Joe Rogan podcast. Check it out.

>> The Joe Rogan Experience.

>> TRAIN BY DAY. JOE ROGAN PODCAST BY

NIGHT. All day.

>> Great. Good to see you, my friend.

>> Thanks for having me, man.

>> My pleasure. Always. Um, lots going on,

man.

>> There is a lot going on. Per usual.

>> Lot. I got allergies, dude. You

hear me? You know.

>> Oh, yeah. You sound stuffed up. I was

going to ask.

>> That's crazy. 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 getting it. And then

about four years in, I started getting

these horrible sore throats and stuffy

noses. Is there a peptide for that?

When I first moved here, the 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 col that arm.

>> Yeah. You can tell a difference.

>> Yeah. Yeah. Makes a big difference.

Yeah. If you take it a lot, take it

every day. Stay consistent.

>> Yeah. I think all of that stuff there's

benefits that so many people overlook.

>> I know. So, we were talking um what's

the uh latest

>> um man. So, I know you just had

Secretary Kennedy on a few weeks ago.

Yeah.

>> Um the latest is uh 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 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. Um, and

classified these peptides uh as

dangerous. Um, and so I've for the first

time in my life over the last decade of

20some years of being in healthcare, 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 foyer requests,

17 to the FDA. They have never once

responded to a single foyer 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 is 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.

>> I one of them.

>> 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,

like everything that was could be going

wrong in my late 30s was going wrong

because I had bought into the system and

trusted the system and thought, hey, if

I 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 have had that opportunity

thanks to this administration and

Secretary Kennedy and uh you his his

right-hand girl uh Stephanie Spear has

been integral in setting meetings and

and trying to move the needle. Um, Marty

McCary, who's the head of the FDA, I had

the privilege of knowing him before he

took that role. We testified together at

the Senate level. Um, and Marty, he he

really is 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 five 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 blackbox warnings. The FDA

has come to the consensus under this new

leadership that that is the case. And

they are working to remove the blackbox

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.

>> 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 0 to 350 you can

increase uh in theoretically uh the risk

of exasperating a prostate cancer that's

pre preex

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 rad radical prostatctomies 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 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 is looking to change

that label and get rid of the blackbox

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

and all of these practices that are

using hormone optimization. You don't

you see the same prevalence that we saw

prior to hormone optimization and the

boom. And so we have now seen it's I

think it's one out of eight men will

develop prostate cancer. I can't

remember the exact number 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 pro prostate cancer,

right?

>> Uh, I don't know. I didn't know that.

I've heard Huberman talk about that.

>> Interesting.

>> Yeah. That like you have a certain

amount of it. It's just like

>> it really became dogma. I mean, the

studies,

>> but I don't understand about the study

like so what was the conclusion of the

study? The conclusion of the study was

if we treat 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 that 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 you're

insulated from prostate cancer because

you have zero testosterone. As we begin

to raise your testosterone level and

saturate those receptor sites,

theoretically, the concern was we're

increasing the potential risk of

exasperating a prostate cancer. Well, so

how was this whole opinion based on this

one study from the 1930s and just

repeated adnauseium for decades?

>> Well, it wasn't debunked, I think, until

the '9s with a famous prominent

urologist uh Dr. Morgan Tyler where he

began to do research in his practice on

men with prostate cancer. And he

actually began to treat men with

prostate cancer with HRT and track the

results. And what he found was there was

no increased prevalence of prostate

cancer and it didn't exasperate or

create additional issues. And so that it

was debunked in the 90s. And then I

would even go further to say you

launched I think Fizer launched

testosterone cream in like 199 something

I don't remember and millions of men

went on testosterone creams. If it was

exasperating prostate cancer you would

have seen it then too. And so now,

retrospectively,

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, 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, 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 chem

chemically castrated, and

>> you got it.

>> And that guy didn't even get prostate

cancer.

>> And so none of these moving forward, 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's nuts. It does sound like urban

legend. Another another quote that like

resonated with me from blind spot was

Marty's book was literally uh

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 in 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 entire ecosystem.

It cost1 billion to3 billion dollars to

bring a drug to market are the numbers

that are out there. Anywhere from one

to3 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 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 foyer

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 Wastewell now,

we're at over 90,000 patients nationwide

and peptides were an integral part of

our of of the practice of Waistwell. 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

triricare 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 insuranceances 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.

>> Okay. So, we should also clarify that

when we're talking about peptides and

peptides being dangerous,

>> GLP1s are peptides

>> and this 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. It's 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. They get OMIC face.

>> Yeah.

>> Well, so many I so many influencers too

on the academia side go online and go, I

just I would never prescribe peptides

because I'm a boardcertified 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/jo.

And for a limited time, get a bottle of

omega-3 vitamin D3 K2 and an AG1 flavor

sampler for free in your welcome kit

with your first subscription. That's an

$111

value at drinkag1.com/join.

>> Well, this was the big challenge during

COVID, right, with hydroxychloricquin

and with ivormectin. 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 GLP1 weight loss

drugs. So I do want to put them in two

different buckets because 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 and it's a lot of money. 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 Lily and Novo and all these

big conglomerates and those companies

definitively, you know, publicly and

privately are banging on the table of

legislators and politicians and saying,

"Look, we spent billions of dollars to

innovate these drugs. We played within

the rules of the system and now these

drugs hit the market and you're allowing

compounders and small uh

independentarmacies

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 farmer. 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 uh

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

infringe upon these patents. The truth

of the matter is the FDA sent out the

bat signal and said we can't meet the me

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 Liy 7xed 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

I'm a legislator and I've got somebody

telling me, "These guys heard us to the

tune of 7 billion." And I know that's

what they're telling these legislators

because I've met with the legislators at

the state and federal level. And then I

have to go, well, hold on. The entire

compounding sector only does $7 billion.

GLP1s were $2.5 billion. I know that's a

big number, but that was when you were

asking us to make these compounds. That

number is not nearly as large today. And

you also shut down 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 to2 billion

total that this industry was able to

compound during the backlog in order to

meet the needs of the American people.

They're going to do 35 to40 million in

just GLP1 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 GLP1s. 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 Lily again as

an example because they're the main

culprit. Lily is saying peptides are

dangerous. They're getting the API from

China. We shouldn't allow these

compounders to make peptides. Meanwhile,

Eli Liy just signed a $7 billion deal to

acquire a peptide company out of China.

China. So, Lily'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 health

care.

>> Well, it seems like it would 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 think it was

like $31 million 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

one minute and the opposition gets nine

minutes, and in the one minute I've got

to debunk all the lies that the

opposition told. I don't 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

three 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 you if you take into

account all the drugs that didn't make

it and you want to cook the books, you

can make it look like you spent a

billion to three billion. You can also

take credit for all the drugs that were

launched out of the NIH that you bought

the rights to and monetized for decades.

And then you can talk about safety, but

in reality, there were recalls from both

Lily and Novo Nordisk. There are all

sorts of array of issues and label

changes and historically even even the

FDA itself. This is one of the things

with peptides that I when I met when I

had the privilege of meeting with Marty

McCary about I said, "Marty, if we're

being honest,

this is y'all's numbers. 60 to 80% of

the drugs that make it through the drug

approval process will have a major label

change or recall. 60 to 80%

of the medications that come through

this process end up having a major label

change or recall. So

>> what is a major label change? Um so they

uncover like uh an example with

anti-depressants depressants they

realize the suicidal ideation in

teenagers right and they had to change

that label and say hey not only is this

only of a fraction better than a placebo

right barely differentiates from placebo

retrospectively

>> and not even close to exercise.

>> I know it's it's literally exercise is

six to sevenfold more efficacious than

an anti-depressant.

>> How wild is that?

>> Yeah. And then you go back to the

science. The science was all cooked

books. It was all said that it was 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 profiter off of treating the

symptoms of chronic disease. It's become

a prescription management system, not a

health care system. And that's the big

challenge. This is an entire paradigm

shift that I 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 postco

have 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 BPC57

there's a patent out of uh Croatia I

believe on that molecule and that patent

is I think lasts three more years. Why

would you go spend a billion to3 billion

to try and bring a drug to market that

already has a patent. The other issue

with it is a shortchain 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 GLP1s. They

have patented dossaging 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?

>> Well, they would be a giant business.

>> It would be a giant business and and it

is going to be the price would raise a

little bit.

>> But also, the availability would

skyrocket and you would start seeing

commercials on CNN. UPC57 helps soft

tissue injuries, helps this, helps that.

Then you show fit people at the beach

jogging.

>> Yeah. And I 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.

>> Just that.

>> 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 hell

span? You don't do it playing

whack-a-mole in treating the symptoms of

a chronic disease. You get proactive,

predictive, and preventative. And how do

you do that? Well, you've got to be able

to run diagnostic 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

is 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 healthc 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, I if if I have your

genetic sequencing and your blood work

and your biomarkers and your DEXA and

your V2 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 a 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 underprescribed. 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. Is

that a real number?

>> Yes.

>> 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

six minutes on average with a patient

and they're limited in what tests they

can do and what diagnostic tools they

can run, and a woman comes in and says,

"Hey, I'm 40 lbs overweight. I'm

depressed. I'm anxious. I'm sad. I'm all

these things."

Their first move is to go, "Okay, well,

we got to get your cholesterol under

control. We got to get your insulin

under control. I'm going to put you on a

weight loss drug. Let's put you on a

GLP1." And they push them out the door.

and they probably put them on an

anti-depressant 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 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 is a prime example. If he were to

go to a primary care, they would have

immediately put him on a GLP1. He's 500

lb, you know, and they would have put

him on a battery of drugs. When Jelly

Roll came to us, it was like, we're

going to make this simple. We got to fix

your insulin. We got to fix your

hormones. That's it. We're going to get

your estrogen under control. We're going

to get your insulin under control. We're

going to get your inflammation under

control. We're going to put 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 heart. You've got two

pathways. See the 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 Peteras hundred something

thousand 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 concier's medicine. Well,

99.99% of America can't afford that. And

then you've got the hymns of the world

that are going the route of a pill mill.

Like 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 concier's care,

make it affordable, make it scalable,

and make it truly drive HellSpan? 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 you get him on a weight loss

drug and you hope him 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. Um, we even added a scale that

ties into the app that'll allow you to

manage your uh 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 much subcutaneous fat, and

anyone who's a member gets that scale,

scans it into the app. That combined

with your V2 max. If you come into the

clinic, we can cross reference it with a

DEXA. The app will do its own algorithms

to see how different it is. And now in

real time from your home, you can track

all these modalities and you can track

how you're trending on more than just

blood work. Like to me,

everyone, again, when I came on here,

whatever, I think it was five years ago

by now, Joe, nobody was doing cash pay

blood work. Now, everybody's doing cash

pay blood work. And I think it's great,

but it isn't the holy grail. That's just

one marker in a sea of markers. One

diagnostic measuring stick 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

healthcare 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

>> 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 healthcare. 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.

>> Yeah.

>> 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

Waste to Well is doing great and I know

you're making plenty of money,

>> but most companies are only trying to do

that, whereas you are trying

legitimately trying to make people I

know I see the look on your face when

people get better.

>> I know you do. I love it. And like

Denise and I said from day one, I've

known Denise I mean 20some years, man.

And uh when we started this I she's my

Jiminy Cricket because even if I ever

wanted to make it about money, she's

never making it that she's such a

patient care advocate. And and I said

and she said, "If we always make this

about people, there's going to be days

we lose, there's going to be days we

win. But if we always make it about

people, if we make people our northern

star, that is our secret sauce. And it

doesn't mean we're perfect. Like look,

every time I come on here, we get

blasted because we grow so fast and it's

a blessing." and I can't thank you

enough, but you know, you can't onboard

20,000 people overnight and then people

are like, "Oh, you guys suck. Y'all are

like everybody." And it's like, "No,

man. We just even as we're growing, I'm

This is again back to that dogma of like

how are companies like HIMS scaling

nationwide. They're peebacked. Black

Rockck is one of their biggest

investors. Hims is a multibillion dollar

conglomerate marketing firm. They're not

a compounding facility. They're not a

medical practice with brickandmortar

clinics that are trying to truly

innovate and that are into things like

biologics and plasma feresis 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. 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 tele medicine 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 him 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 him

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

GLP1 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.

>> How do they violate the law? What they

do? you're not allowed to uh so when

you're compounding a medication, you

have to use the compounded name, the

generic name, not the molecules 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 horse

was set. It created an extreme backlash

from regulators. Both senators,

congressmen, congress women, 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 soul 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 in

the last decade of any stock price uh

HIMS is 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 battlecry and a

resistance against the folks who are

trying to follow the rules and navigate

a very narrow pathway forward where

these peptides and these treatment

modalities are available to the public.

>> All the while while they have an

agreement with this pharmaceutical drug

company.

>> You got it. The deal was done within two

weeks. So the backlash came a huge

uproar against and this is I the reason

this is so important is I was literally

doing calls with the administration to

go hey

>> I get why big pharma would be upset and

they should be and I get why you the

administration would be upset and you

should be but please do not punish an

entire industry sector for one bad

actor. And at the time I was scratching

my head going this just doesn't make

sense. Why would they do this? They're

gonna get hammered. They will not win

this in the court of law. This is a

terrible idea. None of it's adding up.

>> And then a week later, they make this

announcement and the stock roars and you

know, everyone goes, "Oh, congrats him."

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 Rosebush and uh 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 a

law degree. All these things. And he's

in in this industry and in this sector.

And he's asking a lot of questions. And

I think his firm filed a lawsuit against

him to try and uncover what really

happened there.

>> But even if it does get uncovered,

what's going to change?

>> But no one's going to pay attention.

>> Yeah. It'll it'll it'll be a blurb in

the news. It won't even been in the

news. Yeah,

>> you know, it'll be online somewhere.

>> Well, the main reason I want to give

that tidbit of information is regulators

and politicians are looking and going,

"God, man, yeah, these guys did bad

things." 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 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 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

halfbaked truths. Where does the truth

lie? Well, this is how this entire

systems 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

Triricare. That's a whole fundamental

different when you're talking about even

like let's shelf peptides for a second

and say stem cell therapy.

My whole mission statement on all of

this is to build a life raft. Right?

Henry Ford said it. 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

existent much like Uber did with taxis

and you let this go this way and you dry

drag race it against this way and let's

see who can prevent chronic disease.

>> Well, the problem is it killed taxis.

>> Yeah,

>> that was a bad example.

>> Well, I think well and the question is

which model is going to be better for

humanity and which model is going to

take cost out of the system. And so I

would tell a regulator, a congressman, a

congresswoman, anybody who will listen,

guys, my model cost 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 Triricare.

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 in 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 health care system is so

strong the vast majority of Americans

are going to use that anyway.

>> 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? 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

billion. 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

gamecher. The first time you try it,

you're like, "Wait, how is this

non-alcoholic?" They've won 185 global

taste awards and they got a ton of

different styles. You get the ritual,

you still get the taste, just without

the hangover. They've got everything.

Goldens, IPAs, light brews, even this

new lime and salt one if you want

something refreshing. Whatever the mood

calls for, they've got the flavor. You

can find Athletic Brewing at over 75,000

grocery stores or liquor stores, bars,

and restaurants nationwide. Or you can

grab some of their limited release stuff

directly from their website. Go to

athleticbwing.com/roganogen

to find stores near you or get brews

shipped right to your door. Use code

roan to get 15% off your first online

order. Near beer terms and condition and

certain limitations apply. Athletic

brewing company fit for all times.

You know what I mean?

>> Well, that was my point. Like, so

>> they're not losing anything. You give

those 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 7xed your company. Novo

Nordisk three or 4xed their company in a

literally a three-year time frame. These

are some of the most rich and powerful

companies in the world. Your patent

worked. It worked. It upheld. you

prevented regulatory landscape from

coming in and people taking a piece of

your pie. In fact, I would argue it

worked too well, you know, in in a way

like so to overregulate based off and

and that's that's the argument with the

GLP1s 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 uh 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 GLP1s came in

preset dosages, right? Um and so

patients did not have a way to uh

titrate up or down. And so a lot of

clinicians who wanted to micro dose

would use a compounding pharmacy to

prescribe those medications and allow

patients 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 essentially most

compounding has has shut down GLP1s,

503bs, 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 503As, 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 their

revenue. Everything's going to be okay.

Like, everyone's going to be okay.

Patients had accessibility and

affordability. Uh, and I think the

battlecry from the big pharmaceutical

companies is a little misleading if you

don't know the nuances of all of this.

>> So,

what do you think is the best way

forward if you were if you were in

charge of regulating?

>> There is an issue

>> with accessibility and there's an issue

with black market.

>> 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 CJComorin,

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 because 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

>> No, I love I love that you because 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 Clump who have been receptive

to at least hearing the other side of

the equation and and there to be clear

when it comes to peptides, Chris, Marty,

Stephanie,

uh Spear, uh 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 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, the the FBI

has shown up at these people's doors.

And if Kennedy wasn't the secretary

>> and if the maja movement hadn't started,

>> it's over.

>> It's over.

>> It's over.

>> So if the if Kla Harris wins,

>> totally. Yeah.

>> And on that note, even here in Texas,

this is where this is crazy. Um I've

gotten to know several of the

congressman, congresswoman. Uh Lacy

Holes, a congresswoman here in Texas. Uh

Senator Kohhurst, I I believe she's over

the healthc care committee for the

Senate. Senator Kohhurst 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 Liy 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 v majority

>> the majority of this cookbook 7 billion

is black market.

>> Correct. And the and and again in the

black market are even 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, a large percentage is off like and

sometimes dosed higher, you know? So,

think about if you were to get like a

GLP1 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 are using

influencers to advertise for human use.

You say on your label nonhuman 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 are 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 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 Red True Tide. the next

blockbuster GLP1 that is in the works.

Uh, and

>> explain that.

>> Yeah. So, Redatride is a is a triple

agonist being developed by Eli Liy 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

it it 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 four 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 regulated

>> 100%. There's there's no regulation.

There's no checks and balances at least

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 drop shipped 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 and 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'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 uh 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 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 common place in medicine every

day. So to make it this big to-do that

all of the sudden it's dangerous, the

most dangerous time we're living in is

right now with no checks and balances.

If we get this done, you've now built a

regulatory pathway that provides

affordability, accessibility,

personalized medicine, predictive care.

It is such a big win beyond a peptide

because it it candidly saves the

industry. I can tell you owning clinic,

owning a tele medicine 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

pharmaceutical drug companies want

everybody to win.

>> Correct.

>> They want only them to win.

>> Correct.

>> So any profit that you make or any

compounding pharmacy makes in their mind

is stolen from them.

>> Correct. which is wild.

>> Yeah. And and that 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 multiple states

followed suit which creates a trade win

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 toolbell to drive

hell span and help prevent chronic

disease. Um the state of Texas is

already raring 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 it's almost like marijuana

law without getting too nuanced, the

states, 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 two weeks ago on

the stem cell bill in Arizona. Uh

Senator Jana Champ 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 citizens

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-l like symptoms and it

impacts basically 10 to 15% of people.

Uh, all of the major adverse events