Brian Lum alias The Panel Chiropractor

Dr. Brian Lum is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Crohn's and ulcerative colitis.

Crohn's and ulcerative colitis

Supports

Because the influencer’s claim is unspecified and only mentions “Crohn’s and ulcerative colitis,” the closest evidence-based interpretation is that they may be discussing: 1) that Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis are chronic inflammatory bowel diseases, and/or 2) that they are treatable with a range of medical therapies including biologics, immunomodulators, and adjunctive agents. High‑quality systematic reviews, network meta‑analyses, and guidelines strongly support that Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis are distinct but related forms of inflammatory bowel disease characterized by chronic intestinal inflammation, relapsing–remitting course, and need for long‑term management.^[11][15] Multiple network meta‑analyses show that biologic and small‑molecule therapies (e.g., anti‑TNF agents, anti‑integrin agents, JAK inhibitors, S1P modulators) are effective in inducing and maintaining remission in moderate‑to‑severe ulcerative colitis, supporting the concept that UC is a serious but highly treatable chronic disease.^{[0][13][6][7][10]} Infliximab is specifically supported by systematic reviews and meta‑analyses as an effective advanced therapy in moderate–severe UC and as rescue therapy in severe steroid‑refractory UC, underscoring the role of targeted biologics in ulcerative colitis management.^{[2][7][8][13]} Thiopurines such as azathioprine and mercaptopurine have evidence from systematic review and meta‑analysis showing benefit as maintenance therapy in ulcerative colitis, aligning with guideline recommendations to use them as steroid‑sparing maintenance agents in selected patients.^[3] Probiotic therapy with Escherichia coli Nissle 1917 has systematic‑review evidence suggesting it can be comparable to mesalazine for preventing relapse in quiescent UC, supporting the idea that microbiome‑modulating strategies can play a supplemental role in UC management, although not as primary induction therapy.^[5] Systematic reviews and guidelines emphasize risk stratification (e.g., clinical predictors of colectomy, severity at presentation) and stepwise escalation to immunomodulators, biologics, or surgery, which supports the framing of Crohn’s and ulcerative colitis as chronic, medically manageable conditions that sometimes require surgery.^{[4][11][16][19][20]}

Contradicts

Because the influencer’s claim is not specified beyond naming “Crohn’s and ulcerative colitis,” it is impossible to identify a precise proposition to contradict; however, several common misinformation themes about these diseases are inconsistent with the high‑quality evidence base. Evidence contradicts any implication that ulcerative colitis or Crohn’s disease are easily cured conditions: systematic reviews and guidelines consistently describe them as chronic, relapsing inflammatory bowel diseases that typically require ongoing surveillance and maintenance therapy rather than a one‑time cure.^{[11][15][19][20]} Meta‑analyses of rescue therapies such as infliximab or ciclosporin in steroid‑refractory severe UC show that while these agents can avoid immediate colectomy in a proportion of patients, many still progress to surgery or relapse, contradicting any claim that a single medication can definitively cure severe UC.^[2][4] The evidence on Escherichia coli Nissle 1917 shows it is roughly equivalent to mesalazine for maintenance in quiescent UC but not clearly superior and not clearly effective as an induction therapy, which contradicts any claim that this probiotic alone can reliably induce remission or replace standard anti‑inflammatory or biologic therapies.^[5][1] Placebo response rates in UC clinical trials are substantial but clearly lower than response rates to active advanced therapies; systematic reviews and network meta‑analyses show that biologics and small molecules significantly outperform placebo for induction and maintenance endpoints, contradicting narratives that advanced therapies are no better than placebo or purely driven by placebo effect.^{[6][7][10][13]} Evidence-based guidelines also contradict claims that diet or supplements alone can fully treat moderate‑to‑severe Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis; while diet, probiotics, and lifestyle factors can be adjunctive, guidelines place primary emphasis on established pharmacologic therapies (5‑ASA for mild UC, corticosteroids for flares, immunomodulators, biologics, and small molecules for moderate‑to‑severe disease).^{[11][12][19][20]}

Mainstream view

Mainstream medical and scientific consensus is that Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis are the two main forms of inflammatory bowel disease, characterized by chronic, immune‑mediated inflammation of the gastrointestinal tract ^[1][2][3][4]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“CROHN'S AND ULCERATIVE COLITIS”

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

Dr. Brian Lum is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Autoimmune disease.

Autoimmune disease

Supports

No high-quality evidence in the provided index papers supports the standalone claim "Autoimmune Disease" because the indexed items are unrelated to autoimmune disease as a causal or diagnostic assertion. The only autoimmune-related indexed item is a review/decision record for a meta-analysis on parental autoimmune diseases and offspring allergic disease, but the index list does not include the actual peer-reviewed meta-analysis results, so it cannot be used to support the influencer’s claim directly. ^[5]

Contradicts

The claim is too vague to assess as written and does not make a testable medical statement. The provided index papers do not address autoimmune disease generally, and one indexed guideline concerns community-acquired pneumonia, which is unrelated to autoimmune disease . ^[5] Because the listed sources are not the underlying autoimmune meta-analysis but only editorial/review records, they provide no substantive evidentiary support for a broad autoimmune-disease claim.

Mainstream view

Autoimmune disease is a broad category of conditions in which the immune system targets the body’s own tissues; assessing any specific influencer claim requires a precise statement about a disease, mechanism, risk factor, or treatment. As written, the claim is not specific enough for evidence-based validation, and the supplied sources do not establish or refute any particular autoimmune-disease claim. ^[5]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“AUTOIMMUNE DISEASE”

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

Dr. Brian Lum is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Heart disease.

Heart disease

Supports

The provided index papers do not directly support the broad claim “Heart disease,” because most are either about unrelated topics or about specific interventions rather than a general statement about heart disease. The only potentially relevant items are a systematic review/meta-analysis of mindfulness-based interventions in patients with coronary heart disease and a protocol concerning ivabradine in coronary artery disease and/or heart failure, but a protocol does not provide outcome evidence, and the review listing alone does not establish a general claim about heart disease .

Contradicts

The claim is too vague to be evidence-based as stated, and the index set does not contain a clear, directly relevant primary result supporting a broad assertion about heart disease. Several listed papers are unrelated to heart disease, including a trial protocol on choledocholithiasis and SGLT2 observational review entries that do not, from the index alone, establish the influencer’s claim .

Mainstream view

Mainstream medical science recognizes heart disease as a major category of cardiovascular disorders with many causes, presentations, and treatments, but a bare claim of “Heart disease” is not a substantive medical assertion and cannot be validated without specifics. In general, evidence-based guidance depends on the exact subtype, risk factor, symptom, or intervention being claimed, and the provided index papers are insufficient to support a broad claim. Deterministic PubMed cross-check found no matching indexed studies for these terms (absence of indexed evidence is not evidence against the claim).

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“HEART DISEASE”

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

Dr. Brian Lum is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Lyme and coinfections.

Lyme and coinfections

Supports

There is strong evidence that Lyme disease can be accompanied by biologically plausible tick‑borne coinfections, particularly Babesia microti, Anaplasma phagocytophilum, and other pathogens transmitted by Ixodes ticks. Reviews on coinfections acquired from Ixodes ticks show that Borrelia burgdorferi (Lyme), Anaplasma, and Babesia frequently coexist in the same vector and can cause human coinfections, with coinfection in vertebrates reported up to around two‑thirds in some series and higher‑than‑expected odds of dual infection.^[16][21] Epidemiologic studies in endemic areas (e.g., Connecticut and New York) demonstrate that persons with serologic evidence of Lyme disease have significantly higher Babesia seropositivity than general outpatients, supporting that Lyme and Babesia coinfection occurs and is clinically relevant.^[6][24] Meta-analytic and review data on Borrelia–Anaplasma coinfection similarly confirm that coinfection and coexposure in humans and ticks are not rare, with combined odds ratios >1 for coinfection and observed prevalence much higher than predicted by chance alone.^[16] Clinical reviews and cohort studies of Lyme patients also describe that coinfections—especially Babesia and Bartonella—are commonly suspected in clinical practice and may be associated with more severe or complex symptom profiles.^{[2][13][17][21]} The occupational Lyme disease systematic review further supports that people with high tick exposure (outdoor workers) have high Borrelia seroprevalence, implying that coinfections in this population are biologically plausible though not directly quantified.

Contradicts

High-quality evidence does not support broad claims of widespread, chronic, atypical tick‑borne coinfections in patients with chronic, nonspecific illnesses, especially when these diagnoses are based on nonstandard testing or when typical objective features of infection are absent. A systematic review specifically examining chronic coinfections concluded that the medical literature did not demonstrate convincing evidence for chronic anaplasmosis, chronic babesiosis in immunocompetent persons without fever, lab abnormalities, or detectable parasitemia, tick‑borne transmission of Bartonella, or simultaneous Lyme and Bartonella infection, and therefore does not support diagnoses of chronic, atypical tick‑borne coinfections in such patients.^[11][1] Population-based studies of early Lyme disease in endemic regions show that most patients with culture‑confirmed Lyme have no serologic evidence of other tick‑borne infections; for example, a New York study found Babesia microti co-infection in only a small minority of patients, with nearly 90% showing no evidence of any co-infection.^[24] Other clinical series of erythema migrans–positive Lyme patients report co‑infection rates in single digits, substantially lower than some non‑probability samples or commercial lab data often cited by influencers.^[23][24] Thus, while co‑infection does occur, mainstream evidence contradicts claims that the vast majority of Lyme patients have multiple chronic co‑infections or that these are a primary explanation for persistent nonspecific symptoms, especially in the absence of objective signs of ongoing infection.^[11]

Mainstream view

Mainstream infectious disease practice and major guideline positions can be summarized as follows: Coinfection with other Ixodes‑borne pathogens (particularly Babesia microti and Anaplasma phagocytophilum) is recognized and should be considered in patients with Lyme disease who have atypically severe or persistent acute symptoms, cytopenias, hemolysis, high fevers, or laboratory features suggestive of another tick‑borne illness. Epidemiologic and clinical data support that such coinfections occur but are generally uncommon in typical early Lyme cohorts, and their prevalence is highly dependent on geography and local tick ecology.^{[7][16][21][24]} Standard guidelines recommend targeted diagnostic evaluation for Babesia and Anaplasma in appropriate clinical scenarios and treatment with evidence‑based, finite antimicrobial regimens when coinfection is confirmed. At the same time, high‑quality systematic reviews emphasize that current peer‑reviewed literature does not substantiate diagnoses of chronic, atypical tick‑borne coinfections (e.g., chronic Babesia or Bartonella infection transmitted by ticks) as an explanation for chronic nonspecific symptoms years after treated Lyme in immunocompetent patients.^[11][1] The mainstream view therefore acknowledges real, acute coinfection risk in endemic areas and high‑exposure populations, but rejects broad, unvalidated constructs of pervasive chronic polymicrobial tick‑borne infection as currently unsupported by robust evidence.^[11][16]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“LYME AND COINFECTIONS”

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

Dr. Brian Lum is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Mold illness/exposure.

Mold illness/exposure

Supports

High-quality evidence supports that persistent indoor dampness and visible mold are associated with increased respiratory and allergic outcomes, including asthma symptoms, cough, wheeze, respiratory infections, and allergic rhinitis; WHO states these are the most important health effects of dampness and mold exposure, and recommends preventing or minimizing persistent dampness and microbial growth. ^{[14][15][16][17]} Systematic reviews and meta-analyses also support an association with asthma development and respiratory tract infections, with effect sizes generally in the weak-to-moderate range. The peer-reviewed review literature and major guidelines consistently support mold exposure as a real health risk mainly for respiratory and allergic disease.

Contradicts

The evidence does not support broad claims that “mold illness” explains many nonspecific, systemic, neurologic, or chronic multisystem symptoms in a proven causal way; major reviews and guidelines focus on respiratory and allergic outcomes rather than a general toxic syndrome. ^[14][15][16] The evidence base is limited by observational designs, residual confounding, and imprecise exposure assessment, and some associations are described as causal only cautiously or as insufficient for firm causal attribution. ^[17] The index papers provided are unrelated to mold exposure and do not support the claim.

Mainstream view

Mainstream medicine recognizes indoor dampness and mold as a meaningful environmental health problem, especially for asthma, allergy, cough, wheeze, and respiratory infections, and recommends remediation of damp buildings; however, it does not accept a broad, validated “mold illness” diagnosis for most systemic or nonspecific symptoms without specific allergic, infectious, or irritant mechanisms. ^{[14][15][16][17][12][13]}

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“MOLD ILLNESS/EXPOSURE”

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

Dr. Brian Lum is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Thyroid conditions.

Thyroid conditions

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“THYROID CONDITIONS”

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

Dr. Brian Lum is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Depression.

Depression

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“DEPRESSION”

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

Dr. Brian Lum is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure PANS & PANDAS.

PANS & PANDAS

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“PANS & PANDAS - An Integrative Approach”

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

Dr. Brian Lum is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to advertise Infertility, Prenatal Care, and Maternal Health as within their scope of practice.

Infertility, Prenatal Care, and Maternal Health

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Infertility, Prenatal Care, and Maternal Health Clinical Strategies and Treatment Applications”

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

Dr. Brian Lum is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Mold toxicity can be a major cause of long-standing medication-resistant anxiety and depression.

Mold toxicity can be a major cause of long-standing medication-resistant anxiety and depression

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Mold toxicity can be a major cause of long-standing medication-resistant anxiety and depression”

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

Dr. Brian Lum is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure CROHN'S & ULCERATIVE COLITIS.

CROHN'S & ULCERATIVE COLITIS

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“CROHN'S & ULCERATIVE COLITIS”

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

Dr. Brian Lum is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure HASHIMOTO'S THYROIDITIS.

HASHIMOTO'S THYROIDITIS

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“HASHIMOTO'S THYROIDITIS”

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

Dr. Brian Lum is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure IRRITABLE BOWEL SYNDROME (IBS).

IRRITABLE BOWEL SYNDROME (IBS)

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“IRRITABLE BOWEL SYNDROME (IBS)”

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

Dr. Brian Lum is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure LONG COVID.

LONG COVID

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“LONG COVID”

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

Dr. Brian Lum is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure OSTEOPOROSIS.

OSTEOPOROSIS

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“OSTEOPOROSIS”

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

Dr. Brian Lum is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS.

RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS”

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

Dr. Brian Lum is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure SIBO.

SIBO

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“SIBO”

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

Dr. Brian Lum is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Long Covid Symptom: Severe Anxiety and Panic Attacks.

Long Covid Symptom: Severe Anxiety and Panic Attacks

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Long Covid Symptom: Severe Anxiety and Panic Attacks”

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

Dr. Brian Lum is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure ANXIETY AND DEPRESSION TESTING.

ANXIETY AND DEPRESSION TESTING

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“ANXIETY AND DEPRESSION TESTING”

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

Dr. Brian Lum is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure AUTOIMMUNE DISEASE TESTING.

AUTOIMMUNE DISEASE TESTING

Supports

No high-quality evidence in the provided index papers supports the standalone claim "Autoimmune Disease" because the indexed items are unrelated to autoimmune disease as a causal or diagnostic assertion. The only autoimmune-related indexed item is a review/decision record for a meta-analysis on parental autoimmune diseases and offspring allergic disease, but the index list does not include the actual peer-reviewed meta-analysis results, so it cannot be used to support the influencer’s claim directly. ^[5]

Contradicts

The claim is too vague to assess as written and does not make a testable medical statement. The provided index papers do not address autoimmune disease generally, and one indexed guideline concerns community-acquired pneumonia, which is unrelated to autoimmune disease . ^[5] Because the listed sources are not the underlying autoimmune meta-analysis but only editorial/review records, they provide no substantive evidentiary support for a broad autoimmune-disease claim.

Mainstream view

Autoimmune disease is a broad category of conditions in which the immune system targets the body’s own tissues; assessing any specific influencer claim requires a precise statement about a disease, mechanism, risk factor, or treatment. As written, the claim is not specific enough for evidence-based validation, and the supplied sources do not establish or refute any particular autoimmune-disease claim. ^[5]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“AUTOIMMUNE DISEASE TESTING”

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

Dr. Brian Lum is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure AUTOIMMUNE INFLAMMATION & NEUROLOGICAL TESTING.

AUTOIMMUNE INFLAMMATION & NEUROLOGICAL TESTING

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“AUTOIMMUNE INFLAMMATION & NEUROLOGICAL TESTING”

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

Dr. Brian Lum is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Anxiety & Depression.

Anxiety & Depression

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

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Anxiety & Depression”

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