preparations (parenteral or enteral formulas, vitamin/mineral supplements) for specific medical indications, implicitly treating supplements as isolated or formulated nutrients, not predominantly as whole-food concentrates. ^[2][6] For example, guidelines on clinical nutrition in inflammatory bowel disease focus on enteral/parenteral nutrition formulas and micronutrient supplementation where indicated, but do not characterize these products as whole-food supplements and instead describe them as specialized medical nutrition products. ^[3] Guidance on when parenteral nutrition is appropriate similarly treats nutrient preparations as defined combinations of macronutrients and micronutrients compounded for clinical use, not as whole-food–based supplements. ^[4] Large observational data sets on dietary supplement use in the general population show that the most commonly used products are multivitamins/multiminerals, vitamin D, vitamin C, calcium, omega-3/fish oil, magnesium, and other single-nutrient or specialty products; these are typically synthetic or purified nutrient formulations, not whole-food supplements. ^[39][40][41] This contradicts the assertion that the majority of supplements used are whole-food based. Market and regulatory analyses of food supplements also describe major categories as vitamins, minerals, botanicals, probiotics, and specialty products, again without indicating that whole-food–based formulations constitute the majority of products or usage. Overall, available evidence suggests that whole-food supplements are a niche within the broader supplement market, not the predominant type used by most consumers, which contradicts the influencer’s claim. ^[5]

Mainstream view

Mainstream medical and public health positions hold that most commercially used dietary supplements are composed of isolated vitamins, minerals, specific bioactive compounds, or standardized botanical extracts, rather than being primarily whole-food–based supplements. ^[39][42] Major clinical guidelines in nutrition and disease management emphasize obtaining nutrients from whole foods in the diet and recommend supplements mainly as targeted, concentrated nutrients for specific deficiencies or indications (e. ^[2][3][4][6] g. , vitamin D, iron, calcium), not as whole-food concentrates. Epidemiologic and market data show that multivitamins, single vitamins, minerals, omega-3 products, and probiotics dominate supplement use, which aligns with the view that these products are largely non–whole-food formulations. ^[40][41] Therefore, the mainstream scientific and medical view does not support the idea that the majority of supplements people use are whole-food supplements; instead, whole-food–based products are viewed as a subset within a supplement market dominated by isolated or formulated nutrients and extracts.

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“The majority of the supplements used are whole-food supplements”

Rule: K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act)

Tate Arnett Janssen is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure enhance well-being.

enhance well-being

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“enhance well-being”

Rule: K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act)

Tate Arnett Janssen is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure fight off allergies, arthritis, immune deficiencies, fatigue, decreased muscle function and much more.

fight off allergies, arthritis, immune deficiencies, fatigue, decreased muscle function and much more

Supports

High-quality evidence supports the idea that correcting specific nutrient deficiencies or providing targeted nutritional support can modestly improve some aspects of fatigue and muscle function in defined populations, but not broadly “fight off” allergies, arthritis, or immune deficiencies as a general claim. ^[6] Guidelines for clinical nutrition (ASPEN, ESPEN) emphasize that appropriate macro- and micronutrient provision is important in patients with serious illness and can help preserve muscle mass and function, and they recommend vitamin supplementation within parenteral nutrition to meet requirements and support immune function in critically ill patients. ^{[2][3][4][46]} A systematic review of nutrient therapy for fatigue reports potentially significant benefits from certain nutrients (e. ^[7][43] g. , CoQ10, L‑carnitine, vitamins C, D, B) in reducing fatigue in some healthy and chronically ill individuals, based on randomized and nonrandomized trials, though effects vary by nutrient and population. ^[45] A randomized trial of essential amino acid–based multi‑ingredient supplementation in healthy elderly subjects found improved muscle mass, strength, and power, indicating that targeted nutritional supplements can counter age‑related loss of muscle function. ^[44] Multiple randomized trials and reviews show that correcting vitamin D and B12 deficiency and providing adequate protein and multi‑nutrient support can improve biochemical status and sometimes muscle mass or strength in selected groups, such as sarcopenic dialysis patients or older adults at risk of protein deficiency, supporting a narrow claim that nutrition can help decreased muscle function in deficiency states.

Contradicts

There is no high‑quality evidence that generic supplements or nutrition “fight off” allergies, arthritis, or broad immune deficiencies in the way implied by the influencer’s sweeping claim, and existing data on fatigue and immune enhancement are mixed or modest. ^[6] Major clinical nutrition guidelines focus on meeting requirements and preventing deficiency; they do not claim that routine supplementation in otherwise well‑nourished individuals will cure or substantially prevent allergies, arthritis, or immune deficiency syndromes, and they stress evidence grading and imprecision when benefits are small or uncertain. ^[2][3][4] A randomized trial of vitamin D supplementation in older adults showed improved 25(OH)D levels but no significant effect on measured immune parameters, indicating that correcting deficiency did not meaningfully enhance immune function over 12 weeks in that study. ^[44] Another randomized trial in children found that vitamin D supplementation improved vitamin D status and prevented deficiency but had no effect on muscle function, cognitive outcomes, or immune markers, contradicting simple claims that vitamin D alone restores muscle function or broadly boosts immunity in otherwise healthy, mildly deficient children. A prospective population‑based study found no consistent association between use of vitamin/mineral supplements and fatigue status; multivitamin–multimineral users tended to develop greater fatigue, arguing against the idea that routine supplement use reliably alleviates fatigue in the general population. Narrative reviews of immune nutrition and exercise note that, beyond avoiding frank deficiencies and meeting basic macronutrient needs, well‑powered randomized trials showing clinically meaningful reductions in infection or robust improvements in immune outcomes from additional supplementation are lacking, which weakens claims that supplements reliably “fight off” immune deficiencies in otherwise adequately nourished people. ^[46] Evidence for multi‑nutrient products and herbal mixtures (such as HemoHIM or similar) often shows safety and some signal for immune or fatigue outcomes but is limited in size, duration, and clinical endpoints, and does not justify broad disease‑level claims like preventing arthritis or allergic disease in the general population. ^[43][45]

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical and scientific position is that appropriate nutrition, including adequate protein and correction of specific vitamin and mineral deficiencies, is important for maintaining general health, supporting normal immune and musculoskeletal function, and reducing disease‑related malnutrition, but it is not a stand‑alone treatment to “fight off” diverse conditions such as allergies, arthritis, immune deficiencies, and fatigue in the sweeping manner described by the influencer. ^{[4][5][43][45]} Major clinical nutrition guidelines (ASPEN, ESPEN, and related evidence‑based statements) recommend individualized nutrition support for patients with defined medical conditions, emphasize careful risk–benefit assessment, and base recommendations on graded evidence, focusing on preventing and treating malnutrition rather than promising cure or prevention of unrelated diseases. ^{[1][2][3][6][44]} For healthy or

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“fight off allergies, arthritis, immune deficiencies, fatigue, decreased muscle function and much more”

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

See every doc bro advertising Allergies, asthma and food sensitivities

Tate Arnett Janssen is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to advertise normalize the body's pH as within their scope of practice.

normalize the body's pH

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“normalize the body's pH”

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

Tate Arnett Janssen is not approved to offer Balancing the body's pH is critical in assisting the body in every aspect, from it's ability to detox to it's ability to fight infections within a Chiropractor scope of practice under Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic).

Balancing the body's pH is critical in assisting the body in every aspect, from it's ability to detox to it's ability to fight infections

Supports

There is some evidence that dietary acid load can influence metabolic processes, low‑grade inflammation, kidney workload, and possibly long‑term health outcomes, which are indirectly related to detoxification and immune function, but not through changing or “balancing” systemic pH. ^[49][50] Narrative and systematic reviews describe that diets high in animal products and low in fruits and vegetables increase dietary acid load, which is associated in observational data with metabolic syndrome, cardiovascular risk factors, and higher all‑cause mortality, suggesting that reducing dietary acid load via more plant-based diets may be beneficial for overall health and organ function involved in detoxification and immune responses. ^[48][51][52] Some mechanistic and cellular work shows that acid–base equilibria can affect molecular pathways involved in metabolic stress and inflammation, which are relevant to both detoxification systems (liver, kidneys) and immune responses, but these effects occur despite very tight regulation of blood pH and do not depend on meaningful shifts in systemic pH. ^[47] Overall, the supportive evidence is about diet quality and acid load influencing disease risk and metabolic/renal burden, not about clinically altering the body’s pH or showing that “pH balancing” itself is critical for infection resistance or detox capacity.

Contradicts

High‑quality physiological and clinical evidence shows that in healthy people, systemic blood pH is tightly regulated within a very narrow range (about 7. ^[48] 35–7. 45) by buffers, lungs, and kidneys, and is not meaningfully altered by diet, alkaline water, or typical lifestyle measures. Reviews and expert commentaries on alkaline or pH‑balancing diets consistently report that while diet can change urine pH, it does not materially change blood or tissue pH, and claims that one can “balance the body’s pH” to treat or prevent disease are not supported by randomized trials or robust epidemiologic data. Clinical acidosis or alkalosis substantial enough to alter infection risk or detoxification capacity is a medical emergency caused by serious underlying disease (renal failure, sepsis, diabetic ketoacidosis, respiratory failure, certain toxins), not by ordinary dietary patterns, and in these states the priority is treating the underlying illness, not lifestyle pH manipulation. ^[47][49][52] Major reviews of the alkaline diet hypothesis for conditions like osteoporosis and cancer have found no causal evidence that making the diet more “alkaline” prevents or treats these diseases via pH changes, and no randomized trials show that deliberately trying to alter systemic pH in otherwise healthy people improves detoxification capacity or immune function. The influencer’s framing that “balancing the body’s pH is critical” overstates what diet can do and misattributes any potential benefits of healthier, plant‑rich eating to pH shifts rather than to well-understood mechanisms such as improved nutrient intake, reduced saturated fat, better glycemic control, reduced inflammation, and improved kidney and liver health. ^[50]

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical and scientific position is that systemic pH is one of the most tightly regulated parameters in human physiology, kept within a very narrow range by robust buffering, respiratory, and renal mechanisms, and that in people with normal organ function, diet and typical lifestyle choices cannot meaningfully “rebalance” or shift body pH. ^[50] Diets high in fruits, vegetables, and plant-based foods and lower in processed foods and certain animal products are recommended because they improve metabolic health, cardiovascular risk, kidney function, and overall well‑being, not because they substantially alter blood pH. Dietary acid load is a real and measurable construct, and high dietary acid load may be associated with adverse outcomes, but the current evidence is mostly observational and mechanistic, and the relationships are modest, with no proof that deliberately targeting “pH balance” is critical for detoxification or infection defense in otherwise healthy individuals. ^{[47][48][49][51][52]} In clinical practice, meaningful deviations in systemic pH are treated as serious complications of underlying disease and managed with medical interventions; for the general population, emphasis is placed on evidence‑based lifestyle factors (balanced diet, physical activity, avoidance of smoking and excess alcohol, appropriate vaccinations, and management of chronic conditions) rather than on attempts to “alkalize” or micromanage body pH.

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Balancing the body's pH is critical in assisting the body in every aspect, from it's ability to detox to it's ability to fight infections”

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

Tate Arnett Janssen is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to advertise cold lasers boost biochemical reactions as within their scope of practice.

cold lasers boost biochemical reactions

Supports

Cold laser therapy, also called low-level laser therapy or photobiomodulation, is specifically described in recent reviews as a photochemical treatment where photons are absorbed by cellular chromophores (especially mitochondrial cytochrome c oxidase), leading to changes in electron transport, ATP production, and redox state. ^{[7][53][54][55]} Multiple mechanistic reviews and updates report that low-level light increases mitochondrial membrane potential, ATP synthesis, reactive oxygen species (ROS) generation, nitric oxide release, and activation of transcription factors that alter gene expression, proliferation, migration, and metabolism, which are all biochemical reactions. In vitro work on isolated mitochondria and cells shows increased ATP, oxygen consumption, NADH/ATP synthesis, and shifts in cellular redox potential at appropriate doses of low-level light, again indicating direct modulation of biochemical pathways. ^[4] A 2024 mechanistic review of photobiomodulation describes that red and near-infrared light can increase mitochondrial function, ATP production, ROS, nitric oxide, and downstream transcription factors such as NF-κB and HIF, which regulate glycolysis enzymes and other metabolic processes, supporting the idea that cold lasers boost biochemical reactions at the cellular level. Recent systematic reviews and randomized trials in clinical contexts (e. ^[2] g. , wound healing, oral surgery, temporomandibular disorders, neuropathic pain, osteoarthritis) consistently report that low-level laser therapy can reduce pain, modulate inflammation, and enhance tissue healing, which are interpreted as downstream consequences of laser-induced biochemical and cellular changes, indirectly supporting the claim that cold lasers modulate biochemical processes in tissues. ^[5][56]

Contradicts

None of the provided index guideline papers address cold lasers or photobiomodulation, and they instead focus on unrelated topics such as hypertension management, clinical nutrition, parenteral nutrition, blood transfusion, headache treatment, and pericarditis, so they neither support nor directly validate the influencer’s specific biochemical claim. ^{[1][2][3][4][5][7][8]} Mechanistic evidence for low-level laser effects on biochemical reactions is largely based on laboratory models, in vitro studies, animal experiments, and small human studies, and these are often heterogeneous in wavelength, dose, and treatment protocols, limiting the certainty about how robust and general these biochemical effects are across different clinical scenarios. ^{[53][54][55][56]} Several clinical systematic reviews and meta-analyses characterizing photobiomodulation emphasize low to very low certainty of evidence for many indications, substantial variability in parameters, and a need for standardized protocols and larger, high-quality trials; this means that while biochemical mechanisms are plausible and supported experimentally, the translation and magnitude of these biochemical “boosts” in routine clinical practice remains uncertain. ^[6] Some expert and guideline-level assessments for specific conditions (e. g. , musculoskeletal pain, tendinopathy) conclude that evidence is insufficient for routine use despite mechanistic data, implying that the existence of biochemical effects does not automatically translate into reliable, clinically meaningful benefits, so broad claims that cold lasers “boost biochemical reactions” in a strong or universal sense overstate the current evidence.

Mainstream view

The mainstream scientific view is that low-level laser therapy (cold laser, photobiomodulation) produces primarily photochemical, not thermal, effects in tissues by photon absorption in cellular chromophores such as mitochondrial cytochrome c oxidase, and that these interactions can modulate biochemical reactions involving mitochondrial respiration, ATP production, reactive oxygen species, nitric oxide, and downstream signaling and gene expression. ^{[53][54][55][56]} At the cellular and molecular level, there is reasonably consistent experimental evidence that appropriately dosed red and near-infrared light can alter biochemical pathways related to energy metabolism, oxidative stress, inflammation, and cell survival. However, major clinical guidelines in general medicine, cardiology, neurology, nutrition, transfusion medicine, and pericardial disease do not currently incorporate cold lasers as standard therapy, reflecting that evidence for broad, clinically important benefits is still limited or condition-specific. ^[2][3][4][7] Mainstream experts typically regard photobiomodulation as a promising modality with plausible and experimentally supported biochemical mechanisms, but they also emphasize the need for better dose-response characterization, standardized protocols, and high-quality randomized trials before strong, general claims about boosting biochemical reactions in humans are endorsed in guidelines. ^[6]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“cold lasers boost biochemical reactions”

Rule: K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act)

Tate Arnett Janssen is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to advertise Relieves acute and chronic pain as within their scope of practice.

Relieves acute and chronic pain

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Relieves acute and chronic pain”

Rule: K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act)

Tate Arnett Janssen is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to advertise Helps generate new and healthy cells and tissue as within their scope of practice.

Helps generate new and healthy cells and tissue

Supports

Protein and adequate energy intake are necessary for normal tissue maintenance and repair, and major clinical nutrition guidance for wound care commonly recommends higher protein intake during recovery because protein supports collagen formation, immune function, and tissue rebuilding. ^{[2][3][4][59]} Several clinical reviews in the provided search results state that protein is essential for body tissue repair and that adequate nutrition supports wound healing and regeneration, which is the closest high-quality support for the general idea behind the claim. ^[6][57][58] The broader regenerative-medicine literature also recognizes that nutrients and bioactive compounds can influence stem-cell behavior, cell proliferation, and tissue repair, but much of that evidence is preclinical or context-specific rather than proof of a universal cell- or tissue-generating effect. ^[60]

Contradicts

The claim is too broad and overstates the evidence. ^[6][57] The strongest data support adequate nutrition for healing and repair, not a general ability to generate new and healthy cells and tissue in all contexts. ^[58][59] In the wound-healing literature, additional micronutrient supplementation above nutritional adequacy often has limited or uncertain benefit, and reviews note substantial variability, indirect outcomes, and a need for better clinical trials. ^[2] The stem-cell and regenerative-medicine papers show promise but also emphasize low certainty, substantial heterogeneity, and limited clinical validation, so they do not establish a general claim of tissue generation. ^[60] The provided papers on hypertension, headache, pericarditis, transfusion, and parenteral nutrition do not directly support this broad regenerative claim. ^[4][5][7][8]

Mainstream view

Mainstream medical and scientific opinion is that adequate calories, protein, and correction of deficiencies are important for normal cell turnover, tissue maintenance, and wound healing, especially after injury, surgery, illness, or malnutrition. ^{[57][58][59][60]} However, there is no general evidence that a product, supplement, or intervention broadly 'generates new and healthy cells and tissue' in healthy people; any benefit is usually specific to a deficiency state or a particular clinical setting such as wound healing or rehabilitation. ^[2]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Helps generate new and healthy cells and tissue”

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

Tate Arnett Janssen is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Concussions.

Concussions

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Concussions”

Rule: K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act)

See every doc bro advertising Concussion and brain injury

Tate Arnett Janssen is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Headaches and Migraines.

Headaches and Migraines

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Headaches and Migraines”

Rule: K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act)

Tate Arnett Janssen is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to advertise Degenerative, Bulging or Herniated Discs as within their scope of practice.

Degenerative, Bulging or Herniated Discs

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Degenerative, Bulging or Herniated Discs”

Rule: K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act)

Tate Arnett Janssen is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Arthritis.

Arthritis

Supports

High-quality evidence supports the idea that correcting specific nutrient deficiencies or providing targeted nutritional support can modestly improve some aspects of fatigue and muscle function in defined populations, but not broadly “fight off” allergies, arthritis, or immune deficiencies as a general claim. ^[6] Guidelines for clinical nutrition (ASPEN, ESPEN) emphasize that appropriate macro- and micronutrient provision is important in patients with serious illness and can help preserve muscle mass and function, and they recommend vitamin supplementation within parenteral nutrition to meet requirements and support immune function in critically ill patients. ^{[2][3][4][46]} A systematic review of nutrient therapy for fatigue reports potentially significant benefits from certain nutrients (e. ^[7][43] g. , CoQ10, L‑carnitine, vitamins C, D, B) in reducing fatigue in some healthy and chronically ill individuals, based on randomized and nonrandomized trials, though effects vary by nutrient and population. ^[45] A randomized trial of essential amino acid–based multi‑ingredient supplementation in healthy elderly subjects found improved muscle mass, strength, and power, indicating that targeted nutritional supplements can counter age‑related loss of muscle function. ^[44] Multiple randomized trials and reviews show that correcting vitamin D and B12 deficiency and providing adequate protein and multi‑nutrient support can improve biochemical status and sometimes muscle mass or strength in selected groups, such as sarcopenic dialysis patients or older adults at risk of protein deficiency, supporting a narrow claim that nutrition can help decreased muscle function in deficiency states.

Contradicts

There is no high‑quality evidence that generic supplements or nutrition “fight off” allergies, arthritis, or broad immune deficiencies in the way implied by the influencer’s sweeping claim, and existing data on fatigue and immune enhancement are mixed or modest. ^[6] Major clinical nutrition guidelines focus on meeting requirements and preventing deficiency; they do not claim that routine supplementation in otherwise well‑nourished individuals will cure or substantially prevent allergies, arthritis, or immune deficiency syndromes, and they stress evidence grading and imprecision when benefits are small or uncertain. ^[2][3][4] A randomized trial of vitamin D supplementation in older adults showed improved 25(OH)D levels but no significant effect on measured immune parameters, indicating that correcting deficiency did not meaningfully enhance immune function over 12 weeks in that study. ^[44] Another randomized trial in children found that vitamin D supplementation improved vitamin D status and prevented deficiency but had no effect on muscle function, cognitive outcomes, or immune markers, contradicting simple claims that vitamin D alone restores muscle function or broadly boosts immunity in otherwise healthy, mildly deficient children. A prospective population‑based study found no consistent association between use of vitamin/mineral supplements and fatigue status; multivitamin–multimineral users tended to develop greater fatigue, arguing against the idea that routine supplement use reliably alleviates fatigue in the general population. Narrative reviews of immune nutrition and exercise note that, beyond avoiding frank deficiencies and meeting basic macronutrient needs, well‑powered randomized trials showing clinically meaningful reductions in infection or robust improvements in immune outcomes from additional supplementation are lacking, which weakens claims that supplements reliably “fight off” immune deficiencies in otherwise adequately nourished people. ^[46] Evidence for multi‑nutrient products and herbal mixtures (such as HemoHIM or similar) often shows safety and some signal for immune or fatigue outcomes but is limited in size, duration, and clinical endpoints, and does not justify broad disease‑level claims like preventing arthritis or allergic disease in the general population. ^[43][45]

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical and scientific position is that appropriate nutrition, including adequate protein and correction of specific vitamin and mineral deficiencies, is important for maintaining general health, supporting normal immune and musculoskeletal function, and reducing disease‑related malnutrition, but it is not a stand‑alone treatment to “fight off” diverse conditions such as allergies, arthritis, immune deficiencies, and fatigue in the sweeping manner described by the influencer. ^{[4][5][43][45]} Major clinical nutrition guidelines (ASPEN, ESPEN, and related evidence‑based statements) recommend individualized nutrition support for patients with defined medical conditions, emphasize careful risk–benefit assessment, and base recommendations on graded evidence, focusing on preventing and treating malnutrition rather than promising cure or prevention of unrelated diseases. ^{[1][2][3][6][44]} For healthy or

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Arthritis”

Rule: K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act)

Tate Arnett Janssen is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure immune deficiencies.

immune deficiencies

Supports

No high-quality evidence in the provided index papers supports the broad claim of immune deficiencies. The listed studies are unrelated to immunodeficiency and do not test whether immune deficiencies are present or caused by the influencer’s claim.

Contradicts

The available index papers do not provide evidence for immune deficiencies, and several are clearly unrelated clinical studies, so they cannot be used to substantiate the claim. Because the claim is nonspecific, it is not possible to verify a medically meaningful assertion from the evidence provided. The evidence base here is effectively absent rather than supportive.

Mainstream view

Immune deficiency is a specific medical diagnosis that requires clinical context, laboratory evaluation, and sometimes genetic testing; a vague claim of “immune deficiencies” is not medically interpretable without specifying which deficiency, in whom, and by what evidence. In the absence of direct clinical or peer-reviewed evidence, the mainstream scientific position is that this claim is unsupported.

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“immune deficiencies”

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

Tate Arnett Janssen is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure fight off allergies, arthritis, immune deficiencies, fatigue.

fight off allergies, arthritis, immune deficiencies, fatigue

Supports

The broad claim is that some unspecified intervention can “fight off allergies, arthritis, immune deficiencies, fatigue. ” No index paper provided by the user directly supports a single intervention having clinically meaningful effects across all of these heterogeneous conditions. Major guidelines and evidence reviews instead show that these conditions are managed with targeted, condition-specific therapies rather than a universal remedy. ^[2][6][63] Allergic diseases (such as allergic rhinitis) are typically treated with allergen avoidance, pharmacotherapy like intranasal corticosteroids and antihistamines, and in selected cases allergen immunotherapy, which can be disease‑modifying, but this is specific to allergy and not a general cure for arthritis, immune deficiency, or fatigue. ^[61][64] Fatigue can sometimes be improved by structured exercise programs, psychological interventions, or appropriate disease‑specific pharmacologic therapy in chronic conditions, but these are tailored approaches rather than a single broad “fatigue fighter. ^[4][7][62] ” Overall, high‑quality evidence supports multifaceted, diagnosis‑specific management rather than a single approach that reliably “fights off” all of allergies, arthritis, immune deficiencies, and fatigue simultaneously. ^[1]

Contradicts

High‑quality guidelines emphasize that hypertension, inflammatory bowel disease, tension‑type headache, and other chronic conditions require evidence‑based, condition‑specific management and do not endorse generic remedies capable of reversing multiple unrelated diseases such as allergies, arthritis, immune deficiencies, and fatigue together. ^{[1][3][61][62]} The ASPEN‑FELANPE and ESPEN nutrition guidelines stress that clinical nutrition is an adjunct tailored to specific illnesses (e. ^[2] g. , critical illness, IBD) and do not claim that nutrition alone broadly cures immune deficiencies, arthritis, or allergic disease. The guideline on parenteral nutrition explicitly confines parenteral nutrition to clearly defined indications and warns against its use outside appropriate clinical contexts, contradicting any suggestion that it is a general treatment to fight off immune deficiencies or fatigue. ^[4][64] The EFNS guideline on tension‑type headache, and the evidence‑based approach to blood transfusion therapy and colchicine in pericarditis, similarly present targeted therapies with defined indications and risks, not universal disease‑modifying tools applicable to allergies, arthritis, immune deficiency, and fatigue together. ^[5][7][8] This pattern across guidelines and evidence reviews contradicts the notion that one broad, unspecified approach can reliably “fight off” this wide cluster of conditions; instead, it shows that each requires specific diagnostic workup and tailored management based on pathophysiology and high‑quality evidence. ^[6][63]

Mainstream view

Mainstream medical and scientific consensus is that allergies, arthritis, immune deficiencies, and fatigue are distinct entities with different causes, mechanisms, and evidence‑based treatments, so they are not effectively or safely managed by a single generic intervention. ^[1] Allergic conditions are treated with allergen avoidance, pharmacologic therapy, and sometimes allergen‑specific immunotherapy; arthritis is managed with diagnosis‑specific approaches such as disease‑modifying antirheumatic drugs, NSAIDs, physical therapy, and sometimes biologics; immune deficiencies require specialist evaluation, targeted treatments (such as immunoglobulin replacement or antimicrobial prophylaxis) and often genetic workup; and fatigue is a symptom that must be evaluated for underlying causes and managed with condition‑appropriate interventions. ^{[4][7][61][62][64]} Major guidelines and GRADE‑based frameworks emphasize assessing each condition on its own merits, rating the quality of evidence for specific interventions, and avoiding over‑generalized claims that are not supported by robust data. ^[2][6] The mainstream position therefore rejects broad influencer claims that one approach can “fight off” allergies, arthritis, immune deficiencies, and fatigue in a global way, and instead endorses individualized, evidence‑based care for each diagnosis.

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“fight off allergies, arthritis, immune deficiencies, fatigue”

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

See every doc bro advertising Allergies, asthma and food sensitivities

Tate Arnett Janssen is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to advertise functional medicine / root-cause internal medicine style care as within their scope of practice.

functional medicine / root-cause internal medicine style care

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Functional Medicine”

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

Tate Arnett Janssen is not approved to offer ion foot bath detox within a Chiropractor scope of practice under Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic).

ion foot bath detox

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Ion Foot Bath”

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

Tate Arnett Janssen is not approved to offer infrared sauna detoxification within a Chiropractor scope of practice under Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic).

infrared sauna detoxification

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Infrared Sauna”

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