Joe Rogan Experience #2469 - Brigham Buhler

Joe Rogan podcast, check it out. >> The Joe Rogan Experience. >> TRAIN BY DAY, JOE ROGAN PODCAST BY. NIGHT. All day. >> Good. Good to see you, my friend. >> Hey, thanks for having me. We're back. >> My pleasure, always. Um. lots going on, man. >> [laughter]. >> There is a lot going on, per the usual. >> I got allergies, dude. You hear. me? >> Oh, yeah, you sound stuffed up. I was. going to ask. >> I was like, am I getting sick? And then.

I worked out, I'm like, no, I feel. great. Like physically, I feel great. But I'm. >> I don't know what's 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 [snorts] getting it. And then about 4 years in, I started. getting these horrible sore throats and. stuffy noses. Is there a peptide for that? >> [laughter]. >> When I first moved here, the cedar. killed me. I mean, because Houston doesn't have.

cedar, so it was pine trees in Houston, and moving to Austin, the cedar 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. colostrum. I take colostrum, that armra. >> Yeah, you can tell a difference? >> Yeah. Yeah. Makes a big difference. Yeah, if you take it a lot. >> [snorts]. >> Take it every day, stay. consistent. >> Yeah, I think all of that stuff, there's. benefits that so many people overlook. >> I know.

So, we were talking. Um what's the latest? >> Um man, so I know you just had Secretary. Kennedy on a few weeks ago. >> Yeah. >> Um the latest is. you know, hot off the press as of. yesterday, um I know the administration. is still working diligently to. reclassify peptides. I know that 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. Um, and I know I said this [snorts] 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, I've for the first time in my. life over the last decade of. 20-something years of being in health. care, you know, the. during 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 stonewalled 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 is 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. >> Yeah. >> I mean, there's millions of people right. now that are taking peptides and it's. radically improved their health and. their vitality. >> Yeah, I agree. Yeah. And and me, too. Like I again, I was 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 [laughter]. 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 get. my blood work annually and I follow the. doctor's rules, you know, the system's just not built that way.". Um 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, I've had that opportunity. thanks to this administration and. Secretary Kennedy and uh.

you know, his his right-hand girl uh. Stephanie Spear has been integral in. setting meetings and and trying to move. the needle. Um Marty Makary, 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. Um and. Marty, he really is he I don't know if. Have you ever read his book? >> No. >> Uh 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 what he's saying is.

dogma and. that medicine is so worried about. defending. their principles and where they stand. that they're 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 talk topic, you know, when. I had the opportunity to meet with uh. Marty on this topic, he said, "Look,

Brigham, I didn't really use peptides in. my practice. I was a surgeon. You know, 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." Um 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, 5 years ago, where. I came on and said, "All the 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-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. >> And this is the one that you illuminated. and you've helped quite a few of my. friends understand. So, please expand. >> Yeah. Um 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 350, um during that climb from zero to 350, you can increase uh in theoretically uh. the risk of exacerbating a prostate. cancer that's pre pre.

existing uh was the fear. But, as you. push past that level to optimal levels, you begin to insulate against. uh 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. Um with an abundance of. caution, some urology practices for. patients who have had radical. prostatectomies are reluctant to. prescribe testosterone. But, testosterone in no way, shape, or form.

is causing prostate cancer. Um it's a. receptor site thing. So, the the best. way to explain is you can only water a. plant so much, right? 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. uh cancer reduction that testosterone. appears to provide. And that's why the. FDA's 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 why was the one. person chemically castrated? >> I don't know why. This is in the '30s, but since then, here's a really. real-world example. With the boom in. testosterone therapy, if there was an. increased risk in prostate cancer due to. hormones, you would have seen a. skyrocket in the amount of prevalence of. prostate cancer in 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 offhand. Um. and that that correlates exactly the. same into the patient population that is. on hormones. >> Well, the reality is like everybody dies. with some form of pros- prostate cancer, right? >> Uh I don't know. I didn't know that. Yeah. >> I I heard Huberman talk about that. Like you have a certain amount of it. It's just like.

>> It really became dogma. I mean, the. study is. >> understand about the study, like so what. was the conclusion of the study? >> of the study was if we treat. >> [snorts]. >> uh men with testosterone, we'll see a. rise in. uh. in in the precursor hormone that we were. worried could correlate to increasing. the risk of prostate cancer. >> And was this only 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 watered, it can't take on. any more water. So, from zero, no testosterone, which is. chemically castrated, you're miserable, you have no sexual function, you're at. increased risk of all these other. chronic diseases that can kill you, um. but [snorts] you're insulated from. prostate cancer cuz 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 exacerbating your.

prostate cancer. >> Well, so how was this whole opinion. based on this one study from the 1930s. and just repeated ad nauseam for. decades? >> Well, I mean, it wasn't debunked, I. think, until the '90s with uh famous. prominent urologist uh Dr. Morgentaler, 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 exacerbate or.

create additional issues. And so, that. it was debunked in the '90s and then I. would even go further to say you. launched I think Pfizer launched. testosterone cream in like 1990. something I don't remember and millions. of men went on testosterone creams. If. it was exacerbating prostate cancer you. would have seen it then too. And so now. retrospectively. a hundred years later literally a. hundred years later the FDA and our. regulatory oversight bodies um are now. changing their lens on men and women's.

HRT. >> It's just so crazy that doctors I've. heard doctors. >> Oh I know. >> you have to be cautious about the. potential prostate cancer. >> Yeah. >> Like where do you get this? Like and. then you tell them and well there was a. study and so this is the study they're. talking about three people one of them. dropped out. one of them was kind of chemically. castrated and. >> You got it. >> and that guy didn't even get prostate. cancer. >> so none of these moving forward [snorts]. um. uh Dr. or Admiral Brian Christine is uh.

over the men's health initiatives over. at the FDA and he's a prominent. urologist who has years and years of. practice of using testosterone. Marty I. think even covered uh hormone therapy in. his book Blind Spot. Again it's a prime. example of the dogma of medicine. Um. myth becomes reality right and misnomer. 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 uh which is. crazy to think. >> Yeah that's what it sounds like. That's. what it's nuts. It does sound like urban. legend. >> Uh another another quote that like. resonated with me from Blind Spot was. Marty's book was literally uh. it it's confusing uh what was it dogma. with consensus right when when everyone. group think is dangerous when it is. considered consensus because group think.

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 to back your peers, to. don't to tow the line. Um and we've seen that for the last. what? 20, 30 years. Uh if you step out. of line and even even back to, you know, originally what spurred this were. peptides. I think a lot of what happened with. peptides are that this system is built.

under an an entire ecosystem. It cost 1 billion to 3 billion dollars. to bring a drug to market are the. numbers that are out there. Anywhere. from 1 to 3 billion dollars. Now, they're taking into 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 a uh. 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. uh at innovation and accessibility. um under the name of like protection and. safety. Um but in reality, a huge. percentage I guess one of the things. that academia will say or some of the.

naysayers around peptides will say is. you know, the issue with peptides is. there's not human control trials. The. issue with peptides is there's not. enough safety data. Um we recently. provided the FDA with over 800 different. studies that have been done on an array. of the of the 19 peptides that were. banned under the Biden administration. Um we've also made them aware that we've. submitted 17 FOIA requests to the. previous administration that were never. responded to, just seeking clarity and. answers. Where were you seeing safety.

issues? Because in clinical practice, we just weren't. Um, and and I can tell you at Wasteland. now, we're at over 90,000 patients. nationwide and peptides were an integral. part of our of of the practice at. Wasteland. We did not see a bunch of. adverse events. Um, the silence I think speaks for itself. I. think a lot of it is dogma and confusion. and the the process itself of bringing a. drug to market, where I was going with.

that is. um, I'm not asking the FDA or a governing. body to pay for this for patients, right? It's it's a nuanced difference. that I think even regulators are. struggling to wrap their head around. We're not asking for Medicare or. Medicaid dollars. We're not asking for. Tricare 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 moat around their. uh, 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. um and they've been convicted of a crime. they never committed. Uh 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. >> Mhm. Okay, so we should also clarify. that when we're talking about peptides. and peptides being dangerous,

GLP-1s are peptides. >> Correct. >> is a gigantic market right now. I mean, you're seeing all these ladies that look. like they're cutting weight to make the. UFC flyweight division. You know, it's. you're you're seeing everybody that it's. on these peptides is losing weight. Like, I don't know if Oprah's on them, but she lost a ton of weight. I know. there's. you know, there's a bunch of celebrities. that you see that get Ozempic face. >> Yeah. >> You know. >> many I so many influencers, too, on the. academia side go online and go, "I just.

I would never prescribe peptides cuz I'm. a board-certified clinician and I only. prescribe things that have science and. data that back them." And you know, a. lot of times I'd say, "Man, you you. might just be uneducated on this topic. and the nuances of this topic." Um 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. Uh 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/joerogan, 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. That's an. $111. value at drinkag1.com/joerogan. >> Well, this was the big challenge during. COVID, right? With hydroxychloroquine. and with ivermectin. >> 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 off-label, that's. less expensive, and then it finds out. they find out it's effective, then. you'll get less And then it gets public, you find out there's less people that. are taking whatever pharmaceutically. approved drug. >> Correct. And so, what what created this. backlash or momentum against peptides, candidly, were the GLP-1 weight loss. drugs. So, I do want to put them in two. different buckets, cuz there's the. 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 pharma is real. It's real and. it's intense and it is not going away. >> [snorts]. >> And so to put myself in the shoes of 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 Lilly 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 look at it and go God man poor big. pharma they spent 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. >> How is that legal? >> It's it's nuts. >> That is wild. >> Yeah it's nuts and so I was trying to. explain to you know the the existing. team at HHS zoom out.

The system as much as you are being told. failed and let Big Pharma down and. allowed people to come in and infringe. upon infringe upon these patents, the. truth of the matter is the FDA sent out. the bat signal and said, "We can't meet. the meet need 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, "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 7x the value. of their company. They're worth $800. billion. They are They literally are worth 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 I'm a legislator and I've. got somebody telling me these guys hurt. us to the tune of $7 billion. And I know. that's what they're telling these. legislators cuz I've met with the.

legislators at the state and federal. level. And then I have to go, "Well, hold on.". The entire compounding sector only does. $7 billion. GLP-1s 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's not nearly as. large today. And you also shut down. 503Bs, which is half of the compounding. industry's ability to make these. compounds. The truth of the matter is. it's about 1.5 to 2 billion dollars. 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. dollars in just GLP-1 drugs this year in. revenue. So, you're you're talking an accounting. error for Big Pharma. And the reason I. want to lay all that out is I'm not here. to argue about the GLP-1s. 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 as biologics. It allows them. to extend the patent for 10 to 12 years. Uh 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 move to the. next thing? And in one breath, you've. got big pharmaceutical companies saying. I'll use Lilly again as an example cuz. they're the main culprit. Lilly is. saying peptides are dangerous.

They're getting the API from China. We. shouldn't allow these compounders to. make peptides. Meanwhile, Eli Lilly just signed a 7 billion dollar. deal to acquire a peptide company out of. China. China. So, Lilly's buying a peptide. company from China while lobbying. government officials and saying 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'd 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. you're Big Pharma and I I it was like 31. million dollars that that industry used. in lobbying power last year as an. industry. Uh. dollars equal accessibility, access.

accessibility equals impressionability, and impressionability equals outcomes. It's like trying to win a debate where I. get 1 minute and the opposition gets 9. minutes. And in the 1 minute, I've got. to debunk all the lies that the. opposition told. Not even want to use. the word lies. You can use facts. But. like we've said before, there you know, like facts can be skewed when delivered. inappropriately. If you say they cost us. $7 billion and we spent $3 billion to. 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. and funding campaigns and trying to. influence those folks. But the truth is. yeah, you if you take into account all. the drugs they didn't make it and you. want to cook the books, you can make it. look like you spent 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 Lilly and Novo. Nordisk. There 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 I when I met when I had the. privilege of meeting with Marty Makary. 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? >> Um so they uncover like uh example with. antidepressants depressants, they. realize the suicidal ideation in. 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. >> even close to exercise. >> It's it's literally exercise is six to. sevenfold more efficacious than an. antidepressant. >> 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 SRI. 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 profiteer off of treating the. symptoms of chronic disease. It's become. a prescription management system, not a. healthcare system. And that's the big. challenge. This is an entire paradigm. shift that I I don't know if all.

regulators truly understand. Um, 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. is fundamentally changed. Like the view. on the from that I've seen is people do. now question authority. People do now. question just because something came. through the FDA doesn't mean it's safe. And just because something hasn't gone. through the FDA approval process doesn't. mean that it's 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-1s. 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. Um. but they're not arguing against the. patent. >> Let me ask you this. So, uh 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. >> Yeah. I mean, well, what would happen? >> be a giant business. >> It'd be a giant business. And And it is. going to be a giant. >> Price would raise a little bit. >> But also, the availability would. skyrocket, and you would start seeing. commercials on CNN. BPC 157 helps soft. tissue injuries. Helps this, helps that. Then you'd show fit people at the beach. jogging. >> Yeah. Yeah. And then wait wait I'm I. agree with you, but the 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. Um. there's the traditional system, the sick. care system. That system is controlled. by insurance, big pharmaceutical. companies, and regulators. Whether. intentional or unintentional, the system. was cooked. It's 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 and. 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 then we go. >> Just those facts are so crazy. >> It It's nuts. 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 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 and 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 tests 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 And I've I've. said this time and time again, you've. got to view 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, 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. ecosystem's just not built to do that. And so, my my message and what I'm. trying to work for is 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're not. under prescribed. I think that's pretty. abundantly clear. The average American's. on four or more prescription drugs. Like. we can't prescribe our way out of this. Yes. >> a real number? >> Yes. Four. >> The average American is on four or more.

prescription drugs? >> And and which is insane. And it is. because we're a prescription-first. society, right? And and we've covered. this before, so I hate to beat a dead. horse, but like when a primary care has. 6 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 lb overweight. I'm depressed. I'm. anxious. I'm [snorts] 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. GLP-1." And they push them 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 diagnostics. So many men come. in depressed. You're not really It's not. It's not I'm not to trivialize your. depression. It isn't that you're. depressed. It's that you have a hormonal. imbalance and your hormones are so. wrecked that you're obese. Are you obese. because your hormones are wrecked, or.

are your hormones wrecked 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. Roll's a prime example. If you were to. go to a primary care, they would have. immediately put him on a GLP-1. He's 500. lb. You know. >> Right. >> And they would have put him on a battery. of drugs. When [clears throat] 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 wins 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 the first 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 Attias hundred something. thousand dollars to be my client that. only the richest Americans can afford, and you're going to get top-tier care, and I'm going to provide concierge. medicine. [snorts]. Well, 99.99% of America can't afford. that. And then you've got the Hims of the. world that are going the route of a pill.

mill. Like, candidly, they're it 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. hand 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 health span? I 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. You. go to him, get him on a weight loss drug. and you hope and hope for the best and. you push him out the door. In 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. able to capture how are you trending? We. even added a scale that ties into the. app that will allow you to manage your.

not just your BMI, but literally almost. like a DEXA with like a 1 to 2%. variability rate, we can tell you how. much lean fat, how much visceral fat, how 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's 5 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 in a sea of. diagnostic measuring sticks. So, the future for me is how do we make. it affordable and how do we make this. where 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 Hims, if you got it from. Function Health, 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 let me 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. 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 what I. >> but you are. 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, if these are public. companies, they have an obligation to. their shareholders. They have to. maximize their profits. And you know, it's so hippie to say this. The. root of all evil, it's it's real. I. mean, that is a real thing. Like, there's nothing 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. Wild Health 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. better. I know I see the look on your. face when people get better. I love this. I know you do. >> I really love it. And like Denise and I. said from day one, I've known Denise. I mean, 20-something years, man. And. when we started [snorts] this, I she's.

my Jiminy Cricket because. even if I ever wanted to make it about. money, she's never making it She's such. a patient care advocate. And And we 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 think can't thank. you enough, but you know, you can't.

onboard [snorts] 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 Hims scaling. nationwide? They're PE-backed. BlackRock. 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 plasmapheresis 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 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 and to 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. And so, like, there is never going to be. anything more meaningful to a person.

than another human supporting them, caring for them, 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 are. 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 girl on a. bunch of peptides, and we push them out. the door? And that is one of the. challenges of even this emerging market. is people are compromising pretty. quickly. And 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 Hims right now, but I I. tried explaining this to Secretary.

Kennedy administration. Hims 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 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 assuming that it was an accident. >> they violate the law? What did they do?

>> You're not to uh. So, when you're compounding medication, you have to use the compounded name, the. generic name, not the the molecule's. name, not the brand name. So, it'd be. like saying, "We have Kleenex for. cheaper than Kleenex, 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 uh if. you're if you're compounding, you're not. supposed to market direct to consumers.

like Big Pharma 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 [snorts] horse was set. It created an extreme backlash from. regulators, both senators, congressmen, congresswomen, politicians from all. different walks of life came out saying, "This is unacceptable. All of these. people making black market peptides and. GLP-1s 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? Hims inks a deal with. Novo Nordisk to bring the pharmaceutical. drug to their practice and have a sole. source agreement. So, they they set a. landmine in the middle of all. compounders. And I'm trying to explain. to the administration, you got to 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 even in the last. decade of any stock price, uh Hims has shot through the roof. because they inked the deal. with Novo and said, "Now we're going to. provide you with the uh 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 2. weeks. So the backlash came, a huge. uproar against but and this is. the reason this is so important is I was. literally doing calls with the. administration 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 must have been. >> they make this announcement and stock. roars and you know, everyone goes, "Oh,

congrats Hims." And it's like, "No, this. was I I and we'll find out because there. is a there's a huge class action lawsuit. now, an antitrust lawsuit that's going. on. I think Lee Rosenbush and his firm. brought it forward. He's a. uh. a guy who's academically trained, uh I. think ran the 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 the in this industry and in this. sector and he's asking a lot of.

questions and I think his firm filed a. lawsuit against Hims 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 you know, 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 [snorts] is. regulators and politicians are looking. and going, "God, man, yeah, these guys. did bad things." No, the guys that were. doing the bad things already inked their. backroom deal and rode 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 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, he tweeted. this I think before or right when he. took over, "Save your bag 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 line with the FDA,

I have just a more. I mean, I 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. Well, we don't really know cash. pay. Well, we don't really Right? The. whole model is get a drug approved, it.

costs billions of 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. Tricare. That's a whole fundamental different. when you're talking about even like. let's shelf peptides 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 existing much like. Uber did with taxis, and you let this go. this way, and you dry you drag race it against. this way, and let's see who can prevent. chronic disease. >> Well, the problem is it killed taxis. >> Yeah. >> a bad example. >> Well, I think Well, in the the question. is which model's going to be better for.

humanity and which model's going to take. cost out of the system. 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 bill insurance companies or I can. bill Medicare, Medicaid, or Tricare. 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 Favre and I'm. diagnosed with an advanced stage of. Parkinson's disease, and it's a kiss of 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. uh 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 that the vast majority of. Americans are going to use that anyway. >> Yeah. >> 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, you know, I mean, it's still a small. percentage of just America. >> Yeah. >> The 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 business as 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 How. much did you make? >> Yeah. >> This episode is brought to you by. Athletic Brewing. Athletic Brewing. Company's 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've got a.

ton of different styles. You get the. ritual, you still get the taste, just. without the hangover. They've got. everything: goldens, IPAs, light brews, even this dude 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. athleticbrewing.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. >> They're they're not You know what I. mean? >> Well, that was my point. Like, so. >> Right. They're not losing any money. >> If you give those bad facts to a. politician or a regulator, they go, "Oh. my god. They cost you $7 billion. You.

made $800 billion. Your market cap is. eight You 7x your company. Novo Nordisk. 3 or 4x their company in a literally a. 3-year timeframe. These are some of the. most [snorts] 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 in a way,

like, so to overregulate based off And then. And that's that's the argument with the. GOP ones in one bucket. My argument, you. know, for allowing compounders to continue to. make these patient-specific, are you. need to allow patients to be able to. titrate up and titrate 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 uh. handle the uh.

delivery mechanism. I mean, there's. dozens of different reasons why you. would want to provide an alternative. life raft. >> Um can you explain the titrate up and. titrate down thing? >> Yeah, so historically, the GLP-1's came. in preset dosages. Um and so patients. did not have a way to uh titrate up or. down. And so a lot of clinicians who. wanted to microdose would use a. compounding pharmacy to prescribe those. medications and allow patients. uh more flexibility on how they dose.

their GLP-1. >> Because some of the catastrophic side. effects come from a large dose. >> Correct. Um now, as this thing evolves, the question. becomes where do we go with this, right? Because uh essentially, most compounding. has has shut down GLP-1's 503B's, which. B stands for bulk, like big mass. production, I can sell big bulk items to. hospitals or to clinics. The. government's come in and said they're. not allowed to make the the weight loss. drugs anymore. So, it's now limited down. to just 503A's,

which are patient-specific, which is. like what I do, like we make medications. unique to the patient, personalized. medicine. Um and so that's a much more. niche. uh percentage of the market. And again, even that, you're talking in the heyday, maybe $2 billion for the whole industry, right? Um. on a company that's, you know, worth. $800 billion and 7x the revenue, everything's going to be okay. Like. everyone's [clears throat] going to be. okay. Patients had accessibility and.

affordability. uh and I think the battle cry from the. big pharmaceutical [snorts] 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? >> Yeah. >> There is an issue. with accessibility and there's an issue. with black market. >> Correct. >> Right. There 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 when you take. them like uh CJC Ipamorelin you could. feel it when you take it. I know people. that have bought stuff online they say I. don't think this stuff is legit cuz it's. not doing anything once I take it. I. don't feel that you know that weird. flushing response. They don't feel it at. all. >> Um. >> And they've asked me for advice and I'm. like. >> No, I love I love that you had cuz I. actually had had the privilege of of. giving this you know message to uh Marty.

McCary at the FDA and and also Chris. um Klump who have been receptive to at. least hearing the other side of the. equation and and they're to be clear. when it comes to peptides Chris, Marty, Stephanie. uh. Spear. Bobby, all of them are aligned. Like. peptides I'm being told are done. It's. just a matter of when. Um I don't have. that timeline but it's a huge win. It. because it goes so much bigger. I cannot.

stress Joe how close. preventative longevity based medicine. was to being done. Because if you shut. down all compounders throughout the. country and they've already gone after. the black and gray market that the FBI. has shown up at these people's doors. >> And if Kennedy wasn't the secretary. and if the Maha movement hadn't started. >> It's over. >> It's over. >> It's over. >> So, if the if Kamala Harris wins. It's totally Yeah. >> And on that. the even here in Texas, this is where.

this is crazy. Um. I've gotten to know several of the. congressmen, congresswomen. Uh Lacy Hull. is a congresswoman here in Texas. Uh. Senator Kolhorst, I I believe she's over. the healthcare committee for the Senate. Senator Kolhorst 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. Um which is crazy. to think. So, when I laid this out for. uh. for uh. Marty, um one of the things I explained. were. 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 cat's out of the bag. Everyone knows. what they were. They got a taste of the. efficacy and the benefits, and patients. aren't going to stop using them. So, right now, four out of five peptides. being filled are being filled through. gray or black market solutions. When Eli. Lilly and Novo throw out a $7 billion. number, where they're cooking the books. is they're not telling legislators that. a lot of that is gray and black market.

Four out of five, meaning there is no. clinician in the chain of custody. >> The majority. >> The majority. Four out of five. >> $7 billion is black market. >> And the And And again, even in the black. market. >> real. >> And yes, and I want to be clear, I'm not. Even in the black market, I know and. I've 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 is the percentage? Roughly. >> Um. >> [snorts]. >> a large percentage is off, like it and. sometimes dosed higher, you know, so. think about if you were to get like a. GOP-1 and you're injecting a dosage. that's 2x. what it should be, right? You could have. muscle wasting or all sorts of. catastrophic events. >> And this is just 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 were 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, ODs or 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. and 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 on for. anybody. And this was about 8 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 of. retatrutide, the next blockbuster GLP-1. that is in the works uh and. >> that? >> Yeah. So, retatrutide is a is a triple. agonist being developed by Eli Lilly. And so, it hits three different receptor.

sites. It has less muscle wasting, uh. 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 through phase three trials. Um it's not commercially available. So, we we got a letter 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 follow.

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 uh. five times in 4 years. The states have. been in my building every year and I'm. in 47 states. So, almost every state. come We're literally in an inspection. all the time. Um. 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 uh ingredient manufacturers. >> What does API stand for? >> Uh it's pharmaceutical ingredients. It's. just the base product used to compound a. medication. Um. None of those checks and balances happen. in the gray and black market. Again, it's not saying that all those guys are. bad. or that their product's bad. But. regardless whether. >> 100%. There's there's no regulation, there's no checks and balances. >> So, it definitely leaves the door open.

>> Correct. It leaves the door open and if. I am uh 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 dropshipped 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. chat GPT, but now chat GPT and all the. large language models have shut that. down. So now what you have is American. people buying random product online with. no guidance, no oversight, no clinician. in the chain of custody, no no checks. and balances, no state or federal. regulators. We are living in the wild. west. So my message to Marty in the 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 no safety data that. can support their actions. Um 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 They're 200 peptides.

are found naturally occurring in the. human body. These are. raw elements that are readily available. in nature. The question is sterility, efficacy, and safety. And And through the proper. checks and balances, we can minimize. most of those side effect profiles and. optimize positive outcomes. But it. requires restoring restoring law and. order to the land and implementing. things the way they were before the. mistake happened. And that 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 out 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. Um and the only. argument against that is, "Well, peptides don't have enough robust.

uh. 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% 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% of the products in the. operating room never had a human safety. study. 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 of a 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 it candidly. saves the industry. I can tell you. owning clinic, owning a telemedicine. [snorts] company, owning all of these. things, none of that machine works if we. can't create products that help people. Right? And so, quality. products that are available without. quality are even worse than quality. products that aren't available. You know, and those were our 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 and and uh quality. products under with the 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 like 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 That's the message.

that I've had and I think that's where. we're headed. >> 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 and that's that is the big challenge. is the future of this regulatory pathway. and that's where I wanted to get into. the state and and this is something that. what we saw with 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. Uh Texas passed the bills, three different bills around food and. food initiatives and label changes and.

protecting children. Uh Arizona followed. suit. I think Florida followed Multiple. states followed suit, which creates a. trade wind that allows the federal. government to pick up what state. legislators have done and mirror those. bills. So, I say that because. I am already working at the state level. to do the same thing here in Texas. So, my hope is that the federal government. and the FDA um. get 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. tool belt to drive health span and help. prevent chronic disease. Um, the state. of Texas is already rearing to go. So, the state of Texas passed the. compassionate use act, um, which says if. you have a chronic disease or any sort. of, uh, chronic health issue, you have. the right to try. Um, so the reason where it's almost like. marijuana law without getting too. nuanced, the state's if you if you have. a clinic within the state and you. manufacture the product within the state.

or compound within the state, in 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, uh, and and. respect the rules of the land. Does that. make sense? >> Yes. >> Okay. So, Texas did this. Utah did this. Florida did this. Uh, and I just testified in Arizona 2 weeks. ago on the stem cell bill in Arizona.

Uh, Senator Jan Brewer called me and said, "Can you come out and and help testify. and can we do what you guys have done in. Florida and some of these other states?". And, uh, right now it passed through the house. and it's on to 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 and we've also. submitted, um, I we submitted a. citizen's petition to the FDA around. stem cells, um, that basically mirrors. the Florida law. And the whole message. is exactly what you and I have just. covered. Guys, these things are safe. The risk of an adverse event is minimal. Um if it is an adverse event, it's. flu-like symptoms and it impacts. basically 10 to 15% of people.

Uh all of the major adverse events. you've been told about stem cells come. from improper chain of command, improper. chain of custody, and improper checks. and balances. How do you fix that? You. fix that through 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're 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 and and and I also think it's. the wrong move. I really do I don't want. to be part of that model. I want to. build a life raft that allows patients. to make decisions. And the second you. put this in an insurance model or. 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. Um. like an example is. stem cells historically, one of the uses. for purified amnion was burn victims, right? Or wound management in diabetics. So what happened? Orthopedic surgeons. started billing wound injuries in order. to get paid from the insurance companies. on an ACL. Well, that only takes a year, 6 months. before the insurance companies ring the.

bell and go, "Wait a second, dude. This. person billed us a million dollars on. wound management, and they're an. orthopedic surgeon. What is going on?". Right? 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, soon to be Arizona and Utah. And so. there is hope because at the state level. it's moving. I do believe Secretary Kennedy and Chris. Klump and Marty are very open-minded and. receptive to this. They're very. 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 and make these things. affordable and accessible for everybody. >> And the thing that's helping them a. moment 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. Colombia and all these different places. where it's legal. >> Yep. >> And that's. 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 I've talked to. my dad he went. I talked to my uncle, my. grandma went, this person went, that. person went they had results that they.

never achieved doing any other things. Why is this not available here? I'm like. oh man it's a long story. I can't even. start this conversation. I have to go. >> Well and what's amazing though is. I'm telling you we're we. um. having got to know Senator Kolhorst and. and Lacy Hull, the representative here, we'll get it done in Texas. Like it's. coming. It's the new bill that we're. going to. >> [snorts]. >> submit in January, I feel confident that. we will. expand upon the existing legislation.

around. 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 include in this. bill at the state level just in case, you know, just in case. 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 how. many years can you fight this lobby, right? It's still alive and well. It's.

not going anywhere. 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, I'm very, very bullish that it it will. happen. And what Florida saw is a $300. 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 congressmen and. congresswomen in 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. Can you imagine how. many people would visit Austin if we. truly do build out 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, cuz this is what's What's on. This is why people are going to Panama. and all these other places. >> Yeah. >> They mean they they're desperate and so. they're willing to leave the country. >> Yeah. 100%. >> It it would be a way easier to just hop. on a Southwest flight, come to Austin, pretty easy, a lot easier, and it should. be available. And what's really amazing. to me with uh 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. or 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 up. >> Yeah. >> At one point in time does someone say, "Hey, this system sucks.". >> Yeah. >> And but they don't want to. They don't.

want they resist this radical change and. this appeal to authority. If 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 this whole. thing up. How are you trusting them. still? >> Yeah. >> What you just said with 60 to 80% 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 band-aid off and do. something different? >> It's it's tough because and 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 chronic diseases and there's. malicious intent." I'm like, "No. 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 and on our national. security. How many men can even qualify. for military service right now? >> 71% of young kids can't qualify for. military service. >> It's it's nuts. And then you look at how. many can't even do I think I don't. remember what the number It was. something staggering. Like 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.

>> That's 70. >> Which is nuts. Um but it's 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. place be in in place as is. because it's very profitable for them. But it's just not good for us. >> Correct. >> 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 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.

hard-earned cash? >> Preventative 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 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 Dihexa. You. know, for me personally, I'm not. advertising this for other people and if. but it's like it a 100% improved my. neurocognitive 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 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 cuz 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 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's 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 cuz the insurance model. tells you where to go. And this is.

important point I now 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 blah and that's not fair. to a patient. Well, 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. >> not going to force people to only get. that medicine. >> 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 cuz they're within. your plan. And then they go to that. doctor and that doctor goes, "What. pharmacy do you want it filled at?". 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 health span 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 with him. this morning. He's running 5 miles. talking to me on the phone. This was a. guy who was 500 lbs, man. >> guy who 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 spends money on a. peptide, it's not because it's. pseudoscience 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 We're.

tracking you via DEXA, we're tracking. you via the VO2 max, we're tracking you. via 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 in 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 marked.

improvement in REM sleep. Right? 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 in healthcare I believe. is gene sequencing. Less than 1 in 1,000. people have ever had their genome. sequenced. Um we've only sequenced, I. think, 1 in 1,000 animals. Genetics is on the.

is in the infancy of what it's going to. be. Um in a real-world example of that. is somebody like Gordon who we've been. trying to help. Um and sorry, I'm. I know I'm dumping a lot. I want to be. clear, I'm not a doctor. Right? 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. Uh. Mari Dasawa, uh who discovered muse. cells from Japan, um, and is one of the. pioneers in stem cell research. Mari is. an absolute badass. Uh, Dr. Deisher, uh, Stanford graduate, uh, 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 in a manner that's. digestible for Neanderthals like myself. That's all I'm trying to. >> You guys at Ways to Well are also. incorporating a bunch of other therapies. and I want to I want you to talk about. those, too. >> Yeah, I would love to. Uh, before I lose. the. real quick on the genetics cuz I'm super. excited about this. So, one of the. things we're building into the app So, the next iteration 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, they'll 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? And 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 cuz. 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. Um and so one of the things. we're looking to add to the app is gene. sequencing. Um there are 20,000 genes. Most people. don't have any clue what genes they. have. And the reason that's important. and what my buddy Ryan Rossner will tell. you it is that 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 at. >> Yeah. >> Yeah, okay. >> Yeah, yeah. And he brilliant, worked for DARPA, tons of experience at the bench and in. the lab doing genetic research. Um. the stuff he did for DARPA was crazy. I. mean when he starts telling you, you. know, one of the things he said is we're. we're in the we're in an era where we. can build real-life X-Men. Like we we. can build X-Men. There's a gene. a gene editing injection that can make.

your bone mineral density eight times. stronger. >> What? >> Yeah. I mean there's there's. >> could do that? >> It's it's that you can't legally do it. in the US right now, but these are. things that they're doing. >> Are they making Russian super soldiers. right now? >> This is the challenge is China and. Russia are pushing the envelope with all. these things. >> change your body mass? >> Uh it'd be interesting. I don't I. haven't I didn't dig in with him on. that, but it would. but you would 100% think it's going to. change your BMI cuz your bone mineral is. going to be much thicker and more dense. >> You'd probably be a lot heavier.

>> Your body So it's going to change your. your DEXA scan and your readings, yeah. >> Woah. >> But the future to me is. >> that. >> is I'm telling you the future is. >> through walls. >> Just a random Google on that. It's. [snorts] a Reddit post that says there's. a mutation that causes bones to become. eight times denser than normal, but the. trade-off is not being able to swim. >> Yeah. >> Well, [snorts and laughter] I can barely. swim right now as it is, man. >> So here's what's wild. >> like a stone as it is. It's a. real problem. >> We're we're One of the things that he's. enlightened me on because I don't 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 uh more dense and. more resilient. So, stronger, more rigid.

tendons that are able to res- are 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's 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. cuz 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 wrecked. 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. uh that makes his gut health uh 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. won the statistical lottery genetic. traits that put him in a position to. potentially be an amazing uh 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 um 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 and AI, and build. that into the Ways to Well app. So, alongside with, you know, the VO2 max, the Dexa, go get those anywhere. I don't. care I'm not trying to sell you these. things. I just want the information so I. can help you. I don't give a 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 a. VO2 max or a Dexa, do it. They're not. 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 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 What did you. eat that day? How did 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.

I mean, 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. atrophy's on your left bicep versus your. right bicep. Um all of those things. Like Liam Harrison was just in uh. You You I know you and Liam are buddies. Uh. He He was shocked because he has that. one bum knee um from all those years of. Muay Thai training and fighters just. started picking off his knee. What's. crazy is he thought he would have less. muscle on that knee than that leg than.

the other leg because he's over. compensated and 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. mineral density you're going to lose. year after year once you reach a certain. age. We can begin to quantify that and. and model out your vertebral risk factor.

fracture risk, you know, your hip. fracture risk. How do we preserve bone. mineral density? Like it allows us to quantify are the. hormones and these things helping. preserve lean muscle mass, keep the body. fat off, and optimize bone health. Um all of these things and with with. what this FDA is doing with men's health. and women's health and fertility in the. direction it's headed, I really think. we're 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 unorthodox. 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 even 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 [snorts] 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. health care system. Into one that. prevents chronic disease rather than. monetizing chronic disease. That has literally been the mission. statement since the day we opened our. doors. I'm like that's all we're. trying to do and I love it because then. you get into the fun 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 home 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. So let me ask you this about the gene. stuff. What 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, or 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 premise is can we. synthesize and utilize this. gene to turn on the gene in humans and. have us secrete 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, you know, what is the regulatory. landscape of the future look like in. America, China, and Russia are 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. petrol chemicals 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, at the biological level, you're going to. be able to fix and remediate so many of. these issues. Um. That's all they're doing with the bone. mineral densities. They're turning on a. gene that tells you to increase your. bone mineral density. Or when you look. at the uh. the follistatin, you know, 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 6-to- I think it's a. 6-to-12-month time frame, that statin. that follistatin gene will be turned on.

and you'll put on muscle. Um and then at. the end of that that it gets turned back. off. So, it's like temporary turning on. a white light switch. And then that. light switch will will eventually revert. back. >> So, this this uh Jamie, bring back up. that thing with the bone mineral. density. Does it prevent you from being. able to swim just cuz you're heavier? Is. that the idea. >> it's that same because you're adding so. much weight and mass to the body. Like. think about French bulldogs and bulldogs. can't swim.

uh because they're so dense. >> Well, pitbulls can swim. >> Yeah, pitbulls can, but French bulldogs. and uh English bulldogs will 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 their legs. are so short? >> It's both. They don't have the ability. to move the to move enough momentum of. that denseness of their body. composition. >> Carl's jacked. You ever see Carl? >> [laughter]. >> Carl's like a little. >> though. He did not like being in the. pool. >> He's a tank. >> But Marshall's like soft. Marshall's.

very soft. He swims like a fish. He. loves swimming. That dog just he could. swim for hours. >> That's so funny. >> He doesn't have any. >> Yeah, my Frenchie loves water, but uh he. he can't swim. So, he'll go in the. shallow end, but he's smart enough to. not get off the step. Like he he he. knows. >> interesting. >> Yeah. >> So, I would imagine also there would be. So, what's this all. >> I was looking at the comment. 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 if they can. >> Was it because it's more difficult to. swim? >> That's it's. >> Because you're heavier? Because like my. kids can swim. You know, because you. know, you know what I mean? My daughter, my. 15-year-old might weigh 120 lb or. something like that, 150. I weigh like. 204. I go in the water, I just sink. I I can't float. >> Yeah, it's Well, you 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 I wonder like if 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 in. swimming? >> what's so fascinating [snorts] to all. this to me is it's 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. Galapagos 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? Um. >> And what's the side effect of turning it. >> Correct. >> So, individuals with uh unexplained HBM. had an excess of sinking when swimming. What is that number? 7.1136. What does that mean? Adjusted odds ratio. with 95% confidence. Mandibular So, it. says. excess of sinking when swimming. So, it. just seems like it's more difficult to. swim cuz. >> you sink. >> heavier. >> Yeah, you're more dense.

>> It's more difficult for me to swim. >> Associated dysplasia. [snorts]. >> Skeletal dysplasia. That's not good, right? >> Many. >> What is dis- I'm thinking of hip. dysplasia. >> a harbor an underlying genetic disorder. affecting bone mass. >> This was just a study based off of a. high bone density. This wasn't specific. to that, you know. >> And this is stuff This is stuff that. makes you 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 way. >> [laughter]. >> That guy must sink like a rock cuz.

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 strongman, so he's been. >> Yeah, they're they're they're crazy. So, they've done um What is it? Devon. Larratt? Do you know Devon? >> Yeah, sure.

>> So, yeah, Devon came into the clinic. He's done his gene sequencing. Um. 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 arm wrestle. >> It's crazy. Like, he he has that same. tendon gene, he has the bone mineral. density gene. He has some very, very. unique genes. And so, part of this is. just like the 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 7. whatever or but we don't know what code. our body's 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. In the In the you do have epigenetics. and epigenetics are impacted by your. body by activity, right? So, you may.

have a predisposition to. uh. developing cancer cells, right? That's. unfortunate, but you may have that, but. that doesn't mean definitively you're. going to develop cancer. It just means. you can now make 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 and the. cascade effect. >> This gene mutation seems also have a. other side effect of vision loss. >> Mhm. >> Yeah, cuz it causes some eye vascular. issues. >> Interesting. >> Yeah, and this is one this is one. example of genes that they were looking. at I think at DARPA and some of these. other projects. Um these aren't things. being utilized in medicine today. Um but. this is the direction of the future. I I. really do believe that. They're going to. 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. >> Vitreo-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. Whoa.

>> Calling that a fever is pretty tough. >> Yeah. >> [laughter]. >> Um. Uh [snorts] one of the man, so one of. the other you said treatments that we're. doing, one of the things that I think is. the most exciting thing that I have come. across and and I know I think you know. where I'm going with this in in my. entire time in health care is uh. the MUSE stem cells. >> Yeah. >> Um. So do you I don't know if you want me to. talk a little bit about that kind of Um. so for the listeners. um I 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." And I'm like, "Okay, sure you do." And you just never know. So 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.". And uh so I called Dr. White uh you. know, who's my chief science officer and. 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 Dezwan. and uh and and hear her lectures and. tour the lab and kind of see what she's. been doing since 2010." Um we reviewed. all the research, all the data, all the. literature. And it was mind-boggling. Um so Ian and. I hopped on a plane and went to Japan. back in September and uh sat down with. Mari and she was gracious enough to. break break down all of her research, answer Ian's questions. And I'm going to be clear, like we went.

there. to debunk this We thought there's. no way that this is what she's. presenting. It's just it it just seems. too good to be true. Um And after. sitting through those lectures and Mari. uh enlightening us on all of her. research and what she's seen. I left there with Ian and he looked at. me and was like, "Th- This. 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. a big award for this space and Ian is a. stem cell scientist. And but these MUSE. stem cells are such a rare subset. phenotype of stem cell. And so, the best. way to explain it is. um. to tr- try and break it down in like. layman's terms is MUSE stands for. multi-lineage and the SE of MUSE stands. for stress enduring. So, what does that. mean in like real world talk? Um Mari in.

her book, where she writes about these. cells and how she discovered them, she. was in the lab, she had 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 MUSE. 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 at take them off the petri. dish and put them back in cryopreserve. She thought she'd go in the next day and. everything would be dead. When she went. in cuz the cells don't last overnight. She goes in the next day and to 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't be possible. And. that was in 2010 and that's what began. her research into what are MUSE. And so, without getting too in the weeds, uh I'd love to like break down what it.

is, what makes it unique and why it's so. promising. If you're game because it's super cool. Um. first and foremost in medicine, they say. uh do no harm, right? And so, when we're. lobbying and trying to educate these. politicians and these regulators on the. safety profile of traditional MSCs, traditional stem cells are extremely. safe. And I've said this on your podcast. before, uh Dr. Kaplan, who discovered. traditional MSCs in an open letter to. the scientific community, apologized and.

said, "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. Um. and there's pros and cons to that. The. 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, with. these cells enough in a petri dish to. create pluripotency where they can. become something, but prevent. tumorigenic 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. multi-lineage, what does that mean? Multi-lineage just means these are. pluripotent cells. Pluripotent. multi-lineage 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 [snorts] cells. and I don't really get good results and. I think that the you can't get real stem. cells because those cells have an. identity and when you take bone marrow. that 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 kindergartner. A kindergartner. 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 chose 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 damaged cell. That what is 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 it's. a commonly known process, but. phagocytosis, don't say it three times. fast. Like you get [laughter] canceled. But like phagocytosis, essentially in in. in even in that layman's term it's like. think of it like a Pac-Man. This is how. Mari described it to me. Um cuz she. knows I'm an idiot. 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 damaged cell like a neuron. This Pac-Man's going to go up, gobble up.

that neuron through the process of. phagocytosis 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-tumorigenic. Um in studies, these cells had no never became tumors. in any of the studies that are ever. done.

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

is um. they have an immunomodulatory modulatory. uh. im- immuno-. immunity response, essentially, where 10. to 15% of people will get flu-like. symptoms. And that's with traditional. MSCs. Which is a very low safety profile. What. you saw. like effective safety profile. What you. saw with the Muse cells in trials is 0%. Literally, right now, nobody's even. getting flu-like symptoms. And it's. because these Muse cells go above and.

beyond uh. immuno- uh. like the ability to navigate your immune. system and go into immunomodulating your. immune system. So, what do I mean by. that? Mari 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 Muse cells in, 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 simple way to explain it is the whole. process I broke down before. [snorts]. Like when a mother's pregnant, that baby. is a is technically a foreign body in. 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 MSCs. The answer is 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 like her risk of chronic disease, and and all mortality cause is at an. all-time low while pregnant. Um the risk. of cancer is at an all-time low while. pregnant. All of this goes back to MSCs. and now we believe potentially MUSE. cells. And so, they're safe, they're. non-tumorigenic, uh 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 was.

talking They would take uh. historically instead of fill women were. 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 that success rate's. not as high. So, what they're doing in Dubai and. these other nations is they're using. MUSE 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 uh immunore regulate. So, think about it for the future of like. organ transplants, what this could mean. uh 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, uh non-tumorigenic, um 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, and 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. Um and. then the 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 Ways 2 Wellness for the last 5 years, um.

it even with the great success we've. had, they literally have a 3 to 5%. engraftment rate. Meaning 3 to 5% of. those cells make it to the site of. damage and begin the healing process in. the site of damage. And think about the. results we've gotten. Now, look at MUSE. MUSE have a 15 to 30% engraftment rate. MUSE are literally half the size of. traditional MSCs, and they have the. ability, when administered. intravenously, to pass the lungs and.

make it to the site 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 S1P SP1 uh. inflammation damage cell is it's it's. the signal that a cell sends out, "Hey, I'm damaged." These MUSE cells will. navigate straight to those damaged cells. through phagocytosis, absorb that cell,

take on its phenotype, and be a young, healthy, vibrant version of that cell. And all of this occurs within 3 days. So, that's why you're seeing such crazy. results in Dubai and overseas, and these. are the treatments that are coming into. the US um that are going to be. manufactured here on US soil and. utilized in 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 you we can build a.

regulatory pathway at the federal level. that will allow accessibility too. because. what is definitively clear is these. treatments, even the old MSCs and. purified amnion and Wharton's jelly and. all those things, there's no arguing that they're. extremely safe. I mean, there's 30, 40 years of data on. these products. They're 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 cuz. the FDA doesn't want people out there. making claims and I understand that cuz. 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, you know, battling. some sort of neurocognitive issue, you. know, these cells are able to pierce. into the midbrain. I mean, and and I. have all these Jamie a bunch of these.

studies I have listed on Ways 2 Well's. website. just so I'm not throwing random stuff. out there. Um I think I listed at seven. or eight of uh Mari Das Always' studies. um that back everything that I'm saying. Uh but the premise is, you know, the. future's bright and I think that MUSE. will be an integral part of what we see. here in the United States in the future. of biologics. >> When we're talking about genes, the. these obviously are in the body, these.

these cells. Is it Is there a potential. future where they could just turn these. things on and not have to add exogenous. stem 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. Um the other thing that This is. a crazy. So, you've got this scientist, Dr. Uh Dominik Duscher, out of uh. Germany. Brilliant guy, Stanford.

trained, Harvard went to Stanford, uh. Harvard did research at Stanford, went. to Harvard, um University of Munich. Crazy background. Uh 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 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. 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 in. the in in basically the end of these.

cells. All their All their ability to. heal was used up. Is that part of the. reason, other than just blood flow and. the other challenges of diabetics? It. could be one of the under. uh under causing uh attributes that are. causing these diabetic patients to heal. poorly, to be chronically inflamed. So, it 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, um they even did. mitochondrial testing. I don't know if. that study's released yet. Um. if it is, I'll add it to the website. I'll find out from Mari. But they did a mitochondrial function. test. One IV bag administration took 1. and 1/2 years off the mitochondrial age. >> Woah. >> And so I'm not saying that it reverses.

aging, but in these studies, it appears. to have extreme mitochondrial benefits. Um 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 um with. all of these different modalities. But I. look at MUSE 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. Um these products are being used. every day in Dubai and uh overseas. People are flying over there and paying. boo coo dollars to these clinics to get. treatments with MUSE cells. Um in fact, one of the sheiks of United Arab. Emirates or one of those, his son got in. a car wreck. He literally was in the hospital. They. This is a true story. They They said, "He's done. Pull the plug. Harvest his.

organs.". Um. 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. comatose, non-responsive. "Take his organs. Like he's done. The. The The neurologists are like, he's. done. There is no brain. here anymore." Uh they treat this kid. with intravenous MUSE 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 uh with with children who were born. with encephalitis. Um and what they saw. is a is these children who are left. untreated will definitively have uh. neurocognitive issues and and defects, though mental retardation. Um the.

children treated with MUSE within eight. days of birth, all of those children had. normal brain function. >> Wow. >> All of them. And so, the studies beyond. that and then you get into you like the. what they saw in hearts, what they saw. in uh myocardial infarctions. Like you. just go down the list and and there's so. much promising data. Um. and there's a decade worth of it. Um it. just hasn't made it into the US yet. Um. and these are technologies and science.

and science and modalities that are. going to be adopted uh in the near. future at minimal at the state level and. then hopefully at the federal level. because it's they're already looking in. we know, like I said, Secretary Kinney's. looking to open the regulatory pathway. for for stem cells. And MUSE 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 of these things.

are going to emerge. >> Yep. >> They're going to keep the gene. therapies, MUSE cells, it's going to. continue to compound. >> Well, and then you've got guys like Ryan. who go if you could take a MUSE cell and. you a cell that could be anything, right? And it already has it's it's. ready to learn. What if you can take a. MUSE 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 you make. sure that it's a neuron. Um I I again. I'm I'm I'm way over my skis on this. part cuz I'm a business guy. I'm just. breaking down what these scientists are. saying, and all of it's is exciting and. promising to me because again, we've had. such phenomenal results with traditional. MSCs. You know, with traditional and all. MUSE are are this subset phenotype of. super soldier cell. They're more. resilient, and so the the second part of.

MUSE is stress enduring. So, what the. whole point is Mari has a chapter in her. book called sake and 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. Um 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 in this country that allows. accessibility so that Americans aren't. having to go to other nations. Um and in. the state some of the states are doing. it, but I ideally it would be optimal to. work with the federal government to.

build those same pathways at the federal. level. Um now that the states have. already jumped on board. >> God, that's so fascinating. Such a cool time. >> Dude, it's awesome. I'm telling you and. the stuff I I 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 I am very excited. about this, but I want to temper my. excitement because I 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 immense. 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 new cells. 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. It's amazing. >> where I just think eventually we're. going to get to a point where it's like, did we really prescribe everyone. petrochemical drugs to fix problems? Because the genetic side of the world. and the stem cell side of the world and. the biologic side of the world and all. of these things. And then you break in. the large language model side and. wearables and the ability to track in. real time. >> But also this is where you're going to. find the resistance because there's so. much money in the petrochemical drugs. >> Yeah.

Well, this is what's challenging with. the stem cell stuff even. Like, if if they don't work, people are not going to spend their. hard-earned paycheck, right? And that. that's the challenge. Like, I understand. the FDA stance on safety. The And And. again, the historic FDA stance 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. Um and to figure out a pathway that. makes sense for the American people um.

while still honoring the safety and. integrity of what they're trying to. implement uh on a grander scale. Um but. do we need to go through the level of. rigorous. uh. you know, multi-billion dollar process. on something that can't really be. patented um or if it's safe and the. safety profile is proven and it's. readily available in nature. does it make sense to grandfather these. treatments in and to allow patients. compassionate 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 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. muse MSCs can be inter- intranasally. administered and immediately go into the. blood brain barrier and in trials they. were able to see the muse cells 18. months later lit up like a Christmas. tree in the midbrain.

the reason that's important is midbrain. is where Parkinson's and so many of. these neurocognitive disease states. reside and where most of the dysfunction. is occurring. and so. there's there's a lot of promise I'm. excited about it I think muse are going. to be a big opportunity here in America. to drive meaningful change it's just a. matter of you know when. and how they're available and to what. capacity you're going to see these. things bringing 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. >> well that's what's so frustrating is. that they are being utilized effectively. overseas. >> when 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. >> and like let's get it going guys. >> I'm telling you man like it's. >> such an exciting time. >> it's super exciting.

>> it's super exciting hopefully it's not. too boring for the listeners it's just. it's complicated stuff so I want to try. to break it down. >> at all man don't don't apologize. is anything else you want to cover. >> now the 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 phoresis. Like we have plasma. phoresis here in Austin, Texas. We use it we we added it to the clinic I. guess 3 months ago. Plasma phoresis is 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 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. In 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 your blood through a plasma. phoresis machine and basically isolate. out within the plasma itself, the 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 phoresis machine. And so what we'll do is we'll. extrapolate out. systematically your plasma and replace. it with young healthy protein called. albumin. And then where we go an additional step. at Ways 2 Well is we're developing a. protocol where we also add in the MSCs. and. all and peptides and all of the things. that. are missing from albumin, right? So. there's two different train of thoughts. And I I have these listed to Jamie on.

the website. There's a bunch of. different studies. Plasma phoresis has. been studied for over 50 years. It's just not been utilized for like. longevity and preventative care. Uh it's used more for uh. systematic inflammatory issues. There's. even a bunch of fascinating studies. around Alzheimer's because Alzheimer's. and dementia is so inflammatory related. Um so there's a bunch of fascinating. stuff on that. But the premise of. plasmapheresis is think of it like an. oil change for your body. We're going to.

take out uh 70% of all the bad stuff. that's floating around in your blood. We're going to replace that blood with. young healthy albumin. And then, you. know, what we're attempting to do is. stack it with our own protocol where we. add in um MSCs, extracellular vesicles, all of these cellular goodies that are. readily available at birth that have a. precipitous decline as we age. >> What is this concierial therapy lower. right corner? Uh plasma exchange remove. synthetic chemicals from humans? So is. this like BPCs and that kind of.

>> Um what it's Yeah, what it's doing is um. [snorts]. 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 cuz it breaks down what they. saw. Here's a real-world example. Our mutual friend Phil Franklin Lee. Um. and I and I asked him if I can talk. about this. >> at this. Compounds such as bisphenol, plasticizers, and phthalates. >> Yep. >> Endocrine disruptors that are associated. with the intake of ultra-processed foods. due to at least in part to their.

packaging material. So this is the stuff. that Dr. Shanna Swan's talked about. their endocrine disrupt endocrine. disruptors. >> So crazy. Philip and he he's talked. about this on his [snorts] podcast. Philip came in. chronically tired, super low. testosterone. I think I can't remember. the exact number. He talked about it on. his podcast, but he was shocked at how. low his test It was like 80 or 90. It. was really, really low. We did a microplastics test and he had. the most freaking microplastics that.

we've ever seen. >> Well, he eats all that sushi and it's. always wrapped in plastic. >> And 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 did we can we quantify it. through his testing, which I think he. posted on his Instagram, we quantified. how much we reduced their level of.

microplastics, Philip's testosterone, without being on. any testosterone, is at 1,200. >> Whoa. >> All of that inflammation and 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. level. >> people out there are having similar. levels? >> That's what'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 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. uh. What's 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 experienced to process. your thoughts and emotions.

The system's not built to do that. because now you're taking two different. things and 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?". >> Right. >> Right? Or maybe it was just the. mushrooms. Why am I paying the. therapist? >> Right. >> Right? And so, that's one of the. challenges when people go, "What do you. have for microplastics?". What's tough is a lot of people come in. and they go, "Hey, man, I'm going to do. the Hocket and I'm going to do the. plasmapheresis 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 is working, but which. one is the needle 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 like tracking and quantifying. individuals who just do one test or one. treatment or one aspect of what we're. doing at Waste Well. Which one's moving. the needle the most? Cuz so many people.

want to try everything, right? They're. already here, they already flew in, so. they're like, "Yeah, let me do this. today, this tomorrow, this." And then. they all report back and go, "I'm. feeling phenomenal. I feel the best I've. felt." But they did five things, so I. [laughter] don't know which one was the. one. >> Does it matter? >> Yeah. >> As 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. stuff is so exciting and I'm glad we. have another opportunity to talk to.

people about this cuz it's really. impactful. >> Dude, you're the man and if if you. wouldn't have had me on here to talk. about this, I I wouldn't have got to. meet Secretary Kennedy and we wouldn't. be in a position. And I will 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, I don't know if anybody would be helping. this administration navigate all this. I. I really don't. 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, man. >> stuff. Thanks, brother. >> Appreciate it. Appreciate [music] it. >> All right. Bye, everybody. >> [music].

>> Hey.