#2469 - Brigham Buhler

The Joe Rogan experience.

Join my day, Joe Rogan podcast, my night. On day. [MUSIC PLAYING] Great. Did you see my friend?

Thanks for having me. My pleasure. Always. Lots going on, man. There is a lot going on.

Her usual. Like, I've got fucking allergies, dude. Do you hear me? Oh, yeah, you sound stuffed up. Oh, it's going to be crazy.

I was like, am I getting sick? And then I worked down, I'm like, no, I feel great. Like, physically, I feel great.

“But I don't know what's spiking right now, do you know?”

I don't know, there's a bunch going on. Yeah. Everybody's got sore throats. It's crazy they say you don't get it. When you live here for like a few years,

and then you start getting it a lot. And I was like, I ain't getting it. And then about four years in, I started getting these horrible sore throats and stuffy noses. Is there a peptide for that?

When I first moved here, the seeder killed me.

I mean, because Houston doesn't have seeder, so it was pine trees in Houston and moving to Austin, the seeder crushed me for the first like year and a half. And then I got over it.

My body just got used to it, I guess. Yeah, I think my body has to get used to it. One thing that does help is collosterom. I take collot and that arm row. Yeah, you can tell a difference.

Yeah, yeah, makes a big difference. Yeah, if you take it a lot, take it every day, stay consistent. Yeah, I think all of that stuff. There's benefits that so many people overlook. So we were talking.

What's the latest? Man, so I know you just had Secretary Kennedy on a few weeks ago. The latest is, you know, hot off the press as of yesterday, I know the administration is still working diligently to reclassify peptides.

I know that kind of got unveiled on the podcast. Man, that has been a labor of love for the last two and a half, three years, whatever it's been that we've been trying to get this done. And I know I said this a little when I was on here six months ago, but I'm truly the most optimistic I've ever been and with reason.

I want to like, temper expectations, but, you know, the prior administration of the FDA put these things into place, prior to Secretary Kennedy and this administration taking over. It was almost like a Trojan horse. They just planted this little bomb in the middle of everything

and classified these peptides as dangerous. And so for the first time in my life, over the last decade of 20 something years of being in healthcare, you know, the dairy before Secretary Kennedy and this group of folks were in a position to drive meaningful change.

They made these changes with the peptides. I submitted 17 FOIA requests, 17 to the FDA.

They have never once responded to a single FOIA request.

“Just asking for clarity about safety and why did we make this decision?”

And they're supposedly by law required to respond to this request. So to go from that environment where you're being stone walled and you have no accessibility and no line of sight and no answers to anything, to being able to at least have a seat at the table and a voice, it's pretty revolutionary.

Well, it's just very helpful that he actually uses them. That Kennedy uses them and he knows the benefits of them and he's very educated on it that helps a lot. Someone who's actually fit takes care of himself and uses peptides and understands what millions of people know.

I mean, there's millions of people right now that are taking peptides and it's radically improved their health and their vitality. I brought them. Yeah, and me too, like again, I was the typical American patient. I was on the Cusp of Diabetes. I was obese.

I'm a former fat kid. You know, I like everything that was could be going wrong in my late 30s was going wrong because I had bought into the system and trusted the system and thought, hey, if I could get my blood working annually and I follow the doctor's rules, you know, the system's just not built that way.

“And that's where I think the nuances of peptides are really difficult”

for a regulatory body like the FDA. And so to like systematically try to break it down for the folks that are legacy employees at the FDA have had that opportunity. Thanks to this administration and Secretary Kennedy and his right-hand girl Stephanie Spear has been integral in setting meetings

and trying to move the needle. Marty McCary, who's the head of the FDA, I had the privilege of knowing him before he took that role. We testified together at the Senate level and Marty, he really is. I don't know if you ever read his book, it's called "Blind Spot."

One of the things that I love is I philosophically agree with everything that Marty laid out. I mean, what he's saying is dogma and that medicine is so worried

that they're essentially ignoring at times science

and they're allowing dogma to rule the day, rather than letting a pragmatic like authentic, open-minded view change your perspective and lens on topics. And so even with this peptide topic, when I had the opportunity to meet with Marty on this topic, he said,

look, Brigham, I didn't really use peptides in my practice. I was a surgeon, it's not something that I'm intimately familiar with, but I'm open to understanding and trying to research and get a better grasp. And some of the moves that this group of folks have already

made at HHS, I don't know if you're following what they did with testosterone and hormone therapy, it is literally what you and I talked about at this point, I think five years ago, where I came on and said, all the shit you're being told on testosterone and HRT

and hormones, men and women is wrong. It's dogma, it's been debunked, it's not going to cause cancer, there shouldn't be black box warnings. The FDA has come to the consensus under this new leadership that that is the case.

And they are working to remove the black box warning on hormones. They are working to remove the fear of mongering around women's hormones and the women's health initiative and all these things, because we now know what we've been preaching

for almost a decade is that these hormones are a crucial building

block that allow us to drive health span. And a lot of the decline that we see in our body is because of the hormonal decline that occurs in our 40s and 50s. - Could you please expand on the testosterone thing? Because one of the things that keeps coming up with people

when I talk to friends that are older and I say,

“hey, you know, you should probably get your hormone levels checked”

and consider getting on TRT or at the very least, getting on something like HCG that can increase your testosterone, it'll really vitalize your health. They get concerned with prostate cancer. - Yeah.

- This is the one that you illuminated and you've helped quite a few of my friends understand. So please expand. - Yeah. So all of the fear with prostate cancer literally comes

from a study from the 1930s. And it was a urologist in the 1930s. The patient population of this study, when we talk about random control trials, there were three patients in the study.

One patient dropped out, one patient was chemically castrated, the other patient was normal. So the chemically castrated patient, meaning they have no testosterone. So if you treat a patient who has no testosterone and you take them from zero testosterone to normal testosterone,

so to take them from, let's say, zero to three, 50, during that climb from zero to three, 50, you can increase theoretically, the risk of exasperating a prostate cancer that's preexisting was the fear.

But as you push past that level to optimal levels, you begin to insulate against the risk of multiple cancers. And all of the studies henceforth have shown, there is not one single study that correlates testosterone therapy to prostate cancer.

With an abundance of caution, some urology practices, for patients who have had radical prostatectomies are reluctant to prescribe testosterone. But testosterone in a no way shape or form is causing prostate cancer.

It's a receptor site thing.

“So the best way to explain is you can only water a plant so much.”

So once we've saturated the prostate receptor sites with hormones, they're saturated. And then when you push past that to an optimal threshold, you get the insulatory benefits of cancer reduction that testosterone appears to provide.

And that's why the FDA is looking to change that label and get rid of the black box warnings on an array of different things that have been dogma around men and women's hormones. So this initial study, like,

what was the one person chemically Castro? I don't know why this is in the 30s, but since then, here's a really real world example with the boom and testosterone therapy. If there was an increased risk in prostate cancer due to hormones,

you would have seen a skyrocket in the amount and prevalence of prostate cancer and all of these practices that are using hormone optimization. You don't. You see the same prevalence that we saw prior to hormone optimization

and the boom.

“And so we have now seen, it's, I think it's one out of eight”

men will develop prostate cancer. I can't remember the exact number off hand. And that correlates exactly the same into the patient population that is on hormones.

Well, the reality is like, everybody dies

with some form of prostate cancer, right? I don't know. I didn't know that. Yeah, I did. I heard you've been talking about that.

Interesting. Yeah, like you have a certain amount of it. It's just, like, it really became dogma. I mean, the study is-- I don't understand about the study, like,

so what was the conclusion of the study?

will see a rise in the precursor hormone

that we were worried could correlate to increasing the risk of prostate cancer. And was this the study-- The prevalent in this one person that had was chemically castrated or was it in the other guy?

Correct. The other guy who had normal testosterone levels had no increased risk.

“And you have to push through the threshold.”

So think you're at zero. And then you're watering the plant. Once that plant's water, it can't take on anymore water. So from zero, no testosterone, which is chemically castrated or miserable, you have no sexual function,

you're at increased risk of all these other chronic diseases that can kill you. But you're insulated from prostate cancer

because you have zero testosterone.

As we begin to raise your testosterone level and saturate those receptor sites, theoretically, the concern was we're increasing the potential risk of exasperating prostate cancer. Well, so how was this whole opinion based on this one study

from the 1930s and just repeated and have nauseam for decades? Well, I mean, it wasn't debunked. I think until the 90s with famous prominent urologist, Dr. Morgan Tyler, where he began to do research in his practice on men with prostate cancer.

And he actually began to treat men with prostate cancer with HRT and track the results. And what he found was there was no increased prevalence of prostate cancer and it didn't exasperate or create additional issues.

And so that it was debunked in the 90s and then I would even go further to say, you're launched, I think Pfizer launched testosterone cream and like 1990 something, I don't remember. And millions of men went on testosterone creams.

If it was exasperating prostate cancer, you would have seen it then too. And so now retrospectively, 100 years later, literally 100 years later, the FDA and our regulatory oversight bodies

are now changing their lens on men and women's HRT. So it's just so crazy that doctors are for doctors. Oh, I know.

“You have to be cautious about the potential prostate cancer.”

Yeah. Where do you get this? Like, and then you tell them, and while there's a study, and so this is the study. Yeah, that's three people on the road out.

And one of them was chemically castrated and you got it. And that guy didn't even get prostate cancer. And so none of these move forward. Dr. Admiral Brian Christine is over the men's health initiatives over at the FDA.

And he's a prominent erologist who has years and years of practice of using testosterone. Marty, I think, even covered hormone therapy in his book, Blind Spot. Again, it's a prime example of the dogma of medicine.

Myth becomes reality, right? And Ms. Nomer can be adopted. And then it becomes commonplace. And now you go to lectures and symposiums where you hear some prominent guy on stage

regurgitating what he was taught in medical school, or she was taught in medical school. And then that dogma just perpetuates. And it becomes almost urban legend, which is crazy to think. Yeah, that's what it sounds like.

That's not, it does sound like urban legend. Another quote that resonated with me from Blind Spot was Marty's book was literally--

“it's confusing what was it, dogma with consensus, right?”

When everyone groupthink is dangerous, when it is considered consensus. Because groupthink isn't necessarily consensus. It's peer pressure to adopt the values and belief systems of your peers and academia.

And there's an immense amount of pressure to not stray from the herd, to stay within the herd, to back your peers, to toe the line. And we've seen that for the last 20, 30 years. If you step out of line and even back to originally

what spurred this, we're pet tides. I think a lot of what happened with pet tides are that this system is built under an entire ecosystem.

It costs $1 billion to $3 billion to bring a drug to market,

are the numbers that are out there. Anywhere from $1 to $3 billion. Now they're taking to account all the drugs that don't make it to the finish line. But if you really look at the true cost

of bringing a drug to market, it's still at minimal $300 million to a billion dollars to bring a drug or any sort of technology into the marketplace. Now that whole ecosystem and structure

was built around big pharma and the pharmaceutical cartels and their attempt to control what hits the market and to protect their patents and their technologies. And so that cost prohibitive process limits

at innovation and accessibility under the name of protection and safety. But in reality, a huge percentage, I guess one of the things that academia will say or some of the naysayers around pet tides will say is,

the issue with pet tides is there's not human control trials.

We recently provided the FDA with over 800 different studies that have been done on an array of the 19 pet tides that were banned under the Biden administration. We've also made them aware that we've submitted 17

for your request to the previous administration

that we're never responded to, just seeking clarity

and answers, where were you seeing safety issues? Because in clinical practice, we just weren't. And I can tell you, at least well now, we're at over 90,000 patients nationwide and peptides were an integral part of the practice

of waste when we did not see a bunch of adverse events.

“The silence, I think, speaks for itself.”

I think a lot of it is dogma and confusion and the process itself of bringing a drug to market where I was going with that is, I'm not asking the FDA or a governing body to pay for this for patients. It's a nuanced difference that I think even regulators

are struggling to wrap their head around. We're not asking for Medicare Medicaid dollars. We're not asking for trycare dollars. We're not asking for the federal government to mandate that employers and employer insurance programs

cover peptides. If I'm launching a pharmaceutical drug into the market, I'm asking for everything but the kitchen sink. I'm asking for everybody else to cover the cost of my care and this medication.

Peptides proactive medicine, predictive medicine, preventative care, personalized medicine, is all cash pay. It is outside of the existing ecosystem and structure.

“And I think that's what makes it so difficult to navigate”

for regulators because it's a new world to them. If I'm coming from academia where I worked at a hospital where I build insurances for the last 20 years and now I'm working at the FDA where everything we do is giant pharmaceutical companies

that love the existing ecosystem because it builds a vote around their ability to monetize drugs and chronic disease. There's a benefit there to play within that ecosystem. But if my goal is to bring innovative products

to the market at a cost-effective price that the average person can afford with their own cash, you can't spend a billion dollars to do that. Especially when a molecule is readily available in nature. That's where this gets so tricky with things like peptides

and stem cells and all of these products. They've kind of been placed in this no-man's land

and they've been convicted of a crime they never committed.

And the truth of the matter is they were put in this no-man's land because they just don't fit in the sandbox of what the system was used to. Mm. OK, so we should also clarify that when we're talking about peptides

and peptides being dangerous, GLP ones are peptides. This is a gigantic market right now. I mean, you're seeing all these ladies it look like they're cutting weight to make the UFC fly weight division. You know, you're seeing everybody that it's on these peptides

that's losing weight. Like, I don't know if Oprah's on them, but she lost a ton of weight. I know there's a bunch of celebrities that you see that get those epic face.

Yeah, well, so many influencers, too, on the academia side, go online and go.

I would never prescribe peptides because I'm a board certified clinician.

And I only prescribe things that have science and data that back them. And a lot of times I'd say, man, you might just be uneducated on this topic and the nuances of this topic.

“In reality, most clinicians are prescribing drugs off-label, right?”

So a huge percentage of medical practices use products off-label. It's indicated for one thing or one patient population or a dosage or a chronic disease state, but clinicians have the autonomy and the authority to use that drug in a manner that it's not indicated for. And they do that every day.

It's almost time for spring break. So maybe you're headed to the beach or maybe you're taking the kids on a road trip or maybe you're just taking some extra time for yourself. No matter what, you deserve a break and a reset and AG1 can help. AG1 is your daily health drink.

Just one scoop combines your multivitamin, pre and probiotics, superfoods and antioxidants to help support a healthy immune system and digestion. Plus, it travels really well so you can start working it into your routine even when you don't have a routine.

Just slip a few travel packs into your luggage and have a nice flight. I've talked about AG1 for a long time and it's not just me. I know a lot of people enjoy it. It's very easy. It's very convenient and you deserve to take care of your health.

Visit drinkag1.com/showrogan and for a limited time get a bottle of omega-3 vitamin D3K2 and an AG1 flavor sampler for free in your welcome kit with your first subscription.

Well, this is the big challenge during COVID, right?

“With hydroxychloroquine and with hypermactin.”

Yep, that was the big challenge and the real problem is that it interferes with the potential profits of pharmaceutical drugs that are approved. So if you give someone the option to take something that's awfully bold, that's less expensive and then it finds out they find out it's effective that you get less and then it gets public. You find out there's less people that are taking whatever pharmaceutical

you approve drug. Correct. And so what created this backlash or momentum against peptides, candidly, were the GLP-1 weight lost drugs. So I do want to put them in two different buckets because there's the 19 peptides that

got moved to the dangerous list with no clear answer from the previous administration as to why or how. But what I have seen from being able to get behind the scenes and meet with lobbyists and legislators at the state and federal level is the lobbying power of big farmers real is real and it's intense and it is not going away and money.

And so to put myself in the shoes of somebody, you know, like I've gotten to know Chris clump really well at the FDA and Chris Negotiated the most favored nation pricing on the pharmaceutical drugs with lily and novo and all these big conglomerates. And those companies definitively, you know, publicly and privately are banging on the table of legislators and politicians and saying, look, we spent billions of dollars to innovate these drugs.

We played within the rules of the system and now these drugs hit the market and you're allowing compounders and small independent pharmacies to rip off our patents, right? And that's their stance and they plant that stake way over here. If that regulator only hears that part of the story, it's a compelling story. You're looking to go, God, man, poor big farmer, they spend all this money. But if you zoom out

and you know the lay of the land a little bit more, which is hard if you don't come from this

“industry, the truth is always in the middle. So devil's advocate, of course, you want to protect”

the patent rights of a company that spent billions of dollars to bring a drug to market. We've covered this before, though, the dirty secret is a large majority of the drugs that come to market come from the NIH and phase one trials are done at the NIH. The NIH is funded by taxpayer dollars. You and I are paying to innovate and create molecules that then get licensed off to big pharmaceutical companies so they can bring them through the FDA approval process. Is that legal?

It's nuts. That is wild. Yeah, it's nuts. And so I was trying to explain to you know the existing team at HHS zoom out. The system as much as you are being told failed in let big farm it down and allowed people to come in in a fringe and fringe upon these patents. The truth of the matter is the FDA sent out the bat signal and said, we can't meet the meat of the American people. There is a backlog on these drugs. It's on the backlogs list can compounders make these drugs.

This has been a regulatory pathway that's been in existence for 30, 40 years. It happens all the time. So compounders respond to the bat signal, begin to make these medications to the benefit of the American people during the shortage list. And then you have these big pharmaceutical companies going to look, they're making our drugs, they're violating our patent. If your concern is that these companies didn't get the juice worth the squeeze from the patent, Eli Lilly, seven X to the value

of their company. There were $800 billion. They literally were more than most developed nations. This was the biggest blockbuster molecule in the history of the world. In the history of humanity,

there has never been a drug that is this big of a blockbuster. The money was made 50,000 times over

nobody was harmed. But when you're on a legislator, and I've got somebody telling me, these guys

“heard us to the tune of $7 billion. And I know that's what they're telling these legislators,”

because I've met with the legislators at the state and federal level. And then I have to go horn, the entire compounding sector only does $7 billion. GLP ones were $2.5 billion. I know that's a big number, but that was when you were asking us to make these compounds. That number is not nearly as large today. And you also shut down 503 B's, which is half of the compounding industries ability to make these compounds. The truth of the matter is it's about $1.5 to $2 billion total

that this industry was able to compound during the backlog in order to meet the needs of the American

people. They're going to do $35 to $40 million in just GLP one drugs this year in revenue.

is I'm not here to argue about the GLP ones. It's it sets a dangerous precedent if if if pharma lobbies hard enough and they're able to get this done. Like what they want to do, reclassifying all these biologics that allows them to extend the patent for 10 to 12 years. It's this whole shell game, but it sets precedent like we covered before. And that precedent is dangerous. It's a slippery slope because if you do totally shut out compounders from their ability

to make this for the American people, how long before they moved to the next thing. And in one breath, you've got big pharmaceutical companies saying, I'll use Lily again as an example because there's a main culprit. Lily is saying peptides are dangerous. They're getting the API from China.

We shouldn't allow these compounders to make peptides. Meanwhile, I Lily just signed a $7 billion

deal to acquire a peptide company out of China. Lily's buying a peptide company from China. While lobbying government officials insane, it's dangerous to use products from China. And these compounders are dangerous. And nobody's regulating it. And there's just all this misnomer and dogma. And it's confusing if you don't come from healthcare. Well, it seems like it'll be very confusing for a regulator. Very confusing for someone who's not educated on this to get up to speed.

100%. And they have so many initiatives and so many things they're tackling. And then the challenge

“historically is when yours, big pharma, and I think it was like $31 million that that industry”

used in lobbying power last year as an industry, dollars equal accessibility, accessibility equals impressionability and impressionability equals outcomes. It's like trying to win a debate where I get one minute and the opposition gets nine minutes. And in the one minute, I've got a debunk all the lies that the opposition told not anyone is the word lies. You can use facts. But like we've said before, there, you know, like facts can be skewed when delivered in appropriate. If you say they

cost a $7 billion and we spent $3 billion in a bring this drug to market and they're importing

products from China and there's no safety nets and nobody's inspecting them and this is what we're worried about. This is dangerous and this is a liability to the American public. A politician's ears are going to perk up, especially when you're lobbying them in funding campaigns

“and trying to influence those folks. But the truth is, if you take into account all the drugs that”

didn't make it and you want to cook the books, you can make it look like you spend a billion to $3 billion. You can also take credit for all the drugs that were launched out of the NIH that you bought the rights to and monetize for decades. And then you can talk about safety, but in reality, there were recalls from both Lily and Novo Nordisk. There are all sorts of array of issues and label changes and historically, even even the FDA itself. This is one of the things with peptides

that when I met when I had the privilege of meeting with Marty McCary about, I said, Marty, if we're being honest, this is y'all's numbers 60 to 80% of the drugs that make it through the drug approval process will have a major label change or recall. 60 to 80% of the medications that come through this process end up having a major label change or recall. So what is a major label change? So they uncover, like, an example with anti-depressants, they realize the suicidal ideation and teenagers,

right? And they had to change that label and say, hey, not only is this only a fraction better than a placebo, right? Barely differentiates from placebo retrospectively. And not even close to exercise. I know. It's literally exercises six to seven fold more efficacious than an anti-depressant. How wild is that? Yeah. And then you go back to the science. The science was all cooked books.

It was all said that it was s r i s a serotonin related. And there was never a single study that

correlated depression to serotonin. It was all dogma created by industry. And so again, Marty talks about this in his book. So I know he's aligned with a lot of these viewpoints. When it comes down to peptides, though, it gets a little confusing because you're talking proactive predictive preventative care. If somebody's taking a peptide to optimize their healing, it's not a chronic disease related issue. The system is built to monetize and profitier off of treating the symptoms

of chronic disease. It's become a prescription management system, not a health care system. And that's the big challenge. This is an entire paradigm shift that I don't know if all

“regulators truly understand. I think they're trying to wrap their head around it. I think Secretary”

Kennedy understands it. I think a lot of this movement in the American people post COVID at fundamentally changed. Like the view on the from that I've seen is people do now question

and just because something hasn't gone through the FDA approval process doesn't mean that his dangerous or doesn't work. A lot of times there's a reason why like BPC-157, there's a patent

“out of Croatia. I believe on that molecule. And that patent is I think last three more years.”

Why would you go spend a billion to three billion dollars to try and bring a drug to market that

already has a patent? The other issue with it is a short chain amino acid peptide found readily in nature. And patent law makes it very difficult to patent what is naturally found in nature. And that is why the big pharmaceutical companies are struggling with their patents on the GLP ones. They have patented dosaging and delivery mechanisms. They're not arguing against the patent. If you look at the lawsuits that they filed nationwide, they're arguing against people advertising,

they're arguing against some of the things people shouldn't be doing rightfully so. But they're not arguing against the patent. Let me ask you this. So just imagine and I don't think this is a good idea. But imagine if only pharmaceutical drug companies were allowed to make peptides

“would they just become legal? Yeah. Yeah. I mean, well, what would happen?”

There would be a giant business. It would be a giant business. And it is going to be a price would raise a little bit. But also the availability would skyrocket. And you would start seeing commercials on CNN. Yeah, PC 157 helps off tissue injuries. Yeah, helps this helps that. Then you'd so fit people at the beach jogging. Yeah. Yeah. This episode is brought to you by

athletic brewing. Athletic brewing companies, non-alcoholic beer is a total game changer.

The first time you try it, you're like, wait, how is this non-alcoholic? They've won 185 global taste awards. And they got a ton of different styles. You get the ritual, you still get the taste just without the hangover. They've got everything golden, IPAs, light brews, even this new lime and salt one, if you want something refreshing. Whatever the mood calls for, they've got the flavor. You can find athletic brewing at over 75,000 grocery stores or liquor stores, bars,

and restaurants nationwide, or you can grab some of their limited release stuff directly from their website. Go to athleticbrowing.com/rogan to find stores near you or get brews shipped right to your door. Use code rogan to get 15% off your first online order. Near beer, terms and condition and certain limitations apply athletic brewing company fit for all times. And I agree with you, but the fear and this is what I'm trying. I'm viewing it as there's three options. And these are the three things

that I've seen. There's the traditional system, the sick care system. That system is controlled by insurance, big pharmaceutical companies, and regulators. Whether intentional or unintentional this system was cooked, it's been cooked and baked for a long time, and it is the system that it

is. And we know where that system got us. That system got us to 1.7 to 1.9 million Americans

dying every year of chronic disease more than every world war we've ever fought. It's got us to be the most obese in disease riddled society in the history of humanity, and we spend more on health care than any other nation. So that's one option. And we go those facts are so crazy. It's not. And to think that to ask questions or to challenge that system is wrong, and that's where I am. So again, I'm not sitting here. I'm not trying to make this political because I really

am not, I don't care conservative, Democrat, Republican, chronic disease doesn't care about your political leanings. It doesn't care. Like disease and death comes for all of us.

“And my goal is how do we prevent it? How do we delay it? How do we drive health span?”

You don't do it playing whack a mole in treating the symptoms of a chronic disease. You get proactive, predictive, and preventative. And how do you do that? Well, you've got to be able to run diagnostic test and tools. Well, the insurance companies shut that down and make that really hard to do. And so in the health care system that exists today in the insurance model, prescription management is the main goal of of those models. And I've said this time in time again, you've got

of you health insurance in America, like car insurance. It's there if you wreck the car. We are great at triaging and treating a catastrophic event, heart attack stroke hospitals. You're in there, it's something catastrophic happens. We can triage that disaster and we can get you in and out of the hospital. We are absolutely an abysmal failure at preventing chronic disease and driving health span. And the only way to do that is to get proactive and predictive and personalized. And this entire

so much bigger than peptides. I don't want to die on the peptide hill fighting for this because it is a small sliver of what could be our health care establishment. Right? When we look at biologics, when we look at gene activation, all of these different modalities that are on the table, large language models, artificial intelligence, tracking data in real time. We have the ability to truly drive health span now. If if I have your genetic sequencing and your blood work and your biomarkers

and your dexa and your VO2 max. And I put all that into the AI algorithm and we begin to track you in real time in your 30s. We are going to know years before chronic disease ever shows up on your doorstep. The cancer that you get in your 40s started in your 30s. You know the diabetes you get in your 30s started in your 20s. All of this is preventable. All of this is preventable.

“Through diet, lifestyle, and nutrition. We are not under prescribed. I think that's pretty abundantly”

clear. The average American is on four more prescription drugs. We can't prescribe our way out of this. Do you have a real number? Yes. Four more prescription. Americans are more or more prescription

drugs. And which is insane. And it is because we are a prescription first society. Right? And

we have covered this before. So I hate to beat a dead horse. But like when a primary care has six minutes on average with a patient. And they're limited in what tests they can do and what diagnostic tools they can run. And a woman comes in and says, hey, I'm 40 pounds overweight. I'm depressed. I'm anxious. I'm sad. I'm all these things. Their first move is to go, okay. Well, we got to get your cholesterol under control. We got to get your insulin under control. I'm going to put you on

a weight loss drug. Let's put you on a GOP one and they push him out the door. And they probably put them on an antidepressant. Because those are the tools in their tool belt. But if you were to

“come into a longevity-based clinic, we're going to run you through a battery of diagnostic. So many”

men come into press. You're not really, it's not, it's not to trivialize your depression. It isn't that your depressed is that you have a hormonal imbalance. And your hormones are so rect that you're obese. Are you obese because your hormones are rect or are your hormones rect because you're obese. You know, sometimes that's going to take a nuanced approach and time to uncover. But we do know we can fix that. You know, and we know that through fixing those things,

there's going to be a cascade of benefits that lead into other areas of your life. Like jelly rolls a prime example. If you were to go to a primary care, they would have immediately put them on a GOP one. He's 500 pounds. You know, and they would have put them on a battery of drugs. When jelly roll came to us, it was like, we're going to make this simple. We got to fix your insulin. We got to fix your hormones. That's it. We're going to get your estrogen under control. We're going to get

your insulin under control. We're going to get your inflammation under control. We're going to put winds on the board and we're going to methodically walk you through this because people think that this is the other challenge even where I was going earlier. Even in the longevity space, the preventative care space, it's already becoming what Big Pharma was. And this is one of my

really big heartburn. You've got two pathways, so the three pathways, the first is the traditional

system. The second is the cash pay model. Okay. Well, that's kind of merging into two different arenas. You've got the Peter Riteez 100 something thousand dollars to be my client that only the richest Americans can afford and you're going to get top to your care and I'm going to provide concierge medicine. Well, 99.99% of America can't afford that. And then you've got the hymns of the world that are going the route of a pill mill, like can't believe there. It isn't

about quality of care. It isn't about helping patients solve a problem. It's about monetizing a medication and putting a weight loss drug or a peptide as fast as possible in that patient's hands so you can monetize the patient. To me, that's no bigger, different than Big Pharma. And so my vision for the future is how do we combine the best of both worlds? How do we take that

“nuanced, concierge care, make it affordable, make it scalable, and make it truly drive hellspan?”

I don't think the issue is the arrow, the issue is the archer. It's the people controlling these

systems and always trying to make it about money and quarterly earnings and an exit and a strategy.

But if you pivot and you make it about people and you make it about how do we help this person? The journey of a thousand miles starts with the first step and jelly is a perfect example. If you were in a traditional model, he would come in and you would sell him a weight loss drug and that's the end of your journey with him. Get him on a weight loss drug and you're hoping hope for the best and you push him out the door. And our model, we're there to be a passenger

alongside you using large language models, wearables and all the things we're bringing into the business to track, diagnose and optimize where you're at in real time. So in real time, we're

you to manage your not just your BMI, but literally almost like a dexa with like a one to two percent variability rate. We can tell you how much lean fat, how much visceral fat, how much subcutaneous fat, and anyone who's a member gets that scale scans it into the app. That combined with your VO2 max. If you come into the clinic, we can cross-reference it with a dexa. The app will do its own algorithms to see how different it is and now in real time, from your home, you can track

all these modalities and you can track how you're trending on more than just blood work. Like to me,

“everyone, again, when I came on here, whatever, I think it was five years ago by now.”

Joe, nobody was doing cash pay blood work. Now, everybody's doing cash pay blood work. And I think it's great, but it isn't the Holy Grail. That's just one marker in a sea of markers, one diagnostic measuring stick and a sea of diagnostic measuring sticks. So the future for me is how do we make it affordable and how do we make this for everyone can afford it? One of the things we're going to do is put our money where our mouth is. You're going to be able to load your blood work from anywhere.

I don't care if you got it at your doctor, your primary care, if you got it from him, if you got it from function hell, doesn't matter. If you want a nuanced approach and help on your health care journey, not the first step, you took the first step, you did the blood work. Now, what do you do with that data? What do you do with that information? Even in the longevity space where I was going with that is so many companies are trying to monetize this blood work.

Let me monetize this test. Let me monetize this peptide. But what we should be asking is how do I help this patient? How do I help this person? Because if you help that person, they tell the

“fucking world. I think the problem is like you're an actual good dude, you're an actual good person.”

And I'm trying, there's a lot of days I don't know. I know I've known you for a long time now, and you really are doing what you're saying. I know you could be making a whole lot more money than you're making, and I know you're not money driven, but that's not the business of health care. That's not the business of all these different companies. When they exist, especially if they're public, these are public companies, they have an obligation to their shareholders. They

have to maximize their profits. And it's so fucking hippie to say this, the root of all evil. It's real. I mean, that is a real thing. There's something wrong with money, but there is wrong with the motivation that comes with money, that you put money above everything else. I mean, I know ways to well is doing great, and I know you're making plenty of money, but most companies are only trying to do that. Whereas you are trying, legitimately trying to make people, but I know

I see the look on your face when people get better. I love this. I know you're diverting like you know. Like Denise and I said from day one, I've known Denise, I mean, 20 something years, man, and when we started this, she's my Gemini cricket, because even if I ever wanted to make it

about money, she's never making it, that she's such a patient care advocate. And I said, and she said,

if we always make this about people, there's going to be days we lose, there's going to be days we win. But if we always make it about people, if we make people our northern star, that is our secret sauce. And it doesn't mean we're perfect. Like, look, every time I come on here, we get blasted because we grow so fast. And it's a blessing, and I can't thank you enough, but you know, you can't onboard 20,000 people overnight. And then people are like, oh, you guys suck, y'all are like

everybody. And it's like, no, man, we just even as we're growing, I'm, this is again back to that dogma of like, how are companies like him scaling nationwide? Their PE backed. Black rock is one of

their biggest investors. Hims is a multi-billion dollar conglomerate marketing firm. They're not a

compounding facility. They're not a medical practice with brick and mortar clinics that are trying to truly innovate and that are into things like biologics and plasma for recess and all the things that we're trying to do. I can't compete with the scalability of that, but what I can compete with and I can destroy is the quality. Because if we provide quality care, and we make sure that we scale at a level that is true and and and and and holds integrity to the patient relationship,

that's one of the biggest things I saw. I even came on here and there's things that I've gotten wrong. I thought the fastest way to scale into meet the needs of the American people is AI. And I

“still believe that, but where I got it wrong and where I think the nuance is important is I've had this”

epiphany. AI is a tool, but like all the other tools at the end of the day, everything always starts with

people. Everything, the entire human experience doesn't exist without people. So like, there is never

and being in their corner. And that is the importance of a clinician relationship. And having

clinicians that are employees of an institution, not hourly people who were paid to hop on a call and on a Monday, they're pulling babies and on a Tuesday, they're a testosterone expert. That is what a lot of these telemedicine companies are now. And it may provide accessibility, but is that optimal care? Is that preventative care? Or are we back to that same conundrum of how do we make a quick buck? How do we get this guy on a bunch of peptides or grow on a

bunch of peptides and we push him out the door? And that is one of the challenges of even this emerging market is people are compromising pretty quickly. And even this market, I see the flaws. And those flaws are going to bring out the naysayers. And those naysayers are going to use the bad actors and the bad examples to crucify the industry. And I'm banging the drum a lot against him's right now, but I tried explaining this to Secretary Kennedy administration.

Hems did a Super Bowl ad where they made claims and they used the literally the GLP-1 brand name of Novo Nordisk drug and violated the law. And I told the administration, there is no way

that a multi-billion dollar conglomerate would make this mistake. This is the equivalent to somebody

coming into your living room and taking a dump on your dining room table. And you assume that it was an accident. How did they violate the law? What did it do? You're not allowed to, so when you're

“compounding a medication, you have to use the compounded name, the generic name, not that the”

molecules name, not the brand name. So it would be like saying, we have clean acts for cheaper than clean acts, right? And we have the exact same compound. It's technically, is it the same molecule in theory? Yes, but in marketing, one, you're not supposed to market if you're, if you're compounding, you're not supposed to market direct to consumers like big farm it does. So there's a lot of like guidelines. They spent the money, they got the patent, all of this. The reason that's important

is that Trojan horse was set. It created a extreme backlash from regulators, both senators, congressmen, congressmen, politicians from all different walks of life came out saying, this is unacceptable. All of these people make in black market peptides and GOP ones and marketing direct to our consumers and violating patent laws and infringing upon these pharmaceutical companies. All of that shakes out statements made by all these varying politicians. And then what happens

within a week? Hems, inks, a deal with NOVO Nordists to bring the pharmaceutical drug to their practice and have a sole source agreement. So they, they said a landmine in the middle of all compounders. And I'm trying to explain to the administration, you got understand, they're not a

compounding, they're a multi-billion dollar marketing firm. There's no way this was an oversight or a

mistake. This was by design. And then what happened is the largest run probably in the, I don't know, in the last decade of any stock price, Hems is shot through the roof because they inked the deal with NOVO and said, now we're going to provide you with the brand name of the drug after they had set this landmine off in the middle of all of these compounders. And so the reason

“that's important, Joe, is there are bad actors doing things that I think are doing them by”

design to damage the industry and to create a battle cry and a resistance against the folks who are trying to follow the rules and navigate a very narrow pathway forward where these peptides and these treatment modalities are available to the public. All the while while they have an agreement with this pharmaceutical drug company, you got it, the deal was done within two weeks. So the backlash came, a huge uproar against, and this is, the reason this is so important is I was literally doing

calls with the administration to go, hey, I get why big pharma would be upset and they should be. And I get why you the administration would be upset and you should be. But please do not punish an entire industry sector for one bad actor. And at the time, I was scratching my head going, this just doesn't make sense. Why would they do this? They're going to get hammered. They will not win this in the court of law. This is a terrible idea, none of it's adding up. So the deal

this week later, they made this announcement and stock roars and you know, everyone goes, oh, congrats. And it's like, no, this was, I, I, and we'll find out because there is, there's a huge

“class action lawsuit now, an anti-trust lawsuit that's going on. I think Lee Rose Bush and his firm”

brought it forward. He's a guy who's academically trained. I think random, the clinic at the Mayo clinic ran the lab. He's a pharmacist. He's a law degree. All these things. And he's in this

against him to try and uncover what really happened there. But even if it does get uncovered, what's going to change? No one's going to pay attention. Yeah. It'll, it'll, it'll be a blurb in the news. It won't even be in the news. Yeah. You know, it'll be online somewhere. Well, the main reason I want to give that tidbit of information is regulators and politicians are looking and going, God, man. Yeah. These guys did bad things. Know the guys that were doing

the bad things already inked their backroom deal and wrote off into the sunset. So now what is left for the rest of the industry and where does this go? And that's a slippery slope. And it, and again, separate from peptides, separate from compounds. You get into the whole world of biologics and the future of biologics and stem cells and creating a regulatory pathway. And again, Secretary Kennedy

“tweeted this. I think before or right when he took over, save your bad, save your records and pack”

your bags. Your war on stem cells and peptides are over. And I, I can tell you from my meetings now further down the Rhine with the FDA, I have just a more than, I mean, I hate to concede, but I have a more nuanced lens on they're trying to navigate an absolute nightmare of regulatory landscape, of, you know, the lobbying power, the impression, the, the half-baked truths, where does the truth lie? Well, this is how this entire system's built. Well, this is what we know, what we don't really

know, cash pay. Well, we don't really, right, the whole model is get a drug approved. It costs billions dollars. Now we've got to lock in that patent. Now we've got to let these companies make a bunch of money on it because they innovated it. And we've got to get it on insurance formularies, Medicare Medicaid and try care. That's a whole fundamental different when you're talking about even, like let's shelf peptide for a second, say stem cell therapy. My whole mission statement on all of this is

to build a life raft, right? Henry Ford said, if we would have asked, if he would have asked clients what they wanted, they would have said a faster horse, right? I'm not going to the FDA going,

“guys, how do we solve this problem? I think the FDA has enough of their own problems, just trying”

to manage the system the way it is. My vision is you build a life raft. You build a life raft parallel to the exist much like Uber did with taxis. And you let this go this way and you dry

drag race it against this way. And let's see who can prevent chronic disease. Well, the problem is

it killed taxes. Yeah. That was a bad example. Well, I think, well, and the question is, which model is going to be better for humanity and which model is going to take cost out of the system? Right. And so I would tell a regulator, a congressman, a congresswoman, anybody who will listen, guys, my model costs you nothing. I'm not asking for taxpayer dollars. I'm not asking for any sort of indication where I can build insurance companies or I can build Medicare

Medicaid or triker. What I'm asking the federal government to do is to trust the sacred

“relationship of a clinician and a patient and to allow a patient to have sovereignty and autonomy”

over their health. If I'm Brett Farve and I'm diagnosed with an advanced stage of Parkinson's disease. And it's a kiss a death. Why would I want to wait 10 years for something to make it through the FDA approval process that could change or save my life today? And if I have the means to pay for those things and the accessibility and a clinician who thinks that they have an answer to slow or help potentially improve the progression of a chronic disease or an ailment,

I just don't think the government should stand in the way of that. And the reality is that the

momentum of the current healthcare system is so strong. The vast majority of Americans are going to use that anyway. Yes. It's not like it's going to completely disrupt the system. Like most people, like, I mean, how many people are listening to this? I mean, it's still a small percentage of just America. Yeah. The vast majority of people are just going to trust their doctor and they're going to do what they've always done. They're not going to be aware. And it's going to be businesses

usual. And those companies are still going to grow. Yeah. It's just they're so greedy. They want all of it. Yeah. Like by saying they're losing $7 billion. How much did you make? Yeah. Yeah. You know, that was my point. Like so. Right. They're not losing it. And if you give those bad

facts to a politician or a regulator, they go, oh my God, they cost you $7 billion. You know,

you made $800 billion. Your market cap is $8.7 extra company. Novo Nordisk, three or four extra company in a literally a three year timeframe. These are some of the most rich and powerful companies in the world. Your patent worked. It worked. It upheld. You prevented regulatory landscape from coming in and people taking a piece of your pie. In fact, I would argue it worked too well, you know, in a way like so to overregulate based off. And that's that's the argument with the

patient specific, are you need to allow patients to be able to tie trade up and tie trade down

“and avoid catastrophic muscle wasting. What about patients who have allergies? What about the next”

time these things go on a backlog? What about a patient who maybe can't handle the delivering mechanism? I mean, there's dozens of different reasons why you would want to provide an alternative life raft. Can you explain the tie trade up and tie trade down thing? Yeah. So historically, the GOP ones came in preset dosages. And so patients did not have a way to tie trade up or down. And so a lot of clinicians who wanted to micro dose would use a compounding pharmacy to

prescribe those medications and allow patients more flexibility on how they dose their GOP one because some of the catastrophic side effects from a large dose. Correct. Now, as this thing evolves, the question becomes, where do we go with this, right? Because essentially, most compounding has shut down GOP ones, 503 B's, which B stands for bulk, like big mass production. I can sell big bulk items to hospitals or to clinics. The governments come in and said they're not allowed

to make the way lost drugs anymore. So it's now limited down to just 503 A's, which are patient specific, which is like what I do, like we make medications unique to the patient, personalized medicine. And so that's a much more niche percentage of the market. And again, even that, you're talking

in the heyday, maybe $2 billion for the whole industry, right? On a company that's, you know,

worth $800 billion in seven extra revenue, everything's going to be okay. Everyone's going to be okay. Patients had accessibility and affordability. And I think the battle cry from the big pharmaceutical companies is a little misleading if you don't know the nuances of all of this.

“So what do you think is the best way forward? If you were, if you were in charge of”

regulating, there is an issue with accessibility and there's an issue with black market, right? There's an issue with people buying peptides online that are not even what they say they are. Like, there's certain peptides that have a physiological response to me take them, like CJC, I'm Marlin, you could feel it, you take it. I know people that have bought stuff online, they say, I don't think the stuff is legit because it's not doing anything once I take it. I don't feel

that, you know, that we're flushing or something, they don't feel it at all. And they've asked me for advice. No, I love that you, because I actually had had the privilege of giving this, you know, message to Marty McCary at the FDA and also Chris, Clomp, who have been receptive to at least hearing the other side of the equation. And there, to be clear, when it comes to peptides, Chris, Marty, Stephanie, spear, Bobby, all of them are aligned. Like peptides, I'm being told or done,

it's just a matter of when. I don't have that timeline, but it's a huge win. Because it goes so much bigger. I cannot stress Joe how close preventative longevity base medicine was to be in done, because if you shut down all compounders throughout the country, and they've already gone after the black and gray market, the FBI is shown up at these people's doors. And Kennedy wasn't the secretary. And if the mom movement hadn't started, it's over. It's over. So if the, if

Kamal Harris wins, the total, yeah. And on that note, even here in Texas, this is where this is crazy. I've gotten to know several of the congressmen, congresswomen, Lacey Holes, a congresswoman here in Texas, Senator Colehurst, I believe she's over the health care committee for the Senate.

“Senator Colehurst was looking at forming her own FDA for Texas. That's how serious that was getting,”

because they knew that of everything that's happened, where this would continue to head, and states were looking to potentially hedge their bet to protect their state citizens from the federal guidelines that could be restrictive or preventative for care, which is crazy to think. So when I laid this out

for, for, uh, for, uh, Marty, um, one of the things I explained where that, here's what the

naysayers will say, we don't want it to be the Wild West. You're going to grandfather in peptides and give people accessibility to peptides, and that would be the Wild West. And my answer to that is, we are living in the Wild West. Today is the most dangerous time it has ever been in the history of peptides. Peptides have grown legs. The cats out of the bag. Everyone knows what they were.

So right now, four out of five peptides being filled are being filled through gray or black

“market solutions. When the Eli Lilly and Novo throw out of seven billion dollar number,”

where they're cooking the books, is they're not telling legislators that a lot of that is gray in black market for out of five, meaning there is no clinician in the chain of custody. The majority,

the majority are where this could book seven billion dollars in black market. Correct. And again,

even in the black market, even real. And yes, and I want to be clear, I'm not even in the black market. I know, and I validation tested and done independent validation testing of a lot of these companies, and some of them are efficacious, some of them are real, and some of them are not. What's the percentage roughly? Um, a large percentage is off. Like, and sometimes dosed higher, you know, so think about if you were to get like a GLP one, and you're injecting a dosage that's two X,

what it should be, right? You could have muscle wasting or all sorts of catastrophic events.

“And this is because of a lack of regulation. Correct. There's no regulation. There's no regulation.”

There's no oversight, and these companies attempt to operate through a loophole, and that loophole is they claim it's for non-human use. Um, I actually had a call with a really prominent peptide company, and their CEO, who's an Ivy League guy, and I get on the phone with this guy, and he's wanting to huff and puff and tell me how I don't know what I'm talking about and that he's safe and that he has written legal opinions and that he knows what he's allowed to do and not allowed to do. And I said,

well, I can tell you from history, what I've seen, you are using influencers to advertise

for human use. You say on your label, non-human use, but the second somebody has an adverse event

and has something catastrophic happen. Odies are dies. The DOJ is going to show up on your door, and when they do, they're going to subpoena you, and when they do, they're going to uncover

“that you were paying influencers to advertise these products for human use, while putting on the”

label, they're for non-human use. So you were knowingly and willingly, circumventing the safety in the laws of the land to push a illegal compound into a marketplace. I'm just telling you how this is going to play out. I'm not hoping this for anybody. And this was about eight months ago, and now it's happened. Now the FBI has shown up at multiple gray and black market peptide facilities. If we're being honest, it's 100% because a red or true tide, the next blockbuster GLF1,

that is in the works, and explain that? Yeah. So red or true tide is a triple agonist being developed by Eli Lilly, and so it hits three different receptor sites. It has less muscle wasting, much better safety profile, lower side effect profile, but people drop substantial amounts of body fat. And that drug is not on the market. It has not made it to phase three trials. It's not commercially available. So we got to let her as a compounding pharmacy under the FDA

guidelines telling us, it is illegal if you make this, and we will come after you. So we've never made

it because we're a compounding pharmacy that has to fall the laws of the land because the state and the federal government inspect us. Right before we came on, I was telling you, the FDA has been in our building five times in four years. The states have been in my building every year, and I'm in 47 states. So almost every state, we're literally in an inspection all the time. There are plenty of safety nets. We independently third party verify every dosage. We buy

API from what's called the green list. The green list is a list established by the FDA. That tells us you can buy these pharmaceutical ingredients from these ingredient manufacturers. What does it be ours to them for? It's pharmaceutical ingredients. It's just the base product used to compound a medication. None of those checks and balances happen in the gray and black market. Again, it's not saying that all those guys are bad, that they're products bad. But regardless,

whether there's 100%. There's no regulation. There's no checks and balances. So if I release, leaves the door open. Correct. It leaves the door open, and if I am a patient who wants to get on a weight loss drug, and I can just buy it online and not have to go to a doctor, and not have to go to a clinic and get blood work. And I can just buy it. There's no doctor. There's no pharmacist. It's dropship to my house. What's even scarier though is there's no dosing

instructions. There's no way to reconstitute it. There's no explanation of how to reconstitute. Because once they're teaching you how to reconstitute and mix it, they're taking part in medical administration. And so these companies have avoided all of that. And people were using things like chatGPT. But now chatGPT and all the large language models have shut that down. So now what you

clinician in the chain of custody, no checks and balances, no state or federal regulators.

“We are living in the Wild West. So my message to Marty and if you want to fix this,”

how you fix it is you bring back where we were prior to the mistake of the Biden administration, where they pulled these peptides from the market with no safety data that can support their actions. And you put it back in the hands of trained clinicians. You require people to go through the process where they have a clinician and a pharmacist and a compounding pharmacy under the right guidelines regulating the space. Because we know peptides are safe. Like they are safe.

They're 200 peptides are found naturally occurring in the human body. These are all elements

that are readily available in nature. The question is, sterility, efficacy, and safety. And through

the proper checks and balances, we can minimize most of those side effect profiles and optimize positive outcomes. But it requires restoring law in order to the land and implementing things the way they were before the mistake happened. And that's all I've been trying to argue. There's a way to fix this. And if you do that overnight, as much as I hate to say this, you make these big pharmaceutical companies ecstatic. Because you just got rid of four out of five weight loss drugs

that were being filled with no clinician. And you do push it in a way back to the traditional system with the checks and balances that these regulatory bodies are so worried about. And the only argument against that is, well, peptides don't have enough robust human clinical trials with safety data. And then you go down that topic and I'm like, guys, you do realize, like we said, like 60 to 80 percent of drugs have a major label change. These are the drugs that make it through

separate from that every product that's in the operating room. I've covered this every time I've

been on here, every single 90 percent of the products in the operating room never had a human safety

value. They were all brought in through the 510K approval process. Doctors are using things every day in practice that are either off label or not validation tested or have no human safety studies. It is commonplace in medicine every day. So to make it this big to do that all the sudden it's dangerous. The most dangerous time we're living in is right now with no checks and balances. If we get this done, you've now built a regulatory pathway that provides affordability,

accessibility, personalized medicine, predictive care. It is such a big win beyond a peptide, because it can't at least saves the industry. I can tell you owning clinic, owning a telemedicine company, owning all of these things. None of that machine works if we can't create products that help people. Quality products that are available without quality are even worse than quality products that aren't available. Those were two options right now. It's like they can't get a quality product

and then we can't sell the quality product. But this change will allow us to sell safe and quality products under with the proper checks and balances. And it also builds a regulatory pathway that

“I think sets us up for long term success with things like stem cells. Well, it seems there's”

such a reasonable concession. You cut out the black market. You regulate stem cells and you regulate peptides. You regulate everything that's being done through compound pharmacies. Everybody wins. I agree. That's the message to the top end and I think that's the pharmaceutical drug companies want everybody to win. Correct. They want only them to win. Correct. So any profit that you make or any compounding pharmacy make in their mind is stolen from them. Correct. Which is wild.

Yeah. And that is the big challenge is the future of this regulatory pathway and that's where I wanted to get into the state. And this is something that what we saw with the food lobby, when we testified at the state level for the food program for the SNAP program, for the school lunch program, trying to align the the state with the new goal of the food pyramid and the new food guidelines and get back to eating real food, healthy food instead of feeding

kids crap all day in school. The states picked up the torch and ran with it faster than the federal government did. And the reason that's important is we've now learned the offense. Texas passed the bills. Three different bills around food and food initiatives and label changes and protecting children

“Arizona followed suit. I think Florida fought multiple states followed suit, which creates a trade”

win that allows the federal government to pick up what state legislators have done in mirror those

So my hope is that the federal government and the FDA get this done with peptides and then the next

“step would be can we do the same thing with biologics and stem cells, which are amazing tools in”

the toolbell to drive health span and help prevent chronic disease. The state of Texas is already raring to go. So the state of Texas passed the compassionate use act, which says if you have a chronic disease or any sort of chronic health issue you have the right to try. So it's almost like marijuana law without getting too nuanced. The states, if you have a clinic within the state and you manufacture the product within the state or compound within the state and theory you can

administer within the state. And even if the FDA has a different stance on it the state can have its guidelines and you can fall within the rules and regulations of the state and still honor and respect the rules of the land. Does that make sense? Yes. Okay. So Texas did this, Utah did this, Florida did this and I just testified in Arizona two weeks ago on the stem cell bill in Arizona

“Senator Janae Shamp called me and said can you come out and help testify and can we do”

what you guys have done in Florida and some of these other states and right now it passed through the house and it's onto the Senate and the Senate will most likely pass this bill. And so I say all that to go the states right now are able to move faster and more nimble than the federal government and the states are building safety nets and checks and balances that will still allow patient accessibility at the state level. The problem then becomes if we can get the federal government to follow

these same guidelines and we've also submitted a citizen's petition to the FDA around stem cells that basically mirrors the floor to law. And the whole message is exactly what you and I've just covered. Guys, these things are safe. The risk of an adverse event is minimal. If it is an adverse event,

it's flu-like symptoms and it impacts basically 10 to 15 percent of people. All of the major adverse

events you've been told about stem cells come from in proper chain of command in proper chain of custody and improper checks and balances. How do you fix that? You have fixed that to creating a regulatory pathway with proper checks and balances, proper chain of custody and a clinician involved in the chain of command. If we do those things, you are going to be able to provide patients with affordable accessible care of products that work that are safe while the federal government

can work through. Do we make this a billable product down the road? Do we build this into the insurance model? To for me to go fight to build this into the insurance model is a monumental task that I don't have the bandwidth to take on. And now I also think it's the wrong move. I really don't want to be part of that model. I want to build a life raft that allows patients to make decisions. In the second, you put this in an insurance model or a government payer model.

Everybody is castrated. The decisions are made at the insurance level and at the government level and it just becomes this nuanced, challenging thing. Like an example is stem cells so historically one of the uses for purified amnion was burden victims, right, or wound management and diabetics. So what happened? Orthopedic surgeons started building wound injuries in order to get paid from the insurance companies on an ACL. Well, that only takes a year, six months before the

insurance companies ring the bell in a way. This person build us a million dollars on wound

management and they're an orthopedic surgeon. What is going on? You just committed insurance fraud. And now you've created this counterculture movement against stem cells and purified amnion

“and all of these products. And that's what happened in real time. So a lot of what we're living”

is the continual dogma of this broken ass system and it creates this trade wind that doesn't die. I mean, this was a decade ago and now none of this stuff's covered from insurance, none of it has an FDA indication and all of it's kind of putting this gray no man's land. Even though it's used in practices every day throughout the country and now you can legally use these treatments in states like Texas, Florida, Arizona, uh, soon to be Arizona in Utah.

And so there is hope because at the state level, it's moving. I do believe Secretary Kennedy and Chris Clump and Marty are very open-minded and receptive to this. They are very, uh, progressive and they do see the challenges of this system. Marty covers it in his book, like I said. So I'm more optimistic than ever that we are going to get, if we get peptides done the next step is to begin to work the citizens petition to see if we can do the same thing for these biologics

month momentum, I think, is that so many people know people that have had stem cell treatment

“and have had amazing results like with injuries that they just couldn't recover from. Yeah.”

And unfortunately, some of them had to go to Panama and had to go to Tijuana and Columbia and all these different places where it's legal. And that's, uh, yeah, I can't tell you how many people that I've talked to that have an injury and say, hey, I'm thinking about going to Tijuana. What do you think? And I say, it'll help you 100%. I've talked to my dad, he went, I talked to my

uncle, like grandma went, this person went, that person went, they had results that they never

achieved doing any of the things. Why is this not available here? I'm like, oh man, it's a long story. Yeah. I can't even start this conversation. Yeah. I have to go. Well, and what's amazing, though, is I'm telling you, we're, we, uh, having got to know Senator Colhurst and, and Lacy Hold, the representative here, we'll get it done in Texas. I get it's common. It's the, the new bill that we're going to submit in January. I feel confident that we will, uh, expand upon the existing,

“legislation around, uh, patient right to choose, because I think it's important to begin to”

hedge against the power of big pharma and to try to build out a model with peptides and other things that we included in this bill at the state level, just in case, you know, just in case, it, not even this administration. I feel very confident this administration is going to get a lot of these things done. But then what happens as soon as there's a change in power down the road and now money years can you fight this lobby, right? It's still alive and well. It's not going anywhere. Um,

but I think it's crucial that we fight for sovereignty and autonomy over our health and, and continue

to push. Um, I can tell you at the state level, um, I'm very, very bullish that it will happen. And what Florida saw is a $300 million, uh, infusion of cash into the state of Florida, built all around this, because it's now a medical tourism destination. And that's, that's my message to these senators and Congressman and Congressman and Texas is we have a legitimate opportunity to do what you did with the food bill and the Maha movement around these initiatives, to drive home these same initiatives

on longevity and preventative base care in the state of Texas. We have an opportunity to turn Texas into a medical tourism destination. Do can you imagine how many people would visit Austin if we truly do build a proper regulatory pathway with all the checks and balances where people can confidently fly down here and know that they can get these treatments. And not have to have a passport. Yeah. I mean, because this is what's going on. This is why people are going to Panama

and all those other places. Yeah. They mean they, they're desperate. And so they're willing to leave the country. Yeah. I understand. It would be a way easier. There's a hop on a Southwest flight come to Austin. Pretty easy. Yeah. A lot easier. And it should be available. And what's really amazing to me with the Maha movement is watching people scramble to find some sort of narrative as to what they're doing is dangerous or what they're doing is bad or what they're doing is

somehow another not the way we should be going ignoring those facts that you laid out. We are the

wealthiest country in the world. We are the sickest country in the world. We've never had more money.

We've never been more sick. Yeah. We've never spent more on health care. We've never been more fucked up. Yeah. At one point in time does someone say, hey, this system sucks. Yeah. But they don't want to. They don't want, they resist this radical change and this appeal to authority. These people that are in control of all these various organizations. They know what they're doing. They are the

“experts. We should trust them. They fuck this whole thing up. How are you trusting them still?”

With you just said with 60 to 80 percent of them have either major label changes or have the products removed. You think about all the different adverse side effects that are very, very well-known from various pharmaceutical drugs. All these different things. How many times does this have to happen before you just want to rip the bandate off and do something different? It's tough because people misunderstand. I think they misunderstand even what you and I are saying because I hear so

often people going, okay. It's a conspiracy theory. They want to keep you fat and sick and monetize some of these and there's malicious intent. I might know what I'm telling you is this system was born in captivity. It's broken. There's special interests that are able to influence accessibility and affordability of care. Those decisions have cataclysmic, cataclysmic effects on our health as a nation, on our national security. How many men can even qualify for military

service? 71 percent of young kids can't qualify for military service. It's not. And then you look at

the average American can't do two pull-ups or something like that. And then you see Secretary Kennedy

rattling off 20-something pull-ups at the 70. But it's not that, I'm not saying anyone. It's just they are extracting enormous amounts of money. They don't want to stop extracting enormous amounts of money. They want the system to remain as in place as is because it's very profitable for that. But it's just not good for us. It doesn't mean it can't be profitable still.

“Yeah. It's just you have to have a workable functional model that benefits the American people”

and benefits health. I agree. And that's where I'm like, guys, we don't have to. I'm not saying if you want to run this system the way you're running it and reform it where you can, I get that. But I also think there's an immense value in building a life raft. Just in case. Just in case. Why is there any pushback to building a cash pay model with a pathway that allows patients to access medications with their own heart or in cash? Preventive health care instead of sick care.

You got it. Sick care that is perpetual and never ending and ultimately leads to a

catastrophic series of side effects. You got it. And I tell people the difference is with a peptide or something preventative, you're coming in and we're optimizing you. Right? So, you know, I've taken things like dihexia. You know, for me personally, I'm not advertising this for other people. But it's like, it 100% improved my neuro cognitive function. It a 100% improved my data recall and retention. It moved the needle. And I'm paying with my cash to use something that is

doctor prescribed. And why do I need anyone else's approval for that? I understand the need to protect

“the American public with safety. And that's where I think improving safety is important. But the”

second part of the equation with the FDA is approving efficacy. And approving efficacy, unfortunately, with the model is a multi-billion dollar process. Those checks and balances are

crucial when you do a set it and forget it healthcare system. What do I mean by that? You'll put

somebody on lipitor and the doctor doesn't see them for another year. And that patient is blindly trusting that clinician. That is the insurance model. The cash pay model is an educated patient, patient who's taking their health into their own hands. And you better believe me when I say, if you don't put a win on the board, they're going to fire your ass because it's their money. Nobody's going to take a peptide month after month after month if they don't think it's doing

anything. Right. Because they're using their money, not taxpayers money, not an employer's money. Right. The checks and balances are there through the consumer market because it has more integrity than the traditional model because this is the only model where if you don't produce for the patient, you're fired. You can't fire your clinician in the insurance model because the insurance model tells you where to go. And this is an important one. I'm sorry, I'm ADHD, but I'm thinking about this.

One of the things that a regulator mentioned to me was, again, I hate to keep bringing up these big pharmaceutical companies, but they were lobbying saying, there's a problem. Guys like Brigham, they'll own the pharmacy, but then they also own clinics and that's vertical integration and blah, blah, blah, blah and that's not fair to a patient. Hold on. If you understand the law of the land, the patient has the right to take their prescription wherever they want. Even if they come to ways

to well, we may prescribe it and we send it to me to my pharmacy because we compete on price. And I'm going to make this as cost effective and as beneficial to the patient as possible. If I can't compete in an open market and make this affordable and approachable for you, take your prescription somewhere else, but I'm going to provide quality, efficacy, and cost. And I'm going to beat you. Where you're not going to force people. Correct. Only just that.

And what people don't understand is in the insurance model, a patient is told that you're not allowed to go to this doctor. You got to go to this doctor because they're within your plan.

“And then they go to that doctor. And that doctor goes, what pharmacy do you want to fill that?”

Well, it doesn't matter if it's CVS or Walgreens or wherever, the patient's going to have the same price because that price is controlled by the PBM, which is the insurance company. And then that PBM is monetizing that drug through rebate programs. It is a totally different system that captures a patient, controls a patient, and monetizes chronic disease. My goal is to help you drive hellspan and monetize your health. To help you want to be a willing participant

because you feel so good. And your mental cognitive physical function, your skin, your complexion, what we see is somebody starts. And it's not. They start thinking they want to lose weight. Guess what? As soon as a guy like Jelly loses that weight. Now the guy, he was on the phone

five hundred pounds, man. You couldn't walk up his driveway. And now he has life again. He's

bow hunting. He's like getting into these hobbies and these things. When he goes and spins money on a peptide, it's not because it's pseudo-science or it doesn't work. It's because he's a living example of the impact it's made on his life. And he is knowingly and willingly opting in to continue to see how far he can push this healthcare journey and how much more optimal he can get. And in real time, unlike traditional medicine, we are tracking all of this shit. We're tracking

UV ADECSA. We're tracking UVO to max. We're tracking UVO wearables. All of that vertically integrated in real time. And then we're culminating that data across the patient population. So imagine when

I get to a point in a dream world, what I want is 10, 15 million patients nationwide. We're

tracking all these data analytics. We know that every man with a gene marker of P452 who went on testosterone, saw a market improvement in rimsleep. This is all the type of data we can extrapolate. But to do that, you've got to have the tools. You've got to have the peptides. You've got to have the biologics. You've got to have the diagnostic tools like comprehensive blood work.

“Another huge missed thing in healthcare. And I believe is gene sequencing.”

Less than one in one thousand people have ever had their genome sequenced. We've only sequenced, I think, one in a thousand animals. Genetics is in the infancy of what it's going to be. And a real world example is that is somebody like Gordon who we've been trying to help. I know I'm dumping a lot. I want to be clear. I'm not a doctor. I'm just a guy who's trying to solve problems. And everything that I talk about today is not me being a bro science

or me trying to be an influencer or the things that people try to say. Everything I discuss comes from my mentors. And my mentor is my chief science officer, Ian White, 22 years stem cell research, Harvard and sorry stem cell institute. Mari does hawa who discovered muse cells from Japan and is one of the pioneers in stem cell research. Mari is an absolute badass. Doctor Doysher, Stanford graduate, stem cell research, longevity specialist Ryan Rossner,

PhD, worked for DARPA. I'm talking to brilliant people. And I'm doing my best to learn and distill down what I'm gathering from these folks and a manner that's digestible for Neanderthals like myself. As all I'm trying to do. You guys are ways to well are also incorporating a bunch of other therapies. And I want you to talk about those too. Yeah, I would love to. Uh, before I lose the real quick on the genetics because I'm super excited about this. So one of

the things we're building into the app. So the next generation of the app, which will come out in a few weeks, um, we're just trying to improve on the simple simplicity of use, the ability to get refills vertically integrating into a pharmacy because so often patients will fill a prescription, it go to a pharmacy they don't know, then they come back and they go, well where am I in the

“refill and where is it out in the process? And when does it get to my house? And what about this?”

And what about that? I can't remember what the doctor said on the phone. That was the whole point of Alan the chatbot that I showed you years ago. Alan is a resource in your pocket. And Alan is there to pull from your medical records to pull from your chart in real time to answer any question about what happened on that phone consult with that clinician because all of that's annotated and put into the system and documented. And so Alan is there to help answer and fill in the gaps.

And where I was going with this earlier is through large language models in AI, we're going to be

able to scale concierge medicine. We're going to be able to scale it in a way like never before

that allows patients to get that high touch, high quality care, but for pennies on the dollar, like my goal is to make this as cheap as possible so everybody can afford it. And that's the goal with stem cells too, but it starts with regulatory pathways and destigmatizing these treatments and building a pathway that everyone can afford. And so one of the things we're looking to add to the app is gene sequencing. There are 20,000 genes. Most people don't have any clue what genes they have.

“And the reason that's important in what my buddy Ryan Rossner will tell you is he's a geneticist”

is your genes are the software that are telling the computer how to run. Is this the guy that I met? Yeah. Yeah. And he worked for DARPA tons of experience at the bench and in the lab doing genetic research, the stuff he did for DARPA was crazy. I mean when he started telling you, you know, one of the things he said is we're in an era where we can build real

mineral density eight times stronger. What? Yeah. I mean there's you can do that. You can't legally

do it in the US right now. These are things that they're doing. They make a Russian supercells right now. This is the challenge. China and Russia are pushing the envelope with all these things. Is that

“change your body mass? It'd be interesting. I didn't dig in with him on that, but it would have to, right?”

Oh, you would 100% think it's going to change your BMI because your bone minerals are going to be much thicker and more dense. You'd probably be all heavier. You're about, so it's going to change your, uh, your dexascan in your readings. Yeah. Whoa. But the future to me is it's, I'm telling you that future is through walls. The random brutal on that. It's a reddit post that says there's a mutation that causes bones to come eight times denser than normal. Oh, the trade-off is not being able to swim.

But I can barely swim right now as it is, man. So here's what I think like a fucking stone

as it is. It's a real problem. We're one of the things that he's enlightening me on because I'm not a geneticist. I don't know anything about that world. He's like, dude, if you do a gene sequencing test on a guy like Gordon Ryan, maybe there's a gene that's causing him to have these stomach issues. So we run the full gene sequencing on Gordon at ways to well and it comes back and, you know, offhand, I remember there's a couple of really interesting stuff. Gordon has a gene that is like

one in 10 million that makes your tendons more dense and more resilient. So stronger, more rigid tendons that are able to resist or more resilient to damage. Boy, does that make sense? Yeah, he has that gene. He also has a gene that makes his propensity to have bone mineral density higher.

“That's why his bone mineral density is higher. That's why his bones don't break as easy. Those are”

some of the positives that are in his firmware, his software that's running the biology that is Gordon Ryan. Now, some of the downside and this is, this is a really cool one because we've been trying to help Gordon with this gut health issue for years and it's this constant battle of, you know, he's getting staff. Now, he's on antibiotics. Now, his gut health wreck again, a lot of that comes down to he has a gene marker that puts him at a predisposition to get staff.

He has a weakened immune system. So now he's in an environment where he's being exposed to a chronic issue and he has a predisposition to not be resilient to that issue. And then he also has a gene marker that makes his gut health more acidic. And so these are like rare genes and he happens to have these anomalies. So it's like in one hand he has this perfect one, the statistical lottery

“genetic traits that put him in a position to potentially be an amazing grappler and athlete,”

but then he has this Achilles heel of his predisposition to infections and his body's gut health and gut biome issues are all in that gene. They're all in the software. And so the premise that Ryan and what we're trying to evolve and build out is 20,000 genes. Most people don't have any clue what any of their genes are. We're taking all of the knowledge that Ryan and these geneticists have and we're trying to automate it using the large language models in AI and build that into the ways to

well app. So alongside with the VO2 Max, the Dexa, go get those anywhere. I'm not trying to sell you these things. I just want the information so I can help you. I don't give a shit. Go get your blood work from whoever. If you can get insurance to cover it, do it. If you can get insurance to help you with the VO2 Max or Dexa, do it. They're not going to, but shop it, find the best place for you. And then if you have that data when we launch the new app, we can load all that into the large

language models. We can load in your gene sequencing. We can begin to look at you at a much broader level to try and figure out where are you headed and why. What gene dispositions do you have and how do we help you navigate that? That's predictive medicine. That's personalized medicine. And nobody's doing anything with genes right now. It's, it's crazy. Everyone, we just got people sold on being able to do blood work. And people are acting like that's the holy grail. And

like, I'm a believer in blood work. But it's a snapshot of you in time. Right? That's a moment of you in time. What did you eat that day? How do you sleep the day before? When did you take your

testosterone? Like, there's a million variables that can throw off your blood work. You can't

lie on a Dexa. That's a real analysis of your visceral fat, your subcutaneous fat, how much fat's packed in around your organs. We're going to know all that. How much after fees on your left bicep versus your right bicep? All of those things. Like, Liam Harrison was just in, I know you and Liam are buddies. He was shocked because he has that one bum knee from all those years of moiety and infiders just started picking off his knee. What's crazy is he thought he would

trained it so much. He had more muscle mass on the bum leg than on the, the what he thought was

his strong leg. And so he was like shocked by that. But it's fascinating because it's just data, right? And that data gives you the ability to navigate and it gives us a blueprint because now with that data, I know things like we know how much bone mental density you're going to lose year after year once you reach a certain age, we can begin to quantify that and model out your vertebral

“risk fracture risk. You know, your hip fracture risk. How do we preserve bone mineral density?”

Like it allows us to quantify are the hormones in these things helping preserve lean muscle mass, keep the body fat off and optimize bone health. All of these things in with, with what this

FDA is doing with men's health and women's health and fertility and the direction it's headed.

I really think we have the potential. If we pull this off to enter a golden era of health care, I really believe that. But it is going to require thinking on orthodox. It is going to require a cash pay model. I don't think we can overhaul a system and build in all these different modalities. I don't think we could get it done in a decade. You know, I really don't. And then how many lives are lost in that time? That's where I'm pleading for let's build a cash pay model. That is a

life raft. That's an alternative. And let's build a pathway that makes sense that maybe is a more nuanced approach to driving health span. Because I know for a fact, Secretary Kennedy has said, his goal is to leave a legacy that transitioned our broken sick care system into a healthcare system and to one that prevents chronic disease rather than monetizing chronic disease. That has literally been the mission statements since the day we opened our fucking doors. I'm like, that's all we're

trying to do. And I love it. Because then you get into the fun shit. Like where do we go with all this gene activation and where do we go with like the ability to optimize humans, right? Rather than just trying to keep you from being sick, we should strive to make you superhuman. I mean, that's really my belief. Like why do you want to have normal hormones when you can have optimal hormones?

“Right. Normal bone mineral density when you can have optimal bone mineral density. That's what I'm”

talking about. I'm also looking. Let me ask you this about the gene stuff. What do they do? So if they find out that you have an issue, you have some sort of a genetic issue that prevents you from doing x, y, z. What can they do with your genes? So it varies by gene, but it gives us, it gives us the reason to try and understand, oh, okay, this is why this has been a repetitive issue. And it begins to give you answers to the test. So you're not taking a shot in the dark. And

those answers will allow us to hopefully tailor and develop nuanced treatments. Now, the future is they're able to turn off and on genes like a light switch. I don't know if you saw like they just, there was a whole article about they discovered that whales have a protein unique to whales and they live over 200 years. And they think this protein could be one of the keys to driving human

health span and longevity. And it's basically the premises. Can we synthesize and utilize this gene

to turn on the gene in humans and have us secrete and produce a higher level of this protein or this amino acid and would it drive our health span and reduce our risk of cancers? All of those things. So the question becomes, as we evolve, what genes can we turn on and turn off? What is the regulatory

“landscape of the future look like in America? China and Russia already doing these things, right?”

And so even if we attempt to fight the evolution of science, I think we're going to look back in a decade and go, I cannot believe we put people on petrochemicals to solve problems because we're going to be able to go in and turn off or on a gene and fix that problem, right? At the cellular level, the biological level, you're going to be able to fix and remediate so many of these issues. That's all they're doing with the bone mineral density. Is they're turning on a gene that

tells you to increase your bone mineral density or when you look at the fall of statin that they're using in cattle. That's just a gene signal that tells your gene, "Hey, turn on and you're going to put on muscle." And for a six to 12-month time frame that fall of statin, gene will be turned on and you'll put on muscle. And then at the end of that, it gets turned back off. So it's like temporary turning on a white light switch, and then that light switch will eventually refer it back.

So this, Jamie, bring back up that thing with the bone mineral density. Does it prevent you from being able to swim just because you're heavier? Is it that same? Because you're adding so much weight and mass to the butt. Like, think about French bulldogs and bulldogs can't swim

bulldogs will drown. Really? Yeah, they don't have enough arm strength and muscle mass.

“They're so dense and heavy. Is that what it is? Or is it a laser so short?”

It's both. They don't have the ability to move the move enough momentum of that denseness of their body composition. Because little crawls jacked, you ever see a crawls? Like the little water that I did might not be in the pool. He's smart. Well, Marshall's like soft. Marshall's very soft. He swims like a fish. He loves swimming. Yeah. That dog just, he could swim for hours. That's so funny. Yeah, my French he loves water,

but he can't swim. So he'll go in the shallow in, but he's smart enough to not get off the step.

Like he knows. Oh, that's interesting. Yeah. So I would imagine also there would be

so was this? I'm just looking at the combat. This didn't have a link or anything. It was literally just a picture of an x-ray. So like, not a lot of information to pull off of that. Unable to swim is weird. But I don't even know about that. Because it's more difficult to swim. That's it. Because you're heavier because like my kids can swim. You know, because, you know, I mean, my daughter, my 15-year-old might weigh 120 pounds or something like that, 150.

I weigh like 204. I go in the water. I just think. I can't float. Yeah, we don't have any body fat either. It's dense. It's all muscle and bone. It's a struggle for me to swim. Yeah. You know, but I wonder, like, is it? So if your bones or have more or they're more hollow,

“does that help you swim? Because they're more hollow? Like does that aid?”

It's what's so fascinating to all this to me is so then you've got, so getting to meet all these different scientists, right? You got Ryan who was working for DARPA. And then I know Ian, who's been 20 years of stem cell research. And Ian in his book talks about that we share a common ancestor. And I've covered this before. But Ian hypothesizes, within our genetics, we share an ancestor with the eternal jellyfish. We share an ancestor with the Galapagus tortoise with the Greenland

Shark. Greenland sharks don't develop cancer. They live 500 to 600 years. The jellyfish lives eternally. All of those black boxes are within us. If we can find those through gene sequencing, and we can identify which gene is doing that in the animal kingdom and cross-reference that to our own genetics, the question then becomes, can you either insert that gene into humans or is that gene available and can you turn it on? And what's a side effect to turn? Correct.

“So individuals with unexplained HPM had an excess of sinking when swimming. What is that number?”

7.1136? What does that mean? Adjusted odds ratio with 95% confidence. So it says excess of sinking when swimming. So it just seems like it's more difficult to swim. Yeah, because you're heavier. Yeah, you're more dense. It's more difficult for me to swim. Skeletal dysplasia. That's not good, right? Many. What is dysus? I'm thinking of many harder, harder and underlying genetic disorder

affecting bone mass. This was just a study based off of a high bone density. This was a specific to that. And this is to sink more. This is stuff that's like in its infancy, but I just think it's fascinating. Right. Well, that Brian Shaw dude. That guy can't swim. There's no fucking way. That guy must sink like a rock. Because didn't he have like the most

insane bone mineral density tested? They said his bone mineral density is one of 500 million.

So there might be like what eight people, 10 people on earth that have that? Yeah, that's so crazy. And that, I mean, but that's probably genetics and also training. Right. He's obviously a strong man. So he's been there. Yeah, there's crazy. So they've done, um, he's Devon Lorette. You know that. Sure. Okay. So Devon came into the clinic. He's done his gene sequencing. And it's crazy. Like the guy has so many genes that are just statistically impossible. It's like, was this guy built in a lab to

our vessel. It's crazy. Like he has that same tendon gene as the bone mineral density gene. He has some very, very unique genes. And so part of this is just like the knowledge and the excitement of what can we do in the future? I don't know. But today, I think, you know, knowing your software that you're running on, it's crazy to think that everyone knows which version of the iPhone software they've got. You got to seven point whatever, but we don't know what code our bodies

running on. But here's the question. These genes are inherent to you from birth or is anything a result of training. The genes are inherent to you at birth. So then you do have epigenetics and epigenetics are impacted by your body, by activity. Right. So you may have a predisposition to

definitively you're going to develop cancer. It just means you can now make a lifestyle and behavioral changes to minimize. So if you have a predisposition to that, you probably shouldn't smoke cigarettes all day. Right. We should probably try to, if you have a predisposition to weak bone mineral density.

Right. We should probably make sure that we never let your hormones drop in your 40s where you begin

that initial decline in the cascade effect. Just so genutation seems to also have a other side effect of vision loss because it causes some eye-vascular issues. Interesting. Yeah. This is one.

“This is one example of genes that they were looking at, I think, at DARPA and some of these other”

projects. These aren't things being utilized in medicine today. But this is the direction of the future. I really do believe that. They're going to solve a lot of these genetic traits and be able to figure out how to turn off and on these traits. Right. Certain variants in LRP5 gene interfere with eye blood vessel development causing familial exudative. What's that word? Can lead to vision loss. Vittro retinopathy, which can lead to vision loss. Mutations can cause

varying clinical presentations ranging from asymptomatic high bone density to severe skeletal fragility or blindness. One of the other, you said treatments that were doing. One of the things that I think is the most exciting thing that I have come across. I think you know where I'm going with this. In my entire time in healthcare is the muse stem cells. I don't know if you want me to talk a little bit about some more. For the listeners, because of you,

candidly, I get approached all the time from scientists, from doctors, from people going, "Hey, I've got this thing that's going to change the world. I only have to make sure you do."

You just never know. I had a company reach out and they're like, "Hey, we would love to meet

with you. We have a subphenotype of stem cell that we think is going to change the world." So I called Dr. White, you know, who's my chief science officer, and I have him vet these folks, and he's like, "Man, I don't know. It sounds too good to be true." They're like, "We would love for you guys to fly to Japan, meet with Mari, Deswana, and in here her lectures and tour the lab, and kind of see what she's been doing since 2010. We reviewed all the research, all the data,

all the literature, and it was mind boggling." So Ian and I helped on a plane and went to Japan back in September, and set down with Mari, and she was gracious enough to break down all of her research, answer Ian's questions, and I'm going to be clear. Like, we went there to debunk this yet. We thought there's no way that this is what she's presenting. It just seems too good to be true. And after sitting through those lectures and Mari enlighten us on all of her research and what she's

seen, I left there with Ian, and he looked at me and was like, "If this is real, this is going to change everything in the regenerative space." And Ian, I think, won regenerative scientist of the year last year in North America. He won some big award for this space, and Ian is a stem cell scientist,

“and but these muze stem cells are such a rare subset phenotype of stem cell. And so the best way to”

explain it is to try and break it down and like layman's terms is muze stands for multi-linearge, and the SE of muze stands for stress enduring. So what does that mean in like real-world talk? Mari in her book where she writes about these cells and how she discovered them, she was in the lab, she kept coming across this small outlier subset of stem cells that appeared to have a lot of unique qualities, but they were less than 2% of stem cells. So stem cells that are already a very

minute amount of the cells in our body have a subset phenotype called muze. She had to rush out to a dinner where in Japan where she ended up eating sushi and having sake, and forgot to put the cells back, take them off the petri dish and put them back in cryopres. She thought she'd go in the next day and everything would be dead. When she went in, because the cells don't last overnight, she goes in the next day into her surprise, all of those subset phenotype of cells were still alive,

a large majority of them were still alive, and she thought that can be possible. And that was in

“2010, and that's what began her research into what are muze. And so without getting two in the weeds,”

I'd love to like break down what it is, what makes it unique and why it's so promising.

If you're a game, because it's super cool. First and foremost, in medicine, they say,

regulators on the safety profile of traditional MSCs, traditional stem cells are extremely safe.

“And I've said this on your podcast before, Dr. Kaplan, who discovered traditional MSCs in an open”

letter to the scientific community, apologized, instead I should have never called them stem cells.

Because the problem with these cells is they don't differentiate. They don't become anything, that only happens in a petri dish. But in the body, they just signal to damage, and then they transfer their mitochondria, and they temporarily give your body an environment to heal faster and to recover. So they aren't truly regenerative in that they don't become a tendon. They don't become a neuron. And there's pros and cons to that. The pros are they don't become a cancer cell.

And that's the concern with pluripotency. And so the holy grail of what people have always looked for with stem cells were could we? For lack of a better term, fuck with these cells enough in a petri dish to create pluripotency where they can become something, but prevent tumor-genic behavior where they don't become a tumor or don't become a cancer. Low and behold, in 2010, what Mari discovered was this ultra-resilient subset of stem cell that holds those exact traits.

It was in us all along. It's always been in us. This wasn't created in a petri dish.

This is biology. This is the stem cell answer that has eluded scientists for decades. And it is so exciting because the multilineage, what does that mean? Multilineage just means these are pluripotent cells. Pluripotent multilineage is a bunch of fancy science talk for they can become anything. So the way I explain that is, you and I talked about this years ago, orthopedic surgeons would go, you know, I use bone marrow stem cells and I don't really get

“good results. And I think that you can't get real stem cells because those cells have an identity.”

And when you take bone marrow, the cells have already become a bone marrow cell and they're not going to differentiate and become something. So here to for they can't heal. There's some truth to that. They couldn't. They could just help regenerate or help. I guess optimize your body's healing through bringing down inflammation and potentially transferring mitochondria into your old tired weary cells. Where these cells are fundamentally different is think of it like a kindergarten. A kindergarten

can be anything. The world is that child's oyster. If they want to grow up and be a doctor, they can be a doctor. If they want to grow up and be an astronaut, they can be an astronaut. The traditional cells that doctors and clinicians have been using in America, they're already grown up. They've already chosen their identity. They already went to med school and they decided they're a doctor. You can't put those in the body and have them become something because they've already

developed their identity, their phenotype. These cells will literally go into the body and take on the

“phenotype of any damage cell. That would have so amazing and crucial about that to understand is”

if they come across a torn tendon cell, they become that tendon cell. If it's a bone marrow cell, they become a bone marrow. If it's a neuron, they can become a neuron. And the process that they do it through is also pretty fascinating. It's a commonly known process, but Fago Cytosis, don't say it three times fast. Fago Cytosis, essentially, in an even in that lane, this term is like, think of it like a Pac-Man. This is how Mari described it to me because she knows I'm an idiot.

And she's like trying to break it down in a way I can digest. She's like, I want you to think of a Pac-Man. Think of a damage cell like a neuron. This Pac-Man is going to go up, gobble up that neuron through the process of Fago Cytosis and take on all of the characteristics and code of that cell. Meaning, it will become a young, healthy version of the damaged cell. So, one, these cells are extremely safe in that they're non-tomogenic. In studies,

these cells had no, never became tumors in any of the studies that are ever done.

It furthermore, they treated mice that had pre-existing cancer. They did not only not exacerbate the tumors and many of the studies, the tumors shrunk. And I'm not here to say like, it's going to cure cancer, anything like that. The message is traditional MSEs are already extremely safe. And these MSEs appear to be even as safe if not more safe. And the only knock on traditional MSEs in real-world application, when utilized appropriately, is they have an immunomodular,

modulatory, immunomunity response, essentially, where 10 to 15 percent of people will get flu-like

like effective safety profile. What you saw with the mu cells in trials is zero percent.

“Literally, right now, nobody's even getting flu-like symptoms. And it's because these mu cells”

go above and beyond a, you know, like the ability to navigate your immune system and go into immunomodulating your immune system. So what do I mean by that? Martin did a study where she took mice, sutured in human livers into the mice's liver. The mice should reject that and die. They implant mu cells and the liver will accept the human liver for a period of time. They eventually rejected the liver, but it's able to immunomodulate. So think about this for a, a simple way to

explain it is the whole process I wrote down before, like when a mother's pregnant, that baby is technically a foreign body and the mother. So what in science stops that mother's body from

rejecting and killing the baby and her immune system attacking the baby? The answer is MSEs. The answer is

the, the, the, the juices of life that allow that mother's system to immunomodulate and

“not turn on the baby. So not only does it build up the mom's immune system and helps the mom”

reduce inflammation, reduce the like her risk of chronic disease and in all mortality cause is at an all-time low-wall pregnant. The risk of cancer is at an all-time low-wall pregnant. All of this goes back to MSEs and now we believe potentially mu cells. And so they're safe, they're non-tomogenic. They immunomodulate, meaning your body's not going to reject these cells. You're not going to have a huge risk. What's crazy is they're already using it in plastic surgery. This is what I saw.

They would take historically instead of, when we're using fillers and the reason they use fillers instead of fat is fat, lacks angiogenesis and those fat cells die and a lot of times the success rates not as high. So what they're doing into buy and these other nations is they're using mu's when they do a reconstructive surgery to reduce the risk that you have an immune response that rejects the fat tissue. So it encourages the body to accept that tissue and then helps those cells

build themselves back into your system and immunoregulate. So think about it for the future of like organ transplants. What this could mean if the science holds in practice of what they're seeing. But for the sake of conversation today, the point of saying all that is extremely safe, no risk of tumors, non-tomogenic, immunomodulating, meaning your body's not going to turn on it. It's not going to cause any sort of inflammatory response or flu-like symptoms.

So one of the safest versions of stem cells we've ever seen in the traditional cells are extremely safe themselves and then you get into the pluripotency. I mean this is the first cell other than the cells that have been altered that can truly become something.

And then the fourth and final thing that's really amazing about these cells is their honing abilities.

So traditional MSCs, what we've been using at waste well for the last five years, even with the great success we've had, they literally have a three to five percent and graphmet rate, meaning three to five percent of those cells make it to the side of damage and begin the healing process in the side of damage. And think about the results we've gotten. Now look at Muse. Muse have a 15 to 30 percent and graphmet rate. Muse are

literally half the size of traditional MSCs and they have the ability when administered intervenously to pass the lungs and make it to the side of inflammation and damage. They hone in at a much stronger rate than traditional MSCs. So the way to think of it is like you're taking a heat-seeking missile that's able to find exactly where the S-S-1-P-S-P-1 inflammation damage cell is, it's the signal that a cell sends out, hey, I'm damaged.

These Muse cells will navigate straight to those damage cells through phagocytosis, absorb that cell, take on its phenotype and be a young healthy vibrant version of that cell.

“And all this occurs within three days. So that's why you're seeing such crazy results”

into buy and overseas and these are the treatments that are coming into the U.S. that are going to be manufactured here on U.S. soil and utilized in states right now like Florida, Texas, Arizona, and the states that have built pathways that make this approachable for people. The hope is that we can build a regulatory pathway at the federal level that will allow accessibility to because what is definitively clear is these treatments, even the old MSCs, and purified

I mean, there's 30, 40 years of data on these products. They are safe. They are available in nature.

“They occur naturally. The question is, how efficacious are they? What disease states can they help with?”

And how much can they move the needle? And that's where this gets tricky because the FDA doesn't want people out there making claims and I understand that because there's so many people who are snake oil salesmen. And my thing is, I'm not here to make a claim. I'm just here to say accessibility is important because for the people who don't have any more lifeline left, who knows what this could do for them. For the patients battling some sort of neurocognitive issue, you know, these cells

are able to pierce into the mid-brain. I mean, and I have all these Jamie, a bunch of these studies, I have listed on Wastewell's website, just so I'm not throwing random stuff out there.

I think I listed a 7 or 8 of Mari does always studies that back everything that I'm saying.

But the premise is, you know, the future is bright and I think that muse will be an integral part of what we see here in the United States and the future of biologics. When we're talking about genes, these obviously are in the body, these cells. Is there a potential

“future where they could just turn these things on and not have to add exogenous cells?”

So here's the problem is you have a precipitous decline as you age, right? And so just like what we're seeing with peptides, you have a certain amount of these. And as you age, they appear to decline. The other thing that this is a crazy, so you've got this scientist, Dr. Dominic Doysher, out of Germany. Brilliant guy, Stanford trained. Hard went to Stanford. Hard did research at Stanford, went to Harvard, University of Munich, crazy background, 14 years of stem cell research.

He catches wind of what Mari's doing and he had been working on a study going, there appears to be this weird subset of stem cells that I can't figure out what they're doing, but they're not there in diabetic patients. When I look at patients that are diabetic, they don't have this subset. So what is this subset? And what is it doing? But he couldn't figure it out. He was on the

“cusp of figuring it out. And then he meets Mari and goes, oh my God, you literally figured out”

what the fuck I've been trying to solve for the last 14 years. The reason is these patients are diabetic and their system is so chronically riddled with inflammation and all these issues,

the environment or whatever it is, their lifestyle caused the decline and basically the end of

these cells. All their ability to heal was used up. Is that part of the reason other than just blood flow and the other challenges of diabetes? It could be one of the under causing attributes that are causing these diabetic patients to heal poorly, to be chronically inflamed. So it could be part of that equation. But what's fascinating is it also declines as we age. So you're going to see way more of these at birth, way less of these in your 30s,

probably non-existent by the time you're in your 40s and 50s. And so if we can take these cells, these goodies of life and we can administer them proactively and preventatively, they even did mitochondrial testing. I don't know if that studies released yet. If it is all added to the website, I'll find out from Mari, but they did a mitochondrial function test. One IV bag administration took one and a half years off the mitochondrial age.

And so I'm not saying that it reverses aging, but in these studies, it appears to have extreme mitochondrial benefits, which would logic to reason as to why we're seeing such phenomenal results with these treatments and where even, and I'm still a huge proponent of all of the traditional stuff we've been using. We've seen miraculous results with all of these different modalities. But I look at mu's and go, this is the holy grail of what we've been trying to find.

And Mari did it. Like she found it. She discovered it in 2010. They started using it in human patients in 2019. These products are being used every day in Dubai and overseas. People are flying over there and paying booku dollars to these clinics to get treatments with mu's cells. In fact, one of the sheaks of United Arab Emirates, or one of those, his son got in a car wreck. He literally was in the hospital. This is a true story. They said he's done. Pull the plug. Harvest is organs.

Dominic was able to get a hold of the hospital. The German scientist and say, hold on, can you guys do a call with Mari? I may have a solution. They treated a kid who had been

brain here anymore. They treat this kid with intravenous mu's cells and his brain function has come back.

“He's not talking, but he's responding to his mother. He's moving his hands. They're no longer”

looking to harvest his organs. And this is a catastrophic example. But in a more real world, relevant example is in Japan. They used it with children who were born with encephalitis. And what they saw is these children who are left untreated will definitively have neurocognitive issues and defects, the mental retardation. The children treated with mu's within eight days of birth. All of those children had normal brain function. All of them. And so

the studies beyond that. And then you get into what they saw in hearts, what they saw in myocardial

infarctions, like you just go down the list. And there's so much promising data. And there's a

decade worth of it. It just hasn't made it into the U.S. yet. And these are technologies and scientists

“and modalities that are going to be adopted in the near future at minimal at the state level.”

And then hopefully at the federal level. Because it's, they're already looking, we know like I said, Secretary Kenny's looking to open the regulatory pathway for stem cells. And mu's are just a subset of that same class. But an even safer, more efficacious version from what we're seeing in all of the trials. And what's so exciting is that as more research develops, more these things are going to emerge. They're going to keep the gene therapies, mu's cells. It's going to continue to compound.

Well, and then you've got guys like Ryan who go, if you could take a mu's cell and a cell that could be anything, right? And it already has it's ready to learn what if you can take a mu's cell and you can teach it to be exactly what you want it to be. And then you administer that cell into the body, but you've already given it its commands. You've already taught it that it wants to be a doctor, right? It wants to be whatever it is. Maybe you make sure that it's a neuron. Again,

I'm, I'm, I'm way over my skis on this part because I'm a business guy. I'm just breaking down what the scientists are saying. And all of it's exciting and promising to me. Because again, we've had such phenomenal results with traditional MSCs. You know, with traditional, in all mu's are, are this subset phenotype of supersold your cell. They're more resilient. And so the second part of mu's is stress enduring. So what the whole point is, Mari has a chapter in her book called

"Sake in Science." Because through drinking sake, she realized that there was an element of the

science behind this that she would have never uncovered had she not gone to that dinner. She would have

never realized that these cells appear to be ultra resilient. They can ship these cells at room temperature and they're viable for weeks. Whereas traditional cells, we've got to keep cryopreserved and ship on dry ice. So from an administration standpoint, from a logistical standpoint, from an efficacy standpoint, from a safety standpoint, all of this could be so game-changer. So then the next question just becomes, how do we build a regulatory pathway in this country

that allows accessibility so that Americans aren't having to go to other nations? And to state, some of the states are doing it. But ideally, it would be optimal to work with the federal government to build those same pathways at the federal level now that the states have already jumped onboard. Yeah, that's so fascinating. It's a cool time. Yeah, it's awesome. I'm telling you, and the stuff, it's hard because, again, I'm not a clinician. I don't ever, I'm not, I don't want to make claims. I don't

want it to be, I am very excited about this, but I want to temper my excitement because I have to be cautious to say, I don't want to give people false hope. You know, we don't know. The science is very early, but it is very promising on a lot of different things. And we've already had a mint success on orthopedic injuries, knees, shoulders, elbows using traditional MSCs that can't differentiate, right? They're just transferring mitochondria and temporarily putting your body in a position to heal.

These mucells differentiate, so they literally are regenerative cells that become the broken cell that allow your body to heal. I mean, and what we do with that and what the future holds with

“that, the sky's the limit. Wow. That's amazing. And that's why I just think, eventually,”

we're going to get to a point where it's like, do we really prescribe everyone to throw chemical drugs to fix problems? Because the genetic side of the world and the stem cell side of the world and

model side and wearables and the ability to track in real time. But this is where you're going to

“find the resistance, because there's so much money in the petrochemical drugs. When this is”

what's challenging with the stem cell stuff, even like, if they don't work, people are not going to spin their heart or in paycheck, right? And that's the challenge. Like, I understand the FDA stands on safety and again, the historic FDA stands on not even this new administration. This new administration has made it clear. Their plan is to open up the regulatory pathways on peptides and stem cells and cash pay products into figure out a pathway that makes sense for the American

people while still honoring the safety and integrity of what they're trying to implement on a

grander scale. But do we need to go through the level of rigorous, you know, multi-billion dollar

process on something that can't really be patented or if it's safe in the safety profiles proven and it's readily available in nature, does it make sense to grandfather these treatments and

“into allow patients compassion at use, right? If you're battling a chronic disease and you're”

going to die, what is the harm in seeing if this can help? If you're battling dementia or Alzheimer's, you know, that's another huge one. Like, traditional MSCs are too big to pass the blood brain barrier, muze MSCs can be internationally administered and immediately go into the blood brain barrier and in trials, they were able to see the muze cells 18 months later, lit up like a Christmas tree in the mid-brain. The reason that's important is mid-brain is where Parkinson's and so many of these

neuro-cognitive disease states reside and where most of the dysfunction is occurring. And so yeah, there's a lot of promise. I'm excited about it. I think muze are going to be a big opportunity here in America to drive meaningful change. It's just a matter of, you know, win and how they're available into what capacity. You're going to see these things springing up at the state level. They're already happening all over outside the United States. It's just a little bit

“different market here with the regulatory landscape. Oh, that's what's frustrating is that they are”

being utilized effectively overseas. Yeah. And you think about how many people do have people that are in the hospital, do have chronic illness, do have these problems that could be fixed here. Yeah. And like, let's get it going guys. Yeah. I'm telling you, man, I get such an exciting amount. It's super exciting. Yeah, it's super exciting. And hopefully it's not too boring for the listeners. It's just it's complicated stuff. So I want to try to say it's not boring at all, man.

Don't don't talk about this as anything else you want to cover. Now the other is just you said some of the treatments, you know, one of the ones that I heard Dana White talk about and he had said, well, you got to go to Mexico is plasma for recess. Like we have plasma for recess here in Austin, Texas. We use it. We added it to the clinic. I guess three months ago, plasma for recess is also known as therapeutic plasma exchange. Essentially, we run your blood through a dialysis machine.

It's been used for over 50 years. It's used at the Mayo Clinic. It's used at all of these various academic institutions. It just hasn't been used for longevity, right? And in an insurance model where you're trying to get a reimbursement rate, you've got to have an indication, but in a cash pay model, and this is where the world is your oyster. And a cash pay model, a clinician and you the patient can make a decision that you want to get proactive and predictive. And you want to run your body,

your blood through a plasma for recess machine, and basically isolate out within the plasma itself,

the liquid are all the inflammatory markers, all the leftover bad stuff that you don't want in your blood. So for me as a 45-year-old male, I've got 45 years of all the attrition and stuff that's in my system. You get 70% of that out through one therapeutic plasma exchange utilizing the plasma for recess machine. And so what we'll do is we'll extrapolate out your systematically your plasma and replace it with young healthy protein called all-bumin. And then where we go an additional

step at waste well is we're developing a protocol where we also add in the MSCs and all in peptides and all of the things that are missing from all-bumin, right? So there's two different train of thoughts. And I have these listed to Jamie on the website. There's a bunch of different studies. Plasma for recess have been studied for over 50 years. It's just not been utilized for like longevity and preventative care. It's used more for systematic inflammatory issues. There's even

related. So there's a bunch of fascinating stuff on that. But the premise of plasma for recess

is think of it like an oil change for your body. We're going to take out 70% of all the bad stuff that's floating around in your blood. We're going to replace that blood with young healthy out-bumin. And then what we're attempting to do is stack it with our own protocol where we add in MSCs, extra cellular vesicles, all of these cellular goodies that are readily available at birth that have a precipitous decline as we age. What is this concealed therapy low-reconner? Plasma

“exchange removes synthetic chemicals from humans. So is this like BPCs and that kind of shit?”

What it's yeah, what it's doing is it's the goal is to remove all the extra stuff that's in

your system that you don't need and this study is pretty interesting because it breaks down what they saw.

Here's a real-world example. Our mutual friend, Philip Franklin Lee. And I asked him if I can talk about this. Look at this. Compound such as bisphenol, plasticisers and thalates. Yep. Endocrine disruptors. They're associated with the intake of ultra-process foods due to at least in part to their packaging material. So this is the stuff that Dr. Chana Swans talked about. They're endocrine disruptors. So crazy. Philip and he's talked about this on his podcast. Philip came in

chronically tired, super low testosterone. I can't remember the exact number. He talked about on his podcast, but he was shocked to elbow his testosterone. It was like 80 or 90. It was really, really low.

We did a micro-plastics test and he had the most freaking micro-plastics that we've ever seen.

Well, he saw that sushi and so he's wrapped the plaster now. Right. So we ran that test and then it was through the roof and it scared him and Philip stopped drinking out of plastic bottles, took a very like measured approach to trying to be aware of how much plastic he could inadvertently be consuming and then we ran him through ways to well-protocols. Not only can we quantify it through his testing, which I think he posted on his Instagram, we quantified how much we reduced the

level of micro-plastics. Phillips testosterone without being on any testosterone is at 1200. All of that information and shit that was in his system was causing chronic inflammation, chronic fatigue, running down his immune system and causing all of these cascade effects that led to him essentially having a low testosterone. How many people out there are, oh shit. Well,

“that's what it's like. Like so many people come in and go, what do you have that can help me?”

And this is what's challenging, too. This is another thing I want to point out about the challenge of like not making claims or understanding the nuance. We saw this with the psychedelic attempt to get psychedelics through the FDA. One of the things that they wanted to do in the psychedelic trials was provide psychiatric, was the integration. So you come out the other end of a mushroom journey and you talk to a therapist and you walk through what you experience to process your thoughts

and emotions. The system's not built to do that because now you're taking two different things in attempting to build a build, build master code and get an indication. Well, if I'm united, I'm going to go, well, how do I know it wasn't just the therapy? Or maybe it was just the mushrooms, why am I paying the therapist? Right. And so that's one of the challenges when people go, what do you have for micro-plastics? What's tough is a lot of people come in and they go,

hey man, I'm going to do the hockey and I'm going to do the plasma for recess and I want to do MSCs and I want you to bring down my inflammation and so so many people are doing multiple modalities. What I'm saying is it's working but which one is the needle mover or is it an attrition of all of them? You know, that's where this gets tough and that's where I want to track and do a better job of tracking and quantifying individuals who just do one test or one treatment or one aspect of

what we're doing at waste. Well, which ones move in the needle the most because so many people want to try everything. Right. There are you here. They're already flew in. So they're like, yeah, let me do this today, this tomorrow, this and then they all report back. I'm feeling phenomenal.

“I feel the best I've felt but they did five things. I don't know which one was the one. Does it matter?”

Yeah. So long as it's providing a benefit. So it's good to know but yeah. Listen, man, thank you so much for everything. I'm so happy you're out there and this is so exciting. All this is so exciting and I'm glad we have another opportunity to talk to you about this shit because it's really impactful. You're the man and if you wouldn't have had me on here to talk about this, I wouldn't have got to meet Secretary Kennedy and we wouldn't be in a position and I will tell you not being hyperbolic.

If you weren't here and fighting for peptides and accessibility and you hadn't given me a platform,

There's so many people on the opposite side of the aisle that it's a tough thing to navigate

“and it takes somebody who knows and has been in the industry enough to explain it,”

hopefully in a way that resonates where we can get things done. But we'll see.

Well, it's exciting. Yeah, thank you. I'm thankful. I appreciate your fishing side. Bye.

Do you think it's all right?

Yeah, exactly.

“This story is like a story of a story that is just a story.”

A Garlop Studio, Job or Unzug. A Stim? Cras? It doesn't feel like a story. A story is a story?

Save. With this story, yeah.