Have any state medical boards issued formal complaints, investigations, or sanctions against Dr. Steven Gundry?

1. Consumer complaints and threats to contact medical boards are plentiful but not the same as official action

Multiple consumer-complaint platforms and the Better Business Bureau host dozens of grievances about Gundry’s products and billing practices, and some complainants explicitly say they have contacted or threatened to contact a medical board to suspend Gundry’s license, but those posts are user complaints and company responses on commercial review pages rather than citations of formal regulatory proceedings or documented board rulings ^{[1] [2]}.

2. Criticism from scientists, critics and skeptical medical writers focuses on science and credibility, not documented board discipline

Academic and skeptical critiques catalogue alleged scientific weaknesses in Gundry’s books and product claims and label some of his work “bogus” or “pseudoscience,” but these critical analyses argue about evidence and methods rather than reporting that a state licensing board has initiated investigations or issued sanctions; the consumer-fraud commentary and skeptical cardiology pieces illustrate reputational controversy but do not cite regulatory enforcement ^{[4] [5] [6]}.

3. Legal filings have appeared in federal court, but a referenced complaint was dismissed rather than producing board sanctions

A United States District Court filing involving Gundry appears in public court records; that document shows litigation activity and references Gundry’s residency and prior medical practice context, and the court granted dismissal of the particular complaint cited in the source, which reflects civil litigation rather than proven disciplinary action by a medical board ^[7].

4. Media coverage highlights controversy and an “expression of concern” over one paper, again without evidence of board discipline

Journalistic accounts and media-watch analyses note that Gundry’s research and public statements—such as a contested study about mRNA COVID-19 vaccines—drew formal criticism from scientific bodies (an “expression of concern” cited by a media-bias evaluator), but the material supplied does not connect those scholarly critiques to any state medical board complaint, investigation, or sanction ^{[8] [9]}.

5. Commercial and affiliate critiques raise conflict-of-interest concerns but do not substitute for regulatory records

Sources that catalogue complaints about supplements, returns, and alleged deceptive marketing emphasize Gundry’s financial interest in the products and urge skepticism; these reports and purchaser reviews may imply misconduct and seek remedies, but they remain consumer-advocacy content and website criticism rather than documentation that a state medical board has taken formal disciplinary steps ^{[3] [6] [1]}.

6. Conclusion and limits of available reporting

Based strictly on the documents and reporting provided here, there is no direct evidence that any state medical board has formally filed a complaint against, opened a regulatory investigation of, or imposed sanctions on Dr. Steven Gundry; the record available to this review shows consumer complaints, critical commentary, and at least one dismissed federal civil complaint but does not include public disciplinary orders or official board dockets reflecting sanctions ^{[1] [2] [4] [7] [8]}. If a reader requires confirmation beyond these sources, the appropriate next step is to check the public disciplinary databases or press releases of specific state medical boards (for example, California Medical Board, Oregon Medical Board, etc.), because the present reporting does not contain those regulatory records and therefore cannot affirm whether any such actions exist outside the cited materials.